EPFL's claim about wave particle duality

Ranvir
Messages
13
Reaction score
10
Recent claims by scientists at EPFL suggesting that they somehow manged to photograph light simultaneously as a particle and as a wave raises more misconceptions than ever.
The experiment on it's own is an excellent example of recent improvements in technological and experimental techniques, but it's presentation to public, at least in my opinion, is misleading.Here's a link for a brief explanation of the said experiment
http://phys.org/news/2015-03-particle.html
Now, this gives rise to the same "Whether light is a wave or a particle?" predicament. The simple answer is that it's neither of them. It just exhibits properties and follows equations which in classical sense suggests as if the entity is a particle and wave in some weird incomprehensible way and while it's true that the actual quantum mechanics is counter intuitive in many of it's aspect, the attempt to reconcile the wave-particle picture by EPFL does no better than imaging the solution of Schrodinger's equation.
Is it right to say that the "Photographed" light simultaneously as a wave and a particle?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Ranvir said:
Recent claims by scientists at EPFL suggesting that they somehow manged to photograph light simultaneously as a particle and as a wave raises more misconceptions than ever.

Not really. Its well known that wave-particle duality is a crock:
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0609163

So that's not what they really did.

Ranvir said:
Is it right to say that the "Photographed" light simultaneously as a wave and a particle?

I wouldn't think so. But having glanced at the paper what they did does look interesting.

Although wave particle duality is really an invalid concept light does sometimes behave LIKE a particle and sometimes LIKE a wave - so its interesting if it can behave LIKE both at the same time. The big issue however is exactly in this case what LIKE means.

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited:
Couldn't have said it better myself. That's exactly what I interpreted when I read about the experiment (Although my knowledge in quantum mechanics is fairly rudimentary.)
But what concerns me more is the wave the experiment is publicized by making claims as they did at the webpage I visited.
May be I'm wrong and if so I'd really like to be corrected.
 
Ranvir said:
Couldn't have said it better myself. That's exactly what I interpreted when I read about the experiment (Although my knowledge in quantum mechanics is fairly rudimentary.)
But what concerns me more is the wave the experiment is publicized by making claims as they did at the webpage I visited.
May be I'm wrong and if so I'd really like to be corrected.

It is common for writers of short report articles about science to put very little to no science in favor of fashionable words and inflated claims of something great accomplished. There are probably more reasons for this behaviour, I guess mostly economic (authors need to sell their work, websites want you to click and see their ads). The original scientific article is more prosaic and I am sure it could be made even more accurate and boring.

As someone has said, everybody needs to eat.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes bhobba
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...

Similar threads

Replies
36
Views
7K
Replies
38
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
3K
Back
Top