Wave-particle duality revisited: Neither wave nor particle

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the paper "Wave-particle duality revisited: Neither wave nor particle" by Jan Sperling et al., which explores the limitations of wave and particle models in quantum optics. Participants examine the implications of the findings regarding quantum electrodynamics (QED) and its role in explaining observed phenomena in quantum experiments.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Technical explanation, Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants highlight that the paper presents correlation-based criteria that challenge the traditional wave and particle interpretations of quantum light.
  • Others argue that the findings suggest a complete rejection of wave-particle duality, proposing that QED is the only framework that adequately describes quantum optics.
  • A participant notes that the paper provides experimentally verifiable criteria for assessing waveness and particleness, indicating that both interpretations fail in certain quantum-optical setups.
  • There is a discussion about the applicability of QED, with some suggesting that while the full QED framework is necessary for understanding nonclassical light, the semiclassical version remains effective for many classical electromagnetic field applications.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of the findings, with some agreeing on the inadequacy of wave and particle models, while others emphasize the continued relevance of semiclassical approaches. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the broader implications for quantum theory.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on specific experimental setups and the definitions of waveness and particleness, which may not be universally applicable across all quantum phenomena.

A. Neumaier
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Messages
8,723
Reaction score
4,833
TL;DR
A recent paper
From the abstract:
we derive correlation-based criteria that have to be satisfied when either particles or waves are fed into our interferometer. Using squeezed light, it is then confirmed that measured correlations are incompatible with either picture. Thus, within one single experiment, it is proven that neither a wave nor a particle model explains the observed phenomena.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: julcab12, Mentz114, DarMM and 6 others
Physics news on Phys.org
The upshot seems to be: There's neither waves nor particles and no wave-particle duality but only QED describing all findings in quantum optics. That's no surpise today though it seems to be a nice review paper, but what's new?
 
vanhees71 said:
but what's new?
What's new is that they give experimentally verifiable criteria for waveness and particleness, and test a situation where both fail.
we have shown in theory and experiment that, already for relatively simple instances of quantum-optical setups, a particle and wave interpretation of quantum light simultaneously fails to explain the measured data.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
vanhees71 said:
The upshot seems to be: There's neither waves nor particles and no wave-particle duality but only QED describing all findings in quantum optics.
Not of all QED but a strong case on the nonclassical part(Full QED)--(photon) counting statistics, fundamental/quantum limited noise, Reduced quantum uncertainty or experiments specifically looking at the physics of nonclassical light. Although the semiclassical version works very well--classic EM field in such major field in physics, which is an extremely powerful, yet classical device, that allows you to do all sorts of quantum experiments.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71

Similar threads

  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
8K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
9K