I Wave-particle duality revisited: Neither wave nor particle

A. Neumaier
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Messages
8,700
Reaction score
4,780
TL;DR Summary
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 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 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 vanhees71
We often see discussions about what QM and QFT mean, but hardly anything on just how fundamental they are to much of physics. To rectify that, see the following; https://www.cambridge.org/engage/api-gateway/coe/assets/orp/resource/item/66a6a6005101a2ffa86cdd48/original/a-derivation-of-maxwell-s-equations-from-first-principles.pdf 'Somewhat magically, if one then applies local gauge invariance to the Dirac Lagrangian, a field appears, and from this field it is possible to derive Maxwell’s...
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
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

Similar threads

Replies
36
Views
7K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
41
Views
5K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
19
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
32
Views
5K
Replies
26
Views
8K
Back
Top