Abstract
A prominent way through which wave-particle duality has been ascribed to photons is by illustrating their “wave-like” behaviour in the Mach-Zehnder interferometer and “particle-like” behaviour in the anti-correlation experiment. This duality has been formulated in two ways. Some have based the claim on the complementarity principle. This formulation, however, has already been shown to be problematic. Others have made a much simpler duality claim by considering that single-photons are analogous to waves and particles in the above experiments. I criticise this formulation by arguing that the analogies cannot be distinctly established. Thus, this duality claim is found to be unsubstantiated.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
Not applicable.
Code availability
Not applicable.
Notes
See Jammer (1966) for more on this.
I have discussed the plural connotations of wave-particle duality in Bhatta (2020).
These views are further considered in Sect. 3.
I thank one of the referees for pointing to Reichenbach’s interpretation.
For a recent discussion on interphenomenon and its relevance for interpreting quantum mechanics, see Jaeger (2014).
Apart from the above ontological arguments, some physicists also believe that QED provides a pragmatic resolution to the duality problem. For instance, Feynman, in his popular exposition on QED, mentions that “Quantum electrodynamics ‘resolves’ this wave-particle duality by saying that light is made of particles ...[and] calculate only the probability that a photon will hit a detector, without offering a good model of how it actually happens” (Feynman 2006, 37). Given that there is “no experimental doubt” about the probability, Feynman is of the opinion that “because physics is an experimental science and the framework agrees with the experiment,” the “philosophical worries [...] as to what the amplitude means” should not be a concern (Feynman 2006, 124). As Jaeger (2014, 26) notes, Feynman’s attitude and approach—of considering electrons and photons as ‘particles’ and calculating corresponding probabilities—represents how particle physics largely deals with the duality problem in the actual practice. I thank one of the referees for suggesting the relevance of Feynman’s view for the present discussion.
For a historical account about the intimate relation between the invention of laser and the development of quantum optics, see Bromberg (2016).
The two properties of non-classical light—being antibunched and exhibiting sub-poissonian statistics—are not equivalent to one another. Light can show sub-poissonian values without being antibunched (Loudon 2001, 250).
This discussion on the generation of single-photons and execution of specific experiments on them gives the impression that quantum optics established a firm realistic conception of photons. Even though the modern theoretical changes helped in abandoning the naive presuppositions of classical optics, it is not true that these changes resulted in a clear precise concept of photons. Contrary to that, the notion of photon became even more vague. In the 1960s, the situation worsened to such a degree that some physicists proposed a ten-year moratorium on the usage of “photon” (Hentschel 2018, 149), while others insisted that “a license be required for use of the word ‘photon’” (Lamb 1995). The confusion about photons has further aggravated in the recent times since their ontological status is not guaranteed in QFT (see Halvorson and Clifton (2002)). All these open questions highlight that caution should be exercised while talking about photons and experimental observations cannot be simplistically interpreted as “produced” by photons. Having acknowledged these difficulties, the discussions about photons in the current paper pertain to certain papers where the notion of photon is contextualised in specific experimental scenarios. For more on the distinction between theoretical and operational conceptions of photons, see Loudon (2001, 1-2) and Scully and Zubairy (2001, 28-35).
This way of describing the scenario is found in other works too. For instance, Feynman et al. (2010, 1–7), while discussing the double-slit experiment with electrons, mention how the detectors do not show “half-clicks”.
For instance, the interpretation provided by de Broglie is characteristically unique (Darrigol 1986; Wheaton 1991). Another influential view is that of Born’s (1926). According to him, the “wave” aspect—the wave-function for a particular state of the system—provides the probability of the system being in that state. The act of measurement results in the collapse of the wave-function and brings forward the “particle” aspect of the system. For more on the historical account of this view, see Jammer (1966, 41) and Camilleri (2006, 304).
For more on Einstein’s picture of radiation being constituted of energy quantum surrounded by the “ghost field”, see Van Dongen (2007).
Ghose and Home (1992, 1442) mention Bohr’s emphasis to use classical pictures to describe quantum phenomena. However, this suggestion about Bohr’s emphasis goes completely against Held’s analysis. Held argues that Bohr’s “interpretation of quantum mechanics expresses, rather than transcends, the limits of classical concepts” (Held 1994, 879).
This representation of complementarity is not distinctly articulated in the Como lecture given by Bohr (1928). As Beller (2001, 148–149) has argued, “the main message of the Como lecture was neither the democratic solution of the wave-particle dilemma, nor the ‘wholeness’ of the experimental arrangements [...] These are, indeed, Bohr’s later elaborations of his thought that often used in a ‘backward’ fashion to clarify the meaning of his original ideas”.
The second version of the duality claim formulated solely based on the analogical interpretations of MZ’s observations (discussed in Sect. 3) is a recent illustration of this failure. Ghose and Home (1992) have also argued against the complementarity principle based on the same ground. In their paper, the authors show the non-mutual exclusivity of photons’ wave and particle behaviours using a two-prism experiment. Even though the authors provide a novel experimental proof to illustrate the weakness of the initial formulation of complementarity, their work is historically uninformed about Bohr’s own rejection of the same.
Because of this, Bunge thinks complementarity should be qualified as a “pseudoprinciple” as “it entails nothing [...] no theorem follows from it”.
For a recent work on the use of analogies in model building, see Bailer-Jones (2009), especially the third chapter.
As Aspect and Grangier (1987, 15) mention, “the problem of incompatible descriptions arises only if we insist on using classical concepts such as waves or particles. But if we stand to the quantum mechanical description, there is a unique description of the light, by the same state vector (or density-matrix) for experiments [...]”.
Muthukrishnan and Roychoudhuri (2009) attempt several ways of grounding the “indivisibility” of photon.
Given that it is not similarity but difference that is being accounted here, the relation between photons and regular-light can be considered as an instance of negative analogy, to use a terminology suggested by Hesse (1970, 8).
The description of waves’ and particles’ behaviour in the classical double-slit experiment can also be understood in the above manner. Here, particles are considered to be “non-splitting” only with reference to waves, which “split” at the slits.
For instance, given that complementarity demands interpreting the phenomenon through classical models, Aspect and Grangier (1987, 14) mention how photons’ behaviour at MZ “can only be understood in the framework of a wave theory (‘the electromagnetic field is coherently split on the first beam splitter, and recombined on the second, and this recombination depends on the path difference’)”.
This observation is unique to interference phenomenon of single-photons. For instance, Pipkin (1979, 294), whom Grangier et al. (1986) refer to, describes the observation at \(I_q\) as “the interference pattern formed by integration of many events in which there is only one photon in the apparatus at a time […]” (emphasis added). Other interference phenomena, like that of two photons, do not exhibit this characteristic fringe-pattern (see Paul (1986)).
To re-emphasise, this suggested analogical description, similar to the duality claim as discussed in Sect. 5, is not a reality claim about photons and does not play any role in the theoretical analysis of them. Only if there is a need to talk about photons’ behaviour in the concerned experiments using classical images, then the suggested analogies are clearer and stronger, compared to the ones constituting the duality claim.
References
Aspect, A., & Grangier, P. (1987). Wave-particle duality for single photons. Hyperfine Interactions, 37(1–4), 1–17.
Bailer-Jones, D. M. (2009). Scientific models in philosophy of science. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Bartha, P. (2016). Analogy and analogical reasoning. In: Edward, N. Z. (Ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Winter 2016. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/reasoninganalogy. Accessed 12 February 2018.
Beller, M. (2001). Quantum dialogue: The making of a revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bhatta, V. (2020). Plurality of wave-particle duality. Current Science, 118(9), 1365–1374. https://doi.org/10.18520/cs/v118/i9/1365-1374.
Bohr, N. (1928). The quantum postulate and the recent development of atomic theory. Nature, 121, 580–590.
Bokulich, P. (2017). Complementarity, wave-particle duality, and domains of applicability. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 59, 136–142.
Born, M. (1926). On the quantum mechanics of collisons. In J. A. Wheeler & W. H. Zurek (Eds.), Quantum theory and measurement (pp. 52–55). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Bromberg, J. (1977). Dirac’s quantum electrodynamics and the wave-particle equivalence. In C. Weiner (Ed.), History of twentieth century physics (pp. 147–157). New York: Academic Press.
Bromberg, J. (2016). Explaining the laser’s light: Classical versus quantum electrodynamics in the 1960s. Archive for History of Exact Sciences, 70(3), 243–266.
Bunge, M. (1968). Analogy in quantum theory: From insight to nonsense. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 18(4), 265–286.
Camilleri, K. (2006). Heisenberg and the wave-particle duality. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 37(2), 298–315.
Clauser, J. F. (1974). Experimental distinction between the quantum and classical field-theoretic predictions for the photoelectric effect. Physical Review D, 9(4), 853–860.
Darrigol, O. (1986). The origin of quantized matter waves. Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences, 16(2), 197–253.
Dimitrova, T. L., & Weis, A. (2008). TheWave-particle duality of light: A demonstration experiment. American Journal of Physics, 76(2), 137–142.
Dirac, P. A. M. (1930). The principle of quantum mechanics (4th ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Dongen, V., & Jeroen. (2007). The interpretation of the Einstein-Rupp experiments and their influence on the history of quantum mechanics. Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences, 37, 121–131.
Einstein, A. (1909). On the development of our views concerning the nature and constitution of radiation. (A. Beck, Trans.) The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein: The Swiss Years Writings, 1900–1909 (pp. 379–394) New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Feynman, R. P., Leighton, R. B., & Sands, M. (2010). The Feynman lectures on physics (Vol. III). New York: Basic Books.
Feynman, R. P. (2006). QED: The strange theory of light and matter. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Ghose, P., & Home, D. (1992). Wave-particle duality of single-photon states. Foundations of Physics, 22(12), 1435–1447.
Grangier, P., & Abram, I. (2003). Single photons on demand. Physics World, 16(2), 31–35.
Grangier, P., Roger, G., & Aspect, A. (1986). Experimental evidence for a photon anticorrelation effect on a beam splitter: A new light on single-photon interferences. Europhysics Letters, 1(4), 173–179.
Halvorson, H., & Clifton, R. (2002). No place for particles in relativistic quantum theories? Philosophy of Science, 69(1), 1–28.
Hanbury Brown, R., & Twiss, R. Q. (1956). Correlation between photons in two coherent beams of light. Nature, 177, 27–29.
Hanbury, B. R., & Twiss, R. Q. (1957). Interferometry of the intensity fluctuations in light. I. Basic theory: The correlation between photons in coherent beams of radiation. In Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. (Vol. 242, No. 1230, pp. 300–324) Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences.
Held, C. (1994). The meaning of complementarity. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 25(6), 871–893.
Hendry, J. (1980). The development of attitudes to the wave-particle duality of light and quantum theory, 1900–1920. Annals of Science, 37, 59–79.
Hentschel, Klaus. (2018). Photons: The history and mental models of light quanta. Berlin: Springer.
Hesse, M. B. (1970). Models and analogies in science. Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.
Hobson, A. (2013). There are no particles, there are only fields. American Journal of Physics, 81(3), 211–223.
Holyoak, K. J., & Thagard, P. (1995). Mental leaps: Analogy in creative thought. Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Jaeger, G. (2014). Quantum objects: Non-local correlation, causality and objective indefiniteness in the quantum world. Heidelberg: Springer.
Jammer, M. (1966). The conceptual development of quantum mechanics. London: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Klein, M. J. (1964). Einstein and the wave-particle duality. The Natural Philosopher, 7, 3–49.
Kragh, H. (1990). Dirac: A scientific biography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lamb, W. E. (1995). Anti-photon. Applied Physics B, 60(2–3), 77–84.
Landé, A. (1959). From dualism to unity in quantum mechanics. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 10(37), 16–24.
Landé, A. (1962). The case against quantum duality. Philosophy of Science, 29(1), 1–6.
Landé, A. (1971). The decline and fall of quantum dualism. Philosophy of Science, 38(2), 221–223.
Loudon, R. (2001). The quantum theory of light (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lounis, B., & Orrit, M. (2005). Single-photon sources. Reports on Progress in Physics, 68(5), 1129–1179.
Maxwell, N. (1988). Quantum propensiton theory: A testable resolution of the wave/particle dilemma. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 39(1), 1–50.
Muthukrishnan, A., & Roychoudhuri, C. (2009). Indivisibility of the photon. In C. Roychoudhuri, A. F. Kracklauer & A. Y. Khrennikov (Eds.), The nature of light: What are photons? III (vol. 7421). Bellingham: Proceedings of SPIE (International Society for Optics and Photonics).
Paul, H. (1986). Interference between independent photons. Reviews of Modern Physics, 58(1), 209–231.
Pipkin, F. M. (1979). Atomic physics tests of the basic concepts in quantum mechanics. Advances in Atomic and Molecular Physics, 14, 281–340.
Purcell, E. M. (1956). The question of correlation between photons in coherent light rays. Nature, 178, 1449–1450.
Reichenbach, H. (1944). Philosophic foundations of quantum mechanics. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Scarani, V., & Suarez, A. (1998). Introducing quantum mechanics: One-particle interferences. American Journal of Physics, 66(8), 718–721.
Scully, M. O., & Suhail Zubairy, M. (2001). Quantum optics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shelley, C. (2002). Analogy counterarguments and the acceptability of analogical hypotheses. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 53(4), 477–496.
Silva, I., & Freire, O. (2013). The concept of the photon in question: The controversy surrounding the HBT effect circa 1956–1958. Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences, 43(4), 453–491.
Wheaton, B. R. (1991). The tiger and the shark: Empirical roots of wave-particle dualism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to Sundar Sarukkai for going through the several drafts and providing constructive comments. I also thank the referees for providing useful comments. This research was supported by the fellowship from Indian Council of Philosophical Research and the grant provided by The Sutasoma Trust.
Funding
This research was supported by the fellowship from Indian Council of Philosophical Research and the grant provided by The Sutasoma Trust.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Not applicable since there is a single author involved.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
None.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bhatta, V.S. Critique of Wave-Particle Duality of Single-Photons. J Gen Philos Sci 52, 501–521 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-021-09564-4
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-021-09564-4