## Abstract

In a popular quantum mechanics textbook one reads … “If we have some indications that classical wave theory is macroscopically correct, it is nevertheless clear that on the microscopic level only the corpuscular theory of light is able to account for typical absorption and scattering phenomena such as the photoelectric effect and the Compton effect, respectively. One must still ascertain how the photon hypothesis may be reconciled with the essentially wave-like phenomena of interference and diffraction …[1], and in another “…We have, on the one hand, the phenomena of interference and diffraction, which can be explained only on the basis of a wave theory; on the other, phenomena such as photoelectric emission and scattering by free electrons, which show that light is composed of small particles.”[2]

## Keywords

Photoelectric Effect Quantum Mechanical Description Compton Effect Semiclassical Theory Positronium Atom## Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

## References

- 1.A. Messiah,
*Quantum Mechanics*(John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1961 ), Vol. I, p. 18.Google Scholar - 2.P. A. M. Dirac,
*Principles of Quantum Mechanics*, 4th ed. ( Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1958 ), p. 2.MATHGoogle Scholar - 3.W. E. Lamb and M.O. Scully in
*Polarization: Matière et Rayonnement, Jubilee volume in honor of A. Kastler*, edited by CLAUSER Société Française de Physique (Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, 1969); M.O. Scully and M. Sargent III, Phys. Today 25, 38 (1972).Google Scholar - 4.E. Schrödinger, Ann. Physik
**82**, 257 (1927) [English translation in E. SchrOdinger, Collected Papers on Wave Mechanics (Blackie and Sons., Ltd., London, 1928), p.124]; Nuovo Cimento 9, 162 (1958); W. Gordon, Z. Physik**40**, 117 (1927); For a comparison with experiment see A. Bernstein and A. K. Mann, Amer. J. Phys.**24**, 445 (1956).Google Scholar - 5.M. D. Crisp, and E. T. Jaynes, Phys. Rev.
**1**.79, 1253 (1969);**185**, 2046 (1969); C. R. Stroud Jr., and E. T. Jaynes, Phys. Rev. Al, 106 (1970); E. T. Jaynes, ibid**2**, 260 (1970).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 6.J. F. Clauser “Experimental Limitations to the Validity of Semiclassical Radiation Theories” this volume, p. 111; Phys. Rev.
**A6**, 49 (1972).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 7.The above argument resembles an objection to quantum mechanics by A. Einstein concerning alpha decay which he presented at the 1927 Solvay Conference.Google Scholar
- 8.N. Bohr, H. A. Kramers, and J. C. Slater, Phil. Mag.
**47**, 785 (1924).Google Scholar - 9.A. Einstein, Phys. Z.
**18**, 121 (1917).Google Scholar - 10.For a discussion of this point see article by N. Bohr in
*A. Einstein: Philospher-Scientist*, edited by P. Schilpp ( Library of the Living Philosphers, Evanston, Illinois 1949 ), p. 207.Google Scholar - 11.Similar situations will be encountered in a consideration of point wise momentum conservation. For example, a curious phenomenon arises when And applies, as it does in the case of optical emissions from thermal atoms. The classical interference pattern of the emitted radiation then fills all space. Evidently a single photon should here be described classically as a spherically expanding wave. Symmetry implies that a spontaneously radiating atom will then experience no radiation recoil. It is unfortunate that the only experimental attempt to directly observe the recoil following spontaneous emission was not conclusive. [R. Frisch, Z. Physik,
**86**, 42 (1935)]. With only statistical momentum and energy conservation, Einstein’s thermodynamic argument against classical-wave models (Ref. 9) does not apply. An observation of recoil, however, would not alone invalidate semiclassical radiation theories, since it is possible to classically generate the asymmetric radiations patterns necessary to achieve a recoil. The usual semiclassical radiation patterns do not, however, exhibit such asymmetries. 826Google Scholar - 12.The quantity p may be directly measured in cascade experiments from the ratio of coincidence rate to singles rate for the second photon of a cascade. Atomic cascade experiments have been reviewed by C. Camhy-Val and A. M. Dumont, Astron. and Astrophys.
**6**, 27 (1970). See also Ref.16.Google Scholar - 13.A. Ädäm, L. Jänossy and P. Varga, Acta Phys. Hung.
**4**, 301 (1955), and Ann. Physik**16**, 408 (1955); L. Jänossy and Zs. Näray, Acta Phys. Hung.**7**, 403 (1957).CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 14.See for example J. M. Jauch in
*Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Proceedings of the International School of Physics 1 Enrico Fermi’, Course IL*, (Academic Press, New York, to be published) and J. M. Jauch, Dialogue on the Question “Are Quanta Real”, (Section de Physique, Univ. of Geneva, Geneva, 1971 ).Google Scholar - 15.J. F. Clauser, M. A. Home, A. Shimony, R. A. Holt, Phys. Rev. Letters
**23**, 880 (1969).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 16.S. J. Freedman and J. F. Clauser, Phys. Rev. Letters
**28**, 938 (1972).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar