Stochastic Optics: Wave-Particle Duality without Particles

  • Trevor W. Marshall
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (NSSB, volume 162)


There is an irony about the article of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen1. It contains the most fundamental criticism ever made of quantum particle mechanics: that it is non local. It says nothing about quantum field theory, yet almost all the experimental attempts to demonstrate quantum non locality cure based on pairs of electromagnetic signals2–6. In the widely accepted “analysis” of these experiments the signals are treated as equivalent to the particles of the E.P.R. article. For the best known of the E.P.R. authors this would have been a natural enough assumption. He, after all, invented the “light quantum”, later to become the “photon”, and apparently never doubted the validity of that concept. But we have learned that semiclassical radiation theories of various kinds can explain not only the photoelectric effect7, for which Einstein invented the quantum theory, but also such diverse phenomena as the Lamb shift8, the casimir effect9 and super-Poisson distributions of photoelectrons (“photon bunching”)10. We do not have to assume that quantum electrodynamics has the last word on the nature of light. We do not have to assume that the “photon” is an E.P.R. particle.


Beam Splitter Bell Inequality Local Realist Coincidence Rate Local Realist Model 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    A. Einstein, B. Podolsky and N. Rosen, Can quantum mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?, Phys. Rev. 47: 777 (1935).ADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. F. Clauser and A. Shimony, Bell’s theorem: experimental tests and implications, Rep. Prog. Phys. 41: 1881 (1978).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    F. Selleri and G. Tarozzi, Quantum mechanics, reality and separability, Riv. Nuovo Cim. 4: 1 (1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Aspect, J. Dalibard and G. Roger, Experimental test of Bell’s inequalities using time-varying analyzers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49: 1804 (1982).MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. Aspect, P. Grangier and G. Roger, Experimental realization of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm Gedanken experiment. A new violation of Bell’s inequalities, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49: 91 (1982).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    W. Perrie, A. J. Duncan, H. J. Beyer and H. Kleinpoppen, Polarization of the two photons emitted by metastable atomic deuterium: a test of Bell’s inequality, Phys. Rev. Let. 54: 1790 (1985).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    E. T. Jaynes, Electrodynamics today, in: “Coherence and Quantum Optics”, L. Mandel and E. Wolf, Plenum New York (1978).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    T.A Welton, Some observable effects of the quantum-mechanical fluctuations of the electromagnetic field, Phys. Rev. 74: 1157 (1948).ADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    T. W. Marshall, A classical treatment of blackbody radiation, Nuovo Cim. 38: 206 (1964).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. Hanbury-Brown and R. Q. Twiss, Correlation between photons in two coherent beams of light, Nature 177: 27 (1956).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    J. F. Clauser and M. A. Home, Experimental consequences of objective local theories, Phys. Rev. D10: 526 (1974).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    A. Einstein, Quantum mechanics and reality, in: “The Born-Einstein Letters”, Macmillan, London, (1971) pp.168–173. “If this axiom (the Principle of Local Action) were to be completely abolished, the postulation of laws which can be checked empirically would become impossible” (I have changed Born’s translation of “Prinzip der Nahewirkung”.)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. Planck, Verh. Deutsch. Phys. Ges. 13: 138 (1911).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    W. Nernst, Verh. Deutsch. Phys. Ges. 18: 83 (1916).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    T. W. Marshall, A naive remark concerning the Bohm-Aharonov experiment, Phys. Lett. 79A: 147 (1980).MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    D. Home and T. W. Marshall, A stochastic local realist model for the E.P.R. atomic-cascade experiment which reproduces the quantum- mechanical coincidence rates, Phys. Lett. 113A: 183 (1985).MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    T. W. Marshall, Testing for reality with atomic cascades, Phys. Lett. 100A: 225 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    E. Santos, stochastic electrodynamics and the Bell inequalities, in: “Open Questions in Quantum Physics”, G. Tarozzi amd A. van der Merwe, Reidel, Dordrecht (1985).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    A. Einstein, On the quantum theory of radiation, in: “Sources of Quantum Mechanics”, B. L. van der Waerden, ed., Dover, New York (1968).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    P. L. Knight and L. Allen, “Concepts of quantum optics”, Pergamon, Oxford, (1983).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    T. W. Marshall and E. Santos, Stochastic optics: a classical alternative to quantum optics, University of Santander preprint (1986).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    M. Dagenais and L. Mandel, Investigation of two-time correlations in photon emissions from a single atom, Phys. Rev. A18, 2217 (1978).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    T. H. Boyer, Quantum zero-point energy and long-range forces, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.), 56: 474 (1970).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    P. Claverie and S. Diner, Stochastic electrodynamics and quantum theory, Int. J. Quantum Chem., 12 Suppl. 1: 41 (1977)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    L. de la Pefia, Stochastic electrodynamics, its development, present situation and perspectives, in: “Stochastic Processes Applied to Physics and Other Related Fields”, B. Gomez, S. M. Moore, A. M. Rodriguez-Vargas and A. Rueda, World Scientific, Singapore (1983).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    T. H. Boyer, A brief survey of stochastic electroydnamics, in: “Foundations of Radiation Theory and Quantum Electrodynamics”, A. O. Barut, ed., Plenum, New York (1980).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    T. H. Boyer, The classical vacuum, Sci. American, August (1985).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    T. W. Marshall, Towards a realist theory of measurement, in: “Microphysical reality and quantum formalism”, Conference proceedings, Urbino (1985).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    M. Born and E. Wolf, “Principles of Optics”, Pergamon, Oxford (1984).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    T. W. Marshall and E. Santos, Local realist model for the coincidence rates in atomic-cascade experiments, Phys. Lett. 07A: 164 (1985).MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    P. Grangier, G. Roger and A. Aspect, Experimental evidence for a photon anticorrelation effect on a beam splitter: a new light on single-photon interference, Europhys. Lett. 1: 173 (1986).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    D. Greenberger, Some new wrinkles on the measurement problem, in: “Microphysical reality and quantum formalism”, Conference proceedings, Urbino (1985).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    F. Selleri, Gespensterfelder, in: The Wave-Particle Dualism, S. Diner, D. Fargue, G. Lochak and F. Selleri, Reidel, Dordrecht (1984).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    A. Garuccio and F. Selleri, Enhanced photon detection in EPR type experiments, Phys. Lett. 103A: 99 (1984).MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    F. Selleri, Local realistic photon models and EPR type esqperiments, Phys. Lett. 108A, 197 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    A. J. Duncan, The two-photon decay of metastable atomic deuterium: recent test of Bell’s inequality, report to conference “Microphysical reality and quantum formalism”, Urbino (1985).Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    A. J. Duncan and F. Selleri, private communications.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    T. W. Marshall and E. Santos, Statistical analysis of the experimental evidence for a photon anticorrelation effect in a beam splitter, University of Santander preprint (1986).Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    N. Bohr, Discussion with Einstein on epistemological problems in atomic physics, in: “Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist”, ed. P. A. Schilpp, Tudor, New York (1957) “any attempt of subdividing the phenomena will demand a change in the experimental arrangement introducing new possibilities of interaction between objects and measuring instruments which in principle cannot be controlled.”Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Trevor W. Marshall
    • 1
  1. 1.Didsbury ManchesterEngland

Personalised recommendations