Advertisement

Physical Photons: Theory, Experiment and Implications

  • Geoffrey Hunter
  • Robert L. P. Wadlinger
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (NSSB, volume 162)

Abstract

A physical model of the photon is presented. It is a solution of Maxwell’s equations confined within a finite region of space—time along the photon’s axis of propagation. The rotating/oscillating electromagnetic field has the observed photon—eigenvalues of linear and intrinsic (spin) angular momentum. The model predicts two angular momentum eigenstates having either positive or negative helicity (left or right circular polarization).

The finite region containing the field is defined by the relativistic principle that congruent events within it are causally connected (separated by timelike intervals). The region is a circular ellipsoid whose major axis and cross—sectional circumference are both one wavelength long. Excited states of the field containing two or more quanta of energy within the same ellipsoidal volume represent multiphotons.

This physical model of the photon is consistent with experimental properties of electromagnetic radiation, including photon bunching and anti—bunching, multiphoton absorption, and the transmission of microwaves through apertures. A microwave experiment designed to measure the photon’s diameter is reported; the measured value accords with the theoretical model’s prediction within the experimental error of half a percent.

The finite—field model of the photon is both a particle and a wave, and hence we refer to it by Eddington’s name “wavicle”. That the wavicle’s position is essentially uncertain within the size of its finite domain leads to the idea that the minimum quantum of action arises because the particle cannot transfer its momentum in less time than it takes to traverse the length of its own domain. Its minimum action (equal to Planck’s constant) is the product of its length and its momentum.

Thus the dichotomy of the wave—particle duality of light is replaced by a unity, and the schism between the Copenhagen philosophy of fundamental indeterminacy and the contrary, determinist, view that indeterminacy is only an experimental limitation, is resolved in favour of the latter, because internally the wavicle is classical and causal, but its interactions necessarily involve non—causal, space—like intervals, and hence in interactions (i.e. measurements) the indeterminacy of established quantum mechanics prevails.

Keywords

Congruent Event Null Geodesic Negative Helicity Ellipsoidal Volume Coherent Photon 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andrews, C. L., Optics of the Electromagnetic Spectrum, p. 328 ( Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1960 ).Google Scholar
  2. Bandyopadhyay, P. and P. Raychaudhuri, Phys. Rev. 3, 1378 (1971).ADSGoogle Scholar
  3. Belinfante, F. J., A Survey of Hidden Variable Theories ( Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1973 ).Google Scholar
  4. Bethe, H. A., Intermediate Quantum Mechanics, (Benjamin, New York, 1964 ).Google Scholar
  5. Bohm, D., The Special Theory of Relativity, Ch.28 and pp.177–178 ( Benjamin, New York, 1965 ).Google Scholar
  6. Buonomano, V., 1986 (These Proceedings).Google Scholar
  7. Chin, S. L. and P. Lambropoulos (Editors) Multiphoton Ionisation of Atoms ( Academic Press. New York, 1984 ).Google Scholar
  8. Coulson, C. A., Waves, 7th Ed., p. 103 ( Oliver & Boyd, London, 1955 ).Google Scholar
  9. Craig, D. P. and T. Thirunamachandran, Molecular Quantum Electrodynamics, p. 25 ( Academic Press, London, 1984 ).Google Scholar
  10. Dewdney, C., A. Garuccio, A. Kyprianidis and J. P. Vigier, Phys. Lett. 105A, 15 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Diner, S., D. Fargue, G. Lochak and F.Selleri (Editors), The Wave-Particle Dualism (D. Reidel Company, Dordrecht, Holland, 1984 ).Google Scholar
  12. Dirac, P. A. M., The Principles of Quantum Mechanics, 4th Ed. p.9 (Oxford University Press, 1967 ).Google Scholar
  13. Dontsov, P., and A. I. Baz, Sov. Phys JETP, 25, 1 (1967).ADSGoogle Scholar
  14. Einstein, A., Ann. Phys. 17, 1905; reprinted in English translation in The Principle of Relativity, pp.56–58 (Dover Publications, 1952 ).Google Scholar
  15. Fewkes, J. H. and J. Yarwood, Electricity and Magnetism, pp.509–513 ( University Tutorial Press, London, 1956 ).Google Scholar
  16. Grangier, P., G. Roget and A. Aspect, Europhysics Letters, Feb. 1986.Google Scholar
  17. Green, H. S., and E. Wolf, Proc. Phys. Soc. 66, 1129 (1953).MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Held, B., G. Mainfray, C. Manus, and J. Morellec, Phys. Lett. 35A, 257 (1971).Google Scholar
  19. Hendry, J., The Creation of Quantum Mechanics and the Bohr-Pauli Dialogue (Reidel Pub. Co., Dordrecht, Holland, 1984 ).Google Scholar
  20. Honig, W., Found. Phys. 4. 367 (1974).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hunter, G., and H. O. Pritchard, J. Chem. Phys, 46, 2146 (1967).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hunter, G., 1986, The Covariant Wave Equation (to be published).Google Scholar
  23. Jammer, M., Concepts of Mass, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A. (1961).Google Scholar
  24. Jeffers, S., (These Proceedings).Google Scholar
  25. King, R. W. P., and T. T. Wu, The Scattering and Diffraction of Waves, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U. S. A. (1959).Google Scholar
  26. Knight, D. L., and L. Allen, Concepts of Quantum Optics, p. 174 ( Permagon Press, Oxford, 1982 ).Google Scholar
  27. Kostro, L., Physics Letters, 107A, 429 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kraus, J. D., Antennas, p. 178 ( McGraw-Hill, New York, 1950 ).Google Scholar
  29. Lawden, D. F., An Introduction to Tensor Calculus and Relativity, pp. 17–20 ( Methuen, London, 1962 ).Google Scholar
  30. Levitt, S., Lett. Nuovo Cimento 21, Ser. 2, 222 (1978).Google Scholar
  31. Lewis, G. N., Nature, 118, 874 (1926).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Loudon, R., The Quantum Theory of Light, 2nd Edition, pp.226-228 ( Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1983 );Google Scholar
  33. Love, A. E. H., Proc. London Math. Soc., Ser. 2, 1, 37 (1903).Google Scholar
  34. MacKinnon, L., Lett. Nuovo Cimento, 32, 311 (1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McQuarrie, D. A., Quantum Chemistry, p.78 and p. 83–87 ( University Science Books, Mill Valley, California, 1983 ).Google Scholar
  36. Nishiyama, Y., J. Phvs. Soc. Japan 43, 228 (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Panarella, E., 1974, Found. Phys. 4, 227 (1974).Google Scholar
  38. Panarella, E., 1977, Phvs Rev. A16, 677 (1977).ADSGoogle Scholar
  39. Panarella, E., and T. E. Phipps Jr., Spec. Sci. Tech. 5, 509 (1982).Google Scholar
  40. Panareila, E., 1985, Spec. Sci. Tech. 8, 35 (1985).Google Scholar
  41. Paul, H., Rev. Mod. Phys, 58, 209 (1986).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pipkin, F. M., in Advances in Atomic and Molecular Physics (Edited by D. R. Bates), 14, 294 (1978).Google Scholar
  43. Pfleegor, R. L. and L. Mandel, Phys Rev., 159, 1084 (1967).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stratton, J. A., P. M. Morse, L. J. Chu, J. D. C. Little, and F. J. Corbato, Spheroidal Wavefunctions, M. I. T. Press (1956).Google Scholar
  45. Surdin, M., 1986 (These Proceedings).Google Scholar
  46. Swartz, C. E., The Fundamental Particles, p. 94 ( Addison—Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1965 ).Google Scholar
  47. Taylor, G. I.. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 15, 114 (1909).Google Scholar
  48. Thomson, J. J., Phil. Mag. Ser. 6, 48, 737 (1924).Google Scholar
  49. Thomson, J. J., Phil. Mag. Ser. 6, 50, 1181 (1925).Google Scholar
  50. Thomson, J. J., Nature 137, 232 (1936).ADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wadlinger, R. L. P., J. Chem. Educ. 60, 943 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Geoffrey Hunter
    • 1
  • Robert L. P. Wadlinger
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ChemistryYork UniversityTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations