Preprint Version

Wave-Particle Duality

www.wave-particle.net

Wave-particle duality is, according to Richard Feynman, the central mystery of quantum mechanics.

What follows is a fresh approach to photon physics showing that duality is a consequence of the photon having a kinetic identity and a potential identity.

No metaphysics proposed here; no multi-dimensions; no new particles; no fields that can’t be detected or measured. Just a new look at kinetic energy and how radiation transports it.

I hope you find it interesting…

Kinetic Energy and Wave-Particle

Paul A. Klevgard, Ph.D.

Sandia National Laboratory, Ret.

pklevgard@gmail.com

1.0    Abstract

We think of kinetic energy (KE) as a quantity possessed by rest mass in motion. But somehow electromagnetic (EM) radiation transports KE across space without any rest mass. In addition, a single photon passing through a double slit diffracts into multiple paths in space without affecting its KE. This is hard to explain.

Most commentators assume the photon is a unitary object and then struggle to explain its contradictory attributes: discrete as particle versus continuous as wave. The approach here is to identify a dualism of photon identities. The photon is not a unitary object; it has two linked-but-distinct identities: one supporting discrete behavior and the other supporting wave behavior. This involves some new insights into the nature of kinetic energy for radiation.

2.0    Kinetic Energy and the Photon –

Kinetic energy (KE) as a concept came late to classical physics. It began in the nineteenth century as a quantitative attribute possessed by matter-in-motion. This means that rest mass in motion and the KE this mass possesses share the same location-cum-trajectory. This keeps KE tethered to an object progressing in both space and time. But this concept runs into trouble when we consider the KE of radiation. A photon has an attribute (KE) but no object (rest mass) and no defined trajectory.

Consider a single photon encountering a double slit and diffracting. Does the KE also diffract/rarefy in space? If it does diffract, then how can it terminate on a (material) target with its energy intact? Thinking of KE as a property of an object in space seems to work for matter-in-motion, but it does not work for the photon. The photon is both particle and wave so there is no easy way to conceive of photon KE as an attribute. We need a concept allowing the photon to disperse over space paths while its KE does not rarefy.

·        Our concept of photon KE, borrowed from matter-in-motion KE, is not satisfactory.

·        How can we square the dispersion of photon paths (diffraction) with the non-dispersion of photon KE?

3.0    Residing vs. Progressing for Objects –

            Entities come in three ontological varieties. The in-flight photon has KE but no rest mass. The space-stationary (inertial) particle has rest mass but no KE. And finally, matter-in-motion combines both KE and rest mass. The photon and the inertial particle are "pure" entities since they don’t combine KE with rest mass; matter-in-motion is a "mixed" entity.

            Physicists often compare the photon with quantal matter-in-motion, e.g., with the moving electron.[1] But this is to compare ontologically different entities (pure vs. mixed) and this can be misleading. For the moment we shall focus on the two pure entities that do not mix KE with rest mass.

There are some common features of rest mass (inertial particle) and photon KE. First and foremost, both are the measurable aspects of entities and one might argue that all entities must have commonalities at a foundational level. Second, rest mass and KE are quantized and share a fundamental relationship, E = mc². And finally, both are stationary in one dimension, inertial particle rest mass in space and photon KE in time.[2]

The differences between rest mass and photon KE are really a consequence of inversion: existence and occurrence are switched as are space and time. Thus quantized rest mass exists and can only do so by occupying an interval (volume) in space. And quantized photon KE occurs (oscillates) and can only do so by occupying an interval in time (cycles require time). Inertial particle rest mass is stationary in space while progressing (persisting) in time, whereas photon KE is the reverse: it is stationary in time while progressing in space.

·        At an abstract (ontological) level, pure entities have many similarities; even inverted similarities.

·        Quantized, space-stationary rest mass exists, requires/occupies one dimension (space) and progresses in the other dimension (time).

·        Quantized, time-stationary photon KE occurs (oscillates), requires/occupies one dimension (time) and progresses in the other dimension (space).

Much of physics is mechanics and the latter is all about particles in motion with the assumption that particles are located in both space and time. But a stationary particle is different. It certainly resides in (occupies) space and is located there relative to some reference object. But a stationary particle neither resides in time nor has a location there. We can perceive or measure a stationary particle at time t₁, but that marks the time location of our measurement event, not the time location of the particle. Particles reside in space but progress in time; the flow of time precludes at-rest particles from having a defined temporal location. Does this division of labor – residing versus progressing – characterize all pure entities? Before we can answer that we need to look more closely at entity progression.

4.0    Entity Progression and Photon Identities –

The particle obeys the law of the conservation of mass as it progresses in time. Successive observers in time experience the same particle with the same mass; they have the existing particle and its mass in common. We explain this by saying that time progression does not affect existing particles; that time progression is orthogonal to existing objects in space.

The photon obeys the law of the conservation of energy as it progresses in space. Assume we have a single photon from a laser moving linearly (ideal case) through space. This photon presents the exact same KE to all space observers along its path (within the same inertial system). Now imagine this linear-path photon encountering and passing through a double slit. The photon interferes with itself and now has multiple paths toward termination on some target screen. Observers situated on these multiple, diffracted paths have the same (possible) experience as the observers on the linear path: photon termination on their path has the undiminished KE from photon origin. All of these paths have the photon KE in common although the diffracted paths differ in probability of photon termination. 

This behavior of the single photon tells us that space-residing, material devices (slits, pinholes) cannot affect (fractionate) photon KE but can fractionate probability of photon reception. This means that the photon has two identities:

1.     A potential (probabilistic) identity that has a presence in space and so will fractionate there.

2.     A KE identity not divisible in space and common to all possible space path observers.

Neither simple progressing in space (linear path) nor progressing-diffracting in space (multi-path) has any effect upon photon KE. Photon KE is therefore orthogonal to space and what happens there, namely progression and diffraction. And something is orthogonal to a dimension when it does not reside in that dimension. We conclude that photon KE does not reside in space where it might fragment or dissipate.

The photon can have incompatible attributes because it has two identities operating (residing vs. progressing) in different dimensions. The photon is not a simple object; dualism of photon attributes relies upon a dualism of photon identities.

We can now see a common pattern for pure entities.

·        A stationary particle progresses in time but it resides in (occupies) space.

·        The photon progresses in space but it resides in (occupies) time.

·        In general, a pure entity resides in one dimension and progresses in the alternate dimension where it is common for observers in that dimension.

·        A mixed entity (particle in motion) progresses (advances) in both space and time; it cannot be equated with a pure entity. They are ontologically different.

5.0    First Identity: Photon Kinetic Energy in Time –

Photons are created when (electron) charges are accelerated: say a voltage applied to a conductor or an electron changing its atomic shell. The charges themselves reside in space. Hence work done on them will leave a space-progressing trail, namely a self-sustaining, electric-magnetic waveform. This mutual EM field oscillation is a self-perpetuating, space-path expression of the effect this work (this acceleration) has upon a space-residing charge.[3]

  When a charge is accelerated the photon KE created must reside somewhere so it can be available for transfer. As we have seen, attaching the KE to a massless, multi-path photon presumed to be in space doesn’t make much sense. The photon is an (energy) occurrence; it is not an “object” with attributes and a defined space presence. Work done on a charge creates something without rest mass; it creates the photon KE which is oscillation not involving anything existing. Photon KE is pure oscillation residing in time; such pure occurrence is not unknown in physics.[4]

Once it is created by work done on a charge at one space location, photon KE must travel to [not!] be available at distant space locations. The classical ontology (existence, matter, space) imagines that some object (particle, virtual or real) carries the KE as a payload along space paths. But Nature is much more subtle than that.

Photon KE resides in time as a pure oscillatory occurrence making it orthogonal to space paths. This means it is common to (shared by) those space paths traversed by its alternate (probabilistic) identity. Photon KE is not transported in space because it does not reside there.[5] Hence photon KE is not involved in space progression at the speed of light; that is left to the photon’s potential identity (next section).

Photon KE is oscillatory and being cyclical renders it quantized: you can’t have half a cycle in the dimension wherein photon KE resides and functions (oscillates), namely time. Recognizing that photon KE resides in time:

1.                         Completes the E = mc² symmetry with the inertial rest mass that resides in space: both of them stationary, both of them quantized and both of them progressing in the dimension where they do not reside.

2.                         Explains why this energy never diminishes over multi-path space travel.

Photon KE is but one identity of what we call the photon. The second identity must provide for the: 1) probabilistic nature of photon reception; 2) filling and progressing (rapidly!) on all available space paths; and 3) collapse of what fills those space paths.

6.0    Second Identity: Photon Potential Mass –

If a single photon of known wavelength enters a double slit one can calculate probable reception locations on a target screen. The mathematics tells us that something travels those photon space paths between double slit and target: something immaterial that is latent and hence probabilistic. And what is on those widespread photon paths must disappear without a trace when photon KE is received at a point. This dependency of probabilistic, latent space path content upon time-residing photon KE tells us that E = mc² storage must be involved. We conclude that the photon’s second identity must be its stored, potential mass.[6]

·        The photon has a kinetic identity and a potential identity.

·        The kinetic identity, as noted above, is photon KE residing in time.

·        The potential identity is photon potential mass progressing along and filling space paths.

·        Like the at-rest particle, the photon’s identities reside in one dimension and progress in the alternate dimension.[7]

Photon KE is oscillatory in the time dimension and, as noted, is shared by all available photon space-path locations. Its stored (potential) mass is in the space dimension where it progresses at the speed of light and thereby (probabilistically) determines available space-path locations. Pure entities either exist or occur as a whole: hosting (kinetic) identity and stored (potential) identity do that. So the occurrence and oscillation of photon KE is common to the mass it stores. Hence photon potential mass progresses and oscillates giving it the waveform. Its space progression and wave nature means it diffracts into multiple paths at pinholes or slits.

Photon potential mass has a space presence but only as something latent (stored) that occurs. It only interacts with itself yielding all the usual wave behavior: interference, superposition, reinforcement and diffraction. But our knowledge of its behavior is indirect since our physical instruments only receive photon energy and momentum. Because of this, various features of photon reception are not well understood. They include: 1) the objective reality of probability; 2) randomness; and 3) instantaneous collapse.

6.1    Objective Probability in Space –

We can model photon wave progression mathematically and we recognize that our computed waveforms only govern probable (potential) photon reception. Nevertheless, we don’t make the connection between photon probability and photon stored (potential) mass. This despite the fact that release of something stored is generally probabilistic (e.g., radioactive energy release)

Part of the problem is that we treat the photon as a single object. We say the photon does this but then say it also does that and the two are contradictory. We should be saying photon KE does this but photon potential (stored) mass does that.

The other part of the problem is that potential mass, when not discounted (i.e., rejected), is only seen as a mere quantity. It is never granted a space presence such that it can interact with slits and pinholes. Of course denying photon KE a (residing) presence in time leaves no room for granting photon potential mass a (progressing) presence in space. The entire concept of alternating (and orthogonal) dimensions for entity residing vs. progressing is quite unknown in the ontology of classical physics that we still use.

The potential mass wave of a single photon interferes with itself when passing through a pinhole or double slit. The result on a target screen is regions whose intensity may be high (wave crest reinforcement) or low (wave crest cancellation). The intensity distribution on the screen determines the probability of photon KE reception, but only in the aggregate. Individual reception is random and for a reason.

6.2    Photon KE Reception as Random –

            Photon KE can only terminate (impinge) on matter. Photon KE resides in time and to terminate on space-residing matter it must become a cross of occurring KE in time with existing rest mass in space. In a word it becomes an event: something involving both KE and rest mass; something that is discrete and located in both space and time.

That which controls the tendency (probability) of photon KE termination on matter is photon potential mass which is continuous as a waveform progressing in space. Meanwhile, the actual transfer of time-residing KE to space-residing matter is quantized and event based; it cannot be continuous. So it is that photon termination is individually random but in aggregate it reflects the distributed intensities of photon potential mass.

Whenever something is stored – potential energy (thermal, radioactive) in matter; or potential mass in radiation – there is always an associated probabilistic randomness with release: random in time for thermal release; random in space for photon termination. It is a result of something analog/continuous (storage intensity) in one dimension initiating a release that is digital/quantized in the opposite (orthogonal) dimension.

6.3    Probability and Collapse –

Probability: Photon potential mass is the E = mc² consequence of photon KE. They are not the same thing; they are both mass-free, oscillatory occurrences, but they have functional differences (residing vs. progressing) based on the dimension wherein they operate. Photon KE resides in time while its dependency, photon potential mass progresses in space. Probable release of what is stored characterizes both pure entities. The deeply rooted disdain for, or neglect of, stored, potential mass has prevented us from connecting it with probability. Prospects for a change in this outlook are not good; the abstract wave function in multi-dimensional configuration space is a much sexier way of explaining photon probability.

Collapse:      Photon potential mass waves progressing over space paths have but a single (common) source of occurrence and the latter is orthogonal to said waves. Photon potential mass waves progressing in space depend upon this single time source for all their occurrence, whether that occurrence is for oscillation/progression or for cessation of oscillation. When a photon terminates, photon KE in time ends that oscillation upon which all space-progressing potential mass depends. The cessation and disappearance of space-progressing waves is instantaneous because: 1) they have a single, orthogonal point of failure; and 2) these waves occur and have neither rest mass nor energy.

7.0    Photon as Particle –

            The debate over radiation as a particle (Newton) or as a wave (Huygens) got reopened early in the twentieth century. Those quantum pioneers born before 1900 (Einstein, Bohr) grew up in awe of Maxwell’s wave theory of radiation and found it difficult adjusting to radiation quanta and the dualism it implied.[4, p.231,233] But succeeding generations of physicists grew accustomed to advancing science by studying particle properties; the conflict with the wave behavior of radiation got pushed to one side.  Richard Feynman [5] exemplifies this shift to particle physics; he argues that radiation is composed of particles [p. 14] and dismisses wave behavior as a paradox not worth pursuing. [p. 24, 81]

            But the photon does not behave like a material particle: it has no rest mass, no defined location or trajectory and it leaves no tracks in a cloud chamber. In spite of all this, Feynman’s idea of photon-as-particle is still widely embraced. There are two reasons for this.

            First, when explaining something unknown everyone’s first impulse is to employ familiar concepts. Photons deliver energy and momentum to a point in space and this looks very much like particle impact. This (lazy) idea that the photon is a particle traversing space and impacting on a material target: 1) depends upon a bad analogy; 2) applies the matter-based classical ontology to radiation. It is doubly wrong.

            Second, it is assumed that energy cannot be real on its own;[8] it must be a property of something and that something is a particle (or field), even if the particle is Imaginary (virtual). In addition, photon wave behavior does not lend itself to KE interactions; photon waves, as we have seen, are probabilistic, they can collapse without a trace and they don’t carry KE. So the wave side of photon behavior is of little use to physicists writing energy exchange equations. It is the termination (and emission) of photons where KE is involved; this energy resides in time but physicists with their existence-mass-space worldview can imagine that said energy belongs to a particle moving in space. This permits equations to be written based entirely on the classical ontology. In the words of Abraham Pais, physicists “…call a photon a particle because, just like massive particles, it obeys the laws of conservation of energy and momentum in collisions, with an electron say (Compton Effect).”[4, p. 350-1] {\displaystyle |\mathbf {r} \rangle }

            So it is easy to see why photon-as-particle is a popular analogy and why it is mathematically useful. But neither of these rationales survives serious scrutiny and photon-as-particle still leads to paradoxes.

Photons terminate at a space and time point because that is how two orthogonal entities intersect. Photon KE residing in time can only meet (impinge upon) target matter residing in space at a point (an event) that both share. Our limited view of what is real (particles, impact, photon as simple object) leads us to underestimate the subtlety of nature.

8.0    The Photon in the Double Slit –

            The photon is a pure entity which means its first identity is stationary in one dimension where it resides while its second identity progresses in the alternate dimension. These two (orthogonal) identities operate together as the photon passes through the double slit. 

Identity #1: Photon oscillation KE residing in the time dimension naturally passes through the space-residing slits unaffected and terminates (transfers its energy) on a material target at a point in space and time.

Identity #2: Photon potential mass governs probable release (termination). As a space-progressing waveform funneled through two slits it undergoes interference, creating multiple space paths of differing intensity. The identification of this as wave behavior is correct but with a caveat: these are retractable, collapsible waves of probability (stored mass); these waves do not carry energy as sound waves and water waves do. Diffracting water waves dissipates their energy; diffracting light waves does not.

Experimenters have tried to resolve the wave versus particle identity of the photon by modifying the double slit. By placing a photon detector behind one or both of the slits the hope is to determine “which way” (particle) information.

One Slit Blocked:  Waveform potential mass enters the slit and impinges on that detector just behind the slit; one of two things will happen. Photon termination may occur and the waves in the other, no-detector, slit collapse instantly. Alternately, no photon termination results for this detector slit and the waves it blocks collapse and disappear (Section 6.3) while waves in the other slit continue on. This latter case leads people who believe in the classical ontology to assert that “the particle chose the no-detector slit.”

Two Slits Blocked:            Photon termination occurs in one slit or the other. Waves in the slit without termination simply collapse and disappear, since they are massless occurrence that ceases to occur. It is a mistake to assume that nothing ventured into the slit where termination did not take place; potential mass traverses both slits with each blocked slit having a 50% chance of termination.

Wave interference requires the rejoining of two separate wave paths; blocking one or both slits obviates that. Space-discrete (particle-like) behavior (one slit passage) and space-continuous (wave) behavior (passage through both slits) are mutually exclusive. But there is no “quantum conspiracy” here; rather it is photon identities operating normally. We misidentify photon KE as a “particle” travelling space paths which is not the case; because it resides in time, photon KE is simply common to all available space paths its potential identity chooses.

Interaction-free measurement:          The photon’s two identities are unitary but function in two dimensions. Photon potential mass progresses in space and so can be split into two paths, say by a beam splitter; each path having a 50% probability of termination. The photon KE of course does not split. If you block one of the two paths and termination does not occur, then the other path immediately converts to 100% probability of termination. But you have thereby altered the photon; one of its paths is “live” (potential mass progressing) and the other path is “dead” (no potential mass). This eliminates any possibility of interference when reuniting the two paths, one active, the other not. One radiation identity (namely occurring potential mass) has “touched” the obstacle and undergone a path change without the other radiation identity (photon KE) “registering” (terminating) on the obstacle. Commentators call this “interaction-free measurement.”[6] But in fact interaction of one photon identity has taken place, namely the blockage and collapse of potential mass on one path; this constitutes a change of the photon. The mystery of interaction-free (counterfactual) measurement disappears once you understand the role space-progressing photon potential mass plays. That is, once you realize the photon has two identities and you stop applying the classical ontology (existence, mass, space) to the realm of radiation (occurrence, energy, time).

9.0    Traditional Explanations –

There is no literature treating photon KE as oscillatory and having a presence in time. All approaches to the photon wave-particle duality problem have been based on the classical ontology of existence-matter-space with KE regarded as a quantity with no dimensional presence. In this ontology, the photon is a simple object (in space and in time) with attributes. This reduces photon KE to being a payload for some space-residing, space-traversing object. There are some variations on this approach which are worth mentioning.

The Copenhagen approach argues that the duality paradox is not a defect; wave and particle are complementary (and necessary) descriptions. The quantal world is hidden from us and it is futile to speculate on its exact nature or even its reality (as Einstein might). We are forced to measure and describe this world with instruments and concepts belonging to classical physics. Hence Bohr and Heisenberg accept the classical ontology of existence-matter-space but don’t try to apply it to the quantal world; Bohr could even deny the quantal world’s reality.[7, p. 204] The Copenhagen interpretation is generally epistemic (what we know) regarding the quantal world and regards the wave function as merely a mathematical tool.

In contrast, the de Broglie – Bohm pilot wave theory is ontic (what is real) regarding the quantal world. The wave function guides the particle(s) but it is nonlocal and resides in multidimensional-configuration space. The remainder of the theory mostly embraces the classical ontology with the photon being a real, physical particle. The wave function, of course, was devised for the electron and does not really work for the photon, the latter being massless with no position eigenstate. And lumping the photon and the electron together as particles is not good physics, as these pages have argued. Einstein did not care for the theory, calling it too “cheap”; i.e., too obvious, not subtle.

·        Physicists and philosophers of physics have moved on from classical physics, but they remain devoted to its ontology of existing matter in space.

13.0  Conclusion –

·        Our current (classical) reality for physics is mass-based: existence, matter and space; it is incomplete. There is also energy-based reality: occurrence, radiation and time. The photon is energy based.

·        The nineteenth century concept of kinetic energy as a non-oscillatory quantity attached to rest mass in motion does not work for radiation and the massless, oscillatory photon.

The function of radiation is the transmission of work done (KE) from one space location (photon origin) to another space location (photon termination). It does NOT do this via an object (particle) carrying a KE payload and navigating space paths (the classical existence-matter-space ontology).

Photon KE does not travel space paths; as pure oscillation it resides solely in time and this makes it common to all possible observers in space (just as your desk resides solely in space and is common to all possible observers in time). Innumerable observers can share the same entity (photon KE or rest mass [chair]) if they are orthogonal to it (i.e., do not reside in its dimension, space or time).

·        The photon is a quantum whole combining: 1) oscillatory KE residing in time (the photon’s kinetic identity); and 2) waveform potential mass (the photon’s potential identity) progressing on all available space paths.

What progresses on photon space paths (and diffracts courtesy of slits and pinholes) is the stored (potential) mass of photon KE. This latent mass, as a dependency of oscillatory photon KE, also oscillates giving it the waveform; it is devoid of anything that exists. Being potential it governs photon termination probabilistically and as non-material occurrence.

Photon KE, which occurs/oscillates and resides in time, is unaffected by a slit-induced dispersion of space paths. At termination, the KE in time must intersect with target matter in space and the two can only meet discretely at a point in both dimensions: an event. The reception of photon KE gets interpreted (via classical ontology) as particle reception, but there is no particle involved.

Photon potential mass has a waveform presence in space where it oscillates and moves at the speed of light. These are Einstein’s “ghost” waves [9, p.2-3] as their content is potential mass. These waves can spread (and rarefy) indefinitely in space and they govern probable collective termination. But they are subject to instantaneous space collapse because they have a single point of failure in orthogonal time, namely photon KE oscillation. Probabilistic photon potential mass accounts for photon wave behavior just as photon KE in time accounts for “particle” behavior.

Within the double slit, the photon potential mass diffracts creating many possible paths of possible termination. When termination occurs on a path the time-residing photon KE is undiminished.

Occurrence, KE and time are currently denied their own reality; they must piggyback upon classical ontology. We pay lip service to the equality of space and time (relativity) and the equality of mass and energy (E = mc²), but we don’t take that equality seriously or apply it to ontology. Continuing to force radiation and the photon into the structure of classical ontology is not the way forward. It has held us back for almost 100 years.

Postscript

            Modern physics had no designer; its theories were put together piecemeal. The theory of kinetic energy came from men who knew almost nothing of radiation. Their theory works quantitatively but is based on the wrong ontology; it has left us with paradoxes whose removal is desirable. Arguing that our theory of energy is an “untouchable” is to ignore the untidy history of physics theories.

These pages have used a bit of philosophy (ontology*) to reorganize those parts of physics we can agree are real and measurable: rest mass, kinetic energy, stored (potential) mass, space and time. No invention, no metaphysics here.

Open Questions:   Kinetic energy is certainly a quantity for both matter-in-motion and for radiation. But if we grant radiation KE a presence in time does that give us two conflicting varieties of KE, one for radiation and one for matter-in-motion? And what about the instantaneous collapse of a photon’s potential mass? This smacks of nonlocality as Einstein noted long ago.[10, p.51-2] These questions cannot be addressed in a short essay directed solely at radiation. The author has made an attempt at those questions elsewhere, www.URL-forthcoming … /

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

* Comparing quantized, space-stationary matter with quantized, time-stationary radiation.

Sources

[1]        Kuhlmann, Meinard, "Quantum Field Theory", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2018 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Section 5.6: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/quantum-field-theory/#Ont ]

[2]        Ibid, Section 5.1: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/quantum-field-theory/#TakSto

[3]        Einstein, Albert. "On a Heuristic Point of View about the Creation and Conversion of Light" (1905) http://users.physik.fu-berlin.de/~kleinert/files/eins_lq.pdf Translated by Dirk ter Haar.

[4]        Pais, Abraham. Niels Bohr’s Times, In Physics, Philosophy, and Polity, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1991.

[5]        Feynman, Richard. QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter, Princeton Univ. Press, 1985.

[6]        Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, s.v. "Elitzur–Vaidman bomb tester," (accessed February, 2020), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitzur%E2%80%93Vaidman_bomb_tester

[7]        Jammer, Max. The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics. John Wiley & Sons, 1974.

[8]        Deutsch, David. The Fabric of Reality. Viking Press, 1997. Online at: https://www.daftarche.com/attachments/english-31/3940d1397513247-book-reviews-fabric-reality.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0NiNRF56tW6lNCw9PPfwOV  (accessed Jan. 2020)

[9]        Dongen, Jeroen van. “The interpretation of the Einstein-Rupp experiments and their influence on the history of quantum mechanics,” https://arxiv.org/abs/0709.3226 (accessed Nov. 2019).

[10]      Becker, Adam. What Is Real? Basic Books, New York, 2018.

---

[1] Some examples of physicists comparing quantized radiation with quantized (moving) matter: 1) the central argument of Einstein’s 1905 “Heuristic Viewpoint” paper [3] depended upon an analogy between mass quanta and radiation quanta; 2) in the early 1920s Louis de Broglie developed his particle-as-radiation theory by analogy with Einstein’s radiation-as-particle theory; and 3) Schrödinger’s wave equation depended upon Hamiltonian mechanics which itself was based upon an analogy between the classical mechanics of particles and the physics of light rays. One may argue that much of quantum theory depended upon a comparison of particle with photon as done here.

[2] Progressive time dilation for a particle approaching the speed of light tells us that time is stationary for the photon.

[3] Radiation’s oscillatory EM fields spread widely in space. If they carried KE this would result in KE dispersion and this does not happen.

[4] Physicists have embraced the concept of oscillation of “nothing” or oscillation from “nothing”; vacuum state fluctuations in QFT are just that.

[5] The chair you are sitting in is not transported in time because it does not reside there. But it does reside, exist, in space making it available to (common for) all future observers in time. The classical ontology has no place for orthogonal dimensions; and no interest in stationary entities residing/progressing in those dimensions.

[6] Potential (relativistic) mass is a bit controversial these days; even Einstein spoke against it. Some argue that potential mass is the same as (kinetic) energy and so we should employ the latter and discard the former. What they mean is that potential mass depends upon KE; however, that does not make them the same thing. The photon has both and they interact with our instruments differently. Stored mass, potential mass and relativistic mass all refer to the same thing: the mass a photon has. Photon potential mass is measurable as a quantity; what is new here is its progressing, waveform presence in space.

[7] Technical note: A material object/particle has a kinetic identity (matter) residing in space where it is common to (shared by) observers at different time locations. The object’s potential (stored) identity (stored thermal or radioactive or intrinsic energy) progresses (persists) in time toward possible release.

[8] The reader will note that this sentence is not phrased as: “…energy cannot exist on its own…” Radiation kinetic energy does not exist, it occurs. We use the phrase “to exist” to mean “to be real.” Our obsession with existence, matter and space carries over to our language: something is real only if it exists (and resides in space); this is very parochial. Actually, something is real if it involves mass or energy and resides in a dimension, space or time. In light of E = mc² and relativity (where space and time are equal), why should it be otherwise?