Wave–particle duality

Wave–particle duality is the concept in quantum mechanics that every particle or quantum entity may
be described as either a particle or a wave. It expresses the inability of the classical concepts "particle" or
"wave" to fully describe the behaviour of quantum-scale objects. As Albert Einstein wrote:[1]

It seems as though we must use sometimes the one theory and sometimes the other, while at
times we may use either. We are faced with a new kind of difficulty. We have two
contradictory pictures of reality; separately neither of them fully explains the phenomena of
light, but together they do.

Through the work of Max Planck, Albert Einstein, Louis de Broglie, Arthur Compton, Niels Bohr, and
many others, current scientific theory holds that all particles exhibit a wave nature and vice versa.[2] This
phenomenon has been verified not only for elementary particles, but also for compound particles like
atoms and even molecules. For macroscopic particles, because of their extremely short wavelengths,
wave properties usually cannot be detected.[3]

Although the use of the wave-particle duality has worked well in physics, the meaning or interpretation
has not been satisfactorily resolved; see Interpretations of quantum mechanics.

Bohr regarded the "duality paradox" as a fundamental or metaphysical fact of nature. A given kind of
quantum object will exhibit sometimes wave, sometimes particle, character, in respectively different
physical settings. He saw such duality as one aspect of the concept of complementarity.[4] Bohr regarded
renunciation of the cause-effect relation, or complementarity, of the space-time picture, as essential to the
quantum mechanical account.[5]

Werner Heisenberg considered the question further. He saw the duality as present for all quantic entities,
but not quite in the usual quantum mechanical account considered by Bohr. He saw it in what is called
second quantization, which generates an entirely new concept of fields that exist in ordinary space-time,
causality still being visualizable. Classical field values (e.g. the electric and magnetic field strengths of
Maxwell) are replaced by an entirely new kind of field value, as considered in quantum field theory.
Turning the reasoning around, ordinary quantum mechanics can be deduced as a specialized consequence
of quantum field theory.[6][7]

Contents
History
Classical particle and wave theories of light
Black-body radiation and Planck's law
Photoelectric effect
Einstein's explanation of photoelectric effect
de Broglie's hypothesis
Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle
de Broglie–Bohm theory
Wave nature of large objects
 Importance
Visualization
Alternative views
1. Both-particle-and-wave view
2. Wave-only view
3. Particle-only view
4. Neither-wave-nor-particle view
5. Relational approach to wave–particle duality
Uses
See also
References
External links

History

Classical particle and wave theories of light

Democritus (5th century BC) argued that all things in the universe,
including light, are composed of indivisible sub-components.[8]
Euclid (4th-3rd century BC) gives treatises on light propagation,
states the principle of shortest trajectory of light, including multiple
reflections on mirrors, including spherical, while Plutarch (1st-2nd
Thomas Young's sketch of two-slit
century AD) describes multiple reflections on spherical mirrors
diffraction of waves, 1803
discussing the creation of larger or smaller images, real or
imaginary, including the case of chirality of the images. At the
beginning of the 11th century, the Arabic scientist Ibn al-Haytham wrote the first comprehensive Book of
optics describing reflection, refraction, and the operation of a pinhole lens via rays of light traveling from
the point of emission to the eye. He asserted that these rays were composed of particles of light. In 1630,
René Descartes popularized and accredited the opposing wave description in his treatise on light, The
World (Descartes), showing that the behavior of light could be re-created by modeling wave-like
disturbances in a universal medium i.e. luminiferous aether. Beginning in 1670 and progressing over
three decades, Isaac Newton developed and championed his corpuscular theory, arguing that the perfectly
straight lines of reflection demonstrated light's particle nature, only particles could travel in such straight
lines. He explained refraction by positing that particles of light accelerated laterally upon entering a
denser medium. Around the same time, Newton's contemporaries Robert Hooke and Christiaan Huygens,
and later Augustin-Jean Fresnel, mathematically refined the wave viewpoint, showing that if light
traveled at different speeds in different media, refraction could be easily explained as the medium-
dependent propagation of light waves. The resulting Huygens–Fresnel principle was extremely
successful at reproducing light's behavior and was subsequently supported by Thomas Young's discovery
of wave interference of light by his double-slit experiment in 1801.[9][10] The wave view did not
immediately displace the ray and particle view, but began to dominate scientific thinking about light in
the mid 19th century, since it could explain polarization phenomena that the alternatives could not.[11]
James Clerk Maxwell discovered that he could apply his previously discovered Maxwell's equations,
along with a slight modification to describe self-propagating waves of oscillating electric and magnetic
fields. It quickly became apparent that visible light, ultraviolet light, and infrared light were all
electromagnetic waves of differing frequency.

Play media

Particle impacts make visible

Animation showing the wave- the interference pattern of
particle duality with a double slit waves.
experiment and effect of an
observer. Increase size to see
explanations in the video itself.
See also a quiz based on this
animation.

A quantum particle is Interference of a quantum

represented by a wave packet. particle with itself.

Black-body radiation and Planck's law

In 1901, Max Planck published an analysis that succeeded in reproducing the observed spectrum of light
emitted by a glowing object. To accomplish this, Planck had to make a mathematical assumption of
quantized energy of the oscillators i.e. atoms of the black body that emit radiation. Einstein later
proposed that electromagnetic radiation itself is quantized, not the energy of radiating atoms.

Black-body radiation, the emission of electromagnetic energy due to an object's heat, could not be
explained from classical arguments alone. The equipartition theorem of classical mechanics, the basis of
all classical thermodynamic theories, stated that an object's energy is partitioned equally among the
object's vibrational modes. But applying the same reasoning to the electromagnetic emission of such a
thermal object was not so successful. That thermal objects emit light had been long known. Since light
was known to be waves of electromagnetism, physicists hoped to describe this emission via classical
laws. This became known as the black body problem. Since the equipartition theorem worked so well in
describing the vibrational modes of the thermal object itself, it was natural to assume that it would
perform equally well in describing the radiative emission of such objects. But a problem quickly arose if
each mode received an equal partition of energy, the short wavelength modes would consume all the
energy. This became clear when plotting the Rayleigh–Jeans law, which, while correctly predicting the
intensity of long wavelength emissions, predicted infinite total energy as the intensity diverges to infinity
for short wavelengths. This became known as the ultraviolet catastrophe.

In 1900, Max Planck hypothesized that the frequency of light emitted by the black body depended on the
frequency of the oscillator that emitted it, and the energy of these oscillators increased linearly with
frequency (according E = hf where h is Planck's constant and f is the frequency). This was not an
unsound proposal considering that macroscopic oscillators operate similarly when studying five simple
harmonic oscillators of equal amplitude but different frequency, the oscillator with the highest frequency
possesses the highest energy (though this relationship is not linear like Planck's). By demanding that
high-frequency light must be emitted by an oscillator of equal frequency, and further requiring that this
oscillator occupy higher energy than one of a lesser frequency, Planck avoided any catastrophe, giving an
equal partition to high-frequency oscillators produced successively fewer oscillators and less emitted
light. And as in the Maxwell–Boltzmann distribution, the low-frequency, low-energy oscillators were
suppressed by the onslaught of thermal jiggling from higher energy oscillators, which necessarily
increased their energy and frequency.

The most revolutionary aspect of Planck's treatment of the black body is that it inherently relies on an
integer number of oscillators in thermal equilibrium with the electromagnetic field. These oscillators give
their entire energy to the electromagnetic field, creating a quantum of light, as often as they are excited
by the electromagnetic field, absorbing a quantum of light and beginning to oscillate at the corresponding
frequency. Planck had intentionally created an atomic theory of the black body, but had unintentionally
generated an atomic theory of light, where the black body never generates quanta of light at a given
frequency with an energy less than hf. However, once realizing that he had quantized the electromagnetic
field, he denounced particles of light as a limitation of his approximation, not a property of reality.

Photoelectric effect
While Planck had solved the ultraviolet catastrophe by using atoms and a quantized electromagnetic
field, most contemporary physicists agreed that Planck's "light quanta" represented only flaws in his
model. A more-complete derivation of black-body radiation would yield a fully continuous and "wave-
like" electromagnetic field with no quantization. However, in 1905 Albert Einstein took Planck's black
body model to produce his solution to another outstanding problem of the day: the photoelectric effect,
wherein electrons are emitted from atoms when they absorb energy from light. Since their existence was
theorized eight years previously, phenomena had been studied with the electron model in mind in physics
laboratories worldwide.

In 1902, Philipp Lenard discovered that the energy of these ejected electrons did not depend on the
intensity of the incoming light, but instead on its frequency. So if one shines a little low-frequency light
upon a metal, a few low energy electrons are ejected. If one now shines a very intense beam of low-
frequency light upon the same metal, a whole slew of electrons are ejected; however they possess the
same low energy, there are merely more of them. The
more light there is, the more electrons are ejected.
Whereas in order to get high energy electrons, one
must illuminate the metal with high-frequency light.
Like blackbody radiation, this was at odds with a
theory invoking continuous transfer of energy between
radiation and matter. However, it can still be explained
using a fully classical description of light, as long as
matter is quantum mechanical in nature.[12]

If one used Planck's energy quanta, and demanded that

electromagnetic radiation at a given frequency could The photoelectric effect. Incoming photons on the
left strike a metal plate (bottom), and eject
only transfer energy to matter in integer multiples of
electrons, depicted as flying off to the right.
an energy quantum hf, then the photoelectric effect
could be explained very simply. Low-frequency light
only ejects low-energy electrons because each electron is excited by the absorption of a single photon.
Increasing the intensity of the low-frequency light (increasing the number of photons) only increases the
number of excited electrons, not their energy, because the energy of each photon remains low. Only by
increasing the frequency of the light, and thus increasing the energy of the photons, can one eject
electrons with higher energy. Thus, using Planck's constant h to determine the energy of the photons
based upon their frequency, the energy of ejected electrons should also increase linearly with frequency,
the gradient of the line being Planck's constant. These results were not confirmed until 1915, when
Robert Andrews Millikan produced experimental results in perfect accord with Einstein's predictions.

While energy of ejected electrons reflected Planck's constant, the existence of photons was not explicitly
proven until the discovery of the photon antibunching effect, of which a modern experiment can be
performed in undergraduate-level labs.[13] This phenomenon could only be explained via photons.
Einstein's "light quanta" would not be called photons until 1925, but even in 1905 they represented the
quintessential example of wave-particle duality. Electromagnetic radiation propagates following linear
wave equations, but can only be emitted or absorbed as discrete elements, thus acting as a wave and a
particle simultaneously.

Einstein's explanation of photoelectric effect

In 1905, Albert Einstein provided an explanation of the photoelectric effect, an experiment that the wave
theory of light failed to explain. He did so by postulating the existence of photons, quanta of light energy
with particulate qualities.

In the photoelectric effect, it was observed that shining a light on certain metals would lead to an electric
current in a circuit. Presumably, the light was knocking electrons out of the metal, causing current to
flow. However, using the case of potassium as an example, it was also observed that while a dim blue
light was enough to cause a current, even the strongest, brightest red light available with the technology
of the time caused no current at all. According to the classical theory of light and matter, the strength or
amplitude of a light wave was in proportion to its brightness: a bright light should have been easily
strong enough to create a large current. Yet, oddly, this was not so.

Einstein explained this enigma by postulating that the electrons can receive energy from electromagnetic
field only in discrete units (quanta or photons): an amount of energy E that was related to the frequency f
of the light by
where h is Planck's constant (6.626 × 10−34 Js). Only photons of a high enough frequency (above a
certain threshold value) could knock an electron free. For example, photons of blue light had sufficient
energy to free an electron from the metal, but photons of red light did not. One photon of light above the
threshold frequency could release only one electron; the higher the frequency of a photon, the higher the
kinetic energy of the emitted electron, but no amount of light below the threshold frequency could release
an electron. To violate this law would require extremely high-intensity lasers that had not yet been
invented. Intensity-dependent phenomena have now been studied in detail with such lasers.[14]

Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921 for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric
effect.

de Broglie's hypothesis
In 1924, Louis-Victor de Broglie formulated the de Broglie hypothesis,
claiming that all matter[15][16] has a wave-like nature, he related
wavelength and momentum:

This is a generalization of Einstein's equation above, since the

momentum of a photon is given by p = and the wavelength (in a
vacuum) by λ = , where c is the speed of light in vacuum.

De Broglie's formula was confirmed three years later for electrons with
the observation of electron diffraction in two independent experiments.
At the University of Aberdeen, George Paget Thomson passed a beam of Propagation of de Broglie
electrons through a thin metal film and observed the predicted waves in 1d—real part of the
interference patterns. At Bell Labs, Clinton Joseph Davisson and Lester complex amplitude is blue,
Halbert Germer guided the electron beam through a crystalline grid in imaginary part is green. The
their experiment popularly known as Davisson–Germer experiment. probability (shown as the
colour opacity) of finding the
particle at a given point x is
De Broglie was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1929 for his
spread out like a waveform;
hypothesis. Thomson and Davisson shared the Nobel Prize for Physics in there is no definite position
1937 for their experimental work. of the particle. As the
amplitude increases above
zero the curvature
Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle decreases, so the amplitude
In his work on formulating quantum mechanics, Werner Heisenberg decreases again, and vice
versa—the result is an
postulated his uncertainty principle, which states:
alternating amplitude: a
wave. Top: Plane wave.
Bottom: Wave packet.

where

here indicates standard deviation, a measure of spread or uncertainty;

x and p are a particle's position and linear momentum respectively.
 is the reduced Planck's constant (Planck's constant divided by 2 ).

Heisenberg originally explained this as a consequence of the process of measuring: Measuring position
accurately would disturb momentum and vice versa, offering an example (the "gamma-ray microscope")
that depended crucially on the de Broglie hypothesis. The thought is now, however, that this only partly
explains the phenomenon, but that the uncertainty also exists in the particle itself, even before the
measurement is made.

In fact, the modern explanation of the uncertainty principle, extending the Copenhagen interpretation first
put forward by Bohr and Heisenberg, depends even more centrally on the wave nature of a particle. Just
as it is nonsensical to discuss the precise location of a wave on a string, particles do not have perfectly
precise positions; likewise, just as it is nonsensical to discuss the wavelength of a "pulse" wave traveling
down a string, particles do not have perfectly precise momenta that corresponds to the inverse of
wavelength. Moreover, when position is relatively well defined, the wave is pulse-like and has a very ill-
defined wavelength, and thus momentum. And conversely, when momentum, and thus wavelength, is
relatively well defined, the wave looks long and sinusoidal, and therefore it has a very ill-defined
position.

de Broglie–Bohm theory
De Broglie himself had proposed a pilot wave construct to
explain the observed wave-particle duality. In this view, each
particle has a well-defined position and momentum, but is guided
by a wave function derived from Schrödinger's equation. The
pilot wave theory was initially rejected because it generated non-
local effects when applied to systems involving more than one
particle. Non-locality, however, soon became established as an Couder experiments,[17]
integral feature of quantum theory and David Bohm extended de "materializing" the pilot wave model.
Broglie's model to explicitly include it.

In the resulting representation, also called the de Broglie–Bohm theory or Bohmian mechanics,[18] the
wave-particle duality vanishes, and explains the wave behaviour as a scattering with wave appearance,
because the particle's motion is subject to a guiding equation or quantum potential.

This idea seems to me so natural and simple, to resolve the wave–particle dilemma in such a
clear and ordinary way, that it is a great mystery to me that it was so generally ignored.[19] –
J.S.Bell

The best illustration of the pilot-wave model was given by Couder's 2010 "walking droplets"
experiments,[20] demonstrating the pilot-wave behaviour in a macroscopic mechanical analog.[17]

Wave nature of large objects

Since the demonstrations of wave-like properties in photons and electrons, similar experiments have been
conducted with neutrons and protons. Among the most famous experiments are those of Estermann and
Otto Stern in 1929.[21] Authors of similar recent experiments with atoms and molecules, described below,
claim that these larger particles also act like waves.
A dramatic series of experiments emphasizing the action of gravity in relation to wave–particle duality
was conducted in the 1970s using the neutron interferometer.[22] Neutrons, one of the components of the
atomic nucleus, provide much of the mass of a nucleus and thus of ordinary matter. In the neutron
interferometer, they act as quantum-mechanical waves directly subject to the force of gravity. While the
results were not surprising since gravity was known to act on everything, including light (see tests of
general relativity and the Pound–Rebka falling photon experiment), the self-interference of the quantum
mechanical wave of a massive fermion in a gravitational field had never been experimentally confirmed
before.

In 1999, the diffraction of C60 fullerenes by researchers from the University of Vienna was reported.[23]
Fullerenes are comparatively large and massive objects, having an atomic mass of about 720 u. The de
Broglie wavelength of the incident beam was about 2.5 pm, whereas the diameter of the molecule is
about 1 nm, about 400 times larger. In 2012, these far-field diffraction experiments could be extended to
phthalocyanine molecules and their heavier derivatives, which are composed of 58 and 114 atoms
respectively. In these experiments the build-up of such interference patterns could be recorded in real
time and with single molecule sensitivity.[24][25]

In 2003, the Vienna group also demonstrated the wave nature of tetraphenylporphyrin[26]—a flat biodye
with an extension of about 2 nm and a mass of 614 u. For this demonstration they employed a near-field
Talbot Lau interferometer.[27][28] In the same interferometer they also found interference fringes for
C60F48., a fluorinated buckyball with a mass of about 1600 u, composed of 108 atoms.[26] Large
molecules are already so complex that they give experimental access to some aspects of the quantum-
classical interface, i.e., to certain decoherence mechanisms.[29][30] In 2011, the interference of molecules
as heavy as 6910 u could be demonstrated in a Kapitza–Dirac–Talbot–Lau interferometer.[31] In 2013,
the interference of molecules beyond 10,000 u has been demonstrated.[32]

Whether objects heavier than the Planck mass (about the weight of a large bacterium) have a de Broglie
wavelength is theoretically unclear and experimentally unreachable; above the Planck mass a particle's
Compton wavelength would be smaller than the Planck length and its own Schwarzschild radius, a scale
at which current theories of physics may break down or need to be replaced by more general ones.[33]

Recently Couder, Fort, et al. showed[34] that we can use macroscopic oil droplets on a vibrating surface
as a model of wave–particle duality—localized droplet creates periodical waves around and interaction
with them leads to quantum-like phenomena: interference in double-slit experiment,[35] unpredictable
tunneling[36] (depending in complicated way on practically hidden state of field), orbit quantization[37]
(that particle has to 'find a resonance' with field perturbations it creates—after one orbit, its internal phase
has to return to the initial state) and Zeeman effect.[38]

Importance
Wave–particle duality is deeply embedded into the foundations of quantum mechanics. In the formalism
of the theory, all the information about a particle is encoded in its wave function, a complex-valued
function roughly analogous to the amplitude of a wave at each point in space. This function evolves
according to Schrödinger equation. For particles with mass this equation has solutions that follow the
form of the wave equation. Propagation of such waves leads to wave-like phenomena such as
interference and diffraction. Particles without mass, like photons, have no solutions of the Schrödinger
equation so have another wave.
The particle-like behaviour is most evident due to phenomena associated with measurement in quantum
mechanics. Upon measuring the location of the particle, the particle will be forced into a more localized
state as given by the uncertainty principle. When viewed through this formalism, the measurement of the
wave function will randomly lead to wave function collapse to a sharply peaked function at some
location. For particles with mass, the likelihood of detecting the particle at any particular location is
equal to the squared amplitude of the wave function there. The measurement will return a well-defined
position, and is subject to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

Following the development of quantum field theory the ambiguity disappeared. The field permits
solutions that follow the wave equation, which are referred to as the wave functions. The term particle is
used to label the irreducible representations of the Lorentz group that are permitted by the field. An
interaction as in a Feynman diagram is accepted as a calculationally convenient approximation where the
outgoing legs are known to be simplifications of the propagation and the internal lines are for some order
in an expansion of the field interaction. Since the field is non-local and quantized, the phenomena that
previously were thought of as paradoxes are explained. Within the limits of the wave-particle duality the
quantum field theory gives the same results.

Visualization
There are two ways to visualize the wave-particle behaviour by the standard model and by the de
Broglie–Bohr theory.

Below is an illustration of wave–particle duality as it relates to de Broglie's hypothesis and Heisenberg's

Uncertainty principle, in terms of the position and momentum space wavefunctions for one spinless
particle with mass in one dimension. These wavefunctions are Fourier transforms of each other.

The more localized the position-space wavefunction, the more likely the particle is to be found with the
position coordinates in that region, and correspondingly the momentum-space wavefunction is less
localized so the possible momentum components the particle could have are more widespread.

Conversely the more localized the momentum-space wavefunction, the more likely the particle is to be
found with those values of momentum components in that region, and correspondingly the less localized
the position-space wavefunction, so the position coordinates the particle could occupy are more
widespread.
 Position x and momentum p wavefunctions corresponding to quantum particles. The
colour opacity of the particles corresponds to the probability density of finding the
particle with position x or momentum component p.
Top: If wavelength λ is unknown, so are momentum p, wave-vector k and energy E
(de Broglie relations). As the particle is more localized in position space, Δx is smaller
than for Δpx.
Bottom: If λ is known, so are p, k, and E. As the particle is more localized in
momentum space, Δp is smaller than for Δx.

Alternative views
Wave–particle duality is an ongoing conundrum in modern physics. Most physicists accept wave-particle
duality as the best explanation for a broad range of observed phenomena; however, it is not without
controversy. Alternative views are also presented here. These views are not generally accepted by
mainstream physics, but serve as a basis for valuable discussion within the community.

1. Both-particle-and-wave view
The pilot wave model, originally developed by Louis de Broglie and further developed by David Bohm
into the hidden variable theory proposes that there is no duality, but rather a system exhibits both particle
properties and wave properties simultaneously, and particles are guided, in a deterministic fashion, by the
pilot wave (or its "quantum potential"), which will direct them to areas of constructive interference in
preference to areas of destructive interference. This idea is held by a significant minority within the
physics community.[39]

At least one physicist considers the "wave-duality" as not being an incomprehensible mystery. L.E.
Ballentine, Quantum Mechanics, A Modern Development (1989), p. 4, explains:

When first discovered, particle diffraction was a source of great puzzlement. Are "particles"
really "waves?" In the early experiments, the diffraction patterns were detected holistically
by means of a photographic plate, which could not detect individual particles. As a result,
the notion grew that particle and wave properties were mutually incompatible, or
complementary, in the sense that different measurement apparatuses would be required to
observe them. That idea, however, was only an unfortunate generalization from a
 technological limitation. Today it is possible to detect the arrival of individual electrons, and
to see the diffraction pattern emerge as a statistical pattern made up of many small spots
(Tonomura et al., 1989). Evidently, quantum particles are indeed particles, but whose
behaviour is very different from classical physics would have us to expect.

The Afshar experiment[40] (2007) may suggest that it is possible to simultaneously observe both wave
and particle properties of photons. This claim is, however, disputed by other scientists.[41][42][43][44]

2. Wave-only view
Carver Mead, an American scientist and professor at Caltech, proposes that the duality can be replaced
by a "wave-only" view. In his book Collective Electrodynamics: Quantum Foundations of
Electromagnetism (2000), Mead purports to analyze the behavior of electrons and photons purely in
terms of electron wave functions, and attributes the apparent particle-like behavior to quantization effects
and eigenstates. According to reviewer David Haddon:[45]

Mead has cut the Gordian knot of quantum complementarity. He claims that atoms, with
their neutrons, protons, and electrons, are not particles at all but pure waves of matter. Mead
cites as the gross evidence of the exclusively wave nature of both light and matter the
discovery between 1933 and 1996 of ten examples of pure wave phenomena, including the
ubiquitous laser of CD players, the self-propagating electrical currents of superconductors,
and the Bose–Einstein condensate of atoms.

Albert Einstein, who, in his search for a Unified Field Theory, did not accept wave-particle duality,
wrote:[46]

This double nature of radiation (and of material corpuscles) ... has been interpreted by
quantum-mechanics in an ingenious and amazingly successful fashion. This interpretation ...
appears to me as only a temporary way out...

The many-worlds interpretation (MWI) is sometimes presented as a waves-only theory, including by its
originator, Hugh Everett who referred to MWI as "the wave interpretation".[47]

The three wave hypothesis of R. Horodecki relates the particle to wave.[48][49] The hypothesis implies
that a massive particle is an intrinsically spatially, as well as temporally extended, wave phenomenon by
a nonlinear law.

The deterministic collapse theory[50] considers collapse and measurement as two independent physical
processes. Collapse occurs when two wavepackets spatially overlap and satisfy a mathemetical criterion,
which depends on the parameters of both wavepackets. It is a contraction to the overlap volume. In a
measurement apparatus one of the two wavepackets is one of the atomic clusters, which constitute the
apparatus, and the wavepackets collapse to at most the volume of such a cluster. This mimics the action
of a point particle.

3. Particle-only view
Still in the days of the old quantum theory, a pre-quantum-mechanical version of wave–particle duality
was pioneered by William Duane,[51] and developed by others including Alfred Landé.[52] Duane
explained diffraction of x-rays by a crystal in terms solely of their particle aspect. The deflection of the
trajectory of each diffracted photon was explained as due to quantized momentum transfer from the
spatially regular structure of the diffracting crystal.[53]

4. Neither-wave-nor-particle view
It has been argued that there are never exact particles or waves, but only some compromise or
intermediate between them. For this reason, in 1928 Arthur Eddington[54] coined the name "wavicle" to
describe the objects although it is not regularly used today. One consideration is that zero-dimensional
mathematical points cannot be observed. Another is that the formal representation of such points, the
Dirac delta function is unphysical, because it cannot be normalized. Parallel arguments apply to pure
wave states. Roger Penrose states:[55]

Such 'position states' are idealized wavefunctions in the opposite sense from the momentum
states. Whereas the momentum states are infinitely spread out, the position states are
infinitely concentrated. Neither is normalizable [...].

5. Relational approach to wave–particle duality

Relational quantum mechanics has been developed as a point of view that regards the event of particle
detection as having established a relationship between the quantized field and the detector. The inherent
ambiguity associated with applying Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is consequently avoided; hence
there is no wave-particle duality.[56]

Uses
Although it is difficult to draw a line separating wave–particle duality from the rest of quantum
mechanics, it is nevertheless possible to list some applications of this basic idea.

Wave–particle duality is exploited in electron microscopy, where the small wavelengths

associated with the electron can be used to view objects much smaller than what is visible
using visible light.
Similarly, neutron diffraction uses neutrons with a wavelength of about 0.1 nm, the typical
spacing of atoms in a solid, to determine the structure of solids.
Photos are now able to show this dual nature, which may lead to new ways of examining
and recording this behaviour.[57]

See also
Arago spot
Afshar experiment
Basic concepts of quantum mechanics
Complementarity (physics)
Einstein's thought experiments
Electron wave-packet interference
 Englert–Greenberger–Yasin duality relation
EPR paradox
Faraday wave
Hanbury Brown and Twiss effect
Kapitsa–Dirac effect
Photon polarization
Scattering theory
Wavelet
Wheeler's delayed choice experiment

References
1. Albert Einstein, Leopold Infeld (1938). The Evolution of Physics: The Growth of Ideas from
Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta. Cambridge University Press. Quoted in Harrison,
David (2002). "Complementarity and the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum
Mechanics" (http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/Complementarity/Co
mpCopen.html). UPSCALE. Dept. of Physics, U. of Toronto. Retrieved 2008-06-21.
2. Walter Greiner (2001). Quantum Mechanics: An Introduction (https://books.google.com/?id=
7qCMUfwoQcAC&pg=PA29&dq=wave-particle+all-particles). Springer. ISBN 978-3-540-
67458-0.
3. R. Eisberg & R. Resnick (1985). Quantum Physics of Atoms, Molecules, Solids, Nuclei, and
Particles (https://archive.org/details/quantumphysicsof00eisb/page/59) (2nd ed.). John
Wiley & Sons. pp. 59–60 (https://archive.org/details/quantumphysicsof00eisb/page/59).
ISBN 978-0-471-87373-0. "For both large and small wavelengths, both matter and radiation
have both particle and wave aspects.... But the wave aspects of their motion become more
difficult to observe as their wavelengths become shorter.... For ordinary macroscopic
particles the mass is so large that the momentum is always sufficiently large to make the de
Broglie wavelength small enough to be beyond the range of experimental detection, and
classical mechanics reigns supreme."
4. Kumar, Manjit (2011). Quantum: Einstein, Bohr, and the Great Debate about the Nature of
Reality (https://archive.org/details/quantumeinsteinb00manj/page/242) (Reprint ed.). W. W.
Norton & Company. pp. 242, 375–376 (https://archive.org/details/quantumeinsteinb00manj/
page/242). ISBN 978-0-393-33988-8.
5. Bohr, N. (1927/1928). The quantum postulate and the recent development of atomic theory,
Nature Supplement April 14 1928, 121: 580–590 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v12
1/n3050/abs/121580a0.html).
6. Camilleri, K. (2009). Heisenberg and the Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: the
Physicist as Philosopher, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK, ISBN 978-0-521-
88484-6.
7. Preparata, G. (2002). An Introduction to a Realistic Quantum Physics, World Scientific,
River Edge NJ, ISBN 978-981-238-176-7.
8. Nathaniel Page Stites, M.A./M.S. "Light I: Particle or Wave?," Visionlearning Vol. PHY-1 (3),
2005. http://www.visionlearning.com/library/module_viewer.php?mid=132
9. Young, Thomas (1804). "Bakerian Lecture: Experiments and calculations relative to physical
optics" (https://books.google.com/books?id=7AZGAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q&f=f
alse). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. 94: 1–16.
Bibcode:1804RSPT...94....1Y (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1804RSPT...94....1Y).
doi:10.1098/rstl.1804.0001 (https://doi.org/10.1098%2Frstl.1804.0001).
10. Thomas Young: The Double Slit Experiment (http://www.juliantrubin.com/bigten/youngdoubl
eslit.html)
11. Buchwald, Jed (1989). The Rise of the Wave Theory of Light: Optical Theory and
Experiment in the Early Nineteenth Century (https://archive.org/details/riseofwavetheory000
0buch). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-07886-1. OCLC 18069573
(https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/18069573).
12. Lamb, Willis E.; Scully, Marlan O. (1968). "The photoelectric effect without photons" (https://
ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19680009569_1968009569.pdf) (PDF).
13. Thorn, J. J.; Neel, M. S.; Donato, V. W.; Bergreen, G. S.; Davies, R. E.; Beck, M. (2004).
"Observing the quantum behavior of light in an undergraduate laboratory" (https://digitalcom
mons.usu.edu/psc_facpub/797). American Journal of Physics. 72 (9): 1210.
Bibcode:2004AmJPh..72.1210T (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AmJPh..72.1210T).
doi:10.1119/1.1737397 (https://doi.org/10.1119%2F1.1737397).
14. Zhang, Q (1996). "Intensity dependence of the photoelectric effect induced by a circularly
polarized laser beam". Physics Letters A. 216 (1–5): 125–128.
Bibcode:1996PhLA..216..125Z (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996PhLA..216..125Z).
doi:10.1016/0375-9601(96)00259-9 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2F0375-9601%2896%290025
9-9).
15. Donald H Menzel, "Fundamental formulas of Physics", vol. 1, p. 153; Gives the de Broglie
wavelengths for composite particles such as protons and neutrons.
16. Brian Greene, The Elegant Universe, page 104 "all matter has a wave-like character"
17. See this Science Channel production (Season II, Episode VI "How Does The Universe
Work?"), presented by Morgan Freeman, https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=W9yWv5dqSKk
18. Bohmian Mechanics (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/), Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy.
19. Bell, J. S., "Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics", Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1987.
20. Y. Couder, A. Boudaoud, S. Protière, Julien Moukhtar, E. Fort: Walking droplets: a form of
wave-particle duality at macroscopic level?, doi:10.1051/epn/2010101 (https://doi.org/10.10
51%2Fepn%2F2010101), (PDF (http://www.df.uba.ar/users/dasso/fis4_2do_cuat_2010/walk
er.pdf))
21. Estermann, I.; Stern O. (1930). "Beugung von Molekularstrahlen". Zeitschrift für Physik. 61
(1–2): 95–125. Bibcode:1930ZPhy...61...95E (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1930ZPhy...
61...95E). doi:10.1007/BF01340293 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2FBF01340293).
22. R. Colella, A. W. Overhauser, and S. A. Werner, Observation of Gravitationally Induced
Quantum Interference, Phys. Rev. Lett. 34, 1472–1474 (1975).
23. Arndt, Markus; O. Nairz; J. Voss-Andreae, C. Keller, G. van der Zouw, A. Zeilinger (14
October 1999). "Wave–particle duality of C60". Nature. 401 (6754): 680–682.
Bibcode:1999Natur.401..680A (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999Natur.401..680A).
doi:10.1038/44348 (https://doi.org/10.1038%2F44348). PMID 18494170 (https://pubmed.nc
bi.nlm.nih.gov/18494170).
24. Juffmann, Thomas; et al. (25 March 2012). "Real-time single-molecule imaging of quantum
interference". Nature Nanotechnology. 7 (5): 297–300. arXiv:1402.1867 (https://arxiv.org/ab
s/1402.1867). doi:10.1038/nnano.2012.34 (https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fnnano.2012.34).
PMID 22447163 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22447163).
25. Quantumnanovienna. "Single molecules in a quantum interference movie" (https://www.yout
ube.com/watch?v=vCiOMQIRU7I). Retrieved 2012-04-21.
26. Hackermüller, Lucia; Stefan Uttenthaler; Klaus Hornberger; Elisabeth Reiger; Björn Brezger;
Anton Zeilinger; Markus Arndt (2003). "The wave nature of biomolecules and
fluorofullerenes" (http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v401/n67
54/full/401680a0_fs.html&content_filetype=pdf). Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 (9): 090408.
arXiv:quant-ph/0309016 (https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0309016).
Bibcode:2003PhRvL..91i0408H (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003PhRvL..91i0408H).
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.090408 (https://doi.org/10.1103%2FPhysRevLett.91.090408).
PMID 14525169 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14525169).
27. Clauser, John F.; S. Li (1994). "Talbot von Lau interefometry with cold slow potassium
atoms" (http://ojps.aip.org). Phys. Rev. A. 49 (4): R2213–2217.
Bibcode:1994PhRvA..49.2213C (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994PhRvA..49.2213C).
doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.49.R2213 (https://doi.org/10.1103%2FPhysRevA.49.R2213).
PMID 9910609 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9910609).
28. Brezger, Björn; Lucia Hackermüller; Stefan Uttenthaler; Julia Petschinka; Markus Arndt;
Anton Zeilinger (2002). "Matter-wave interferometer for large molecules" (http://arquivo.pt/w
ayback/20160521013550/http://ojps.aip.org/getpdf/servlet/GetPDFServlet?filetype=pdf&id=
PRLTAO000088000010100404000001&idtype=cvips). Phys. Rev. Lett. 88 (10): 100404.
arXiv:quant-ph/0202158 (https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0202158).
Bibcode:2002PhRvL..88j0404B (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002PhRvL..88j0404B).
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.100404 (https://doi.org/10.1103%2FPhysRevLett.88.100404).
PMID 11909334 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11909334). Archived from the original (htt
p://ojps.aip.org/getpdf/servlet/GetPDFServlet?filetype=pdf&id=PRLTAO0000880000101004
04000001&idtype=cvips) on 2016-05-21.
29. Hornberger, Klaus; Stefan Uttenthaler; Björn Brezger; Lucia Hackermüller; Markus Arndt;
Anton Zeilinger (2003). "Observation of Collisional Decoherence in Interferometry" (http://ar
quivo.pt/wayback/20160521013602/http://ojps.aip.org/getpdf/servlet/GetPDFServlet?filetype
=pdf&id=PRLTAO000090000016160401000001&idtype=cvips). Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 (16):
160401. arXiv:quant-ph/0303093 (https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0303093).
Bibcode:2003PhRvL..90p0401H
(https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003PhRvL..90p0401H).
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.160401 (https://doi.org/10.1103%2FPhysRevLett.90.160401).
PMID 12731960 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12731960). Archived from the original (htt
p://ojps.aip.org/getpdf/servlet/GetPDFServlet?filetype=pdf&id=PRLTAO0000900000161604
01000001&idtype=cvips) on 2016-05-21.
30. Hackermüller, Lucia; Klaus Hornberger; Björn Brezger; Anton Zeilinger; Markus Arndt
(2004). "Decoherence of matter waves by thermal emission of radiation". Nature. 427
(6976): 711–714. arXiv:quant-ph/0402146 (https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0402146).
Bibcode:2004Natur.427..711H (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004Natur.427..711H).
doi:10.1038/nature02276 (https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fnature02276). PMID 14973478 (http
s://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14973478).
31. Gerlich, Stefan; et al. (2011). "Quantum interference of large organic molecules" (https://ww
w.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3104521). Nature Communications. 2 (263): 263.
Bibcode:2011NatCo...2..263G (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011NatCo...2..263G).
doi:10.1038/ncomms1263 (https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fncomms1263). PMC 3104521 (http
s://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3104521). PMID 21468015 (https://pubmed.ncbi.
nlm.nih.gov/21468015).
32. Eibenberger, S.; Gerlich, S.; Arndt, M.; Mayor, M.; Tüxen, J. (2013). "Matter–wave
interference of particles selected from a molecular library with masses exceeding 10 000
amu". Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics. 15 (35): 14696–14700. arXiv:1310.8343 (http
s://arxiv.org/abs/1310.8343). Bibcode:2013PCCP...1514696E (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.ed
u/abs/2013PCCP...1514696E). doi:10.1039/c3cp51500a (https://doi.org/10.1039%2Fc3cp51
500a). PMID 23900710 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23900710).
33. Peter Gabriel Bergmann, The Riddle of Gravitation, Courier Dover Publications, 1993
ISBN 0-486-27378-4 online (https://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0486273784&id=W
YxkrwMidp0C&pg=PR10&lpg=PR10&dq=wavelength+%22planck+mass%22+%22Schwarz
schild+radius%22&sig=Lwt9PWQoB7R4RWxQXYE_tyRVp9A)
34. Yves Couder Explains Wave/Particle Duality via Silicon Droplets (https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=W9yWv5dqSKk) – You Tube
35. Y. Couder, E. Fort, Single-Particle Diffraction and Interference at a Macroscopic Scale, PRL
97, 154101 (2006) online (https://hekla.ipgp.fr/IMG/pdf/Couder-Fort_PRL_2006.pdf)
36. A. Eddi, E. Fort, F. Moisy, Y. Couder, Unpredictable Tunneling of a Classical Wave–Particle
Association, PRL 102, 240401 (2009) (http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v102/i24/e240401)
37. Fort, E.; Eddi, A.; Boudaoud, A.; Moukhtar, J.; Couder, Y. (2010). "Path-memory induced
quantization of classical orbits". PNAS. 107 (41): 17515–17520. arXiv:1307.6051 (https://ar
xiv.org/abs/1307.6051). Bibcode:2010PNAS..10717515F (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/ab
s/2010PNAS..10717515F). doi:10.1073/pnas.1007386107 (https://doi.org/10.1073%2Fpna
s.1007386107).
38. Level Splitting at Macroscopic Scale (http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v108/i26/e264503)
39. (Buchanan pp. 29–31)
40. Afshar, S.S.; et al. (2007). "Paradox in Wave Particle Duality". Found. Phys. 37 (2): 295.
arXiv:quant-ph/0702188 (https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0702188).
Bibcode:2007FoPh...37..295A (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007FoPh...37..295A).
doi:10.1007/s10701-006-9102-8 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10701-006-9102-8).
41. Kastner, R (2005). "Why the Afshar experiment does not refute complementarity". Studies in
History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern
Physics. 36 (4): 649–658. arXiv:quant-ph/0502021 (https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0502021).
Bibcode:2005SHPMP..36..649K (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005SHPMP..36..649K).
doi:10.1016/j.shpsb.2005.04.006 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.shpsb.2005.04.006).
42. Steuernagel, Ole (2007-08-03). "Afshar's Experiment Does Not Show a Violation of
Complementarity". Foundations of Physics. 37 (9): 1370–1385. arXiv:quant-ph/0512123 (htt
ps://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0512123). Bibcode:2007FoPh...37.1370S (https://ui.adsabs.harv
ard.edu/abs/2007FoPh...37.1370S). doi:10.1007/s10701-007-9153-5 (https://doi.org/10.100
7%2Fs10701-007-9153-5). ISSN 0015-9018 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0015-9018).
43. Jacques, V.; Lai, N. D.; Dréau, A.; Zheng, D.; Chauvat, D.; Treussart, F.; Grangier, P.; Roch,
J.-F. (2008-01-01). "Illustration of quantum complementarity using single photons interfering
on a grating". New Journal of Physics. 10 (12): 123009. arXiv:0807.5079 (https://arxiv.org/a
bs/0807.5079). Bibcode:2008NJPh...10l3009J (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008NJP
h...10l3009J). doi:10.1088/1367-2630/10/12/123009 (https://doi.org/10.1088%2F1367-263
0%2F10%2F12%2F123009). ISSN 1367-2630 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1367-2630).
44. Georgiev, Danko (2012-01-26). "Quantum Histories and Quantum Complementarity". ISRN
Mathematical Physics. 2012: 1–37. doi:10.5402/2012/327278 (https://doi.org/10.5402%2F2
012%2F327278).
45. David Haddon. "Recovering Rational Science" (http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/arti
cle.php?id=16-07-044-b). Touchstone. Retrieved 2007-09-12.
46. Paul Arthur Schilpp, ed, Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, Open Court (1949), ISBN 0-
87548-133-7, p. 51.
47. See section VI(e) of Everett's thesis: The Theory of the Universal Wave Function, in Bryce
Seligman DeWitt, R. Neill Graham, eds, The Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum
Mechanics, Princeton Series in Physics, Princeton University Press (1973), ISBN 0-691-
08131-X, pp. 3–140.
48. Horodecki, R. (1981). "De broglie wave and its dual wave". Phys. Lett. A. 87 (3): 95–97.
Bibcode:1981PhLA...87...95H (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981PhLA...87...95H).
doi:10.1016/0375-9601(81)90571-5 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2F0375-9601%2881%299057
1-5).
49. Horodecki, R. (1983). "Superluminal singular dual wave". Lettere al Nuovo Cimento. 38
(15): 509–511. doi:10.1007/BF02817964 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2FBF02817964).
50. Arthur Jabs, "A conjecture concerning determinism, reduction, and measurement in
quantum mechanics", Quantum Studies: Mathematics and Foundations, 3 (4), 279–292
(2016) also arXiv:1204.0614 (2017).
51. Duane, W. (1923). The transfer in quanta of radiation momentum to matter, Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. 9(5): 158–164 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1085314/pdf/pnas
01878-0020.pdf).
52. Landé, A. (1951). Quantum Mechanics (https://openlibrary.org/books/OL23825865M/Quant
um_mechanics), Sir Isaac Pitman and Sons, London, pp. 19–22.
53. Heisenberg, W. (1930). The Physical Principles of the Quantum Theory (http://philpapers.or
g/rec/HEITPP), translated by C. Eckart and F.C. Hoyt, University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, pp. 77–78.
54. Eddington, Arthur Stanley (1928). The Nature of the Physical World (https://archive.org/deta
ils/natureofphysical00eddi). Cambridge, UK: MacMillan. p. 201.
55. Penrose, Roger (2007). The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the
Universe. Vintage. p. 521, §21.10. ISBN 978-0-679-77631-4.
56. Q. Zheng and T. Kobayashi, Quantum Optics as a Relativistic Theory of Light (http://www.qu
antum-relativity.org/Quantum-Relativity.pdf.); Physics Essays 9 (1996) 447. Annual Report,
Department of Physics, School of Science, University of Tokyo (1992) 240.
57. Papageorgiou, Nik (2 March 2015). "Press release: The first ever photograph of light as
both a particle and wave" (https://actu.epfl.ch/news/the-first-ever-photograph-of-light-as-bot
h-a-parti/). Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne.

External links
Animation, applications and research linked to the wave-particle duality and other basic
quantum phenomena (http://www.toutestquantique.fr/#dualite) (Université Paris Sud)
H. Nikolic (2007). "Quantum mechanics: Myths and facts". Foundations of Physics. 37 (11):
1563–1611. arXiv:quant-ph/0609163 (https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0609163).
Bibcode:2007FoPh...37.1563N (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007FoPh...37.1563N).
doi:10.1007/s10701-007-9176-y (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10701-007-9176-y).
Young & Geller. "College Physics" (http://wps.aw.com/aw_young_physics_11).
B. Crowell. "Ch. 34, Light as a Particle" (http://www.lightandmatter.com/lm) (Web page).
Retrieved December 10, 2006.
E.H. Carlson, Wave–Particle Duality: Light (http://www.physnet.org/modules/pdf_modules/m
246.pdf) on Project PHYSNET (http://www.physnet.org)
R. Nave. "Wave–Particle Duality" (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod1.html)
(Web page). HyperPhysics. Georgia State University, Department of Physics and
Astronomy. Retrieved December 12, 2005.
Juffmann, Thomas; et al. (25 March 2012). "Real-time single-molecule imaging of quantum
interference" (http://www.quantumnano.at/far-field-more.3953.html). Nature
Nanotechnology. Retrieved 21 January 2014.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wave–particle_duality&oldid=936890646"

This page was last edited on 21 January 2020, at 17:17 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using
this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.