Photons or wave trains? The error of Alain Aspect.

Lev Regelson · #1 02-08-2010, 08:10 AM

In 1986 the French physicists Grangier, Roger and Aspect have made the decisive experiment to give the direct answer to a key question of quantum physics – does the light consist of photons or of wave trains?

In this experiment the radiation passed through "beam-splitter": semitransparent mirror BS which divided it on two equal parts, each registered by it's own detector (PM). If light consists of particles – photons, such particle can or pass through mirror, or be reflected from it: consequently the photon cannot get on both PM at once. If light consists from wave trains, each train will be divided by the mirror on two equal parts which will get on both detectors simultaneously.

Coincidence counting rate observed in experiment was almost 10 times less the value calculated from wave hypothesis and could be entirely attributed to casual impositions of starting impulses. Thereby authors make unequivocal conclusion: the light is a stream of the localised particles – photons which cannot be shared on parts.

However this experiment contains essential defect to which sufficient attention has not been paid till now.

The fundamental silent assumption has place at the heart of an experiment idea, which in itself requires experimental proof. The question of existence of corpuscular photon demands to pay the attention to the question of existence of corpuscular electron.

Two hypotheses: about localised electron and about a continuous electron field – lead to different conclusions about structure of radiation. If indivisible electron really exists it wholly participates in each act of emission. By this electron transition the train of electromagnetic field will be emitted with integral intensity always equal to one. Alan Aspect with co-authors have accepted this assumption without any discussion of other possibility which however has decisive influence on interpretation of their experiment.

If the electron-corpuscle does not exist, but only an electron field exists, the small part of electron "cloud" can transit on upper level. By transition of this part to the lower level an electromagnetic train of small intensity will be emitted. That will lead to reduction of a theoretical estimation of coincidence probability for one such train.

The method of source exiting in this experiment had had consequence very small population of upper level. Taking into account this factor, expecting coincidence rate was many orders less than noise level.

Principal conclusion from our reasoning: the question about photon existence remains open. More detailed see
The Error of Alain Aspect. An attempt of experimental proof of photon existence.