If we limit our attention to the interaction between light and matter (i.e. the behavior of photons and electrons only—so we we’re *not* talking quarks and gluons here), then the ‘crazy ideas’ of quantum mechanics can be summarized as follows:

- At the atomic or sub-atomic scale, we can no longer look at light as an electromagnetic
*wave*. It consists of*photons*, and photons come in blobs. Hence, to some extent, photons are ‘particle-like’. - At the atomic or sub-atomic scale,
*electrons*don’t behave like particles. For example, if we send them through a slit that’s small enough, we’ll observe a diffraction pattern. Hence, to some extent, electrons are ‘wave-like’.

In short, photons aren’t waves, but they aren’t particles either. Likewise, electrons aren’t particles, but they aren’t waves either. They are *neither*. The weirdest thing of all, perhaps, is that, while *light *and *matter *are two very *different *things in our daily experience – light and matter are opposite concepts, I’d say, just like particles and waves are opposite concepts) – they look pretty much the same in quantum physics: they are both represented by a *wavefunction*.

Let me immediately make a little note on terminology here. The term ‘wavefunction’ is a bit ambiguous, in my view, because it makes one think of a *real* wave, like a water wave, or an electromagnetic wave. Real waves are described by real-valued wave functions describing, for example, the motion of a ball on a spring, or the displacement of a gas (e.g. air) as a *sound* wave propagates through it, or – in the case of an electromagnetic wave – the strength of the electric and magnetic field.

You may have questions about the ‘reality’ of fields, but electromagnetic waves – i.e. the classical description of light – are quite ‘real’ too, even if:

- Light doesn’t travel in a medium (like water or air: there is no
*aether*), and - The magnitude of the electric and magnetic field (they are usually denoted by
**E**and**B**) depend on your reference frame: if you calculate the fields using a*moving*coordinate system, you will get a different mixture of**E**and**B**. Therefore,**E**and**B**may not feel very ‘real’ when you look at them*separately*, but they are very real when we think of them as representing one*physical*phenomenon: the*electromagnetic*interaction between particles. So the**E**and**B**mix is, indeed, a*dual*representation*one*reality. I won’t dwell on that, as I’ve done that in another post of mine.

**How ‘real’ is the quantum-mechanical wavefunction?**

The *quantum-mechanical *wavefunction is not like any of these *real *waves. In fact, I’d rather use the term ‘probability wave’ but, apparently, that’s used only by bloggers like me 🙂 and so it’s not very scientific. That’s for a good reason, because it’s not quite accurate either: the wavefunction in quantum mechanics represents probability *amplitudes*, not probabilities. So we should, perhaps, be consistent and term it a ‘probability amplitude wave’ – but then that’s too cumbersome obviously, so the term ‘probability wave’ may be confusing, but it’s not so bad, I think.

Amplitudes and probabilities are related as follows:

- Probabilities are
*real*numbers between 0 and 1: they represent the probability of something happening, e.g. a photon moves from point A to B, or a photon is absorbed (and emitted) by an electron (i.e. a ‘junction’ or ‘coupling’, as you know). - Amplitudes are
*complex numbers*, or ‘arrows’ as Feynman calls them: they have a length (or*magnitude*) and a*direction*. - We get the probabilities by taking the (absolute) square of the amplitudes.

So photons aren’t waves, but they aren’t particles either. Likewise, electrons aren’t particles, but they aren’t waves either. They are *neither*. So what are they? We don’t have words to describe what they are. Some use the term ‘wavicle’ but that doesn’t answer the question, because who knows what a ‘wavicle’ is? So we don’t know what they ** are**. But we do know how they

**. As Feynman puts it, when comparing the behavior of light and then of electrons in the double-slit experiment—struggling to find language to describe what’s going on: “There is one lucky break: electrons behave just like light.”**

*behave*He says so because of that wave function: the mathematical formalism is the same, for photons and for electrons. Exactly the same? […] But that’s such a weird thing to say, isn’t it? We can’t help thinking of light as waves, and of electrons as particles. They can’t be the same. They’re different, aren’t they? They are.

**Scales and senses**

To some extent, the weirdness can be explained because the scale of *our* world is not atomic or sub-atomic. Therefore, we ‘see’ things differently. Let me say a few words about the instrument we use to look at the world: our eye.

Our eye is particular. The retina has two types of receptors: the so-called *cones *are used in bright light, and distinguish color, but when we are in a dark room, the so-called *rods *become sensitive, and it is believed that they actually can detect a single photon of light. However, neural filters only allow a *signal* to pass to the brain when at least five photons arrive within less than a tenth of a second. A tenth of a second is, roughly, the averaging time of our eye. So, as Feynman puts it: “If we were evolved a little further so we could see ten times more sensitively, we wouldn’t have this discussion—we would all have seen very dim light of one color as a series of intermittent little flashes of equal intensity.” In other words, the ‘particle-like’ character of light would have been obvious to us.

Let me make a few more remarks here, which you may or may not find useful. The *sense* of ‘color’ is not something ‘out there’: colors, like red or brown, are *experiences *in our eye and our brain. There are ‘pigments’ in the cones (cones are the receptors that work only if the intensity of the light is high enough) and these pigments absorb the light spectrum somewhat differently, as a result of which we ‘see’ color. Different animals see different things. For example, a bee can distinguish between white paper using zinc white versus lead white, because they reflect light differently in the ultraviolet spectrum, which the bee can see but we don’t. Bees can also tell the direction of the sun without seeing the sun itself, because they are sensitive to polarized light, and the scattered light of the sky (i.e. the *blue *sky as *we* see it) is polarized. The bee can also notice flicker up to 200 oscillations per second, while we see it only up to 20, because our averaging time is like a tenth of a second, which is short for us, but so the averaging time of the bee is much shorter. So *we *cannot see the quick leg movements and/or wing vibrations of bees, but the bee can!

Sometimes we can’t see any color. For example, we see the night sky in ‘black and white’ because the light intensity is very low, and so it’s our rods, not the cones, that process the signal, and so these rods can’t ‘see’ color. So those beautiful color pictures of nebulae are not artificial (although the pictures are often enhanced). It’s just that the camera that is used to take those pictures (film or, nowadays, digital) is much more sensitive than our eye.

Regardless, color is a quality which we add to our experience of the outside world ourselves. What’s out there are electromagnetic waves with this or that wavelength (or, what amounts to the same, this or that frequency). So when critics of the exact sciences say so much is lost when looking at (visible) light as an electromagnetic wave in the range of 430 to 790 *teraherz*, they’re wrong. Those critics will say that physics reduces reality. That is *not* the case.

What’s going on is that our senses *process *the signal that they are receiving, especially when it comes to vision. As Feynman puts it: “None of the other senses involves such a large amount of calculation, so to speak, before the signal gets into a nerve that one can make measurements on. The calculations for all the rest of the senses usually happen in the brain itself, where it is very difficult to get at specific places to make measurements, because there are so many interconnections. Here, with the visual sense, we have the light, three layers of cells making calculations, and the results of the calculations being transmitted through the optic nerve.”

Hence, things like color and all of the other sensations that we have are the object of study of other sciences, including biochemistry and neurobiology, or physiology. For all we know, what’s ‘out there’ is, effectively, just ‘boring’ stuff, like electromagnetic radiation, energy and ‘elementary particles’—whatever they are. No colors. Just frequencies. 🙂

**Light versus matter**

If we accept the crazy ideas of quantum mechanics, then the *what* and the *how* become one and the same. Hence we can say that photons and electrons *are *a wavefunction somewhere in space. Photons, of course, are always traveling, because they have energy but no rest mass. Hence, all their energy is in the movement: it’s *kinetic*, not potential. Electrons, on the other hand, usually stick around some nucleus. And, let’s not forget, they have an electric *charge*, so their energy is not only kinetic but also *potential*.

But, otherwise, it’s the same type of ‘thing’ in quantum mechanics: a wavefunction, like those below.

Why diagram A and B? It’s just to emphasize the difference between a real-valued wave function and those ‘probability waves’ we’re looking at here (diagram C to H). A and B represent a mass on a spring, oscillating at more or less the same frequency but a different *amplitude*. The amplitude here means the displacement of the mass. The function describing the displacement of a mass on a spring (so that’s diagram A and B) is an example of a real-valued wave function: it’s a simple sine or cosine function, as depicted below. [Note that a sine and a cosine are the same function really, except for a *phase difference* of 90°.]

Let’s now go back to our ‘probability waves’. Photons and electrons, light and matter… *The same wavefunction?* *Really? *How can the sunlight that warms us up in the morning and makes trees grow be the same as our body, or the tree? The light-matter duality that we experience must be rooted in very different realities, isn’t it?

Well… Yes and no. If we’re looking at *one* photon or *one* electron only, it’s the same *type* of wavefunction indeed. The same *type*… OK, you’ll say. So they are the same family or *genus* perhaps, as they say in biology. Indeed, both of them are, obviously, being referred to as ‘elementary particles’ in the so-called Standard Model of physics. But so what makes an electron and a photon specific as a *species*? What are the *differences*?

There’re quite a few, obviously:

**1.** First, as mentioned above, a photon is a *traveling* wave function and, because it has no rest mass, it travels at the ultimate speed, i.e. the speed of light (*c*). An electron usually sticks around or, if it travels through a wire, it travels at *very* low speeds. Indeed, you may find it hard to believe, but the drift velocity of the free electrons in a standard copper wire is measured in cm *per hour*, so that’s *very *slow indeed—and while the electrons in an electron microscope beam may be accelerated up to 70% of the speed of light, and close to *c *in those huge accelerators, you’re not likely to find an electron microscope or accelerator in Nature. In fact, you may want to remember that a simple thing like electricity going through copper wires in our houses is a relatively modern invention. 🙂

So, yes, those oscillating wave functions in those diagrams above are likely to represent some electron, rather than a photon. To be precise, the wave functions above are examples of *standing *(or *stationary*)* waves*, while a photon is a traveling wave: just extend that sine and cosine function in both directions if you’d want to visualize it or, even better, think of a sine and cosine function in an *envelope* traveling through space, such as the one depicted below.

Indeed, while the wave function of our photon is traveling through space, it is likely to be *limited *in space because, when everything is said and done, our photon is not everywhere: it must be *somewhere. *

At this point, it’s good to pause and think about *what *is traveling through space. It’s the oscillation. But what’s the oscillation? There is no medium here, and even if there would be some medium (like water or air or something like aether—which, let me remind you, isn’t there!), the medium itself would *not* be moving, or – I should be precise here – it would only move up and down as the wave propagates through space, as illustrated below. To be fully complete, I should add we also have longitudinal waves, like sound waves (pressure waves): in that case, the particles oscillate back and forth along the direction of wave propagation. But you get the point: the medium does *not *travel with the wave.

When talking electromagnetic waves, we have no medium. These **E** and **B** vectors oscillate but is *very wrong *to assume they use ‘some core of nearby space’, as Feynman puts it. They don’t. Those field vectors represent a *condition* at one specific point (admittedly, a point along the direction of travel) in space but, for all we know, an electromagnetic wave travels in a straight line and, hence, we can’t talk about its *diameter* or so.

Still, as mentioned above, we can imagine, more or less, what **E** and **B** stand for (we can use field line to visualize them, for instance), even if we have to take into account their relativity (calculating their values from a moving reference frame results in different mixtures of **E** and **B**). But what *are *those amplitudes? How should we visualize them?

The honest answer is: we can’t. They are what they are: two mathematical quantities which, taken together, form a two-dimensional vector, which we square to find a value for a real-life probability, which is something that – unlike the amplitude concept – *does *make sense to us. Still, that representation of a photon above (i.e. the traveling envelope with a sine and cosine inside) may help us to ‘understand’ it somehow. Again, you absolute have to get rid of the idea that these ‘oscillations’ would somehow occupy some physical space. They don’t. The wave itself has some definite *length*, for sure, but that’s a measurement in the direction of travel, which is often denoted as *x* when discussing uncertainty in its position, for example—as in the famous Uncertainty Principle (ΔxΔp >* h*).

You’ll say: Oh!—but then, at the very least, we *can* talk about the ‘length’ of a photon, can’t we? So then a photon is one-dimensional at least, not *zero*-dimensional! The answer is yes and no. I’ve talked about this before and so I’ll be short(er) on it now. A photon is emitted by an atom when an electron jumps from one energy level to another. It thereby emits a wave train that lasts about 10^{–8 }seconds. That’s not very long but, taking into account the rather spectacular speed of light (3×10^{8 }m/s), that still makes for a wave train with a length of not less than 3 meter. […] That’s quite a length, you’ll say. You’re right. But you forget that light travels at the speed of light and, hence, we will see this length as *zero* because of the relativistic length contraction effect. So… Well… Let me get back to the question: if photons and electrons are both represented by a wavefunction, what makes them different?

**2.** A more fundamental difference between photons and electrons is how they *interact ***with each other**.

From what I’ve written above, you understand that probability amplitudes are complex numbers, or ‘arrows’, or ‘two-dimensional vectors’. [Note that all of these terms have precise mathematical definitions and so they’re actually *not* the same, but the difference is too subtle to matter here.] Now, there are two ways of combining amplitudes, which are referred to as ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ interference respectively. I should immediately note that there’s actually nothing ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ about the interaction: we’re just putting two arrows together, and there are two ways to do that. That’s all.

The diagrams below show you these two ways. You’ll say: there are *four*! However, remember that we *square* an arrow to get a probability. Hence, the direction of the *final *arrow doesn’t matter when we’re taking the square: we get the same probability. It’s the direction of the *individual *amplitudes that matters when combining them. So the *square* of **A**+**B **is the same as the square of –(**A**+**B**)** **= –**A**+(–**B**)** = – A–B**. Likewise, the

*square*of

**A**–

**B**is the same as the square of –(

**A**–

**B**)

**= –**.

**A**+**B**These are the *only* two *logical *possibilities for combining arrows. I’ve written *ad nauseam *about this elsewhere: see my post on amplitudes and statistics, and so I won’t go into too much detail here. Or, in case you’d want something less than a full mathematical treatment, I can refer you to my previous post also, where I talked about the ‘stopwatch’ and the ‘phase’: the convention for the stopwatch is to have its hand turn clockwise (obviously!) while, in quantum physics, the phase of a wave function will turn counterclockwise. But so that’s just convention and it doesn’t matter, because it’s the phase *difference *between two amplitudes that counts. To use plain language: it’s the *difference* in the angles of the arrows, and so that difference is just the same if we reverse the direction of *both *arrows (which is equivalent to putting a minus sign in front of the final arrow).

OK. Let me get back to the lesson. The point is: this *logical* or *mathematical* dichotomy distinguishes *bosons *(i.e. force-carrying ‘particles’, like photons, which carry the electromagnetic force) from *fermions *(i.e. ‘matter-particles’, such as electrons and quarks, which make up protons and neutrons). Indeed, the so-called ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ interference leads to *two very different behaviors*:

- The probability of getting a boson where there are already
*n*present, is*n*+1 times stronger than it would be if there were none before. - In contrast, the probability of getting two electrons into
*exactly*the same state is*zero.*

The behavior of photons makes lasers possible: we can pile zillions of photon on top of each other, and then release all of them in one powerful burst. [The ‘flickering’ of a laser beam is due to the quick *succession* of such light bursts. If you want to know how it works in detail, check my post on lasers.]

The behavior of electrons is referred to as Fermi’s *exclusion principle*: it is only because real-life electrons can have one of two *spin polarizations *(i.e. two opposite directions of angular momentum, which are referred to as ‘up’ or ‘down’, but they might as well have been referred to as ‘left’ or ‘right’) that we find *two *electrons (instead of just one) in any atomic or molecular *orbital*.

So, yes, while both photons and electrons can be described by a similar-looking wave function, their behavior is *fundamentally *different indeed. How is that possible? Adding and subtracting ‘arrows’ is a very similar operation, isn’it?

It is and it isn’t. From a mathematical point of view, I’d say: yes. From a physics point of view, it’s obviously *not* very ‘similar’, as it *does *lead to these two very *different *behaviors: the behavior of photons allows for laser shows, while the behavior of electrons explain (almost) all the peculiarities of the material world, including us walking into doors. 🙂 If you want to check it out for yourself, just check Feynman’s *Lectures* for more details on this or, else, re-read my posts on it indeed.

**3.** Of course, there are even more differences between photons and electrons than the two *key *differences I mentioned above. Indeed, I’ve simplified a lot when I wrote what I wrote above. The wavefunctions of electrons in orbit around a nucleus can take very weird shapes, as shown in the illustration below—and please do *google* a few others if you’re not convinced. As mentioned above, they’re so-called *standing waves*, because they occupy a well-defined position in space only, but standing waves can look *very *weird. In contrast, traveling plane waves, or envelope curves like the one above, are much simpler.

In short: yes, the mathematical representation of photons and electrons (i.e. the wavefunction) is very similar, but photons and electrons are *very* different animals indeed.

**Potentiality and interconnectedness**

I guess that, by now, you agree that quantum theory is weird but, as you know, quantum theory *does* explain all of the stuff that couldn’t be explained before: “It works like a charm”, as Feynman puts it. In fact, he’s often quoted as having said the following:

“It is often stated that of all the theories proposed in this century, the silliest is quantum theory. Some say the the only thing that quantum theory has going for it, in fact, is that it is unquestionably correct.”

Silly? Crazy? Uncommon-sensy? Truth be told, you do get used to thinking in terms of amplitudes after a while. And, when you get used to them, those ‘complex’ numbers are no longer complicated. 🙂 Most importantly, when one thinks long and hard enough about it (as I am trying to do), it somehow all starts making sense.

For example, we’ve done away with dualism by adopting a unified mathematical framework, but the distinction between bosons and fermions still stands: an ‘elementary particle’ is *either* this *or* that. There are no ‘split personalities’ here. So the dualism just pops up at a *different level *of description, I’d say. In fact, I’d go one step further and say it pops up at a *deeper* level of understanding.

But what about the other assumptions in quantum mechanics. Some of them don’t make sense, do they? Well… I struggle for quite a while with the assumption that, in quantum mechanics, *anything is possible* really. For example, a photon (or an electron) can take *any* path in space, and it can travel at *any *speed (including speeds that are lower or higher than light). The probability may be *extremely *low, but it’s *possible*.

Now *that *is a *very *weird assumption. Why? Well… Think about it. If you enjoy watching soccer, you’ll agree that flying objects (I am talking about the soccer ball here) can have amazing trajectories. Spin, lift, drag, whatever—the result is a weird trajectory, like the one below:

But, frankly, a photon taking the ‘southern’ route in the illustration below? What are the ‘wheels and gears’ there? There’s nothing sensible about that route, is there?

In fact, there’s at least *three issues *here:

- First, you should note that strange curved paths
*in the real world*(such as the trajectories of billiard or soccer balls) are possible*only*because there’s friction involved—between the felt of the pool table cloth and the ball, or between the balls, or, in the case of soccer, between the ball and the air. There’s no friction in the vacuum. Hence, in empty space, all things should go in a straight line only. - While it’s quite amazing what’s possible,
*in the real world that is*, in terms of ‘weird trajectories’, even the weirdest trajectories of a billiard or soccer ball can be described by a ‘nice’ mathematical function. We obviously can’t say the same of that ‘southern route’ which a photon could follow,*in theory*that is. Indeed, you’ll agree the function describing*that*trajectory can*not*be ‘nice’. So even we’d allow all kinds of ‘weird’ trajectories, shouldn’t we limit ourselves to ‘nice’ trajectories only? I mean: it doesn’t make sense to allow the photons traveling from your computer screen to your retina take some trajectory to the Sun and back, does it? - Finally, and
*most fundamentally*perhaps, even when we would assume that there’s some*mechanism*combining (a) internal ‘wheels and gears’ (such as spin or angular momentum) with (b) felt or air or whatever medium to push against, what would be the mechanism determining the*choice*of the photon in regard to these various paths? In Feynman’s words:*How does the photon ‘make up its mind’?*

Feynman answers these questions, fully or partially (I’ll let you judge), when discussing the double-slit experiment with photons:

“Saying that a photon goes this or that way is false. I still catch myself saying, “Well, it goes either this way or that way,” but when I say that, I have to keep in mind that I mean in the sense of adding amplitudes: the photon has an amplitude to go one way, and an amplitude to go the other way. If the amplitudes oppose each other, the light won’t get there—even though both holes are open.”

It’s probably worth re-calling the results of that experiment here—if only to help you judge whether or not Feynman fully answer those questions above!

The set-up is shown below. We have a source S, two slits (A and B), and a detector D. The source sends photons out, *one by one*. In addition, we have two special detectors near the slits, which may or may not detect a photon, depending on whether or not they’re switched on as well as on their accuracy.

First, we close one of the slits, and we find that 1% of the photons goes through the other (so that’s one photon for every 100 photons that leave S). Now, we open both slits to study interference. You know the results already:

- If we switch the detectors off (so we have no way of knowing where the photon went), we get interference. The interference pattern depends on the distance between A and B and varies from 0% to 4%, as shown in diagram (a) below. That’s pretty standard. As you know, classical theory can explain that too
*assuming light is an electromagnetic**wave*. But so we have blobs of energy – photons – traveling*one by one*. So it’s really that double-slit experiment with electrons, or whatever other microscopic particles (as you know, they’ve done these interference electrons with large molecules as well—and they get the same result!). We get the interference pattern by using those quantum-mechanical rules to calculate probabilities: we first add the*amplitudes*, and it’s only when we’re finished adding those*amplitudes*, that we square the resulting arrow to the final probability. - If we switch those special detectors on, and if they are 100% reliable (i.e. all photons going through are being detected), then our photon suddenly behaves like a particle, instead of as a wave: they will go through one of the slits only, i.e.
*either*through A,*or*, alternatively, through B. So the two special detectors*never*go off together. Hence, as Feynman puts it: we shouldn’t think there is “sneaky way that the photon divides in two and then comes back together again.” It’s one or the other way and, and there’s*no interference*: the detector at D goes off 2% of the time, which is the simple sum of the*probabilities*for A and B (i.e. 1% + 1%). - When the special detectors near A and B are not 100% reliable (and, hence, do not detect all photons going through), we have
*three*possible final conditions: (i) A and D go off, (ii) B and D go off, and (iii) D goes off alone (none of the special detectors went off). In that case, we have a final curve that’s a mixture, as shown in diagram (c) and (d) below. We get it using the same quantum-mechanical rules: we add amplitudes first, and*then*we square to get the probabilities.

Now, I think you’ll agree with me that Feynman doesn’t answer my (our) question in regard to the ‘weird paths’. In fact, all of the diagrams he uses assume straight or nearby paths. Let me re-insert two of those diagrams below, to show you what I mean.

So where are all the strange non-linear paths here? Let me, in order to make sure you get what I am saying here, insert that illustration with the three crazy routes once again. What we’ve got above (Figure 33 and 34) is not like that. Not at all: *we’ve got only straight lines there!* Why? The answer to that question is easy: the crazy paths don’t matter because *their amplitudes cancel each other out*, and so that allows Feynman to simplify the whole situation and show all the relevant paths as straight lines only.

Now, I struggled with that for quite a while. *Not *because I can’t see the math or the geometry involved. No. Feynman does a great job showing *why* those amplitudes cancel each other out indeed (if you want a summary, see my previous post once again). My ‘problem’ is something else. It’s hard to phrase it, but let me try: why would we even *allow* for the logical or mathematical possibility of ‘weird paths’ (and let me again insert that stupid diagram below) if our ‘set of rules’ ensures that the truly ‘weird’ paths (like that photon traveling from your computer screen to your eye doing a detour taking it to the Sun and back) cancel each other out anyway? Does that respect *Occam’s Razor*? Can’t we devise some theory including ‘sensible’ paths only?

Of course, I am just an autodidact with limited time, and I know hundreds (if not thousands) of the best scientists have thought long and hard about this question and, hence, I readily accept the answer is quite simply: no. There is no better theory. I accept that answer, ungrudgingly, not only because I think I am not so smart as those scientists but also because, as I pointed out above, one can’t explain any path that deviates from a straight line really, as there is no medium, so there are no ‘wheels and gears’. The only path that makes sense is the straight line, and that’s only because…

Well… Thinking about it… We think the straight path makes sense because we have no good theory for any of the other paths. Hmm… So, from a logical point of view, assuming that the straight line is the *only* reasonable path is actually pretty random too. When push comes to shove, we have no good theory for the straight line either!

You’ll say I’ve just gone crazy. […] Well… Perhaps you’re right. 🙂 But… Somehow, it starts to make sense to me. We allow for everything to, then, indeed weed out the crazy paths using our interference theory, and so we do end up with what we’re ending up with: some kind of vague idea of “**light not really traveling in a straight line but ‘smelling’ all of the neighboring paths around it and, hence, using a small core of nearby space**“—as Feynman puts it.

Hmm… It brings me back to Richard Feynman’s introduction to his wonderful little book, in which he says we should just be happy to know *how *Nature works and not aspire to know *why *it works that way. In fact, he’s basically saying that, when it comes to quantum mechanics, the ‘how’ and the ‘why’ are one and the same, so asking ‘why’ doesn’t make sense, because we know ‘how’. He compares quantum theory with the system of calculation used by the Maya priests, which was based on a system of bars and dots, which helped them to do complex multiplications and divisions, for example. He writes the following about it: “The rules were tricky, but they were a much more efficient way of getting an answer to complicated questions (such as when Venus would rise again) than by counting beans.”

When I first read this, I thought the comparison was flawed: if a common Maya Indian did not want to use the ‘tricky’ rules of multiplication and what have you (or, more likely, if he didn’t *understand *them), he or she could still resort to counting beans. But how do we count beans in quantum mechanics? We have no ‘simpler’ rules than those weird rules about adding amplitudes and taking the (absolute) square of complex numbers so… Well… We actually are counting beans here then:

- We allow for any possibility—any path: straight, curved or crooked. Anything is possible.
- But all those possibilities are inter-connected. Also note that every path has a mirror image: for every route ‘south’, there is a similar route ‘north’, so to say, except for the straight line, which is a mirror image of
*itself*. - And then we have some clock ticking. Time goes by. It ensures that the paths that are
*too*far removed from the straight line cancel each other. [Of course, you’ll ask: what is*too*far? But I answered that question – convincingly, I hope – in my previous post: it’s not about the ‘number of arrows’ (as suggested in the caption under that Figure 34 above), but about the frequency and, hence, the ‘wavelength’ of our photon.] - And so… Finally, what’s left is a limited number of possibilities that interfere with each other, which results in what we ‘see’: light seems to use a small core of space indeed–a limited number of nearby paths.

You’ll say… Well… That still doesn’t ‘explain’ why the interference pattern disappears with those special detectors or – what amounts to the same – why the special detectors at the slits never click *simultaneously*.

You’re right. How do we make sense of that? I don’t know. You should try to imagine what happens for yourself. Everyone has his or her own way of ‘conceptualizing’ stuff, I’d say, and you may well be content and just accept all of the above without trying to ‘imagine’ what’s happening really when a ‘photon’ goes through one or both of those slits. In fact, that’s the most sensible thing to do. You should *not *try to imagine what happens and just follow the crazy calculus rules.

However, when *I* think about it, I do have some image in my head. The image is of one of those ‘touch-me-not’ weeds. I quickly *googled* one of these images, but I couldn’t quite find what I am looking for: it would be more like something that, when you touch it, curls up in a little ball. Any case… You know what I mean, I hope.

You’ll shake your head now and solemnly confirm that I’ve gone mad. Touch-me-not weeds? What’s *that *got to do with photons?* *

Well… It’s obvious you and I cannot really imagine how a photon looks like. But *I* think of it as a blob of energy indeed, which is *inseparable*, and which effectively occupies *some space* (in three dimensions that is). I also think that, whatever it is, it actually *does* travel through both slits, because, as it interferes *with itself*, the interference pattern does depend on the space between the two slits as well as the width of those slits. In short, the whole ‘geometry’ of the situation matters, and so the ‘interaction’ is some kind of ‘spatial’ thing. [Sorry for my awfully imprecise language here.]

Having said that, I think it’s being detected by *one *detector only because only one of them can sort of ‘hook’ it, somehow. Indeed, because it’s interconnected and inseparable, it’s the *whole* blob that gets hooked, not just one part of it. [You may or may not imagine that the detectors that’s got the best hold of it gets it, but I think that’s pushing the description too much.] In any case, the point is that a photon is surely *not *like a lizard dropping its tail while trying to escape. Perhaps it’s some kind of unbreakable ‘string’ indeed – and sorry for summarizing string theory so unscientifically here – but then a string oscillating in dimensions we can’t imagine (or in some dimension we can’t observe, like the *Kaluza-Klein *theory suggests). It’s *something*, for sure, and something that stores energy in some kind of oscillation, I think.

*What *it is, exactly, we can’t imagine, and we’ll probably never find out—unless we accept that the *how* of quantum mechanics is not only the *why*, but also the *what*. 🙂

Does this make sense? Probably not but, if anything, I hope it fired *your* imagination at least. 🙂

Pingback: The shape and size of a photon | Reading Penrose

Pingback: The wavefunction as an oscillation of spacetime | Reading Feynman