*Einstein's Responsibilities for Wave-Particle Duality*

Scientific Paper | |
---|---|

Title | Einstein\'s Responsibilities for Wave-Particle Duality |

Read in full | Link to paper |

Author(s) | Constantin Antonopoulos |

Keywords | {{{keywords}}} |

Published | 2010 |

Journal | Proceedings of the NPA |

Volume | 7 |

Number | 2 |

No. of pages | 9 |

Pages | 651-659 |

**Read the full paper** here

## Abstract

In his explanation of the Photo-Electric Effect Einstein defines his photons as ?energy quanta which are localised at *points* in space? and possessed of a frequency *E = hv* at the very same time. (*Rbv/N* in his text.) Thus we are told that energy is quantized, because rather than a field spreading continuously over a region, ?light is *discontinuously* distributed in space?. [Einstein, 1965 (1905), p. 368] Planck's notion of quantization meant the discrete spectrum of eigen states (or eigen frequencies) of a single oscillator, sufficient in itself to make quantization manifest. But in order that a photon can make its own ?quantization' manifest it needs *another photon*. Alone it is just a speck in space. In Planck's original it would not be enough, it would not even be relevant, to call cars in a car park ?quantized', mainly because they are ?discontinuously distributed in space'. My aunt and I are thus distributed. Are we quantized? To Einstein it seems we must be. Yet, albeit discontinuously distributed at points in space, photons have a ...frequency in this new setting! I cannot even begin to fathom how anything localized at a point can have a frequency, but what I do fathom is how Duality sprang forth from precisely this infected womb, now weirdly impregnated by an unlovely hybrid. To get back to QM as it was initially conceived, I reinterpret *E = hv*, now *Et = h*, and *p = h/l*, now *pl = h*, as alternative definitions of quantized *action*, committed to neither waves nor particles. I conclude with what Duality *really* was in the mind of the man so wrongly accused for its introduction: Niels Bohr. Namely, it is but the *side product* of Indivisibility (?wholeness' more frequently in his writings) - not a primitive QM axiom at all.