Darel Rex Finley in 888

Waves With Particle-Like Properties

2011.01.24   prev     next

AT first, scientists didn’t have much of an idea what light was.

Then, science started studying waves (water surface waves, sound waves, etc.), and soon they noticed something very interesting: Light has a startling number of similarities to those waves:

  • waves travel at a constant speed, independent of the characteristics of the emitter

  • waves exhibit doppler shifts when emitted by fast-moving objects

  • wave speed is dependent on what it’s going through; different substances allow different speeds

  • waves exhibit refraction effects when passing into a medium of different propagation speed, plus some reflection at the same interface, with the degree of reflection correlating to the difference in propagation speed

  • waves can carry multiple frequencies that can be separately detected by resonators

  • wave frequencies can be split (prism-style) by a refractor that supports different propagation speeds for different frequencies

  • waves can pass through each other without noticeably affecting each other

  • while occupying the same space, waves can additively cancel each other, producing interference patterns

  • waves can be blocked by an obstacle, but the effectiveness of this blocking seems to be a function of the size of the obstacle and the frequency of the wave

  • when a wave is blocked by an obstacle, the portion of the wave that goes past the edge of the obstacle tends to creep into the area that was blocked (the shadowed zone), and the degree of this creep varies depending on the frequency

  • waves reflect off of a smooth surface at the incident angle, provided imperfections in that surface are substantially smaller than the wavelength

All of these effects can be observed in water waves, sound waves (which may travel through air, liquids, or solids) — and in experiments with light.

That pretty compellingly indicates that light is a wave. And so for quite some time, light was said to be a wave.

Then, later, some new experiments showed something interesting. If you ran a light emitter at extremely low power, then the light energy was delivered to the receiver in very small but discrete, fixed-size units, dubbed “quanta.” And if the light receiver was a sizable screen set up to allow you to see where the light energy was received, then each time a quantum of light energy was received, you could see that it arrived at a discrete spot on the screen. And the spot seems to be randomly located each time.

But if you also set up the experiment so that light from the source should generate a wave interference pattern on the screen (via the “double slit” arrangement), and then you take note of where each individual quantum of energy arrives, then you find that over many repeated trials they add up to a wave interference pattern.

Very interesting indeed. Now — without any immediate way to know exactly what’s really going on, and knowing of the lengthy set of wave properties listed above, how would you describe light after observing this new, quantum energy phenomenon? It seems pretty obvious to me that you would say:

Light is waves with some particle-like properties.

Simple enough, right? But that’s not what they said. Instead, the scientists studying these behaviors of light declared that light was particles with wave-like properties.

This seems rather odd, because the list of coincidental wave behaviors above is far more compelling an indication that waves are at work than the quantum-energy experiment results are that particles are at work. It’s pretty easy to imagine scenarios in which waves exhibit particle-like behavior. For example, light could be a wave, but with photon particles riding (tracking) the wave, with each particle starting out in a random direction from the source, then following the wave’s peak until it reaches a target suitable for energy acquisition. Or, there might not be any particles at all, and light waves, when they strike an object capable of receiving light energy, have a random or pseudo-random probability of delivering a quantum of energy at any particular spot they hit.

But particles with wave-like properties? How would that work, even hypothetically? Nevertheless, that’s what the scientists said. They declared that light was a particle, but one that has (through unknown mechanism) “wave-like properties.” And those properties just happen to include everything in the list at the top of this article! The mountain of evidence that light is waves was collapsed into the incredibly vague adjective “wave-like,” and duct-taped to a particle theory of light.

And it gets worse. Scientists did the double-slit experiment with an electron emitter instead of light emitter, got the same results, and then thought of a cool idea: What if we put a detector just after the slits, so we can tell which slit the electron went through? When they did that, the wave interference pattern disappeared — instead, repeated electron arrivals added up to two large fuzzy spots (one for each slit). OK, what could that mean? Could it mean that the detector is doing something to the wave, or causing a new wave to be initiated after the slits? That seems like a pretty good guess — but no. These results were interpreted as meaning that particles have wave-like properties until they are observed (by the target screen or the detector, whichever comes first), and instantly “collapse” to particle behavior when such observation is attempted. According to this explanation, the electron passes through both slits simultaneously, its location in space essentially undefined, but then acquires a specific location when the detector looks at it.

To me, this mode of thinking suffers from some really puzzling questions. A single wave emitted from one spot (after the slits) can generate a big fuzzy spot on the screen. Isn’t it possible that a new wave was started when the electron was “detected?” And how do you detect an electron flying through space nearby without seriously affecting that very electron?

And most importantly, isn’t it antithetical to science to say that something happens only when we’re not looking? And instantly does something else as soon as we look?!

Any theory of physics should be at least crudely simulable via a computer program. (If it has a random factor, fine, you can use the computer’s pseudo-random number generator as part of your program.) I’m not talking about using a computer to predict which slit a real electron will go through or anything like that — the input data would be impossible to gather, plus any random factor would ruin the prediction — I’m just talking about making a computer simulation that behaves in a similar manner to the real thing; i.e. that allows you to duplicate the results of well-known experiments, as you would duplicate them with real equipment in a lab.

Making a simulation of waves with particle-like behavior would be easy. We already can simulate waves quite readily (here’s a good simulator written by Paul Falstad). Throwing in particles that semi-randomly track wave crests, or creating probabilistic whole-quantum energy delivery whenever a wave impacts a wave-absorbing target, would be pretty easy.

But how would you write a computer simulation of “particles with wave-like properties?” How would you write code that simulates particles that exhibit additive properties highly reminiscent of wave effects? I can’t even imagine how you would begin to do that. Probably, you would wind up writing a program just like I described above (i.e. waves with particle-like properties), make the program keep the waves and particles hidden and show only what you would see in a real lab — then simply call your simulation “particles with wave-like properties.” And hope no one studies your sourcecode and realizes you really simulated waves with particle-like properties.

Of course, I’m aware that computer simulation doesn’t prove that the process being simulated is an accurate depiction of what happens in the real world. But it at least demonstrates that you have a coherent theory of what is going on. If you can’t even do that, then what the hell is your theory, really? Just some vague phrases, loosely re-describing the results of your experiments?


Why would scientists interpret these experiments the way they did? A few answers seem likely.

First, most scientists want to discover something new — and the newer, the better. The list of wave behaviors at the top of this article, and their applicability to light, is an old discovery, made by yester-century’s scientists. The scientists who discovered quantum theory wanted something different. Plus there’s something really special and revolutionary about seeming to overturn the beliefs of previous generations of scientists. It makes the current discoveries (and their discoverers) a lot more important.

But even more significantly: Particles with spookily undefinable, wave-like properties had something else going for them. They were a lot more compatible with Einstein’s relativity, which had gained wide acceptance by that point. Einstein asserted that all motion is relative, meaning that objects move only relative to each other, not relative to any such thing as “absolute space.” But if there is no such thing as absolute space, then there can be no such thing as a wave propagation medium for light (and other energies and forces) to propagate through, for that would itself be an absolute space. In effect, Einstein was proposing that light gets from emitter to receiver without actually propagating through a medium, yet still somehow exhibits a long list of wave-identical characteristics.

How it does that, Einstein didn’t really say. But the weight of Einstein’s successes in physics carried the day, and by the time quantum theory’s discoverers had to choose between waves with particle-like properties or particles with wave-like properties, the latter seemed the natural fit to the Einsteinian revolution. When quantum theory was developed, the idea that light actually is a propagation wave was viewed as a quaint anachronism, with the term Luminiferous Aether forever welded to wave theory, precisely for reasons of its archaic, almost alchemy-like tone. It didn’t occur to these scientists, apparently, that Einstein might be right about some things, but wrong about others. It didn’t occur to them that some of Einstein’s pronouncements might be based on philosophical persuasion, not empirical science.

Specifically, I’m referring to the philosophical mandate that there be nothing significant outside this universe — either absolutely nothing, or some perpetually ephemeral, unknowable-by-definition “mind of God.” Einstein was a Deist and may have leaned toward the latter. But either way, the idea that this world is actually a mechanistic thing in the same category as a computer simulation or video game that humans often create, is considered almost anti-science by those of this slant. The ideology at work here holds that anything we can’t examine in a lab isn’t just outside science’s current purview — it’s actually required to not exist when formulating scientific theories. If it’s really hard to tell what an electron is doing because you can’t watch it directly the way you can watch a football, then it’s not really doing anything! It only does something when you can observe it — when it arrives at the target screen or detector. If we can’t examine creators or their mechanisms, then they don’t exist — or exist only as an undefinable mind from whence our physical laws (the thing we can directly observe) spring forth with no mechanism of implementation.

Who cares

Now you may be wondering, what difference does it make? Wave-like particles? Particle-like waves? As long as we’re all talking about the same effects, what’s the difference? Either way, can’t we still use known effects and behaviors in our technologies?

Yeah, we sure can. And that’s fine, as far as that goes. But it’s still a problem because:

(a) It has the potential to stifle future discoveries by shutting down avenues of exploration, and

(b) It teaches new generations of budding scientists that protecting philosophies of the acceptable and unacceptable is a more important part of science than following the most obvious indications of the empirical evidence.


Update 2011.02.06 — Wording of sixth (prism) bullet corrected. “Several answers” changed to “A few answers”.


See also:
Einstein’s Error
Theory As Simulation


prev     next



Hear, hear

prev     next

Best Recent Articles

Method of Implementing A Secure Backdoor In Mobile Devices

When Starting A Game of Chicken With Apple, Expect To Lose

How I Clip My Cat’s Nails

Seasons By Temperature, Not Solstice

It’s Not A Criticism, It’s A Fact

Features (Regularly Updated)

A Memory of Gateway — news chronology of Apple’s ascendancy to the top of the technology mountain.

iPhone Party-Poopers Redux and Silly iPad Spoilsports — amusing litanies of industry pundits desperately hoping iPhone and iPad will go away and die.

Embittered Anti-Apple Belligerents — general anger at Apple’s gi-normous success.


My books

Now available on the iBookstore!



Daring Fireball

The Loop



Red Meat

Despair, Inc.

Real Solution #9 (Mambo Mania Mix) over stock nuke tests. (OK, somebody made them rip out the music — try this instead.)

Ernie & Bert In Casino

Great Explanation of Star Wars

Best commercials (IMO) from Superbowl 41, 43, 45, 46, and 47

Kirk & Spock get Closer

American football explained.

TV: Better Call Saul; Homeland; Survivor; The Jinx; Breaking Bad; Inside Amy Schumer

God’s kitchen

Celebrity Death Beeper — news you can use.

Making things for the web.

My vote for best commercial ever. (But this one’s a close second, and I love this one too.)

Recent commercials I admire: KFC, Audi

Best reggae song I’ve discovered in quite a while: Virgin Islands Nice

Pinball Arcade: Unbelievably accurate simulation of classic pinball machines from the late ’70s through the ’90s, with new ones added periodically. Like MAME for pinball — maybe better.

d120 dice: You too (like me) can be the ultimate dice nerd.

WiFi problems? I didn’t know just how bad my WiFi was until I got eero.

Favorite local pad thai: Pho Asian Noodle on Lane Ave. Yes, that place; blame Taco Bell for the amenities. Use the lime, chopsticks, and sriracha. Yummm.

Um, could there something wrong with me if I like this? Or this?

This entire site as a zip file — last updated 2018.02.01

Previous articles

Nothing More Angry Than A Cornered Anti-Apple

Let ’Em Glow

The Ultimate, Simple, Fair Tax

Compassion and Vision

When Starting A Game of Chicken With Apple, Expect To Lose

The Caveat

Superb Owl


Basic Reproduction Number

iBook Price-Fixing Lawsuit Redux — Apple Won

Delusion Made By Google

Religion Is A Wall

It’s Not A Criticism, It’s A Fact

Michigan Wolverines 2014 Football Season In Review

Sprinkler Shopping

Why There’s No MagSafe On the New Mac­Book

Sundar Pichai Says Devices Will Fade Away

The Question Every Ap­ple Naysayer Must An­swer

Apple’s Move To TSMC Is Fine For Apple, Bad For Samsung

Method of Implementing A Secure Backdoor In Mobile Devices

How I Clip My Cat’s Nails

Die Trying

Merger Hindsight

Human Life Decades

Fire and the Wheel — Not Good Examples of A Broken Patent System

Nobody Wants Public Transportation

Seasons By Temperature, Not Solstice

Ode To Coffee

Starting Over

FaceBook Messenger — Why I Don’t Use It

Happy Birthday, Anton Leeuwenhoek

Standard Deviation De­fined

Not Hypocrisy

Simple Guide To Pro­gress Bar Correctness

A Secure Backdoor Is Feasible

Don’t Blink

Predictive Value

Answering the Toughest Question About Disruption Theory

SSD TRIM Command In A Nutshell

The Enderle Grope

Aha! A New Way To Screw Apple

Champagne, By Any Other Maker

iOS Jailbreaking — A Perhaps-Biased Assessment

Embittered Anti-Apple Belligerents

Before 2001, After 2001

What A Difference Six Years Doesn’t Make

Stupefying New Year’s Stupidity

The Innovator’s Victory

The Cult of Free

Fitness — The Ultimate Transparency

Millions of Strange Dev­o­tees and Fanatics

Remember the iPod Killers?

Theory As Simulation

Four Analysts

What Was Christensen Thinking?

The Grass Is Always Greener — Viewing An­gle

Is Using Your Own Pat­ent Still Allowed?

The Upside-Down Tech Future

Motive of the Anti-Ap­ple Pundit

Cheating Like A Human

Disremembering Mi­cro­soft

Security-Through-Obscurity Redux — The Best of Both Worlds

iPhone 2013 Score Card

Dominant and Recessive Traits, Demystified

Yes, You Do Have To Be the Best

The United States of Texas

Vertical Disintegration

He’s No Jobs — Fire Him

A Players

McEnroe, Not Borg, Had Class

Conflict Fades Away

Four-Color Theorem A­nal­y­sis — Rules To Limit the Problem

The Unusual Mo­nop­o­list

Reasonable Projection

Five Times What They Paid For It

Bypassable Security Certificates Are Useless

I’d Give My Right Arm To Go To Mars

Free Advice About Apple’s iOS App Store Guidelines

Inciting Violence

One Platform

Understanding IDC’s Tablet Market Share Graph

I Vote Socialist Be­cause...

That Person

Product Naming — Google Is the Other Microsoft

Antecessor Hypotheticum

Apple Paves the Way For Apple

Why — A Poem

App Anger — the Supersized-Mastodon-In-the-Room That Marco Arment Doesn’t See

Apple’s Graphic Failure

Why Microsoft Copies Apple (and Google)

Coders Code, Bosses Boss

Droidfood For Thought

Investment Is Not A Sure Thing

Exercise is Two Thirds of Everything

Dan “Real Enderle” Ly­ons


Ignoring the iPod touch

Manual Intervention Should Never Make A Computer Faster

Predictions ’13


Zeroth — Why the Century Number Is One More Than the Year Number

Longer Than It Seems

Partners: Believe In Ap­ple

Gun Control: Best Ar­gu­ments

John C. Dvorak — Translation To English

Destructive Youth

Wiens’s Whine

Free Will — The Grand Equivocation

What Windows-vs.-Mac Actually Proved

A Tale of Two Logos

Microsoft’s Three Paths

Amazon Won’t Be A Big Winner In the DOJ’s Price-Fixing Suit

Infinite Sets, Infinite Authority

Strategy Analytics and Long Term Ac­count­a­bil­i­ty

The Third Stage of Computing

Why 1 Isn’t Prime, 2 Is Prime, and 2 Is the Only Even Prime

Readability BS

Lie Detection and Psy­chos



Microsoft’s Dim Pros­pects

Humanity — Just Barely

Hanke-Henry Calendar Won’t Be Adopted

Collatz Conjecture A­nal­y­sis (But No Proof; Sorry)

Rock-Solid iOS App Stability

Microsoft’s Uncreative Character

Microsoft’s Alternate Reality Bubble

Microsoft’s Three Ruts

Society’s Fascination With Mass Murder

PlaysForSure and Wikipedia — Revisionism At Its Finest


Patent Reform?

How Many Licks

Microsoft’s Incredible Run

Voting Socialist

Darwin Saves

The Size of Things In the Universe

The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy That Wasn’t


Nobody Was In Love With Windows

Apples To Apples — How Anti-Apple Pundits Shoot Themselves In the Foot

No Holds Barred

Betting Against Hu­man­i­ty

Apple’s Premium Features Are Free

Why So Many Computer Guys Hate Apple

3D TV With No Glasses and No Parallax/Focus Issues

Waves With Particle-Like Properties

Gridlock Is Just Fine

Sex Is A Fantasy

Major Player

Why the iPad Wannabes Will Definitely Flop

Predators and Parasites

Prison Is For Lotto Losers

The False Dichotomy

Wait and See — Windows-vs-Mac Will Repeat Itself

Dishonesty For the Greater Good

Barr Part 2

Enough Information

Zune Is For Apple Haters

Good Open, Bad Open

Beach Bodies — Who’s Really Shallow?

Upgrade? Maybe Not

Eliminating the Im­pos­si­ble

Selfish Desires

Farewell, Pirate Cachet

The Two Risk-Takers

Number of Companies — the Idiocy That Never Dies

Holding On To the Solution

Apple Religion

Long-Term Planning

What You Have To Give Up

The End of Elitism

Good and Evil


How Religion Distorts Science

Laziness and Creativity

Sideloading and the Supersized-Mastodon-In-the-Room That Snell Doesn’t See

Long-Term Self-De­lu­sion

App Store Success Won’t Translate To Books, Movies, and Shows

Silly iPad Spoilsports

I Disagree

Five Rational Coun­ter­ar­gu­ments

Majority Report

Simply Unjust

Zooman Science

Reaganomics — Like A Diet — Works

Free R&D?

Apple’s On the Right Track

Mountains of Evidence

What We Do

Hope Conquers All

Humans Are Special — Just Not That Special

Life = Survival of the Fittest

Excuse Me, We’re Going To Build On Your Property

No Trademark iWorries


Twisted Excuses

The Fall of Google

Real Painters

The Meaning of Kicking Ass

How To Really Stop Casual Movie Disc Ripping

The Solitary Path of the High-Talent Pro­gram­mer

Fixing, Not Preaching

Why Blackmail Is Still Illegal

Designers Cannot Do Anything Imaginable

Wise Dr. Drew

Rats In A Too-Small Cage

Coming To Reason

Everything Isn’t Moving To the Web

Pragmatics, Not Rights

Grey Zone

Methodologically Dogmatic

The Purpose of Lan­guage

The Punishment Defines the Crime

Two Many Cooks


One Last Splurge

Making Money

What Heaven and Hell Are Really About

America — The Last Suburb


What the Cloud Isn’t For

Diminishing Returns

What You’re Seeing

What My Life Needs To Be

Taking An Early Re­tire­ment

Office Buildings

A, B, C, D, Pointless Relativity

Stephen Meyer and Michael Medved — Where Is ID Going?

If You Didn’t Vote — Complain Away

iPhone Party-Poopers Redux

What Free Will Is Really About

Spectacularly Well

Pointless Wrappers

PTED — The P Is Silent

Out of Sync

Stupid Stickers

Security Through Nor­mal­cy

The Case For Corporate Bonuses

Movie Copyrights Are Forever

Permitted By Whom?

Quantum Cognition and Other Hogwash

The Problem With Message Theory

Bell’s Boring Inequality and the Insanity of the Gaps

Paying the Rent At the 6 Park Avenue A­part­ments

Primary + Reviewer — An Alternative IT Plan For Corporations

Yes Yes Yes


Hey Hey Whine Whine

Microsoft About Microsoft Visual Microsoft Studio Microsoft

Hidden Purple Tiger

Forest Fair Mall and the Second Lamborghini

Intelligent Design — The Straight Dope

Maxwell’s Demon — Three Real-World Ex­am­ples


Entitlement BS



Einstein’s Error — The Confusion of Laws With Their Effects

The Museum Is the Art

Polly Sooth the Air Rage

The Truth

The Darkness

Morality = STDs?

Fulfilling the Moral Du­ty To Disdain



Real Design

The Two Rules of Great Programming


The End of the Nerds

Poverty — Humanity’s Damage Control

Berners-Lee’s Rating System = Google

The Secret Anti-MP3 Trick In “Independent Women” and “You Sang To Me”

ID and the Large Had­ron Collider Scare

Not A Bluff

The Fall of Microsoft

Life Sucks When You’re Not Winning


The Old-Fashioned Way

The Old People Who Pop Into Existence

Theodicy — A Big Stack of Papers

The Designed, Cause-and-Effect Brain


IC Counterarguments

The Capitalist’s Imaginary Line

Education Isn’t Eve­ry­thing

I Don’t Know

Funny iPhone Party-Poopers

Avoiding Conflict At All Costs

Behavior and Free Will, Unconfused

“Reduced To” Ab­sur­dum

Suzie and Bubba Redneck — the Carriers of Intelligence

Everything You Need To Know About Haldane’s Dilemma

Darwin + Hitler = Ba­lo­ney


Designed For Combat

Speed Racer R Us

Bold — Uh-huh

Conscious of Con­scious­ness

Future Perfect

Where Real and Yahoo Went Wrong

The Purpose of Surface

Eradicating Religion Won’t Eradicate War

Documentation Overkill

A Tale of Two Movies

The Changing Face of Sam Adams

Dinesh D’Souza On ID

Why Quintic (and Higher) Polynomials Have No Algebraic Solution

Translation of Paul Graham’s Footnote To Plain English

What Happened To Moore’s Law?

Goldston On ID

The End of Martial Law

The Two Faces of Ev­o­lu­tion

A Fine Rec­om­men­da­tion

Free Will and Population Statistics

Dennett/D’Souza Debate — D’Souza

Dennett/D’Souza Debate — Dennett

The Non-Euclidean Ge­om­e­try That Wasn’t There

Defective Attitude Towards Suburbia

The Twin Deficit Phan­toms

Sleep Sync and Vertical Hold

More FUD In Your Eye

The Myth of Rub­ber­neck­ing

Keeping Intelligent Design Honest

Failure of the Amiga — Not Just Mis­man­age­ment

Maxwell’s Silver Hammer = Be My Honey Do?

End Unsecured Debt

The Digits of Pi Cannot Be Sequentially Generated By A Computer Program

Faster Is Better

Goals Can’t Be Avoided

Propped-Up Products

Ignoring ID Won’t Work

The Crabs and the Bucket

Communism As A Side Effect of the Transition To Capitalism

Google and Wikipedia, Revisited

National Geographic’s Obesity BS


Theodicy Is For Losers

Seattle Redux


Living Well

A Memory of Gateway

Is Apple’s Font Rendering Really Non-Pixel-Aware?

Humans Are Complexity, Not Choice

A Subtle Shift

Moralism — The Emperor’s New Success

Code Is Our Friend

The Edge of Religion

The Dark Side of Pixel-Aware Font Rendering

The Futility of DVD En­cryp­tion

ID Isn’t About Size or Speed

Blood-Curdling Screams

ID Venn Diagram

Rich and Good-Looking? Why Libertarianism Goes Nowhere

FUV — Fear, Uncertainty, and Vista

Malware Isn’t About Total Control

Howard = Second Com­ing?

Doomsday? Or Just Another Sunday

The Real Function of Wikipedia In A Google World

Objective-C Philosophy

Clarity From Cisco

2007 Macworld Keynote Prediction

FUZ — Fear, Uncertainty, and Zune

No Fear — The Most Important Thing About Intelligent Design

How About A Rational Theodicy

Napster and the Subscription Model

Intelligent Design — Introduction

The One Feature I Want To See In Apple’s Safari.