The nature of light and the so-called wave-particle duality has fascinated physicists and laypeople for over a century. From Albert Einstein’s explanation of the photoelectric effect to the mysterious results of the double-slit experiment, light has forced us to grapple with counterintuitive ideas in quantum mechanics—notably that something could behave like both a wave and a particle.

Yet, as scientific knowledge evolves, certain “weird” interpretations may turn out to be the results of historical assumptions rather than true phenomena. In the transcript above, Chris “The Brain” challenges the conventional stance on wave-particle duality, arguing that photons might not be particles at all—they may simply be waves that manifest “particle-like” interactions under specific geometric conditions.

This article, based on Chris’s presentation, will:

Delve into how electromagnetic (EM) waves actually work and why we see discrete photon effects despite everything being a wave.
Revisit classic experiments in quantum mechanics—such as the photoelectric effect, Compton scattering, and the double-slit experiment—through this new wave-centric lens.
Address puzzling concepts like entanglement and polarization, offering an interpretation that may reduce the “mystical” aura surrounding them.
Consider the future implications of acknowledging photons as purely wave phenomena, with no actual particle duality needed.

By the end, you’ll see how treating photons exclusively as waves (rather than ephemeral “wavicles”) can simplify our understanding of light, sidestep paradoxes, and provide a more intuitive foundation for quantum theory going forward.

Main Content

1. What Is a Photon, Really?

Chris begins with a radical statement:

“A photon is nothing more than a name we give to a set of geometric conditions required for an electron to produce certain interactions in response to an electromagnetic wave.”

In simpler terms: there are no localized particles of light (“photons”) bouncing around. Instead, light itself is an electromagnetic (EM) wave—and “photon” is simply the discrete interaction between this wave and an electron under very particular circumstances.

1.1 The Usual “Weirdness” of the Photon

We say that a photon can be a wave because we see diffraction and interference patterns when light passes through apertures or obstacles—classic wave phenomena.
We say that a photon can be a particle because we detect discrete impacts (for instance, tiny flashes on a screen or discrete electron ejections in the photoelectric effect).
Standard quantum mechanics tries to reconcile these two contradictory observations by calling the photon a “wavicle,” or by postulating “wave function collapse,” or by referencing “particle wave duality.”

In Chris’s view, all of these complicated explanations become unnecessary once you realize that the “discrete” effect is simply:

Electromagnetic waves interacting with electrons in an all-or-nothing event that looks “particle-like.”

2. How Electromagnetic (EM) Waves Actually Work

To appreciate Chris’s argument, we need to solidly grasp how electromagnetic waves propagate and why they produce discrete electron responses:

An electron creates an electric field around it.
- This electric field can be represented by lines pointing inward if the electron is negatively charged (arrows “pointing toward” the electron).
- These electric-field lines extend outward in all directions.
When that electron moves, the entire field around it must ‘update.’
- No information travels faster than the speed of light $c$ .
- Thus, any movement of the electron sends out an “update” to the surrounding field in a spherical wavefront, traveling outward at speed $c$ .
This ‘update’ is the electromagnetic wave.
- Imagine the electron moves slightly back and forth, producing a continuous series of these updates—like ripples expanding in a pond.
- This back-and-forth motion corresponds to the frequency and wavelength of the EM wave.

2.1 Understanding the “Kink” or “Change in the Field”

When an electron shifts position, the boundary between the old configuration of the electric field and the new configuration is sometimes called a “kink.”
This “kink” is strongest in directions perpendicular to the electron’s motion. If another charged particle (another electron) sits somewhere in that direction, it will “feel” that update and potentially respond.

2.2 Conditions for Producing a Light Wave vs. Other EM Waves

Light is just an EM wave with a frequency in the visible range.

Radio waves, microwaves, infrared, X-rays, etc., are all the same type of phenomenon but differ in frequency and wavelength.
In typical circumstances, light is generated by electrons bound in atoms—radio waves, on the other hand, are generated by the deliberate pushing/pulling of electrons in an antenna.
Despite these differences, the underlying mechanism—moving electrons → changing field → wave—remains identical.

3. From EM Waves to “Light Waves”

Electrons in atoms produce light when they move or oscillate. For instance:

When an electron transitions between energy levels in an atom, it may emit a specific frequency of light.
That emission can be visualized as a repeating pattern of electromagnetic field updates—a wave—expanding outward from the electron.

However, to truly observe or detect that wave as “light,” we need another electron that can respond to this wave:

That detecting electron must be “free” enough (or in the correct orbital configuration) to move in sync with the wave’s oscillation.
The wave’s electric field then accelerates the detecting electron.
As soon as the detecting electron accelerates, it too becomes a new source of EM waves!

This interaction is what we label as a “photon detection event.” But it’s essential to notice: this is not about a little bullet traveling from one place to another. It is a wave phenomenon, and the word “photon” is just a convenient label for the distinct event of energy transfer.

4. Why Does Light Act Like a Particle?

If light is purely a wave, then why do we get point-like clicks on a detector screen, or discrete ejections of electrons (photoelectric effect)? Chris enumerates five conditions that lead to these “particle-like” detection events:

The EM wave is emitted by an electron (usually bound in an atom).
The EM wave has a full sine wave of oscillation, giving it a specific frequency and wavelength.
Another electron must be in the path of the wave, capable of absorbing that energy.
The detecting electron has to be ‘free’ to move in parallel to the motion of the emitting electron (or, at least, it must be able to oscillate in a corresponding axis).
The motion of the detecting electron is perpendicular to the direction of the wave’s propagation.

When these conditions align, we get a discrete energy “kick.” That discrete interaction led early scientists to interpret the wave as a “particle.” But from Chris’s perspective, it’s not the wave that’s discrete; it’s the electron’s response that is discrete.

5. Light Interactions Require a Complete Sine Wave

An important part of the argument: for an electron to truly “pick up” the oscillation from another wave, it needs to experience a complete cycle (sine wave).

In mathematics, you can “guess” the entire wave by analyzing even a small portion of the sine curve. However, a physical electron cannot guess; it must undergo a real, full oscillation cycle to re-emit or continue the wave.
This resonates with how radio antennas operate: a conductor with electrons physically driven to oscillate up and down as the wave passes.

6. Understanding a Projected Plane

Chris employs the concept of a projected plane to discuss how we interpret the effective “area” of a wave traveling through space.

If you hold a playing card face-on to your view, you see its full rectangular area.
If you tilt that card by some angle, the projected area you see is smaller, given by $area)×sin⁡(θ)\text{(original area)} \times \sin(\theta)$ or $cos⁡(θ)\cos(\theta)$ , depending on the exact geometry.

This notion is essential because the intensity or energy transfer of an EM wave onto an electron depends on angle and orientation. For any wave traveling from an emitting electron to a detecting electron, only certain orientations (the right “projected plane” overlap) yield the optimum conditions for an energy exchange.

7. Light Starts as a Ring!

A bold yet illuminating claim from Chris:

“Light travels from an electron in a ring-like pattern around the electron’s axis of motion.”

In a purely theoretical single-electron scenario:

The electron oscillates, creating a wave in all directions.
However, the wavefront most capable of stimulating other electrons is oriented in a ring around the axis of oscillation, because that’s where the electric field vectors are maximally parallel to the motion.

In everyday life, we rarely see an expanding ring because:

Light is often emitted from billions of electrons in a material, forming coherent beams rather than single waves.
Surfaces that detect light are typically large, flat, or irregularly shaped, meaning the wave hits different points at different times.

8. Single Photons vs. Streams of Light

Another common source of confusion is that many key experiments measure what they call “single photons.” However:

Realistically, “single-photon” detection almost always involves very low-intensity but still continuous wave emission.
The claim “we only sent one photon” is typically interpreted from threshold measurements and assumptions about energy quanta.
In a fully classical wave picture, you can still generate extremely low-intensity waves, such that detection events are very spread out.

Beams or streams of photons exhibit different behaviors, because:

When you have many electrons oscillating together in a plane, you get a coherent wave that predominantly travels in a specific direction.
This is precisely how lasers work: with the wave’s side-lobes canceling out and the forward direction reinforced, giving a focused beam.

9. Reinterpreting the Photoelectric Effect

The photoelectric effect was historically pivotal in quantum theory. Observations included:

Light above a certain threshold frequency can knock electrons off a metal surface.
Increasing intensity (brightness) does not necessarily increase the kinetic energy of ejected electrons; the frequency determines that energy.
Changing the frequency directly changes the electron’s ejection energy.

Einstein used particle-based reasoning to explain why higher frequency (more energetic “photons”) was needed to eject electrons. Yet:

Once we realize electrons only “pick up” full cycles of the wave and require a matching frequency for that to happen, the puzzle resolves with wave theory alone.
The wave interacts with electrons in discrete lumps simply because the electron either can or cannot complete a resonant oscillation cycle that overcomes the binding energy of the metal.

Hence, the point-like detection is a reflection of how electrons can only be freed in discrete energy thresholds—not that little photon bullets have arrived.

9.1 An Experiment Example

Watching a demonstration using an electroscope:

You shine UV light (high frequency) on a charged metal plate, and electrons slowly get discharged.
The discharge is relatively slow, consistent with a lottery-like process: it may take countless wave cycles for just a few to line up “perfectly” with an electron to knock it loose.

10. Reinterpreting Compton Scattering

In Compton scattering experiments, X-rays hit electrons in a target (e.g., graphite), and the scattered X-rays come out at some angle with a lower frequency (longer wavelength). Traditional explanation:

X-ray “photons” collide with electrons, transferring momentum.
If the scattering angle is large, the photon is red-shifted more.

Chris suggests a purely wave-based view:

An electron is knocked free, continuing to oscillate.
Due to special relativity, the wave that continues in another direction experiences a kind of red shift—similar to Doppler effects.
No “photon bullets” are required. The geometry and relative motion alone explain the shift in frequency.

10.1 The Logical Flaw

Compton’s analysis used Einstein’s photon formulas to interpret the data. But if one abandons the premise that these are point-like collisions, the same data can be explained through wave/relativistic arguments without needing the “photon as a particle” concept.

11. Reinterpreting the Double-Slit Experiment

One of the most famous experiments of all time—the double-slit—demonstrates interference patterns when light (even “single photons”) passes through two narrow slits.

11.1 Observations

Interference pattern on a screen, indicating wave behavior.
Even if “one photon at a time” is sent, an interference pattern emerges when all the detection spots are compiled.
If you detect which slit the photon goes through, the interference disappears, implying you’ve “collapsed” the wave function or “destroyed the interference.”

11.2 A Wave-Only Explanation

Light is indeed a wave, so the interference pattern is expected.
The “single photon” detection spots are not actual single lumps traveling alone; they are sparse wave interactions with electrons in the screen.
Observing “which slit” the photon goes through requires placing a detector (i.e., additional electrons or an entire measuring apparatus). Detecting = interacting = new waves from that detection point. This changes the entire wave configuration, destroying the coherent interference that would have formed otherwise.

In other words, we never simply “peek.” If we measure which slit the wave passes through, we physically alter the wave. Hence, the wave pattern is different.

12. Facepalming the Time-Slit Experiment

A recent “time-slit” variation made headlines by firing extremely short light pulses in quick succession, still seeing an interference pattern. Some popular interpretations claim that photons “interfere with themselves backwards in time.”

In the pure wave picture, short bursts are akin to dropping small water droplets in intervals. Waves from each droplet can still overlap and interfere in space.
No backward time travel is necessary; there is only wave interference over time in the same region of space.

13. Untangling Polarization

Polarization refers to the direction (axis) of the electric field oscillation in an EM wave.

A wave might be polarized vertically, horizontally, or it can rotate (circular/elliptical polarization).
If you have a random mixture of waves with many polarization directions, you get unpolarized light.

13.1 The Three-Polarizer Puzzle

A well-known demonstration:

Send light through a vertical polarizer → only vertically polarized light emerges.
Send this vertically polarized light through a horizontal polarizer → typically 0% emerges (completely blocked).
Insert a 45° polarizer between the vertical and horizontal. Surprisingly, some light does get through!

13.1.1 Wave Explanation with Malus’s Law

When a polarizer is oriented at angle $θ\theta$ , the transmitted intensity $I$ is proportional to $cos⁡2(θ)\cos^2(\theta)$ times the incoming intensity $I_0$ .
A polarizing filter re-emits a new wave at the filter’s orientation while absorbing the rest (converted to heat).
With 45° in the mix, the final intensity is not simply zero. Each polarizer partially absorbs and re-polarizes the wave along its dipole moment.

No mysteries or “photons spinning to match the filters” are required—just vector math describing wave alignments.

14. Explaining Non-Linear Crystals

In so-called nonlinear crystals, shining light into them can produce split beams—often with each beam having roughly half the frequency of the original. This is known as parametric down-conversion or second-harmonic generation (depending on the direction of frequency shift).

From a particle viewpoint, this seems magical—one photon spontaneously becoming two photons of half the energy!
In the wave-only picture, if a uniform crystal lattice allows an incoming wave to simultaneously excite two electrons at once, each electron is forced to oscillate with half the energy (or some fraction dividing the wave’s total energy).
The net effect: the wave leaving the crystal may have two distinct beams at lower frequency.

This phenomenon shows up in:

Quantum optics labs: “entangled photon pairs” often originate from such nonlinear crystals.
The typical “split” is rarely perfect; it might be 30% vs. 70% or some other ratio.
The key is that energy is distributed among multiple excited electrons in the crystal, each re-radiating part of the wave.

15. Reviewing Quantum Mechanics and Light

The standard quantum mechanics narrative posits:

Discrete energy (photons have “quanta” of energy $\nu$ ).
Wave-particle duality (photons exhibit wave or particle aspects depending on the experiment).
Probabilistic nature (the wave function gives a probability distribution of where a photon “might be”).
Entanglement (photons can become correlated such that measuring the state of one affects the state of another at any distance).

15.1 Revisiting These Concepts

Discrete energy: Not necessarily contradictory in a wave picture. An electron can only handle integer multiples of wave cycles or rely on fundamental constants like Planck’s length/frequency increments.
Wave-particle duality: Possibly an artifact of historical confusion. We may have a purely wave phenomenon with electron-based discrete detection.
Wave function: Potentially just a statistical tool for describing incomplete knowledge, not an actual physical “thing” that collapses.
Entanglement: Often discussed in terms of correlated polarization measurements. But once you recognize that polarization is relative (depending on how you measure it) and that “photons” are excitations in a wave, the “spooky action” aspect may vanish.

16. Debunking Entanglement (for Light)

A large portion of so-called photon entanglement is tested by measuring polarization correlation across large distances. The claim: “If we measure photon A to be horizontally polarized, photon B is instantly forced to be vertically polarized (or the same polarization, depending on the setup).”

16.1 The Crux: Polarization Is Not an Inherent Property

A photon wave is “horizontally” polarized only if measured with a horizontal frame of reference.
If we choose a different measurement axis, we describe it as a different polarization.
Consequently, saying “two photons are entangled so that their polarizations match” can be largely about how we set up the apparatus and interpret the wave overlap.

16.2 Bell’s Theorem and Hidden Variables

Bell’s Theorem is a probability statement that tries to rule out “local hidden variables” by showing that quantum mechanical predictions for correlated measurements exceed classical bounds.

The error arises if we treat light intensity or wave vector alignment as if it were “the probability that a photon passes a filter.”
In wave reality, the “pass/fail” is about whether the wave is re-emitted (in partial intensity) or absorbed, not about a discrete photon bullet going through.
Thus, the apparent violation of the “classical limit” might just reflect vector math (Malus’s law) for waves, not the presence of any weird quantum spookiness.

17. Where Do We Go From Here?

Recognizing that photons might just be wave events opens the door to reinterpreting large swaths of modern quantum mechanics.

It does NOT:
- Invalidate all of quantum theory, or the practical uses of quantum phenomena.
- Remove the concept of discrete energy levels in atoms.
It DOES:
- Eliminate the need for “wave-particle duality” for light.
- Cast doubt on “instantaneous action at a distance” and the necessity for “multiple universes” or “pilot waves guiding photon corpuscles.”
- Provide simpler, more intuitive geometry-based explanations for down-conversion (nonlinear crystals) or “entangled” polarizations.

17.1 Experimental Outlook

Could we design an experiment to confirm a purely wave-based interpretation?

Single Electron, 360° Ring of Detectors: Oscillate an electron at a known frequency while detecting light around it. If detection shows ring-like patterns (and timing differences) consistent with wave geometry, that would strongly support the wave argument.
Conversely, suspending a photon would falsify the wave-only viewpoint instantly—if it could be done. But attempts to “hold a photon in place” have always required cavity mirrors, effectively bouncing it around or re-absorbing/re-emitting in a cycle. Nothing is truly “static.”

Analysis and Elaboration

Below is a deeper reflection on why this perspective matters, plus some clarifications for common counterarguments.

1. Why This Matters

Scientific Clarity: There’s power in an explanation that removes paradoxes and “magic.” If wave theory alone suffices, it suggests we misinterpreted phenomena as “particle-like.”
Technological Implications: Much hype around “quantum computing” or “entanglement-based cryptography” stems from the idea of “spooky correlations.” A wave-only viewpoint might refine or reframe these technologies, potentially revealing simpler classical analogues for certain “quantum” tasks.
Historical Lessons: Physicists in the early 20th century were building from new and limited data. The particle concept was the simplest fix at the time. Over a century later, we have more advanced high-resolution experiments and computational resources to revisit old assumptions.

2. Possible Counterarguments

Aren’t Photons Observed in Cavities or Traps?
- In advanced optical cavity QED (quantum electrodynamics) experiments, “photons” bounce between highly reflective mirrors. However, these setups always require continuous re-interaction with mirrors/electrons, effectively re-creating the wave. The “photon” is not sitting in free space, as a particle would.
Photons Must Exist Because We Have Photon-Counting Devices!
- Single-photon counters rely on a photoelectric-type event in the sensor. They measure electron excitations. When the wave’s intensity is so low that excitations happen rarely, people interpret each detection as a “photon.” But as Chris points out, “rare wave events” do not require particle bullets. They simply reflect a threshold-based mechanism in the sensor (electrons only respond after certain wave conditions are fulfilled).
Quantum Field Theory (QFT) Treats Photons as Excitations—Isn’t That the Same as Particles?
- Even in QFT, a “photon” can be seen as a mode of the electromagnetic field, not necessarily a bullet-like entity. The “particle interpretation” is largely for convenience in Feynman diagrams. The underlying field-based approach is consistent with a wave-focused viewpoint.
What About ‘Which-Path’ Experiments That Confirm Particle-Like Behavior?
- Carefully analyzing these experiments shows that the act of “detecting path” always alters the wave or introduces new wave sources (detectors). This breaks the original interference conditions. The wave’s ability to form an interference pattern is destroyed, not because it was a particle, but because the wave no longer has a single coherent path.

Conclusion

Key Takeaways

Light is best understood as a wave only.
- The “photon” is a label for the interaction event—how an electron absorbs or re-emits the wave.
- There is no need for wave-particle duality to explain phenomena like the photoelectric effect, Compton scattering, or the double-slit experiment.
Discrete detection is due to electron interactions, not a discrete photon traveling.
- Electrons either undergo a full sine wave cycle or do not get excited at all, making the outcome appear “all-or-none.”
Polarization is an intrinsically geometric phenomenon involving wave orientation vs. electron dipole moments.
- “Entanglement” measurements for photons are typically about correlated polarization states, which become far less mysterious when you realize polarization is a measurement-dependent property.
Mysteries like “wave function collapse,” “many-worlds,” or “faster-than-light entanglement” may be illusions resulting from applying particle-based assumptions to a purely wave-based reality.

Final Thought / Call to Action

Physicists, students, and enthusiasts alike should:

Revisit foundational quantum experiments with a fresh eye, asking if wave-only mechanics might suffice.
Push for more refined, dedicated experiments—like the single-electron ring detector or new forms of nonlinear-optical setups—to probe wave-based explanations.
Open the conversation on standard quantum mechanics teaching: if we no longer need wave-particle duality for photons, might we develop more intuitive frameworks for electron/positron pair creation, or for the rest of the subatomic pantheon?

Ultimately, a wave-only interpretation of light challenges us to update our mental model of the quantum world, forging new conceptual tools that, in turn, might inspire the next era of physics research.

Engagement and Further Exploration

Comment & Discuss: Do you find this wave-only picture compelling? Are there experiments you feel contradict this approach?
Stay Curious: Keep an eye out for upcoming talks or articles exploring the wave-only interpretation for electrons, magnetism, and other quantum phenomena.
Share: Spread this post to start a conversation about dropping wave-particle duality in favor of a simpler (but radical) wave-based approach.

References and Resources

Video by Chris “The Brain”:
- Original transcript from Chris “The Brain” on YouTube (Chapter 6: Resolving the Wave-Particle Duality of Photons) (Link to be added by publisher)
Three Blue One Brown – Waves Visualization:
- Wave Interference and Light Animation (One of the best visual expositions on how oscillating charges create EM waves.)
Photoelectric Effect Historical Papers:
- Einstein, A. (1905). On a heuristic viewpoint concerning the production and transformation of light. Annalen der Physik, 17, 132-148.
- Millikan, R. A. (1916). A Direct Photoelectric Determination of Planck’s “h”.
Compton Scattering:
- Compton, A. H. (1923). A Quantum Theory of the Scattering of X-Rays by Light Elements. Physical Review, 21(5), 483–502.
Nonlinear Crystals & Down-Conversion:
- Burnham, D. C., & Weinberg, D. L. (1970). Observation of Simultaneity in Parametric Production of Optical Photon Pairs. Physical Review Letters, 25(2), 84–87.
- Kwiat, P. G. et al. (1995). New High-Intensity Source of Polarization-Entangled Photon Pairs. Physical Review Letters, 75(24), 4337–4341.
Entanglement and Bell’s Theorem:
- Bell, J. S. (1964). On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox. Physics, 1(3), 195–200.
- Aspect, A., Dalibard, J., & Roger, G. (1982). Experimental Test of Bell’s Inequalities Using Time- Varying Analyzers. Physical Review Letters, 49(25), 1804–1807.

Wave-particle duality, quantum mechanics, and the true nature of photons