Journal of Quantum Informatio n Science, 2011, 1, 54-60
doi:10.4236/jqis.2011.12008 Published Online September 2011 (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/jqis)
The Actual Nature of Light (Ⅰ)
Reveal the Mystery about the Actual Nature of Light
from Newton, Einstein to the Recent Mistakes
He-Zhou Wang*, He-Xiang He, Jie Feng, Xiao-Dong Chen, Wei Lin
State Key Laboratory of Optoelectronic Materials and Technologies, Zhongshan University, Guangzhou, China
Received June 3, 2011; revised June 30, 2011; accepted July 10, 2011
Abstract
When Newton became the President of the Royal Society, he proposed corpuscle concept (wave-particle du-
ality) to destroy the fruitions of Hooke and Huygens, because Newton mistook Hooke and Huygens as his
enemies. Thereafter, this erroneous concept governed the scientific world for more than one hundred years.
This paper will reveal the mystery: why corpuscle concept could govern the scientific world for one hundred
years after Newton’s death. In the beginning of last century, photon, a palingenesis of Newton’s corpuscle,
was proposed by Einstein again, as a sudden whim, because Planck strongly opposed this wrong concept,
since 1907, Einstein strongly doubted this concept. Finally, Einstein disappointedly said: “The quanta really
are a hopeless mess.” This paper will reveal the mystery: why photon concept can govern the scientific world
until now, and give the evidences for the actual nature of light.
Keywords: Light, Wave, Vibration of Charged Particles, Photon, Wave-Particle Duality, Great Debates in
Physics
1. Introduction
Physics is the base that every field of science depends on.
In the past few centuries, the developments of physics
were dependent on the alternate victory and defeat of three
great debates. Recently, ostensibly, many new theories
appear one after another; however, actually, many incur-
rect theories were developed or are being developed;
because the century great debates have gone to an ex-
treme error. In this paper we will tell you what an apple
of discord of the three great debates is. And we will give
evidences.
2. The First Great Debate in Physics
2.1. Before 1704: Wave Property of Light Was
Recognized Extensively
Before 1704, most of scientists considered light as an
ether wave. The representative scientists are Francesco
Maria Grimaldi, Christiaan Huygens, Robert Hooke, and
so on. At that time, Isaac Newton also contributed a lot
to the wave nature of light. Their contributio ns are listed
as follows:
Francesco Maria Grimaldi (Italy, 1618-1663). In a
book entitled Physico-Mathesis de lumine, coloribus et
iride published posthumously, Gr imald’s observations of
diffraction when he passed white light through small
apertures were described. Grimaldi concluded that light
is a fluid that exhibits wave-like motion.
Christiaan Huygens (Netherlan ds 1629- 169 5). At 1690,
when he was 61, he fully published his wave theory of
light (in a communication to
the Academie des Science in
Paris, in his Traite de Lum-
iere in 1690). He suggested
that light propagates as a
disturbance (spherical pres-
sure wave). He considered
that each point of light wave
can act as a secondary source
of wavelets. One of the most
important predictions of his
theory was that light should
propagate more slowly in a
denser medium.

55 H. Z. WANG ET AL.
Isaac Newton (England, 1643 -
1727). Newton’s most remarkable
observation about light wave was
Newton’s rings. Furthermore, Ne-
wton’s earlier observation on the
dispersion of sunlight as it passed
through a prism is also an evidence
of wave.
2.2. Why Newton Proposed Corpuscular
Concept?
After Newton became the President of the Royal Society,
the power of this top position and the glory made him
arrogant. The adulation and acclamation made him aban-
don self-critical spirit. Newton mistook Hooke and Huy-
gens as his enemies. In 1704, Newton proposed the in-
correct concept of the corpuscular concept of light to
destroy the wave theory of Hooke and Huygens. But this
particle concept of light was incorrect; it could not ex-
plain the diffraction of light, so Newton had to explain
diffraction of light using wave. They formed the wave-
particle duality of Newton.
2.3. Why did Newton’s Wave-Particle Duality
Govern the Scientific World for more than
One Hundred Years?
Newton proposed a particle concept of light in 1704, and
died in 1727. Newton’s incorrect wave-particle duality
governed the physics world to 1818. Why could the
wrong wave-particle duality of Newton govern th e phys-
ics world for near 100 years after Newton’s death?
There is only one answer: the only causation was that
at that time the reviewers (and the topic editors) came to
fame due to their papers about the corpuscular concept
(wave-particle duality) of light. For safeguarding their
own honour and viscounty, they rejected all correct man-
uscripts.
2.4. The Evidences of Wave in the 19th Century
2.4.1. Young Double Slit Interference Experiment
In 1801, Thomas Young (England,
1773 - 1829) finished his double
slits interference experiment, which
is one of the most important optical
experiments in history. But his
paper was rejected by the reviewers
and editors for eighteen years, be-
cause it only can be explained well
by wave.
2.4.2. Poisson’s Spot
After many scientists, such as, Thomas Young and Au-
gustin Jean Fresnel (France, 1788-1827), fought for a
long time, the con troversy of the Poisson’s spo t was held
in France in 1818. When Fresnel reported his wave dif-
fraction theory, SiméonDenis Poisson (France, 1781-
1840) calculated the diffraction pattern of a disk using
Fresnel’s formula and got a result that a faint bright sp ot
appeared at the centre of the disk. Poisson was one of the
examiners of committee, and he was a believer in New-
ton’s particle theory of light. Poisson said: “If you look
at the shadow of a small circular object, the light bending
from all sides would add up especially strongly in the
middle. This means that in the middle of the shadow,
there would be a faint bright spot. It is impossible.” The
experiment was conducted at once, and the experiment
validated the spot and verified
that Fresnel’s theory was in-
deed correct. Poisson was con-
vinced of the wave theory. He
presented the result to all the
other judges to support Fresnel
to be the winner of the contest.
In order to memorize his dedi-
cation, this spot was named as
Poisson’s spot.
2.4.3. Experimental Evidence about Velocity of Light
in Air and Water
Armand Fizeau and Jean Bernard Léon Foucault per-
formed experiments to determine the velocity of light in
air and water in 1849 and 1862 respectively. They found
that the velocity of light in water was much slower than
that in air. It is exactly the same as Huygens’s predict-
tions of his wave theory. This became one of the impor-
tant evidences of the wave concept of light, because par-
ticle concept predicted that light in air was slower than
that in water.
2.4.4. Electromagnetic Wave
When James Clerk Maxwell (Scotland, 1831-1879) fin-

H. Z. WANG ET AL.
56
ished the research of his Maxwell
equations, he calculated the speed
of electromagnetic waves and found
that it was 300,000 km/sec, which
was the same of light. This forced
Maxwell to ponder about the na-
ture of light: it must be true that
the light is in fact an electromag-
netic wave! Maxwell concluded that
light is a form of electromagnetic
wave. Maxwell wrote: “This velocity is so nearly that of
light that it seems we have strong reason to conclude that
light itself (including radiant heat and other radiations) is
an electromagnetic disturbance in the form of waves
propagated through the electromagnetic field according
to electromagnetic laws.”
3. The Second Great Debate in Physics
3.1. Black-Body Radiation
For the explanation the spectra of
black-body radiation, Max Karl
Ernst Ludwig Planck (Germany,
1858 - 1947) firstly propo sed that
emission of black-body was en-
ergy quantization with value of
ħω, and he introduced the Planck
constant ħ. [1] It was the begin-
ning of Quantum Physics, and
Planck was recognized as the
originator of Quantum Physics,
so, in 1918, he got the Nobel Prize in Physics.
However, Planck believed that the origin of his ħω had
not been discovered; and he himself struggled for it
throughout his life. Until his death, he never accepted his
ħω as a photon.
3.2. How was the Wrong Concept of Photon
Proposed and Developed?
3.2.1. The Proposition of Photon was a Sudden Whim
In 1905, Albert Einstein (Germany, 1879-1955) was
busy on writing his PhD thesis. In March, a month before
he finished his PhD thesis, he had a sudden whim that
photoelectric effect could be explained by a hypothesis
of quanta (photon). So he spent a few days in writing a
paper and submitted it in March 1905 (It was published
in June 1905). In this hypothesis for explaining photo-
electric effect, he only considered the energy conserva-
tion and made use of Planck’s ħω [1] to propose a quanta
concept of light [2]. Th e year 1905 is the busiest time of
Einstein. He did a lot of great works in that year. He was
really too busy in 1905, he did not thoroughly consider
the concept of photon, which caused him regret through-
out his life.
Planck wrote a letter to Einstein in 1907 to tell him
that ħω was not the property of light in propagation; it
only appeared in the interaction with charged particles.
Light in propagation could only be described by Max-
well equations. Since that, Einstein began to doubt the
concept of photon. This made Einstein uneasy through-
out his life, which Einstein hoped to resolve, but could
not. So he said: “I spent all my life trying to understand
what a photon is, and haven’t understood it by now” [3].
And finally, he said: “The quanta really are a hopeless
mess” [3].
3.2.2. Millikan’s Experiment Misguided the Nobel
Prize Committee and Afterward these Nobel
Prizes Misguided the Whole Scientific World
Before 1916, nobody considered the concept of photons
as correct, and Planck strongly opposed the concept of
photon. However, in 1916, R. A. Millikan reported an
experimental result, which also considered the energy
conservation only to prove the formula of photoelectric
effect with mechanism of the collision between photon
and free electron [4]. In R. A. Millikan’s experiment, he
did not consider the momentum conservation law. Their
hypothesis contravenes the momentum conservation law,
and the 0.5% precision of Millikan’s experiment demon-
strates that photoelectric effect does not result from the
collision between photons and free electrons. In another
paper of this series papers, we will give the evidences in
detail for the actual mechanism of photoelectric effect.
The worst thing is as follows:
Einstein proposed theory of rela-
tivity, stimulation theory of light,
the gravitational wav es, and so on.
So, everybody thought that Ein-
stein should have deserved to win
several Nobel prizes. In 1921
committee of the Nobel Prize de-
cided to award Einstein a prize.
Unfortunately, affected by Mil-
likan’s experiment, the opinion of
some committee members was that only quanta had ex-
perimental proof, so in Einstein’s Nobel Prize only the
photon was mentioned, although all members of the No-
bel Prize committee thought that Einstein deserved to
win Nobel prize. Because Einstein is a very famous sci-
entist and his Nobel Prize only mentioned photons, and
so many Nobel Prizes in physics awarded were related to
the concept of photon. They made the concept of photon
accepted universally and misguided the whole scientific
world.

57 H. Z. WANG ET AL.
3.2.3. Nobel Prize Misguided Compton to Get a
Wrong Conclusion
In 1923, under th e misguiding ab ove, Compton although
knew that there were four puzzlements and quandaries
explaining photonic collisions (such as Compton’s scat-
tering results of various elements were undoubtedly evi-
dences that prove that the collision between photon and
nucleus is inexistent and untenable), he finally still ex-
plained his experimental result as a photonic collision [5].
Because it considered both the energy and momentum
conservation law, Compton scattering was misunder-
stood as the most convincing experimental evidence for
photon concept. The quandaries that Compton met and
the actual mechanism will be discussed in detail in an-
other paper of this series papers.
3.3. Who Give the Name of “Photon” and what is
it in Scientists’ Mind?
The word “photon” was proposed
by Gilbert Newton Lewis (1875-
1946, American) in 1926 [6].
In fact, in the mind of the most
famous scientists on quantum op-
tics: photon is an inexistent entity.
Such as the Nobel Prize (Quantum
Optics) laureate Roy Jay Glauber
(born in 1925) said: “A photon is
what a photo-detector detects.” “A photon is where the
photo-detector detects it” [7]. This implies that photon is
the characteristics of photo-detector rather than traveling
light itself.
3.4. Evidences that Prove the Concept of Photons
Is Wrong
In this series papers, we give 9 evidences (each one will
be one paper in this series papers). They directly prove
that the concept of photons is wrong. They are summed
up as follows:
1) Four evidences (lithium does not have a P band,
photonic explanation contravenes the impartibility of a
photon, all measurements depend on wave property,
without recoil force of photonic collision) prove that
explaining Compton scattering using photons is wrong.
Our results show Compton scattering is actually the Re-
coil-Doppler- Rayleigh scattering of free electrons.
2) The photonic explanation of photoelectric effect
contravenes the law of conservation of momentum. Our
experimental results demonstrate that the photoelectric
effect is an effect of a wave induced dipole of a surface
electron. The frequency dependent quantized property of
this light induced dipole perfectly explains all phenom-
ena of the photoelectric effect.
3) The mainstream photon model experiment actually
detects the emissions at different times and the superpo-
sition of wave trains from different atoms. From their
references [8-10], we find that they only record one
count of emissive light ener gy ħω of the superposition of
many wave trains from many atoms (every pulse, 109
atoms emited light trains, and every detector detected the
superposition of wave trains from about 105 atoms, ac-
cording to their experimental systems). The temporal
response time of their photomultiplier is about 2 ns. It
means that their photomultiplier is no possible to distin-
guish the light trains from different atom within a pulse.
Furthermore, for emissions at the same time, the up-
transition times of electronic vibration states also make
the response times of the two detectors different, due to
the different micro-distribution the superposition of wave
trains and the different micro- structure of detector.
4) Taylor’s feeble light interference experiment can be
explained well with the combination of wave diffraction
and the different up-transition time of vibration states of
different molecule, while photons can not explain it.
5) We design an experiment, in which light is detected
at constant power and different beam widths. The meas-
ured results depend on wave density rather than the
number of photons. This proves that light should be ex-
plained by a wave.
6) Combining experiment, classical theory and quan-
tum theory, our results demonstrate that quantized en-
ergy ħω in black-body radiation comes every time a sin-
gle hot electron emits a light wave train with energy of
ħω. Namely, quantized energy ħω in black-body radia-
tion comes from particle property of electron.
7) Raman scattering is the combination of light wave
induced quantized dipole and molecular intrinsic vibra-
tion between nucleuses (include rotation), rather than
photons emits from the virtual levels. Or say, the virtual
level is a real level of light indu c ed vibration dipole.
8) According to quantum mechanics, the spontaneous
emission of the excited atomic stationary state is impos-
sible in absent of perturbation. Using vibration dipole as
a bridge process, spontaneous emission can be explained.
9) In the past, under the misguidance of the photon,
the mechanism for pair production is confusing. Elec-
tron–positron pair annihilation with the production of 
rays was predicted by Dirac. It was almost immediately
observed, and it has since become possibly the most pro-
lific field of research in the active domain of particle
physics (more than a half excellent results and papers in
particle physics came from this field). On the other hand,
electron–positron pa ir productio n by lig ht-light collisio ns
was predicted by Breit–Wheeler. Because some part of
Quantum Electro-Dynamics was developed from it,

H. Z. WANG ET AL.
58
Quantum Electro-Dynamics predicts that it is possible.
Many expensive work have been done for it, it wasted a
lot of money and time of human being to prove it, but
never success. According to our theory, Dirac’s Elec-
tron–positron pair annihilation process is correct, while,
Breit–Wheeler’s Electron–positron pair by light-light
collisions is wrong. Our theory will stop the wrong ex-
periments to prove Breit–Wheeler’s prediction and the
waste of money and time of human being. According to
our theory, we propose the law of spontan eous transform
of matter, which unifies the mechanism of all pair crea-
tion methods.
Because the theoretical and experimental results and
their discussions are very long, every one of the evi-
dences above will be written a long paper. So every sin-
gle evidences above will be detailed respectively in one
of this series papers (Namely, 9 evidences above will
appear in nine papers).
4. Photon concept worsens Einstein-Bohr
Great Debate
In the Einstein-Bohr great debate, the opinions of Ein-
stein and Schrödinger are: 1) Materialistic objective real-
ity is independent of the people’s will. 2) They insisted
on the existence of causality. 3) They insisted on the lo-
cality and denied the non-locality. They recognised that
quantum mechanics can give probability without asking
for the parameters in micro-scale, which is great progress.
However, they pointed out that the shortcomings of
quantum mechanics lead to the illogical quantum entan-
glements with spooky remote effects. However, recently,
under the help of wrong photon concept, some bodies
called themselves the “mainstream scientists” and called
Einstein and Schrödinger the representative of “Non-
mainstream, anti-mainstream, or wrong researchers”. It
makes many people misunderstand and mistake Einstein
and Schrödinger as incorrect scientist.
How photon concept did worsen Einstein-Bohr great
debate? It needs a long paper to describe it in detail,
which will be reported in another paper of this series
papers. In the following paragraphs, we only give a short
summery.
4.1. Well Known Arguments in Einstein-Bohr
Great Debate
There are thr ee well-known arg uments appear ed in 1927,
1930, and 1935. The first and second arguments were
based on the wrong photon concept. However, because
the discussed topic related to the wrong concept of
photon, wrong concept made arguments far apart from
physical principle, wrong concept can not give correct
result, and made Einstein’s original idea unable to be
comprehended by Bohr. And Bohr used the topic of
photon to easily make Einstein speechless. The number
of majority of Copenhagen group won the argument, but
could not convince their opponents. It moved the debate
further apart from the correct direction.
The third argument is the most impor tant one. In these
two decades, the wrong concept of photon also makes
people mistakenly think Einstein and Schrödinger seem
wrong in the third argument. This mistake makes many
physicists waste a lot of money and time of human being
to develop wrong theor y and conduct wrong experiments.
It will be discussed curtly in the following sections .
4.2. The Third Argument in Einstein-Bohr Great
Debate
4.2.1. The EPR Paper and Schrödinger’s Cat
In 1935, the viewpoints of Einstein ’s EPR paper [11] and
Schrödinger’s cat [12] are as follows: Quantum Me-
chanics had a shortcoming that will give a confusing
state and has spooky remote effect. So quantum mecha-
nics should be further improved. Einstein and Schröd-
inger give this spooky remote effect a name of quantum
entanglement.
Five months later, Bohr published a response paper,
which was very difficult to read. Bohr emphasized that
no matter how far the distance of the two particles was,
they could interact with each other. The rest part of
Bohr’s paper gave some irrelevant answers.
Before the publication of this EPR paper, Bohr un-
compromisingly argued against the non-locality. How-
ever, after the publication of this EPR paper, he never
rejected non-locality, and encouraged his students and
follower to develop it.
4.2.2. A Turning Point of Photonic Quantum
Entanglement
Before 1980, a lot of people studied this topic, and no
conclusion was accepted extensively. In 1981-1982, there
are three experimental papers as the experimental evi-
dences for quantum entanglement published in Physical
Review Letters [8-10]. It became a turning point. Actu-
ally, they have no novel content in comparison with their
references, [13-15] expect for the adoption of high den-
sity laser pumping. For every body’s intuition , to d etect a
single photon without disturbing with each other, it needs
weak light, because th e weaker the ligh t is, the longer the
temporal interval will be. Only when the temporal inter-
val larger than the response time of the detector, you can
detect single photon without disturbing with each other.
Why the high density laser worked? The answer is that
their experiment instruments were incapable to detect

59 H. Z. WANG ET AL.
fluorescence from a single atom at all. Their detected
results are the superposition of many light wave trains
from many calcium atoms.
1) Both the sensitivity and temporal property of
photomultiplier prove that it can not detect fluores-
cence from a single atom.
According to the parameters in the literature, we sum
up their parameters and make estimation as follows: 1)
One record was detected from several hundred pulses. 2)
In one pulse, fluorescence of 7.16 × 107 (at least 105)
calcium atoms enters one photomultiplier. 3) The tem-
poral response time of photomultiplier is about 2 ns. 4)
The fluorescent life time is much longer than the tempo-
ral response time of photomultiplier. It means that their
photomultiplier is no possible to distinguish the light
trains from different atom within a pulse. Or say, this
system is absolutely impossible to detect light emitted
from one atom. Namely, their photomultiplier can not
distinguish the fluorescence train from a single atom,
among fluorescence train from so many atoms.
In one word, they used laser pumping, and they de-
tected the superposition of many wave trains from many
calcium atoms in every pulse, so the detected results
were stable.
2) The actual physics in these experiments
These experiments only detected the superposition of
many light wave trains from a lot of atoms, rather than a
fluorescence pairs from a single calcium atom. In the
following, two examples are described.
Example one:
At intense laser pumping, popu lation inversion of par-
tial calcium atoms is possible to appear. It will appear the
local (centre of the Gaussian laser beam for example)
coherent or partial coherent radiation (lasing, super-ra-
diance or super- fluorescence). Namely, light that enters
the photomultiplier is the superposition of coherent
emission and fluorescent wave trains of random polari-
zation from many atoms.
If the polarization of coherent radiation is in the direc-
tion Y and its light intensity is Is; in a direction A, the
light intensity (IA) is the sum of projection of coherent
radiation in direction A and the random fluorescence (IR).
The projection is function of angle’s cosine, so we get
the light intensity in direction A: IA = Iscos + IR. The
coincidence rate between directions Y and A depends on
IA. So the coincidence rate as a function of the relative
polarizer orientation depends on IA = Iscos + IR. Namely
the coincidence rate as a function of the relative polarizer
orientation is a function of angle’s cosine adding a back
ground, which comes from the random fluorescence. The
experimental result in these three papers is a similar co-
sine function adding a back ground; it is exactly the same
as our analysis.
Example two:
At weak excitation (previous experiment of the refer-
ences of these three papers), population inversion does
not appear. Only many calcium atoms simultaneously
emit wave trains with the same polarization can be de-
tected. The probability of that many calcium atoms si-
multaneously emit wave trains with the same polariza-
tion is small, so it was difficult to get a record in those
experiment before 1981.
If the same polarization direction of simultaneously
emission is in direction Y, which light intensity is sign ed
by I
y; and that the direction of polarizer in front of the
second photomultiplier is in direction A, light intensity
of in direction A (IA) should be the projection of Iy in
direction A, plus the random component (IR). When light
intensity is higher than the threshold of the photomulti-
plier, the coincidence signal will be recorded. So the co-
incidence rate as a function of the relative polarizer ori-
entation will be the same of IA = Iycos + IR. It is a cosine
function, adding a background of the random component.
It is consistent with the experimental results.
The two examples above demonstrate that the experi-
mental results above are the resu lt of supposition of lig ht
wave trains. Of course, the examples above are the sim-
plified analyses. The precise method is a statistical
method.
4.2.3. What Is Photonic Teleportation Experimental
Evidence Wrong?
Another and the most important experimental evidence
for non-locality and quantum entanglement is a paper
published in Nature.[16] There are five problems prove
that their evidence is untenable. In the following, we sum
up two of them as follows:
1) As described by authors (line 15-16 of second col-
umn in page 578), all of their experimental results indi-
cate “that photon 3 is polarized along the direction of
photon 1, confirming teleportation”. In fact, the au-
thors know the polarization of photon 1 because they
inset a polarizer in it, and they have detected polarization
of photon 3 directly. This is the real evidence. The au-
thors have measured it. Why don’t the authors dare tell
readers about this real direct evidence?
2) The authors gave Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 as their experi-
mental evidences, but using wave without entanglement
can give these results. Furthermore, Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 are
not same as Fig. 3 (the theoretical result of teleportation).
The peak value in their Fig. 3a should be zero, but in Fig.
4 and Fig. 5 is not zero, which is the same as the expla-
nation of wave. The detail is too long ; so it will be detail
in another paper.
4.2.4. The Recent Status of Quantum Entanglement
The recent study of quantum entanglement can be classi-

H. Z. WANG ET AL.
60
fied into the following three categories:
1) Photonic quantum entanglement
Quantum Mechanics had a shortcoming that will give
a confusing state and has spooky remote effect. So using
Quantum Mechanics, it is easily to get Photonic quantu m
entanglement. However, we have proved that all of their
experimental evidences are incorrect.
2) Quantum entanglement of ato m following phot o-
nic method
Recently, some of theoretical researchers reported
some papers about quantum entanglement of atom fol-
lowing the photonic method. They imagine that atoms
interact and entangle with each other, and then these en-
tangled atoms are separated with entanglement to ach ieve
spooky remote effects. However, there is no convincing
experimental evidence to support it.
3) “Quantum entanglement of atom” with interact-
tion of field and without spooky remote effect
Many theoretical and experimental researchers are
conducting these researches. It is totally different from
photonic quantum entanglement. Its interaction is gener-
ated by the field of high Q cavity. Although most of the
researchers used the same description method and test
method of photonic quantum entanglement to treat these
experiments, it actually differs from photonic quantum
entanglement and the quantum entanglement proposed
by Einstein and Schrödinger, its physics is correct. When
photonic quantum entanglement withers away, it will
still exist with another name.
Summing up the results above in Section 4, we can
conclude that 1) the experimental evidences of photonic
quantum entanglement actually is the results of the su-
perposition of many wave trains from many calcium at-
oms in every pulse, rather than a single photon; 2) in
Einstein-Bohr great debate, the viewpoints of Einstein
and Schrödinger are correct.
5. References
[1] M. Planck, “The Theory of Heat Radiation,” Translation
by Morton Masius, P. Blakiston’s Son & CO., Philadel-
phia, 1914.
[2] A. Einstein, “Concerning a Heuristic Point of View to-
ward the Emission and Transformation of Light,” Annals
of Physics, Vol. 17, 1905, pp. 132-148.
doi:10.1002/andp.19053220607
[3] M. Born, “The Born-Einstein letters 1916-1955, Friend-
ship, Politics and Physics in Uncertain Times,” By Max
Born, Macmillan, New York, 1971, 2005.
[4] R. A. Millikan, “A Direct Photoelectric Determination of
Planck’s ‘h’,” Physical Review, Vol. 7, No. 3, 1916, pp.
355-388. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.7.355
[5] A. H. Compton, “A Quantum Theory of the Scattering of
X-Rays by Light Elements,” Physical Review, Vol. 21,
1923, pp. 483-498. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.21.483
[6] G. N. Lewis, “The Conservation of Photons,” Nature, Vol.
118, No. 2981, 1926, pp. 874-875. doi:10.1038/118874a0
[7] “The Nature of Light, What is a Photon?” P39, Edited by
Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri A. F. Kracklauer Katherine
Creath, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton
London New York, 2008.
[8] A. Aspect, P. Grangier and G. Roger, “Experimental
Tests of Realistic Local Theories via Bell’s Theorem,”
Physical Review Letters, Vol. 47, No. 7, 1981, pp.
460-463. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.47.460
[9] A. Aspect, P. Grangier and G. Roger, “Experimental
Realization of Einstaein-Rosen-Bohm Gedankenexperi-
ment: A New Violation of Bell’s Inequalities,” Physical
Review Letters, Vol. 49, No. 2, 1982, pp. 91-94.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.49.91
[10] A. Aspect, J. Dalibard and G. Roger, “Experimental Tests
of Bell’s Inequalities Using Time-Varying Analyzers,”
Physical Review Letters, Vol. 49, No. 25, 1982, pp.
1804-1807. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.49.1804
[11] A. Einstein, B. Podolsky and N. Rosen, “Can Quan-
tum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Con-
sidered Complete?” Physical Review, Vol. 47, No. 10,
1935, pp. 777-780. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.47.777
[12] E. Schrödinger, “Die Gegenwartige Situation in der
Quantenmechanik (The Present Situation in Quantum
Mechanics),” Naturwissenschaften, Vol. 23, 1935, pp.
807-812, 823-828, 844-849.
[13] S. J. Freedman and J. F. Glauser, “Experimental Test of
Hidden-Variable,” Physical Review Letters, Vol. 28, No.
14, 1972, pp. 938-941. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.28.938
[14] J. F. Glauser, “Experimental Investigation of Polarization
Correlation Anomaly,” Physical Review Letters, Vol. 36,
No. 21, 1976, pp. 1223-1226.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.36.1223
[15] E. S. Fry and C. Randa ll, “Thompson, Experimental Test
of Hidden-Variable Theories,” Physical Review Letters,
Vol. 36, 1976, pp. 465-469.
[16] D. Bouwmeester, J.-W. Pan, K. Mattle, M. Eibl, H.
Weinfurter and A. Zeilinger, “Experimental Quantum
Teleportation,” Nature, Vol. 390, No. 6660, 1997, pp.
575-579. doi:10.1038/37539