There's no problem reconciling the quantum with the Newtonian. Quantum mechanics recovers Newtonian mechanics in the appropriate limit. The problem is reconciling the quantum and the Einsteinian.
I think neither analogy is correct. We're using macro metaphors (real world things at human time and spatial scales) to explain microscopic phenomena that may not correspond to anything that we find familiar.
The way I've always thought of this is there are potentials for interactions and interactions.
Interactions act like point particles and potentials for interactions act like waves.
Arguing over the distinction is a bit like debating whether people are the things they do, or the thing that does things. There is some philosophical discussion to be had, but for the most part it doesn't really matter.
It still interferes with itself, and that interference affects the pattern of detections. It's as if the photon were a wave right up until the moment of detection, at which points it's forced to “particalize” and pick a spot to be located at — but it's the amplitude of the wave it was just before detection that determines where on the detection screen the photon is likely to show up. If you send many photons through one at a time, the detections (each just a point on the screen) will fill out the expected double slit pattern.
As the other comments have already mentioned, it interferes with itself, so you still observe the same interference patterns [0] [1]. Which admittedly seems impossible at first, but so does the rest of quantum physics.
I've always wondered what degree of confidence exists amongst the cogniscenti that a single photon event happened. I tend to think the criteria of measurement here would suggest the most likely outcome was a shitload more than 1 photon, and that all the "but we measured we can see one only" measurements are themselvs hedged by a bunch of belief.
That said, I do like the single photon experiment, when it's more than a thought experiment.
It's a wave of probability, that interferes through the slits and then collapses into a probability of one somewhere along the wavefront at the point of detection. Whatever that means :-)
> To quantify this influence, the team applied their model to Terbium Gallium Garnet (TGG), a crystal widely used to measure the Faraday effect. They found that the magnetic field of light accounts for about 17% of the observed rotation at visible wavelengths and up to 70% in the infrared range.
Nearly 20% seems already significant, but 70%?! that's massive.
But actually everything is merely waves and fields.
There's going to be a time where humans finally reconcile the quantum with the newtonian -- and I can't wait for that day
They’re all largely untestable though
String theory, LQG, half a dozen others
The two-slit experiment says otherwise.
Interactions act like point particles and potentials for interactions act like waves.
Arguing over the distinction is a bit like debating whether people are the things they do, or the thing that does things. There is some philosophical discussion to be had, but for the most part it doesn't really matter.
It would be going too far to say it's only a wave though. It's both wave and particle.
[0]: https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/III_01.html#Ch1-S5
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality#...
That said, I do like the single photon experiment, when it's more than a thought experiment.
repeat the single photon launch many times, and you see a wavelike distribution of photon strikes
> However, the new research demonstrates that the magnetic field of light, long thought irrelevant,
Nearly 20% seems already significant, but 70%?! that's massive.
>17.5% of the measured value for Terbium-Gallium-Garnet (TGG) at 800 nm, and up to 75% at 1.3 µm.
Here's what the crystal looks like
https://www.photonchinaa.com/tgg-terbium-gallium-garnet/
Here's transmission plot (UV-IR)
https://www.samaterials.com/terbium-gallium-garnet-crystal.h...
Note there's almost no effect on transmission
Relevant? https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/51819
This team might have looked at bandstructure. or not (they didn't say, & I'd guess not)