Wave-particle Duality Nonsense
Thanks for the link to Borg’s 2010 article on “Abolishing the wave-particle duality nonsense.” You asked what I thought about it. He has come to the same conclusion that many of us have: light is motion. He mentions many of the properties of light, such as refraction, that show it to be a wave and not a particle. He demonstrates, convincingly, that the inverse square law should only be used for spherical sources. When point sources are used (e.g., lasers, etc.) the inverse square law does not apply. Collimated light maintains its wave nature and should not be construed as a beam of particles. Of special note is his mention of Planck’s verbal objection to Einstein’s claim that light traveled in digital form. Planck believed, as we do, that the digital property of light only appears when it interacts with a detector. Coming from the primary initiator of quantum mechanics, this should have put the kibosh on Einstein’s corpuscular theory of light. It did not.
If Borg’s article can be faulted, it is his neglecting to mention anything about the medium necessary for light: the aether. Up until 1920, Einstein was an “aether denier”—that’s what made SRT famous. Nonetheless, the wiser, older Einstein (1920) said: "Careful reflection teaches us that special relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume its existence but not ascribe a definite state of motion to it ..." "There is a weighty reason in favour of ether. To deny ether is to ultimately assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever." This also should have put the kibosh on the corpuscular theory of light. It did not.
Borg, X. (2010). "Abolishing the wave-particle duality nonsense." Retrieved 10/14/2011, 2011, from http://www.blazelabs.com/f-u-photons.asp.
Einstein, A. (1920). Sidelights on relativity: 1. Ether and relativity. 2. Geometry and experience. London, Methuen.