
#1
Dec612, 03:29 PM

P: 29

I was listening to a physics professor lecturing on QM and he raised the question "How big is a photon?" and indicated it had arisen during his PhD defense.
He than began to discuss the accurately known frequency and wavelength of a laser emitted photon (and thus accurately known momentum) in the context of the uncertainty principle. The product of the uncertainty in position and accurately measured momentum is greater than or equal to (up to a small numerical factor) Planck's constant. He then concluded that in the direction of travel, the position was unknown to within a surprisingly large distance  a meter or so. Or more accurately, that is how I interpreted it. He didn't say position is unknown, he was still talking about "size". Without really saying it, the implication was that the answer to the question was that a photon was a meter or so long in the direction of travel (and the emitting aperture wide in the transverse direction). Does that description of "size" make sense to those here? I would probably have said that the photon is a point particle unless we're doing string theory, and the location was just poorly known along the travel direction. If the photon was truly "big" I'd think it would take 3 nanoseconds to finish arriving at a detector assuming a foot or so per nanosecond speed of light, and that should easily be measurable. Do photons take a finite amount of time to "arrive" at a detector? Thanks. 



#2
Dec612, 03:32 PM

Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 11,863

The current theory works very well with a pointlike particle approximation of a quanta of the electromagnetic field. I don't know of a successful model (i.e. predictive and confirmed by experiments) of a finite size photon particle.




#3
Dec612, 04:40 PM

Sci Advisor
P: 2,470

Uncertainty and size aren't the same thing. Like dextercioby said, photons, like all elementary particles, are pointlike.
Uncertainty in position of a photon produced by a finely tuned laser can, indeed, be quite macroscopic. That shouldn't be surprising. Even in classical treatment, in order to have a precise frequency, the oscillation must have significant duration. Therefore, a precisely localized photon cannot possibly have a precise frequency. But it doesn't mean the photon is one meter long now. It means that the photon is still a point particle that's distributed over span of space of one meter. 



#4
Dec612, 06:41 PM

Mentor
P: 11,989

How big is a photon?
The size of a photon depends on its environment. If you have a cube with mirrored surfaces on the inside, then the photons that describe the electromagnetic field inside that cube are the size of the cube  whether it is 1 micrometer or 1 kilometer.




#5
Dec612, 06:49 PM

Sci Advisor
P: 2,470





#6
Dec612, 08:31 PM

Sci Advisor
P: 8,007

I think your professor is just expressing a sentiment like "the particle is part of a beam, and that beam is extracted at some time. So the particle is localized to some extent. .... To a particle the beam is the whole universe, and it is big!" http://books.google.com/books?id=CNC...gbs_navlinks_s (p117).
It's similar to Redbelly98's reply. 



#7
Dec612, 09:06 PM

Sci Advisor
P: 2,470

But none of this still has anything to do with size of a photon. 



#8
Dec712, 09:01 AM

P: 29

Because this was a simplified minimal mathematics lecture series for the general public I would have assumed that his "size" comment was just a fuzzy way of introducing related concepts, except that he presented it as a specific trick question he was asked during his PhD defense.
Perhaps what he was getting at is that when detected, the photon has size that interacts with the detector with pointlike properties, but while propagating before detection it has size that is described with wavelike properties distributed over the meter distance. IOW, I suppose he was trying to emphasize wave particle duality and that both are legitimate descriptions of the real world, with an equal claim to the concept of "size." I know I tend to think of the particle as the "real" thing and the wave function as describing a probability for where that real thing is "really" located, but I know that's sort of a nonQM bias I have from growing up in a macro sized world. Thanks for the comments. 



#9
Dec1012, 09:15 AM

P: 562

It's been known since the mid 20th century that the wave trails of photons are typically some millions of cycles long (several meters). But that says nothing about a photon's possible extent in other spatial directions.
A photon may even be considered enigmatic if we ask the question: "What is a photon? Is it a particle that binds energy into a highly compressed region or is it a wave that potentially spreads into infinity as it's edges dissipate in time and space?" 



#10
Dec1012, 09:28 AM

Mentor
P: 10,846

Coherence length of most light sources is shorter than that (just a few wavelengths). You need a laser to get coherence lengths of meters with visible light. 



#11
Dec1012, 10:29 AM

P: 562





#12
Feb1913, 08:52 AM

P: 3

How about reframing the question as follows:
If a photon travels down a direction in vacuum, how small a hole will need to be to stop it entirely. The question might need to be asked first for visible light and then for other wavelengths should there be interesting differences (like the barrier might need to of different material). The answer might need to be in probabilistic form, like if the photon is 450nm wavelength and if the hole is 500nm in diameter, the photon might go through 70% time. 



#13
Feb1913, 10:08 AM

P: 503





#14
Feb1913, 11:37 AM

Mentor
P: 10,846

There will always be some light getting through, but for lengths smaller than the wavelength a better focus does not help any more, and the maximal (!) fraction going through begins to drop. 



#15
Feb2013, 04:59 AM

P: 3

laser or flashlight? It shouldn't matter. The question is for one photon. The source should not matter except for a laser, all the photons would be same wavelength and the flashlight would be many.




#16
Feb2013, 05:18 AM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 2,199

Moreover, and perhaps more relevant to the OP, single photons can even have different "shapes"; at least if you believe that what is being measured is actually a "real" property of a photon see e.g. http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.5614 The correlation plots in e.g. fig 2 represent the "shape" of a single "twopeak" photon, at least if you believe the authors (I saw a talk about this at a confence a couple of months ago) 



#17
Feb2013, 06:20 AM

P: 3

From the article, I find this "Here, we demonstrate that single photons deterministically emitted from a single atom into an optical cavity...". So it seems now feasible to emit single photons at will. 



#18
Feb2013, 06:59 AM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 2,199

However, all of these sources are fundamentally "quantum mechanical" in that they are able to generate a single excitation, they are very different from a flashlight. If you start with a thermal source you can of course attenuate it so that it looks like it on average emitts say a single photon per second when you measure the energy it outputs; but it won't be a true single photon source since a thermal field (as it is known) does not contain a fixed number of photons. The emitted radiation simply does not HAVE a property "X number of photons". A source that can generate single photons emitts radiation that is in what is known as a number (or Fock) state, and then this property exists (but the price you pay is that now the phase is undetermined). 


Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
If I acclerate and observe a photon, do I see the spin of the photon changing?  Special & General Relativity  2  
Does a gamma ray photon have less energy than a radiowave photon?  Quantum Physics  17  
In electron/photon interactions does the handedness of the photon matter?  Quantum Physics  2  
Can photonphoton interactions alone produce black body radiation?  Quantum Physics  12  
What happens when a photon meets a virtual photon of the same wavelength?  Quantum Physics  13 