What is a photon in respect to electromagnetic waves?by khkwang Tags: electromagnetic, photon, respect, waves 

#1
Jan1812, 01:17 PM

P: 61

I've always thought that photons and electromagnetic waves are one in the same. And I still do, but I'm trying to get a better grasp on the idea and am finding it difficult.
1) As I understand it, they are the same. But an electromagnetic wave with definite frequency is a perfect sine wave and so goes on forever. I assumed previously that a single photon corresponded to a electromagnetic wave of definite frequency but that can't be, else the photon exists in an infinite length... so then is a photon an electromagnetic packet? If so, then a single photon must be multiple electromagnetic waves. So then what does a single electromagnetic wave of definite frequency represent? 2) I also thought that the electric field of an electromagnetic wave was related to the probability of a photon's position. If this is so, then the probability of the photon existing in a location is highest at the wave's crests and troughs and zero at the nodes. I'm positive that what I just said is wrong, but it's currently how I visualize it so please someone steer me in the correct direction. 3) Also if the electric field portion of the wave describes the photon's probability, then what does the magnetic field represent? 4) If the EM wave is just an oscillating charge, would I be able to produce an EM wave by moving an electron up and down over and over again? If so would I be producing a photon then? What I said probably doesn't make any sense... so please if anyone could help correct me... 



#2
Jan1812, 03:59 PM

P: 199





#3
Jan1812, 05:46 PM

P: 61

Wow okay, so I guess that means we're still at a standstill between consolidating the classical and quantum mechanical interpretations? Thank you Hydr0matic, you've helped clear up something very fundamental for me.
I do have a couple more questions though if you're willing to stick around for a moment... 1) In interference experiments such as those involving interferometers, which wave is it that is being measured? The EM wave or the wave function (as you say they are not the same thing)? If it is the EM wave, then it kind of confuses me because in a way it is determining the intensity of the light, which I'm assuming is related to the probability of a photon's arrival. So then it seems like the EM wave is related to the wave function. 2) About the uncertainty principle; If we shoot a photon through an extremely tiny hole, it's my understanding the the possible final locations smear out. But if we were to measure backwards from where the final position was to the position of the hole we can determine the velocity after leaving the hole AND the position to extreme accuracy. So we are allowed to know both the momentum and position fully at the same time, but only after the fact. Is this allowed? 



#4
Jan1912, 03:22 AM

Sci Advisor
P: 4,491

What is a photon in respect to electromagnetic waves? 



#5
Jan1912, 06:30 AM

P: 199





#6
Jan2112, 06:49 PM

P: 128

The electromagnetic wave is not related to the quantum probability. The electric and magnetic waves satisfy the classical wave equation, which is second order in time. They are real waves that transport energy and momentum through spacetime. On the other hand, the quantum wavefunction satisfies Schrodinger’s time dependent equation, which is first order in time and which does not have real solutions. The quantum wavefunctions are necessarily complex, not real. They are defined as complex scalar products in a Hilbert space. As far as we know, they do not have energy and momentum for us to measure. 2) Once the photon hits the detection screen, we have a position measurement result and the experiment is over. Bohr called this “closure”. You can then repeat the experiment, if you like, but there is no “after the (measurement) fact”. Or, you can do a different experiment that determines the position and momentum at the tiny hole, as you suggest. That is, of course, also possible. The uncertainty principle does not prohibit knowing both momentum and position at the same time. But it does prohibit repeating the same experiment a great many times and always getting the same value for momentum and always getting the same value for position. Then the uncertainty would be zero for both momentum and position in the same experiment. And that is impossible. 



#7
Jan2212, 08:07 AM

P: 199





#8
Jan2312, 12:33 AM

P: 189

Sorry. I want to know how the next experiment (Fake of Bell inequality violation) has been thought since it was published.
Fake violation of Bell tests reinforce inportance of closing loopholes. In the current study, the scientists showed that Eve can send strong, classical light pulses, with a polarization of her choice, into both Alice and Bob’s photon detectors at the same time. This classical light produces photocurrents that are interpreted as photons. Therefore, Alice and Bob are unknowingly measuring classical light pulses, which means that some of the coincidences that they count are not due to quantum entanglement but to Eve’s manipulation.  This very bright pulse causes sufficient photocurrent to cross the detection threshold only in one of the four polarizer settings. In the other three polarizer settings, the polarizer partially blocks light, the photocurrent stays below the threshold and the detector remains blind. Thus, Eve classically controls exactly which of the four polarizations Alice and Bob register. So this experiment showed that the classical light can maipulate photon detection in photodetector (above or below detection threshold ) ? 



#9
Jan2612, 11:42 AM

P: 128

When discussing the fundamental principles of quantum mechanics we always assume ideal experiments to purposely exclude effects caused by any limitations in the devices used in the experiments. It is understood, then, that any nonclassical behavior is due to the quantum nature of the experiment and not due to any human error or experimental imperfections.
We are currently able to do real experiments with only one photon in the experimental apparatus at any time. Only one detector is ever triggered. This is an experimental fact. We never see the two detectors in a MachZehnder interferometer, for example, triggered simultaneously when only one photon is present. This seems obvious if there is only one photon available to do anything. A wave, being associated with a continuum, should trigger both detectors at least some of the time, even with imperfect devices. The effect is more dramatic with photons hitting a detection screen, which is a continuum of detectors. In a onephoton interference experiment, the one photon produces one dot on the screen. We do not observe the total distribution of dots all appearing simultaneously. (As an aside, how would we get a zillion photons from the original one??) The interference pattern is built up one dot at a time, not continuously as a wave would do. The result obtained in a single measurement is always a single dot on the detection screen. The point is this – Some experiments with light exhibit particle properties. This has been demonstrated in many experiments done over many years. That is what is being discussed here. That is why quantum mechanics was invented. The wave nature of light cannot explain the results of all these experiments. Nor can we explain all such experiments as being due to imperfections in our instruments or due to human ignorance, as you suggest. Quantum mechanics is indeterminate. There are many different possible results of a quantum measurement and, generally, quantum mechanics does not predict which result will happen. It only predicts the probability of getting each possible result. Each result is an eigenvalue of the observable being measured, For example, if we perform a position measurement, there are very many locations where the particle can be found. If we repeat the same experiment many times we generate a statistical distribution of all the dots that contains the entire eigenvalue spectrum of the position operator. The position does not have a unique value as it does in classical physics where the same experiment always yields the same result. This is what we mean when we say that the position is uncertain. (Bohr, among others, preferred to say the position is “indeterminate”, which I believe is more descriptive and less confusing.) The uncertainty principle is a consequence of the purely statistical nature of quantum events. Theoretically, the uncertainty in position is defined to be the rootmeansquare deviation from the mean value of all the measurement results, called the standard deviation in ordinary statistics: [tex]\Delta x = \sqrt {\left\langle {\left. {\psi \left {\left( {\hat x  \left\langle {\left. {\hat x} \right\rangle } \right.} \right)^2 } \right\psi } \right\rangle } \right.} [/tex] Likewise the uncertainty in momentum is: [tex]\Delta p_x = \sqrt {\left\langle {\left. {\psi \left {\left( {\hat p_x  \left\langle {\left. {\hat p_x } \right\rangle } \right.} \right)^2 } \right\psi } \right\rangle } \right.} [/tex] ]. Notice that the uncertainties depend on the wavefunction [tex]\psi (x).[/tex] Every wavefunction gives uncertainties that satisfy [tex]\Delta x\Delta p \ge \hbar /2[/tex]. Notice, also, that the uncertainties depend on the operators [tex]\hat x[/tex] and [tex]\hat p[/tex]. This is how we calculate uncertainties. It is these definitions, along with the commutation relation [tex]\left[ {\hat x,\hat p_x } \right] = i\hbar [/tex], that gives the uncertainty relation [tex}\Delta x\Delta p_x \ge \hbar /2[/tex] I apologize for having to resort to the mathematical formalism, but, in the hope of minimizing misconceptions, the exact definitions should be used in any discussion of the uncertainty principle. Of course, it is [tex]\left \psi \right^2 [/tex] that predicts the statistical distribution of all the measurement results. When we see the statistical distribution of many repeated position measurements, we know there is an uncertainty in position. If we always get the same position in repeated measurements, then, when we calculate the position uncertainty, we get [tex]\Delta x = 0[/tex], and we say the position is absolutely certain, as in classical physics. If the statistical spread is clustered around only one location, then it is or less uncertain. If the dots are scattered over a wide range of positions, then the position is more uncertain. In any case, you must repeat the experiment many times to determine whether the position is certain [tex]\Delta x = 0[/tex] or whether it is uncertain [tex]\Delta x \ne 0[/tex]. We intentionally use “certain” in place of words like “accurate” and “precise”, which refer to a single measurement and which can be misleading in this discussion. A single measurement tells us nothing about uncertainties. Uncertainties are not measured values. When a particle hits a detection screen we see a dot on the screen that gives the particle’s position at the instant it hit. We have a value for the position. Yet, there is no way to obtain the uncertainty in position from that number. We repeat, for emphasis, THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE IS ABOUT UNCERTAINTIES. (I apologize for yelling, but too many discussions ignore this essential fact.) It is not about the actual values of position and momentum obtained in single measurements. The uncertainty principle tells us that there is no experiment, and no wavefunction, for which both position and momentum are certain. The uncertainty principle also states that an uncertainty in position is accompanied by an uncertainty in momentum, but in no case will the product of the uncertainties be less than [tex]\hbar /2[/tex]. The part of the Wiki article you site is In quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states a fundamental limit on the accuracy with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle, such as position and momentum, can be simultaneously known. In layman's terms, the more precisely one property is measured, the less precisely the other can be controlled, determined, or known. IMHO, a more meaningful statement is In quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states a fundamental limit on the product of certain pairs of uncertainties, such as the position uncertainty and the momentum uncertainty. There is no experiment in which the product of those uncertainties can be less than [tex]\hbar /2[/tex]. The more certain we are of one property, the more uncertain is the other. Best wishes 



#10
Jan2612, 08:51 PM

P: 199

Also see this article (published three days ago) about a new innovative single photon light source. If creating single photons is as easy as you believe, why are physicists still working on improving these sources? 



#11
Jan2712, 02:50 AM

Sci Advisor
P: 4,491





#12
Jan2712, 08:51 AM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 2,197

There is also a need for sources and detectors that work at other frequencies (lets say MW frequencies). Remember that the field of single photonics is mainly driven my cryptography, and that is very much reflected in the work that is done.The foundations of QM is very much a nonissue for most people. Also, yes you will always have dark counts etc. ; but it is down to the skill and experience of the people performing the experiments to take that into account. There is no such as a perfect experiment, and in any realworld situation there are effects that needs to be taken into consideration and corrected for. 


Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
Why are electromagnetic waves transverse waves? Is this answer ok?  Classical Physics  4  
Electromagnetic interactions & photon transfer  Quantum Physics  2  
The photon and Electromagnetic field  Special & General Relativity  31  
Electron Group Waves & Electromagnetic Waves, energy delivery in a wire  Classical Physics  10  
Electromagnetic field vs. photon(s)  Quantum Physics  5 