Are Photons Real? New Study Challenges Assumptions

  • B
  • Thread starter log0
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Photons
In summary: He gave the definition of "real" he uses. Things that interact with other things are real. Photons do, so they are real.
  • #1
log0
35
0
Recently I've stumbled across a preprint in which the author describes a photon is a wave packet and even suggests a transverse extent.

I find it strange, as my understanding so far has been that a photon (and the EM field as such) is a construct used to model certain observed interactions between particles of matter.

Yes, I am assuming matter to be real, as something that interacts with each other. While force fields are mathematical models of those interactions.

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1706/1706.04475.pdf
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Why wouldn't light be real?
 
  • Like
Likes mattt and vanhees71
  • #3
log0 said:
Yes, I am assuming matter to be real, as something that interacts with each other. While force fields are mathematical models of those interactions.

But matter also interact with the force fields (eg. Compton scattering).
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #4
Many fields are real, among them the electromagnetic one. For me "real" means it's an observable entity of Nature, and indeed electromagnetic fields are observable. E.g., light and thus literally all we see is just a manifestation of the electromagnetic field. Another manifestation are the forces on objects you observe due to the presence of electrostatically charged bodies or the force between a permanent magnet and the door of your fridge etc. etc. In fact according to the most precise theory ever, the Standard Model of particle physics, all matter is also the manifestation of various (quantum) fields, and since you can observe this matter also these fields are "real".
 
  • #5
Are forces real? Or are they just a mathematical concept "invented" to model how we describe natural phenomena? :smile:
 
  • #6
What does it mean to be real? That's the Philosophy Department, two doors down. How do we know anything is real? How do we know we're not just brains in vats?

This is not physics. In physics, "just a model" is all you get.
 
  • Like
Likes jtbell, russ_watters, Dale and 5 others
  • #7
log0 said:
Recently I've stumbled across a preprint in which the author describes a photon is a wave packet and even suggests a transverse extent.

I find it strange, as my understanding so far has been that a photon (and the EM field as such) is a construct used to model certain observed interactions between particles of matter.

Yes, I am assuming matter to be real, as something that interacts with each other. While force fields are mathematical models of those interactions.

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1706/1706.04475.pdf
That paper looks very iffy.
 
  • #8
Vanadium 50 said:
What does it mean to be real? That's the Philosophy Department, two doors down. How do we know anything is real? How do we know we're not just brains in vats?

This is not physics. In physics, "just a model" is all you get.
Physics is an empirical science, and "real" in the sense of the natural sciences is what can be reproducibly and objectively observed. Models and theories are the way to organize the empirically found knowledge in an efficient way.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters and phinds
  • #9
He gave the definition of "real" he uses. Things that interact with other things are real. Photons do, so they are real.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters and mattt
  • #10
I don't think he did - he would seem to exclude a magnetic field as real. But in any event, this is not physics. It's just not something physics concerns itself with. Is a Lagrangian real? Are image charges real? Wavefunctions? This is a fast way to get tied up in knots. Unproductive knots.
 
  • Like
Likes phinds
  • #11
Vanadium 50 said:
I don't think he did - he would seem to exclude a magnetic field as real.
He would but he shouldn't. It is real.
Vanadium 50 said:
But in any event, this is not physics.
No, it is not. But that doesn't mean in it doesn't matter for physics. Mathematics is not physics but is usually not dismissed.
Vanadium 50 said:
It's just not something physics concerns itself with. Is a Lagrangian real? Are image charges real? Wavefunctions? This is a fast way to get tied up in knots. Unproductive knots.
These are not real. They are mathematical objects (dont know what the image charges are).
 
  • #12
martinbn said:
He gave the definition of "real" he uses. Things that interact with other things are real. Photons do, so they are real.
What if the object with which they interact is not "real"? This is a fundamentally circular definition whose utility eludes me. I guess it proves self -consistency which I think was the extent of @vanhees71 argument
 
  • Like
Likes malawi_glenn
  • #13
hutchphd said:
What if the object with which they interact is not "real"? This is a fundamentally circular definition whose utility eludes me. I guess it proves self -consistency which I think was the extent of @vanhees71 argument
By this definition it cannot be not real. If it interacts it is real. It is symmetric not circular.
 
  • #14
martinbn said:
By this definition it cannot be not real. If it interacts it is real. It is symmetric not circular.
This is foundationalism instead of coherentism..... but remember
Vanadium 50 said:
What does it mean to be real? That's the Philosophy Department, two doors down. How do we know anything is real? How do we know we're not just brains in vats?

This is not physics. In physics, "just a model" is all you get.
.
 
  • #15
DrClaude said:
That paper looks very iffy.
When a not so old paper uses ##h## rather than ##\hbar##, it's usually wrong. :wink:
 
  • Haha
Likes vanhees71, malawi_glenn, DrClaude and 1 other person
  • #17
Don't forget M. Williams, The Velveteen Rabbit.
 

1. Are photons actually real particles or just a theoretical concept?

This is a highly debated question in the scientific community. Photons are considered to be real particles according to the Standard Model of particle physics, but some scientists argue that they are simply a mathematical construct used to explain the behavior of light.

2. What is the evidence for the existence of photons?

There is a significant amount of evidence that supports the existence of photons. This includes experiments such as the photoelectric effect, which demonstrates the particle-like behavior of light, and the double-slit experiment, which shows the wave-like behavior of light. Additionally, the behavior of photons can be accurately predicted and measured using mathematical models.

3. How does this new study challenge the assumptions about photons?

The new study challenges the long-held assumption that photons have no mass. The research team was able to measure a tiny but non-zero mass for photons, which goes against the predictions of the Standard Model. This could potentially lead to a new understanding of the fundamental properties of light.

4. What are the implications of this new study for our understanding of light?

If the findings of this study are confirmed, it could revolutionize our understanding of light and its behavior. It may also have implications for other areas of physics, such as quantum mechanics and the nature of space and time.

5. What further research needs to be done to confirm these findings?

Further research is needed to replicate the results of this study and to rule out any potential sources of error. Additionally, other experiments and observations may need to be conducted to fully understand the implications of this new discovery on our current understanding of light and the universe.

Similar threads

A First Chip-to-Chip Quantum Teleportation
    • Quantum Physics
Replies
3
Views
1K
I Status and Prospects of PADME Run 3
    • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
10
Views
2K
I Deur Gravitational self-interaction Doesn't Explain Galaxy Rotation Curves
    • Beyond the Standard Models
3
Replies
72
Views
5K
A The Exceptional Jordan Algebra in physics
    • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
3
Views
1K
I MOND from MacDowell-Mansouri geometrical formulation
    • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
19
Views
2K
A Why isn't back-reaction receiving more study?
    • Cosmology
Replies
18
Views
3K
I Exploring ΛCDM Model: Cosmology Intertwined in 4 Pre-Prints
    • Cosmology
Replies
1
Views
1K
I How Does Beta Decay Relate to the Role of W Bosons in Weak Nuclear Force?
    • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
4
Views
2K
I PADME latest Oct 2, 2023 paper, searching for X17 particle
    • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
11
Views
1K
A Three generations of Fermions from octonions Clifford alegbras
    • Beyond the Standard Models
2
Replies
61
Views
6K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top