Are Photons Real? New Study Challenges Assumptions

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter log0
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Photons
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on the nature of photons and their reality, sparked by a preprint suggesting that photons are wave packets with a transverse extent. Participants debate whether photons, as manifestations of electromagnetic fields, are "real" in the context of physics, emphasizing that reality is defined by observable interactions. The conversation highlights the distinction between mathematical models and empirical science, asserting that photons interact with matter, thus qualifying as real entities. The discussion concludes that while philosophical inquiries about reality are valid, they diverge from the empirical focus of physics.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of electromagnetic fields and their properties.
  • Familiarity with the Standard Model of particle physics.
  • Knowledge of quantum mechanics and wave-particle duality.
  • Basic grasp of philosophical concepts related to reality and observation.
NEXT STEPS
  • Read the preprint titled "Photon as a Wave Packet" available at arxiv.org.
  • Explore the implications of the Standard Model on the concept of reality in physics.
  • Investigate the philosophical debates surrounding the nature of reality in quantum mechanics.
  • Study the differences between mathematical models and empirical observations in physics.
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, philosophers of science, and students interested in the intersection of quantum mechanics and philosophical inquiries about reality will benefit from this discussion.

log0
Messages
35
Reaction score
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
Why wouldn't light be real?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: mattt and vanhees71
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   Reactions: vanhees71
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".
 
Are forces real? Or are they just a mathematical concept "invented" to model how we describe natural phenomena? :smile:
 
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   Reactions: jtbell, russ_watters, Dale and 5 others
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.
 
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   Reactions: russ_watters and phinds
He gave the definition of "real" he uses. Things that interact with other things are real. Photons do, so they are real.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 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   Reactions: 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   Reactions: 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   Reactions: vanhees71, malawi_glenn, DrClaude and 1 other person
  • #17
Don't forget M. Williams, The Velveteen Rabbit.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Status and Prospects of PADME Run 3
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
High School Explaining Galaxy Rotation Speed Discrepancies with GR & Gravitic Fields
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
Undergrad The standard model from loop quantum gravity via spinors octonions
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
5K
Undergrad Deur Gravitational self-interaction Doesn't Explain Galaxy Rotation Curves
  • · Replies 72 ·
3
Replies
72
Views
10K
Undergrad A novel explanation of CKM and PMNS matrix parameters
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Undergrad What Key Issues Should Cosmologists Address in the ΛCDM Model?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
High School Neutron star 4U 1820-30 spins at 716 revolutions per second
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
High School Cosmological constant vis-a-vis dynamical vacuum: bold challenging the ΛCDM
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
High School Is Dark Matter in the 100GeV range
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Graduate Are Particles or Fields More Fundamental in Quantum Mechanics?
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
7K