B Are Photons Real? New Study Challenges Assumptions

  • Thread starter Thread starter log0
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Photons
Click For Summary
A recent preprint suggests that photons may be wave packets with a transverse extent, challenging traditional views that consider them as constructs for modeling interactions between matter. The discussion highlights the philosophical debate surrounding the definition of "real" in physics, with some arguing that observable interactions validate the reality of photons and electromagnetic fields. Critics point out that many concepts in physics, like force fields and wavefunctions, are mathematical models rather than tangible entities. The conversation touches on the circularity of defining reality based on interaction, questioning the validity of such definitions. Ultimately, the thread emphasizes that while these philosophical inquiries are interesting, they diverge from the empirical focus of physics.
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 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 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 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 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 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.
 

Similar threads

A First Chip-to-Chip Quantum Teleportation
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
I Status and Prospects of PADME Run 3
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
B Explaining Galaxy Rotation Speed Discrepancies with GR & Gravitic Fields
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
I The standard model from loop quantum gravity via spinors octonions
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
5K
I Deur Gravitational self-interaction Doesn't Explain Galaxy Rotation Curves
  • · Replies 72 ·
2
Replies
72
Views
10K
Entangled Photons with no shared Past
  • · Replies 40 ·
Replies
40
Views
8K
A Why isn't back-reaction receiving more study?
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
A The Exceptional Jordan Algebra in physics
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
I A novel explanation of CKM and PMNS matrix parameters
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
I What Key Issues Should Cosmologists Address in the ΛCDM Model?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K