Comparing Photons & EM Waves in Physics

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion centers on the wave-particle duality of light, specifically addressing the nature of electromagnetic (EM) waves and photons. It is established that EM waves are indeed photons, generated by both free charged particles and electrons bound to a nucleus. The conversation highlights key principles such as the oscillation of electric and magnetic fields in EM waves, the emission and absorption of photons during electron transitions, and the relationship between photon energy and the oscillating fields described by Maxwell's equations. The discussion also clarifies misconceptions regarding the mass of photons and their propagation.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Bohr model of the atom
  • Familiarity with Maxwell's equations
  • Knowledge of wave-particle duality in quantum mechanics
  • Basic concepts of electromagnetic fields
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of wave-particle duality in quantum mechanics
  • Explore the derivation of diffraction and interference patterns using quantum mechanics
  • Investigate the relationship between energy and frequency in photons using E=hf
  • Examine the differences between classical and quantum descriptions of light
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, educators, and researchers interested in the fundamental principles of light, electromagnetic theory, and quantum mechanics.

  • #31
meopemuk said:
If the "wave" you are talking about is an abstract mathematical thing that is found only in QM equations, but not in nature, then I agree. However, I wouldn't like to think that real electron is such a wave, that electron's charge is really spread out over large volume, and that at the instant of the "click" this "cloud" collapses to a point. This weird behavior is OK for the wave treated as a mathematical abstraction, but it doesn't look OK if the wave is a real physical object.
Ok, infact I don't say the wave is a real physical object, but, in the same way, you can't say that [what you mean with "particle"] is a real physical object, in my hopinion, since the only physical object here is the "click" of the detector. Don't you agree?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
lightarrow said:
Ok, infact I don't say the wave is a real physical object, but, in the same way, you can't say that [what you mean with "particle"] is a real physical object, in my hopinion, since the only physical object here is the "click" of the detector. Don't you agree?

But the "particle" in question is defined as having a localized energy, and a "click" in a detector at a particular location is consistent with such a definition. The "wave" of light that is commonly used is a realwave that exists in real space, i.e. it is similar to seeing water waves. This is NOT the wavefunction of light as described in QM, which exists in configuration space. That is the distinction that is being confused here.

Zz.
 
  • #33
lightarrow said:
Ok, infact I don't say the wave is a real physical object, but, in the same way, you can't say that [what you mean with "particle"] is a real physical object, in my hopinion, since the only physical object here is the "click" of the detector. Don't you agree?

I think we can agree here. "Clicks" is the only objective reality that we observe. Both "particles" and "waves" are simply mental constructs that we invent to visualize our mathematical description of "clicks". In my opinion the notion of "particles" makes this visualization more clear and less contradictory.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
8K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K