Comparing Photons & EM Waves in Physics

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the wave-particle duality of light, exploring fundamental questions about electromagnetic (EM) waves and photons. It highlights that EM waves are essentially photons, with their generation linked to both free charged particles and bound electrons in atoms. The conversation addresses the oscillation of electric and magnetic fields in EM waves and clarifies misconceptions about the nature of electric fields and photon properties, such as mass and charge. Participants emphasize that while classical and quantum descriptions of light may differ, they ultimately describe the same phenomena. The complexity of these concepts reflects ongoing debates in physics regarding the interpretation of light's behavior.
  • #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
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
7K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
1K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K