Do photons travel in straight lines?

johne1618
Messages
368
Reaction score
0
If a photon is detected at point B having been emitted at point A, can one deduce with near certainty that it must have traveled continuously in a straight line from A to B at velocity c?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
johne1618 said:
If a photon is detected at point B having been emitted at point A, can one deduce with near certainty that it must have traveled continuously in a straight line from A to B at velocity c?

Not really. Photons do not travel like little point particles moving in a line. You are correct that they are usually observed to travel at c (assuming a vacuum) in a straight line (assuming you ignore spacetime effects). However, this is considered to be an average or net result of the various paths by which the photon could move. So it is "as if" it were as you describe in many ways, but in others ways it is quite different.
 
Photon paths are deflected by gravity. 1919 Eddington observation was first confirmation of general relativity. It was based on the deflection of starlight by the sun, observable during a total eclipse.
 
I think it depends on the scale of A, B, and the straightness of the presumed path, relative to the wavelength. If I block a laser beam crossing a room, I won't expect it to go around my hand and hit the aligned target anyway. But for a radio beam, it doesn't notice my hand at all.

FM radio will ooze around buildings and under bridges; GPS signals won't. But while the shadow of a building, cast from a point-source of visible light would be sharp, the GPS signal would fade out over a few inches inside that shadow.
 
No, photons do not travel in a straight line from point A to B. We can see this experimentally by noting what photons do when they travel through diffraction slits.

Feynman has a layman's description of how photons travel in his book QED. Most of what he says in that book is explained in this nice video:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top