Does frequency make sense in terms of one particle?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the concept of frequency in relation to a single particle, specifically a photon. Participants explore whether frequency can be attributed to an individual particle or if it is inherently linked to multiple particles and their interactions.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that a photon has a specific energy that corresponds to its frequency.
  • Others argue that frequency requires oscillation in time, which a single photon cannot provide since it is detected at discrete spacetime points.
  • A participant suggests that frequency can only be measured through an ensemble of identical photons, raising questions about how energy manifests as frequency.
  • Another viewpoint indicates that the frequency of a wave is not necessarily the same as the frequency at which particles are emitted, suggesting a distinction between wave behavior and particle emission rates.
  • One participant describes a method of visualizing particle measurements in space to illustrate wave-like behavior, referencing the norm of the wave function.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the relationship between frequency and single particles, with no consensus reached on whether frequency can be meaningfully assigned to a single photon.

Contextual Notes

Some limitations include the dependence on definitions of frequency and oscillation, as well as the unresolved nature of how energy relates to frequency in the context of single versus multiple particles.

vpoko
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Does "frequency" make sense in terms of one particle?

Does the concept of frequency exist if we're only talking about one particle? Can a single photon carry frequency information, or is frequency related to the number/closeness of multiple particles?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes. A photon has a certain amount of energy, which manifests as its frequency.
 
Frequency by definition requires 'oscillation in time' and a single photon which is either detected at certain spacetime point or not, simply cannot provide that oscillation. We can at most measure energy of a single photon.

An ensamble of identical copies of the photon can allow measurement of frequency.
 
smallphi said:
Frequency by definition requires 'oscillation in time' and a single photon which is either detected at certain spacetime point or not, simply cannot provide that oscillation. We can at most measure energy of a single photon.

An ensamble of identical copies of the photon can allow measurement of frequency.
Then how does the energy manifest itself as frequency? If an emitter is sending out 100 photons per second, wouldn't the frequency be 100hz, regardless of the energy of the photon?
 
the frequency of the wave is not the frequency in which the particles are sent.

if you measure the position of particles that are constantly being shot out from the emitter, and make a scatter plot out of it. (put a dot in the 3D space whenever one gets a measurement of the corresponding [tex](x, y, z)[/tex]) You'll see areas in which the dots are concentrated, and areas in which the dots are not so concentrated, the "wave" of the dots is the norm of the wave that you speak of. (i.e. [tex]|\Psi|^2[/tex])

though often, finding [tex]|\Psi|^2[/tex] doesn't given you all the information about [tex]\Psi[/tex], hence you can do something like a double slit experiment to get an interference term.
 
Last edited:
Thank you, that makes perfect sense to me!
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 78 ·
3
Replies
78
Views
7K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
5K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K