How big is a photon and what does it look and behave like?

[Boffin]

I'm interested in variouis views on this issue. How far away from a hypothetical center point does the energy of a photon extent? Photons do travel at the speed of light in a vacuum. At an instant of time how far foreward and backwards does a photon interact in some way with the environment around it? Over a brief period of time how far to each side? Is it vibrating or is it a fixed point particle? If it is vibrating, are the vibrations spread out in space or zero width? One or more vibrations? If it is vibrating is it vibrating in reference to a background entity?

 

[Hooloovoo]

Well, from the point of view of the photon, at any given instant in time the photon is everywhere along its entire path of transmission from emission to absorbsion -- it all happens at once.

So from the photon's perspective it can be a very very long and thin "thing." As long as the distance it covered, and as wide and as tall as the amplitudes of its electro- and magnetic wave components.

 

[huhuayu]

Well, from the point of view of the photon, at any given instant in time the photon is everywhere along its entire path of transmission from emission to absorbsion -- it all happens at once.
So from the photon's perspective it can be a very very long and thin "thing." As long as the distance it covered, and as wide and as tall as the amplitudes of its electro- and magnetic wave components.

Excuse me.But I can't understand. In experiments, such as the single-atom two-slits interference, the photon behaves like a particle,traveling through the slits and touching the screen.The retardation time of photon traveling can be measured in some other experiments.Why you consider them as long and thin "thing" ? By the way, the units of the amplitudes of electro- and magnetic wave components are far different from the space coordinates, how can they compare?

 

[Fredrik]

I wrote a post in this forum about the size of photons a long time ago. You may want to check it out. Link

Ben, your questions are difficult to answer, mostly because photons are very hard to describe in non-mathematical terms.

 

[Boffin]

Fredrik, I do remember doing a search before posting the question, but thanks for the link, I don't seem to remember finding it before. Guess I should have mentioned that I'd seen some information on how big a photon was, but was hoping for some more detailed ideas on how the photon looks like and behaves.

 

[Hooloovoo]

When you ask "what does a photon look like," it's difficult to present an accurate answer. It is just as accurate to say a photon doesn't look like anything, as it is to say it looks like everything. Because everything your eyes see is photons, and that's the only thing your eyes see. So you couldn't observe an individual photon unless it was the photon being absorbed by your retina, and even then you don't really see the photon itself, but rather the chemical reaction in your brain caused by the absorbtion of a particular photon by a particular receptor in your retina.

But such technicalities aside, I think I see (ha) what you're asking. You want to know how one would describe the thing itself, as it WOULD appear if, say, there was something that could be reflected off a photon that our eyes could see, and we could magnify it sufficiently.

The answer to THAT question is, nobody knows. There are a lot of plausible hypotheses, some of which seem to be incompatible.

A photon is not a piece of matter. It is all energy, no mass. So you can think of a photon as a teeny tiny point of energy, flying across space very fast. This helps when you're measuring particle-like behavior of photons.

A photon is what electromagnetic radiation is made of. Electromagnetic radiation is a kind of energy wave, which is actually 2 waves in one. There's the electro- wave, and the magnetic wave. They travel together, with the same wavelength period and amplitude, but oscillate in planes perpendicular to each other. So you could imagine a photon as a pair of sine waves (kinda). They have the same x-axis, but their y-axes are 90 degrees from each other. So if you looked at the path of the propagating wave end-on, it would look like a plus sign (+). This helps when you're measuring wave-like behavior of photons.

There are other ways to imagine photons without resorting to math, but these two are the most easily imagined and commonsensical. (Other ways include thinking of photons and other phenomena as being not things in themselves, but simply intersections of fields, much like the intersections of ripples from two stones dropped in a pond, with c being the speed at which such intersections happen to travel.)

To make it easier for yourself, it's probably best just to think of the electromagnetic wave image. When the photon is being measured as a particle, just think of the "particle" as being the shared x-axis of the two wavelengths. That is a straight line, is the average path of the photon, and can represent the "particle" quality of photons. This way, you only have to think of a photon in one way, with the added bonus of being accurate regardless of what you're measuring.

Notice that I said "accurate," not "true." It's an explanation that works, that doesn't mean it's what's really going on. As I said, we're still trying to figure that out.

 

[maverick6664]

IMHO using analogy in this kind of argument can be easily misleading...

We should say "photon behaves in such and such ways in such and such experiments. So we concluded it has such properties... .etc. etc." No more, no less. Especially duality is impossible to explain with analogy, because we have no other "things" with similar properties around us. This is inevitable because we are trying to introduce new concepts in physics, many of which cannot be observed around us. And we use math to deduce the underlying theories.

For example, as for duality, a correct explanation is "when a coherent photons pass through two slits and make interference stripes on a screen at a distance, photons behaves like a wave, but in a particle point of view, we should explain at each diffraction maxima, many photons are reached, while at each diffraction minima, much fewer photons are reached." it's impossible to bring analogous exmple for this experiment, so we must "remember" this experiment, and this remembering process is thought to be "understanding duality," IMHO. Analogy to our daily material is not impossible in this one.

All we should know and give in physics is "under given circumstances, how photon (or other objects) is expected to be observed" including probability/uncertainty based on our theories (QM). So we don't always need analogy...just my opinion.

 

[Boffin]

Especially duality is impossible to explain with analogy, because we have no other "things" with similar properties around us.

Atoms are unlike any physical objects around us, yet scientists have come up with pictures, complex descriptions of how they function, their properties, and what they are made up of. Somehow there is a resistance for giving photons a modern grown up description.

We like to keep photons as mystical things and describe them like water waves or marbles. Can we not do better than this? Personally I think we have to get rid of this concept of duality. Photons don't behave like large objects and so we should not think of them as this. Is duality not an old worn out concept that should be discarded?

I've said my thing, but what do you think?

 

[maverick6664]

Atoms are unlike any physical objects around us, yet scientists have come up with complex descriptions of how they function, their properties, and what they are made up of. Somehow there is a resistance for doing the same with photons. We like to keep photons as mystical things and describe them like water waves or marbles. Can we not do better than this?

As far as possible, I think we should describe photon in analogy as with atoms for easy understandings. For example we can describe photon's wave-like behavior such as interference like water waves, while we can describe its particle like behavior as particle (as the name goes ) But in describing these two behavior combined as duality of photon, we cannot resort to analogy. We should just explain the thought experiments and its results, and explain photon (and at last any other things) is such a thing. We cannot use analogy here, because we cannot observe this duality in our daily life. Or can we take other ways? We have limited phenomena in our daily life, and particles have more complex properties than we can describe in analogy.

There are a lot of such "interpretations" or "explanations" in physics, I think. In such cases, our "understanding" is only "rememberng the relationship of the experiment's conditions and the expected results by inducing from theories in physics"

 

[huhuayu]

Personally I think trying to work out new concepts and describe them is a great process of physics,so I think the question "How big a photon is" is meaningful,although there is some difficulty to answer it.
We don't always resort to analogy to understand new things,even in classical mechanics.For example,100 years ago,in a famous sci-fi 'a trip around the moon',the writer imagined that a dead dog flies beside a spaceship to the moon.It's our commen sense now that an astronaut can orbit the Earth like a sitellite,but 100 years ago,it's a great imagination,because there was neither experence nor analoy in our life on earth.
Can the same thing happen to the micro-world?I think yes.The concept of photon will jump out of the mathematical expressions,and be so popular with us,like the orbiting astronaut.
To the photon, what does 'big' mean? The wavelength may be an option but it doesn't give more information to the particle nature of photon.If 'big ' can be measured by the number of electrons(or other) interacting with one photon at the same time,then maybe we can conclude that the photo is at last 'smaller' than the electron(or other).
Here I think it's easier to ask the question'How big a electron is'.As far as I know,Samuel Chao Chung Ting worked on it for many years.I don't know more about it.
By the way, I don't think a single-frequency photon covering the whole space exists.In fact, I don't think the picture is right.As the two sides of uncertainty principle,the photon cannot be located at one point,neither can it have a definit momentum.Because the definit momentum leads to a definit orbit(very short),which is a conflict to the infinit location uncertainty.

 

[masudr]

How far away from a hypothetical center point does the energy of a photon extent?

Quantum mechanics taught us that energy doesn't have to be localised, so, for example, when you put any particle through even just 1 slit, the energy starts spreading and spreading across all space.

To your other questions, firstly we must realize that photons are quanta of the electromagnetic field. There is a vastly complicated body of math that we use in "modern" physics to describe photons, and (the interesting bit) how they interact with electrons and other charged particles; it's called quantum field theory. That is the most "true" account we have of photonic behaviour, but it is by no means necessarily the last word on the issue (we may never approach that level of understanding, anyway).

So if you really want to know, I would recommend you take an undergrad course in physics, then a PhD in the subject, taking QFT and QED as options. That may well give you a greater understanding than forum posts ever could.

EDIT: Assuming you haven't taken these courses already.

 

[marlon]

but was hoping for some more detailed ideas on how the photon looks like

That's an "easy" one. Let me first tell you what a photon does NOT look like. A photon is NOT defined as a particle in the sense of "some physical entity with finite spatial boundaries, like for example a tennis ball". A photon is defined as a quantum of energy. The epitheton "quantum" in QM does not refer to particles but to little bits of energy. That is how QM was developed.

So, you cannot ask what a photon "looks like" because we are not defining a photon in a spatial base but in an energy base. Besides, elementary particles cannot be distinguished from each other, but that's a whole other story...

and behaves.

That's also an easy one : GO STUDY QED.

If you have done this, you answer me this : "do photons mutually interact ?"

Hell, i will even give you the answer

Answer : NO in first order but they do interact indirectly in higher order.

Do you get this ?

regards
marlon

 

[Hooloovoo]

If you ignore the (rather snide) exhortations to go study the subject yourself, you ought to be getting the concept that a photon doesn't "look like" anything. Because it isn't something that you could look at. It is energy, not matter.

A photon is therefore not a "particle" as you're probably thinking of the term. It isn't a teeny tiny bit of stuff. It's not shaped like a little ball, or a little vibrating rubber band, or anything. Because it's not made of anything that has shape.

Instead, a photon is a teeny tiny bit of energy. This teeny tiny bit of energy doesn't sit still, but travels through space at a given velocity, the constant c, which is simply the speed at which energy is transmitted through space.

Okay, this should be clear by now. Everyone's answers should be making sense once you've got this concept.

And don't feel dissed by the snide answers. People in the field (ha) have a very hard time explaining their understanding without resorting to symbolic math, or referring to abstract jargon like "Hilbert space" or "Lorentz covariant." Some would argue that inability to describe something in plain language to non-specialists indicates a lack of actual understanding, but I prefer to think that it is an unfortunate side effect of specialized study where everyone one deals with uses the same specialized vocabulary.

 

[marlon]

but travels through space at a given velocity, the constant c, which is simply the speed at which energy is transmitted through space.

Let me hazzard a snide reply here.

Energy is NOT transmitted at the speed of light. What you meant is this "EM-energy is transmitted at the speed of light". However, one cannot state this since the EM energy is basically everywhere because a photon has a definite momentum. This is why we use fields to decsribe the EM-interaction. Photons are NOT transmitted and they do NOT travel over a certain distance which is the implication of saying that "energy is transmitted". Photons arise due to fluctuations of the EM-fields which are "everywhere" thanks to the HUP and they are caracterized by local interactions.

marlon

 

[marlon]

Well, from the point of view of the photon, at any given instant in time the photon is everywhere along its entire path of transmission from emission to absorbsion --

One cannot speak about "a photon's path of transmission" for the reasons i stated in my previous post.

it all happens at once.

Huh ? Are you talking about instantaneous events ?

So from the photon's perspective it can be a very very long and thin "thing."

You cannot make statements on the shape of a photon in a spatial base (which you are trying to do here). The only thing you could do is refer to the magnitude of the fluctuation (wavelength) of the EM-field that yields a physical entity that behaves as a particle we called "photon"


marlon

 

[marlon]

A photon is what electromagnetic radiation is made of.

Nope, a photon corresponds to the energy dE associated to the transition of an EM-field from one configuration to another. Or, a photon corresponds to the fluctuations of the EM-field. This is not the same as saying that EM-fields are build out of photons because that implies you would need photons to build an EM-field. This is not the case and clearly contradicts with QED.

Beware, that when engaging in the difficult task of simplifying/explaining physics, you do not bring over incorrect visions.

(Other ways include thinking of photons and other phenomena as being not things in themselves, but simply intersections of fields,

Not intersections but fluctuations. Intersections would imply that you need more than one field. But there is only one EM-field that yields a photon.

This way, you only have to think of a photon in one way, with the added bonus of being accurate regardless of what you're measuring.
Notice that I said "accurate," not "true." It's an explanation that works, that doesn't mean it's what's really going on. As I said, we're still trying to figure that out.

Sorry but this is not true. Besides saying that something is not "accurate" does not justify it being wrong.

The particle wave duality needs to be understood like this. Photons arise as fluctuations of the EM-field. These fluctuations are described in terms of waves. This is quite straightforward if you think of ripples of water that arise when you throw a stone into the water. The particle-aspect comes from the fact that when going from one fluctuation to the other, this corresponds to a differential rise in energy (dE) expressed by the Einstein energy relationship. Since energy and mass are equivalent, we can look at this dE as representing a particle (IN AN ENERGY BASE) with certain energy and momentum, which can be calculated from the Einstein's energy relationship. In QFT, there are particles (that arise in the same way) that do not respect this E=mc² formula. These particles are called virtual particles.

regards
marlon

 

[quantumdude]

Atoms are unlike any physical objects around us, yet scientists have come up with complex descriptions of how they function, their properties, and what they are made up of. Somehow there is a resistance for doing the same with photons.

That's because, to the best of our knowledge (and I'm talking agreement with experiment to 10+ decimal places), photons are fundamental whereas atoms are composite systems. As far as we know photons are on the same level as the other fundamental particles of the Standard Model, the quarks, leptons, and (remaining) gauge bosons. That is one key difference between atoms and photons that you are missing.

We like to keep photons as mystical things and describe them like water waves or marbles. Can we not do better than this?

Heh. You drew a little flak in this thread, and this comment makes it easy to understand why. Physicists have done much better than what you describe in this quote, as has been explained by marlon. Instead of proclaiming what "we" like to do, it would be better to ask "we" what the current state of affairs is. "We" doesn't like it when you put words in its mouth.

If you ignore the (rather snide) exhortations to go study the subject yourself, you ought to be getting the concept that a photon doesn't "look like" anything.

I would have used a different tone myself, but I would also have pointed Ben in the same direction. Exhortations to study should never be ignored, IMO. Courses are taught and books are written so that the time and energy of professors can be used as efficiently as possible. The people who study on their own are the ones who get the most benefit out of this forum.

That said:

Ben, if you are interested in a non technical description of QED then you should check out Richard Feynman's QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter. If you have some physics background then let us know, and we'll come up with a more suitable reference.

 

[marlon]

Like the Pope proclaims just before the Urbi et Orbi Blessing :

A TUTTI CHE MI ASCOLTANO :

I don't really understand why several people here are bringing up "tone" to classify "go study QED" as being an impolite answer. If one asks "how photons are interacting", one is really asking about what QED is about. There is no simple, straightforeward and general answer to such a question. The answer covers an entire field of study. If one would ask me "how do quarks interact ?" , the answer really is covered by QCD completely. If i would just say, quarks interact via the strong force, which is caracterized by the principle of asymptotic freedom, would that really help ? Huuh ? I sure as hell leaves out a lot of important and essential aspects (like the role of virtual quark/anti quark pairs or gluons or gluonconfinement)

Hooloovoo, I don't like the fact that you asses my answer to be "impolite" because of whatever reason, since i have really taken the effort to answer/correct and clarify several aspects that have been brought up in this thread. Besides, i would rather be a little too direct, yet very clear, in stead of providing others with incomplete, badly simplified or even wrong posts.

...err,...,for what it's worth...

regards
marlon

 

[Boffin]

So if you really want to know, I would recommend you take an undergrad course in physics, then a PhD in the subject, taking QFT and QED as options. That may well give you a greater understanding than forum posts ever could.

I guess I asked the question because most physicists, professors, and textbooks don't do a good job of describing the photon. I've also researched the topic quite a bit myself and there seems to be a wide range of opinions on the specifics. So I don't think that taking advanced status quo education is always the answer to such questions. What do you think now that I've spouted away on this issue?

 

[Boffin]

And don't feel dissed by the snide answers. People in the field (ha) have a very hard time explaining their understanding without resorting to symbolic math, or referring to abstract jargon like "Hilbert space" or "Lorentz covariant." Some would argue that inability to describe something in plain language to non-specialists indicates a lack of actual understanding, but I prefer to think that it is an unfortunate side effect of specialized study where everyone one deals with uses the same specialized vocabulary.

I like your deep understanding on this topic of physics explanations (Chuckle). I thought it was a conspiracy, but maybe your explanation is more grounded in reality (Smile). I think good explanations are necessary before the equations. I've seen so many people in my work churn out reams of equations as an answer, but the assumptions regarding the data were all wrong.

 

[ZapperZ]

I guess I asked the question because most physicists, professors, and textbooks don't do a good job of describing the photon. I've also researched the topic quite a bit myself and there seems to be a wide range of opinions on the specifics. So I don't think that taking advanced status quo education is always the answer to such questions. What do you think now that I've spouted away on this issue?

The ability to understand something is a two-way street. If I am explaining something to you, I have to be able to do that in a clear, and accurate fashion. However, you must also be CAPABLE in comprehending what I just explained. If I describe a rose, then using characteristics of "color=red", "texture=soft", etc. etc., are all characteristics that you are ALREADY FAMILIAR AND UNDERSTAND.

Now, what if I describe a bcc lattice and tell you the reciprocal lattice is fcc and that one can verify that via bragg reflection from x-ray diffraction? What I've just said is comprehensible to someone with an appropriate background of solid state physics, but it is nonsense to someone who doesn't! This brings us back to the very question you asked in this thread. The very simple answer that can be given in such a way that you are CAPABLE to understand, is what you have seen, and what your texts and professors have given. Of course this isn't sufficient! It is why we have graduate level classes that delve into these things in more detail. But it is worthless to tell you the QED formulation of EM fields when you are not equipped to understand its description! It is why university courses have prerequisites!

And while I'm at it, asking "how big is a photon" is similar to asking "how painful is purple?"

I'm not trying to be cute. I am illustrating a point in which you are asking for a characteristic of something in which it wasn't defined with. A "purple" is a color, and can be defined with a range of frequency or wavelength of the visible spectrum. It was NEVER defined with "pain" or degree of pain, and thus, such a characteristics makes no sense when it is associated with "purple".

The same can be said about "photon". It is a quanta of energy carrying a spin of 1. Nowhere in its definition, either now or when Einstein first proposed the corpuscular theory, is there any mention of its physical size! There is a length associated with a gazillion photons when they stream by, and that is a wavelength. But it would be dubious to assign this as the "size" of a photon when it isn't a "particle" in the conventional sense. It has no physical boundary in real space that we know of. It isn't part of its definition!

So how salty is spring tension?

Zz.

 

[Boffin]

I would have used a different tone myself, but I would also have pointed Ben in the same direction. Exhortations to study should never be ignored, IMO. Courses are taught and books are written so that the time and energy of professors can be used as efficiently as possible. The people who study on their own are the ones who get the most benefit out of this forum. That said: Ben, if you are interested in a non technical description of QED then you should check out Richard Feynman's QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter. If you have some physics background then let us know, and we'll come up with a more suitable reference.

While my education was in engineering, I've studied the basics of Richard Feyman's work on QED already. I think one of the issues with this forum is that it is supposed to be a status quo forum. We are supposed to be talking about the one right and true answer in Physics. Non of this speculative stuff is allowed here. If there was one right and true answer in Physics, there would not be the current dilema about Relativity and Quantum Mechanics not giving the same answer to certain questions. I personally don't agree with Richard Feyman's basic description of what light is and how it operates. He himself says it is strange. I could shoot holes in some of it based on engineering laws. Do all of you believe his theories? So just taking another advanced university course isn't going to necessarily help me because I want a wider range of explanations than are offered there. Presently status quo education does not provide a coherent set of ideas on this topic. There are lot's of competing models all bundled together. I like forum's for some questions because there can be a discussion of various answers instead of just a single interpretation by a single professor or author. So I appreciate everyone's input (Smile).

 

[quantumdude]

While my education was in engineering, I've studied the basics of Richard Feyman's work on QED already.

Does that mean that you've read the pop-science book that I recommended? Or does it mean that you can do QED calculations?

If the former then I would not agree that you've studied the basics of QED. If the latter than I would.

I think one of the issues with this forum is that it is supposed to be a status quo forum. We are supposed to be talking about the one right and true answer in Physics.

Yes to the first sentece, no to the second.

We stick to peer-reviewed, mainstream physics in the main sections of PF for a very good reason: it works. But no one here would say that there is one right and true answer in any science. Anyone who works in the field knows that science is essentially an a posteriori discipline.

Non of this speculative stuff is allowed here.

Material that has not been peer reviewed is permitted in the Independent Research Forum. That is written in our Guidelines, which you agreed to before posting here. I do hope you intend to honor that agreement.

If there was one right and true answer in Physics, there would not be the current dilema about Relativity and Quantum Mechanics not giving the same answer to certain questions.

Since no one is working from the "one right and true answer" premise, this point is moot.

I personally don't agree with Richard Feyman's basic description of what light is and how it operates. He himself says it is strange.

He calls it strange because it is counterintuitive, not because it is wrong. QED is the most accurate scientific theory ever devised.

I could shoot holes in some of it based on engineering laws.

No, you couldn't. I earned a BS degree in engineering, and when I went to grad school for physics I taught physics to engineers. Today I teach engineering courses. The typical engineering curriculum simply does not contain enough physics to be able to critique a theory such as QED. And if your curriculum was so atypical as to prepare you to discuss QED intelligently, you wouldn't have to ask us about it.

Do all of you believe his theories?

QED has been verified to over 10 decimal places. What's not to believe?

So just taking another advanced university course isn't going to necessarily help me because I want a wider range of explanations than are offered there.

It is not possible to assess how a course will benefit you except from hindsight. You are being told by people who have that hindsight that you do need to study QED. Do with that advice what you will.

Presently status quo education does not provide a coherent set of ideas on this topic.

And because you have not and will not study QED properly, your opinion on this matter has no merit whatsoever.

There are lot's of competing models all bundled together.

No, as far as the photon goes there is a single, unified model: QED.

 

[Boffin]

So from the photon's perspective it can be ... as wide and as tall as the amplitudes of its electro- and magnetic wave components ... A photon is what electromagnetic radiation is made of. Electromagnetic radiation is a kind of energy wave, which is actually 2 waves in one. There's the electro- wave, and the magnetic wave. They travel together, with the same wavelength period and amplitude, but oscillate in planes perpendicular to each other. So you could imagine a photon as a pair of sine waves (kinda). They have the same x-axis, but their y-axes are 90 degrees from each other. So if you looked at the path of the propagating wave end-on, it would look like a plus sign (+). This helps when you're measuring wave-like behavior of photons.

While many others in this thread have said I basically asked a stupid question, or I should go to school, you've given a simple straight forward answer. Some people assumed because I asked a question, I don't know anything about the topic or didn't have a reasonable education. Actually I've researched the topic quite a bit, but that doesn't mean I don't want other people's view on it too. You're answer also agrees with Hans C. Ohanian's in his 1400 page textbook Physics First Edition 2nd volume pg 912.

But there are all kinds of competing views of this topic in Physics today. The Ohanian answer obviously is completely different than the Quantum Mechanics answer which is based on particle probabilities. It is different than the Classical Physics view of light still taught largely today which is based on the sound wave model. Relativity did not have a view on the specific functioning of the photon. It isn't String Theory. It isn't QED. But Quantum Mechanics and QED is the accepted view for explanations on the quantum level. So even though Ohanian is a respected professor, is his understanding and what your described actually not the accepted viewpoint? What would you label the Ohanian view or theory of the photon?

 

[ZapperZ]

While many others in this thread have said I basically asked a stupid question, or I should go to school, you've given a simple straight forward answer. Some people assumed because I asked a question, I don't know anything about the topic or didn't have a reasonable education. Actually I've researched the topic quite a bit, but that doesn't mean I don't want other people's view on it too. You're answer also agrees with Hans C. Ohanian's in his 1400 page textbook Physics First Edition 2nd volume pg 912.

But see, this is a clear example where you limited understanding of the physics causes you to "believe" in something that CLEARLY doesn't make sense. For example:

So from the photon's perspective it can be ... as wide and as tall as the amplitudes of its electro- and magnetic wave components..

Now think VERY carefully. The "amplitudes" of the E and B fields correspond the electric field STRENGTH and magnetic field STRENGTH. How are you able to believe this to relate to "size" in physical space? Why aren't you the least bit weirded out when you are told this? I could plot a sinusoidal "wave" of the E field, but the VERTICAL axis is in units of V/m, not a unit of length! Those "vectors" that we represent E and B fields in Ohanon's book is NOT to represent is physical real space size, but the AMPLITUDE of the vector corresponding in the appropriate units of that quantity!

This is EXACTLY what I meant by learning being a 2-way street. I cannot explain something in terms of stuff that you do not comprehend, and if I try, you will take something and misinterpret it into something that you THINK is correct, but it isn't. Anyone with a good-enough understanding of EM fields would have immediately noticed something not kosher with translating E and B field amplitudes into "size". Anyone who do not understand EM fields as well, would see nothing wrong with it.

Zz.

 

[quantumdude]

ZapperZ made one correction to Hoovooloo's post. Here are two more.

They travel together, with the same wavelength period and amplitude, but oscillate in planes perpendicular to each other.

It should be noted that they only have the same amplitude in one set of units: Natural Units, in which c=1.

So you could imagine a photon as a pair of sine waves (kinda).

If that were true then for sure in QED we should find a wave equation that is satisfied by a photon. But try as you might, you will not find a photonic wave equation in QED. The claim that the photon can be pictured as a pair of sine waves has no basis in either theory or experiment. Photons are not EM waves. EM waves are an emergent property of large numbers of photons.

 

[Boffin]

Those "vectors" that we represent E and B fields in Ohanon's book is NOT to represent is physical real space size, but the AMPLITUDE of the vector corresponding in the appropriate units of that quantity! Zz.

I meant that the general description of a photon being a pair of sine wavicles is the view of Ohanian. I know he doesn't equate the sine wave height in the diagrams to the size of a photon in the textbook, but others have. This was discussed in a previous thread which I can't locate at the moment.

 

[Boffin]

EM waves are an emergent property of large numbers of photons.

So you don't believe that the energy of single photons is dictated by the frequency of it's vibrations as suggested by Einstein in his Quantum Theory and many others? When did mainstream physics discard this idea? What property of the photon then dictates it's energy content?

Professor Ohanian describes photons as vibrating entities. His textbooks were widely used very recently in university physics courses. So are you saying Ohanian has a completely wrong view of a photon?

I understand that the human eye can see color starting with as little as 5 photons striking the eye. Because we generally do not view laser light, we would have to collect these photons during a certain time interval, though it is likely a very short interval. These photons can arrive with completely random spacings though such as light from the sun, lightbulb, or image produces. So with the photons randomly spaced, the eye would not be able to sense any useful property based on the spacing. It would only be able to detect the actual individual photon energy and average them to arrive at the color. So are you saying that wavelength of light or frequency of light as nothing to do with the eye perceiving the energy of the photons?

 

[ZapperZ]

I meant that the general description of a photon being a pair of sine wavicles is the view of Ohanian. I know he doesn't equate the sine wave height in the diagrams to the size of a photon in the textbook, but others have. This was discussed in a previous thread which I can't locate at the moment.

But that is the classical wave description of a stream of light. How is this related to the property of a single photon, especially in terms of size? You are VERY quick in agreeing with that faulty description just now. Why is that?

And who are these "others" that you pay attention to, but not us here, and certainly not from someone who has won the Nobel Prize for QED from the way you were dissing Feynman? Do you pick and choose sources, no matter how dubious they are, just as long as they "make sense" to you, no matter how twisted what they are saying? This particular example with the E and B field amplitude is such a case!

Zz.

 

[quantumdude]

So you don't believe that the energy of single photons is dictated by the frequency of it's vibrations as suggested by Einstein in his Quantum Theory and many others?

Why do you insist on saying "frequency of its vibrations?" It's just "frequency", fullstop.

Yes, for a photon of frequency \nu its energy E is given by E=h\nu. There is no disputing that. But just because a frequency is assigned to the photon, it doesn't imply that the photon itself is oscillating.

When did mainstream physics discard this idea?

Which idea? That E=h\nu or that photons can be described by sine waves?

If the former, then mainstream physicists have not discarded it.

If the latter, then mainstream physicists never admitted to it, so could not have discarded it.

What property of the photon then dictates it's energy content?

Its frequency.

Professor Ohanian describes photons as vibrating entities. His textbooks were widely used very recently in university physics courses. So are you saying Ohanian has a completely wrong view of a photon?

Does he describe them as vibrating entities, or does he say they have a frequency? There is a difference.

I understand that the human eye can see color starting with as little as 5 photons striking the eye. Because we generally do not view laser light, we would have to collect these photons during a certain time interval, though it is likely a very short interval. These photons can arrive with completely random spacings though such as light from the sun, lightbulb, or image produces. So with the photons randomly spaced, the eye would not be able to sense any useful property based on the spacing. It would only be able to detect the actual individual photon energy and average them to arrive at the color.

That's all fine and good, but it doesn't imply in any way that photons are waves.

So are you saying that wavelength of light or frequency of light as nothing to do with the eye perceiving the energy of the photons?

No.

 

[Hooloovoo]

Yeah, on re-reading my attempts to explain I see I did make a few errors of glibness.

That said, there is no reason why someone who understands what they're talking about can't explain the concept in ordinary language. In the event that one or two specialized definitions are required, then state them and get on with it.

For example, the concept of the electomagnetic field. Most attempts to define it that I have seen are so loaded with equations and jargon, without definitions of what the variables stand for or what the terms refer to, that they are incomprehensible to non-initiates and therefore terrible explanations.

A better way (and I'm sure most of us here could do better, but I'm in a rush) might be to say something like, all of space is filled with the field, a little like a water balloon filled with jello. Charged particles react with the field around them, either sucking it in or spitting it out. When a charged particle is accelerated, it transmits energy to the surrounding field. This bit of energy is called a photon. The energy travels through the field at a constant speed. The way energy travels through the field is a little bit similar to the way a wave travels through water, how the water itself doesn't move but the wave does. Plus, the field has two aspects, two natures, the electrical and the magnetic. As anyone who's sent current through a loop of wire can tell you, the electric field can create a magnetic field, and vice-versa. When the bit of energy called a photon travels through the field, as it "propagates," the field behaves as if there were two oscillating, expanding waves in both the electric and magnetic aspects of the field. But the photon itself doesn't look like anything, and doesn't take up any space, because it isn't made of anything, but is simply a locus of energy.

See, not one equation. I know it's not a fantastic explanation, but I'm mostly trying to make a point.

 

[fargoth]

so much have already been said here about photons, but i think i can direct you to a place from which you can start - its a recorded lecture of feyman talking about QED (and i think there isn't any math there)
http://www.vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8"

if youre interested in learning it more in depth, start with QM.. cohen and tanuji wrote a VERY big book, with lots of math in it... i think its pretty easy to learn from it.
after QM youd be ready for quantum field theory and QED.

 

[ZapperZ]

Yeah, on re-reading my attempts to explain I see I did make a few errors of glibness.
That said, there is no reason why someone who understands what they're talking about can't explain the concept in ordinary language. In the event that one or two specialized definitions are required, then state them and get on with it.

Can you explain accurately the concept of quantum entanglement to a 6-year old?

Zz.

 

[quantumdude]

That said, there is no reason why someone who understands what they're talking about can't explain the concept in ordinary language. In the event that one or two specialized definitions are required, then state them and get on with it.

There's a popular Einstein(?) quote that says something like you don't really understand a concept unless you can explain it to your grandmother. I think Feynman reiterated the quote, but substituted barmaid for grandmother. These quotes get taken out of context and twisted so that they are taken to mean, "If you can't convince someone that a theory is correct without mathematics, then you don't know what you are talking about."

That is surely not what Einstein and Feynman meant. Just look at their pop-science writings. Yes, they could explain very well in ordinary language what their theoies say. But while every statement they make is true, every statement must be taken on a "because I said so" basis. Without the mathematical framework to explicitly show the logical deductions from one statement to the next, and without the derived mathematical expressions that are directly confronted with experiment, the verbal explanation loses all of its persuasive power, despite the fact that it retains its veracity.

Since Ben Wiens is obviously here to challenge QED, it is patently obvious that a verbal explanation is insufficient. He must study QED properly before making the claims that he is making. You, Hoovooloo, are not doing him any favors by enabling him to remain in his current state.

For example, the concept of the electomagnetic field. Most attempts to define it that I have seen are so loaded with equations and jargon, without definitions of what the variables stand for or what the terms refer to, that they are incomprehensible to non-initiates and therefore terrible explanations.

As has been explained repeatedly: Learning is a 2-way street.

A better way (and I'm sure most of us here could do better, but I'm in a rush) might be to say something like,

(jello analogy snipped)

See, not one equation. I know it's not a fantastic explanation, but I'm mostly trying to make a point.

You say that your analogy is "a better way". A 6 year old might like your analogy because it is written in terms of things he can understand. A physics professor would flunk you if you wrote that on an exam. "Better" according to whom? And why should that person's point of view be preferred? What a "good" explanation is is relative to the audience (again, learning is a 2-way street).

This is Physics Forums. When someone asks about electromagnetic fields or QED or relativity, we talk about physics, not jello. If that means that the questioner must spend some time hitting the books, then so be it. Kabish?

We operated this way long before you joined us last month, and we will continue to operate that way in the future. It is what makes PF the best scientific discussion site on the internet.

 

[Boffin]

Yes, for a photon of frequency \nu its energy E is given by E=h\nu. There is no disputing that. But just because a frequency is assigned to the photon, it doesn't imply that the photon itself is oscillating.

I admit that Ohanian is confusing to me because he reveals multiple theories of concepts in his book so it's hard for me to say exactly how he interprets things. And it's not clear what is mainstream physics. It's probablly better to discuss this just on the ideas rather. You said for a photon of frequency ... I take the word "a" to mean a single photon. If the photon is not a vibrating entity, then if one is talking about a single photon, what does the frequency relate to?

 

[quantumdude]

I admit that Ohanian is confusing to me because he reveals multiple theories in his book so it's hard for me to say exactly how he interprets things.

Ohanian used to be a professor at my school, RPI. He left before I arrived, but my professors knew him well. He has a reputation of being a razor-sharp thinker. I doubt that there is any ambiguity in his remarks. If you post direct quotes here rather than paraphrases, I think you will make more progress.

And it's not clear what is mainstream physics.

It is to those who have studied it. Do you see a pattern emerging here?

It's probablly better to discuss this just on the ideas rather.

The theories are the ideas. Everything else is an analogy that merely approximates the ideas.

You said for a photon of frequency ... I take the word "a" to mean a single photon. If the photon is not a vibrating entity, then if one is talking about a single photon, what does the frequency relate to?

The photon frequency \nu is the frequency of oscillation of the EM field that would result if there were a large number of those photons.

 

[Sherlock]

That said, there is no reason why someone who understands what they're talking about can't explain the concept in ordinary language. In the event that one or two specialized definitions are required, then state them and get on with it.

Your efforts are appreciated, even if somewhat misguided. All of us would like to have some picture of what it is that corresponds to a photon out there in the 3D physical space between emitters and detectors.

Unfortunately, there is no such picture. The concept of a photon is a mathematical concept with no analogy to ordinary experience, and therefore can't be communicated using ordinary language.

The only unambiguous, working definition of a photon is the QED one -- and wrt this definition, as pointed out by the mentors et al., the OP's question is a nonsensical one.

Whether an unambiguous, ordinary language understanding of light quanta is even, eventually, possible given the principles of quantum theory, I don't know. I like to think that after a century, or a few, and thousands more various experiments involving photons, that some day there will be a picture of sorts and a way to talk about photons to people not well-versed in the math of qm. But (and maybe the mentors can offer something on this) that could be nothing more than just wishful thinking.

 

[marlon]

The photon frequency \nu is the frequency of oscillation of the EM field that would result if there were a large number of those photons.

Tom,

This is not entirely correct though. It is indeed true that the frequency associated with a photon corresponds to the frequency of the EM field. This statement is very general but the point should be clear. However, it's the "if there were a large number of those photons"-part that is not really correct.

Suppose you have a classical mode of the EM field with frequency f. After quantization of the EM-field, one can couple this f to the energy of the QM EM field via E=h(n+ \frac{1}{2})f. This formula expresses that one classical state is expressed by n QM states. The n indeed denotes the number of photons. My point is that n can be chose as 1. In the QM state we have one photon which corresponds to one classical mode of the EM field with frequency f. In general, if there are m classical modes, then the set of integers n_1...n_m fully describes the QM state. Each integer n_i corresponds to the number of photons. You see ?

Another thing. Your post makes it look like you want to say that many photons make up the EM field. I don't know if it is your message, but i hope not because it is wrong. It is very dangerous (not to say incorrect)to say this for several reasons:

1) the only direct connection between the classical EM field and the quantummechanical concept "photon" is the one i gave above, nothing else. What you say about "the number of present photons" is irrelevant.

2) the most complete picture : QED, clearly states how ONE single photon arises from the quantisized EM-field. I have pointed this out many times in this thread. A photon arises due to fluctuations of the quantisized EM-field. So, if you want to be talking about the relation between "fields" and photons, you should have said this.

Hope this clarifies

regards
marlon

 

[Boffin]

That's an "easy" one. Let me first tell you what a photon does NOT look like. A photon is NOT defined as a particle in the sense of "some physical entity with finite spatial boundaries, like for example a tennis ball". A photon is defined as a quantum of energy. The epitheton "quantum" in QM does not refer to particles but to little bits of energy. That is how QM was developed. So, you cannot ask what a photon "looks like" because we are not defining a photon in a spatial base but in an energy base. Besides, elementary particles cannot be distinguished from each other, but that's a whole other story... (how does a photon) behave ..GO STUDY QED.

I do read the messages in this thread. I've just read them from start to finish a few times again. It's tough to keep up, there are different flavors, and I'm just following your flavor Marlon from the start. To understand any concept one must start from big picture to small.

I take it you are saying that QED is the correct view of how electromagnetic energy behaves. Unfortunately most Physics textbooks and undergraduate physics courses don't get into QED in any major way, or not at all, they present electromagnetic theory in classical or semi classical terms. I'd read many articles that mention QED as a very speculative theory in some aspects, so how was I to know that even mainstream physics views this as the correct model? I really do have some questions about QED being a totally accurate theory in every way, but how much of typical textbook undergraduate electromagnetic theory descriptions are actually replaced by QED, making those typical textbook undergraduate electromagnetic theory descriptions obsolete, or largely obsolete, and historical?

I wish textbooks had sidebars with descriptions such as "this is now a historical theory, or this is mostly historical, or this is just a convenient model, or this is only historical background to the newer theories".

 

[Hooloovoo]

You say that your analogy is "a better way". A 6 year old might like your analogy because it is written in terms of things he can understand. A physics professor would flunk you if you wrote that on an exam. "Better" according to whom? And why should that person's point of view be preferred? What a "good" explanation is is relative to the audience (again, learning is a 2-way street).
This is Physics Forums. When someone asks about electromagnetic fields or QED or relativity, we talk about physics, not jello. If that means that the questioner must spend some time hitting the books, then so be it. Kabish?
We operated this way long before you joined us last month, and we will continue to operate that way in the future. It is what makes PF the best scientific discussion site on the internet.

My goodness, but someone is touchy today. As I said, my little jello analogy was merely an example of how one might make an explanation to someone who clearly DOESN'T have the background, and I pretty clearly said it was NOT a better actual explanation of the phenomenon (or even a good one).

It is obvious from the question that was posed that the concept wasn't understood. The proper answer is to say "your question reveals some confusion, let me clear it up for you" rather than "you don't know what you're talking about, go somewhere else and read something before you come back here and ask questions again."

That said, I think it has been beaten to death now that "how big is a photon" and "what does it look like" are meaningless questions. However, the obvious thing these questions were asking is for a basic description of what a photon is, and how it behaves. This can be done, and has been done by some very fine minds, in plain language. At least for the basic summary information. I think the original poster probably would have been satisfied with "a photon has no size, doesn't look like anything, and behaves like this:..." without needing any explanation of how one would derive such conclusions.

This is indeed a fantastic forum, and everyone here is interested in gaining understanding. This justifies your snarky reactions how, exactly?

 

[Physics101]

I've recently read QED by Richard Feynman and was utterly shocked by how strange the "reality" is. Although I took Physics courses while in college (some 20 years ago -- ancient in Physics terms), I'm willing to bet that not many of today's college graduates (non-Physics majors) are even aware of anything having to do with QED. The same goes for many other modern-day physics topics, including the String Theory, Brane Theory and the QM in general.

As a layperson, I am concerned about how Physics and other disciplines of Science are losing touch with the general public. A great chasm exists between those in-the-know and the public with diminishing possibility of connecting the two. The only tool appears to be the Math which appeals to 0.001% of the population, if at that. I think Feynman did a fantastic job of trying to explain the unexplainable and I'm afraid we need more of these individuals if Science is going to attract young minds (and the hearts) of future scientists.

I see nothing wrong with describing the light/photon with an imperfect model as long as it retains the flavor of what they are and if a caveat alerts the reader as such. Bohr's model of atom is still a useful visualization tool so long as one recognizes the intentional simplicity behind it. Also, any given theory can be superceded by another, more elegant one should such come along. QED does explain all the classic behaviors of light/photon and, if I remember correctly, even avoids requiring the uncertainty principle of QM in certain cases. It does not, however, mean that it is the way nature works. It simply means that it's the best we have (or one of the leading theories) to explain the way nature behaves when it comes to light/photon.

P.S. This was a great topic and I really enjoyed reading the exchange of messages. Learning something new everyday.

 

[marlon]

Bohr's model of atom is still a useful visualization tool so long as one recognizes the intentional simplicity behind it.

Hey Physics,

One does not need to recognize the simplicity behind Bohr's Model, one needs to recgonize that it is plain wrong because it does not respect the Heisenberg Uncertainty. This model was a first, ingenious, attempt to solve the fact that stable atoms cannot exist using only Coulomb's Law to describe the nucleus + electrons interactions.

QED does explain all the classic behaviors of light/photon

What you want to say is that QED reduces to classical EM within the correct energy/distance scale. A photon is a QM concept that therefore has no "classical" behaviour.

and, if I remember correctly, even avoids requiring the uncertainty principle of QM in certain cases.

This is impossible. Keep in mind what the Q in QED stands for.
QED has no competitors when it comes to physical models that describe the EM interaction. It's accuracy is up to 10 decimals ! Besides, there are no experimental/theoretical problems with QED because there are no contradictions with any experiment what so ever AND QED is renormalizable.


regards
marlon

 

[marlon]

I'd read many articles that mention QED as a very speculative theory in some aspects,

Look,
QED has no conflicts with any experiment what so ever. Also on the theory side there is no problem because QED is completely renormalizable.

If you want to mention these articles than i would like to ask you to quote them. Give references. You cannot just say "i ready many articles..." and therefore conclude that there is something wrong with QED. This is not how science works.

Don't take this the wrong way, i don't want to insult you here but it really needs to be stated that making loose statements cannot be taken seriously because you have no proof. If you have no proof you have nothing.

regards
marlon

 

[quantumdude]

Another thing. Your post makes it look like you want to say that many photons make up the EM field. I don't know if it is your message, but i hope not because it is wrong.

I don't understand why you say that the number of photons is irrelevant. Considering only monochromatic photons for simplicity, their creation and annihilation operators are, respectively, given by \hat{a}^{\dagger} and \hat{a}. As you know they satisfy the commutation relation [\hat{a},\hat{a}^{\dagger}]=1. The "1" is what puts the "Q" in "QED". In the high-n limit the 1 is negligible and we have approximately [\hat{a},\hat{a}^{\dagger}]=0. In other words, in the high-n limit we recover classical electrodynamcs.

All I did was state the correspondence principle in my own words. I don't understand why you object to it.

 

[quantumdude]

My goodness, but someone is touchy today.

Yeah, and that someone is obviously you.

As I said, my little jello analogy was merely an example of how one might make an explanation to someone who clearly DOESN'T have the background, and I pretty clearly said it was NOT a better actual explanation of the phenomenon (or even a good one).

Well, now I'm confused because you clearly did say that your explanation was better than mathematical explanations that are incomprehensible to novices. My point here is that rather than dumb down the explanation, we should help smarten up the novice.

It is obvious from the question that was posed that the concept wasn't understood. The proper answer is to say "your question reveals some confusion, let me clear it up for you" rather than "you don't know what you're talking about, go somewhere else and read something before you come back here and ask questions again."

I've been helping people here for 4 years, and marlon has been for about 1.5 years. You've been here less than two months. Rather than lecture us on what a proper response is, how about you watch and learn for a little while?

First of all, marlon did give a perfectly fine answer to Ben's question in Post #12. For some reason you decided to ignore that part of the post and instead focus on one line: "GO STUDY QED."

And second, when there is such an enormous gap in knowledge between what one (in this case, Ben) has studied and what he is asking about, it becomes necessary for someone to sit down and teach him the subject in order to fully answer his question. Since that is too much to ask of anyone on a forum, we (that is, Mentors, Science Advisors, and Homework Helpers) frequently point people in the right direction for self-study. Marlon did it with his "go study" comment, and I attempted to engage Ben by referring him to a popular account of QED and asking him where his last physics course left off. There is nothing wrong taking people who are seeking help, and advising them on how to help themselves. I don't understand why you find that idea so distasteful, but I sincerely believe that you are wrong for holding that opinion.

Third, if anything your comments in this thread only served to deepen the confusion, not to help clear it up. That is what makes your admonition about a "proper answer" particularly irritating.

That said, I think it has been beaten to death now that "how big is a photon" and "what does it look like" are meaningless questions.

Another thing that has been beaten to death is the point you were trying to make. You have been answered thoroughly and lucidly by myself and others. I am astounded that you are still pushing the point.

However, the obvious thing these questions were asking is for a basic description of what a photon is, and how it behaves. This can be done, and has been done by some very fine minds, in plain language. At least for the basic summary information. I think the original poster probably would have been satisfied with "a photon has no size, doesn't look like anything, and behaves like this:..." without needing any explanation of how one would derive such conclusions.

He was given those answers, and the thread is still going!

This is indeed a fantastic forum, and everyone here is interested in gaining understanding.

Glad you like it.

This justifies your snarky reactions how, exactly?

I haven't made any snarky reactions. I've been perfectly reasonable about explaining to you how we do things here. That is what moderators do. Kindly lose the defensive posture.

 

[Boffin]

Third, if anything your (Hooloovoo) comments in this thread only served to deepen the confusion, not to help clear it up. That is what makes your admonition about a "proper answer" particularly irritating.

He was given those answers, and the thread is still going!

Ohanian used to be a professor at my school, RPI. He left before I arrived, but my professors knew him well. He has a reputation of being a razor-sharp thinker. I doubt that there is any ambiguity in his remarks. If you post direct quotes here rather than paraphrases, I think you will make more progress.

Tom, there are many reasons why I and some other people don't just behave or learn like you want us to:

1. As Physics101 pointed out not many people with a university science degree are even aware that QED is the only accepted model of electromagnetic interactions. So why would a person listen when the first person says so, while some of our teachers and professors have either told us otherwise or not mentioned it.

2. Some people are actually confused. You said for example that you doubt if there was any ambiguity in Ohanian's textbooks. But he is describing light and radio waves with three different models, continuous localized plane waves, wavicles as individual vibrating entities (it appears), and in passing that there is also a theory called QED. I know I'm paraphrasing but the actual text is so long. Since these are all competing theories, which one is correct, he doesn't say. And the section on QED is very short. He doesn't even include QED in the single volume edition which is about 1400 pages long. I happen to have a two volume copy which is even longer that also included QED.

3. I don't just run to start studying QED in detail because I'm not a believer yet. Why should I? It's all new to me that it's the only theory I should believe. Would you start studying something before you are convinced it's worth studying?

4. QED is hard to believe. That is a likely reason why I and maybe some others are still going with this thread, now that we have been made more aware of this QED theory. Preachers shouldn't bash people into believing, they should convince them. You mentioned that QED is accurate to 10 decimal places. I don't have an issue with the predictive aspect of QED, why of course it is accurate like you said, but that doesn't mean that many different models can't predict exactly the same thing. Such logic isn't convincing to me. It's the basis of inductive vs deductive thinking.

I'll quote directly from Richard Feyman's book QED The Strange Theory of Light and Matter pg 10 1985 version which I'm re reading. "I'd like to talk a little bit about understanding. When we have a lecture, there are many reasons why you might not understand the speaker ... language is bad ... uses funny words ... you won't understand why nature works that way ... Finally there is the possibility: after I tell you something, you just can't believe it. You can't accept it. You don't like it. A little screen comes on and you don't listen any more. The theory of quantum electrodynamics describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense".

 

[quantumdude]

Tom, there are many reasons why I and some other people don't just behave or learn like you want us to:

All I attempted to do is point you in the right direction and get you to do some work for yourself. What good reason could anyone possibly have for objecting to that?

1. As Physics101 pointed out not many people with a university science degree are even aware that QED is the only accepted model of electromagnetic interactions. So why would a person listen when the first person says so, while some of our teachers and professors have either told us otherwise or not mentioned it.

All physicists are aware of it, and you asked your questions on a message board populated by physicists, and they have answered you. Even if you were wary at first, surely now you must realize that QED is what you should be looking at.

2. Some people are actually confused. You said for example that you doubt if there was any ambiguity in Ohanian's textbooks. But he is describing light and radio waves with three different theories,

(snip)

Since I don't have the book I can't comment on this part.

3. I don't just run to start studying QED in detail because I'm not a believers yet. Why should I? It's all new to me that it's the only theory I should believe. Would you start studying something before you are convinced it's worth studying.

What exactly are you waiting for, some magical post that suddenly makes the clouds part and the angels sing? It simply doesn't work like that. You have heard from a number of people who have studied physics at the graduate level (marlon and myself) and a working physicist with a PhD (ZapperZ). All we can do is point you in the right direction, and we have done so. You aren't going to get the answers you are looking for without doing some work. And if you don't believe that physicists can point you in the right direction, then why bother asking us?

4. QED is hard to believe. Convince people of the basics,

It has been repeatedly mentioned that QED agrees with experiment to over 10 decimal places, thus making it the most accurate scientific theory ever devised. That is as basic as it gets, and if you aren't convinced by such spectacular agreement with experiment then you are beyond the reach of reason. It really is just that simple.

don't bash them over the head.

Speaking for myself: I never did. All I did was tell you the truth: That you are not going to achieve the understanding you are looking for without rolling up your sleeves and doing some work for yourself.

That is a likely reason why some of us are still going with this thread. Preachers shouldn't bash people into believing, they should convince them.

I am not preaching, and the remark I made regarding QED's track record with experiment would be enough to convince any sincere seeker of knowledge.

Are you sincere? It remains to be seen.

I'll quote directly from Richard Feyman's book QED The Strange Theory of Light and Matter pg 10 1985 version which I'm re reading. "I'd like to talk a little bit about understanding. When we have a lecture, there are many reasons why you might not understand the speaker ... language is bad ... uses funny words ... you won't understand why nature works that way ... Finally there is the possibility: after I tell you something, you just can't believe it. You can't accept it. You don't like it. A little screen comes on and you don't listen any more. The theory of quantum electrodynamics describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense".

I hope you don't use that as an excuse to stop trying to understand the subject.

 

[quantumdude]

I either missed this part or you edited it in as I was typing my response.

You mentioned that QED is accurate to 10 decimal places. I don't have an issue with the predictive aspect of QED, why of course it is accurate like you said, but that doesn't mean that many different models can't predict exactly the same thing.

Those models don't exist. We can't very well point you in the direction of models that don't exist, can we?

Such logic isn't convincing to me. It's the basis of inductive vs deductive thinking.

Inductive logic is indelibly etched into scientific methodology. So much so in fact that discarding inductive reasoning is tantamount to discarding science itself.

And even if there did exist another model that makes the exact same predictions as QED, what basis do you expect it to have? Deductive or inductive? Of course, it will be inductive and you will find yourself in the exact same boat. So to get yourself out of this dilemma you are going to have to start accepting strong inductive arguments, such as the one that supports QED.

 

[ZapperZ]

Tom, there are many reasons why I and some other people don't just behave or learn like you want us to:
1. As Physics101 pointed out not many people with a university science degree are even aware that QED is the only accepted model of electromagnetic interactions. So why would a person listen when the first person says so, while some of our teachers and professors have either told us otherwise or not mentioned it.

I cannot believe you actually said this. This has got to be THE single worst excuse I've heard in a very long time. You actually used YOUR IGNORANCE as an excused to trivialized QED!

Think about it! You have already made up your mind about something that you have not even begin to understand! If you apply this type of reasoning to social decision, we call that bigotry. Ignorance and laziness are NEVER a good excuse. Try using that when you're in trouble with the law!

3. I don't just run to start studying QED in detail because I'm not a believer yet. Why should I? It's all new to me that it's the only theory I should believe. Would you start studying something before you are convinced it's worth studying?

YES! Or else, how are you able to decide if it should be taken seriously? I don't buy what you are selling here. Yet, how would you like it if I criticize what you have to say without reading and attempting to understand what you wrote? That makes no sense.

If you don't wish to study QED until you "believe it", then you also have no ability to criticize it until you study it. It works both ways. By not bothering to understand it, you have forfieted your ability to do both. If not, you are simply espousing an opinion based on ignorance. If you do not mind doing that, then go right ahead, but not in this forum.

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

This type of thread appears every now and then. This is where someone is convinced that (i) one can have a "conceptual" understanding of things such as QM (or in this case, QED) FIRST; (ii) that a superficial idea one gets about it from pop-sci texts is sufficient. All of these done without first understanding the mathematical formulation.

I wrote my essay "Why Is Quantum Mechanics So Difficult" in my journal (and Greg has also posted it on the Physics Post website) because I have seen things like this often. If you have read that essay, you would have seen all the symptoms and signs exhibited in this thread. People expect to be able to understand QM, QED, QCD, etc. conceptually FIRST, and this is a fallacy. There is a discontinuity in the concepts presented in those field with what we are familiar with. The ONLY savior of what is familiar is the mathematics! Without understanding that first, the concepts of QM etc. will appear as if the come out of nowhere, dangling in mid-air.

So it is a self-perpetuating and self-fulfilling fate. The refusal to dive into the mathematical formalism is the very reason why one cannot "believe" QED.

Zz.