How Do Photons and Detectors Shape Our Perception of Images?

[waves and change]

That's not a very good of thinking about it either. You're moving in the right direction when you focus on the interaction with matter, but even in these interactions they don't act like little balls. We could reasonably say that interactions between matter and the electromagnetic field always exchange energy and momentum in discrete amounts, but that leads to a picture that is very un-ball-like.

Agreed, the interaction is not wave like because the “discreteness” but not ball-like either

 

[sophiecentaur]

Where am I Sneaking in a photon to be primary?

When you say "with regards to photons behaving as waves when propagating".
If you would also say "with regards to waves behaving as photons during interaction" then that would be equally biased the other way.

 

[waves and change]

"Duality" is a term that was discarded many years ago.
You are still trying to sneak the Photon as the primary entity for EM. Particles don't behave as waves, particles behave as particles and waves behave as waves. The object that interacts with EM energy is affected as if it has launched or received a particle. The process of propagation between the ends of the journey is best described by the wave model. You have to avoid the question "what is it really?" because anything in Science is only describable by the way it behaves at the time.
You need to discard what the popular Science press and School teachers tell you if you want to understand the current models. Intuitive models will always let you down in the end.

I would say that (with tongue in cheek, perhaps).

I suggest you look into this regarding your statement that particles behave as particles and waves behave as waves which is incorrect in many contexts.

https://www.photonics.com/a52250/Photons_Observed_as_Particles_Waves

 

[waves and change]

When you say "with regards to photons behaving as waves when propagating".
If you would also say "with regards to waves behaving as photons during interaction" then that would be equally biased the other way.

Duality being discarded? Please site references explaining that? That is an incorrect statement

 

[sophiecentaur]

I suggest you look into this regarding your statement that particles behave as particles and waves behave as waves which is incorrect in many contexts.

https://www.photonics.com/a52250/Photons_Observed_as_Particles_Waves

Did you notice the title? Photons observed as Particles and Waves. Of course photons can be 'observed' one way or another and, under special conditions (as in the experiments described) both behaviours can be observed. I saw that the word Duality appears three times in that reference; once in a quote from Feynman (not recent) and twice in the words of the journalist, reporting on the experiment. Have you ever had your words quoted by a journalist? It is not always a reliable process.
But does this really have anything at all to do with the situation of the scale that is described in the OP? The answer to that question is available with simple ray optics. The general opinion of PF is that photons do not help with that question.

 

[waves and change]

Did you notice the title? Photons observed as Particles and Waves. Of course photons can be 'observed' one way or another and, under special conditions (as in the experiments described) both behaviours can be observed. I saw that the word Duality appears three times in that reference; once in a quote from Feynman (not recent) and twice in the words of the journalist, reporting on the experiment. Have you ever had your words quoted by a journalist? It is not always a reliable process.
But does this really have anything at all to do with the situation of the scale that is described in the OP? The answer to that question is available with simple ray optics. The general opinion of PF is that photons do not help with that question.

Your statement verbatim that duality has been discarded is in complete contradiction to what you just said. You just stated that photons can be observed to be particle like and wave like. That is what duality is. This experiment shows a possible superposition of those properties. This is not the only recent observation of similar phenomena

 

[weirdoguy]

Duality being discarded? Please site references explaining that?

It has been discussed here multiple times... E.g. read this:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/why-does-wave-particle-duality-not-exist-anymore.910647/

Ever since quantum mechanics was developed, wave-particle duality is treated only as a heuristic, not any part of a mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics, nor quantum field theory. Reference? Most of textbooks on QM or QFT.

 

[Nugatory]

I suggest you look into this regarding your statement that particles behave as particles and waves behave as waves which is incorrect in many contexts.
https://www.photonics.com/a52250/Photons_Observed_as_Particles_Waves

That is a non-technical PR summary intended for laypeople, so is not an acceptable reference under the physics forums rules (and the phrase "Artist’s impression, inspired by the work of the artist Maurits Cornelis Escher" is something of a warning here). The actual published paper (available free after a mildly annoying registration process) is much more serious but doesn't do much to support any of the informally stated English-language positions being argued in the last few posts.

In any case, we are far off the topic of the original post and thread title, so we can close the thread. Further questions on the nature of photons and the status of wave-particle duality in modern (after 1925) quantum physics should be started in new threads - but please please take a look at some of the many threads on these topics that we already have.