How is light experimentally proven to be a particle?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter prasannapakkiam
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Light Particle
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the experimental evidence for the particle nature of light, particularly through the lens of the photoelectric effect. Participants explore the implications of this phenomenon, contrasting it with wave-like properties of light, and examining various interpretations and experimental results related to light's dual nature.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that the photoelectric effect demonstrates that light can be treated as particles, as energy transfer is quantized in integer multiples of hν.
  • Others argue that the photoelectric effect does not definitively prove light is a particle, suggesting that classical interpretations could also account for the observed phenomena.
  • One participant mentions that photon counting experiments show individual photons can be detected, supporting the particle model of light.
  • Another viewpoint emphasizes that light exhibits both wave-like and particle-like properties, and that electromagnetic radiation cannot be strictly categorized as one or the other.
  • Concerns are raised about the validity of claims that observations can prove hypotheses, with references to philosophical discussions on the nature of scientific proof.
  • Some participants highlight that the rapid emission of photoelectrons can be explained by quantum mechanical models treating light as classical waves, complicating the interpretation of the photoelectric effect.
  • It is noted that there exists a threshold energy for light to liberate electrons, which implies a quantized interaction, but interpretations of this phenomenon remain debated.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the interpretation of the photoelectric effect and the nature of light, with no consensus reached on whether it definitively proves light is a particle. Multiple competing interpretations and models are presented, indicating ongoing debate.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on interpretations of experimental results, the complexity of quantum mechanical models versus classical models, and the unresolved nature of certain assumptions regarding the behavior of light in different contexts.

  • #31
Integral said:
Yes, I do disagree with that statement. Is is not permitted, so somehow horrifying that someone should disagree with A.E.? Am I not allowed to use my imagination, or must I be restricted to the platitudes of the past?

I think imagination/creativity is a subset (a small one) within knowledge. I hadn't seen that statement by Bertie before, and that may be what he may be implying.


having to be restricted to the platitudes of the past? --now that's really horrifying!:bugeye:

----------------------------------------------------

ZapperZ said:
.. I challenge you to, for example, "violate" Einstein's photoelectric effect model simply based on "imagination" without invoking ANY degree of knowledge of physics. Go on, I dare you.

Zz.


That may take me a while ---how long do I have/will you give me?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
rewebster said:
That may take me a while ---how long do I have/will you give me?

Imagining things require that long of a time? I've imagined a bunch of things about this thread just while tying this.

Zz.
 
  • #33
ZapperZ said:
Imagining things require that long of a time? I've imagined a bunch of things about this thread just while typing this.

Zz.

Well, your knowledge subset may be a little:rolleyes: larger than my knowledge subset; and the time for me to try to "violate" Einstein's photoelectric effect model may take me a little longer than you typing your last response, so --give me a little break if it takes me some more time:shy: .
 
  • #34
rewebster said:
Well, your knowledge subset may be a little:rolleyes: larger than my knowledge subset; and the time for me to try to "violate" Einstein's photoelectric effect model may take me a little longer than you typing your last response, so --give me a little break if it takes me some more time:shy: .

What knowledge? We are doing imagination without knowledge, remember? After all, "imagination" is more important than "knowledge". So invent something, or violate something, using your imagination without invoking ANY knowledge. After all, knowledge is useless and unimportant. Produce for me something using just imagination, and the hell with knowledge.

Zz.
 
  • #35
ZapperZ said:
What knowledge? We are doing imagination without knowledge, remember? After all, "imagination" is more important than "knowledge". So invent something, or violate something, using your imagination without invoking ANY knowledge. After all, knowledge is useless and unimportant. Produce for me something using just imagination, and the hell with knowledge.

Zz.

Wait a second---you jumped a step on me--

"imagination" is more important than "knowledge" doesn't eliminate knowledge from the equation.

I think it (imagination) embraces knowledge and makes knowledge grow. "Imagination embraces the entire world" including any knowledge.

--------------------------------------

I'm sorry to think that you think, "... knowledge is useless and unimportant."
 
Last edited:
  • #36
rewebster said:
Wait a second---you jumped a step on me--

"imagination" is more important than "knowledge" doesn't eliminate knowledge from the equation.

I think it (imagination) embraces knowledge and makes knowledge grow. "Imagination embraces the entire world" including any knowledge.

I can't believe I have to argue against two different people with varying interpretation of the SAME thing.

I tell you what. Why don't you and MeJennifer fight it out with regards to what you people interpret that often-bastardized Einstein quote, and THEN, give me a call.

Zz.
 
  • #37
Argue?--argue??----I wasn't arguing----me?-----arguing?----I would NEVER do that---I thought we were just interpreting the quote in different ways and discussing the "often-bastardized Einstein" quote.
 
Last edited:
  • #38
A reasonable introduction to modern experiments with photons is Greenstein and Zajonc's The Quantum Challenge printed in 2006. It has a chapter entitled "Do Photons exist?", which gives numerous references to the work of Aspect, Wheeler, and others that has (in the last 30 years) probed the wave-particle nature of light in new ways, tending to support the photon picture.
 
  • #39
Imagination without knowledge creates illusion. Knowledge without imagination is just plain boring. If you check, by reading his work, Einstein was very knowledgeable, a master of 19th century physics. He had an extraordinarily good imagination and a huge gift for creativity, and a great nose for the right problem, which allowed him to define much of the physics of the 20th century.

As I am won't to say, there's a lot of history here -- both of Einstein's work -- see Pais' Einstein bio -- and a huge literature on creativity -- many works by Howard Gardner of Harvard, and, in particular, in The Psycholgy of Mathematical Invention by Jaques Hadamard -- a world class mathematician,
who discusses an interview with Einstein.

Creativity is far more than knowledge and imagination.
Regards,
Reilly Atkinson
 
  • #40
Creativity, yes---the inspired facet applied at the right vector that makes knowledge and imagination sparkle----good point, R. A., once again.
 
  • #41
aww coeme on! This is ridiculous! Imagination? Where did that come from? Anyway Zz, What part of an light'wave(??) trandsferring energy into an electron, thus exciting it to 'move up', have any connotations of proving it is a particle?
 
  • #42
prasannapakkiam said:
aww coeme on! This is ridiculous! Imagination? Where did that come from? Anyway Zz, What part of an light'wave(??) trandsferring energy into an electron, thus exciting it to 'move up', have any connotations of proving it is a particle?

Did you ever read my post on this? I mentioned TWO other important experiments: the which-way experiment AND the photon anti-bunching experiment, which have ZERO classical explanation offered so far.

Furthermore, what you call as a "particle" is NOT the same way that physicists characterize as a "particle". And last time I checked, this characterization of light as being "particles" were originally made by physicists. We have already defined what is meant by this in our FAQ.

Zz.
 
  • #43
cybercrypt13 said:
Just as an example, I read a post last night that someone had posted about spin and thought that I was finally starting to understand it, only to be given another post stating that those tests were not conclusive and had problems. Its a never ending circle. And again, I'm only responding to those claiming understanding as if its there to have.
glenn


I was looking for something else on the web, and I ran across this 'other' (probably) "often-bastardized" quote by Einie that I (again) hadn't seen before that relates to the above:

"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." --- Albert Einstein

funny guy, that Einstein, ---he must have been a laugh at the quantum office party.
 
Last edited:
  • #44
rewebster said:
funny guy, that Einstein, ---he must have been a laugh at the quantum office party.

Well, he was and he wasn't... :rolleyes:
 
  • #45
Parlyne said:
... and he wasn't... :rolleyes:

yeah, I know; I put him at 'quantum' party because he was too involved with the 'relatives'.
 
  • #46
rewebster said:
yeah, I know; I put him at 'quantum' party because he was too involved with the 'relatives'.

Are you suggesting he found entanglements to be the causality of much distress?
 
  • #47
yes--exactly--the wave function over E (instead of M) lead to (equaled) the big D
 
Last edited:
  • #48
I'm assuming that since this thread has now dragged on into casual ramblings, this topic is done.

Zz.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
9K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K