Is Electromagnetic Radiation Merely a Mental Construct?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on whether electromagnetic radiation, particularly light, is merely a mental construct or has physical existence. It clarifies that light can be described as both particles (photons) and waves, which are oscillations in electric and magnetic fields. The wave function, a mathematical tool used to describe particles' probabilities, is debated regarding its physicality, with some arguing it represents actual oscillations of probability. Observations like Poisson's spot and interference patterns support the existence of light waves, indicating that they can be measured and are not just theoretical constructs. The conversation concludes that fully reconciling wave and particle descriptions in quantum mechanics remains an unresolved challenge.
Holocene
Messages
237
Reaction score
0
Is it true that "waves" don't have any physical existence, and instead are mental contructs used to explain the probability of a photon striking a particular point?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
"Waves" is generally, are oscillations which occur in a medium.
A photon is a particle. E&M Radiation can be described as particles (photons) or as waves which are oscillations in the electric and magnetic fields in whatever region you are considering. Light waves are most certainly an actual thing, that exists in space, and can be measured etc. "Physical" is a tough word to use, I'm going to avoid it.
What you're referring to is a wave function to describe particles (especially electrons, but it does apply to photons for instance, as-well).
What a wave-function really is, is up to debate/interpretation. A Wave function is definitely tied to the probability of finding a particle at a particular place, with a particular energy, momentum, etc.
Whether the wave-function is purely a mathematical construct, and merely a way of THINKING about actual things... is a hard question to answer.
I would say, that wave functions are actual things: oscillations and locations of probability. But you definitely can't measure/touch/interact with the wave-function in-and-of itself.

Does that answer your question?
 
Start from what is observed: Poisson's spot (Arago spot), interference, etc. From this, a mathematical construct which accurately describes the phenomena can be created.

Applying the construct to new phenomena (frustrated total internal reflection) may or may not be strightforward, but that is a statement regarding the (artifical) construct, not on the underlying phenomenon.
 
No, it's not true.

And if somebody could interlink everything in QM (waves and particles), and fully explain the nature of each, they would get a nobel prize (i think)
 
Thread 'Motional EMF in Faraday disc, co-rotating magnet axial mean flux'
So here is the motional EMF formula. Now I understand the standard Faraday paradox that an axis symmetric field source (like a speaker motor ring magnet) has a magnetic field that is frame invariant under rotation around axis of symmetry. The field is static whether you rotate the magnet or not. So far so good. What puzzles me is this , there is a term average magnetic flux or "azimuthal mean" , this term describes the average magnetic field through the area swept by the rotating Faraday...
Back
Top