Is Electromagnetic Radiation Merely a Mental Construct?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of electromagnetic radiation, specifically whether "waves" are merely mental constructs or if they have physical existence. Participants explore the implications of wave-particle duality in the context of quantum mechanics, addressing both theoretical and conceptual aspects.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the physical existence of "waves," suggesting they may be mental constructs used to explain photon behavior.
  • Another participant argues that "waves" are oscillations in electric and magnetic fields and that electromagnetic radiation can be described as both particles (photons) and waves, emphasizing the complexity of defining "physical."
  • A different viewpoint highlights that wave functions describe probabilities related to particles, and debates whether they are merely mathematical constructs or represent actual phenomena.
  • One participant suggests starting from observable phenomena, such as Poisson's spot and interference, to create mathematical constructs that describe these phenomena, indicating a distinction between constructs and underlying realities.
  • Another participant asserts that a comprehensive explanation linking waves and particles in quantum mechanics remains elusive, implying that resolving this issue could lead to significant recognition in the scientific community.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of waves and wave functions, with no consensus reached regarding their physical existence or the interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes unresolved questions about the definitions of "physical" and the nature of wave functions, as well as the implications of applying mathematical constructs to physical phenomena.

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)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
888
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
6K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K