Is the Existence of Photons Proven by Modern Quantum Optics?

[ftr]

from wiki
"Although the photoelectric effect and Compton scattering strongly suggest the existence of the photon, it might alternatively be explained by a mere quantization of emission; more definitive evidence of the quantum nature of radiation is now taken up into modern quantum optics as in the antibunching effect.[30]"

That suggest that no individual photon has actually been observed. Is that correct?

 

[Demystifier]

I think spontaneous emission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_emission cannot be explained without photons.

 

[ftr]

I think spontaneous emission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_emission cannot be explained without photons.

Modelling seems to be different than actual physical, see my edit. That is why I started hating orthodox QM and started loving Bohmian mechanics.

 

[Demystifier]

That suggest that no individual photon has actually been observed. Is that correct?

It's not correct.

 

[ftr]

It's not correct.

I remember from many years ago in the research institute I used to work for had a million dollar ccd camera that was supposed to count photons. Do you know of an actual experiment.

 

[DrChinese]

I remember from many years ago in the research institute I used to work for had a million dollar ccd camera that was supposed to count photons. Do you know of an actual experiment.

Not sure what you would call suitable for proving the existence of photons, but this is something I consider to be good:

Abstract:
"... For example, while well-known phenomena such as the photoelectric effect and Compton scattering strongly suggest the existence of photons, they are not definitive proof of their existence. Here we present an experiment, suitable for an undergraduate laboratory, that unequivocally demonstrates the quantum nature of light. Spontaneously downconverted light is incident on a beamsplitter and the outputs are monitored with single-photon counting detectors. We observe a near absence of coincidence counts between the two detectors—a result inconsistent with a classical wave model of light, but consistent with a quantum descriptionin which individual photons are incident on the beamsplitter. ..."

http://people.whitman.edu/~beckmk/QM/grangier/Thorn_ajp.pdf

 

[PeterDonis]

That suggest that no individual photon has actually been observed. Is that correct?

No. We have instruments that can detect individual photons in experiments. See the paper @DrChinese referenced for an example.

 

[itfitmewelltoo]

Richard Feynman has been clear that photons exist as particles. We can hear them hitting the detector, click, click, click.

 

[ftr]

Richard Feynman has been clear that photons exist as particles. We can hear them hitting the detector, click, click, click.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14319392-200-science-do-photons-really-exist/

you can find many opinions like that.

 

[mfb]

You can find opinions for every nonsense you like. That doesn’t mean they would be relevant.
It is possible to describe the world without using the word “photons”, but you would need entities that every reasonable physicist would just call photons.

from wiki
"Although the photoelectric effect and Compton scattering strongly suggest the existence of the photon, it might alternatively be explained by a mere quantization of emission; more definitive evidence of the quantum nature of radiation is now taken up into modern quantum optics as in the antibunching effect.[30]"

That suggest that no individual photon has actually been observed. Is that correct?

No, it suggests some experiments from the 1930s and earlier can be described without photons. We don’t live in 1930 any more.

 

[Cthugha]

from wiki
"Although the photoelectric effect and Compton scattering strongly suggest the existence of the photon, it might alternatively be explained by a mere quantization of emission; more definitive evidence of the quantum nature of radiation is now taken up into modern quantum optics as in the antibunching effect.[30]"

That suggest that no individual photon has actually been observed. Is that correct?

So what is wrong about antibunching as solid evidence that it is possible to prepare single photon states? It has been demonstrated in experiments over and over again.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14319392-200-science-do-photons-really-exist/

you can find many opinions like that.

A quote from that text "Photons do not exist, according to Geoff Jones of the University of Sussex. Jones believes that it is ‘wrong, and unnecessary’ to describe light in terms of small, localised particles."

Of course it is wrong and unnecessary to describe light in terms of small localised particles. But photons are NOT small, localised particles. There have been people such as Willis Lamb who stated the opinion that the term photon is often used incorrectly and thus the terminology should be changed, but these people also clearly stated that the quantum theory of radiation is the right tool to analyze problems in quantum optics. They just think that the term "photon" is giving people a wrong bullet-like intuitive picture of what photons are - which is exactly what they are not.

 

[itfitmewelltoo]

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14319392-200-science-do-photons-really-exist/

you can find many opinions like that.

It's my understanding that Feynman is just someone with an opinion.

 

[PeterDonis]

you can find many opinions like that.

The responses to your question in the OP were not "opinions". You have been given references to actual experiments that detect photons.

Question answered. Thread closed.