Light Waves on Macroscopic Scale: Distinguishing from Matter Waves?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion centers on the distinction between macroscopic light waves and matter waves, particularly focusing on the nature of photons. Participants assert that light, while exhibiting wave-like behavior, fundamentally differs from matter waves due to the massless nature of photons. The conversation references Dirac's transformation theory and emphasizes that macroscopic light phenomena, such as interference patterns, can be explained through quantum mechanics rather than classical wave theory. The consensus is that the wave characteristics of light are not merely emergent but are rooted in quantum probability waves.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics principles
  • Familiarity with wave-particle duality
  • Knowledge of Dirac's transformation theory
  • Basic concepts of interference patterns (e.g., Young's double slit experiment)
NEXT STEPS
  • Study Dirac's transformation theory in detail
  • Explore quantum probability waves and their implications
  • Investigate the photoelectric effect and its relation to light behavior
  • Learn about classical versus quantum descriptions of wave phenomena
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of quantum mechanics, and anyone interested in the fundamental differences between light and matter waves.

chris2112
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
scientists have observed light acting as waves on a macroscopic scale before the quantum characteristics of particles were discovered. My question is what sets apart the macroscopic wavelike characteristcs of light apart from other matter waves? This may be a stupid question but can the macroscopic observation of light waves just be an emergence of the probability waves of photons?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Not a stupid question. In a sense: yes. (to the second question: if there's no probability to observe a photon, you son't see it). A bit corny, I concede.
So if you can steer me in another direction, please do.

For the first question, I would say: the fact that the wavelength is in the visible range.

I don't think you should consider light as matter waves: photons have no mass.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bhobba
BvU said:
I don't think you should consider light as matter waves: photons have no mass.

The idea of matter waves was consigned to the dustbin of history when Dirac came up with his transformation theory at the end of 1926 (probably sooner - but certainly by then):
http://www.lajpe.org/may08/09_Carlos_Madrid.pdf

Thanks
Bill
 
Thanks Bill, but it seems to me that is heavy ammunition for Chris. The original question hints at a sense of wonder over the actual difference between light waves and matter waves. And I find it hard to pinpoint that without resorting to indicating rest mass as the only difference: to me that's more a microscopic difference. It doesn't help to say that you can have a kilogram of protons at rest and not a kilogram of photons.

Wave characteristics of matter behaviour popped up long after light was understood in terms of wave behaviour, and it came as a surprise that the core physical differences are virtually none. Conversely, light demonstrates particle behaviour (as in the photoelectric effect) making it even more complicated for a while.

Chris' question is at the very heart of of physics. Not current physics any more, but physics at a very peak in its development over time !
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bhobba
so just to be clear, macroscopic light interference patterns, such as the airy disk or young's double slit, are just the photons quantum probability waves in action?
 
chris2112 said:
scientists have observed light acting as waves on a macroscopic scale before the quantum characteristics of particles were discovered. My question is what sets apart the macroscopic wavelike characteristcs of light apart from other matter waves? This may be a stupid question but can the macroscopic observation of light waves just be an emergence of the probability waves of photons?

Just so you know, we don't have to switch to using the classical wave picture to account for the interference (and other wave-like behavior) of light. We can definitely describe such a feature using quantum mechanical description. The Marcella paper that I've referenced to many times is one such example of this treatment.

So no, this wave-like behavior isn't just a "macroscopic" observation, because it can be described microscopically and all the way up.

Zz.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bhobba
chris2112 said:
so just to be clear, macroscopic light interference patterns, such as the airy disk or young's double slit, are just the photons quantum probability waves in action?

At the beginner level that's the way its usually viewed.

However it isn't true because position is not an observable for photons. Explaining that at the beginner level though isn't easy:
http://arnold-neumaier.at/physfaq/topics/position.html

Unfortunately sometimes in physics its like that - what is taught at the beginner level needs to be unlearned later. Its a royal pain in the toosh for beginners that come here because we don't 'sugar' coat it.

Thanks
Bill
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
12K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K