I Microwave photons and microwave oven doors

[S Beck]

Photons are point-like particles with no size, but they have different frequencies. Photons with certain frequencies (like microwave photons) can not pass through the holes of the mesh on a microwave oven, so this confuses me. Photons seem to act like they have size at low frequencies. I have learned that a single photon is not an EM wave and have no electric or magnetic fields as this is QM, not classical electrodynamics. How can photons of certain frequencies not pass through holes of a certain size too small if they are point-like particles?

 

[PeterDonis]

Photons are point-like particles

No, they're not. This is a common misconception fostered by pop science articles, but it's not correct.

Your entire question is based on this misconception. The correct answer is to drop the misconception.

 

[S Beck]

They are not, then what is a photon?

 

[PeterDonis]

what is a photon?

A quantum field. More precisely, an excitation of the quantum electromagnetic field.

 

[S Beck]

This quantum field is not obvious or even directly observed, but some ghostly aether exists is the impression I am getting. All we observe are particles and their interactions and objects made of them, not invisible continuous aether like structures.

 

[PeterDonis]

All we observe are particles and their interactions and objects made of them

We don't observe "particles". We observe things like flashes on detector screens, or clicks in geiger counters. "Particles" is a particular model we construct to explain such observations, and it works well as an approximation in particular regimes. But it's still an approximation. "Quantum field" is the most fundamental model we have, the one that has "particles" and "waves" as approximations to it.

 

[S Beck]

A particle is found localized when one measures it, and a wave function is not a wave but a probability of finding a particle. Nobody has observed a particle smeared at sizes. When a photon of a low frequency is absorbed it still doesn't excite a bunch of molecules, does it?

So the MM experiment not detecting the aether was of no argument against the aether. We now know the aether exists for light, and it is a ghostly quantum field that gets excited. It just was not named an aether.

 

[PeterDonis]

A particle is found localized when one measures it

Localized to the size of the dot on the detector screen. Not localized to a single mathematical point with zero size.

Also, your reasoning in the OP assumed that the photon was localized all the time, not just when it was being measured.

a wave function is not a wave but a probability of finding a particle

According to some interpretations of QM, yes.

Nobody has observed a particle smeared at sizes.

The sizes of the dots on the detector screens are not always the same. But they're always finite; nobody has ever seen a dot consisting of a single mathematical point.

So the MM experiment not detecting the aether was of no argument against the aether.

Sure it was. The aether the MM experiment was designed to detect was not detected.

We now know the aether exists for light, and it is a ghostly quantum field that gets excited. It just was not named an aether.

Because it's not the same thing as the aether that the MM experiment tried to detect. You can use the word "aether" to refer to it if you want; nobody can stop you. But that doesn't make it the same thing as the aether that the MM experiment did not detect.

I'm closing the thread at this point because your original question has been answered and you are just arguing about terminology instead of physics at this point.