Modelling wavelike properties of a particle

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around modeling the wavelike properties of particles, specifically photons, and the implications of such models in understanding their behavior. Participants explore various approaches to representing these properties, including periodic expansion and contraction, and the challenges associated with these models.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes a model where a trapped particle expands and contracts periodically, suggesting this behavior could lead to interference similar to wave phenomena.
  • Another participant critiques the model, arguing that the simulations presented assume a size for photons that varies with position, which they find nonsensical without further justification.
  • A participant with programming experience discusses their intention to model the phase of photons, referencing the Planck constant and the behavior of photons in terms of energy and absorption probabilities.
  • Concerns are raised about the idea that photons expand and contract, with one participant stating that no theory supports this notion and that it represents a fundamental misunderstanding.
  • Questions are posed regarding the representation of photons as waves, particularly the idea of a photon being its own antiparticle and how this relates to wave behavior.
  • Another participant challenges the notion of photons being absorbed by electrons, clarifying that absorption occurs at the atomic level rather than just involving free electrons.
  • There is skepticism about the accuracy of the proposed representations and models, with some participants suggesting that certain claims may be unfounded or incorrect.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity of the proposed models and representations of photons. There is no consensus on the accuracy of the claims regarding photon behavior, with significant disagreement on key aspects of the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in the proposed models, including assumptions about photon size and behavior that are not universally accepted or supported by experimental evidence. The discussion remains open-ended with unresolved questions regarding the nature of photons and their wavelike properties.

zincshow
Messages
103
Reaction score
0
One way to model the wavelike property of a trapped particle is to have it do something (say expand and contract) on a periodic basis as it travels though space. Assuming the periodic expansion and contraction matches the wavelength of the particle, it will "interfere" with other particles the same way different parts of a wave interfere with each other. An example of 40 particles with interference is at http://youtu.be/Fg3ifqBNDB8

An example of a single particle acting as a wave is at http://youtu.be/yPC5lxCXOkM

If there are concerns with this type of model, can those be elaborated on here?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Those movies are just a simulation. They seem to assume a size / extent for a photon and that the size somehow varies with position. The act of making a simulation doesn't justify the model so I would need to see something more. As it stands, it makes no real sense to me.
 
I am a computer programmer with access to significant and varied 3d animation software. My only hope here is to properly model, in this case, the phase of the photon. I appreciate anyone familiar with photon properties pointing out any errors.

Each photon is derived from its energy based on the Planck constant, where the example shows a 1.97ev photon (1240/1.97=630nm) will travel at the speed of light, 3x10^8 m/s and expand and contract at a rate of 4.8x10^14 times per second. Locations are tracked and real time in femtoseconds is shown at the bottom.

As I understand the photon, it has a time varying chance of being reflected by a surface, or of being absorbed by an electron. This is reflected in the model as the photons size as it travels through space becoming bigger and smaller. The photon is its own antiparticle. This is reflected in the model as the photon going from dark to light to dark on a 1/2 wavelength basis.

This way, groups of photons can be modeled as coherent or incoherent, where the example is of the creation of 40 coherent photons.

This is a natural model of wave interference, where you see dark photons reinforcing other dark photons that are one wavelength away from the wall. You can model all types of interference this way where for example, two photons crossing each other that are 1/2 wavelength out of phase will cancel each other out.
 
A photon does not expand and contract. There is no theory that espouses that, and there are no experiment that would even suggest that. That is the fatal error in your understanding and interpretation of the videos.

Zz.
 
Thank you, would you agree that "a photon has a time varying chance of being reflected by a surface, or of being absorbed by an electron." and "The photon is its own antiparticle on a 1/2 wavelength basis."

What are your thoughts on the 2d representation of photons going up and down like a small little wave? Isn't that the same sort of big/small cycle or particle/antiparticle cycle representation?
 
zincshow said:
Thank you, would you agree that "a photon has a time varying chance of being reflected by a surface, or of being absorbed by an electron." and "The photon is its own antiparticle on a 1/2 wavelength basis."

What are your thoughts on the 2d representation of photons going up and down like a small little wave? Isn't that the same sort of big/small cycle or particle/antiparticle cycle representation?

A photon cannot be absorbed by an electron, if that is a free electron. An photon being absorbed by an atom, resulting in an excited stated represented by an electron in a higher energy state, is an absorption by the entire atom, not just by the electron.

The part where a photon antiparticle on a 1/2 wavelength basis is something you probably made up on your own and thus, is utterly puzzling.

I think your attempt at doing this representation is not going to be correct or accurate.

Zz.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
9K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
12K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K