Photon propagation? Is this correct?

[revv]

Ok so I drew up something (I know its horrible), but is this correct?

Does the black line in the middle represent the propagation of the photon?

If this is correct I would like to know and anything else that could help me or just anything related to this.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Does the black line in the middle represent the propagation of the photon?

This model just doesn't work. A photon is not like a little bullet and any useful model of it has to include all of its behaviour.
The photon occupies all of space between being produced and absorbed. It doesn't behave as if following a 'path'. If you look at the two slits experiment (the simplest you can consider, there is a 'contribution' of the photon's energy that goes through both slits. That is demonstrated by the fact that both slits are needed for the interference pattern to form.
The 'wiggly line' that you drew describes a different aspect of EM energy.

 

[revv]

This model just doesn't work. A photon is not like a little bullet and any useful model of it has to include all of its behaviour.

By behaviors do you mean a particle or wave?

And the "wiggly lines" are electric and magnetic (fields?)

 

[lekh2003]

The wiggly lines do represent the electric and magnetic fields. I think what sophiecentaur is trying to say is that a simple model just displaying the photon as a bullet doesn't usually give an accurate model of a photon since photos behave quite diffirently a lot of the time.

 

[Lord Jestocost]

Does the black line in the middle represent the propagation of the photon?

One should never think of a light beam as stream of traveling particles across space. Quantization of electromagnetic radiation means that the field energy can only be changed by integer numbers of „energy portions“ (called photons) of amount hν, where ν is light frequency and h Planck's constant.

 

[Vanadium 50]

And the "wiggly lines" are electric and magnetic (fields?)

You drew them. You tell us.

Seriously, a vague sketch with no description behind it forces us to guess when you mean.

 

[berkeman]

Ok so I drew up something (I know its horrible), but is this correct?

Seriously, a vague sketch with no description behind it forces us to guess when you mean.

Here's a little help from Google Images:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Electromagnetic_waves.png

 

[DennisN]

And here's a link to an article on HyperPhysics with some further links at the top:
Electromagnetic Waves:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Waves/emwavecon.html

 

[sophiecentaur]

The diagrams that have been quoted are not descriptions of a photon, remember. They just describe the variation with time and distance of the Fields in the direction of propagation of a plane wave. There are no wiggly photons or bullets involved in either of them.
I have to blame the people who 'know' advanced Physics and who write educational books and articles about photons and who assume that people receive the right message when the word "particle" is used.