Photon size and classical fields

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of photons in the context of quantum field theory (QFT) and classical electromagnetic (E-M) fields, particularly in relation to RF and laser cavities. Participants explore the implications of photons having zero spatial extent while contributing to a measurable E-M field, raising questions about the relationship between quantum states and classical fields.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that a coherent state, which represents a classical field, does not consist of a fixed number of photons, but rather an indefinite number, leading to confusion about the nature of photons in this context.
  • Others argue that while photons are said to have zero size, they can still have an extent, and it is meaningful to discuss their shape in relation to classical E-M modes.
  • A participant questions the implications of saying that a particle has zero size but is not localized, seeking clarification on what this means in practical terms.
  • Another viewpoint suggests that photons can be viewed as integral energy increments in classical field modes, with their particle nature being a useful perspective in certain analyses, particularly when using plane waves.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the relationship between classical E-M fields and the nature of photons, with no consensus reached regarding the implications of photons having zero spatial extent or the characterization of coherent states.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on definitions of coherent states and the interpretation of spatial extent in relation to quantum particles. The discussion does not resolve the mathematical or conceptual nuances involved.

phyzguy
Science Advisor
Messages
5,311
Reaction score
2,398
<<Moderator note: Split from thread Photon the smallest particle>>

@Orodruin - Let me ask a question. This is an aspect of QFT that has always puzzled me. Suppose we have an RF cavity or a laser cavity with a standing E-M wave. I understand that we can view the field in the cavity as a macroscopic number photons in the same quantum state. In this case, why do we say that the photons making up the field have zero spatial extent? How can a macroscopic number of photons with zero spatial extent add up to a measurable E-M field which fills the cavity? Is there a way of thinking of this that I am missing?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Science news on Phys.org
phyzguy said:
@Orodruin - Let me ask a question. This is an aspect of QFT that has always puzzled me. Suppose we have an RF cavity or a laser cavity with a standing E-M wave. I understand that we can view the field in the cavity as a macroscopic number photons in the same quantum state. In this case, why do we say that the photons making up the field have zero spatial extent? How can a macroscopic number of photons with zero spatial extent add up to a measurable E-M field which fills the cavity? Is there a way of thinking of this that I am missing?
First, a coherent state is not made out of a macroscopic number of photons. It is made out of an indefinite number of photons, but for a classical field the expectation value is rather high.

That you have a classical field does not mean that you spread your photons out over some region of space. That a particle has zero size does not mean it is localized. If you look at an electron, its wave function is not completely localized. In the coherent state, nothing is saying that there are places where "there are no photons".
 
Sorry, but this didn't help much. Let me ask some specific questions:

(1) Are you saying that it is not true that a classical E-M field in a laser cavity is not made up of a macroscopic number of photons in the same quantum state?

(2) If a photon is an excitation of the E-M field, and the E-M field has a definite spatial extent, what does it mean to say that the photon has zero spatial extent?

(3) Along the same lines, you say, "That a particle has zero size does not mean it is localized." What does that statement mean? If it doesn't mean that the particle is localized, what does it mean?

I'm not arguing, I'm just trying to understand what these statements mean.
 
phyzguy said:
(1) Are you saying that it is not true that a classical E-M field in a laser cavity is not made up of a macroscopic number of photons in the same quantum state?
All it means it that a coherent state (which is the only state that re-assembles a "classical" field) does not have a fixed number of photons. Only number (Fock) states have a fixed number of photons

(2) If a photon is an excitation of the E-M field, and the E-M field has a definite spatial extent, what does it mean to say that the photon has zero spatial extent?
Photons do not have a "size" in the usual meaning of the word, but they certainly have an extent. It is often meaningful to talk about the shape of a photon, just as we we talk about different modes in classical E-M. You can even encode information by using photons of different shapes (as long as the modes are orthogonal)

(3) Along the same lines, you say, "That a particle has zero size does not mean it is localized." What does that statement mean? If it doesn't mean that the particle is localized, what does it mean?
This is really no different than electrons. They also have zero size (they are point particles) but we can still move them around one at a time or even trap them in well defined locations OR they can be de-localized as is frequently the case in solids. The physical size (or lack thereof) is not really relevant here.

[/quote]
 
Photons are simply integral energy increments in the classical field modes however they happen to be chosen. If you write the field in terms of cavity modes each mode will have a frequency ##\omega_n## and the corresponding photons energy, ##\hbar \omega_n## when quantized. The "particle" nature of photons is a useful picture when the classical modes used are taken as plane waves. Plane waves are useful (but not required) for boundary free problems which is the often case in the analysis of scattering problems.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
851
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K