I Poisson spot with single photons

[Quant]

I think you are crossing the line between asking a question and promoting your own personal theory. (Which we do not do)

The question in the OP was answered. It was even pointed out that you could demonstrate this yourself. You weren't interested in that, which is your choice. Then we went down this long path that has little to do with the original question and seems to have contradictory claims from you: Fock states are real, Fock states are not real.

If people are confused, it's not because they are not reading what you write. It's that they are.

Where did I say Fock states are real? No, the text Nugatory send me says this.

 

[Quant]

Sure, why not? It’s a quantized excitation of the electromagnetic field, and that field is coming from two sources.
Now if photons had positions and trajectories you would have a convincing example - a trajectory has to have a single starting point - but they don’t.nk

Thank you about that physical argument.
And what about billion of sources? Does a photon come from billion sources? (Easy to
be distinguish on time scale in principle)
Can you also explain the immediate spreading of Fock states through the whole space?
Photons can be very well localized at the moments of creation and annihilation.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Where did I say Fock states are real?

Message #26.

 

[Nugatory]

And what about billion of sources? Does a photon come from billion sources? (Easy to
be distinguish on time scale in principle)

Sure, why not? They're associated with the electromagnetic field, not the charges that are the sources of that field.

Can you also explain the immediate spreading of Fock states through the whole space?

What's to explain? (This question is not flippant. Why, other than some amorphous expectation of yours about how things ought to behave, shouldn't they?)

Photons can be very well localized at the moments of creation and annihilation.

Sometimes they can, especially at annihilation time. But they don't have to be. How, without assuming the existence of things that cannot even in principle be measured, do you localize a photon within the beam of a phased-array radar?

You don't have to like how photons behave. You don't have to like that that behavior doesn't work with any intuitive model of what's "really" happening beyond the experimentally observed facts about electromagnetic fields exchanging energy and momentum with matter. But that's still how they behave, and without a plausible candidate theory that makes predictions different from those of quantum electrodynamics it is a fool's errand to keep demanding more experiments that can only further confirm that QED works within its domain of applicability.

 

[PeterDonis]

What I'm saying is that Fock states are not real physical beings but mathematical
constructs.

All "states" are mathematical constructs. Some of them represent, in our mathematical models, things that can be physically realized. Others don't. But in either case the mathematical model is not the same as reality.

In the case of Fock states, they can be physically realized, but it's not at all easy, and most experiments involving light do not use them. Most experiments involving light use coherent states, because that's what light sources that can be easily made produce.

 

[Drakkith]

This thread has drifted away from its original topic and has started to become argumentative. As such, I believe it is time to close it. Thank you everyone who participated.