Speed of individual photons in a vacuum?

In summary: PeterDonis?Yes I was afraid this was the case, I see also @PeterDonis updated his answer, originally he had agreed with me.Fast forward to 04:20I see also @PeterDonis updated his answer, originally he had agreed with me.
  • #1
LarryS
Gold Member
352
33
TL;DR Summary
Does speed of individual photons in a vacuum vary?
Is there experimental evidence that confirms that the speed of individual photons in a vacuum never varies, even slightly?

Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
LarryS said:
Summary: Does speed of individual photons in a vacuum vary?

Is there experimental evidence that confirms that the speed of individual photons in a vacuum never varies, even slightly?

Thanks in advance.
I cannot think of how that could be tested even in principle.
 
  • Like
Likes Lord Jestocost
  • #3
LarryS said:
never
Never? Never ever? Not even when we aren't measuring it?

LarryS said:
even slightly
Even below the ability to measure?

By those requirements, I couldn't even prove reindeer can't fly.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Likes protonsarecool, vanhees71 and Delta2
  • #4
Alright, maybe "never" or "slightly" were not the best choice of words.

But, are you aware of any experiments to measure the speed of individual photons?
 
  • #5
LarryS said:
Summary: Does speed of individual photons in a vacuum vary?

Is there experimental evidence that confirms that the speed of individual photons in a vacuum never varies, even slightly?

Thanks in advance.
There is something here on cosmological theories that involve a varying speed of light:

https://cds.cern.ch/record/618057/files/0305457.pdf
 
  • Like
Likes LarryS
  • #6
LarryS said:
are you aware of any experiments to measure the speed of individual photons?
Individual photons don't even have a well-defined "speed" in the first place. Strictly speaking, no quantum particles do, but for quantum particles like electrons, with nonzero rest mass, you can reasonably define a Hermitian "velocity operator" that you can physically realize, at least to a reasonable approximation, in a measurement. But no such operator can be defined for a photon, or for any massless particle, so there is no way to even define what you mean by the "speed" of a photon.
 
  • Like
Likes protonsarecool, Klystron and vanhees71
  • #7
First, even revised, the scenario is goofy. Are you telling me that the speed of photons depends on how many there are nearby?

Second, one can measure the speed of gammas from individual nuclear disintegrations, and it's c. Is it known to be c to a zillion decimal places? Nope. Certainly to a percent, perhaps better. You can do something similar with accelerator based experiments.
 
  • Like
Likes ohwilleke, vanhees71 and dextercioby
  • #8
PeterDonis said:
Individual photons don't even have a well-defined "speed" in the first place. Strictly speaking, no quantum particles do, but for quantum particles like electrons, with nonzero rest mass, you can reasonably define a Hermitian "velocity operator" that you can physically realize, at least to a reasonable approximation, in a measurement. But no such operator can be defined for a photon, or for any massless particle, so there is no way to even define what you mean by the "speed" of a photon.
very interesting. Then what do exactly scientists measure when they measure the speed of light? The average speed of a "collection" of photons?
 
  • #9
Delta2 said:
what do exactly scientists measure when they measure the speed of light? The average speed of a "collection" of photons?
No. They measure the speed of a beam of light which the measurement does not even try to resolve into photons. This is not the same as the average speed of the photons in the light because such a thing is not even well-defined to begin with.
 
  • Like
Likes protonsarecool, Klystron, vanhees71 and 1 other person
  • #10
While I absolutely agree you can't say "out of the zillion photons", this one was here at time t1 and that one was there at time t2, you certainly can look at pulse speed vs. intensity. This is a hard measurement because of something called slewing, but is at least defined.

Or you could go to single, energetic photons as I discussed.

Or - and bnest of all - you can create a model where this speed varies and looks for an effect. Otherwise this kind of question degenerates quickly: "Ah, but was it ever done on a Thursday!", "Ah, but was it ever done facing Fresno?" "Ah, but was it ever done on Mars?"
 
  • Like
Likes protonsarecool and vanhees71
  • #11
Delta2 said:
Then what do exactly scientists measure when they measure the speed of light? The average speed of a "collection" of photons?
When we first hear about photons being light particles, our experience with small classical objects like grains of sand leads us to assume that a flash of light is a collection of photons the same way that a beach is a collection of grains of sand or a river is is a collection of water molecules moving along the riverbed. That's not how photons work and not what it means to say that photons are quanta of light.

When we measure the speed of light, we are measuring the speed at which classical electromagnetic waves propagate, and photons don't come into the analysis at all.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes protonsarecool, LarryS, Klystron and 4 others
  • #12
Nugatory said:
When we measure the speed of light, we are measuring the speed at which classical electromagnetic waves propagate, and photons don't come into the analysis at all.
Yes I was afraid this was the case, I see also @PeterDonis updated his answer, originally he had agreed with me.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #13
Fast forward to 04:20
 
  • Like
Likes Delta2
  • #14
Delta2 said:
I see also @PeterDonis updated his answer, originally he had agreed with me.
No, I mistyped and hit Post by mistake before I could correct it, so I had to edit.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and Delta2
  • #15
Question: Say our source of light is from a laser. I have read that the longitudinal position (same direction as the beam) of the photons is completely undefined/unknown. I assumed that was due to the HUP, that the longitudinal momentum of the photons was precisely defined. Is that correct?
 
  • Informative
Likes Delta2
  • #16
LarryS said:
I have read
Where? Please give a reference.
 
  • Like
Likes Vanadium 50
  • #17
PeterDonis said:
Where? Please give a reference.
I have also read (in Wikipedia I think) that the photon doesn't have a well defined position operator.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #18
Delta2 said:
I have also read (in Wikipedia I think) that the photon doesn't have a well defined position operator.
That's not what post #15 says. Post #15 says the position is completely uncertain by the HUP because the momentum is precisely defined (i.e., the photon is in a momentum eigenstate). Such a statement only makes sense if the photon does have a well-defined position operator.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #19
Delta2 said:
I have also read (in Wikipedia I think)
You've been here long enough to know that Wikipedia is not a valid reference.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Likes malawi_glenn and Delta2
  • #20
PeterDonis said:
That's not what post #15 says. Post #15 says the position is completely uncertain by the HUP because the momentum is precisely defined (i.e., the photon is in a momentum eigenstate). Such a statement only makes sense if the photon does have a well-defined position operator.
Somehow I read post #15 in a "reverse" way. That the position of the photon is completely unknown, hence by HUP its momentum is precisely defined.
 
  • #21
Delta2 said:
Somehow I read post #15 in a "reverse" way. That the position of the photon is completely unknown, hence by HUP its momentum is precisely defined.
The HUP logic works fine either way, since "the position is completely unknown" and "the momentum is precisely defined" are logically equivalent by the HUP. You just failed to realize that "the position is completely unknown" is not the same thing as "the photon doesn't have a well-defined position operator".
 
  • #22
PeterDonis said:
You just failed to realize that "the position is completely unknown" is not the same thing as "the photon doesn't have a well-defined position operator".
Hmm if the photon doesn't have a well defined operator, then its position is completely unknown at all times at all cases. Right?

However the reverse doesn't necessarily hold. Right?
By reverse I mean that if for some cases, the position of a photon is completely unknown then this doesn't imply that the photon doesn't have a well defined position operator
 
  • #23
Delta2 said:
if the photon doesn't have a well defined operator, then its position is completely unknown at all times at all cases. Right?
Wrong. If the photon doesn't have a well-defined position operator, then the whole concept of "position" doesn't even make sense for it, not even to say that its position is completely unknown.

Delta2 said:
if for some cases, the position of a photon is completely unknown then this doesn't imply that the photon doesn't have a well defined position operator
For the statement "the position of a photon is completely unknown" to even make sense, the photon must have a well-defined position operator.

In short: without a well-defined position operator, you can't even apply the position-momentum HUP to a quantum system.
 
  • Informative
Likes Delta2
  • #24
Delta2 said:
Somehow I read post #15 in a "reverse" way. That the position of the photon is completely unknown, hence by HUP its momentum is precisely defined.
The HUP refers to statistical properties of observables, independent of the state the system is prepared in. In the case of photons there's no position observable, and thus there cannot be uncertainty relations for it.

I'd say the most convincing evidence for photons being massless is the upper limit of the mass of the em. field, given in the particle data booklet. There you can also find the experimental papers, this limit is extracted from:

https://pdg.lbl.gov/2022/web/viewer.html?file=../listings/rpp2022-list-photon.pdf
 
  • Like
Likes ohwilleke and LarryS
  • #25
vanhees71 said:
In the case of photons there's no position observable
Yes isn't this statement equivalent to the statement "the photon doesn't have well defined position operator"?
vanhees71 said:
I'd say the most convincing evidence for photons being massless is the upper limit of the mass of the em. field, given in the particle data booklet. There you can also find the experimental papers, this limit is extracted from:
Sorry I lost you, what's got to do here the fact that the photon is massless?
 
  • #26
Delta2 said:
what's got to do here the fact that the photon is massless?

For massive particles there is no problem with defining position operator.
 
  • Informative
Likes Delta2
  • #27
Vanadium 50 said:
one can measure the speed of gammas from individual nuclear disintegrations, and it's c
How can you do that? Even if it is a gamma, once you detect it to start your speed measurement, it is absorbed and cannot be detected to stop the speed measurement. Is there some non-destructive way to measure a single photon?
 
  • Like
Likes ohwilleke, gentzen and vanhees71
  • #28
Didn't I say it was hard?

There a a few ways to handle it. Perhaps the easiest is to look at decays involving multiple particles, including recoil. Then t0 happens when the nucleus decays, and (at least) one particle is detected, and t1 happens later when the photon is detected a distance x away. Then c is x/(t1-t0).

60Co might be a good candidate. It decays vie eγγ most of the time, with an angular correlation between the two gammas. You could vary the positions of the two detectors and fit for c, using distances, angles and energies as inputs: This has the advantage of relative insensitivity to background processes.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes gentzen, Dale and vanhees71
  • #29
Vanadium 50 said:
including recoil
Ah, of course. Then it does matter that it is a gamma so that you get a good amount of recoil.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #30
PeterDonis said:
Where? Please give a reference.

Well, I looked for such references, and to my surprise I could not find any. The photon does not have a well-defined position, but for reasons other than I thought. I had assumed that SR required the photon to travel at exactly the speed of light and that this caused, via the HUP, to make the position unknown.

Thank you all for your input.
 
  • #31
LarryS said:
I had assumed that SR required the photon to travel at exactly the speed of light and that this caused, via the HUP, to make the position unknown.
SR is a classical theory, not a quantum theory, and has no concept of "photons" (although unfortunately many SR textbooks misleadingly use the term "photon" instead of something like "light pulse" or "light ray"--Taylor & Wheeler is one textbook that, IIRC, actually explains why "photon" is not a good term in a classical theory).

Quantum field theory is our best current quantum theory that takes SR effects into account, but in QFT photons do not always travel at exactly the speed of light; they have nonzero probability amplitudes for traveling faster or slower than light. Also, in QFT, the HUP doesn't work the way you were thinking it does; photons still do not have a well-defined position operator so there is no way to relate their momentum uncertainty to any position uncertainty.
 
  • Like
Likes malawi_glenn
  • #32
LarryS said:
I had assumed that SR required the photon to travel at exactly the speed of light and that this caused, via the HUP, to make the position unknown.
Even leaving aside all the other issues that have been raised, and assuming for the sake of argument that we could formulate a HUP for photons using some kind of position operator, this reasoning would still be invalid. The HUP is between position and momentum, not position and velocity, and even if photons in QM traveled at exactly the speed of light, they still do not all have the same momentum and they can still have momentum uncertainty. (Their momentum uncertainty would be related to uncertainty in their energy.) So it still would not follow that photons being forced to travel exactly at the speed of light would have to have completely uncertain position.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and PeroK
  • #33
@LarryS have you considered trying to learn physics sequentially? This is kind of like having a blind man paint your house with paintballs. I mean, sure, eventually the job will get done, but it may not be the most efficient way.
 
  • Like
  • Love
  • Wow
Likes ohwilleke, bob012345, Dale and 2 others
  • #34
Good suggestion but I'm having too much fun bouncing around from subject to subject. :smile: I retired a few years ago after spending 50 years in IT. This is all for pure enjoyment. Physics Forums allows me to pick the brains of those with more formal education and experience in physics than myself.
 
  • Like
Likes Delta2
  • #35
Yes, but you are making the people who are helping you work harder than necessary as well. A more methodical approach will make their lives easier, and you will learn more and faster. Everybody wins.

There's a reason we don't paint houses with the blind paintball method.
 
  • Like
  • Sad
  • Haha
Likes malawi_glenn, bob012345 and vanhees71

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
21
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
81
Views
5K
Replies
33
Views
3K
Replies
15
Views
881
Replies
3
Views
1K
Back
Top