- #1
putongren
- 121
- 0
Are photons and antiphotons the same thing? Crackpot theorists say they are different, mainstream scientists say they are the same. Who should I believe? The mainstream scientists right?
putongren said:Are photons and antiphotons the same thing? Crackpot theorists say they are different, mainstream scientists say they are the same. Who should I believe? The mainstream scientists right?
The author is a Nobel Laureate. He won the Nobel Prize in Physics for his work in quantum electrodynamics as I recall.Abstract. It should be apparent from the title of this article that the author does not like the use of the term "photon", which dates from 1926. In his view, there is no such thing as a photon. Only a comedy of errors and historical accidents led to its popularity among physicists and optical scientists. I admit that the word is short and convenient. Its use is also habit forming. Similarly, one might find it convenient to speak of the "aether" or "vacuum" to stand for empty space, even if no such thing existed. There are very good substitutes for "photon", (e.g. "radiation" or "light") and for "photonics" (e.g. "optics" or "quantum optics"). Similar objections are possible to use of the word "phonon", which dates from 1932. Objects like electrons, neutrinos of finite rest mass, or helium atoms can, under suitable conditions, be considered to be particles, since their theories then have a viable non-relativistic and non-quantum limits. This paper outlines the main features of the quantum theory of radiation and indicates how they can be used to treat problems in quantum optics.
BryanP said:According to some threads I've read here in the past, anti-photons and photons are the same because the only difference is the charge when it comes to the anti-particles. The mass, spin, and energy should be identical.
Since photons are chargeless, photons and anti-photons are no different.
Be careful. Antineutrons have no net charge and are not the same as a neutron. Neutrons are made of quarks while antineutrons are made of antiquarks.BryanP said:According to some threads I've read here in the past, anti-photons and photons are the same because the only difference is the charge when it comes to the anti-particles. The mass, spin, and energy should be identical.
Since photons are chargeless, photons and anti-photons are no different.
vociferous said:Meaning that an antiphoton and a photon are exactly the same, correct? They both should have a spin of 1 and a charge of 0?
Antiphotons are theoretical particles that are the antiparticle of photons, the fundamental particle of light. They have the same mass and spin as photons, but have opposite charge and other quantum properties.
Antiphotons and photons are fundamentally the same particle, but with opposite charge. This means they have opposite electromagnetic properties, such as electric and magnetic fields. However, they have the same mass, spin, and other quantum properties.
Currently, antiphotons are still considered a theoretical concept and have not been observed in experiments. However, their existence is predicted by various theories, such as quantum electrodynamics.
Mainstream science is saying that antiphotons are real because they are predicted by various scientific theories, such as quantum electrodynamics. These theories have been extensively tested and have been found to accurately describe the behavior of particles and their interactions.
If antiphotons are proven to be real, it could have significant implications for our understanding of particle physics and the structure of the universe. It could also lead to advancements in technologies that utilize light, such as quantum computing and communication.