Wave particle duality

[AbstractDreamer]

Why can a photon not be described as a particle that is attached to a wave, and that these waves ripple through spacetime at the speed of light, independently of any particles

Why does the wave need to be a property of the photon?

[Sensei]

Why can a photon not be described as a particle that is attached to a wave, and that these waves ripple through spacetime at the speed of light, independently of any particles

Why does the wave need to be a property of the photon?

Are you familiar with photoelectric effect? Einstein got Nobel prize for describing it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect

Basically you have light source. Light illuminates metal which can easily release electrons (from I/II group of periodic table).

Kinetic energy of newly released electrons correspond to energy of incoming photon, minus some energy needed to liberate it (depending on used metal).

Increase of brightness of light just release more electrons.

Edited November 13, 2016 by Sensei

[AbstractDreamer]

"the energy of photoelectrons increases with increasing frequency of incident light and is independent of the intensity of the light"

So the above statement would indicate the particle nature of a photon.

 

Is the wave theory shown with the double slit experiment? But why does the wave like property have to belong to the photon? Why can it not be intrinsic to the fabric of the space through which the particle traverses, and that it is space that exhibits the wavelike properties rather than the photon, and that any single photon is rigidly attached to a single wave?

Edited November 13, 2016 by AbstractDreamer

[Mordred]

Yes the double slit experiment will show the wave-particle duality. You may be interested in this study. Wave-particle duality photographed for the first time.

 

http://phys.org/news/2015-03-particle.html

 

There was a non paywall paper published on this above study but I can't recall where on arxiv it was. I lost track of the full paper. However it is not the wave being spacetime itself. It is a fundamental property of the particle. Particles are both point-like and wave-like by nature.

 

here is a simplified lecture note on the topic

 

https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/chemistry/5-61-physical-chemistry-fall-2007/lecture-notes/lecture6.pdf

Edited November 13, 2016 by Mordred

[AbstractDreamer]

This is my last post till tomorrow as I've used up all my allowance.

 

However my question remains unanswered. Just because a photon can exhibit wave like behaviour doesn't mean the behaviour is due a property of the photon.

 

Is it not conceivable that the medium through which the photon is travelling is wave-like in nature, and that the photon is bound to this medium in such a way as to be have no other option but to exhibit this same property?

 

Ps my math is sub standard. Relative to what is required to understand anything, it might as well be non existent.

 

On a separate note, perhaps this post should be moved into the quantum board, rather than theoretical physics. I didn't realise before I posted sorry.

Edited November 13, 2016 by AbstractDreamer

[Strange]

Is the wave theory shown with the double slit experiment? But why does the wave like property have to belong to the photon? Why can it not be intrinsic to the fabric of the space through which the particle traverses, and that it is space that exhibits the wavelike properties rather than the photon, and that any single photon is rigidly attached to a single wave?

 

 

Because there is no wave without the photon. And as different photons have different wavelengths (and polarisations) then space would somehow have to have all of these and "know" which were "attached" to each photon.

 

There are no separate particles and waves: there are things (quanta of light = photons) which have some properties we normally associate with particles and some properties we normally associate with waves.

[Mordred]

This is my last post till tomorrow as I've used up all my allowance.

 

However my question remains unanswered. Just because a photon can exhibit wave like behaviour doesn't mean the behaviour is due a property of the photon.

 

Is it not conceivable that the medium through which the photon is travelling is wave-like in nature, and that the photon is bound to this medium in such a way as to be have no other option but to exhibit this same property?

 

On a separate note, perhaps this post should be moved into the quantum board, rather than theoretical physics. I didn't realise before I posted sorry.

 

 

I agree this question is better suited in the QM forum I'll move it for you.

[Strange]

Is it not conceivable that the medium through which the photon is travelling is wave-like in nature, and that the photon is bound to this medium in such a way as to be have no other option but to exhibit this same property?

 

There isn't really a medium. The closest thing is the electromagnetic field. The photon is a "ripple" in that.

[Mordred]

!

Moderator Note

moved your thread as per request. above to the correct forum

On a separate note, perhaps this post should be moved into the quantum board, rather than theoretical physics. I didn't realise before I posted sorry.

Edited November 13, 2016 by Mordred

[steveupson]

Here's a nifty video that seems to illustrate your argument by using tiny droplets of oil interacting with the surface:

 

 

It's an interesting way to conceptualize this.

[Sriman Dutta]

A photon travels in space-time. The OP asks whether or not the medium (space-time) itself is wave-like thereby creating the wave-like properties of photon. Now, Einstien's GR shows that only massive bodies can warp space-time to create geodesics. As a photon is a massless boson, it can't warp space-time around itself. (N.B.- The medium is space-time and not ether) This logically follows that photons must exhibit wave-like properties by themselves.

[swansont]

"the energy of photoelectrons increases with increasing frequency of incident light and is independent of the intensity of the light"

So the above statement would indicate the particle nature of a photon.

 

Is the wave theory shown with the double slit experiment? But why does the wave like property have to belong to the photon? Why can it not be intrinsic to the fabric of the space through which the particle traverses, and that it is space that exhibits the wavelike properties rather than the photon, and that any single photon is rigidly attached to a single wave?

 

 

The wave-like property belongs to light. As does the particle-like property, which is the photon. Portraying the wave nature as belonging to the photon is awkward at best.

[AbstractDreamer]

A photon travels in space-time. The OP asks whether or not the medium (space-time) itself is wave-like thereby creating the wave-like properties of photon. Now, Einstien's GR shows that only massive bodies can warp space-time to create geodesics. As a photon is a massless boson, it can't warp space-time around itself. (N.B.- The medium is space-time and not ether) This logically follows that photons must exhibit wave-like properties by themselves.

 

A photon certainly appears to travel in spacetime, relative to an observer. But could it also be completely stationary (relative to the observer and the entire universe), and that its the medium that causes the relative motion?

 

A piece of flotsam in the middle of the Pacific Ocean has no velocity in and of itself. Over time, its path of movement may exhibit wave-like properties, but this behaviour is also NOT a property of the flotsam.

 

 

 

 

The wave-like property belongs to light. As does the particle-like property, which is the photon. Portraying the wave nature as belonging to the photon is awkward at best.

 

Precisely. Light is part of the electromagnetic spectrum. A photon is simply a particle with zero mass at rest.

To say the wave-like property belongs to light is essentially describing a property of the electromagnetic field.

 

The photon is the particle. The field is the wave. Where is the duality, other than photon being bound to the field?

Edited November 14, 2016 by AbstractDreamer

[swansont]

 

A photon certainly appears to travel in spacetime, relative to an observer. But could it also be completely stationary (relative to the observer and the entire universe), and that its the medium that causes the relative motion?

 

 

 

No, photons cannot be at rest relative to an observer. They always move at c.

[AbstractDreamer]

 

 

No, photons cannot be at rest relative to an observer. They always move at c.

You missed my point.

My point is: Your statement is true, but only with the presence of the electromagnetic field.

 

I posit that, the field prevents photons from moving at any speed other than c, and prevents any particles with mass from travelling at c. Thus satisfying your statement that a photon cannot be a rest relative to an observer, and that they always move at c.

Edited November 14, 2016 by AbstractDreamer

[swansont]

You missed my point.

My point is: Your statement is true, but only with the presence of the electromagnetic field.

 

I posit that, the field prevents photons from moving at any speed other than c, and prevents any particles with mass from travelling at c. Thus satisfying your statement that a photon cannot be a rest relative to an observer, and that they always move at c.

 

 

I guess I did, because you previously said medium and spacetime, and the EM field is neither one of those.

[Strange]

The photon is the particle. The field is the wave. Where is the duality, other than photon being bound to the field?

 

 

The field is quantised.

[AbstractDreamer]

 

 

I guess I did, because you previously said medium and spacetime, and the EM field is neither one of those.

 

I must apologise for my poor use of words. Im a dreamer, not a physicist.

 

Is the medium for light not the Electromagnetic field?

Is spacetime not a superset of all media including EM?

 

If you can clarify, it would help me dream.

 

 

 

The field is quantised.

 

 

Just because a flock of birds is quantised by single birds, doesn't mean you can describe the flocking effect by looking at single birds.

[Strange]

Just because a flock of birds is quantised by single birds, doesn't mean you can describe the flocking effect by looking at single birds.

 

 

You should work through this series of articles and see what happens to a field when it is quantised:

https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/fields-and-their-particles-with-math/

[swansont]

I must apologise for my poor use of words. Im a dreamer, not a physicist.

 

Is the medium for light not the Electromagnetic field?

Is spacetime not a superset of all media including EM?

 

If you can clarify, it would help me dream.

Perhaps you should take a step back and learn the underlying physics. The EM field is not the medium for light, as we use the term "medium". EM radiation does not require a medium for transport.

Spacetime is not made up of media.

 

 

Just because a flock of birds is quantised by single birds, doesn't mean you can describe the flocking effect by looking at single birds.

 

A bird is not a manifestation of the "air field", though.

[AbstractDreamer]

 

Perhaps you should take a step back and learn the underlying physics. The EM field is not the medium for light, as we use the term "medium". EM radiation does not require a medium for transport.

Spacetime is not made up of media.

Im sure I'll be corrected if im wrong:

 

In my ignorance, as far as I understand, but perhaps contrary to the community; if something moves within an environment, then that environment can be considered to be a medium. Classically, a medium is mass-ive. It consists of solid, liquid, gas, plasma which have mass.

 

Sound in motion on Earth, propagates through a relative environment that consists of mass-ive atoms of nitrogen and oxygen (beside other things). This environment or medium is called air and it is gaseous in nature.

 

An tsunami in a ocean propagates through a relative environment that consists of water molecules (besides other things). This environment or medium is called the sea and it is liquid in nature.

 

An earthquake's medium is rock which is solid.

 

Light in motion in deep space propagates through a relative environment that consists of the quantised particles (besides other things). This environment is called the electromagnetic field, which has no mass as it is neither solid, liquid, gas or plasma. Why is this field not a medium?

 

Other than because a purely pedantic definition of a medium must consist of particles with mass, and a field consisting of particles without mass.

 

EM radiation does not require a medium. But it does require a field. Is this just semantics? What is the term for both mass-ive and mass-less environments through which waves propagate?

 

If space (and time) consists of stuff with mass, and anything with mass can be view as a medium for the right kind of relative wave, how is space (and time) not (at least partially) made up of media?

 

 

 

A bird is not a manifestation of the "air field", though.

 

The flocking effect is a manifestation of multiple birds.

If were going "down/deeper" one level, you could conceivably think of gravity as a field or dare i say "medium" through which a bird moves. Certainly with gravity goggles, a bird will appear to have some form of manifestation. With infra red googles, again the bird has a manifestation.

However, can you describe flocking using just a bird and its quantised manifestations in various fields, and extrapolating that data through two (or more) levels of scope? If not, then a purely quantum definition of a flock must be incomplete.

[Strange]

Im sure I'll be corrected if im wrong:

 

 

I doubt it. But let's see.

 

 

 

In my ignorance, as far as I understand, but perhaps contrary to the community; if something moves within an environment, then that environment can be considered to be a medium. Classically, a medium is mass-ive. It consists of solid, liquid, gas, plasma which have mass.

 

You seem to be confusing at least two different things. Some things require a medium for the existence (and motion). For example, sound requires the presence of a material for the vibrations to pass though. On the other hand, you can talk about air as the medium I run through to catch a bus. But I don't require that air to be there for my existence to continue. I can just as readily run through empty space (given a space suit).

So there seem to be three concepts being conflated there.

 

 

 

Light in motion in deep space propagates through a relative environment that consists of the quantised particles (besides other things). This environment is called the electromagnetic field, which has no mass as it is neither solid, liquid, gas or plasma. Why is this field not a medium?

 

So the vacuum of deep space (along with its virtual particles) is a "medium" that light travels through in the same sense that I can walk through air or swim through water or fall through empty space.

 

It is not the electromagnetic field. The electromagnetic field can be considered the medium that allows light to exist. (But it isn't a very tangible medium, so I'm not convinced that is a helpful model.)

 

 

 

EM radiation does not require a medium. But it does require a field.

 

Correct.

 

 

 

If space (and time) consists of stuff with mass

 

It doesn't. It is just the volume that "stuff" exists in.

 

 

 

However, can you describe flocking using just a bird and its quantised manifestations in various fields, and extrapolating that data through two (or more) levels of scope? If not, then a purely quantum definition of a flock must be incomplete.

 

As always, analogies don't really tell you anything about the underlying science. Especially when you make up the analogy first and then try and make it fit the science. So this is getting increasingly irrelevant. (But, yes, you can model flocking just by looking at the behaviour of individual birds.)

[swansont]

Typically a medium is something we can say we are moving with respect to or are at rest with respect to. Back in the day the electric and magnetic fields were known, but it was some other medium — the aether — that was the medium through which light was expected to be moving. Something tangible. Because electric and magnetic fields were and are known to be mathematical constructs.

[AbstractDreamer]

I'm happy to accept the EM field is describing something that exists either within or without of our spacetime, despite being itself mass-less and intangible.

I disagree with the view that a medium must have mass and be tangible.

The electromagnetic field mediates the propagation of electromagnetic radiation.

 

Back to duality.

 

Why must the wave like nature of particles belong to the particle. Might it not just be a manifestation of some aspect of the field that mediates the particle?

If all particles mediated within the field exhibit the same behaviour, and other particles not mediated by the the field do not exhibit this behaviour, is it not more compelling to believe the property belongs to the field and not the particle?

Is there any evidence to support or refute such a claim?

[Strange]

Why must the wave like nature of particles belong to the particle.

 

 

Because that is the way the theory is constructed. Do you have an alternative theory? No.

 

There is the Bohm Pilot Wave interpretation which, as far as I understand it (which isn't much), attempts to treat the wave and the particle separately. But this is just an interpretation, not a different theory.

 

 

 

Might it not just be a manifestation of some aspect of the field that mediates the particle?

 

That is exactly what it is. As is the particle.

 

 

 

If all particles mediated within the field exhibit the same behaviour, and other particles not mediated by the the field do not exhibit this behaviour, is it not more compelling to believe the property belongs to the field and not the particle?

 

The particle is a consequence of quantising the field. So how can you have a particle not mediated by the field?

 

 

 

Is there any evidence to support or refute such a claim?

 

It seems too vague and unscientific to be refuted. What testable (i.e. quantified, precise, mathematical) predictions does your idea make that would allow it to be falsified?

Edited November 14, 2016 by Strange