1

When the 'photon' is emitted, it would reason that the result of the energy fluctuation that creates 'it' rather is created as an energy wave, which when measured by us or a surface, it 'becomes' as a particle.

If my reasoning is right, the question then becomes why, or how, this wave appears as a corpuscular disturbance..

The more you know, the more complicated it will get, so I can see why knowing so little makes these questions easy for me to ask. I'm curious to see who is patient enough to educate a naiive question with a good natured 'schooling'.

HDE 226868
  • 10,821
David
  • 175
  • 1
    It's neither, but the overwhelming majority of non-physicists seems to have trouble with that concept. The more interesting question, to me, is why can't the overwhelming number of non-physicists "grok" that there is a completely independent third option? – CuriousOne Sep 10 '14 at 01:30
  • @CuriousOne In my experience, most physicists suffer from the same disease. I was in grad school when I discovered the third option. Besides the history of the word "photon", we find that we are indoctrinated with bad ideas from a young age by teachers who don't understand, and who don't know that they don't understand. – garyp Sep 10 '14 at 01:52
  • @garyp: I don't know... I was already told by my high school physics teacher that "neither" is the only correct logical solution even before I understood why. I also think that "Shut up and calculate!" has settled the emotional issues for most professionals. If you look at the outrageously bold proposals of mathematical physicists these days, they are certainly not hanging on to old concepts... On a more personal note, a somewhat famous "quantum philosopher" once told me, that he felt that he had wasted his career on some of the "interpretational" problems he had worked on. Go figure! – CuriousOne Sep 10 '14 at 03:05
  • And, yes, the guy who made that kidpede webnonsense should be made to read children's books to three year olds for the rest of his life! – CuriousOne Sep 10 '14 at 03:07
  • @CuriousOne: "The more interesting question, to me, is why can't the overwhelming number of non-physicists "grok" that there is a completely independent third option?" I meant to answer that non-physicists have not been conditioned to accept non-physical answers from textbooks written by quitters. But then I saw your next comment: "I was already told by my high school physics teacher that "neither" is the only correct logical solution even before I understood why." – bright magus Sep 10 '14 at 05:14
  • @brightmagus: I have no idea who you mean by "quitters"? Do you mean the people who took quantum mechanics seriously and had produced the best tested theory of all of physics with it by the 1960s, a mere 30ish years after physicists struggled with the foundations of light and matter? Nobody has "quit". What the smart people have done, was to accept that nature is not subject to our emotions about it. That's no different from what Galileo, Newton, Maxwell and Einstein did. Now, if you are looking for the "non-quitters": they are still trying to sell "perpetual motion" machines on youtube! – CuriousOne Sep 10 '14 at 05:22
  • @CuriousOne: "Shut up and calculate!" has settled the emotional issues for most professionals." Apparently there are still some left who don't just follow others. These are always the ones who are behind the real progress. – bright magus Sep 10 '14 at 05:25
  • @brightmagus: There hasn't been any "progress" on perpetual motion since the 18th century and there hasn't been any change in the structure of quantum mechanics since the Copenhagen Interpretation, either. Are some people spinning their wheels because they can't accept nature's answers? Yes, and nature doesn't care in either case. I can hear a faint laugh in the background, though... – CuriousOne Sep 10 '14 at 05:28
  • @CuriousOne: "Nature's answer" is just utterly unfair - and unscientific - argument. Being "a professional", do you have any proof to support this claim? As to the "best theory" (the right name is "the only allowed one"), you might want to read this article by Jon Butterworth, a physics professor at University College London, a member of the High Energy Physics group on the Atlas experiment at Cern's Large Hadron Collider, who says: "In general we can't solve the Standard Model exactly. We use approximations" – bright magus Sep 10 '14 at 05:33
  • @brightmagus: The laughter in the background has just increased exponentially... especially since you don't even know which theory I was talking about (any physicist who has a clue would have). Have a nice evening! – CuriousOne Sep 10 '14 at 05:37
  • @CuriousOne: What makes you think I "don't even know"? Again, any "professional" evidence or it is just XIXth century intuition of yours? (You conveniently take ignoring off-topics as lack of understanding). And what makes you think I must follow you instead of the other way round? Well, perhaps it is the same logic that makes you "shut up and calculate" as told by your teacher ... So, speaking of laughter ... – bright magus Sep 10 '14 at 05:45
  • @brightmagus: What's up with the desperate need for attention and the total lack of knowledge about who said "Shut up and calculate?"? :-) – CuriousOne Sep 10 '14 at 05:48
  • @CuriousOne: You seem to be talking some horrendous pride to aspire some "inner circle". Been there in my (early) teens ... – bright magus Sep 10 '14 at 05:54
  • @brightmagus: So why didn't you ever leave? No adults to talk to? – CuriousOne Sep 10 '14 at 06:04
  • @CuriousOne: As opposed to you or ... Feynmann? – bright magus Sep 10 '14 at 06:17
  • @brightmagus: It seems you need a lot of help to get on that tricycle of yours. :-) – CuriousOne Sep 10 '14 at 06:25
  • @CuriousOne: You spend too much time in your virtual (meta)physics. Can tell by your fantasies ... – bright magus Sep 10 '14 at 06:30
  • Let us continue this discussion in chat. – bright magus Sep 10 '14 at 10:17

1 Answers1

2

Unfortunately, in quantum mechanics "ordinary" reasoning does not get you anywhere.

The photon, like any other particle, is neither a particle nor a wave; it is an entity that we can only describe mathematically. It's only when we observe it that it shows up as either particle or wave.

Or senses, and hence our logic, evolved to make sense of the real world around us. That works very well when you are trying to find food or dodge a lion. In other words, it works for objects that have a size similar to ourself, and that move at speeds that are not superfast. Our logic did not evolve to cope with extremely small objects, nor with extremely massive or very fast moving ones, and so it leads us astray when we are thinking about such situations.

hdhondt
  • 10,898