The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Is photon model of electromagnetic wave an oversimplification?  (Read 857 times)

Offline hamdani yusuf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 173
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
In most theories up to the eighteenth century, light was pictured as being made up of particles. Since particle models cannot easily account for the refraction, polarization, diffraction and birefringence of light.

Photon model gains reputation in early 20th century due to photoelectric effect, especially that low frequency light cannot poduce emitted electron even with increased intensity. But newer development of laser can generate high enough intensity which can poduce emitted electron even with lower frequency than usual threshold.

Is photon model of electromagnetic wave an oversimplification?
Is it possible to explain wave-like phenomena in electromagnetism using photon model?
Is it possible to explain particle-like phenomena in electromagnetism using wave model?





 

Offline hamdani yusuf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 173
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Detection of extremely low intensity light by photomultiplier has convinced many people that every spike shown on the oscilloscope is indicating a detection of single photon. But there is alternative explanation that I can think of.

First of all, despite the name, photomultipliers don't actually multiply photons. These detectors multiply electric current produced by incident light by as much as 100 million times. Hence they are basically high gain amplifiers connected to fotosensitive detectors. When the incident light is powerful enough to kick one or more electrons from light receiver to the input of the amplifier, the signal will be amplified so it can be represented visually e.g. as a spike in oscilloscope.

The quantization of the detection is thus due to the quantization of electric current, which can not be less than single electron.
« Last Edit: 06/10/2016 07:45:07 by hamdani yusuf »
 

Online puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
  • Thanked: 43 times
    • View Profile
If we have two waves that are out of phase by 180 degrees, they will cancel. On the other hand, particles, will not cancel unless there is a release of energy; new waves appear.

For example, if we had two waves of water, 180 degrees out of phase, that cancel, there will be no wave. However, the water molecules or particles do not disappear.

A simple test of the particle and wave duality, to find the hierarchy, is to cancel two waves, while trying to induce a photoelectric affect. With the waves gone, nothing should happen if the wave rule. If something happens, particles rule.
 

Offline hamdani yusuf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 173
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
According to observation on photomultiplier experiment, we get more spikes on the oscilloscope screen when the photomultiplier's temperature is increased, even when the intensity of the dim light source is held constant.
This is incompatible with the view that each spike is indicating single photon. It's more like each spike is indicating that single electron is transfered from photoreceptor to the first dynode, which is then multiplied by the next dynodes to produce detectable signal.
Hence, the time gap between one spike and the next can be interpreted as the electrons in photoreceptor are accumulating energy from incoming light (which is then used to get free), instead of caused by the lack of incoming photon.
« Last Edit: 08/10/2016 04:30:08 by hamdani yusuf »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8661
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Detection of extremely low intensity light by photomultiplier has convinced many people that every spike shown on the oscilloscope is indicating a detection of single photon.
Possibly, but more of them are convinced by the photoelectric effect measured in a simple vacuum photo-diode - and the way that the current varies with wavelength and intensity.

You would need to do better than the current model if you wanted to add anything to the field. Essentially you need to answer two questions.
What problems do you think exist?
How have you solved them?
 

Offline hamdani yusuf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 173
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
You would need to do better than the current model if you wanted to add anything to the field. Essentially you need to answer two questions.
What problems do you think exist?
How have you solved them?
I think I have mentioned the problem in the first paragraph of this thread.
"particle models cannot easily account for the refraction, polarization, diffraction and birefringence of light."
I have a model which can easily explain the mechanism of reflection, polarization, interference of electromagnetic wave. But still  need more work for experimental evident of refraction, which I think will be the basic for other phenomena like total internal reflection, channeling, diffraction, and birefringence.
 

Online Nilak

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 184
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
Good point, in my opinion. That is why we get the weird results from the double slit experiments. For example if they detect 2 photons that arrive at almost the same time thinking there is only one, when one goes through one slit and the other through th other slit the slit detectors see nothing yet the screen detector pick them up. This explains the delayed choice. Lasers can generate double photons. When you pull an infinite string it goes in both directions but if you restrict the motion it goes same way.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8661
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Photons are not classical particles or classical waves, They are photons.
We can explain refraction etc perfectly well.
You may not be familiar with the explanation.
 

Online Nilak

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 184
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
Photons are not classical particles or classical waves, They are photons.
We can explain refraction etc perfectly well.
You may not be familiar with the explanation.
Do you consider the propagation of electric and magnetic field, at a phase difference and polarization on a certain axis, a classical wave ?
 

Offline hamdani yusuf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 173
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Photons are not classical particles or classical waves, They are photons.
We can explain refraction etc perfectly well.
You may not be familiar with the explanation.
Can you tell us where to find such explanation?
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8661
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
 

Offline hamdani yusuf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 173
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_polarization
etc would be a good start.
The explanation there is mainly classical, which uses wave model.
There is no explanation how polarizers can rotate the orientation of the photons.

What about refraction?

My experiment to determine photon size using microwave has convinced me against photon model.

It is shown in this video
« Last Edit: 18/10/2016 07:25:38 by hamdani yusuf »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8661
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Photons don't have a "size"
 

Offline hamdani yusuf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 173
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Photons don't have a "size"
So how to determine whether or not "photon" can get through microwave oven's window?
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8661
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Photons have a wavelength, but that's hardly a size.
 

Offline hamdani yusuf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 173
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
That's why particle model has many limitations, compared to the wave model.
Have you found explanation for light refraction using particle model?
« Last Edit: 19/10/2016 02:43:07 by hamdani yusuf »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8661
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Do you realise that it's your job to look for explanations, not mine?

The simple version of the photon model of refraction is that the photon is absorbed and then re-emitted. The delay slows down the passage of the photon through the material. Refraction is all about the change in speed of light.

It seems to me that you are trying to belittle the photon model without even bothering to understand it.
That's not science- it's religion.

 

Offline hamdani yusuf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 173
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: Bored chemist
Do you realise that it's your job to look for explanations, not mine?

The simple version of the photon model of refraction is that the photon is absorbed and then re-emitted. The delay slows down the passage of the photon through the material. Refraction is all about the change in speed of light.

It seems to me that you are trying to belittle the photon model without even bothering to understand it.
That's not science- it's religion.

I asked you because you are the one who claimed to have perfectly well explanation, while I can't find such a thing from the internet.

Photons are not classical particles or classical waves, They are photons.
We can explain refraction etc perfectly well.
You may not be familiar with the explanation.

Your version doesn't seem to be perfectly well.

I am the one who's doing the doubt here.

 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8661
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile

I asked you because you are the one who claimed to have perfectly well explanation, while I can't find such a thing from the internet.

You don't seem to have tried very hard. I just googled it and got a result; why couldn't you do that?
 

Offline hamdani yusuf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 173
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
I just thought you had a better explanation than that.
Maybe we just have different standard for a perfectly well explanation.
Or do you think that first page of google search provide best explanation?
« Last Edit: 22/10/2016 17:43:45 by hamdani yusuf »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8661
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
I just thought you had a better explanation than that.
Maybe we just have different standard for a perfectly well explanation.
Or do you think that first page of google search provide best explanation?
No, but I think that the first hit from Google is sufficient to prove that this
"particle models cannot easily account for the refraction, polarization, diffraction and birefringence of light."
isn't true.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length