0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

So in what way isn't this equivalent to red and blue shift?

Well, I had a conversation some time ago where I got the impression that red light just as blue could contain a lot of energy per time unit (red laser f. ex:)Until then I've always assumed that a 'lower wavelength' stretched out per time unit represented a lower energy containment, or fewer photons if you like, but thinking of that red laser made me question if I was correct there? So, how high can you get the energy in a red laser, what kind of work will it be able to do?

No Lightarrow I reckon you will need the 'amount' of them sent per 'time unit' too. But if looking at it as a linear 'causality chain' made from 'photons' I still don't see how the energy per 'hit' can become stronger than blue light, even though the energy per expended 'time unit' may be as strong. Although there may be a connection, if the amount of energy over a given very short time builds up to the same strength? But that's a vauge guess

This brings to mind a recent discussion about the number of wave cycles that comprise a single photon. Where does the time portion of the energy-time of a single photon come from? Could it possibly be the duration of the wave cycle?

Can you explain better?

A photon is often referred to as a "light quantum". The energy of an electron bound to an atom (at rest) is said to be quantized, which results in the stability of atoms, and of matter in general. But these terms can be a little misleading, because what is quantized is this Planck's constant quantity whose units can be viewed as either energy multiplied by time or momentum multiplied by distance.

Quote from: lightarrowCan you explain better?Can't the wave length of a single photon be found by dividing the frequency by the speed of light? That should give you one wave cycle. Since a quantum is the energy-time of a single photon, and the time portion is linked directly to frequency, it seems the time duration of a quantum needs to be one wave cycle. ...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGINQuote from: the linkA photon is often referred to as a "light quantum". The energy of an electron bound to an atom (at rest) is said to be quantized, which results in the stability of atoms, and of matter in general. But these terms can be a little misleading, because what is quantized is this Planck's constant quantity whose units can be viewed as either energy multiplied by time or momentum multiplied by distance.

That didn't seem a problem to me because I assumed that photons lined up end to end giving the frequency and allowing Heisenberg to be happy [] So my thinking was that we normally find them in great groups of pulse trains.So even though we wouldn't normally find them in singlets, I always assumed a single photon could possibly exist, and that it would represent one quantum of energy-time.

And if is so, they don't even seem to 'exist' in our spacetime, only their interactions are measurable, not the 'virtual photons' in themselves, that is, we won't be able to 'detect' them. So how should a definition of a single photon look like? Virtual or 'real'?

In your model the energy of every photon is given by its frequency only, so it should be totally determined, but actually a single photon's energy is not well determined, and this is shown just from the fact that spectral lines have non-zero width.

Quote from: lightarrowIn your model the energy of every photon is given by its frequency only, so it should be totally determined, but actually a single photon's energy is not well determined, and this is shown just from the fact that spectral lines have non-zero width.I understand the argument. An analogy would be that I measure the diameter of a grain of sand on a beach with a very sensitive micrometer. I can know the size of the particular grain being measured, but I can only know the average size of grains of sand on the beach after many measurements. []