0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Has anyone actually seen a particle?
Do we need duality or, are self-propagating waves enough?
I'm familiar with the Poynting vector (wikipedia.org/wiki/Poynting_vector) in E.M. propagation but, not how it relates to the photon structure.
(eg to describe the generation of the laser beam, or the photoelectric effect when the laser beam hits a charged cathode in a vacuum tube).
Quote from: evan_au on 22/04/2016 12:16:24(eg to describe the generation of the laser beam, or the photoelectric effect when the laser beam hits a charged cathode in a vacuum tube).There it is; why we maintain the notion of particle. The quantization can be understood from an harmonic perspective wrt the QHO; can't it?A couple of problems with the particle notion:-all of those virtual particles; i can get rid of them with a notion of a supra temporal field relative to the photon that is as valid as the real photon (event), i.e. they're the same thing. The 'perspective' of the photon has to be resolved with source & sink; i.e. in some sense, they are right next to each other.-an exponential increase in virtual mass as entanglements propagate: resolved by understanding entanglements as just our experience of the source & the sink being in some sense right next to each other.I dunno; why particles of zero volume when they can be 'particles' of spacetime?
We observe events compelled by fields; don't we? Has anyone actually seen a particle? Do we need duality or, are self-propigating waves enough?
First, let's not confuse the topic of particles with that of virtual particles--the latter is another way of describing fields and forces, while the former refers to units of matter.
Second, what's wrong with describing a very localized quantum of something that has both a position and a momentum (each not entirely determined) as a particle? Ultimately will we just get down to an issue of semantics, or do you believe that there is no such thing as a very localized quantum of something that has both a position and a momentum?
Third, I always get nervous when people talk about the "perspective of a photon."
As far as I know, we really don't have a good way of describing the universe from the perspective of anything moving at c. (And, I know you didn't bring this up here, but I get the same feeling when people talk about the "perspective of a black hole"--these are just frames of reference we cannot intuit or observe...)
We don't understand the interaction of billiard balls as an interaction of particles; scientifically speaking, it's an interaction of charges, mediated by force carrying photons, that derive rigidity from stable harmonics.
Force-carrying photons etc are merely models that we introduce to explain how the microscopic builds to the macroscopic.
Quote from: alancalverd on 23/04/2016 08:08:22Force-carrying photons etc are merely models that we introduce to explain how the microscopic builds to the macroscopic. This is one of the points that gets lost in translation. Can you write that in capitals please.