[Bored chemist]

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.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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.

A weight scale in a filling station reminds me of this situation. The display can only show liquid product's weight change every half kg.
The quantization effect is actually just precision limit of the measuring instrument. In photomultiplier, the limit is quantization of electric charge.

[alancalverd]

All models are an oversimplification, which is why they are called models. A dead mouse is a perfect model of a live mouse, but only for an inifintesimal perod of time.

[jeffreyH]

All models are an oversimplification, which is why they are called models. A dead mouse is a perfect model of a live mouse, but only for an inifintesimal perod of time.

If you tie a string to its head and one each to the legs you can extend the model. A good name for this would be string theory.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

All models are an oversimplification, which is why they are called models. A dead mouse is a perfect model of a live mouse, but only for an inifintesimal perod of time.

IMO, we use models to represent reality because we can take some advantages from them, e.g. more accessible, more controllable, etc.
Rough models can be useful in some situations, and they are usually used due to their simplicity.
Using flat earth model is usually adequate if you want to build a house, or calculating trajectory of a trebuchet.
Newton's mechanic is adequate to send people to the moon and back.
But beyond some limit, we need more refined models where the cost from deviation of model's prediction compared to measurement outweigh the benefit from its simplicity.
Unexpected results come from false assumptions.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

As far as I know, all experiments in modern physics involve some kind of electronic instrumentations. Thus the quantification of measurement results can be attributed to inherent charge quantification of electron as the basic working principle of the instruments.

[alancalverd]

Then you can use an oldfashioned instrument!

X-ray "intensifying screens" are fluorescent material that converts single incoming high energy photons into multiple visible photons that can be recorded on conventional photographic film. At very low x-ray intensities you can see "quantum mottle" where individual x-ray photons have triggered a local burst of visible photons.

Or you can use a photonuclear reaction  to detect photons with energies above about 1 MeV by the products of that reaction. The consistency of yield strongly suggests that the trigger is quantised.

At 1.022 MeV the incoming photon in the vicinity of a nucleus can produce an electron-positron pair which annihilates into exactly two 511 keV photons that you can detect by all sorts of methods.  I can't think of another mathematical model that would predict this.
 

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Then you can use an oldfashioned instrument!

X-ray "intensifying screens" are fluorescent material that converts single incoming high energy photons into multiple visible photons that can be recorded on conventional photographic film. At very low x-ray intensities you can see "quantum mottle" where individual x-ray photons have triggered a local burst of visible photons.

Or you can use a photonuclear reaction  to detect photons with energies above about 1 MeV by the products of that reaction. The consistency of yield strongly suggests that the trigger is quantised.

At 1.022 MeV the incoming photon in the vicinity of a nucleus can produce an electron-positron pair which annihilates into exactly two 511 keV photons that you can detect by all sorts of methods.  I can't think of another mathematical model that would predict this.
 

What is the minimum size of "quantum mottle" have you ever seen? IMO, it's not much less than 1 micron since it's visible to the naked eye.
Can you name one method to detect 511 keV photons which doesn't involve electron activity?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Photon detector screen reminds me of popcorn analogy to explain half life of radioactive materials.
In popcorn case, the energy is supplied more or less continuously, but the popping events occur discretely. Analogous with detector screen, we can think that the screen receive electromagnetic wave continuously, but the events of change in screen color/brightness occur discretely.

[timey]

I'm liking your analogy Humandi.

[alancalverd]

Then you can use an oldfashioned instrument!

X-ray "intensifying screens" are fluorescent material that converts single incoming high energy photons into multiple visible photons that can be recorded on conventional photographic film. At very low x-ray intensities you can see "quantum mottle" where individual x-ray photons have triggered a local burst of visible photons.

Or you can use a photonuclear reaction  to detect photons with energies above about 1 MeV by the products of that reaction. The consistency of yield strongly suggests that the trigger is quantised.

At 1.022 MeV the incoming photon in the vicinity of a nucleus can produce an electron-positron pair which annihilates into exactly two 511 keV photons that you can detect by all sorts of methods.  I can't think of another mathematical model that would predict this.
 

What is the minimum size of "quantum mottle" have you ever seen? IMO, it's not much less than 1 micron since it's visible to the naked eye.
Can you name one method to detect 511 keV photons which doesn't involve electron activity?

If you want to be pedantic, everything that happens outside a nucleus involves electron activity. But it's quite easy* to measure photon flux with a calorimeter.

*it only took me 13 years

[timey]

Humandi - I like your analogy because it is compatible to my time theory.

I hesitate to interject my notions into your thread, but I'll just do so once as an observation.
(btw, I've tried you YouTube vids, but the sound doesn't come through so well on my phone, so I can't hear the commentary so good.  I don't know if this is a problem when not watching on a phone)

My theory of time states time as being a function of energy, and wavelength as being a function of time.
Under this remit you can have both the photon model, and the wave model united into one model, where you will always know the photons flux, or where an electron is located and how fast it is moving, by understanding that the timing/frequency of a particle, and the time/energy of a field that a particle moves through, is a function of the energy of that particle, or field.

wavelength = h/p
where:
p = h*vbar
and:
vbar = v/a
and
h = Planck's h constant.

h can be considered a time function describing field on it own, and then p derived via h*vbar can be considered as inclusive of a time function for a particle.

What one timing will record of another will be proportional to the difference in timing. i:e: discrete.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Then you can use an oldfashioned instrument!

X-ray "intensifying screens" are fluorescent material that converts single incoming high energy photons into multiple visible photons that can be recorded on conventional photographic film. At very low x-ray intensities you can see "quantum mottle" where individual x-ray photons have triggered a local burst of visible photons.

Or you can use a photonuclear reaction  to detect photons with energies above about 1 MeV by the products of that reaction. The consistency of yield strongly suggests that the trigger is quantised.

At 1.022 MeV the incoming photon in the vicinity of a nucleus can produce an electron-positron pair which annihilates into exactly two 511 keV photons that you can detect by all sorts of methods.  I can't think of another mathematical model that would predict this.
 

What is the minimum size of "quantum mottle" have you ever seen? IMO, it's not much less than 1 micron since it's visible to the naked eye.
Can you name one method to detect 511 keV photons which doesn't involve electron activity?

If you want to be pedantic, everything that happens outside a nucleus involves electron activity. But it's quite easy* to measure photon flux with a calorimeter.

*it only took me 13 years

I don't want to be pedantic. I'm just a simple man with a simple mind, and I prefer simple explanation.
IMO the mottle size is too large to be caused by single photon, which is even smaller than electron, which is already very small.
My point is, discrete phenomena related to electromagnetic wave are more likely to be caused by discrete nature of its source, which is charged particle, e.g. proton and electron, rather than discrete nature of electromagnetic wave itself, which is thought as energy packet called photon.
How does calorimeter measure photon flux without involving electron activity?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Humandi - I like your analogy because it is compatible to my time theory.

I hesitate to interject my notions into your thread, but I'll just do so once as an observation.
(btw, I've tried you YouTube vids, but the sound doesn't come through so well on my phone, so I can't hear the commentary so good.  I don't know if this is a problem when not watching on a phone)

My theory of time states time as being a function of energy, and wavelength as being a function of time.
Under this remit you can have both the photon model, and the wave model united into one model, where you will always know the photons flux, or where an electron is located and how fast it is moving, by understanding that the timing/frequency of a particle, and the time/energy of a field that a particle moves through, is a function of the energy of that particle, or field.

wavelength = h/p
where:
p = h*vbar
and:
vbar = v/a
and
h = Planck's h constant.

h can be considered a time function describing field on it own, and then p derived via h*vbar can be considered as inclusive of a time function for a particle.

What one timing will record of another will be proportional to the difference in timing. i:e: discrete.

Thanks for your appreciation.
I'm sorry that my videos have low quality sound. That's because I only use cellphone to record them.
Some even has unexpected cut outs, especially when changing slide. That happened when I convert the power point file into MP4.
I checked my source file and found no problem, but some things were missing in the video file.

I planned to put the script in the description when I have time.

[yor_on]

Hamdani, have you looked at the origins of 'photons'?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Hamdani, have you looked at the origins of 'photons'?

AFAIK, it was Einstein's interpretation to Planck's result, E=n.h.f, which describe quantification of thermal radiation.
This interpretation then gain support for explaining photoelectric effect.
But IMO, it can also be interpreted as quantification of electric charge as the source of electromagnetic wave.

[yor_on]

Does light have a charge?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

No

[yor_on]

Then the question becomes. What exactly is it that 'bumps' into a 'black body'?

[Colin2B]

Then the question becomes. What exactly is it that 'bumps' into a 'black body'?

The variation of the em field. We interpret the interaction as a bump - transfer of energy/momentum - and so can say that it has at least one of the properties of a particle, but that doesn't make it a little hard piece of mass.