[pensador (OP)]

I am on holiday and answering this, I cant believe it, I must  need a holiday.

No requirement for a photon to have a gravitational field. Indeed it can't as it has no mass. Please don't make unwarranted assertions - this is physics, not politics. The gravitational bending of light is evidence of gravity warping spacetime.

Of course there is, photons are attracted to each other by gravity. This is due to gravitational warping of space around all forms of energy. E=m.c.c + p.v includes photons which have energy in the form of inertia.

Also incorrect to say they are particles. Electromagnetic radiation can be modelled as particles or waves. Don't allow outdated classical models to determine your opinion of quantum phenomena if you want to understand physics.

It is absolutely correct to say they are particles, and it is also absolutely correct to say they are not waves. You are misunderstanding the meaning of the wave particle duality. The wave is a probability wave, ie a mathematical probanility of finding the particle in a particular position. This might help you https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_quantum_probability.html
The wave is a mathematical probability wave of finding a particle along that path. It s not a real thing, the only thing real about the photon is the particle, which moves erratically so the location can only be predicted by using a probality wave.

which should put you straight on that matter. However some of the rest of the source is poorly expressed and potentially confusing.

It is easy to get confused with terminology, especially when dealing with pop science threads that talk about wave particle duality as if they are both real things, when they are not. A mathematical probability wave is not the same as a real wave, or particle.

PS I lived in Durham for a number of years, before moving further north. But yes I was born in North Yorkshire Now I live 1200Nm ish SSW of England.

It's a matter of definition
There are about a million YT videos of tesla coils lighting fluorescent tubes.

Yes, its great fun confusing electricians with fluorescent tubes that wont turn off, but potentially dangerous microwaving them.



 

Would the experiment be affected by individual photons leaving the emitter from different parts of the emitter at slightly different angles, seperated by microns perhaps. Would the photons trajectory be affected by the atmoshere it is travelling through towards the double slits. Is the photons path as straight as invisaged in the experiment. Fringing affects around the slots are not mentioned. Are there anyother things not considered in the experiment. ??

Reality doesn't agree with you. It's  high school experiment

Its a question of interpretation, in high school people are taught they are observing a wave particle effect, in an idealized experiment showing a particle hit a photographic screen, without discussing the mathematical probability wave function.

Ref a radio wave, could that be viewed as virtual photons, rather than real .

[alancalverd]

I am on holiday and answering this, I cant believe it, I must  need a holiday.

It would be a better use of your time!

No requirement for a photon to have a gravitational field. Indeed it can't as it has no mass. Please don't make unwarranted assertions - this is physics, not politics. The gravitational bending of light is evidence of gravity warping spacetime.

Of course there is, photons are attracted to each other by gravity.

If photons are atracted to one another, why does light always diverge from its source?

This is due to gravitational warping of space around all forms of energy. E=m.c.c + p.v includes photons which have energy in the form of inertia.

energy and inertia are quite distinct quantities, with different dimensions.

   

Also incorrect to say they are particles. Electromagnetic radiation can be modelled as particles or waves. Don't allow outdated classical models to determine your opinion of quantum phenomena if you want to understand physics.

It is absolutely correct to say they are particles, and it is also absolutely correct to say they are not waves. You are misunderstanding the meaning of the wave particle duality. The wave is a probability wave, ie a mathematical probanility of finding the particle in a particular position. This might help you https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_quantum_probability.html
The wave is a mathematical probability wave of finding a particle along that path. It s not a real thing, the only thing real about the photon is the particle, which moves erratically so the location can only be predicted by using a probality wave.

On the contrary, photons move through space in absolutely straight lines (alright, geodesics if you must) at a constant speed. Nothing remotely erratic about it.

[pensador (OP)]

It would be a better use of your time!

This is absolutely my last response until I get back to my house

If photons are atracted to one another, why does light always diverge from its source?

Individual Photons which transmit the electro magnetic force perhaps interact, and the emf is a stronger effect than the gravity effect 

energy and inertia are quite distinct quantities, with different dimensions.

When a photon transfers its inertia to an atom, it effectively increases its mass, and energy. A hot vibrating atom has more energy and mass than the same atom when it is cold.

On the contrary, photons move through space in absolutely straight lines (alright, geodesics if you must) at a constant speed. Nothing remotely erratic about it.

Would they diverge in close proximity to each other, or perhaps have there paths bent by gravity as pointed out by einstein.

I dont think Feynman would agree with you. But photons bashing their way through the atmosphere are deflected, by air molecules, and there is no such thing as empty space, its got dust and a very small amount of hydrogen. You also have the dark matter effect, causing allsorts of speculation.

A photon is a quantum thing best explained at the quantum level, and movement is best predicted by a probaility wave, its movement is therefore slightly random, and a little erratic.

Here is an interesting discussion ref light, with a mildly amusing picture of a photon. https://www.nobeliefs.com/light.htm
There are things in the paper I disagree with and anyone else reading it might find things they disagree with also. But it is an interesting discourse on light; for them as are interested

I'm off to the festa. ate logo

[Bored chemist]

Its a question of interpretation, in high school people are taught they are observing a wave particle effect, in an idealized experiment showing a particle hit a photographic screen, without discussing the mathematical probability wave function.

No it isn't.
In school, pupils are shown the diffraction of waves by two slits- in much the same way they are shown the phenomenon with light
So your view as expressed here

I dont think radio waves can make a TV screen glow, the same way an electron beam can, or even reproduce a double slit experiment results in the same way a particle can.

is just plain wrong.
Why not accept that?

[pensador (OP)]

Quote from: flummoxed on 17/04/2019 17:14:06I dont think radio waves can make a TV screen glow, the same way an electron beam can, or even reproduce a double slit experiment results in the same way a particle can. is just plain wrong.Why not accept that?

You are not looking close enough.
A photon or electron is a single particle, (ie a localized fluctuation in a field ) that stimulates a single point on contact, a radio wave is under QED made up of virtual photons, in classical theory a radio wave (In the common communication ranges) is purely electromagnetic and electrostatic based on Maxwells equations.
In any case when a single photon is absorbed it ceases to exist. When part of a radio wave is absorbed by a receiver, the rest of the radio wave continues to exist. There is no instantaneous wave function collapse.

Taking a microwave as another example if the correct frequency is applied your food will heat up, using gamma rays or xrays might have a similar effect if they do not pass straight through.

A single photon is not a radio wave. A radio wave can be described as a fluctuation in a field represented under QED by virtual photons and under classical theory via an electromagnetic field described by Maxwells equations. Virtual photons the same as real photons do not have mass, charge or a magnetic field, and interact by imparting inertia. They are not affected by magnetic fields or electric fields. etc

and I am on holiday  

[Bored chemist]

When part of a radio wave is absorbed by a receiver, the rest of the radio wave continues to exist.

Prove it.

[pensador (OP)]

When part of a radio wave is absorbed by a receiver, the rest of the radio wave continues to exist.

Prove it.

Do you use a mobile phone or watch tv Q.E.D

[Bored chemist]

When part of a radio wave is absorbed by a receiver, the rest of the radio wave continues to exist.

Prove it.

Do you use a mobile phone or watch tv Q.E.D

Yes I do. And the bloke next door is watching the same programme, but he and I receive different photons.

A single photon is not a radio wave.

Give or take a matter of timing  and/ or  scale, that's like saying  a single photon is not a light wave.
But the experiments show otherwise.
So what actual evidence do you have WRT your suggestion?

[pensador (OP)]

Quote from: alancalverd on 22/04/2019 17:59:41
If photons are atracted to one another, why does light always diverge from its source?
Individual Photons which transmit the electro magnetic force perhaps interact, and the emf is a stronger effect than the gravity effect

Since you are not going to correct this i will, Photons have no charge or magnetic field and are not deflected by them in any way. Which leaves you with > they are deflected by something else, like the air they are moving through or quantum foam.

[pensador (OP)]

Yes I do. And the bloke next door is watching the same programme, but he and I receive different photons.

Are these photons real or virtual? What frequency are your different photons working on E=hf ?  Do they perhaps have no frequency, or wave, or electro magnetic properties other than perhaps inertia E=pv which they impart onto electrons which are willing to move in your mates TVs.

[Bored chemist]

What frequency are your different photons working on

Not sure; I think it's typically something like 500MHz.

Do they perhaps have no frequency, or wave, or electro magnetic properties other than perhaps inertia

No
They have a frequency that I can look up or measure.
They have wave properties that I can demonstrate by using different antenna designs and they have EM properties that I can demonstrate by things like Faraday rotation, polarisation etc.

[pensador (OP)]

What frequency are your different photons working on

Not sure; I think it's typically something like 500MHz.

Do they perhaps have no frequency, or wave, or electro magnetic properties other than perhaps inertia

No
They have a frequency that I can look up or measure.
They have wave properties that I can demonstrate by using different antenna designs and they have EM properties that I can demonstrate by things like Faraday rotation, polarisation etc.

Radio waves are normally something you can measure with an antennae, so I assume you are talking about radio waves and virtual photons, not real photons, with localized measurable spin and momentum.

Your virtual photons are oscillating in the UHF range, with polarization according to your antennae.  Virtual photons are the suggested method of conveying the electro magnetic force, would you agree?

Radio waves are not influenced by electric fields or magnetic fields once they have left the transmitting antennae. On reception they generate an emf in the receiver. They carry no charge or magnetic field on route between transmitter and receiver.

Photons carry inertia and when an atom absorbs this inertia an electron goes to a higher orbital.

How do virtual photons in radio waves cause an EMF in a receiving antennae? Is it inertia?

[Bored chemist]

so I assume you are talking about radio waves and virtual photons, not real photons, with localized measurable spin and momentum.

Virtual photons are something else entirely.

How have you come to the conclusion that radio waves are different from light waves (or, equivalently, how have you come to the conclusion that radio photons are different from light photons)?

Apart from the human scale- an accident of evolution- what's the difference?

[alancalverd]

It would help if you used the term momentum rather than inertia. They are not the same. Inertia is dimensionless, meaningless for a particle with zero mass,  and is not related to photon energy.

You can measure the momentum of radiofrequency photons (in principle, though it's very difficult in practice) and it is as calculated, E/c.

The means by which a photon is detected does not make the photon any more or less real. There is a place for virtual photons in describing the near-field of a transmitting antenna, but what you receive from a broadcast is the genuine article.

You need to study photon interactions in a lot more detail to understand what happens when energetic photons interact with individual atoms: everything from outer shell resonances via ionisation and pair production to photonuclear reactions. And of course the interaction of electromagnetic radiation with covalent bonds or conduction band electrons to produce global warming or radio signals is hugely important.

I really don't see why you are trying to make this everyday, fundamental process more complicated than it is. 

[pensador (OP)]

so I assume you are talking about radio waves and virtual photons, not real photons, with localized measurable spin and momentum.

Virtual photons are something else entirely.

How have you come to the conclusion that radio waves are different from light waves (or, equivalently, how have you come to the conclusion that radio photons are different from light photons)?

Apart from the human scale- an accident of evolution- what's the difference?

I think I stumbled on the answer in wiki

" Actual and virtual photons are mixed near an antenna, with the virtual photons responsible only for the "extra" magnetic-inductive and transient electric-dipole effects, which cause any imbalance between E and cB. As distance from the antenna grows, the near-field effects (as dipole fields) die out more quickly, and only the "radiative" effects that are due to actual photons remain as important effects. Although virtual effects extend to infinity, they drop off in field strength as 1/r2 rather than the field of EM waves composed of actual photons, which drop 1/r (the powers, respectively, decrease as 1/r4 and 1/r2). See near and far field for a more detailed discussion. See near field communication for practical communications applications of near fields.
"

I really don't see why you are trying to make this everyday, fundamental process more complicated than it is.

Hey it was not me that complicated it, I just wanted to visualize a single solitary photon

Edit, thanks for all the answers. It made me revise my view of photons.

Would I be correct in thinking that virtual particle pairs coming into existence momentarily around the transmitting antennae, are separated by the electro magnetic field, become real, but not stable so decay into real photons. Not unlike Hawking radiation without the BH gravity.??

Does the receiving antennae, absorb the inertia of the photons, or is their some other virtual particle interaction.?

[alright1234]

Can a photon be visualized?

We can describe a photon as having both wave and particle properties

This statement is patently incorrect since a particle structure of a photon negates the continuity of Maxwell's electromagnetic field that forms the coherency of Maxwell's electromagnetic wave. Also, an expanding electromagnetic field cannot maintain the particle structure of a propagating electromagnetic photon. The wave-particle duality theory of light is mutually exclusive as Harvard is to yale.

[Bored chemist]

This statement is patently incorrect since a particle structure of a photon negates the continuity of Maxwell's electromagnetic field that forms the coherency of Maxwell's electromagnetic wave.

Actually, it's experimentally  known to be true.

If reality does not agree with your ideas ,it isn't because reality has made a mistake.

[Colin2B]

I think I stumbled on the answer in wiki

Glad you’ve found what you are looking for. From our point of view these things are ‘givens’ and it’s hard to know quite what you are looking for amid all your searchings.
To clarify some things and hopefully help your understanding:

Would I be correct in thinking that virtual particle pairs coming into existence momentarily around the transmitting antennae, are separated by the electro magnetic field, become real, but not stable so decay into real photons.

The best way to visualise this is to start with the standard illustration of the em wave/photon. In this the oscillating electric and magnetic field vectors have a definite amplitude/phase relationship and the 2 field vectors are clearly linked and interdependent.
Around the antenna, there are high intensity (relatively) electric and magnetic fields and some of these can be thought of as feeding back both into the antenna and into the near fields - similar to back emf in a coil. So there is no clear, stable relationship between the field vectors and the field intensities are irregular, and so no stable propagation.

Does the receiving antennae, absorb the inertia of the photons, or is their some other virtual particle interaction.?

As Alan said, best not to call it inertia, therein lies confusion.
When the photon/wave reaches the receiving antenna the oscillating fields move the free electrons in a similar oscillating motion. Because we are not trying to explain particle creation or anything esoteric there is no reason to propose a virtual particle interaction.

I was in the middle of replying to some of your earlier post, so I’ll put them in to help your visualisation.

In any case when a single photon is absorbed it ceases to exist. When part of a radio wave is absorbed by a receiver, the rest of the radio wave continues to exist. There is no instantaneous wave function collapse.

If you switch on a light bulb it illuminates the whole room, just because some photons hit your eye and cease to exist (wave function collapse) doesn’t mean the room goes dark.

A single photon is not a radio wave.

No one ever said it is, just that radio waves also consist of photons.
You quote: “Here is a good link explaining the history of what we have been waffling on about, with a photo of a photon https://www.b.com/science/what-is-photon-definition-04322/ “
If you look at the end of that link you will see it says:
Not only is light made up of photons, but all electromagnetic energy (i.e. microwaves, radio waves, X-rays) is made up of photons.

You are misunderstanding the meaning of the wave particle duality.

No, you are misunderstanding the meaning. At the end of the same article it says:
The theory that states that light behaves both like a wave and a particle is called the wave-particle duality theory.
It is the behaviour that is important.

Individual Photons which transmit the electro magnetic force perhaps interact, and the emf is a stronger effect than the gravity effect 

Nooooo. Photons do not experience emf interaction between one another.
They do carry energy and under GR would create a grav field, but it is so minuscule that it will not influence the divergence. Wheeler did some work on this and concluded that parallel photons do not attract,  but anti-parallel do.

On the contrary, photons move through space in absolutely straight lines (alright, geodesics if you must) at a constant speed. Nothing remotely erratic about it.

I dont think Feynman would agree with you. But photons bashing their way through the atmosphere are deflected, by air molecules, and there is no such thing as empty space, its got dust and a very small amount of hydrogen. You also have the dark matter effect, causing allsorts of speculation.

Feynman would agree. He developed the many paths integral which considers the total possible paths the photon can take and shows that the most likely is the shortest distance between 2 points - usually a straight line - all the other paths destructively interfering and cancelling out. Although there is a finite, but extremely small probability the photon takes a different path it does not wander around.

Since you are not going to correct this i will, Photons have no charge or magnetic field and are not deflected by them in any way. Which leaves you with > they are deflected by something else, like the air they are moving through or quantum foam.

If you are going to correct your error the at least correct it correctly.
Let’s take the laser beam which is the least divergent light source we have. Its divergence is determined by diffraction as the beam leaves the aperture/front face of the source and is determined by both the wavelength of the light and inversely by the diameter of the aperture.
Once the beam is on its way then, yes, it will be subject to scattering etc by material on its path.

A photon is a quantum thing best explained at the quantum level, and movement is best predicted by a probaility wave,

The wave is a mathematical probability wave of finding a particle along that path. It s not a real thing,

It is important to be clear which ‘wave’ we are talking about.
A wave function allows you to calculate the probabilities of the various values of measured characteristics of a system, however, the textbook interpretation of Schrodinger wavefunctions is not applicable to photons. In particular it is impossible to find, for photons, a vector-valued position operator with commuting coordinates which transforms under rotations like a vector. This implies that there is no consistent notion of probability density for a photon along its path. However, it is possible to define a probability of detecting a photon at a particular location.

In QFT particles are waves and a photon is now described under QFT which uses the normal modes of the (source-free) electromagnetic field from Maxwell’s equations and views them as quantum oscillators. So the waves we are talking about are the same waves as described by Maxwell, and the photon as a quantisation of this wave.

Am I correct "the superposition of particles is not required to explain the double slit experiment" ? 

On the contrary, in QFT superposition (interference) is key to double slit description and is treated in a similar way to the classical view of a plane wave passing through both slits and interfering.


Note: Inertia is an intrinsic characteristic of the object related to its mass. Inertia tells you how much force it will take to cause a particular acceleration on the object. Momentum is a function of an object's mass and velocity. Momentum is a measure of the kinetic energy of the object

[Colin2B]

Can a photon be visualized?

We can describe a photon as having both wave and particle properties

This statement is patently incorrect since a particle structure of a photon negates the continuity of Maxwell's electromagnetic field that forms the coherency of Maxwell's electromagnetic wave. Also, an expanding electromagnetic field cannot maintain the particle structure of a propagating electromagnetic photon. The wave-particle duality theory of light is mutually exclusive as Harvard is to yale.

Your knowledge of physics is so poor that you are continually posting incorrect information and speculations. Such speculations are more appropriate to our new theories section and if you insist on posting them here you will be limited to posting them in the new theories section.

[pensador (OP)]

Quote from: flummoxed on Yesterday at 10:33:29
Would I be correct in thinking that virtual particle pairs coming into existence momentarily around the transmitting antennae, are separated by the electro magnetic field, become real, but not stable so decay into real photons.
The best way to visualise this is to start with the standard illustration of the em wave/photon. In this the oscillating electric and magnetic field vectors have a definite amplitude/phase relationship and the 2 field vectors are clearly linked and interdependent.
Around the antenna, there are high intensity (relatively) electric and magnetic fields and some of these can be thought of as feeding back both into the antenna and into the near fields - similar to back emf in a coil. So there is no clear, stable relationship between the field vectors and the field intensities are irregular, and so no stable propagation.

Can I just clarify this, are you saying there is no clear link between virtual particle pairs around the transmitter, acquiring energy, momentum. Followed by them becoming real photons due to either instability or coming back together and annihilating each, not unlike a positron electron collision, but at much lower energy levels.

This link is on a bit bigger scale than what I had in mind with an antennae, but pulsars can produce particles from virtual particles.
https://phys.org/news/2019-04-bright-space.html?utm_source=nwletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily-nwletter

In QFT particles are waves and a photon is now described under QFT which uses the normal modes of the (source-free) electromagnetic field from Maxwell’s equations and views them as quantum oscillators. So the waves we are talking about are the same waves as described by Maxwell, and the photon as a quantisation of this wave.

Are you viewing the photons in a quantized radio wave as individual photons, or something else?