Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Followers 0

# The photon, particle or wave?

## 45 posts in this topic

Hi yall, would like to get your thoughts.

If (1)photon is created, can 2 people see the light as a wave or can only 1 person see the light as a particle?

thanks

#### Share this post

##### Share on other sites

Hi yall, would like to get your thoughts.

If (1)photon is created, can 2 people see the light as a wave or can only 1 person see the light as a particle?

thanks

If 1 photon is created, only one person can see it. Since the photon is indivisible, it can only hit one person's eye/detector/etc.

I am pretty sure that since the absorption of a photon on a detector will take some finite time t, the energy of that photon will have a spread dictated by Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle. (I.e. a continuous stream of single photon of energy hv will be measured with a spread of energies in a Lorentz profile.) This means that the colour observed would be somewhat random.

A photon will only adopt wave-like behaviour when placed in an environment that supports such behaviour: namely allowed to travel through empty space (this allows a precise momentum) for an infinite amount of time (this allows a precise energy).

Likewise, a photon will only adopt particle-like behaviour when placed in an environment that supports such behaviour: namely confined to an infinitely precise region of space (this allows a precise location) for an infinite amount of time (again allowing a precise energy).

#### Share this post

##### Share on other sites

Hi yall, would like to get your thoughts.

If (1)photon is created, can 2 people see the light as a wave or can only 1 person see the light as a particle?

thanks

In a non-dualistic sense there is no me, you, particles, earth, universe or god. There is only a state of oneness.

When duality is forced oneness collapses into being and non being. This creates the illusion of me, you, particles and everything else that makes up what we call reality.

My answer to you is the state of oneness from each observers perspective determines if an atom behaves as a wave or particle. Being and non being can also be reversed back into oneness by learning how to manage your perceptions.

No knowledge of something means oneness instead of being and non being.

Edited by Mr Right Wing

#### Share this post

##### Share on other sites

eh ok Mr Right Wing

Anyway op here is website i suggest you read

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod1.html

and

#### Share this post

##### Share on other sites

In a non-dualistic sense there is no me, you, particles, earth, universe or god. There is only a state of oneness.

When duality is forced oneness collapses into being and non being. This creates the illusion of me, you, particles and everything else that makes up what we call reality.

My answer to you is the state of oneness from each observers perspective determines if an atom behaves as a wave or particle. Being and non being can also be reversed back into oneness by learning how to manage your perceptions.

No knowledge of something means oneness instead of being and non being.

So far I have to say I agree with this. Some refer to this as the quantum mind-body problem.

Thing is (as I understand it) is we can't really explain the whole wave-function collapse because no matter how we test for it, measure or look at things, the only way to interpret the outcome of an expirement is to counsciously observe the results. In other terms, even measuring instruments and the brain itself are basically quantum systems themselves, just like the whole universe.

I think that the wave-function collapse could be provoked by counsciousness itself.

Of course, there is nothing so far that can prove this out of any doubt as much as the scientific method is concerned but still, we are free to beleive.

Cheers.

#### Share this post

##### Share on other sites

First of all can anybody please clear my doubt? Can a person see a photon?

#### Share this post

##### Share on other sites

So far I have to say I agree with this. Some refer to this as the quantum mind-body problem.

Thing is (as I understand it) is we can't really explain the whole wave-function collapse because no matter how we test for it, measure or look at things, the only way to interpret the outcome of an expirement is to counsciously observe the results. In other terms, even measuring instruments and the brain itself are basically quantum systems themselves, just like the whole universe.

I think that the wave-function collapse could be provoked by counsciousness itself.

Of course, there is nothing so far that can prove this out of any doubt as much as the scientific method is concerned but still, we are free to beleive.

Cheers.

The only way to interpret the outcome of any experiment is to observe the results.

However by what you're saying, devices that detect photons should be non-existent.

#### Share this post

##### Share on other sites

Second post sums it up imo. A photon is a single particle that can show wave like characteristics. It is still a single particle however.

First of all can anybody please clear my doubt? Can a person see a photon?

Photons are the reason we see anything. It is light.

#### Share this post

##### Share on other sites

First of all can anybody please clear my doubt? Can a person see a photon?

For photons in the visible spectrum, I believe a cat's eye is sensitive enough to detect single photons (in an otherwise completely dark environment, of course).

I think a human eye can see a handful of visible-spectrum photons (~10) as a single flicker of white light (again in an otherwise completely dark environment).

#### Share this post

##### Share on other sites

However by what you're saying, devices that detect photons should be non-existent.

Not really.

I'm just implying that everything comes from the same "quantum soup". The measuring tools are also made up of quanta that have wave-particle properties just like the wave-particles we are observing with it.

So what I wanted to say out of all this is that they obey the same laws as the photons we observe.

So they are just as real as they are and as real as those photons we observe are. Quantum wave-functions can't be seen. So every single thing we observe is the result of wave-function collapse.

The double slit-experiment explains well how the simple act of looking at a quantum will prevent it to show it's "wave properties". So just like a wave-function that will always collapse into one possibility, the measuring tool might do the same. It only shows one of these possibilities which is what it will read (measurment). Just like everything else, it could show the most probable outcome as far as the laws of physics are concerned.

My view is that consciousness collapses the wave-functions and make out everything we see according to quantum/classical physical laws. Those "laws" IMO are just setting that we have collectively set in consciousness while "creating" this universe. Just like a giant "universal matrix".

Very hard for me to expalin. Feel free to ask questions if you don't get it and are interested in knowing more about my views.

And of course, these are just my beleifs. I'm not a quantum physicist and don't imply to have the truth.

#### Share this post

##### Share on other sites

Not really.

I'm just implying that everything comes from the same "quantum soup". The measuring tools are also made up of quanta that have wave-particle properties just like the wave-particles we are observing with it.

So what I wanted to say out of all this is that they obey the same laws as the photons we observe.

So they are just as real as they are and as real as those photons we observe are. Quantum wave-functions can't be seen. So every single thing we observe is the result of wave-function collapse.

The double slit-experiment explains well how the simple act of looking at a quantum will prevent it to show it's "wave properties". So just like a wave-function that will always collapse into one possibility, the measuring tool might do the same. It only shows one of these possibilities which is what it will read (measurment). Just like everything else, it could show the most probable outcome as far as the laws of physics are concerned.

My view is that consciousness collapses the wave-functions and make out everything we see according to quantum/classical physical laws. Those "laws" IMO are just setting that we have collectively set in consciousness while "creating" this universe. Just like a giant "universal matrix".

Very hard for me to expalin. Feel free to ask questions if you don't get it and are interested in knowing more about my views.

And of course, these are just my beleifs. I'm not a quantum physicist and don't imply to have the truth.

Why is consciousness an exception?

I can't agree with consciousness causes collapse, consciousness is a collection of brain functions.

There is a difference between observation/measurement to get meaningful results, and conscious observation causing things to come into existence.

Like Einstein said "I like to think that the moon is there even if I am not looking at it"

#### Share this post

##### Share on other sites

Why is consciousness an exception?

I think consciosuness is the source of everything. So no, not an exception. But it would take quite some time to explain in detail.

I can't agree with consciousness causes collapse, consciousness is a collection of brain functions.

As far as we know it is. But the way those brain functions actually generate consciousness is still unknown. As well as many of the brain's functions. So we cannot confirm yet if consciousness really is only about the brain.

There is a difference between observation/measurement to get meaningful results, and conscious observation causing things to come into existence.

That's right. I was only saying that if consciousness is only related to brain activity, then it is no more than the result of quanta interacting with each others just like inside the measuring tool's atoms. Only diffrence beeing, of course, consciousness itself. But how could quanta generate consciosuness? That is still a mystery for now. One of the greatest of all if not The One.

Like Einstein said "I like to think that the moon is there even if I am not looking at it"

I understant what you mean and can't say I disagree. For me, the theory that counsciousness could collapse the wave-function dosen't necessaly involve a direct observer. I'm still thinking about a way to make this idea up and defind how I could describe it.

Peace bro.

#### Share this post

##### Share on other sites

Why is consciousness an exception?

I can't agree with consciousness causes collapse, consciousness is a collection of brain functions.

There is a difference between observation/measurement to get meaningful results, and conscious observation causing things to come into existence.

Like Einstein said "I like to think that the moon is there even if I am not looking at it"

I don't think that consciousness has anything to do with it either.

In my mind this has been proven: For example an analogue of the double slit experiment using Rb atoms was performed, where the interference can be gradually tuned by changing a microwave field within a cavity. The actual energy level of the atoms (the quantity that provides the quantum interference) is never measured by humans, but since it couples with the microwave field there is an energy exchange.

In other words: if the energy levels are entangled there should be the equivalent of an interference pattern, and if the energy levels are known then the interference pattern is removed. However the energy levels are never actually measured by anyone in this experiment. As the microwave field is increased in the cavity, the probability of the atoms exchanging energy with this field increases, and therefore the entanglement of the energy states decreases.

Entanglement is affected by interaction. All observations are interactions, but not all interactions are observations.

(See this paper.)

#### Share this post

##### Share on other sites

As far as we know it is. But the way those brain functions actually generate consciousness is still unknown. As well as many of the brain's functions. So we cannot confirm yet if consciousness really is only about the brain.

That's right. I was only saying that if consciousness is only related to brain activity, then it is no more than the result of quanta interacting with each others just like inside the measuring tool's atoms. Only diffrence beeing, of course, consciousness itself. But how could quanta generate consciosuness? That is still a mystery for now. One of the greatest of all if not The One.

The problem I see with the idea consciousness is outside of the brain, we have drugs that act on the nervous system to suppress consciousness.

#### Share this post

##### Share on other sites

The problem I see with the idea consciousness is outside of the brain, we have drugs that act on the nervous system to suppress consciousness.

Well, the way I see it, at least part of our consciousness does work accordingly with the brain. I call it the physical consciousness or individual self-awarness. So yeah, that is pretty much all about the activity of the brain. I still think it's "outside" but that it "operates" by reading the brain's activity.

On the other hand, I think that physical consciousness is only really part of a "deeper" level on consciousness that is non-physical and that unites everyone of us with everything.

Of course, this is all purely theorical.

#### Share this post

##### Share on other sites

Thank you all for your observations. After further research, I found that the photon is not a particle of matter. It has no mass. Therefore it must be a wave. This wave carries a "push", or a "force", which allows us to contemplate and build solar sails used to propel spaceships through space. The photon wave hits the sail transferring the momentum of the wave into momentum of the sail. The wave interaction with the atoms of the sail creates another photon which is, in a sense, reflected in new directions. (or all directions.)

#### Share this post

##### Share on other sites

What research?

According to current understanding a photon is both a particle and wave. This also applies to other particles that have mass.

Edited by Rlyeh

#### Share this post

##### Share on other sites

Thank you all for your observations. After further research, I found that the photon is not a particle of matter. It has no mass. Therefore it must be a wave. This wave carries a "push", or a "force", which allows us to contemplate and build solar sails used to propel spaceships through space. The photon wave hits the sail transferring the momentum of the wave into momentum of the sail. The wave interaction with the atoms of the sail creates another photon which is, in a sense, reflected in new directions. (or all directions.)

Photons have both properties of a wave and particle. So it's neither a wave nor a particle. It's both.

A wave is an oscillation. If you drop a stone into a lake, you see water moving in a wave pattern which transfers energy from one point to another like you said.

The wave function on the other hand in quantum physics is simply a probability amplitude. It represents a "cloud" of probabilities in which a quanta could be found. Mathematically, the equation is a type of wave equation.

Photons are said to have no rest mass but to have relativistic mass proportional to it's momentum and inversely proportional to their wavelength. That's what I read so far.

Edited by JayMark

#### Share this post

##### Share on other sites

Photons are said to have no rest mass but to have relativistic mass proportional to it's momentum and inversely proportional to their wavelength. That's what I read so far.

You are correct, although it is not very common to talk about the ``relativistic mass'' of a photon. It is clear (as Pyridium) pointed out, that photons possess momentum since they can apply a force to solar sails (for example). One must either keep the definition of momentum (p = mv, v here is the speed of light) and introduce the concept of relativistic mass, or make a new definition of momentum for massless objects (p = h/lambda, lambda is the wavelength).

In my experience it is more common to use the different definition of momentum than to talk about a ``relativistic mass'', but functionally it is the same thing.

#### Share this post

##### Share on other sites

You are correct, although it is not very common to talk about the ``relativistic mass'' of a photon. It is clear (as Pyridium) pointed out, that photons possess momentum since they can apply a force to solar sails (for example). One must either keep the definition of momentum (p = mv, v here is the speed of light) and introduce the concept of relativistic mass, or make a new definition of momentum for massless objects (p = h/lambda, lambda is the wavelength).

In my experience it is more common to use the different definition of momentum than to talk about a ``relativistic mass'', but functionally it is the same thing.

Right on! Thank you my brave!

#### Share this post

##### Share on other sites

Thank you for the great read and insight. I am writing a sci-fi novel which will explain a few concepts that intrigue scientists today. I know that I will be taking some artistic liberties using basic facts and intertwine a few theories that appear possible. I am going to rename "black holes" as "electron stars", explain the big bang as a collision of 2 "universal" black holes (electron stars). Pyridium is the "core" of my novel. I will say no more until the book is released.

Thanks again,

#### Share this post

##### Share on other sites

Thank you for the great read and insight. I am writing a sci-fi novel which will explain a few concepts that intrigue scientists today. I know that I will be taking some artistic liberties using basic facts and intertwine a few theories that appear possible. I am going to rename "black holes" as "electron stars", explain the big bang as a collision of 2 "universal" black holes (electron stars). Pyridium is the "core" of my novel. I will say no more until the book is released.

Thanks again,

Can you ship a copy to La Belle Province (Québec) once it's done?

#### Share this post

##### Share on other sites

At this point, I will be sending out 2 free signed copies of my book to those people that have made significant contributes to my effort. These people are JayMark and sepulchrave. I will eventually decide who gets named in my credits.

I have been working on this novel for over 18 years and I am about 3 months away from completion.

Now, back to the topic. I am now convinced that the electron is the smallest elemental particle in the universe that contains mass. I read in these forums that scientists have found that the electron is a perfect sphere, within one billionth of one billionth of one billionth of a centimeter. This infers that there is a radius. It is my belief that if the electron were the size of the earth, the outer shell (mass) would be equal to our breathable atmosphere and the entire earth would contain the "primordial energy" from the big bang. It is my understanding that at the moment of the big bang, temperatures were at 10's of trillions of degrees. I could be wrong about the temp, but it was surely hotter than anything we have observed so far.

I also believe that a photon is not mass, but pure energy being released during the bonding or unbonding of atoms. I now believe that when one photon is produced, that energy (as a wave) travels in all possible directions as a perfect sphere. A light sensor detects the energy, not a particle with mass. I believe that mass has momentum and a wave has momentum. A particle and wave can have similar properties but a particle can not be a wave and a wave can not be a particle. Thanks, JayMark, for the pebble in the pond example.

I believe that in a scientific experiment, 100 light detectors surround a photon source in total darkness. If one photon is created, I believe that all 100 sensors will detect the energy wave. I think we need to redefine the meaning of "photon". A photon is an event where an energy wave is "released".

Your thoughts, please.

#### Share this post

##### Share on other sites
A particle and wave can have similar properties but a particle can not be a wave and a wave can not be a particle.
Sure they can be, electrons behave as particles and waves too.

http://physics.weber.edu/carroll/honors-time/duality.htm

#### Share this post

##### Share on other sites

At this point, I will be sending out 2 free signed copies of my book to those people that have made significant contributes to my effort. These people are JayMark and sepulchrave. I will eventually decide who gets named in my credits.

I don't think my brief comments merit a signed copy (especially if this has been an 18-year effort!), but I will happily accept one.

Now, back to the topic. I am now convinced that the electron is the smallest elemental particle in the universe that contains mass.

The jury is still out on whether or not neutrinos have a rest mass... but as far as we know the electron is the lightest particle that definitely has a rest mass.

I read in these forums that scientists have found that the electron is a perfect sphere, within one billionth of one billionth of one billionth of a centimeter. This infers that there is a radius.

I think the jury is still out on that too. In my experience most people refer to the electron as a true ``point charge'' (although this would imply that it is a singularity, which is problematic as well). In any event, if there is a radius it is less than 10-20 cm, so for all practical purposes you are correct.

I also believe that a photon is not mass, but pure energy being released during the bonding or unbonding of atoms.

Yes, but not limited to that phenomena: You can think of photons as the radiative part of an electromagnetic field. Since interatomic bonding is an electromagnetic effect, then certainly photons can be created or absorbed during this process. Obvious example: the light from a wood fire is from energy released by the large molecules of cellulose, fibre, etc. in the wood breaking up into smaller pieces (ash and soot).

However the photons produced during the process of breaking bonds are limited to the energy range of these bonds - which is usually in the visible spectrum. Radiowaves are also photons, but they cannot be produced by breaking bonds (they are too low energy); rather they are produced by large-scale oscillations of electric current. X-rays are also photons, but they too cannot be produced by breaking bonds (they are too high energy); rather they are produced by internal transitions.

I now believe that when one photon is produced, that energy (as a wave) travels in all possible directions as a perfect sphere. A light sensor detects the energy, not a particle with mass. I believe that mass has momentum and a wave has momentum. A particle and wave can have similar properties but a particle can not be a wave and a wave can not be a particle.

Not true. The wave function of the photon depends on the process that created it. In a simple case (decay of an isolated atom in free space) this may be spherical, but in other cases the nature of the process imposes directional and angular constraints on the photon. For example, photons generated by internal atomic transitions must preserve angular momentum, so if a p-type (angular momentum = 1) electron makes a transition to an s-type (angular momentum = 0) orbital, the photon will have angular momentum = 1 which usually results in a dipole shaped (like a dumbbell) radiation pattern. Another example is a laser, obviously the light from a laser goes in one direction in a very narrow beam.

I believe that in a scientific experiment, 100 light detectors surround a photon source in total darkness. If one photon is created, I believe that all 100 sensors will detect the energy wave. I think we need to redefine the meaning of "photon". A photon is an event where an energy wave is "released".

This will not happen. A photon is an indivisible quantity of energy, only one detector will catch the photon, even if the photon is created in a spherically symmetric manner.

## Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

## Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

## Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Followers 0

• ### Recently Browsing   0 members

No registered users viewing this page.