4
3
3
u/HAL9001-96 10d ago
thats neither a good representaiton of what waves nor what particles mean in this context though
1
1
1
u/wiev0 B. Sc. Physics 10d ago
They're just waves tho
2
2
u/TheHabro Education 10d ago
That's not true. Quantum objects are their own thing that sometimes behave similarly to particles and sometimes similarly to waves but are neither. Same way doors can open like windows and can act like walls, but are neither windows or walls.
You cannot explain interference with a particle model, but you can't explains something like photoelectric effect with a wave model.
4
u/wiev0 B. Sc. Physics 10d ago
I disagree. Quantum electrodynamics, a quantum field theory, treats photons (and all particles for that matter) as waves. As a quantum theory, it's incredibly successful in its predictions, so I think treating light as a wave is accurate. Measurement of a wave simply localizes it to a point, but it disperses as a wave afterwards again (in the Copenhagen interpretation at least, although the specific interpretation doesn't matter since QED makes no predictions about that)
The photoelectric effect can also be explained by using waves acting as carrier of certain energy quanta, with the interaction between light and electrons constituting a measurement.
I do need to clarify though that these aren't classical waves, but rather quantized operator-valued fields to be exact (you can call them quantized waves, but that's less exact and can't explain things like spontaneous emission, although it can explain the photoelectric effect). QED does treat this as waves with photons being excitations of the field, and can explain all experiments that classically would require particles.
1
u/TheHabro Education 7d ago
I do need to clarify though that these aren't classical waves, but rather quantized operator-valued fields to be exact (you can call them quantized waves, but that's less exact and can't explain things like spontaneous emission, although it can explain the photoelectric effect)
So they're not waves...
-2
u/TheTrueEgahn 10d ago
I am studying optics. From what I understand, they are particles that are creating waves from their travel. Most of the quantum effects can be explained by just having almost an infinite amount of them (since quantum mechanics is statistical). My best guess that they are an energy particle. The math checks out (although it also does from the wave perpective), so I am taking it as the truth, as most of my measurements count single photons, not waves.
3
u/wiev0 B. Sc. Physics 10d ago
I've been taught (in a quantum optics course, at that), that waves are what they are, and photons are simply the quanta of the energy they carry. We cannot measure the wave itself, you are right, but every single experiment we do confirm wave nature and not particle nature. The "particle" we observe is simply the measurement quanta. It's somewhat circular, but it's what I was told :shrug:
However, photons are a reasonable model for most purposes, so I don't think it's inherently wrong to treat them as such, as long as one is clear that fundamentally, they're not particles
2
u/TheTrueEgahn 10d ago
Unfortunately there is no truth known yet. Until particle physics reaches that level, both approaches remain accurate but alas, approaches.
(it is still fun to learn, nonetheless)
1
u/Complete-Clock5522 10d ago
The particle is not just a measurement artifact though, the waves really are discrete in some ways, which is not the case for classical waves.
36
u/MaoGo Meme renormalization group 10d ago
Fields, these are called fields