Are Photons Real? New Study Challenges Assumptions

  • B
  • Thread starter log0
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Photons
In summary: He gave the definition of "real" he uses. Things that interact with other things are real. Photons do, so they are real.
  • #1
log0
35
0
Recently I've stumbled across a preprint in which the author describes a photon is a wave packet and even suggests a transverse extent.

I find it strange, as my understanding so far has been that a photon (and the EM field as such) is a construct used to model certain observed interactions between particles of matter.

Yes, I am assuming matter to be real, as something that interacts with each other. While force fields are mathematical models of those interactions.

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1706/1706.04475.pdf
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Why wouldn't light be real?
 
  • Like
Likes mattt and vanhees71
  • #3
log0 said:
Yes, I am assuming matter to be real, as something that interacts with each other. While force fields are mathematical models of those interactions.

But matter also interact with the force fields (eg. Compton scattering).
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #4
Many fields are real, among them the electromagnetic one. For me "real" means it's an observable entity of Nature, and indeed electromagnetic fields are observable. E.g., light and thus literally all we see is just a manifestation of the electromagnetic field. Another manifestation are the forces on objects you observe due to the presence of electrostatically charged bodies or the force between a permanent magnet and the door of your fridge etc. etc. In fact according to the most precise theory ever, the Standard Model of particle physics, all matter is also the manifestation of various (quantum) fields, and since you can observe this matter also these fields are "real".
 
  • #5
Are forces real? Or are they just a mathematical concept "invented" to model how we describe natural phenomena? :smile:
 
  • #6
What does it mean to be real? That's the Philosophy Department, two doors down. How do we know anything is real? How do we know we're not just brains in vats?

This is not physics. In physics, "just a model" is all you get.
 
  • Like
Likes jtbell, russ_watters, Dale and 5 others
  • #7
log0 said:
Recently I've stumbled across a preprint in which the author describes a photon is a wave packet and even suggests a transverse extent.

I find it strange, as my understanding so far has been that a photon (and the EM field as such) is a construct used to model certain observed interactions between particles of matter.

Yes, I am assuming matter to be real, as something that interacts with each other. While force fields are mathematical models of those interactions.

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1706/1706.04475.pdf
That paper looks very iffy.
 
  • #8
Vanadium 50 said:
What does it mean to be real? That's the Philosophy Department, two doors down. How do we know anything is real? How do we know we're not just brains in vats?

This is not physics. In physics, "just a model" is all you get.
Physics is an empirical science, and "real" in the sense of the natural sciences is what can be reproducibly and objectively observed. Models and theories are the way to organize the empirically found knowledge in an efficient way.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters and phinds
  • #9
He gave the definition of "real" he uses. Things that interact with other things are real. Photons do, so they are real.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters and mattt
  • #10
I don't think he did - he would seem to exclude a magnetic field as real. But in any event, this is not physics. It's just not something physics concerns itself with. Is a Lagrangian real? Are image charges real? Wavefunctions? This is a fast way to get tied up in knots. Unproductive knots.
 
  • Like
Likes phinds
  • #11
Vanadium 50 said:
I don't think he did - he would seem to exclude a magnetic field as real.
He would but he shouldn't. It is real.
Vanadium 50 said:
But in any event, this is not physics.
No, it is not. But that doesn't mean in it doesn't matter for physics. Mathematics is not physics but is usually not dismissed.
Vanadium 50 said:
It's just not something physics concerns itself with. Is a Lagrangian real? Are image charges real? Wavefunctions? This is a fast way to get tied up in knots. Unproductive knots.
These are not real. They are mathematical objects (dont know what the image charges are).
 
  • #12
martinbn said:
He gave the definition of "real" he uses. Things that interact with other things are real. Photons do, so they are real.
What if the object with which they interact is not "real"? This is a fundamentally circular definition whose utility eludes me. I guess it proves self -consistency which I think was the extent of @vanhees71 argument
 
  • Like
Likes malawi_glenn
  • #13
hutchphd said:
What if the object with which they interact is not "real"? This is a fundamentally circular definition whose utility eludes me. I guess it proves self -consistency which I think was the extent of @vanhees71 argument
By this definition it cannot be not real. If it interacts it is real. It is symmetric not circular.
 
  • #14
martinbn said:
By this definition it cannot be not real. If it interacts it is real. It is symmetric not circular.
This is foundationalism instead of coherentism..... but remember
Vanadium 50 said:
What does it mean to be real? That's the Philosophy Department, two doors down. How do we know anything is real? How do we know we're not just brains in vats?

This is not physics. In physics, "just a model" is all you get.
.
 
  • #15
DrClaude said:
That paper looks very iffy.
When a not so old paper uses ##h## rather than ##\hbar##, it's usually wrong. :wink:
 
  • Haha
Likes vanhees71, malawi_glenn, DrClaude and 1 other person
  • #17
Don't forget M. Williams, The Velveteen Rabbit.
 

FAQ: Are Photons Real? New Study Challenges Assumptions

What is the main claim of the new study challenging the reality of photons?

The new study suggests that what we perceive as photons may not be discrete particles but rather manifestations of underlying quantum fields. This challenges the conventional particle-like understanding of photons in quantum mechanics.

How does this study impact our current understanding of quantum mechanics?

If the study's claims are validated, it could lead to a significant paradigm shift in quantum mechanics, requiring a re-evaluation of many established theories and experiments that rely on the particle nature of photons.

What evidence does the study provide to support its claim?

The study presents experimental data and theoretical models that show inconsistencies with the particle model of photons. It uses advanced quantum field theory to explain phenomena traditionally attributed to photons in a new light.

How might this new understanding of photons affect technological applications like quantum computing and telecommunications?

Technological applications that rely on photon manipulation, such as quantum computing and telecommunications, might need to be re-engineered to align with the new understanding of photons as quantum field excitations rather than discrete particles.

What are the criticisms or counterarguments to this study?

Critics argue that the study's conclusions may be premature and that more experimental validation is needed. They also point out that the particle model of photons has been incredibly successful in explaining a wide range of phenomena, and any new theory must account for these successes.

Similar threads

A First Chip-to-Chip Quantum Teleportation
Replies
3
Views
1K
I Status and Prospects of PADME Run 3
Replies
10
Views
3K
B Explaining Galaxy Rotation Speed Discrepancies with GR & Gravitic Fields
Replies
22
Views
3K
I The standard model from loop quantum gravity via spinors octonions
Replies
26
Views
2K
I Deur Gravitational self-interaction Doesn't Explain Galaxy Rotation Curves
3
Replies
72
Views
8K
Entangled Photons with no shared Past
2
Replies
40
Views
7K
A Why isn't back-reaction receiving more study?
Replies
18
Views
4K
A The Exceptional Jordan Algebra in physics
Replies
3
Views
2K
I A novel explanation of CKM and PMNS matrix parameters
Replies
2
Views
568
I Exploring ΛCDM Model: Cosmology Intertwined in 4 Pre-Prints
Replies
1
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top