Photon Size: Direction & Probability

[Anonym]

NO NO NO NO.

What no, no, no, no? How do you explain that the result obtained by jtbell is k=1.15 and not k=100 or k=0.01?

Regards, Dany.

P.S. Don’t worry. You are not required to get passing grade, maximum, you will have second chance.

 

[Proof.Beh]

So the electron has no size but the photon has ? I really don't get why you think this is the case. How does this size determining method work ? I tried to reread your previous posts but i did not find a valid explanation. I guess this method does not work according to the stuff you wrote in the volume of the region in which you can find a photon.

marlon

Because you did not reason for your allegation about rejection of the photon's size existence that it has been logical.

Thanks.
Mr Beh

 

[ZapperZ]

Before people continue with all of this, please take note that (i) the Particle Data Group has at least http://pdg.lbl.gov/1998/consrppbook.pdf" and (ii) nothing on the "size" of a photon for any given frequency.

There is a clear definition on what is MEANT by the "size of an electron". One only need to look this up to know how such a thing is defined. Now, can you find me a similar reputable source on how the size of a photon is defined? I don't mean something that YOU made up yourself. I mean go look either in PDG, or the CRC Handbook, or the CODATA latest edition. Please find the exact definition on the size of a photon. Note that I didn't ask you to find me a value, because unlike the definition of the electron classical radius, a photon's property, such as its energy, can vary with frequency, etc. All I asked was for you to find a legitimate source such as the one I had provided, and show me how those sources define the size of a photon.

While this may not be simple, it is a straightforward task and will go a long way in deciding this never-ending question. Why? Because it will establish in the clearest fashion on whether the standard, current, accepted physics that we know of has such a definition. All everyone has done is make a guess work that it could be this, or it could be that. Why not establish once and for all if we DO have such a definition, as clear as the definition for the electron?

So find me one, and please make an exact citation to the source.

Zz.

 

[Proof.Beh]

Before people continue with all of this, please take note that (i) the Particle Data Group has at least http://pdg.lbl.gov/1998/consrppbook.pdf" and (ii) nothing on the "size" of a photon for any given frequency.

There is a clear definition on what is MEANT by the "size of an electron". One only need to look this up to know how such a thing is defined. Now, can you find me a similar reputable source on how the size of a photon is defined? I don't mean something that YOU made up yourself. I mean go look either in PDG, or the CRC Handbook, or the CODATA latest edition. Please find the exact definition on the size of a photon. Note that I didn't ask you to find me a value, because unlike the definition of the electron classical radius, a photon's property, such as its energy, can vary with frequency, etc. All I asked was for you to find a legitimate source such as the one I had provided, and show me how those sources define the size of a photon.

While this may not be simple, it is a straightforward task and will go a long way in deciding this never-ending question. Why? Because it will establish in the clearest fashion on whether the standard, current, accepted physics that we know of has such a definition. All everyone has done is make a guess work that it could be this, or it could be that. Why not establish once and for all if we DO have such a definition, as clear as the definition for the electron?

So find me one, and please make an exact citation to the source.

Zz.

In today era, we must difine the photon's size discussion: because we haven't a sufficent technology (there are also our mathematical and theoretical concepts without existence the legitimate books etc.) to prove that does its spatial coordinates exist or not, like the many open problems and undetected things in the universe, then we had to say that there are neither can not answer or answer according to own informations. (If you claim to prove your belief about this issue, you can explain it).

Thanks.
Mr Beh

 

[ZapperZ]

In today era, we must difine the photon's size discussion: because we haven't a sufficent technology (there are also our mathematical and theoretical concepts without existence the legitimate books etc.) to prove that does its spatial coordinates exist or not, like the many open problems and undetected things in the universe, then we had to say that there are neither can not answer or answer according to own informations. (If you claim to prove your belief about this issue, you can explain it).

Thanks.
Mr Beh

In other words, you are making SPECULATIONS with nothing to support your claim.

Let me point to you the PF Guidelines and IR forum.

At the very least, you are admitting that nothing in legitimate physics has anything to back your claim. Now, anyone else up to the challenge?

Zz.

 

[Shahin]

What no, no, no, no? How do you explain that the result obtained by jtbell is k=1.15 and not k=100 or k=0.01?

Regards, Dany.

P.S. Don’t worry. You are not required to get passing grade, maximum, you will have second chance.

I have explained the question in my last post. Read carefully:

I think it is my fault because i didnt explain myself propely. Obviously, what i was meaning writting |psi|^2 was the density of probability, different in each case. So for the hydrogen atom you have to take r^2|psi|^2 and then you can do the analysis correctly, getting a different result. Anyway, I HAVE NEVER SAID that we can size the electron using this method, because, of course the electron has no size. I have just mentioned it as an idea about how to know the size of a photon.

 

[Shahin]

So the electron has no size but the photon has ? I really don't get why you think this is the case. How does this size determining method work ? I tried to reread your previous posts but i did not find a valid explanation. I guess this method does not work according to the stuff you wrote in the volume of the region in which you can find a photon.

marlon

I think the photon has no size. It was only an idea of how to asign a number called "volume" to a photon, if it would be possible.

 

[Anonym]

Before people continue with all of this, please take note that (i) the Particle Data Group has at least one value for the size of an electron and (ii) nothing on the "size" of a photon for any given frequency.

Before people continue with all of this, please take note that the Particle Data Group (Rozenfeld Tables) contains the addition 300 pages. Following your attitude (I can’t call it logic) there are no such notions and data like electron life time, proton life time, photon life time, etc. Moreover, the neutron, all other fundamental fermions and bosons do not exist.

In addition, notice that presented value for the “size” of an electron (classical electron radius) is of order 10^(-15)m whereas the electron Compton wavelength is of order 10^(-13)m and that means that here you have no idea what you are talking about. The classical electron radius is the definition of the range of validity of CED and has nothing to do with the “size” of the electron. Indeed, the range of validity of QED begins at least two orders of magnitude before.

Please find the exact definition on the size of a photon. Note that I didn't ask you to find me a value, because unlike the definition of the electron classical radius, a photon's property, such as its energy, can vary with frequency, etc. All I asked was for you to find a legitimate source such as the one I had provided, and show me how those sources define the size of a photon.

“The size of a photon” is jargon used in PF. The professional term is “the coherence length”. The legitimate source is:

L. Mandel and E. Wolf, “Optical coherence and quantum optics”, Cambridge Univ. Press, (1995).

The only way to know how this source defines the “size of a photon” is (as usual) to read it. In my opinion, it is impossible to understand the behaviour of the elementary particles (High Energy Physics) without reading that book. In contrast with the low energy physics at high energy scale all fundamental fermions and bosons are pointlike.

In other words, you are making SPECULATIONS with nothing to support your claim.

Let me point to you the PF Guidelines and IR forum.

At the very least, you are admitting that nothing in legitimate physics has anything to back your claim.

In that very special case, I have no comment.

Now, anyone else up to the challenge?

If you are interesting, I will prepare post describing how quantum physics historically emerged starting from M.Faraday discovery of the charge quantization and the problems emerged in thermodynamics and statmech as earlier as 1850. That will include the explanation of the physical content of A.Einstein Ph.D. thesis where the first time the “size” of the atom was calculated. And indeed the wave-particle duality. It may be good for kids like Shahin. Please, let me know, since I am lazy.

Regards, Dany.

 

[Cthugha]

“The size of a photon” is jargon used in PF. The professional term is “the coherence length”. The legitimate source is:

L. Mandel and E. Wolf, “Optical coherence and quantum optics”, Cambridge Univ. Press, (1995).

The coherence length (or coherence time) is not a measure for the size of a photon, but just a measure of how long phase information is predictable in a wavetrain and amplitude and phase correlations exist.
According to your definition, laser light would be several orders of magnitude "larger" than sunlight. That does not sound appropriate to me as the longer coherence time and length concerning lasers is a consequence of the different process of photon creation.

 

[Anonym]

I have explained the question in my last post. Read carefully:

I think it is my fault because i didnt explain myself propely. Obviously, what i was meaning writting |psi|^2 was the density of probability, different in each case. So for the hydrogen atom you have to take r^2|psi|^2 and then you can do the analysis correctly, getting a different result. Anyway, I HAVE NEVER SAID that we can size the electron using this method, because, of course the electron has no size. I have just mentioned it as an idea about how to know the size of a photon.

I know to read and I do not need your explanations yet. However, you did not understand what I wrote in post #24. Now you apparently wrote the same. You may compare in order to see that (you can’t understand only the second sentence; the content will be clear after I will publish the expected results).

Lack of the experience prevent your understanding of the physical content of jtbell beautiful demonstration that the suggestion is correct. You may understand much more reading Hans de Vries, post# 84 in “Very simple QFT questions”.

Regards, Dany.

 

[Proof.Beh]

In other words, you are making SPECULATIONS with nothing to support your claim.

Let me point to you the PF Guidelines and IR forum.
At the very least, you are admitting that nothing in legitimate physics has anything to back your claim. Now, anyone else up to the challenge?

Zz.

Now you have not an idea "by helping a legitimate source" and also because of all own, scientific and experimental statements absence, I don't see a safe reason to argue with you and persons similar you.

It is a very common oration in PF. According to above point, you must reffer to it.

But,

1- By using the energy packet concept for a photon, we can not violate existence size of a photon. Since this packet has spatial coordinates.(x,y,z). We have also at speed discussion "DIFFERENTIATION " of any spatial coordinate, therefor energy of photon ($$h\frac{c}{\lambda}$$) is dependent to these coordinates. Now if we delete them from structure of space - time (there are no dimansions except time), then the energy packet concept ,also, will vanish.

2- We can not assume that a photon is just a point. Because at initial time of
emiting photons from a source, there is a requirement that the source emits infinity number of these points. Of course it is a unreal imagination.

3- In double-slit experiment, if the diagonal of each slit will constrict, then the number of photons that is crossing from slits, will reduce. It occurs because of that these energy packets have volume and accumulation photons is a factor for justification that.

L. Mandel and E. Wolf, “Optical coherence and quantum optics”, Cambridge Univ. Press, (1995).[\QUOTE]

Thank you very much "Anonym" for introdiucing this valid source. I'll read it surely.

Thanks.
Mr Beh

 

[ZapperZ]

Before people continue with all of this, please take note that the Particle Data Group (Rozenfeld Tables) contains the addition 300 pages. Following your attitude (I can’t call it logic) there are no such notions and data like electron life time, proton life time, photon life time, etc. Moreover, the neutron, all other fundamental fermions and bosons do not exist.

They don't? Here's part of the PDG.

http://pdg.lbl.gov/2007/listings/lxxx.html

In addition, notice that presented value for the “size” of an electron (classical electron radius) is of order 10^(-15)m whereas the electron Compton wavelength is of order 10^(-13)m and that means that here you have no idea what you are talking about. The classical electron radius is the definition of the range of validity of CED and has nothing to do with the “size” of the electron. Indeed, the range of validity of QED begins at least two orders of magnitude before.

AT LEAST, there's SOME definition of the size of an electron, whether it is useful or not! There's nothing even approaching this for a photon, yet you seem to insist that such a thing is valid! If we use your logic, then there is even less of a ground to talk about such a thing.

“The size of a photon” is jargon used in PF. The professional term is “the coherence length”. The legitimate source is:

L. Mandel and E. Wolf, “Optical coherence and quantum optics”, Cambridge Univ. Press, (1995).

And as someone else has pointed out, one can easily argue that this is not necessarily be the size of anything. Besides, if we want to talk about the coherence length, then talk about the coherence length! This is different, and at the very least, has SOME definition associated with it. I am fully aware of what a "coherence length is" I also will ask you if you seriously think that people who ask about the size of a photon would in fact know what a "coherence length" is, and even know why you think this is what they mean!

The only way to know how this source defines the “size of a photon” is (as usual) to read it. In my opinion, it is impossible to understand the behaviour of the elementary particles (High Energy Physics) without reading that book. In contrast with the low energy physics at high energy scale all fundamental fermions and bosons are pointlike.

Again, you missed the point of this exercise. I didn't ask for arguments legitimizing such a concept. Issues such as size of a photon, size of an electron, etc... etc... are very, very seldom an issue in real physics. Only people like Proof.Beh and others seem to think that these are "important" concepts that have any meaning. They don't. An overwhelming number of physics papers do not deal nor care about these. even in elementary/particle physics. Therefore, I asked for, from standard references, if there is such a definition for any of these things that people seem to want to talk about in this thread. That's it! I didn't ask for values, or even arguments for the relevance or importance of such things. I asked for some sort of a definition that at least is on the books that people can actually agree on. PDG and others have provided at least some definition of the electron classical radius. One can buy that or not, but at least, there is a CLEAR definition of one. I work with electrons and even when we treat these as classical particles, I do not recall needing to consider its "size" beyond the point-particle approximation. So I asked for something similar for the size of a photon! Why? People argue back and forth if it exist or not, or if there's such a definition. So I asked for a legitimate source in which there IS a definition of the size of a photon! Use that as the "ground state" to work on if there is one. If we ALL can agree that the "coherence length" is the definition of the size of a photon, then FINE! But then people who have the illusion that this is your classical idea of "size" will have to abandon all hope. You also will have to qualify the discussion by saying that this isn't a universally accepted definition of the size of a photon, because none of the standard references indicates the size of a photon as the coherence length.

Note that sources like the CODATA reference not only tell you the values of various fundamental constants, they also tell you how these values are defined, and what techniques were used to obtain these values. This is what I asked for. I take it that since you have to resort to redefining what is meant by the size of a photon, that none of these standard references have ANY indication of having a definition of the size of a photon. So kids, if this is true, then you need to ask yourself why, in all of these fat reference books, is there no such definition of the size of a photon? Is it because (i) physicists are too dumb to know what it is; (ii) they haven't discovered it yet or (iii) there is no such definition and the concept is meaningless?

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

Now you have not an idea "by helping a legitimate source" and also because of all own, scientific and experimental statements absence, I don't see a safe reason to argue with you and persons similar you.

It is a very common oration in PF. According to above point, you must reffer to it.

I have no idea what you just said here. Could you use a different and better translator?

But,

1- By using the energy packet concept for a photon, we can not violate existence size of a photon. Since this packet has spatial coordinates.(x,y,z). We have also at speed discussion "DIFFERENTIATION " of any spatial coordinate, therefor energy of photon ($$h\frac{c}{\lambda}$$) is dependent to these coordinates. Now if we delete them from structure of space - time (there are no dimansions except time), then the energy packet concept ,also, will vanish.

Can you give me a citation on something legitimate beyond your guess work that actually equate the "energy packet" as being the physical photon size? I know what an wave packet is, so don't spend any effort teaching me what it is, nor is this a new argument. I just want you to point to me a source that has made the argument that "wave packet" = "photon size".

And note that if you actually believe this, this is NOT the "coherence length". so now, in this thread, the people who are arguing that the concept of a photon size is valid have two separate and different definitions for the size of a photon. Why? Because there's no accepted concept from legitimate sources and so people seem to think they can define it anyway they please from whatever concepts that are already floating out there.

May I suggest that you two fight it out amongst yourselves? I can't be expected to argue against such a concept when I have two different definitions to argue against. Whoever comes out on top, give me a call and then we'll talk.

Zz.

 

[marlon]

I think the photon has no size. It was only an idea of how to asign a number called "volume" to a photon, if it would be possible.

Clearly saying that a photon has no size and then trying to assign a volume to it is a contradictio in terminis. Again, you are speculating here and your speculations are based upon an incorrect interpretation of the mathematical formalism of basic QM (i.e. the example you gave a few posts back to which jtbell responded) !

Because you did not reason for your allegation about rejection of the photon's size existence that it has been logical.

Thanks.
Mr Beh

I clearly explained why a photon has no size (like a car has), you cannot pull that trick on me. But anyways, i want to ask you to answer to MY questions, please. What's the formula for calculating the photon's size ? Can you refer me to e textbook, paper, etc where this stuff is explained ?

You DO know that speculation does not go unpunished in this forum ? LUCKILY !

1- By using the energy packet concept for a photon, we can not violate existence size of a photon. Since this packet has spatial coordinates.(x,y,z). We have also at speed discussion "DIFFERENTIATION " of any spatial coordinate, therefor energy of photon ($$h\frac{c}{\lambda}$$) is dependent to these coordinates. Now if we delete them from structure of space - time (there are no dimansions except time), then the energy packet concept ,also, will vanish.

The PROPAGATION through space (NOT space time continuum, which is a general relativity thingy not a QM thingy !) of the energy packet indeed requires varying spatial coordinates. But again, i explained to you that we cannot talk about any path between source and detector unless we would measure it. But measuring changes the photon's wavefunction ! I URGE you to reread the double slit experiment and try figuring out why it is USELESS to be talking about a photon's trajectory in terms of x,y and z. Again, please refer me to a textbook that gives me an equation of this path in terms of x,y, and z. Besides, all of this deals with the trajectory, not the actual photon size. You argue that the energy packet "depends" on x,y and z (whatever that means). Well, it's spatial position DOES because it propagates through space. BUT THAT IS ALL YOU CAN SAY ! Based upon this, what POSSIBLE claims can you make on the photons structure ? What equations describe that size/structure.

Please, answer to THOSE questions which i already asked you THREE times !

Thanks

marlon

 

[Anonym]

They don't? Here's part of the PDG.

http://pdg.lbl.gov/2007/listings/lxxx.html

Zz, come on! You are very experienced manipulator and you even can’t imagine how I enjoy reading your posts!

AT LEAST, there's SOME definition of the size of an electron, whether it is useful or not!

To the best of my knowledge, that question (definition) and it possible connection with the advanced and retarded solutions of Maxwell eqs. was the content of R.P. Feynman Ph.D. study. The obtained results allowed him as continuation of the research to formulate QED.

There's nothing even approaching this for a photon, yet you seem to insist that such a thing is valid!

As I explained in my post #22, the size of photon may be measured macroscopically by defining the diameter of the black body box.

Understanding of that point allowed to M. Planck and A. Einstein to start formulation of the Quantum Theory.

Later L. de Broglie demonstrated in his Ph.D. thesis that the same approach valid for the massive fields in general and for the electron in particular. That allowed to E.Schrödinger, W. Heisenberg and P.A.M. Dirac to complete the non-relativistic version of the Quantum Theory.

I also will ask you if you seriously think that people who ask about the size of a photon would in fact know what a "coherence length" is, and even know why you think this is what they mean!

No. It is not my attitude here in QP of PF. I present here the superorthodox approach to the QT. What I say is written in every standard textbook on QT, except the M.Born statistical interpretation of QM. Only with respect to this point there is no general consensus inspite that there exist tons of experimental results that demonstrates that M.Born is wrong and E.Schrödinger and A. Einstein are right.

However, I do not believe that the QT may be studied through the Internet Forums, Wiki-Piki or Gogol-Mogol. I try to present the POV such that it will lead certain kids to go to the literature and to try understanding what is written there.

So kids, if this is true, then you need to ask yourself why, in all of these fat reference books, is there no such definition of the size of a photon? Is it because (i) physicists are too dumb to know what it is; (ii) they haven't discovered it yet or (iii) there is no such definition and the concept is meaningless?

It is because the connection between the Quantum World and the Classical World is not fully established and fully understood yet. It is the Measurement Theory and the Measurement Problem (Schrödinger’s Cat: collapse of wave packet) all about.

I work with electrons and even when we treat these as classical particles, I do not recall needing to consider its "size" beyond the point-particle approximation… If we ALL can agree that the "coherence length" is the definition of the size of a photon (and electron), then FINE!

I have no professional knowledge in details of the Particle Accelerators. You are the expert. I asked you question about the Inverse Schrödinger’s Cat. I need your help to know whether I am wrong or not. Please, answer my question (HUP and Particle Accelerators).

Regards, Dany.

P.S.

Use that as the "ground state" to work on if there is one.

Fine! I am the one that provided the ultimate prediction that the proton is the QM ground state of three bounded quarks. It is the obvious result of my Ph.D. study entitled “Quantum Mechanics of Non-Abelian Waves”.

 

[Proof.Beh]

Can you give me a citation on something legitimate beyond your guess work that actually equate the "energy packet" as being the physical photon size? I know what an wave packet is, so don't spend any effort teaching me what it is, nor is this a new argument. I just want you to point to me a source that has made the argument that "wave packet" = "photon size".

Note that I did not say that wave packet is equal to photon size. I replyed to marlon's statements for his justification about linking the photon size to energy packet of a photon. In addition, if we explain a photon structure in model of the "energy packet" Or a quanta then a photon size (if guess that it is, really) reduces to same packet. Also if a photon has created by combination an electron and a positron that they have spatial coordinates, please you discuss an example similar to processing production a photon that the its product has been a thing without no size!

 

[marlon]

I replyed to marlon's statements for his justification about linking the photon size to energy packet of a photon.

What are you talking about ? What do you mean by "linking the photon size to energy packet of a photon" ? I ALWAYS stated that a photon has NO size so why on Earth would i "link" that concept to something else ?


PS : Don't forget to answer my questions, please.

marlon

 

[lightarrow]

Clearly saying that a photon has no size and then trying to assign a volume to it is a contradictio in terminis. Again, you are speculating here and your speculations are based upon an incorrect interpretation of the mathematical formalism of basic QM (i.e. the example you gave a few posts back to which jtbell responded) !

The PROPAGATION through space (NOT space time continuum, which is a general relativity thingy not a QM thingy !) of the energy packet indeed requires varying spatial coordinates. But again, i explained to you that we cannot talk about any path between source and detector unless we would measure it. But measuring changes the photon's wavefunction ! I URGE you to reread the double slit experiment and try figuring out why it is USELESS to be talking about a photon's trajectory in terms of x,y and z. Again, please refer me to a textbook that gives me an equation of this path in terms of x,y, and z. Besides, all of this deals with the trajectory, not the actual photon size. You argue that the energy packet "depends" on x,y and z (whatever that means). Well, it's spatial position DOES because it propagates through space. BUT THAT IS ALL YOU CAN SAY ! Based upon this, what POSSIBLE claims can you make on the photons structure ? What equations describe that size/structure.

If a photon has no size, and it's useless to be talking about a photon's trajectory in terms of x,y and z, then, where is the photon? (Excepting in the detector?)
P.S. Notice that I'm not claiming that photon has size.

 

[marlon]

it's useless to be talking about a photon's trajectory in terms of x,y and z, then, where is the photon? (Excepting in the detector?)

WE DON'T KNOW !

Only when you measure with the detector, you will observe the photon indirectly !
Think of what the double slit experiment teaches us.

marlon

 

[lightarrow]

WE DON'T KNOW !

Only when you measure with the detector, you will observe the photon indirectly !
Think of what the double slit experiment teaches us.
marlon

What do you mean with "you will observe the photon indirectly"? Is there a way to "observe it directly"?

 

[Proof.Beh]

And note that if you actually believe this, this is NOT the "coherence length". so now, in this thread, the people who are arguing that the concept of a photon size is valid have two separate and different definitions for the size of a photon. Why? Because there's no accepted concept from legitimate sources and so people seem to think they can define it anyway they please from whatever concepts that are already floating out there.

Zz.

LoL. So again, I remember that there are no unique definition for describing existence of a photon size like that I said in my post #40. Therefor we don't derive a good CONCLUSION. Since we argue with our own knowladges. Also ,ZZ, you confess that you haven't a legitimate source to prove your claim that it is neither existence of photon size or rejection of it.

Again, please refer me to a textbook that gives me an equation of this path in terms of x,y, and z. Besides, all of this deals with the trajectory, not the actual photon size. You argue that the energy packet "depends" on x,y and z (whatever that means). Well, it's spatial position DOES because it propagates through space. BUT THAT IS ALL YOU CAN SAY ! Based upon this, what POSSIBLE claims can you make on the photons structure ?

Dear marlon, we argue with our own informations. Because in nowheres, don't see a good answer for existence of photon size. There are no safe textbook for advocacy our claims about this subject. But if you have a legitimate source that shows a photon has no size, please introduce it. Perhaps derive a good and logical solution. Also, the x, y and z dimansions create the structure of space. Thus again, if they delete, there is no space that photon
propagates through in it. Can you live at home that it has not SUBSTRUCTION?

Thanks.
Mr Beh

 

[marlon]

What do you mean with "you will observe the photon indirectly"? Is there a way to "observe it directly"?

I mean that whenever we "observe" a photon or an electron, we observe the result of the interaction of that photon/electron with the apparatus (for example emitted EM radiation etc etc).

marlon

 

[lightarrow]

I mean that whenever we "observe" a photon or an electron, we observe the result of the interaction of that photon/electron with the apparatus (for example emitted EM radiation etc etc).

marlon

Yes, and, of course, the same is true for every other measure we make in physics. Do you agree?

 

[marlon]

There are no safe textbook for advocacy our claims about this subject.

Don't twist things around. I asked you for a definition or equation that describes the photon trajectory and size. Why won't you just give me that information ? Why o why ?

But if you have a legitimate source that shows a photon has no size, please introduce it.

1) How about the notion that a photon, electron, etc are DEFINED as point particles in quantummechanics ? Check any QM book on that.

2) How about the fact that the concept of size is NEVER used in the formalism of QM. Check any QM on that.

Also, the x, y and z dimansions create the structure of space. Thus again, if they delete, there is no space that photon
propagates through in it.

Huh ? Come again ? When did i ever say that the x,y and z coordinates "are deleted" (whatever that mean be). I ALWAYS stated that photons propagate through space !

Can you live at home that it has not SUBSTRUCTION?

Thanks.
Mr Beh

That's the point. A home is described by classical physcs while a photon is described by QM. QM is fundamentally DIFFERENT in nature and this is the aspect from which you misinterpretations originate. Don't worry, we have seen this happening tons of times on this forum. Just learn from what you read and pick up an intro QM book to get you on your way.

GOOD LUCK

Bye

marlon

 

[marlon]

Yes, and, of course, the same is true for every other measure we make in physics. Do you agree?

The observation of ANY phenomenon at the atomic scale follows this procedure, YES. Otherwise, the HUP would be violated. But how is all of this related to the "topic of discussion in this thread" ?


marlon

 

[lightarrow]

The observation of ANY phenomenon at the atomic scale follows this procedure, YES. Otherwise, the HUP would be violated. But how is all of this related to the "topic of discussion in this thread" ?

Because of what you wrote about "indirect observation" of a photon. I think there is only a "direct observation" in that case. So, since answering to my question "where is then the photon?" you wrote that "Only when you measure with the detector, you will observe the photon indirectly", I deduce the photon doesn't exist before the measure.

 

[Proof.Beh]

I mean that whenever we "observe" a photon or an electron, we observe the result of the interaction of that photon/electron with the apparatus (for example emitted EM radiation etc etc).

marlon

Yes, I agree with you. But the reality may rejects your claim. Of course it satisfys me.

Thanks.
Mr Beh

 

[marlon]

Because of what you wrote about "indirect observation" of a photon. I think there is only a "direct observation" in that case. So, since answering to my question "where is then the photon?" you wrote that "Only when you measure with the detector, you will observe the photon indirectly", I deduce the photon doesn't exist before the measure.

That deduction is incorrect, obviously. We know "there is a photon" but we have no information on its position prior to ANY measurement.

I am glad we cleared that out.

regards
marlon

 

[ZapperZ]

Zz, come on! You are very experienced manipulator and you even can’t imagine how I enjoy reading your posts!



To the best of my knowledge, that question (definition) and it possible connection with the advanced and retarded solutions of Maxwell eqs. was the content of R.P. Feynman Ph.D. study. The obtained results allowed him as continuation of the research to formulate QED.



As I explained in my post #22, the size of photon may be measured macroscopically by defining the diameter of the black body box.

Understanding of that point allowed to M. Planck and A. Einstein to start formulation of the Quantum Theory.

Later L. de Broglie demonstrated in his Ph.D. thesis that the same approach valid for the massive fields in general and for the electron in particular. That allowed to E.Schrödinger, W. Heisenberg and P.A.M. Dirac to complete the non-relativistic version of the Quantum Theory.



No. It is not my attitude here in QP of PF. I present here the superorthodox approach to the QT. What I say is written in every standard textbook on QT, except the M.Born statistical interpretation of QM. Only with respect to this point there is no general consensus inspite that there exist tons of experimental results that demonstrates that M.Born is wrong and E.Schrödinger and A. Einstein are right.

However, I do not believe that the QT may be studied through the Internet Forums, Wiki-Piki or Gogol-Mogol. I try to present the POV such that it will lead certain kids to go to the literature and to try understanding what is written there.



It is because the connection between the Quantum World and the Classical World is not fully established and fully understood yet. It is the Measurement Theory and the Measurement Problem (Schrödinger’s Cat: collapse of wave packet) all about.



I have no professional knowledge in details of the Particle Accelerators. You are the expert. I asked you question about the Inverse Schrödinger’s Cat. I need your help to know whether I am wrong or not. Please, answer my question (HUP and Particle Accelerators).

Regards, Dany.

P.S.

Fine! I am the one that provided the ultimate prediction that the proton is the QM ground state of three bounded quarks. It is the obvious result of my Ph.D. study entitled “Quantum Mechanics of Non-Abelian Waves”.

Honestly, I have no idea where this is going, or why protons and quarks would even come in here.

All I asked for is for the REFERENCE source for the size of a photon. So far, you haven't come up with it, and neither has Proof.Beh. Notice that *I* did no such claim (contrary to the problem that Proof.Beh has in reading what I wrote) to photons having ANY kind of size. All I asked for is, at the level where things ARE accepted, is there a definition for the size of a photon. That's it, nothing more, nothing less.

Not surprisingly, something as simple as that has been clouded over with tons of red herrings. So in case this isn't clear, let me reemphasize it again, especially for those who are trying to get some resemblance of a FACT out of this thread:

Standard references that physicists use have no definition for the "size of a photon", be it in terms of theoretical derivation such as those to arrive at the classical electron radius, or in terms of experimental measurement as that used to obtain values such as "e" and "h". Both the PDG and the CODATA handbooks have no such information.

Now, if one wants to go beyond that, fine. However, it is imperative that one first DEFINE it clearly, because it is obvious from what I just said that such a definition hasn't been established in the standard references. THIS is the point that I've been trying to get across! Not that photons are point particles, photons have the size of its "energy packets", photons have "coherence length", etc... etc.! For some odd reason, trying to get people to pin down the definition of what they're talking about somehow annoys the them! I don't get it.

Zz.

 

[marlon]

Yes, I agree with you. But the reality may rejects your claim. Of course it satisfys me.

Thanks.
Mr Beh

Look, i am willing to continue this thread but if you are going to start posting hollow meaningless messages based upon your personal speculation, i assure you that measures will be taken. You are violating PF Guidelines. As i have told you before, speculation will NOT be tolerated. You can say ANYTHING you want but you need to back it up with serious evidence.

I tried to ask you questions on several occasions but you refuse to answer them. All you do now is bumb into a discussion i have with someone else and say "Hey , haha, you see, I AM RIGHT". C'mon man, do you really think this kind of childish communication has ANY influence what so ever ?

Continue in a serious way or this thread will be locked down !

Bye

marlon

 

[lightarrow]

That deduction is incorrect, obviously. We know "there is a photon" but we have no information on its position prior to ANY measurement.

I am glad we cleared that out.

regards
marlon

We know by virtue of some *interpretation*, not because we can prove it.

 

[marlon]

We know by virtue of some *interpretation*, not because we can prove it.

Look, i am not sure where you are going with this. I mean what does this have to do with the topic of this thread (photon size) ?

All i said was that when the electron hits the detector, you are not observing the electron itself but you are observing the result of the interaction between electron-detector. That is all.

Now, let's go back to the topic at hand, ok ?

marlon

 

[ZapperZ]

LoL. So again, I remember that there are no unique definition for describing existence of a photon size like that I said in my post #40. Therefor we don't derive a good CONCLUSION. Since we argue with our own knowladges. Also ,ZZ, you confess that you haven't a legitimate source to prove your claim that it is neither existence of photon size or rejection of it.

You have problems with reading and comprehension.

I have made no rejection. ALL I said has been explained in my post before this. The only claim I made was the definition of the size of a photon isn't listed in any of the standard references for elementary particles. That's it! Your inability to understand that somehow twisted it around to mean something that only exists in your head. I suggest you re-read, using more than just one translator program that you are using, of what I originally said.

And you shouldn't be asking for "legitimate sources" yourself, because you haven't provided any for practically everything you claim. I have listed the sources that I used to back my claim above. Have you done the same thing?

Zz.

 

[Proof.Beh]

That deduction is incorrect, obviously. We know "there is a photon" but we have no information on its position prior to ANY measurement.

I am glad we cleared that out.

regards
marlon

Huh? What is your proposal about photon is there surely? You emphasized that if we assume that a photon has size, we must measure it. But in this case that a photon has no measurement property, then is it there?

Thanks.
Mr Beh

 

[marlon]

But in this case that a photon has no measurement property, then is it there?

Thanks.
Mr Beh

The photon has no measurement property ? What on Earth does THAT mean ?

Mr Beh, when are you going to answer to my questions i asked you in post nr 50 ?

marlon