Photon Size: Direction & Probability

[Shahin]

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.

The "jtbell beautiful demonstration" is not correct because he uses |psi|^2 instead of r^2|psi|^2.

 

[Anonym]

All I asked for is for the REFERENCE source for the size of a photon.

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

if this is true, then you need to ask yourself why, in all of these fat reference books

If you don’t want to read it, nobody force you. Proof.Beh wants. In addition, your requirement is equivalent to the question: What is the size of one litre of water?

Regards, Dany.

P.S. Notice that Shahin insists on the QM definition: The "jtbell beautiful demonstration" is not correct because he uses |psi|^2 instead of r^2|psi|^2.Good morning, Shahin!

 

[Shahin]

P.S. Notice that Shahin insists on the QM definition: The "jtbell beautiful demonstration" is not correct because he uses |psi|^2 instead of r^2|psi|^2.Good morning, Shahin!

Yes, yes, i repeat it again for you:

The "jtbell beautiful demonstration" is not correct because he uses |psi|^2 instead of r^2|psi|^2

Read carefully, maybe this time you will understand the meaning of this phrase.

Good morning?...here it´s 19:20 hours...

 

[Anonym]

Yes, yes Good morning?...here it´s 19:20 hours...

NO NO NO NO. Don’t shoot him!

Good evening!

Regards, Dany.

 

[Cthugha]

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

I am quite sure, there is nothing about the size of photons in that book, but I do just have the 1973 version here at the moment. Could you please give me the page, chapter or an exact quotation of the passage you mean, so I can check, what you mean?

p.s.:
The "jtbell beautiful demonstration" is not correct because he uses |psi|^2 instead of r^2|psi|^2

I am afraid, this is going to become a running gag.

 

[ZapperZ]

L. Mandel and E. Wolf, “Optical coherence and quantum optics”, Cambridge Univ. Press, (1995).
If you don’t want to read it, nobody force you. Proof.Beh wants. In addition, your requirement is equivalent to the question: What is the size of one litre of water?

Oh, don't worry, I will read it, especially considering that if it is THAT well-established, how come NONE of the standard references use it.

And why is the requirement equivalent to that question? And why is there such hostility towards asking for something like this? And you wonder why I refuse to engage in the discussion in the other thread?

Zz.

 

[Anonym]

And you wonder why I refuse to engage in the discussion in the other thread?

Anonym: “What is the minimum charge of the bunch available?”

Anonym:” Zz, may you respect me also through your comment on “HUP and Particle Accelerators”?

I did not intent to engage you in the discussion since I am not qualified. In addition, I repeat: If you don’t want to answer, nobody forces you.

Regards, Dany.

 

[Proof.Beh]

I have listed the sources that I used to back my claim above.
Zz.

I wait to introduce your listed valid sources.

Thanks.
Mr Beh.

 

[ZapperZ]

I wait to introduce your listed valid sources.

Thanks.
Mr Beh.

Er... what did you think the PDG and CODATA handbooks are? If you notice, I cited the PDG handbook in my very first post in this thread. Did you not notice what it is?

I notice you still aren't able to list YOUR valid sources.

Zz.

 

[Proof.Beh]

Our valid references:

"About The Photon Physical Properties". Reissig, Sergej. American Physical Society, APS March Meeting, March 21-25, 2005.

"On the Average Volume per Photon in Blackbody Radiation". Sherwin, Chalmers W. University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois.

Thanks.
Mr Beh

 

[jtbell]

The "jtbell beautiful demonstration" is not correct because he uses |psi|^2 instead of r^2|psi|^2.

For a properly normalized wave function, $|\psi|^2$ is the probability per unit volume, whereas $r^2|\psi|^2$ basically gives you the probability per unit radius. I personally consider $|\psi|^2$ to be more appropriate in this context. Note that if we (hypothetically) have a $|\psi|^2$ which is uniform everywhere inside a sphere (that is, the particle is equally likely to be found anywhere inside the sphere), then $r^2|\psi|^2$ increases as $r^2$, to a maximum at the surface of the sphere.

Nevertheless, granting that you prefer $r^2|\psi|^2$, let's evaluate your criterion for the ground state of hydrogen. I haven't found a way to do it algebraically, so I simply made a graph of $r^2 e^{-2r/a_0}$. The maximum is at $r = a_0$. Going inwards, I reach 0.1 of this maximum at about $r = 0.013a_0$, and going outwards, I reach the same value at about $r = 3.4a_0$. That's a bigger range of r than my original calculation using $|\psi|^2$!

 

[Proof.Beh]

ZZ, why deleted my post #80? you insult many users in your posts and when we answer by dialect similar to your abusive dialect, you delete the our posts. I'm sorry really.

 

[Cthugha]

"About The Photon Physical Properties". Reissig, Sergej. American Physical Society, APS March Meeting, March 21-25, 2005.

Sergej Reissig is a guy, who claims stuff, which is not at all accepted in the physics community. As far as I know, he has no up to date peer reviewed publications to offer.

In "About the nature of the photon" he states, that his photon model consists of a photon, which rotates around some axis and has a mass of approximately 10^{-36}kg. The actual experimental lower bound of photon mass is somewhere arond 10^{-48}kg, if I remember correctly. So that theory seems to be plain wrong. As a consequence, this is not really a reference, which should be trusted.

 

[ZapperZ]

Our valid references:

"About The Photon Physical Properties". Reissig, Sergej. American Physical Society, APS March Meeting, March 21-25, 2005.

Er.. this is not a valid, legitimate reference. The APS March meeting, which *I* have presented at many times, is a "contributed" session in which anyone can present a talk if you register. No one cites this. There's no proceedings. You only get "abstract" at most. Please cite a peer-reviewed published citation on par with a standard reference (you do know what that is, don't you?)

"On the Average Volume per Photon in Blackbody Radiation". Sherwin, Chalmers W. University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois.

Er... what is this? You quoted a title, but gave no exact citation. Please look at a typical paper and see how the references are made.

You must also answer the question on why, if this is already "accepted", that it isn't part of the STANDARD references that physicists use!

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

ZZ, why deleted my post #80? you insult many users in your posts and when we answer by dialect similar to your abusive dialect, you delete the our posts. I'm sorry really.

Where did I do such a thing? If you believe that I have, please REPORT the post. I deleted your post because (i) it had no content relevant to this thread and (ii) its intention was simply to incite. Because your of issues with understanding what you read and what you wrote, I did not send you infraction points even though from my judgment, you violated our guidelines.

However, if you repeat this, you will be penalized for it.

Zz.

 

[Proof.Beh]

Er... what did you think the PDG and CODATA handbooks are? If you notice, I cited the PDG handbook in my very first post

I did not see that implys a photon has no size in there. If you mean that because there is no SUGGESTION to photon size we must accept that a photon has no size, you are wrong. Again, if you have a valid source that implys a photon structure (size etc.), please introduce it.

Where did I do such a thing? If you believe that I have, please REPORT the post. I deleted your post because (i) it had no content relevant to this thread and (ii) its intention was simply to incite. Because your of issues with understanding what you read and what you wrote, I did not send you infraction points even though from my judgment, you violated our guidelines.

But it related to this discussion that emphasized to argue with logical reasons and connected to valid sources statements. We (Anonym and me) introduced our sources though you did not confirm them.

Thanks.
Mr Beh

 

[ZapperZ]

I did not see that implys a photon has no size in there. If you mean that because there is no SUGGESTION to photon size we must accept that a photon has no size, you are wrong. Again, if you have a valid source that implys a photon structure (size etc.), please introduce it.

You have some problems here with understand what is going on. Here's another analogy of what is going on:

There is a difference between a set consisting of zero, i.e. {0}, and an EMPTY SET, i.e. {}.

The former means that the set consist of a value of zero. The latter means that there's nothing in it. Do you understand this?

Now, look at what I wrote IN THE VERY BEGINNING. I said that in the standard references (i.e. PDG book, CODATA, and CRD Handbook) there are NO DEFINITIONS, NO VALUES of something resembling the size of a photon. I made NO ASSERTION about the size of a photon. You did.

You have somehow confused my references to those sources as implying that *I* said that photons have no size. I will ask you to go read again, this time VERY carefully, what I have written, because I have said no such thing. I would never say such a thing because to me, that makes no sense.

You really need to read things more carefully, because you are getting all worked up for nothing, and chasing around things that don't exist. And I have presented my evidence. All you need to do is go get a copy of the PDG (available freely on the web), and prove me wrong by actually finding a definition of the size of a photon.

I also have a feeling that you are not aware of the significance and importance of the PDG handbook. Ask any particle/high energy physicist about it. You'll see for yourself.

But it related to this discussion that emphasized to argue with logical reasons and connected to valid sources statements. We (Anonym and me) introduced our sources though you did not confirm them.

Huh? And that is an "insult"? Your translator thingy isn't too accurate. Have you ever considered that?

You haven't introduced any. All you did was cite some dubious sources such as the APS march meeting (which you probably found by googling). APS March meeting are not valid references. How in the world are you able to know the content of the talk if you were there? You can't go by with the abstract because it isn't verified, and someone can easily change what they talk on when compared to the abstract. I know that *I* have done something like that that changes it slightly from the abstract that I submitted. Again, there's no proceedings to the March meetings. So you can't tell what was presented. Besides, no one use the March meeting as citations! So no, you haven't given any, and certainly not anywhere near the references sources of the caliber of PDG and CODATA.

Zz.

 

[Proof.Beh]

In [1] the formula for the determination of the photon force was received:|F|=hcλ^(-2) (1). The pressure of the photon can be calculated according to the following formula [1]: P=F/A (2). In [2] the effective area of the photon was defined: A=Pi.λ^2 (3). By using the Eq.(1) together with Eq.(2) and (3) the following equation can be derived: P=[hcλ^4]/Pi or
P=const.λ^(-4)=6.3230521pt;10-26.λ^(-4) (Pa) (4). The thermodynamic analysis has shown that the equation -P_h.V_h=kT can be used by describing of the photon thermodynamic condition in such form P_p.V_p=hf (5). The use of the Eq. (4) and (5) makes the calculation of the photon volume Vp possible: V_p=hf/P_p = Pi.λ^3 (6). The new equations (5,6) were proved with one theoretical procedure: -dE / dE dt . - dt=-d(PV)p / dE / dE dt. -dt=-d(PV)p dt. -dt=hf^2 (7). Finally, it is possible to calculate the density of the light particle: V_ρ=m=h/cλ. cλ or ρ=const.λ^(-4)=0.703534;10^(-42).λ-4 [kg/m^3 ] (8). With the Eq. (4) and (8) one other pressure equitation can be expressed: P=ρc^2 (9). The multiplying the left and right sides of this formula on V by using the Eq. (5) delivers the famous, well-known Einstein formula E=mc^2. [1] Determination of the Photon Force and Pressure.

Abstract of descriptive methods in "About The Photon Physical Properties".

Thanks.
Mr Beh

 

[Anonym]

I did not see that implys a photon has no size in there. If you mean that because there is no SUGGESTION to photon size we must accept that a photon has no size, you are wrong. Again, if you have a valid source that implys a photon structure (size etc.), please introduce it.

I consider your suggestion to connect the presence of some structure with the size (which I consider pure geometrical notion) very interesting and I think you are right. Notice that you defined it locally. I mean vacuum indeed (+ something sometimes) and it seems to me that Zz mean the same, but I have no idea how it related to PDG book.

Regards, Dany.

 

[Anonym]

And why is there such hostility towards asking for something like this?

There is no any hostility. It is a question from psychology and it is outside physics. I don’t know why posts of jtbell, Hans de Vries, dextercioby, etc cause me pleasure and there are others that I simply don’t read. I consider that irrelevant. However, the related notion of “eigenschaften” I consider interesting and important. By the way, I finished all necessary calculations (from my individual POV) three month ago and don’t understand why I don’t write paper. Again, that I consider irrelevant.

And why is the requirement equivalent to that question?

We already discussed that in “Particle-Wave duality and Hamilton-Jacobi equation“. Sorry, that I repeat:

Lightarrow:”I still don't know if and how would be possible to create a definition for an electron's size.”

You refuse to follow the standard rules of the scientific development. The notion of size was introduced by Egyptians, perhaps 7000 years ago. You take two points and stretch a cord. Then you ask what an angle is (firstly what is 90deg angle. It leads to the phenomenological result: 3^2+4^2=5^2 and to the corresponding theoretical generalization). It provides foundation for Euclidian geometry. That provides foundation for the mathematical formalism of metric spaces.
That provides foundation for Newtonian formalism. Later you introduce the communication problems. That provides the foundation of special and general relativity based on non-Euclidian geometry. And so on. In the non-relativistic QM it is well defined notion: the eigenvalues of the self-adjoint operator called dispersion of a position are measurable quantities. The mathematical formalism of relativistic QM is still open problem. You can discuss, but can’t require giving you definition of the size there. For sure, the answer to a question what is the size of an electron, quark or gluon a posteriori will be consistent with the Egyptians.

I consider anyone who deny that Don Kishot.

Regards, Dany.

 

[ZapperZ]

In [1] the formula for the determination of the photon force was received:|F|=hcλ^(-2) (1). The pressure of the photon can be calculated according to the following formula [1]: P=F/A (2). In [2] the effective area of the photon was defined: A=Pi.λ^2 (3). By using the Eq.(1) together with Eq.(2) and (3) the following equation can be derived: P=[hcλ^4]/Pi or
P=const.λ^(-4)=6.3230521pt;10-26.λ^(-4) (Pa) (4). The thermodynamic analysis has shown that the equation -P_h.V_h=kT can be used by describing of the photon thermodynamic condition in such form P_p.V_p=hf (5). The use of the Eq. (4) and (5) makes the calculation of the photon volume Vp possible: V_p=hf/P_p = Pi.λ^3 (6). The new equations (5,6) were proved with one theoretical procedure: -dE / dE dt . - dt=-d(PV)p / dE / dE dt. -dt=-d(PV)p dt. -dt=hf^2 (7). Finally, it is possible to calculate the density of the light particle: V_ρ=m=h/cλ. cλ or ρ=const.λ^(-4)=0.703534;10^(-42).λ-4 [kg/m^3 ] (8). With the Eq. (4) and (8) one other pressure equitation can be expressed: P=ρc^2 (9). The multiplying the left and right sides of this formula on V by using the Eq. (5) delivers the famous, well-known Einstein formula E=mc^2. [1] Determination of the Photon Force and Pressure.

Abstract of descriptive methods in "About The Photon Physical Properties".

Thanks.
Mr Beh

Please provide EXACT reference! This means (i) name of author (ii) name of journal (iii) volume number (iv) page number (v) date of publication. This is the MINIMUM set of information in making references to ANY journal publication. You haven't done that. It makes all this, including all those citation numbers meaningless. I mean, do you know what those numbers in brackets mean?

I've mentioned this SEVERAL times already. I don't know what else I can do to make you sit up and take notice of this. My guess is, you are not familiar with peer-reviewed publications, and are not aware of the citation format that are commonly used. Please be familiar with that quickly. It is getting exasperating trying to get information out of you.

You also haven't address the issue that if what you claim is so well-established, why isn't it listed as a definition in standard references such as the PDG book?

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

We already discussed that in “Particle-Wave duality and Hamilton-Jacobi equation“. Sorry, that I repeat:

Lightarrow:”I still don't know if and how would be possible to create a definition for an electron's size.”

You refuse to follow the standard rules of the scientific development. The notion of size was introduced by Egyptians, perhaps 7000 years ago. You take two points and stretch a cord. Then you ask what an angle is (firstly what is 90deg angle. It leads to the phenomenological result: 3^2+4^2=5^2 and to the corresponding theoretical generalization). It provides foundation for Euclidian geometry. That provides foundation for the mathematical formalism of metric spaces.
That provides foundation for Newtonian formalism. Later you introduce the communication problems. That provides the foundation of special and general relativity based on non-Euclidian geometry. And so on. In the non-relativistic QM it is well defined notion: the eigenvalues of the self-adjoint operator called dispersion of a position are measurable quantities. The mathematical formalism of relativistic QM is still open problem. You can discuss, but can’t require giving you definition of the size there. For sure, the answer to a question what is the size of an electron, quark or gluon a posteriori will be consistent with the Egyptians.

I consider anyone who deny that Don Kishot.

Regards, Dany.

I have no idea how this is even relevant here, and why something consistent with the Egyptians would even matter. I can think of many things that aren't consistent with the Egyptians.

And this issue isn't about the measurement of position, nor the spread of the position. This has nothing to do with the determination of a size. Each time an electron strikes a CCD, it makes a mark. Yet, no one in their right mind would use that mark to determine the 'size" of an electron, no matter how "accurate" the detector is.

Or do you think there is an operator that specifically measures the "size" of a particle?

This thread was going in every different directions and people seem to be pushing things in and out. I wanted to at least try to establish something based on what is known and what has been accepted. By my standard, something listed inside a well-known and well-accepted reference standard is a very good starting point. If experts who use such reference books use them, then I would say that is a very unambiguous endorsement. CODATA, PDG handbook, and even the CRC handbook are what I listed. Anyone dealing with the tons of data that have to be analyzed out of any particle collider WILL use the values listed out of the PDG book as part of the analysis. These are the most accepted definitions and values for any and all elementary particles. So if something is listed there, it is the BEST that we know of at this moment. So I wanted to first of all established, once and for all, whether at the level of the best of our knowledge, is there such a thing as the "size of a photon".

There isn't, and this is despite the barrage of responses. These standard references do not list a set of "values" for the size of a photon, or even make any attempt to lay down a definition for determining the size of a photon.

Now, take note that *I* did not say anything about the size of a photon. I could believe in anything about it, and it will still NOT change the FACT that these standard references say NOTHING about it, whether you and I like it or not! This is some simply, straightforward fact that I wish to establish once and for all.

When this fact is recognized, then at the very least, we can then proceed with the understanding that the issue of the "size of a photon" isn't well-established and isn't widely accepted, and certainly not something physicists either use, or need! One can then start looking for publications that that may hint, or even give methodology on the determining of such a concept. Doing this clarifies several important points, especially to those who are not well-versed in such a topic: (i) the size of a photon isn't part of standard physics and (ii) we are now looking for any indication of the possibility of defining one, and maybe actually extracting some rough values. This is certainly a clearer (and I believe, more ethical) way to proceed with this question, that has continuously pop up every so often. To throw around the concept of the size of a photon as if it is something obvious and well-accepted does not convey the true scenario as being practiced today.

It is why I asked for the PDG etc. sources as the starting point ("ground state"). I never insisted that any of you cannot establish (with appropriate references) in this thread the concept of the size of a photon. There are many areas of physics that are still being studied that are not well-established and well-accepted. I have talked about various candidate theories for high-Tc superconductors. None of these are part of the "standard references" for superconductivity. I always made sure that people who read my posts are aware that these are still NOT generally accepted or well-established. Yet, these have been published in respected peer-reviewed journals and thus, these theories are well-defined and CAN be discussed on here. For students and people who are not familiar with it, it puts the whole discussion into the proper perspective. Not doing that simply creates a whole lot of confusion, especially when there are several different versions of theories that can explain the phenomenon. This is exactly what is going on with this thread, where there are more than one way already that have been mentioned to define the size of a photon.

So unless someone disagrees with my assertion that the size of a photon isn't covered in standard reference sources, I will assume that this issue is done. From now on, all discussion on the size of a photon will proceed with that understanding.

Zz.

 

[Anonym]

So unless someone disagrees with my assertion that the size of a photon isn't covered in standard reference sources, I will assume that this issue is done.

Agrees or disagrees?

Zz, I get lost. I do not understand what you try to prove. PDG (updated) is on my table since I was high school student and HEP-TH is my home. HEP-TH overlooked what happens at the corner (with very strong light, S. Weinberg:”However, I always sympathize with the drunk. Because it is true. He doesn’t really know where he lost the quarter, but if he looks for it anywhere else but where the light is good, he is sure not going to find it.”) called Quantum Optics (A. Tonomura, A. Aspect, R.J.Glauber, A. Zeilinger, etc). That’s all.

You are inconsistent. Instead writing down a long essay about nothing, I would be fully satisfied reading several sentences what happens with charged bunches.

I completely agree that this threat is done.

Regards, Dany.

 

[ZapperZ]

Agrees or disagrees?

Zz, I get lost. I do not understand what you try to prove. PDG (updated) is on my table since I was high school student and HEP-TH is my home. HEP-TH overlooked what happens at the corner (with very strong light, S. Weinberg:”However, I always sympathize with the drunk. Because it is true. He doesn’t really know where he lost the quarter, but if he looks for it anywhere else but where the light is good, he is sure not going to find it.”) called Quantum Optics (A. Tonomura, A. Aspect, R.J.Glauber, A. Zeilinger, etc). That’s all.

You are inconsistent. Instead writing down a long essay about nothing, I would be fully satisfied reading several sentences what happens with charged bunches.

I completely agree that this threat is done.

Regards, Dany.

But see, this is how you CLOUD everything! You have done this before in the Accelerator thread, and you continue to do this here. Instead of answering it, you go about on some treatise on what it means and why you know what it is. I don't think you should be accusing me of saying nothing, because you are an expert at it!

I asked a very straightforward question. Is the size of a photon either defined, or listed, in the PDG Handbook, or ANY other standard references that physicists used?

Now, why is that not clear enough?

I also explained, several times, and certainly in the last post, on WHY I wanted to establish this FACT. I can't help it that this is not to your liking. All I care about is that people who are reading this can clearly establish the FACT that in terms of what we DO know and can agree upon based on these standard references, such information as the definition of the size of a photon, much less the actual value of the size, isn't there.

I've asked 3 high energy physicists in my division, 2 of them theorists, one experimentalist, and they all confirmed what I just said regarding the lack of info regarding photon size in PDG and other standard references. The experimentalist even asked why I would want to know such a thing ("What in the world in a "photon size"?" That was his question.). And this comes from someone who is part of the collaboration in building the ATLAS detector at CERN.

So the question is really quite simple, whether you realize it or not. It is you who tried to make it more than it is, and that isn't something I can do about or should be "blamed" for.

Zz.

 

[rewebster]

z--

just for my understanding, are YOU saying there is NOTHING with references ANYWHERE that suggests the 'size' of the photon?

 

[ZapperZ]

z--

just for my understanding, are YOU saying there is NOTHING with references ANYWHERE that suggests the 'size' of the photon?

No, I did not say that. I said that in standard references, there's no definition, nor is that any values given, for the size of a photon. I've asked several people, and I've asked on here for someone to point this out if I'm wrong. I listed standard references as the PDG Handbook, CRC Handbook (which is redundant in THIS case for elementary particles since they get their info from the PDG book), and CODATA standard. Remember, these are the sources of the MOST ACCURATE, and up-to-date parameters covering all elementary particles and fundamental constants.

I did not say that no peer-reviewed publications deal with the issue of the size of a photon. This appears to be something at least one person has misunderstood.

Zz.

 

[rewebster]

No, I did not say that. I said that in standard references, there's no definition, nor is that any values given, for the size of a photon. I've asked several people, and I've asked on here for someone to point this out if I'm wrong.
Zz.

isn't that kind of limiting?

 

[ZapperZ]

isn't that kind of limiting?

Yes, it is, at least for the purpose of establishing what we know and have accepted. For instance, if someone asked "what is the mass of a free proton", do you think we will have this kind of a debate? All someone needs to do is look up one of these standard references and that's that.

Now, we MAY debate on if such-and-such a discovery may change this mass value, and if those virtual strange quarks may add higher-order corrections to this, but those are part of the current research and still are not established and accepted. If they are, they'll be part of the standard references! However, at least for now, how the mass of a proton, and what is its value, are well defined.

I also did not say that this thread should be restricted ONLY to what we have in the standard references. That again is another misinterpretation of what I asked. In fact, I have said several times that since the definition isn't available in standard references, then to go on with the discussion, we need to know how people DEFINE what is meant by the size of a photon. This is where other acceptable sources other than the standard references should be brought in. We can then argue or discuss the merit of such definitions.

Again, the question isn't meant to limit the discussion. The question was meant to clarify the PERSPECTIVE as to the degree of certainty and acceptance with regards to what is being discussed. It is NOT obvious what the size of a photon is. It is NOT generally accepted that there is such a thing as the size of a photon. Is it still a topic of active research? Maybe, but that should be mentioned and should not be used as if it is a done deal. Such discussion on the size of a photon is certainly valid after establishing that foundation.

Zz.

 

[lightarrow]

No, I did not say that. I said that in standard references, there's no definition, nor is that any values given, for the size of a photon. I've asked several people, and I've asked on here for someone to point this out if I'm wrong. I listed standard references as the PDG Handbook, CRC Handbook (which is redundant in THIS case for elementary particles since they get their info from the PDG book), and CODATA standard. Remember, these are the sources of the MOST ACCURATE, and up-to-date parameters covering all elementary particles and fundamental constants.

I did not say that no peer-reviewed publications deal with the issue of the size of a photon. This appears to be something at least one person has misunderstood.

Zz.

Sorry if I enter your discussion here, just a consideration: in my personal opinion, even if there isn't anything accepted about photon's size or anything else, in physics, I think it wouldn't be wrong the fact to discuss about it, of course without pretending to establish it as a fact. A Forum should also have this purpose, in my opinion. Otherwise, talking and discussing about well established facts only, would be quite boring (and couldn't allow any improvement in science). Do you agree?

 

[ZapperZ]

Sorry if I enter your discussion here, just a consideration: in my personal opinion, even if there isn't anything accepted about photon's size or anything else, in physics, I think it wouldn't be wrong the fact to discuss about it, of course without pretending to establish it as a fact. A Forum should also have this purpose, in my opinion. Otherwise, talking and discussing about well established facts only, would be quite boring (and couldn't allow any improvement in science). Do you agree?

You may have typed this while I was replying my previous post. So I'll repost it here:

I also did not say that this thread should be restricted ONLY to what we have in the standard references. That again is another misinterpretation of what I asked. In fact, I have said several times that since the definition isn't available in standard references, then to go on with the discussion, we need to know how people DEFINE what is meant by the size of a photon. This is where other acceptable sources other than the standard references should be brought in. We can then argue or discuss the merit of such definitions.

Again, the question isn't meant to limit the discussion. The question was meant to clarify the PERSPECTIVE as to the degree of certainty and acceptance with regards to what is being discussed. It is NOT obvious what the size of a photon is. It is NOT generally accepted that there is such a thing as the size of a photon. Is it still a topic of active research? Maybe, but that should be mentioned and should not be used as if it is a done deal. Such discussion on the size of a photon is certainly valid after establishing that foundation.

There's nothing worse than discussing something that is ill-defined. That was what was going on earlier in this thread. Someone was talking about oranges, while others where talking about apples and pears. Those type of discussions go nowhere fast. Just look at the Philosophy forum if you don't believe me.

I asked for everyone to START with establishing a very basic fact first. After that is done, at least we can now move on at finding a suitable definition for the "size of a photon", and then to be able to discuss that. At no point in anything I have said in here did I say that such a discussion should not be done. However, I have the responsibility as the Moderator of this forum to make sure that there is a clear "structure" to the discussion, and that people reading it at least know the perspective of the discussion. This did not happen when people simply refuse to make a clear definitions, and when people are replying to each other but talking about different things.

Zz.

 

[rewebster]

z...-


OK, but from my initial question you're saying that there are NO references ANYWHERE in the Standard References as to the size of the photon, right?

I just want to clear that up--you only want to use those that you referenced

 

[ZapperZ]

z...-


OK, but from my initial question you're saying that there are NO references ANYWHERE in the Standard References as to the size of the photon, right?

I just want to clear that up--you only want to use those that you referenced

Correct. From the standard references, I haven't found anything on the size of a photon, and no one else can tell me if there is. Note that I only want to use those to establish what has been generally accepted. I do NOT only want to use those if I want to discuss on-going questions in physics that are covered in other valid sources.

Zz.

 

[rewebster]

where can I find a list of the standard references?

 

[ZapperZ]

where can I find a list of the standard references?

<ZapperZ bangs his head into the wall and cries>

Zz.

 

[cristo]

<ZapperZ bangs his head into the wall and cries>

Zz.

I really feel for you, after reading through this thread!

rewebster: I've just read through this thread, and seen various links to standard reference books. Try reading through it again.