photons and reflection

[Louis Boyd]

George Herold wrote:

On Nov 29, 5:12 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"> No. There is no particle of light. It is easily demostratable as a

question that cannot be answered."


What? You haven't heard of a PMT? (Photomultiplier tube) or the
photoelectric effect?

Neither wave or QM theory does a thorough job of explaining the observed
effects of electromagnetic energy interacting with matter. Wave theory
is generally more useful when dealing with propagation, refraction,
reflection and diffraction through and around material objects.
QM is generally more useful when electromagnetic energy interacts with
matter and energy is exchanged. They're both incomplete models of what
happens in nature. Use the one which works best to explain a given
phenomena. Or come up with more complete unified model if you can.
Lots of luck. It's not like others haven't tried with varying degrees
of success but the results are generally are too cumbersome to be useful.

 

[Darwin123]

On Nov 29, 4:59 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Nov 29, 1:22 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:



On Nov 27, 7:24 pm, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:>As I understand it (big qualifier

Einstein questioned his photon and said he could never reconcile it
with the wave.
He questioned what he won the Nobel Prize for.
What wave is the particle of light in? the electric opr magnetic wave?
Mitch Raemsch

I would like to hear you discuss photoluminescence and Raman
scattering!

 

[Helpful person]

On Dec 1, 11:30 am, Louis Boyd <b...@apt0.sao.arizona.edu> wrote:

Neither wave or QM theory does a thorough job of explaining the observed
effects of electromagnetic energy interacting with matter.   Wave theory
is generally more useful when dealing with propagation, refraction,
reflection and diffraction through and around material objects.
QM is generally more useful when electromagnetic energy interacts with
matter and energy is exchanged.   They're both incomplete models of what
happens in nature.  Use the one which works best to explain a given
phenomena.  Or come up with more complete unified model if you can.
Lots of luck.  It's not like others haven't tried with varying degrees
of success but the results are generally are too cumbersome to be useful.

Thanks for the words of sanity!

www.richardfisher.com

 

[nuny@bid.nes]

On Nov 30, 6:33 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Nov 30, 6:25 pm, Salmon Egg <Salmon...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

In article <pan.2009.11.30.19.59.55.233...@example.net>,
 Rich Grise <richgr...@example.net> wrote:

Look at a piece of aluminum foil. One side is mirror-smooth, such that
you could see your reflection, if you could make it flat enough. The other
side is matte, and doesn't give a mirror-like reflection. Does help at all?

Use X-band sensitive eyes!

Bill

--
An old man would be better off never having been born.

There is no way light can be quantized in energy comming out of the
atom is it produces a full spectrum of energy levels.

Well, that explains lasers. No, wait, it doesn't.

Mitch Raemsch - Still in the aether of time

Too bad you refuse to enter the real world.


Mark L. Fergerson

 

[Rich Grise]

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:25:06 -0800, Salmon Egg wrote:

--
An old man would be better off never having been born.

So, when do you plan to eat the golden bullet? 'Cause otherwise, you're
going to be one one day.

Good Luck!
Rich

 

[Salmon Egg]

In article <pan.2009.12.01.21.39.32.326514@example.net>,
Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net> wrote:

So, when do you plan to eat the golden bullet? 'Cause otherwise, you're
going to be one one day.

I am one already getting even oldfer.

Bill

--
An old man would be better off never having been born.

 

[BURT]

On Dec 1, 11:26 am, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Nov 30, 6:33 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:





On Nov 30, 6:25 pm, Salmon Egg <Salmon...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

In article <pan.2009.11.30.19.59.55.233...@example.net>,
 Rich Grise <richgr...@example.net> wrote:

Look at a piece of aluminum foil. One side is mirror-smooth, such that
you could see your reflection, if you could make it flat enough. The other
side is matte, and doesn't give a mirror-like reflection. Does help at all?

Use X-band sensitive eyes!

Bill

--
An old man would be better off never having been born.

There is no way light can be quantized in energy comming out of the
atom is it produces a full spectrum of energy levels.

  Well, that explains lasers. No, wait, it doesn't.

Mitch Raemsch - Still in the aether of time

  Too bad you refuse to enter the real world.

  Mark L. Fergerson- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

But it doesn't explain a rainbow. Emission can be quantized but not
all of the time.

Mitch Raemsch

 

BURT <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote:

What wave is the particle of light in? the electric opr
magnetic wave?

Here's how the theory can be described (simplified, obviously):

(a) solve Maxwell's equations for a suitable system, and get a set
of normalizable basis functions allowing you to describe any field
configuration.

(b) these basis functions usually have both electric and magnetic
field contributions; they are usually called "mode functions", and
tend to oscillate in space and time (although not all will).

(c) quantize the field inside each mode; this gives you a countable
series of possible mode excitations.

(d) to describe some chosen field configuration, you combine a
suitable set of modes containing appropriate quantum excitations.
You may need to account for non-trivial correlations between the
modes, and between the quantum states in the same and different
modes.


There is no "particle of light". Instead there are countable
excitations of the wave-like field modes. These modes usually
combine both electric and magnetic contributions.

It's not a particle, it's a wave. But you _can_ count the
excitations.


--
---------------------------------+---------------------------------
Dr. Paul Kinsler
Blackett Laboratory (Photonics) (ph) +44-20-759-47734 (fax) 47714
Imperial College London, Dr.Paul.Kinsler@physics.org
SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom. http://www.qols.ph.ic.ac.uk/~kinsle/

 

[George Herold]

On Dec 1, 11:30 am, Louis Boyd <b...@apt0.sao.arizona.edu> wrote:

George Herold wrote:
On Nov 29, 5:12 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"> No. There is no particle of light. It is easily demostratable as a
question that cannot be answered."

What?  You haven't heard of a PMT?  (Photomultiplier tube)  or the
photoelectric effect?

Neither wave or QM theory does a thorough job of explaining the observed
effects of electromagnetic energy interacting with matter.   Wave theory
is generally more useful when dealing with propagation, refraction,
reflection and diffraction through and around material objects.
QM is generally more useful when electromagnetic energy interacts with
matter and energy is exchanged.   They're both incomplete models of what
happens in nature.  Use the one which works best to explain a given
phenomena.  Or come up with more complete unified model if you can.
Lots of luck.  It's not like others haven't tried with varying degrees
of success but the results are generally are too cumbersome to be useful.

"> Neither wave or QM theory does a thorough job of explaining the
observed

effects of electromagnetic energy interacting with matter. "

Louis, do you have any specific examples in mind? I thought the
theorists had a good handle on light. (I'm an experimentalist and am
certainly not going to come up with any theories of my own..... I've
got enough trouble understanding E&M, let alone QM.) When I measure
light it always comes as photons. With a Si Photodiode I get one
electron generated for each photon absorbed.

George H.

 

[George Herold]

On Dec 2, 6:43 am, p.kins...@ic.ac.uk wrote:

BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
What wave is the particle of light in? the electric opr
magnetic wave?

Here's how the theory can be described (simplified, obviously):

(a) solve Maxwell's equations for a suitable system, and get a set
of normalizable basis functions allowing you to describe any field
configuration.

(b) these basis functions usually have both electric and magnetic
field contributions; they are usually called "mode functions", and
tend to oscillate in space and time (although not all will).

(c) quantize the field inside each mode; this gives you a countable
series of possible mode excitations.

(d) to describe some chosen field configuration, you combine a
suitable set of modes containing appropriate quantum excitations.
You may need to account for non-trivial correlations between the
modes, and between the quantum states in the same and different
modes.

There is no "particle of light".  Instead there are countable
excitations of the wave-like field modes. These modes usually
combine both electric and magnetic contributions.

It's not a particle, it's a wave. But you _can_ count the
excitations.

--
---------------------------------+---------------------------------
Dr. Paul Kinsler                
Blackett Laboratory (Photonics)   (ph) +44-20-759-47734 (fax) 47714
Imperial College London,          Dr.Paul.Kins...@physics.org
SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom.          http://www.qols.ph.ic.ac.uk/~kinsle/

Paul, I feel I'm in way over my head, but is there something wrong
with calling the excited quantized mode a photon?

George H.

 

[AES]

In article <rf0iu6-ga4.ln1@ph-kinsle.qols.ph.ic.ac.uk>,
p.kinsler@ic.ac.uk wrote:

Here's how the theory can be described (simplified, obviously):

(a) solve Maxwell's equations for a suitable system, and get a set
of normalizable basis functions allowing you to describe any field
configuration.

(b) these basis functions usually have both electric and magnetic
field contributions; they are usually called "mode functions", and
tend to oscillate in space and time (although not all will).

(c) quantize the field inside each mode; this gives you a countable
series of possible mode excitations.

(d) to describe some chosen field configuration, you combine a
suitable set of modes containing appropriate quantum excitations.
You may need to account for non-trivial correlations between the
modes, and between the quantum states in the same and different
modes.


There is no "particle of light". Instead there are countable
excitations of the wave-like field modes. These modes usually
combine both electric and magnetic contributions.

It's not a particle, it's a wave. But you _can_ count the
excitations.

Agreed. That's absolutely the classic (not classical!) approach to
quantum analysis of e-m problems.

But any thoughts on how to extend this approach (or connect it) to the
whole class of "open systems" (all the systems like unstable
resonators/gain-guided waveguides, etc) where the actual operating or
oscillating or amplifying modes of the system (the "real modes", not
just some set of basis functions) are non-orthogonal, non-Hermitian,
non-self-adjoint, biorthogonal, so that you run into the Petermann
excess noise factor and "adjoint coupling" concepts and so on.

Obviously you can choose any more or less arbitrary set of Hermitian
basis functions to use in analyzing these systems; but since these
basis functions will _not_ be the actual "modes" that the system
actually operates in, your superposition will in general, and more or
less unavoidably, be a very inefficient way of describing the system.

I believe (and I think Han Woerdman does) that the nonhermitian
biorothogonal modes + Petermann excess noise factor approach predicts
the correct quantum results for these systems (or at least some of the
important quantum results?), and futhermore does so in an efficient and
simple fashion. But, I've never really understood how this approach
ties into, or can be connected to, the classic approach you describe.

 

George Herold <ggherold@gmail.com> wrote:

It's not a particle, it's a wave. But you _can_ count the
excitations.

Paul, I feel I'm in way over my head, but is there something wrong
with calling the excited quantized mode a photon?

Calling a single (extra) excitation of a mode a "photon"
is pretty much exactly what you should do. Just don't
call it a particle as well.



--
---------------------------------+---------------------------------
Dr. Paul Kinsler
Blackett Laboratory (Photonics) (ph) +44-20-759-47734 (fax) 47714
Imperial College London, Dr.Paul.Kinsler@physics.org
SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom. http://www.qols.ph.ic.ac.uk/~kinsle/

 

AES <siegman@stanford.edu> wrote:

There is no "particle of light". Instead there are countable
excitations of the wave-like field modes. These modes usually
combine both electric and magnetic contributions.

But any thoughts on how to extend this approach (or connect it) to the
whole class of "open systems" (all the systems like unstable
resonators/gain-guided waveguides, etc) where the actual operating or
oscillating or amplifying modes of the system (the "real modes", not
just some set of basis functions) are non-orthogonal, non-Hermitian,
non-self-adjoint, biorthogonal, so that you run into the Petermann
excess noise factor and "adjoint coupling" concepts and so on.

Oh, maybe (I never had cause to use this for anything though)

Brown S.A.; Dalton B.J.
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0107039
... also in JMO 49, 1009 (2002)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500340110095625



--
---------------------------------+---------------------------------
Dr. Paul Kinsler
Blackett Laboratory (Photonics) (ph) +44-20-759-47734 (fax) 47714
Imperial College London, Dr.Paul.Kinsler@physics.org
SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom. http://www.qols.ph.ic.ac.uk/~kinsle/

 

[BURT]

On Dec 2, 3:43 am, p.kins...@ic.ac.uk wrote:

BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
What wave is the particle of light in? the electric opr
magnetic wave?

Here's how the theory can be described (simplified, obviously):

(a) solve Maxwell's equations for a suitable system, and get a set
of normalizable basis functions allowing you to describe any field
configuration.

(b) these basis functions usually have both electric and magnetic
field contributions; they are usually called "mode functions", and
tend to oscillate in space and time (although not all will).

(c) quantize the field inside each mode; this gives you a countable
series of possible mode excitations.

(d) to describe some chosen field configuration, you combine a
suitable set of modes containing appropriate quantum excitations.
You may need to account for non-trivial correlations between the
modes, and between the quantum states in the same and different
modes.

There is no "particle of light".  Instead there are countable
excitations of the wave-like field modes. These modes usually
combine both electric and magnetic contributions.

It's not a particle, it's a wave. But you _can_ count the
excitations.

--
---------------------------------+---------------------------------
Dr. Paul Kinsler                
Blackett Laboratory (Photonics)   (ph) +44-20-759-47734 (fax) 47714
Imperial College London,          Dr.Paul.Kins...@physics.org
SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom.          http://www.qols.ph.ic.ac.uk/~kinsle/

There are only a very few quantizations in light energy quantities of
the atom. Certainly not enough for white light we see. This does not
correspond to the reality of the full spectrum produced by the white
light. A light bulb passed through a prism produces a full spectrum of
energy levels but does not have enough quantized states in its atom to
do so.

Mitch Raemsch

 

[George Herold]

On Dec 2, 3:16 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Dec 2, 3:43 am, p.kins...@ic.ac.uk wrote:





BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
What wave is the particle of light in? the electric opr
magnetic wave?

Here's how the theory can be described (simplified, obviously):

(a) solve Maxwell's equations for a suitable system, and get a set
of normalizable basis functions allowing you to describe any field
configuration.

(b) these basis functions usually have both electric and magnetic
field contributions; they are usually called "mode functions", and
tend to oscillate in space and time (although not all will).

(c) quantize the field inside each mode; this gives you a countable
series of possible mode excitations.

(d) to describe some chosen field configuration, you combine a
suitable set of modes containing appropriate quantum excitations.
You may need to account for non-trivial correlations between the
modes, and between the quantum states in the same and different
modes.

There is no "particle of light".  Instead there are countable
excitations of the wave-like field modes. These modes usually
combine both electric and magnetic contributions.

It's not a particle, it's a wave. But you _can_ count the
excitations.

--
---------------------------------+---------------------------------
Dr. Paul Kinsler                
Blackett Laboratory (Photonics)   (ph) +44-20-759-47734 (fax) 47714
Imperial College London,          Dr.Paul.Kins...@physics.org
SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom.          http://www.qols.ph.ic.ac.uk/~kinsle/

There are only a very few quantizations in light energy quantities of
the atom. Certainly not enough for white light we see. This does not
correspond to the reality of the full spectrum produced by the white
light. A light bulb passed through a prism produces a full spectrum of
energy levels but does not have enough quantized states in its atom to
do so.

Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mitch, The light bulb can be thought of as a black body radiator. It
doesn't matter what kind of atoms the black body is made of. All that
is important is the temperature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackbody_radiation

George H.

 

[BURT]

On Dec 2, 1:04 pm, George Herold <ggher...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Dec 2, 3:16 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:





On Dec 2, 3:43 am, p.kins...@ic.ac.uk wrote:

BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
What wave is the particle of light in? the electric opr
magnetic wave?

Here's how the theory can be described (simplified, obviously):

(a) solve Maxwell's equations for a suitable system, and get a set
of normalizable basis functions allowing you to describe any field
configuration.

(b) these basis functions usually have both electric and magnetic
field contributions; they are usually called "mode functions", and
tend to oscillate in space and time (although not all will).

(c) quantize the field inside each mode; this gives you a countable
series of possible mode excitations.

(d) to describe some chosen field configuration, you combine a
suitable set of modes containing appropriate quantum excitations.
You may need to account for non-trivial correlations between the
modes, and between the quantum states in the same and different
modes.

There is no "particle of light".  Instead there are countable
excitations of the wave-like field modes. These modes usually
combine both electric and magnetic contributions.

It's not a particle, it's a wave. But you _can_ count the
excitations.

--
---------------------------------+---------------------------------
Dr. Paul Kinsler                
Blackett Laboratory (Photonics)   (ph) +44-20-759-47734 (fax) 47714
Imperial College London,          Dr.Paul.Kins...@physics.org
SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom.          http://www.qols.ph.ic.ac.uk/~kinsle/

There are only a very few quantizations in light energy quantities of
the atom. Certainly not enough for white light we see. This does not
correspond to the reality of the full spectrum produced by the white
light. A light bulb passed through a prism produces a full spectrum of
energy levels but does not have enough quantized states in its atom to
do so.

Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mitch, The light bulb can be thought of as a black body radiator.  It
doesn't matter what kind of atoms the black body is made of.  All that
is important is the temperature.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackbody_radiation

George H.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

George my point is that energy transitions cannot be quantized in the
case of a white light. You might have a light filliment composed of a
few different atoms but these could not produce the full spectrum of
all the light energies noticed when its light is passed through a
prism.

Evidently only sometimes is light energy quantized.

Mitch Raemsch

 

[George Herold]

On Dec 2, 4:43 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Dec 2, 1:04 pm, George Herold <ggher...@gmail.com> wrote:





On Dec 2, 3:16 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Dec 2, 3:43 am, p.kins...@ic.ac.uk wrote:

BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
What wave is the particle of light in? the electric opr
magnetic wave?

Here's how the theory can be described (simplified, obviously):

(a) solve Maxwell's equations for a suitable system, and get a set
of normalizable basis functions allowing you to describe any field
configuration.

(b) these basis functions usually have both electric and magnetic
field contributions; they are usually called "mode functions", and
tend to oscillate in space and time (although not all will).

(c) quantize the field inside each mode; this gives you a countable
series of possible mode excitations.

(d) to describe some chosen field configuration, you combine a
suitable set of modes containing appropriate quantum excitations.
You may need to account for non-trivial correlations between the
modes, and between the quantum states in the same and different
modes.

There is no "particle of light".  Instead there are countable
excitations of the wave-like field modes. These modes usually
combine both electric and magnetic contributions.

It's not a particle, it's a wave. But you _can_ count the
excitations.

--
---------------------------------+---------------------------------
Dr. Paul Kinsler                
Blackett Laboratory (Photonics)   (ph) +44-20-759-47734 (fax) 47714
Imperial College London,          Dr.Paul.Kins...@physics..org
SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom.          http://www.qols.ph.ic.ac.uk/~kinsle/

There are only a very few quantizations in light energy quantities of
the atom. Certainly not enough for white light we see. This does not
correspond to the reality of the full spectrum produced by the white
light. A light bulb passed through a prism produces a full spectrum of
energy levels but does not have enough quantized states in its atom to
do so.

Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mitch, The light bulb can be thought of as a black body radiator.  It
doesn't matter what kind of atoms the black body is made of.  All that
is important is the temperature.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackbody_radiation

George H.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

George my point is that energy transitions cannot be quantized in the
case of a white light. You might have a light filliment composed of a
few different atoms but these could not produce the full spectrum of
all the light energies noticed when its light is passed through a
prism.

Evidently only sometimes is light energy quantized.

Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ahh, there are two types of quantization here. For an atom you have
quantized electron states. The photon emmited when the atom goes from
one state to the other has a particular 'quantized' frequency. But
this is just because of the uderlying quantized electron states.
There is then the quantization of the EM field that is called a
photon....(And I'll never call it a particle again.) When you measure
light you either see one photon or none....never some fraction of a
photon. (OK, most times you see lots of photons, but always an
interger number.)

George H.

(I was afraid you were going to ask, "From where comes the photon
emmited by a black body?" I don't have a good picture of that
process.)

 

[BURT]

On Dec 2, 2:09 pm, George Herold <ggher...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Dec 2, 4:43 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:





On Dec 2, 1:04 pm, George Herold <ggher...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Dec 2, 3:16 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Dec 2, 3:43 am, p.kins...@ic.ac.uk wrote:

BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
What wave is the particle of light in? the electric opr
magnetic wave?

Here's how the theory can be described (simplified, obviously):

(a) solve Maxwell's equations for a suitable system, and get a set
of normalizable basis functions allowing you to describe any field
configuration.

(b) these basis functions usually have both electric and magnetic
field contributions; they are usually called "mode functions", and
tend to oscillate in space and time (although not all will).

(c) quantize the field inside each mode; this gives you a countable
series of possible mode excitations.

(d) to describe some chosen field configuration, you combine a
suitable set of modes containing appropriate quantum excitations.
You may need to account for non-trivial correlations between the
modes, and between the quantum states in the same and different
modes.

There is no "particle of light".  Instead there are countable
excitations of the wave-like field modes. These modes usually
combine both electric and magnetic contributions.

It's not a particle, it's a wave. But you _can_ count the
excitations.

--
---------------------------------+---------------------------------
Dr. Paul Kinsler                
Blackett Laboratory (Photonics)   (ph) +44-20-759-47734 (fax) 47714
Imperial College London,          Dr.Paul.Kins...@physics.org
SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom.          http://www.qols.ph.ic..ac.uk/~kinsle/

There are only a very few quantizations in light energy quantities of
the atom. Certainly not enough for white light we see. This does not
correspond to the reality of the full spectrum produced by the white
light. A light bulb passed through a prism produces a full spectrum of
energy levels but does not have enough quantized states in its atom to
do so.

Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mitch, The light bulb can be thought of as a black body radiator.  It
doesn't matter what kind of atoms the black body is made of.  All that
is important is the temperature.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackbody_radiation

George H.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

George my point is that energy transitions cannot be quantized in the
case of a white light. You might have a light filliment composed of a
few different atoms but these could not produce the full spectrum of
all the light energies noticed when its light is passed through a
prism.

Evidently only sometimes is light energy quantized.

Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ahh, there are two types of quantization here.  For an atom you have
quantized electron states.  The photon emmited when the atom goes from
one state to the other has a particular 'quantized' frequency.  But
this is just because of the uderlying quantized electron states.
There is then the quantization of the EM field that is called a
photon....(And I'll never call it a particle again.)  When you measure
light you either see one photon or none....never some fraction of a
photon.  (OK, most times you see lots of photons, but always an
interger number.)

George H.

(I was afraid you were going to ask, "From where comes the photon
emmited by a black body?"  I don't have a good picture of that
process.)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The electron state is simply which of the 4 shells it is in. There are
only 4 fundamental sizes to the atom because of these round shells
that science calles energy levels of the electron.

White light from a surface composed of a few different atoms is
evidence that emmision is not always quantized.

Mitch Raemsch

 

[Darwin123]

On Dec 2, 6:43 am, p.kins...@ic.ac.uk wrote:

BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

There is no "particle of light".  Instead there are countable
excitations of the wave-like field modes. These modes usually
combine both electric and magnetic contributions.
However, in quantum mechanics the amplitude of this wave is

quantized. A wave with a quantized amplitude is fare different than a
wave that has an amplitude that can be contiuously varied.

It's not a particle, it's a wave. But you _can_ count the
excitations.
I don't think there is always a large difference between a wave

with quantized amplitude and a particle. If one has a "wave" at a high
quantization state, then I suppose it acts a bit like the classical
"wave". However, at small energy densities the energy has to become
somewhat localized.
I remember far back reading a mathematical analysis that showed
that a boson field with a quantized amplitude behave in all ways like
a "boson particle," except with regard to the ground state of the
excitation. The ground state of the boson excitation tends to have
"nonparticle" properties no matter how weak the field. However, at
quantum amplitudes that are not too low and not too high, a particle
description is valid. Hence, describing photons as a "particle" is
somewhat accurate.
I agree with your larger point. Photons are not classical
particles, and shouldn't be presented as such. Newton's corpuscular
theory is dead. However, his corpuscular theory is a -well- reanimated
corpse|;-)

 

[Androcles]

"Bill Taylor" <w.taylor@math.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote in message
news:cdf336a9-30f5-4657-9322-d6f248be477d@z35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...

The nature of light is "?" .

The upper part represents the wave aspect;
the lower part represents the particle aspect.

-- Befuddled Bill

** They travel as waves but arrive as photons.

The upper part is the magnetic aspect;
the lower part is the electric aspect.

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.htm

If a rotating magnet turns another magnet then there is
an energy transfer across empty space. One rotation
corresponds to one photon.
That's the nature of light.