[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 114 KB, 1920x473, 1920px-Onde_electromagnetique.svg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11379456 No.11379456 [Reply] [Original]

I don't understand electromagnetic radiation. Where exactly is the photon in here?

>> No.11379464

>>11379456
>photon
oh no no no

>> No.11379477

>>11379456
The real photon is the fields you make along the way.

>> No.11379481

>>11379456
photons do not exists. what exists is whatever field they use for EM, then they use the ''number operator'' and calculate its eigenvalues. if the operator outputs number 1, then it means there is 1 photon.
same things for ''electrons'',it is the the number operator which says ''how many electrons'' there is some state.


now the question is: how many em fields is there in the model? or for the brainlets who love scientism, how many em fields is there in the universe? is there only one wavefunction ''of the electron'' in the whole universe or is there as many wf of the elctron as required? ie is the same wf of the electron which pops up when doing an experiment involving electrons?

so far there is no answer to this.

>> No.11379484

>>11379477
Kek

>> No.11379731

>>11379456
bump

>> No.11379767

>>11379464
Found the retard. Every field is associated with a particle. Gravity is alleged to be gluons, photons are associated with electromagnetism, phonons are associated with heat in Crystal's. This is a result of an abstraction that can be found by finding the corresponding annihilation and creation operators of the system by converting the resultant ahrodinger equation in the standard QFT way. Particles are abstractions that are defined by localized packets of energy.

>> No.11379774

>>11379481
For all intents and purposes they do exist. The radiated energy that can be calculated using these creation and destruction operators is wave like in nature, but when observed behaves like a particle.

If it looks like a particle, acts like a particle, etcc.... it is a particle for all intents and purposes.

>> No.11379870

>>11379477
hehe

>> No.11379873

How come a magnetic field and an electric field doesn't form a photon?

>> No.11379922

>>11379873
define a photon

>> No.11379939

>>11379767
>Gravity is alleged to be gluons
wew lad

>> No.11379941

>>11379456
It's right there, can't you see it?

>> No.11379961

>>11379481
What's the difference between the medium and the wave?
Everything is part of everything. You can't have something that isn't part of everything. Just because we can't tell how the system as a whole interacts with itself doesn't change the fact the system as a whole is interacting with itself.

>> No.11379962

>>11379456
this is classical (maxwellian) E&M. Photons are quantum objects described by QFT. Two completely different models.

>> No.11379964

>>11379922
so to be clear the only definition of a photon exist in general relativity, but not in QM
the photon is some of the massless field
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner's_classification
So for instance the spin is not ''a quantum feature''. the spin stems from gravity or whatever manifold is deemed modelling the universe.

>> No.11379966

>>11379767
>Found the retard.
>phonons
>Particles are abstractions
Are you brain-damaged? You just repeated my point back to me. The fact that you mentioned phonons at all, which aren't particles, tells me you are just regurgitating everything you said like a good monkey

>> No.11379984
File: 261 KB, 1000x527, double-slit.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11379984

>>11379774
>If it looks like a particle, acts like a particle, etcc.... it is a particle for all intents and purposes.
Brainlet.
Light is easily demonstrated to be a wave.

>> No.11379997

>>11379984
In modern physics particles can exhibit all wave properties.

>> No.11380001

>>11379997
Clamped.

>> No.11380003

>>11379477
okay this is officially the most based reply on this thread

>> No.11380009

>>11379456
Depends on the gauge.

>> No.11380123

>>11379966
I just think you can't make the bridge between math and reality. Idk maybe you'll change your mind one day, but you're way too opinionated on something you clearly dont understand fully

>> No.11380135

>>11379966
You can measure quantized transport of these phenomena. There is no difference between a wave and a particle. The only *real* difference is that you start to treat waves likes particles when you get a wavelet with a wide spread of momentum.

If you have sinx/x function you can treat that as a particles because for the most part its position spread is not that much. But if you fourier transform it you'll get a function that is defined on all of R (if our using 1D)

>> No.11380140

>>11380135
Same poster here. Forgot to add that the momentum spread of the transform is much greater than the position spread

>> No.11380146

>>11379984
Double slit experiment doesnt collapse the wave function. Itll behave like a particle if you can observe light at the slits. Look up the stern gerlach experiment

>> No.11380231

>>11379477
Beautiful.

>> No.11380252

>>11379964
so each particle has some helicity and or a mass, by the poincare group,
then the step is to determine ''the relativistic wave equation'' for each field and also the state space of each ''particle ie some pair [mass, helicity]."
It turns out that for the photon, ie m=0 h=1,, the equation is the usual maxwell equation. For spin 0+mass is the klein gordon equation.

So far there is no QM. So far there is only Lorentz transformations and things invariant under Lorentz transformations.
physical states = particle states = definite mass and helicity=unitary irreducible representation of poincare group.

wave functions and fields are solutions to the wave equations, wave functions and fields may or may not be physical. This is the most important thing to have in mind. wave functions and fields are not tied to unitary reprensation. wave functions and fields are indexed by finite representations of the spacetime symmetry group + whatever internal symmetry the system has.

wave functions and fields transform as finite dimensional representations of the Lorentz group
physical particle states transform as unitary representations of the
Poincare group

in QFT, for instance the ghost fields are not physical.

so now that there is a physical state of m=0 and helicity 1, there is a state space , and there is a wave equation to this physical state [purely from group theoretic consideration] and this equation has wave solutions which are grouped into a hilbert space. Then those solutions transform again under the Lorentz group and this is done by some finitary matrices on the waves. It is those waves which appear in the lagrangian and the action.

>> No.11380259

>>11380146
You can't "observe" light, all detectors absorb "photons" in order to detect them.

>> No.11380327

>>11380252
from those waves, fock spaces can be constructed which are n copies of the state space of the particle, but sometime the particles may not be the same ''n times''

this where QM happens. So a quantum state of the ''mass=0, h=1'' is some tensor state where each state is some mode allowed by the poincare group for mass=0, h=1
then the number operator i, says that ''there is XXX m=0,h=1 in mode i''

>> No.11380481

>>11380259
Yes you can. Look up the photoelectric effect

>> No.11380502

>>11380259
Not directly but indirectly you can

>>11380481
And if you dont believe this, look up the classical vs quantum description of black body radiation

>> No.11380517
File: 6 KB, 259x194, images.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11380517

>>11379984
>what is duck typing
light is both wave and particle because it passes the wave test and the particle test. stop assuming that something can only "be" one thing or the other. that's a very goyish way of thinking

>> No.11380536

>>11379456
holly fuck this whole thread is trying to explain the particle wave duality. Top kek.

>> No.11380554

>>11380536
>the particle wave duality
very gay, anon.

>> No.11380702

>>11379873
It actually does! That's how LEDs work. You can't propagate one or the other. Magnetic energy is constantly converted to electric energy and so on.

>> No.11380705

>conflating classical and quantum models
based troll

>> No.11380708

>>11379477
checked and kekpilled

best post of the day. thank you based anon

>> No.11380728

>>11379873
it's complicated
see figs 3,5,7
https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/

>> No.11381042

>>11380123
>I just think you can't make the bridge between math and reality.
What are you even talking about retard? You haven't explained once your problem with anything I've said. You just smugly rambled a totally non-sequitur reply to my post laughing at the OP for ostensibly misunderstanding the term "photon".

>>11380135
>You can measure quantized transport of these phenomena.
I understand this. Where is your problem with what I said?
>There is no difference between a wave and a particle.
But there is a massive difference between a quasiparticle and a particle (a world of difference, really). Quasiparticles are called such because, say, when talking about indirect bandgap excitations, it really doesn't matter what/where the fuck a phonon actually is. Which is my point.

I don't disagree with the rest of that, and I don't see what it has to do with what I said.

>> No.11381046
File: 52 KB, 903x960, youdensemotherfucker.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11381046

>>11379767
>Gravity is alleged to be gluons
>gluons

That's a strange way to spell graviton.

>> No.11381079

>>11379456
>image of a classical wave
>where is the quantum thing in this non-quantum image?

>> No.11381087

>>11380702
how does this shit actually work? any videos? do those two fields create a chain reaction in spacetime? is that why you can have faster than light quantum entanglement?

>> No.11381182

Sorry if any of this is wrong because it's text to speech You have to look at it As magnetic and electrical components And except for your eyes Light has no Significance on it's own You can cause chemical reactions And he can selectively Do you think such as in Polarize light Affect only chiral molecules It's the mediating particle But it also has other qualities you can split it into 2 pc with 2 magnets of different poles Now whether this would be electrical or magnetic parts I wouldn't know But I would guess That's the thing that holds them together Is the reason why it is bent in gravity There's a whole lot more to say on chemical reactions with this And on pure atomic level phenomenon Such as what is an electron hole What causes in Adam electrons To increase or decrease energy levels Probably about the Spin and breaking up of these packets of poles it's a dipole

>> No.11381266

>>11381046
Kek I was waiting for someone to notice

>> No.11381306

>>11381087
In the classical interpretation (Maxwell's Equations), a change in electric field results in an opposing change in magnetic field. The changing magnetic field also results in an opposing change in Electric field. You could call this a chain reaction, but it's just a packet of energy oscillating between forms.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yINtzw63Knc
OP's question doesn't involve quantum mechanics.

>> No.11381336

>>11381306
A photon is a fundamental particle and as such, quantum mechanical in nature.

>> No.11382041

>>11380259
Not necessarily true. I can have a horn antenna feed into a waveguide that has a coax tap off. Then I can measure the power dissipated in a load hooked up to the coax

>> No.11382230

>>11381046
Oops me retarded make mistake uga uga

>> No.11382231

>>11381042
You're an anti pseud. Increase your reading comprehension

>> No.11382265

>>11382230
>uga uga
you married a chimp?

>> No.11382275

>>11379456
photon is just a formalism to explain how the radiation spreads in space

>> No.11383189

>>11380517
>a CS analogy that isn't stupid
colour me surprised