quantumchromodynamics
Hazard to Self
Posts: 67
Registered: 25-9-2013
Location: with much determination, nowhere in particluar
Member Is Offline
Mood: tired but still trying
|
|
light waves - photon amplitude
I am confused by the literature regarding the amplitude of light waves.
As is generally accepted, Einsteins 1910 paper on the photoelectric effect, demonstrates that light behaves as particles. With this theory the common
idea of amplitude does not apply to photons. Light is emitted and absorbed in mass-less quantum packets called photons. It is the bulk number of
photons emitted or absorbed that is perceived as the brilliance of light or is measured as spectral power density of light. In other words, there are
more or less bullets at a particular energy, but not bigger or smaller bullets.
The double slit experiment, and others, shows that photons behave as waves. They show interference patterns with adjacent nodes and anti-nodes
appearing at integral wavelengths. OK, a photon is a quantum particle and therefore exhibits a dual nature as a wave. Makes sense to me. The shorter
the wavelength, a higher frequency, and a higher energy is assigned to the photon. Photons with very high energy, such as gamma rays, have very high
penetrating and destructive power.
Normally, one associates the amplitude of a wave with the energy of a wave. At a quantum level it is the wavelength of the photon that is associated
with energy. I can intuitively feel how a tightly bound "angry" photon carries more energy than a lazy photon. This also makes sense to me.
However, if a photon is a wave, and a photon has a frequency, then where did the amplitude go? How can a wave exist that has no amplitude?
|
|
|
DraconicAcid
International Hazard
Posts: 4355
Registered: 1-2-2013
Location: The tiniest college campus ever....
Member Is Online
Mood: Semi-victorious.
|
|
I'm sure it has an amplitude, but I'm not sure that it's measurable.
Please remember: "Filtrate" is not a verb.
Write up your lab reports the way your instructor wants them, not the way your ex-instructor wants them.
|
|
|
phlogiston
International Hazard
Posts: 1379
Registered: 26-4-2008
Location: Neon Thorium Erbium Lanthanum Neodymium Sulphur
Member Is Offline
Mood: pyrophoric
|
|
In the quantum interpretation, the photon (or any other particle) wave is a probability wave. The (squared) amplitude of this wave represents the
likelyhood of finding that photon in a certain position. With large numbers of photons, it would be proportional to the number of photons at any given
instant.
The classical amplitude of the electromagnetic wave at that point is then the sum of the contribution of all those photons interacting with a test
charge at that location.
[Edited on 23-1-2014 by phlogiston]
-----
"If a rocket goes up, who cares where it comes down, that's not my concern said Wernher von Braun" - Tom Lehrer |
|
|
quantumchromodynamics
Hazard to Self
Posts: 67
Registered: 25-9-2013
Location: with much determination, nowhere in particluar
Member Is Offline
Mood: tired but still trying
|
|
a photon has no amplitude
After some careful study I believe my question is invalid. I was confusing classical and quantum waves. A photon transports a packet of momentum from
place A to place B as the quantum variable called frequency. There is no quantum variable called amplitude that is a property of a photon. Amplitude
is an emergent field property, classical field property, and only makes sense after wave function collapse.
In case any future scientist may care...
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
Interesting question, if amplitude is a scalar it seems one could term it's momentum an 'amplitude'.
"For example, the pressure of electromagnetic radiation on an object derives from the transfer of photon momentum per unit time and unit area to that
object"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
Just thinking out loud.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman
|
|
|
Marvin
National Hazard
Posts: 995
Registered: 13-10-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
The amplitude of the photon is the strength of the electric vector (and magnetic vector). Photons are not fermions, as many photons as you like can
occupy the same volume, the amplitudes just add. Lasers, for example giant pulse ruby lasers can produce sparks in mid air, when the strength of the
electric vector exceeds air's dielectric strength at the focus.
|
|
|
quantumchromodynamics
Hazard to Self
Posts: 67
Registered: 25-9-2013
Location: with much determination, nowhere in particluar
Member Is Offline
Mood: tired but still trying
|
|
Cool Marvin! Is there a quantum of EM vector assigned to a photon? I thought a photon only had one quantum state variable. That variable is energy,
thought about as wavelength, and hence frequency. I guess a Bose/Einstein condensate makes sense for a boson. Is a classic EM vector then assigned to
a macro pile of photons, because photons are bosons, and a whole macro pile of them can occupy the same position in space?
|
|
|
stoichiometric_steve
National Hazard
Posts: 827
Registered: 14-12-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: satyric
|
|
Noob question:
Doesn't the amplitude correlate with the number of impacting photons at a certain wavelength, the amplitude being directly proportional to the number?
[Edited on 26-1-2014 by stoichiometric_steve]
|
|
|
phlogiston
International Hazard
Posts: 1379
Registered: 26-4-2008
Location: Neon Thorium Erbium Lanthanum Neodymium Sulphur
Member Is Offline
Mood: pyrophoric
|
|
Yes it is, as I wrote above as well.
Marvin, you are (perhaps deliberately) mixing quantum and classical views of that phenomenon.
In the spirit of Einsteins famous quote "Everything Should Be Made as Simple as Possible, But Not Simpler":
It would be oversimplifying to say that each photon is a little electromagnetic wave and these tiny waves add up to give a macroscopically observable
wave with a larger amplitude proportional to the number of photons. The problem is that the photon wave is not a small electromagnetic wave. The
photon wave is a probability wave, a pure quantum concept, and the macroscopically observable electromagnetic forces are caused by interactions of
photons (absorption/emission) with charged particles.
In the example of a powerful laser ionising the air:
Classically: The EM vector exceeds the dielectric strength.
Quantum: Atoms are excited so rapidly by the large numbers of photons that they become ionised before they can decay to ground state. Incidentally,
with a powerful enough laser, this process actually produces roentgen if electron vacancies can form in the inner shells.
[Edited on 27-1-2014 by phlogiston]
-----
"If a rocket goes up, who cares where it comes down, that's not my concern said Wernher von Braun" - Tom Lehrer |
|
|
quantumchromodynamics
Hazard to Self
Posts: 67
Registered: 25-9-2013
Location: with much determination, nowhere in particluar
Member Is Offline
Mood: tired but still trying
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by phlogiston  | | The problem is that the photon wave is not a small electromagnetic wave. The photon wave is a probability wave, a pure quantum concept,
|
Right
|
|
|
phlogiston
International Hazard
Posts: 1379
Registered: 26-4-2008
Location: Neon Thorium Erbium Lanthanum Neodymium Sulphur
Member Is Offline
Mood: pyrophoric
|
|
As in "yeah right, dude" or as in "i agree"?
[Edited on 27-1-2014 by phlogiston]
-----
"If a rocket goes up, who cares where it comes down, that's not my concern said Wernher von Braun" - Tom Lehrer |
|
|
quantumchromodynamics
Hazard to Self
Posts: 67
Registered: 25-9-2013
Location: with much determination, nowhere in particluar
Member Is Offline
Mood: tired but still trying
|
|
i agree
phlogistion: Sorry for the brief quote and comment. I am a literal person, and I am confused by sarcasm. Your statement regarding the contextual
meaning of the word "wave", as it pertains to either classical or quantum mechanics, helps sort this particular question, as well as other questions I
am working on.
I believe the quotation "answers" the question.
I took your meaning as follows. A photon is a probability wave, (wave packet??), which is not the same thing as a tiny piece of a classical EM wave.
Just because both classical and quantum waves have frequency, does not imply that both classical and quantum waves have amplitude. Frequency in a
quantum sense, is not the same thing as frequency in classical sense. The word frequency is used because the two cases are similar, but they are not
the same phenomenon.
This is just one example of a problem I am having. Many terms used in quantum mechanics are the same words used in classical mechanics. Concerning
quantum mechanics, a subtle differences in a detail can lead to a radically different and unexpected conclusion. Also, depending on the age of article
or publication, as concepts flesh themselves out, these subtle details change.
I continue to find assertions that seem both true and false at the same time.
This makes me crazy.
|
|
|
Gearhead_Shem_Tov
Hazard to Others
Posts: 167
Registered: 22-8-2008
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by quantumchromodynamics |
... Many terms used in quantum mechanics are the same words used in classical mechanics. Concerning quantum mechanics, a subtle differences in a
detail can lead to a radically different and unexpected conclusion. Also, depending on the age of article or publication, as concepts flesh themselves
out, these subtle details change.
I continue to find assertions that seem both true and false at the same time.
This makes me crazy.
|
Well, lad, you aren't the first, and you won't be the last. Folks who claim to "understand" QM really mean they understand QM's formalism -- the
equations. Nobody really understands what it means in a gut-level, intuitional way, though. Perhaps if humans had evolved in a universe where quantum
phenomena were readily apparent at the macro level then our brains might be wired to "get" it the same way we "get" Newtonian mechanics.
Failing that, we have only looking at the equations and trying to ferret out predictions; many of them are bizarre, most of them utterly are
counterintuitive, and, yet, QM is still the most comprehensively tested and verified theory we have ever had.
-Bobby
|
|
|
quantumchromodynamics
Hazard to Self
Posts: 67
Registered: 25-9-2013
Location: with much determination, nowhere in particluar
Member Is Offline
Mood: tired but still trying
|
|
a possible insight about waves
QM: Quantum mechanical
NM: Newtonian mechanical
I woke up thinking about mechanics with a possible insight. Maybe the essential term "wave" has a different meaning in QM than it does in NM.
Possibly:
A QM wave is a set theoretic vector of states that evolves according to a wave equation. It is only in the sense that sets of states get repeated as
the state vector moves along, does a QM wave seem to "wiggle". Since waves wiggle, the word "wave" got used.
The wiggle of a QM wave still has time dependent frequency, but not any definite amplitude. A QM wave is quite different from an NM wave in this
regard.
|
|
|
phlogiston
International Hazard
Posts: 1379
Registered: 26-4-2008
Location: Neon Thorium Erbium Lanthanum Neodymium Sulphur
Member Is Offline
Mood: pyrophoric
|
|
A probability function does have amplitude. To make it meaningful it is normalized, such that its integral over all of the universe equals 1. In other
words, the particle has a 100% chance of being somewhere. Then, the integral of the square of the amplitude over a smaller region of space represents
the chance of detecting the particle in that region.
-----
"If a rocket goes up, who cares where it comes down, that's not my concern said Wernher von Braun" - Tom Lehrer |
|
|
stoichiometric_steve
National Hazard
Posts: 827
Registered: 14-12-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: satyric
|
|
you made my day. now i'm really happy for that particle and its 100% chance of being somewhere! someone should make a motivational poster out of this.
|
|
|
forgottenpassword
Hazard to Others
Posts: 374
Registered: 12-12-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Mathematics and reality do not necessarily coincide.
|
|
|
phlogiston
International Hazard
Posts: 1379
Registered: 26-4-2008
Location: Neon Thorium Erbium Lanthanum Neodymium Sulphur
Member Is Offline
Mood: pyrophoric
|
|
youtube: Feynman: Mathematicians versus Physicists
-----
"If a rocket goes up, who cares where it comes down, that's not my concern said Wernher von Braun" - Tom Lehrer |
|
|
quantumchromodynamics
Hazard to Self
Posts: 67
Registered: 25-9-2013
Location: with much determination, nowhere in particluar
Member Is Offline
Mood: tired but still trying
|
|
Respectfully, a probability wave function does not have an amplitude. A probability wave function describes a distribution of possibilities. In the
same way, a photon is not a probability wave function. The former is a property of nature, while the latter is a mathematical abstraction.
My intention is to clarify the meanings of certain (subtle, confusing) terminology used in the description of QM.
QM is a battlefield.
|
|
|
phlogiston
International Hazard
Posts: 1379
Registered: 26-4-2008
Location: Neon Thorium Erbium Lanthanum Neodymium Sulphur
Member Is Offline
Mood: pyrophoric
|
|
I am not sure I fully understand your reasoning, please explain a bit more.
Indeed the probability wave function describes a distribution of possibilities, but that seems compatible to me with the wave function having an
amplitude. It is even sometimes literally called a probability amplitude .
[Edited on 1-2-2014 by phlogiston]
-----
"If a rocket goes up, who cares where it comes down, that's not my concern said Wernher von Braun" - Tom Lehrer |
|
|
neptunium
National Hazard
Posts: 990
Registered: 12-12-2011
Location: between Uranium and Plutonium
Member Is Offline
|
|
i think the probability amplitude is just a term in probability to determine the likelyhood of presence it has not much to do with a photon amplitude.
this whole debate is interesting because any electromagnetic wave (as described before) has 2 components
one electric
one magnetic
the frequency of wich determine the energy (as in E=Hv)
because the speed of light is the same regardless , the amplitude (i assume) must be the same for any photon on any part of the electromagnetic
spectrum.
because the number of vibrations per unit of time only determine the energy ,the amplitude must be the same if we reason by classical physic.
otherwise the photon (or quanta) spend too much time reaching high amplitude and lows and looses energy therefore frequency wich does not support
observations .
|
|
|
quantumchromodynamics
Hazard to Self
Posts: 67
Registered: 25-9-2013
Location: with much determination, nowhere in particluar
Member Is Offline
Mood: tired but still trying
|
|
back again to this topic
Gentlemen, for the past month I have been indirectly researching this topic by going over a friends PhD work at the University of Oregon in QM. Like a
bad music song, or an "ear worm", that you can't stop playing in your head, this issue has become a "science worm", and keeps playing over and over
again in my head. Is this science "madness?"
I have a greater familiarity with the formal mathematics of QM as it is currently taught at university. My study further underscores there is
generally a problem with terminology used to teach and to describe QM. As one example, the term "amplitude" as related to a QM wave function is not
fundamental or intuitive, and it is the exception rather than the rule, that an author takes the time to even indicate a difference exists. In QM a
photon amplitude is often defined to be a complex unit vector, without a classical magnitude, and only a spin direction, so the photon can participate
in wave like superposition. A question. What does this definition of amplitude have to do with the energy of the photon? The answer. Nothing. These
are two different and valid applications of the term amplitude. Could this subject possibly be more ironic or confusing?
Even more central to the issue, a quantum state vector, or a quantum basis vector, or a quantum ket, certainly implies properties of a classical
system state vector. However the actual definition of a ket is generally skipped over. This happens because the differences are hard to understand and
chasing them down and figuring out what they mean is hard work. I think the situation is similar to the subtle difference between the terms
"uncertainty" and "in-determinism". The proper choice of terms is hugely important, especially here, as it changes ones' entire relationship with the
universe. Is probability intrinsic to reality, or is probability a tool for computing reasonable answers to questions we don't know enough stuff
about? Are my actions determined before hand, or do I have free will? Shall I go and kill that Arab on the beach?
As an aside, this is what I think about kets. A quantum ket represents knowledge about a chunk of a quantum state vector. Broken off chunks of state
vectors make sense inside of QM calculations and there just isn't an analogy in a classical sense.
With clarity, Neptunium hits my original thoughts right on the nose, and expresses the ambiguity using good terminology. In some important sense, the
term amplitude is inherently vague, and this is not good.
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
