Arguments in physics regarding light are often based on either mechanistic concepts, or on a "which way" discussion where the question of "indistinguishability" is crucial. The last kind of arguing is based on the concept of an indivisible, point-like photon, a concept stemming historically from the most common explanation of the photoelectric effect. There seems, however, to be an important lack of consistency between arguing based on indivisible particle-like photons and the actual quantum formalism for calculating detailed outcomes from various experiments. Crucial parts of the actual calculations of diffraction and interference phenomena seem in fact to be very similar in the classical and the quantum descriptions, and are based either on classic electromagnetic fields, or on quantum fields. It is the interpretations that differ. It would be interesting to downgrade the concept of an indivisible particle-like photon and upgrade the importance of the quantum field description we really use in the detailed calculations. It is our impression that we by that could avoid quite a few weird conclusions we live with today. A few examples are given.
Arguments in physics regarding light are often based on either mechanistic concepts, or on a "which way" discussion where the question of "indistinguishability" is crucial. The last kind of arguing is based on the concept of an indivisible, point-like photon, a concept stemming historically from the most common explanation of the photoelectric effect. There seems, however, to be an important lack of consistency between arguing based on indivisible particle-like photons and the actual quantum formalism for calculating detailed outcomes from various experiments. Crucial parts of the actual calculations of diffraction and interference phenomena seem in fact to be very similar in the classical and the quantum descriptions, and are based either on classic electromagnetic fields, or on quantum fields. It is the interpretations that differ. It would be interesting to downgrade the concept of an indivisible particle-like photon and upgrade the importance of the quantum field description we really use in the detailed calculations. It is our impression that we by that could avoid quite a few weird conclusions we live with today. A few examples are given.
In quantum mechanics, light cannot be described in terms of waves and particles at the same time. However, the question about light "as it really is" implies a description that is independent from the constraints of measurement. It is rather preferable to incorporate both aspects in a causal ontological theory, especially if it simplifies explanation and improves predictions. Hence, the photon can be described as an extended longitudinal association of discrete indivisible constituents, which are held together by the effect of their own waves on each other. The same waves can then be used to interpret the force of interactions between different pulses of light, or between light and matter. The concept of wavemediated interaction between sub-photonic entities is entirely consistent with the observations of quantum mechanics. The key is to assume that elementary sources of waves never collide, and that they have constant parameters. Novel experimental implications follow from this approach. For example, the speed of propagation of changes within magnetic or electrostatic fields may not be equal to the speed of light. Also, interference fringes should be detectable beyond the volume of overlap of two non-entangled beams, but only in special experimental settings.
The idea of the photon has stirred the imaginations of physicists ever since 1905 when Einstein originally proposed the use of light quanta to explain the photoelectric effect. This concept is formalized in the quantum theory of radiation, which has had unfailing success in explaining the interaction of electromagnetic radiation with matter, seemingly limited only by the ability of physicists to perform the indicated calculations. Nevertheless, it has its conceptual problems—various infinities and frequent misinterpretations. Consequently an increasing number of workers are asking, “to what extent is the quantized field really necessary and useful?” In fact the experimental results of the photoelectric effect were explained by G. Wentzel in 1927 without the quantum theory of radiation. Similarly most electro-optic phenomena such as stimulated emission, reaction of the emitted field on the emitting atom, resonance fluorescence, and so on, do not require the quantization of the field for their explanation. As we will see, these processes can all be quantitatively explained and physically understood in terms of the semiclassical theory of the matter–field interaction in which the electric field is treated classically while the atoms obey the laws of quantum mechanics. The quantized field is fundamentally required for accurate descriptions of certain processes involving fluctuations in the electromagnetic field: for example, spontaneous emission, the Lamb shift, the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron, and certain aspects of blackbody radiation. (The Compton effect also fits here, but see later under references 8b and c.) Here we will outline how the photon concept originated and developed, where it is not required and is often misused, and finally where it plays an essential role in the understanding of physical phenomena. In our discussion we will attempt to give a logically consistent definition of the word “photon”—a statement far more necessary than one might think, for so many contradictory uses exist of this elusive beast. In particular consider the original coining of the word by G. N. Lewis: “[because it appears to spend] only a minute fraction of its existence as a carrier of radiant energy, while the rest of the time it remains an important structural element within the atom…, I therefore take the liberty of proposing for this hypothetical new atom which is not light but plays an essential part in every process of radiation, the name photon!” (our exclamation point). Clearly the present usage of the word is very different.
The previous chapter surveyed part of the rich variety of physical phenomena that can be understood using the ideas of quantum physics. Now that we are beginning the task of looking more deeply into the subject we shall find it useful to concentrate on examples that are comparatively simple to understand but which still illustrate the fundamental principles and highlight the basic conceptual problems. Some years ago most writers discussing such topics would probably have turned to the example of a ‘particle’ passing through a two-slit apparatus (as in Figure 1.2), whose wave properties are revealed in the interference pattern. Much of the discussion would have been in terms of wave–particle duality and the problems involved in position and momentum measurements, as in the discussion of the uncertainty principle in the last chapter. However, there are essentially an infinite number of places where the particle can be and an infinite number of possible values of its momentum, and this complicates the discussion considerably. We can illustrate all the points of principle we want to discuss by considering situations where a measurement has only a small number of possible outcomes. One such quantity relating to the physics of light beams and photons is known as polarisation . In the next section we discuss it in the context of the classical wave theory of light, and the rest of the chapter extends the concept to situations where the photon nature of light is important.
The previous chapter surveyed part of the rich variety of physical phenomena that can be understood using the ideas of quantum physics. Now that we are beginning the task of looking more deeply into the subject we shall find it useful to concentrate on examples that are comparatively simple to understand but which still illustrate the fundamental principles and highlight the basic conceptual problems. Some years ago most writers discussing such topics would probably have turned to the example of a ‘particle’ passing through a two-slit apparatus (as in Figure 1.2), whose wave properties are revealed in the interference pattern. Much of the discussion would have been in terms of wave–particle duality and the problems involved in position and momentum measurements, as in the discussion of the uncertainty principle in the last chapter. However, there are essentially an infinite number of places where the particle can be and an infinite number of possible values of its momentum, and this complicates the discussion considerably. We can illustrate all the points of principle we want to discuss by considering situations where a measurement has only a small number of possible outcomes. One such quantity relating to the physics of light beams and photons is known as polarisation . In the next section we discuss it in the context of the classical wave theory of light, and the rest of the chapter extends the concept to situations where the photon nature of light is important.
Having just described electromagnetic radiation as a wave, it may seem a bit peculiar to embark on a particle description of that radiation. Perhaps it will help to recall from Chapter 2 that our perception of something depends in part on the means we use to perceive it and that we used a specific experiment (interference) to define the wave property. There is no reason to believe that one human-invented experiment is the only one that can be used to describe electromagnetic radiation. In fact, the Einstein photoelectric effect, described next, is consistent with light being a particle.
Scientific inquiry took millennia to ascertain the true nature of light, and it is not possible here to attempt to recapitulate all of the philosophizing, hypotheses, arguments, and experimentation involved in that great debate. The main point of controversy was whether light should be considered as a particle or as a wave. Empedocles of Acragas (492–432 b.c.e .) was of the opinion that light is a “streaming substance” emitted by luminous bodies, and that light travels at a finite speed ( Sambursky, 1958 ). In the seventeenth century, Isaac Newton postulated that light is composed of particles and that color is connected with the size of those particles; however, his contemporary Christiaan Huygens argued that light is a wave that transfers energy but not substance ( Einstein & Infeld, 1966 , p. 105ff). It turns out that light is indeed a wave propagating via electric and magnetic fields, but in addition to exhibiting properties of waves (such as interference) it also exhibits properties of particles (such as momentum and localization). When treating light as particles, the individual quanta are called photons .