In recent years it has become evident that the primary concept of the photon has multiple interpretations, with widely differing secondary connotations. Despite the all-pervasive nature of this concept in science, some of the ancillary properties with which the photon is attributed in certain areas of application sit uneasily alongside those invoked in other areas. Certainly the range of applications extends far beyond what was envisaged in the original conception, now entering subjects extending from elementary particle physics and cosmology through to spectroscopy, statistical mechanics and photochemistry. Addressing this diverse context invites the question: What is there, that it is possible to assert as incontrovertibly true about the photon? Which properties are non-controversial, if others are the subject of debate? This paper describes an attempt to answer these questions, establishing as far as possible an irreducible core of what can rightly be asserted about the photon, and setting aside some of what often is, but should never be so asserted. Some of the more bewildering difficulties and differences of interpretation owe their origin to careless descriptions, highlighting a need to guard semantic precision; although simplifications are frequently and naturally expedient for didactic purposes, they carry the risk of becoming indelible. Focusing on such issues, the aim is to identify how much or how little about the photon can be regarded as truly non-controversial.
In recent years it has become evident that the primary concept of the photon has multiple interpretations, with widely differing secondary connotations. Despite the all-pervasive nature of this concept in science, some of the ancillary properties with which the photon is attributed in certain areas of application sit uneasily alongside those invoked in other areas. Certainly the range of applications extends far beyond what was envisaged in the original conception, now entering subjects extending from elementary particle physics and cosmology through to spectroscopy, statistical mechanics and photochemistry. Addressing this diverse context invites the question: What is there, that it is possible to assert as incontrovertibly true about the photon? Which properties are non-controversial, if others are the subject of debate? This paper describes an attempt to answer these questions, establishing as far as possible an irreducible core of what can rightly be asserted about the photon, and setting aside some of what often is, but should never be so asserted. Some of the more bewildering difficulties and differences of interpretation owe their origin to careless descriptions, highlighting a need to guard semantic precision; although simplifications are frequently and naturally expedient for didactic purposes, they carry the risk of becoming indelible. Focusing on such issues, the aim is to identify how much or how little about the photon can be regarded as truly non-controversial.
A richly diverse range of phenomena and applications, frequently in the context of laser applications, owe their means of operation to the properties of the photon. Yet, since the arrival of the laser, the distinctive and often paradoxical nature of the photon has become more than ever evident, and what the optics community now understands by a ‘photon’ has become richer – certainly less simple, than Einstein’s original conception. There has been a marked expansion in the pace of development since the now familiar derivative term ‘photonics’ first emerged, and in much current theory any dividing line between ‘real’ and ‘virtual’ photons proves to be illusory. So if, in this technical sense, no photon can ever be regarded as entirely real, one is drawn to deeper questions of whether the photon is ‘real’ in the broader sense of reality. Some would argue that electromagnetic fields are closer to irreducible reality. Yet whether we elect to describe optical phenomena in terms of fields or photons, neither represents what is actually measured. The surest ground has to be found where theory is cast in terms that explain or predict actual observations, under given conditions. It is consistent with the path integral formulation of quantum mechanics that derivations should not prescribe what intervenes between setup and measurement, but instead allow for all possibilities. Indeed, one of the beauties of the associated mathematics is its capacity to home in on possibilities that most closely conform to post-event physical interpretation. Still, we can ask: how much do or can we know about the photon itself? How much information could this entity contain or convey? And, how essential is a photonic formulation of theory? This study focuses on some of the key issues.
The centrality of the photon concept in modern physics is strongly evident in wide spheres of photonics and nanophotonics. Despite the resilience and persistence of earlier classical representations, there are numerous optical features and phenomena that only truly photon-based descriptions of theory can properly address. It is crucial to cast theory in terms of observables, and in this respect the quantum theory of light engages most directly and pragmatically with experiment. No other theory adequately reconciles the discreteness in energy of optical quanta, with their characteristic quantum mechanical delocalization in space. Examples of the distinctiveness of a photonic representation are to be found in nonclassical optical correlations; intensity fluctuations and phase; polarization, spin, and information content; measures of optical chirality; near-field interactions; and plasmonics. Increasingly, links between these fundamental properties and features are proving significant in the context of nanoscale interactions. Yet, even as new technologies are being built on the framework of modern photonics, a number of difficult questions surrounding the nature of the photon still remain. Both in its flourishing applications and in matters of fundamental entity, the photon is still a subject very much at the heart of current research.
For many years the physical interpretation of quantum theory has been dominated by the “wave-particle duality” attitude of the “Copenhagen school.” This point of view is eloquently described in Bohr's collection of essays on the subject. Despite persistent concerns with apparent paradoxes and limitations to this interpretation (as exemplified by Schrodinger's cat, the paradox of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen, among others), the Copenhagen view persists de facto in the daily life of the modern physicist. Traditional quantum theory has so successfully explained such a vast amount of data in atomic and molecular physics, solid state physics (and to a lesser extent, elementary particle physics) that little doubt can exist concerning its essential validity. As a consequence of the overwhelming practical success of the “Copenhagen interpretation, ” the latter has acquired the status of dogma. For many years, therefore, most physicists have found it expedient to relegate the puzzling aspects of the theory to philosophers, and mathematicians. Nevertheless, a persistent interest in this subject has produced a significant and fascinating literature, reviewed by Jammer. In recent years, concerns over the proper meaning to be ascribed to quantum theory have produced an increasingly deep and incisive series of investigations. These investigations fall generally into two categories: either (1) discussion of the philosophical content of the theory, or (2) analyses of the mathematical variants of the theory and their connection with differing interpretational schemes. Physicists tend to be detached from a commitment to philosophical issues, because of their realization of the transient character of the meanings attached to theories of the day. As a simple illustration of this we can mention the profound differences between nonrelativistic and relativistic quantum mechanics.
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 quantum theory of measurement has been widely regarded, since the 1940s, as an esoteric subject of little relevance to “real” physics. Quite the opposite was true in the 1920s and 1930s when Niels Bohr, John von Neumann, and others were struggling, by means of gedankin experiments, to develop an understanding of how measurements on single quantum objects were to be incorporated into quantum theory. However, the understanding they achieved turned out to be of little use in the quantum mechanical applications that commanded the attention of physicists between 1940 and 1980: the interaction of photons, atomic nuclei, and elementary particles, the theory of masers and lasers, the properties of matter (superfluidity, superconductivity, semiconductors), etc. In each of these applications, although the phenomena studied were quantum mechanical at heart, the measurements used to probe them were so far removed from the quantum domain that the only feature of the quantum theory of measurement which entered into the experiments was the probability interpretation of squared amplitudes. There was no need to invoke what soon came to be regarded as an esoteric, problematic, dubious “collapse (reduction) of the wave function.” Fundamentally, the reason for this irrelevance of the quantum theory of measurement was technological.
Given the controversial status of the various interpretations of non-relativistic quantum mechanics (QM for short), it may seem crazy to use the philosophy of quantum physics to try to learn some lessons about the prevailing problems in the literature on dispositions and causal powers. However, such an attempt seems worthwhile for at least three reasons. The first is more internal to the philosophy of QM. Apart from a seminal paper by Robert Clifton and Constantine Pagonis (1995), who investigated the issue of dispositional properties in Bohmian mechanics, very little has been done to shed This neglect seems particularly surprising, especially if one considers that some of the founding fathers of quantum physics, notably Werner Heisenberg, have made direct reference to Aristotelian potentiae to refer to and interpret the elusive nature of the atomic and subatomic world ‘in se’, that is, before measurement: ‘Such a probability function [i.e. the statistical algorithm of quantum theory] combines objective and subjective elements. It contains statements on possibilities, or better tendencies (“potentiae” in Aristotelian philosophy), and such statements are completely objective, they don’t depend on any observer the passage from the “possible” to the Some years before, Henry Margenau3 had already characterized the properties of quantum systems as merely latent, in contrast to the properties intervening in the description of classical systems, which are always definite even when they are merely dispositional. Similarly, Karl Popper4 and Nicholas Maxwell5 have defended some sort of a propensity interpretation of probability, and a view of quantum reality essentially characterized by irreducibly probabilistic propensities. Influenced by this tradition, Michael Redhead’s influential textbook on the philosophy of QM distinguishes among three different interpretations of the theory, the second of which presupposes real propensities and potentialities and attributes to measurements the function of ‘converting latent values in possessed values’.6 Clearly, for this second interpretation to make less than an instrumentalistic sense, one needs to construe potentialities and dispositions as real properties of systems. Consequently, it seems important to try to get a firmer grasp of the sense in which QM might need irreducible dispositions to shed light on the nature of the properties of quantum systems before measurements, in particular when the state of such systems is not an eigenstate of the relevant physical observable.