abstract vs 3D diagram of a photon

Discussion in 'Physics' started by meemoe_uk, Jul 12, 2014.

  1. meemoe_uk

    Thread Starter New Member

    Jul 31, 2012
    12
    0
    Is the common simple pictorial description of a photon a bit misleading?
    [​IMG]

    What what be a more realistic image of a photon if we could see its sinusoidal electric and magnetic fields in 3D?

    Assuming the photon stays in particle behaviour,
    I would imagine the electric field as a pulsing 1/r^2 coulomb point charge alternating between negative and positive point charge.
    The magnetic field though is a bit harder to visualise.
    I think the single vector magnitude portrayed in the common image is nothing like what the magnetic field would actually be in its full 3D form. Magnetic field are characterized by directional loops. Would the loops go around the centre of the photon like they do with a conducting wire and the hand grip rules? Or would the pass thru the centre of the photon like they do for a bar ferromagnet?

    Could the photon polarization be represented in such an image?
     
  2. studiot

    AAC Fanatic!

    Nov 9, 2007
    5,005
    513
    Yes but that is because it is not a representation of a photon or photons. It is a representation of the electromagnetic waves that form a light ray in the wave theory of EM radiation.
     
  3. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,766
    2,536
    There are two theories, each has its strengths and can not be dismissed because of it. So, until something better comes along, we use both.
     
  4. BillO

    Well-Known Member

    Nov 24, 2008
    985
    136
    Even still, it's a tad misleading.
     
  5. davebee

    Well-Known Member

    Oct 22, 2008
    539
    46
  6. socratus

    Member

    Mar 26, 2012
    267
    3
    There are many speculation about quantum of light.
    An another example
    =
    There is constant speed of quantum of light:: c=1 and there is also
    Heisenberg's rule. At first view it seems they contradict each other.
    But Nature as whole in harmony and therefore all physical laws
    must be tied together. So, what this contradiction can mean ?
    ===
    It can mean that Heisenberg's rule is limited by the constant speed of light (c=1).
    but it also can mean that if constant speed of light isn't constant (relative c>1)
    then Heisenberg's rule again can work.
    ====.
    This "contradiction" can only be hidden in the nature - structure of quantum of light.
    ===.
     
  7. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,766
    2,536
    Laws are Physics are object created by man to describe Nature, Nature feels no obligation to follow them and frequently doesn't in specific ways.
     
  8. BR-549

    Well-Known Member

    Sep 22, 2013
    1,997
    389
    Hello meemoe,
    Like most things in physics, an electromagnetic wave is greatly miss-understood. Replace the straight vector arrows in the half waves, with an origin and a rotating vector, in the center of each half wave. EMR is caused by rotation, not a electric or magnetic potential. The antenna(particle) that emitted or absorbed it is circular, so polarization doe not matter. In 3-d it’s hard to visualize. If you were responsive to EMR and standing in front of the z axis with the arrow at your bellybutton......the first half of the electric part of the wave will spin you form head to foot. The magnetic first half wave will spin you from front to back. The second part of the wave will complete both spins. You have to be able to spin two directions at once. That’s what a fundamental does. All particles have 2 spins. They can measure one. They don’t realize that charge has spin too. Good luck on your studies.
     
  9. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,766
    2,536
    Gee, I guess you have never heard of polarization of light, not to mention the fact RF radiation (and the antenna) is polarized. A Yagi antenna is very much a polarized antenna, as is a dipole. Photons come in many forms, from the lowly 50/60 Hertz we radiate from power lines, to AM/FM/microwave radiation, on to light and cosmic rays.

    The polarization comes from the fact that the magnetic and electric vectors are indeed straight line, and can be rotate though various medium.
     
  10. BR-549

    Well-Known Member

    Sep 22, 2013
    1,997
    389
    Pardon me. I thought the question was about a photon. They tell us a photon is a particle of light and meemoe wanted to know what one looked like. And sense a photon is nothing more than a certain number of cycles(those cycles can be counted) at a certain frequency, and hard to visualize, I tried to show the effect as he absorbed the photon. As a particle emits a photon, it might travel a very long way and thru many media as you say. The receiving particle is a circular antenna also and therefore changes in polarization will not hamper the exchange of energy(angular momentum). The condition for the particle is the frequency and the angle of incidence, just like a loop antenna. If you use a loop receiving antenna, receiving signals from a transmitter, line of sight, TX on hori, then TX on vert.....you will see no difference at receiver. That’s why if you can rotate it......a loop antenna is always better than a dipole. Now we use oscillating voltages and currents to cause rotation on our antennas. But nature uses rotation instead of changing voltage. The voltage on a particle is steady, but it is rotating, constituting a steady current. Now the voltage and current are steady.....how can it radiate? Easy....change the angular momentum. How to do that? Let one of the kinks or twist un-coil. This causes a ripple in the circumference and the angular momentum. This is what a light ray is....a ripple of angular momentum. The particle transmits and receives on different frequencies because the circumference is different at different energy states.
     
  11. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,766
    2,536
    A photon is a unit. The frequency is a man made measurement that allows us to hang a number that allows us to measure it and recreate it, it has nothing to do with numbers of cycles inside the photon itself. Frequency is a descriptor of the energy we see within the photon.

    A loop antenna is less polarized, true enough, but you get this by loosing the total gain of the antenna. Electronically it also looks like a coil, which can be used to good effect with a capacitor to make the antenna resonant (ie, increase gain). Most professional uses start with a dipole and work their way up to Yagi's of various descriptions, such as AM towers, to create lobes.

    Each photon has a set polarity, but you can have a source that generates many polarities at once. A recent development is a laser that has a rotating polarity, which allows for some new and unusual uses.

    But the basics have not changed since the time of Maxwell, polarity is well understood and a part of antenna theory.

    The basic photon covers all the EM spectrum, don't get hung up on optics only.
     
  12. BR-549

    Well-Known Member

    Sep 22, 2013
    1,997
    389
    I'm sorry, i believe you are in great error. If you search wikipedia or a text book of your choosing, and look at the momentum formula for a photon using plank's constant, you will see a number of wave cycle count term. Every single wave...no matter what frequency, has a portion or a fraction of planks constant amount in it. So you see......energy can and is divided to lot smaller amounts than planks constant. Another myth. If two photons have the same energy, but different frequencies, the low frequency photon will be longer and have more cycles, because each wave carries less energy than the high frequency photon.
     
  13. studiot

    AAC Fanatic!

    Nov 9, 2007
    5,005
    513
    Please note that the units of Plank's constant and Plank's reduced constant are not energy, but energy per second.

    So Plank's constants are not units of energy.

    Please also note that the OP has not been back to the forum since post#1.

    So I think it is legitimate to widen the discussion.

    BR-549 both you and Bill have valid viewpoints, but remember that all of these are just models of some of the aspects of the behaviour of light.

    there is no model that explains it all in one go.

    The original diagram was for a ray or beam of light, although the OP wrongly attributed it to a photon.
     
  14. BR-549

    Well-Known Member

    Sep 22, 2013
    1,997
    389
    It is joules per second....just as angular momentum is. And it is a definite amount of energy, just like a kilowatt. No matter how long it takes to transfer....it’s the same amount. In the modern view, Planck’s constant was derived mathematically to fit their equations to satisfy the modern theory. In my theory, Planck's constant(or multiples thereof) is the angular momentum required to change energy states and stay stable. My theory shows the cause and reason why Planck's constant exits. Any theory that shows the reason and cause of a constant from a previous theory, is a superior theory. This model also shows cause and reason for the fine structure constant. It shows the cause and reason for inertia. It also shows the cause and reason for gravity. And it shows that gravity is decaying. The decay rate is exponential. We are on the slow side now. But in the past, the gravity was super duper strong. That’s why went we look back a long time......everything has large red shifts. It is also the reason the galaxies rotate the way they do. There is no dark matter. This model also shows the correct way atoms behave. It explains and predicts all of the nuclides and spectra of atoms. No theory has ever done that. This model does explain and unite the universe under one force law. And like the modern theory that says space and time must be variable for their theory and equations to work, this model says that space and time must be constant for the theory and equations to work.
     
  15. studiot

    AAC Fanatic!

    Nov 9, 2007
    5,005
    513
    Gosh that's some rather grandiose claims.

    It would be interesting to hear more of the chain of reasoning, including some numerical predictions.

    Sorry energy per second is not the same as energy any more than feet per second is the same as length.

    That is certainly an interesting alternative point of view, especially for those who are (justifiably?) suspicious of adding fiddle factors to length and time.

    I am also suspicious of theories that need 'dark energy or 'dark mass' to provide fiddle factors.

    Of course there is always the view that if our equations are yielding the wrong answers (ie not in accord with measurements) then perhaps we are using the wrong equations.
     
  16. socratus

    Member

    Mar 26, 2012
    267
    3
    ========
    My opinion about this EM scheme.
    1)
    In the zero point an electron must work ( because there isn't EM effect without electron)
    Electron's work means that IT rotates around its axis ( impuls h*)
    This kind of rotation creates electrical ( vertical) waves.
    2)
    These electrical waves meet surrounded specific particles - protons
    3)
    These protons before were in chaotic state but the electron's waves
    changed protons positions into harmonical / symmetrical static position
    ( north - south )
    4)
    In this conditions protons can create magnetic ( horizontal) waves.
    ==
    P.S.
    Electron was found .
    Magneton wasn't found.
    ==
     
  17. socratus

    Member

    Mar 26, 2012
    267
    3
    There are different kinds of EM waves.
    Every EM wave is produced by quantum particle.
    Different particles produce different EM waves only by one (1) scheme.

    [​IMG]
    ===
     
  18. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,766
    2,536
    Really? Name one besides the electron.
     
  19. studiot

    AAC Fanatic!

    Nov 9, 2007
    5,005
    513
    Seems to me that Bill and Socratus are confusing quantum and ordinary particles.

    Photon production and absorbtion is found in many nuclear processes for instance the interaction of mesons with protons or neutrons and the decay of mesons.

    But none of these are 'quantum particles' any more than the electron is.
     
  20. socratus

    Member

    Mar 26, 2012
    267
    3
    I think it is a good point: :
    what photon is, what electron is, what proton is, what "ordinary particle" is.
    =
    1)
    Poor Einstein had problem to understand " what photon is".
    " All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer
    to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?'
    Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken.'‘
    / Einstein. 1954. /
    2)
    There are many - many theories about what electron is.
    All of them are problematical.
    3)
    Does proton really have many quarks and their brother antiquarks ?
    4)
    Where did mass of "ordinary particles" come from ?
    ===..
    Hmm.
    Say now: " we have philisophy of Physics"
    ==.
     
Loading...