Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Difficulties Understanding The Nature Of Light. Dual Behavior.


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 rhertz

rhertz

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 296 posts

Posted 03 June 2019 - 10:34 PM

In his ground-breaking 1901 paper, published from his Dec. 14th, 1900 lecture at the German Society of Physics, the great Max Planck made public his discovery about the discretness of the energy of a single electromagnetic wave, by expressing that his energy E =hf was a fundamental quantum of action, and that no other value of energy for a single EM wave could be lower than such value.

 

With this simple assertion he created, single-handedly, the basis for Quantum Physics, which perdure as a branch of physics as of today.

 

This simple paper, which solves for good the problem of black body cavity radiation in 8 pages, is crystal clear about what he meant with his quantum of action.

 

Nevertheless, in the times after this publication, he went to the subject and remarked:

 

"Light travels as an electromagnetic wave, but is emitted and absorpted in discrete units of energy".

 

Blinded by ambition and being shameless, in 1905 Einstein sequestered the works of Planck, von Lenard and others (like Newton, Boyle, Matus, Biot, Hertz, etc.), and wrote a paper about the corpuscular theory of light and his quanta of energy (he even plagiarized Planck's definitions). By 1910, Einstein was parroting around, at different conferences and meetings, flanked many times by Planck (he had issues with Einstein since 1905 and, probably, before that year), about the need to accept the existence of a dual nature of light. Of course, as with relativity, Einstein was marketing himself (with a little help from his friends) in order to SELL the absolutely un-needed corpuscular theory of light (either in propagation or in actions over matter).

 

It was the great James Clerk Maxwell who, 40 years before, had clearly defined the wave nature of light:

 

"Light is composed by orthogonal self-sustaining electrical and magnetic fields, which oscillates in quadrature and travel along the space at a velocity given by (e0.u0)-1/2."

 

 

Even Maxwell, in his incredible power of mind, had envisioned a travelling point-like entity, with sinusoidal behavior (which is described by a propagating sinewave, when math is used or a graph is made to represent it).

 

When you merge Maxwell's definition of what light is with Planck's definition about the minimum amount of energy by which it interact with matter (atoms), no other explanation like a corpuscular (photonic) theory of light is needed.

 

 

 

But ambitions for lefting marks in the history of science degenerated these pure concepts, creating confussion and a false need for a photonic theory.

 

The real problem in the last 114 years is not that light has a dual behavior: It has only one, and is expressed in two paragraphs belonging to two of the greatest minds in the XIX century: Planck and Maxwell.

 

The real problem is the inability or lack of imagination to use mathematics to express, in a compact way, the action of light with matter.

Is very easy and convenient to have an alternate corpuscular theory of point-like massless particles (photons), which also captures the imagination of laymen and the lesser gifted scientists.

 

There is an abysmal difference using the simplification of the "figure of a photon" carrying a hf (or hbar w)quanta of energy, and the figure of a single wave represented by:

 

hbar w e-jwt

 

 

With the generalized use of photons with hf energy, troubles arise immediately when it has to be explained what is the frequency f.

 

The semi-classic expression of a single wave of light carrying a quanta of hf energy and oscillating like a point-like, with the expression hbarw e-jwt solves any differences between wave and corpuscular behavior of light.

 

The only thing missing, as these expressions are pre-atomic age, is to incorporate the delay in the emission and absorption processes which, by the way, were not solved by the photonic theory.

 

What is the problem, then: Physical or mathematical?

 

For me, the need for a dual theory of light is originated in the inexistence of proper mathematical models to solve this problem at once and for good.

 

And once again: Thanks, Einstein, for messing everything that you were able to access to publish (because you were protected).

 

 

P.S.:

 

To prevent any comment about how light is affected with the "inverse square of the distance" law when it depart from a distant source, like

a star, I have to remark that every expression above, either photonic or "thermo-electro-dynamical", correspond to a single unit of energy

emitted by an atom or molecule. Light that departs from a source at deep space does it in spherical shells, which creates the attenuation

law of the inverse square of the distance (due to the surface of the spherical shell).

 

Light emitted ommidirectionally from a distant source adds up a huge amount of energy, which is decomposed in such elementary units.

 

Then, as distance increases, what decay is the FLUX of point-like entities per unit surface, not its individual intensity.

 

With this aditional definition, the problem of attenuation with distance is equated either for "photons" or ELEMENTARY waves.


Edited by rhertz, 03 June 2019 - 10:56 PM.


#2 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2576 posts

Posted 04 June 2019 - 01:58 AM

In his ground-breaking 1901 paper, published from his Dec. 14th, 1900 lecture at the German Society of Physics, the great Max Planck made public his discovery about the discretness of the energy of a single electromagnetic wave, by expressing that his energy E =hf was a fundamental quantum of action, and that no other value of energy for a single EM wave could be lower than such value.

 

With this simple assertion he created, single-handedly, the basis for Quantum Physics, which perdure as a branch of physics as of today.

 

This simple paper, which solves for good the problem of black body cavity radiation in 8 pages, is crystal clear about what he meant with his quantum of action.

 

Nevertheless, in the times after this publication, he went to the subject and remarked:

 

"Light travels as an electromagnetic wave, but is emitted and absorpted in discrete units of energy".

 

Blinded by ambition and being shameless, in 1905 Einstein sequestered the works of Planck, von Lenard and others (like Newton, Boyle, Matus, Biot, Hertz, etc.), and wrote a paper about the corpuscular theory of light and his quanta of energy (he even plagiarized Planck's definitions). By 1910, Einstein was parroting around, at different conferences and meetings, flanked many times by Planck (he had issues with Einstein since 1905 and, probably, before that year), about the need to accept the existence of a dual nature of light. Of course, as with relativity, Einstein was marketing himself (with a little help from his friends) in order to SELL the absolutely un-needed corpuscular theory of light (either in propagation or in actions over matter).

 

It was the great James Clerk Maxwell who, 40 years before, had clearly defined the wave nature of light:

 

"Light is composed by orthogonal self-sustaining electrical and magnetic fields, which oscillates in quadrature and travel along the space at a velocity given by (e0.u0)-1/2."

 

 

Even Maxwell, in his incredible power of mind, had envisioned a travelling point-like entity, with sinusoidal behavior (which is described by a propagating sinewave, when math is used or a graph is made to represent it).

 

When you merge Maxwell's definition of what light is with Planck's definition about the minimum amount of energy by which it interact with matter (atoms), no other explanation like a corpuscular (photonic) theory of light is needed.

 

 

 

But ambitions for lefting marks in the history of science degenerated these pure concepts, creating confussion and a false need for a photonic theory.

 

The real problem in the last 114 years is not that light has a dual behavior: It has only one, and is expressed in two paragraphs belonging to two of the greatest minds in the XIX century: Planck and Maxwell.

 

The real problem is the inability or lack of imagination to use mathematics to express, in a compact way, the action of light with matter.

Is very easy and convenient to have an alternate corpuscular theory of point-like massless particles (photons), which also captures the imagination of laymen and the lesser gifted scientists.

 

There is an abysmal difference using the simplification of the "figure of a photon" carrying a hf (or hbar w)quanta of energy, and the figure of a single wave represented by:

 

hbar w e-jwt

 

 

With the generalized use of photons with hf energy, troubles arise immediately when it has to be explained what is the frequency f.

 

The semi-classic expression of a single wave of light carrying a quanta of hf energy and oscillating like a point-like, with the expression hbarw e-jwt solves any differences between wave and corpuscular behavior of light.

 

The only thing missing, as these expressions are pre-atomic age, is to incorporate the delay in the emission and absorption processes which, by the way, were not solved by the photonic theory.

 

What is the problem, then: Physical or mathematical?

 

For me, the need for a dual theory of light is originated in the inexistence of proper mathematical models to solve this problem at once and for good.

 

And once again: Thanks, Einstein, for messing everything that you were able to access to publish (because you were protected).

 

 

P.S.:

 

To prevent any comment about how light is affected with the "inverse square of the distance" law when it depart from a distant source, like

a star, I have to remark that every expression above, either photonic or "thermo-electro-dynamical", correspond to a single unit of energy

emitted by an atom or molecule. Light that departs from a source at deep space does it in spherical shells, which creates the attenuation

law of the inverse square of the distance (due to the surface of the spherical shell).

 

Light emitted ommidirectionally from a distant source adds up a huge amount of energy, which is decomposed in such elementary units.

 

Then, as distance increases, what decay is the FLUX of point-like entities per unit surface, not its individual intensity.

 

With this aditional definition, the problem of attenuation with distance is equated either for "photons" or ELEMENTARY waves.

I'm a bit confused as to what you are saying here. I thought at first you were proposing that light be explained essentially as a wave, but one that can only interact with matter in quantised units. This is in fact the mental model I have, most of the time, for the electron.

 

But at the end you seem to talk of a flux of point-like entities. How can these be part of your wave conception of light?

 

Also, I think it might help my understanding if you could run through how your idea accounts for the photo-electric effect.


Edited by exchemist, 04 June 2019 - 01:59 AM.


#3 rhertz

rhertz

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 296 posts

Posted 04 June 2019 - 07:26 AM

I'm a bit confused as to what you are saying here. I thought at first you were proposing that light be explained essentially as a wave, but one that can only interact with matter in quantised units. This is in fact the mental model I have, most of the time, for the electron.

 

But at the end you seem to talk of a flux of point-like entities. How can these be part of your wave conception of light?

 

Also, I think it might help my understanding if you could run through how your idea accounts for the photo-electric effect.

 

There is not contradictions in my mind about the concept of point-like entities, nor I did contradict myself at the post.

 

The problem is indoctrination (for centuries) about the graphical representation of a wave. 99.999999% of the people who's taught about the light as a wave is used to understand light as a sinusoidal wave (or two waves in quadrature), which travel in the space oscillating. And this is not correct, as Maxwell clearly explained.

 

A point like entity which travels as a wave does it in a five-dimensional space (x,y,z,E,H) and spend time by doing so.

 

Maxwell (and anyone who understand it correctly) never thought about physical oscillations in the sub-space (x,y,z), at which the point like entity travels without physical oscillations. The oscillations of the light as a wave are performed in the other sub-space (E,H), where electrical and magnetic field oscillates in a sinusoidal form. So, there is a flux of these point-like entities, departing from the source, but the it's the density of such entities per unit area what decrease.

 

Also, in the sub-space (E,H) there is attenuation following the rule of inverse square of the distance.

 

Talking about the concept of photons, the same apply for the sub-space (x,y,z): It travels as a corpuscle, a massless particle. But a photon doesn't have an aditional (E,H) sub-space to oscillate.

 

Regarding the photoelectric effect, by using a discretized wave expression, still applies that the energy of the point-like entity is h.f or hbar.w, as you want. This is because the magnitude of e-iwt = 1. Then, nothing changes in term of energy exchanged with matter, but the mathematical representation of the wave as it impacts matter. Regarding Einstein's paper on this matter, every reference about light travelling as a "photon" should be suppressed because is fallacious and unneccesary to explain the phenomena.

 

Then, properly merging Maxwell and Planck, there is only one explanation for light and there is not such a thing as "dual-behavior".

 

But, as I wrote, it's easier to talk about photons "a-la-Einstein-Bohr" modality than use the expression hbar.w.e-iwt  to properly represent it.


Edited by rhertz, 04 June 2019 - 07:26 AM.


#4 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2576 posts

Posted 04 June 2019 - 08:22 AM

There is not contradictions in my mind about the concept of point-like entities, nor I did contradict myself at the post.

 

The problem is indoctrination (for centuries) about the graphical representation of a wave. 99.999999% of the people who's taught about the light as a wave is used to understand light as a sinusoidal wave (or two waves in quadrature), which travel in the space oscillating. And this is not correct, as Maxwell clearly explained.

 

A point like entity which travels as a wave does it in a five-dimensional space (x,y,z,E,H) and spend time by doing so.

 

Maxwell (and anyone who understand it correctly) never thought about physical oscillations in the sub-space (x,y,z), at which the point like entity travels without physical oscillations. The oscillations of the light as a wave are performed in the other sub-space (E,H), where electrical and magnetic field oscillates in a sinusoidal form. So, there is a flux of these point-like entities, departing from the source, but the it's the density of such entities per unit area what decrease.

 

Also, in the sub-space (E,H) there is attenuation following the rule of inverse square of the distance.

 

Talking about the concept of photons, the same apply for the sub-space (x,y,z): It travels as a corpuscle, a massless particle. But a photon doesn't have an aditional (E,H) sub-space to oscillate.

 

Regarding the photoelectric effect, by using a discretized wave expression, still applies that the energy of the point-like entity is h.f or hbar.w, as you want. This is because the magnitude of e-iwt = 1. Then, nothing changes in term of energy exchanged with matter, but the mathematical representation of the wave as it impacts matter. Regarding Einstein's paper on this matter, every reference about light travelling as a "photon" should be suppressed because is fallacious and unneccesary to explain the phenomena.

 

Then, properly merging Maxwell and Planck, there is only one explanation for light and there is not such a thing as "dual-behavior".

 

But, as I wrote, it's easier to talk about photons "a-la-Einstein-Bohr" modality than use the expression hbar.w.e-iwt  to properly represent it.

I think I see. You propose that in 3D space light manifests itself as corpuscular, while its wave properties take place in 2 further dimensions, orthogonal to the spatial x, y, and z coordinates, called the E axis (electric field) and the H axis (magnetic field). Is that it?   



#5 rhertz

rhertz

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 296 posts

Posted 04 June 2019 - 10:16 AM

I think I see. You propose that in 3D space light manifests itself as corpuscular, while its wave properties take place in 2 further dimensions, orthogonal to the spatial x, y, and z coordinates, called the E axis (electric field) and the H axis (magnetic field). Is that it?   

 

Exactly. That is the idea in my mind, for decades.

 

As I had to work with EM waves, due to my profession (and studies), I always figure it out in this way.

 

The maxwellian conception of light waves (which is the same Planck had, as well as many dedicated scientists) is that it travels as a bunch of

massless (I added it now) point like entities. The wave behavior is not spatial (xyz) but in the orthogonal dimensions of E and H.

 

As it can be seen, the differences between this conception (mathematically true) with the concept of photons is caused by a lot of "science communicators" which are messing the concepts of space (xyz) and time to explain what a wavelength or a period is.

 

The problem is, historically, originated by the standard equation for waves (which was developed to explain sound waves, mechanical waves, etc.):

 

                                     Laplacian_Operator(amplitude A) = w-2 d2A/dt2

 

I'm using total derivates here, because I can't write partial derivate symbols. In the above equation, w can be understood as the speed of the sound or mechanical wave. In radiocommunications, this equation is applied to compute the behavior of the FAR FIELD on an EM wave, once its amplitude A has been composed by its E and H components, which is a gross approximation but extensively used in radio-waves. In this case, w=c.

 

The concept of  wave speed = wavelength x frequency = wavelength/period, which causes a lot of confusion with light and photons,

is an old concept (more than 300 years), originally applied to waves in an oscillating rope. Later was applied to sound waves and, finally,

to EM waves (light).

 

https://en.wikipedia...wiki/Wavelength

 

But in EM waves, wavelength concept is distorted and only can be measured with standing EM waves.

 

For instance, if you have a laboratory enviroment at which energetic EM LONG standing waves are produced, and you have an instrument

(for instance an electrical field meter: Volts/m), if you displace the instrument in a parallel path to the standing wave and you collect the

measurements done periodically, then you will observe (in a graph) that the electrical field of the standing wave is represented by a

sine wave. This doesn't mean that any spatial reference is oscillating (xyz) but E or H dimensions are the one which oscillate.

 

The unitary EM wave (the one corresponding to an energy hf), which is present in huge amounts in the standing wave, only exists one time

per unit time in the space (x,y,z,E,H). And this is what a point-like entity is, in the classical conception. All of this causes a lot of distorsive

explanations, even given by professors at the university which are not familiar with what they are teaching. Of course, students suffer this

confusion, and this mess has kept being communicated since ever. When students have to work with this subject in real works, then the

understanding comes along "slowly", due to the disinformation they suffered when being taught.

 

This reference explain the wave equation very well, with historical references:

 

https://en.wikipedia...i/Wave_equation


Edited by rhertz, 04 June 2019 - 10:39 AM.