▲ 840 ▼ I wave my particle (feddit.de) submitted 2 years ago by EherVielleicht@feddit.de to c/memes@lemmy.ml 43 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] Eufalconimorph@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 2 years ago (4 children) Light is made of quanta. Neither waves nor particles. permalink fedilink source hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 15 points 2 years ago (1 child) The word "quanta" in this context means discrete units of energy. It is a general term; in the case of electromagnetic energy a quantum is a photon. Mindbogglingly, light behaves as both particles and waves, not neither. The best explanation I've seen for this so far is this video about quantum fields. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks [B] 2 points 2 years ago Here is an alternative Piped link(s): this video about quantum fields Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube. I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub. permalink fedilink source parent [–] EherVielleicht@feddit.de [S] 13 points 2 years ago (1 child) A photon is a quanta of light. Our picture of light, to this point, has been that of a wave. Wave-like characteristics are responsible for diffraction and refraction. However, light is absorbed and emitted one photon at a time. I knew some new study would betrayal me, well I still wave my particle..... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] McJonalds@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) isnt a photon just a wave in the photon field or w\e? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 3 points 2 years ago If quantum field theory is correct, yes. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ceuk@feddit.uk 5 points 2 years ago Quanta is just a word (related to quantity) as in: "smallest divisible quantity of" So in the case of light we would be talking about photons, which are a quanta of light (e.g. discrete "packets" of light). Light behaves as a wave, e.g. we can talk about the frequency of light. But it's also pretty different from macroscopic waves e.g. it's not accurate to think of them as what your see on a typical sinusoid graph, as at that level things don't really have a fixed shape or position, we're talking more about areas where they "probably" are (see: superposition, HUP etc) It's useful to think of light in terms of discrete photons for a number of reasons, e.g. in pair production, 1 gamma photon would be sufficient to create 1 electron/positron pair. Photons also exhibit other particle-like behaviour despite having no rest mass. But the idea of rest mass becomes less significant at that level anyway as the line between energy and mass (e=mc²) gets blurred. And any sufficiently high energy object will likely exhibit some massive properties (hence why we tend to use MeV - a measure of energy - instead of a measure of mass, even when performing calculations with massive particles such as electrons. permalink fedilink source parent [–] rockerface@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago Or both permalink fedilink source parent
[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 15 points 2 years ago (1 child) The word "quanta" in this context means discrete units of energy. It is a general term; in the case of electromagnetic energy a quantum is a photon. Mindbogglingly, light behaves as both particles and waves, not neither. The best explanation I've seen for this so far is this video about quantum fields. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks [B] 2 points 2 years ago Here is an alternative Piped link(s): this video about quantum fields Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube. I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks [B] 2 points 2 years ago Here is an alternative Piped link(s): this video about quantum fields Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube. I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] EherVielleicht@feddit.de [S] 13 points 2 years ago (1 child) A photon is a quanta of light. Our picture of light, to this point, has been that of a wave. Wave-like characteristics are responsible for diffraction and refraction. However, light is absorbed and emitted one photon at a time. I knew some new study would betrayal me, well I still wave my particle..... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] McJonalds@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) isnt a photon just a wave in the photon field or w\e? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 3 points 2 years ago If quantum field theory is correct, yes. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] McJonalds@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) isnt a photon just a wave in the photon field or w\e? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 3 points 2 years ago If quantum field theory is correct, yes. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 3 points 2 years ago If quantum field theory is correct, yes. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ceuk@feddit.uk 5 points 2 years ago Quanta is just a word (related to quantity) as in: "smallest divisible quantity of" So in the case of light we would be talking about photons, which are a quanta of light (e.g. discrete "packets" of light). Light behaves as a wave, e.g. we can talk about the frequency of light. But it's also pretty different from macroscopic waves e.g. it's not accurate to think of them as what your see on a typical sinusoid graph, as at that level things don't really have a fixed shape or position, we're talking more about areas where they "probably" are (see: superposition, HUP etc) It's useful to think of light in terms of discrete photons for a number of reasons, e.g. in pair production, 1 gamma photon would be sufficient to create 1 electron/positron pair. Photons also exhibit other particle-like behaviour despite having no rest mass. But the idea of rest mass becomes less significant at that level anyway as the line between energy and mass (e=mc²) gets blurred. And any sufficiently high energy object will likely exhibit some massive properties (hence why we tend to use MeV - a measure of energy - instead of a measure of mass, even when performing calculations with massive particles such as electrons. permalink fedilink source parent