3 ms·

> My boss is literally publishing a paper about how photons ontologically do not exist. I would be interested in this paper. Lamb argued the same, with good in

• bowsamic 4y ago
  I will try and remember when it is published. The argument is quite strong though in my opinion, basically that photons are simply Fourier-limited modes, so they always deposit energy over a time window according to the uncertainty relation df x dt = pi/4. Also this means they really don't exist as point particles EDIT: Also it of course references Lamb's paper, which I don't think was badly received afaik, just not really widely considered
  • effie 4y ago
    > they always deposit energy over a time window ... Also this means they really don't exist as point particles I am afraid this is already the orthodox view, despite the suggestive/misleading pictures used when teaching particle physics (e.g. Compton's scattering). But even the well-informed photon concept where a photon isn't a point, isn't a plane wave, and usually there is indefinite number of them, is quite horrible. I hope some day the status quo will move where we realize that both the hand wavy imprecise photon talk in textbooks/pop-sci books and the sophist "just a figure of speech when we're talking about quantum field" will be abandoned in favor of more accurate technical terms.