3 ms·

> Instead we have “classical EM works, therefore photons are bullshit and QM is not real”. Anyone who is saying that is obviously wrong and of course I am not

> Instead we have “classical EM works, therefore photons are bullshit and QM is not real”. Anyone who is saying that is obviously wrong and of course I am not claiming that (although I do think that photons are probably bullshit) > The fact that we can understand a macroscopic phenomenon using classical EM theory is thoroughly uninteresting Why is it uninteresting? To me as a physicist this is thoroughly interesting! > It’s still just a bunch of photons. This is somewhat misleading, the wave description of light is complete and still totally preserved in quantum optics. The only deficiency is that the light's energy density should be quantised. You absolutely should not think of light as infinitely small particles that move at the speed of light, that is an inaccurate and outdated picture.

kergonath 4y ago
> Anyone who is saying that is obviously wrong and of course I am not claiming that This thread has fine examples of people doing just that, I did not invent it. > Why is it uninteresting? To me as a physicist this is thoroughly interesting! It is interesting in that it’s an example of QM agreeing with classical EM theory. The opposite would be quite an issue actually, because it would mean that QM does not behave at the classical limit. There are lots of other examples of QM agreeing with classical mechanics, there is nothing magical about polarisers. > the wave description of light is complete and still totally preserved in quantum optics. The only deficiency is that the light's energy density should be quantised. In a narrow range of quantum optics maybe. I work on radiation/matter interaction, and you definitely cannot account for a lot of things if you posit that light is a wave. Unless you add some particle-like characteristics to your wave, in which case it’s not much better than assigning arbitrary wave-like properties to a particle. > You absolutely should not think of light as infinitely small particles that move at the speed of light I don’t. > that is an inaccurate and outdated picture It is not a wave either. The problem is when we try to pigeonhole it in either character. I mean, really, are we arguing the whole wave/particle duality concept again? That was novel a century ago.
- bowsamic 4y ago
  It’s not a symmetric picture. The wave picture is far more useful than the particle one generally. Also I have to ask, how do you think of a particle?

kergonath 4y ago

> Anyone who is saying that is obviously wrong and of course I am not claiming that This thread has fine examples of people doing just that, I did not invent it. > Why is it uninteresting? To me as a physicist this is thoroughly interesting! It is interesting in that it’s an example of QM agreeing with classical EM theory. The opposite would be quite an issue actually, because it would mean that QM does not behave at the classical limit. There are lots of other examples of QM agreeing with classical mechanics, there is nothing magical about polarisers. > the wave description of light is complete and still totally preserved in quantum optics. The only deficiency is that the light's energy density should be quantised. In a narrow range of quantum optics maybe. I work on radiation/matter interaction, and you definitely cannot account for a lot of things if you posit that light is a wave. Unless you add some particle-like characteristics to your wave, in which case it’s not much better than assigning arbitrary wave-like properties to a particle. > You absolutely should not think of light as infinitely small particles that move at the speed of light I don’t. > that is an inaccurate and outdated picture It is not a wave either. The problem is when we try to pigeonhole it in either character. I mean, really, are we arguing the whole wave/particle duality concept again? That was novel a century ago.

bowsamic 4y ago
It’s not a symmetric picture. The wave picture is far more useful than the particle one generally. Also I have to ask, how do you think of a particle?