It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Note your source calls the drawing "whimsical". I'm not sure how to make a non-whimsical drawing that would accurately reflect all the properties of photons as we understand them through experiments. The answer I think is "no", that's not the correct interpretation of that drawing.
originally posted by: IAmTheRumble
When we view a photon as a wave, do the sides of the wave possess less energy than the center of the wave.
That's not how I interpret it. I think I posted this earlier in the thread, which shows how I interpret the wave packet, as a measure of probability of finding the entire photon, not how the photon fades in and out:
originally posted by: Pirvonen
a reply to: IAmTheRumble
Yep. The photon arrives as a fade-in, achieves a maximum, and tapers off in a fade-out.
Yes, the confusing part here is there's more than one type of wave involved. The photon has EM waves related to its frequency, but the "whimsical drawing" IAmTheRumble referred to doesn't refer to that, but instead refers to a probability plot resulting from the "wave function" which is something else. For example, you can also make wave function probability plots of electrons like in IAmTheRumble's drawing, but electrons don't have an electromagnetic frequency, like the photons do, so I can understand why it's confusing.
originally posted by: Bedlam
It's very confusing to some people.
originally posted by: ImaFungi
originally posted by: mbkennel
It means that the quantum mechanical threshold for particle creation in electromagnetic fields is higher for high frequencies than for low frequencies.
You are attempting to evade the question.
Define a single photon.
And then state how that definition of a single photon, can contain the concept of frequency?
Is a single photon a full crest and a full trough? Or half and half? And then what is the nature of the ends, are they frayed? Are they pointy? How thick are they?
Of course I am not thinking about it right when I say those things, because the photon is not a object like thing, like a rope, which can have troughs crests and edges.
But a photon is the result of things, electric field and magnetic field. As sound is the result of things, air molecule and air molecule. Photon is 'the in between'.
This is a reasonable question to ask, but the answer is probably not what you're expecting: the electric and magnetic fields don't have well-defined values in a state with a fixed number of photons. The electric and magnetic field operators do not commute with the number operator which counts photons. (They can't, because they are components of the exterior derivative of the field potential operator, which creates/annihilates photons.) The lack of commutativity implies via Heisenberg's uncertainty principle that the field might have arbitrarily large values.
originally posted by: ErosA433
As said, the early universe is thought to have been entirely energy dominated, from the theroetical beginning, through the inflation era, during this phase, the dynamics of the universe where entirely set by high energy photons and neutrinos probably. A complex soup of photons, likely dark matter and then neutrinos, in all it would be mostly energy and very little stable matter, what ever matter is produced would quickly decay back to photons, or be transmuted in some way by photons and then back into energy.
I think about 99% of your mass can be attributed to energy, mostly energy of the gluon fields in your atomic nuclei and the kinetic energy of the quarks inside. The other about 1% of your mass is from the mass of the quarks and electrons and I'm not really sure if those are a form of energy but you at could say they "condensed" out of the big bang energy according to theory.
originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: ErosA433
So everything in the universe at its basis is really potential or kinetic energy?
In the last second probably over a trillion neutrinos passed right through your body and you didn't even notice. One guess about dark matter is that it could do the same thing but it's even harder to detect than neutrinos, which is why Eros is building better detectors, but he knows way more about them than I do.
originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Is dark matter tangible?
What would it taste like?