Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Light as a particle or wave?

  • 03-02-2011 8:41pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 519 ✭✭✭


    What can be explained assuming light is a wave and what can be explained assuming it's a particle (photon)?

    My understanding is that diffraction, refraction and interference all exhibit a wave nature. Can these things be explained if light is a particle?

    I haven't started studying duality in college yet so I'm not entirely clear on the issue.


Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,616 ✭✭✭FISMA


    Reflection can be explained in terms of particles OR waves.

    Refraction can be explained in terms of particles OR waves.

    Interference, diffraction, and polarization can be explained in terms of waves. Some arguments could be made for particles, but it's a bit of a stretch.

    The photoelectric effect cannot be explained by waves, only particles. That's why Einstein received the Nobel prize.

    Give this link a read.
    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    I never liked the "wave-particle" duality picture, and it isn't really a paradox in the modern formalism of quantum mechanics.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,616 ✭✭✭FISMA


    If light were considered to be little particles, then you could argue that when a stream of these particles go through a diffraction grating, then it could be possible for the particles to have a glancing or offset collisions with the grating that could cause an interference pattern

    It's a weak argument, granted. That's why scientists used single electrons in the double slit experiment to ensure that a particle would not interfere with itself.

    However, even with the single shot, an interference pattern is observed - welcome to Quantum world! :D

    I do not see how you could make an analogy to a particle bending around something - diffraction. You can hear a noise on a city street around a building's corner because the wave can bend around the corner. How that's explained with a particle is beyond me.

    With the polarization filter, you may again make, an albeit weak, argument as I did with the double slit experiment that there were glancing collisions that were responsible for the polarizing effect.

    In both cases it's totally wrong. Kind of like - you can do it that way, but you'll be wrong!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 519 ✭✭✭thecatspjs


    ok, that all makes sense.
    Also, would light have mass if it is a particle? Or if it's a wave?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 861 ✭✭✭Professor_Fink


    thecatspjs wrote: »
    Also, would light have mass if it is a particle? Or if it's a wave?

    No, photons have no mass.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement