Science
Related: About this forumLight Bends by Itself
OK, now my brain hurts.
Any physics student knows that light travels in a straight line. But now researchers have shown that light can also travel in a curve, without any external influence. The effect is actually an optical illusion, although the researchers say it could have practical uses such as moving objects with light from afar.
It's well known that light bends. When light rays pass from air into water, for instance, they take a sharp turn; that's why a stick dipped in a pond appears to tilt toward the surface. Out in space, light rays passing near very massive objects such as stars are seen to travel in curves. In each instance, light-bending has an external cause: For water, it is a change in an optical property called the refractive index, and for stars, it is the warping nature of gravity.
For light to bend by itself, however, is unheard ofalmost. In the late 1970s, physicists Michael Berry at the University of Bristol in the United Kingdom, and Nandor Balazs of the State University of New York, Stony Brook, discovered that a so-called Airy waveform, a wave describing how quantum particles move, can sometimes bend by a small amount. That work was largely ignored until 2007, when Demetri Christodoulides and other physicists at the University of Central Florida in Orlando generated optical versions of Airy waves by manipulating laser light, and found that the resultant beam curved slightly as it crossed a detector.
How did this self-bending work? Light is a jumble of waves, and their peaks and troughs can interfere with one another. For example, a peak passing a trough cancels each other out to create darkness; a peak passing another peak "interferes constructively" to create a bright spot. Now, imagine light emitted from a wide stripperhaps a fluorescent tube or, better, a laser whose output has been expanded. By carefully controlling the initial position of the wave peaksthe phase of the wavesat every step along the strip, it is possible to make the light traveling outward interfere constructively at only points on a curve and cancel out everywhere else. The Airy function, which contains rapid but diminishing oscillations, proved an easy way to define those initial phasesexcept that the resultant light would bend only up to about 8°.
More: http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/04/light-bends-by-itself.html
Paper1 (Sub): http://www.opticsinfobase.org/ol/upcoming_pdf.cfm?id=161557
Paper2 (Sub): http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v108/i16/e163901
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)Light is particles and the "jumble of waves" is a probalistic distribution of where a photon may be found at any given time, not a collection of physical waves.
Dead_Parrot
(14,478 posts)laconicsax
(14,860 posts)Particles can interfere with themselves. That's why when the double-slit experiment is performed with other, larger particles, the same interference pattern emerges over time. IIRC, the result has been reproduced with fullerenes, which are definitely NOT waves.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)They behave both as waves and as particles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Wave.E2.80.93particle_duality_and_uncertainty_principles
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)Those wavelike properties aren't the result of being waves; they're the result of (for lack of a better term) quantum weirdness.
The wavelike properties that photons exhibit are the same as the wavelike properties that electrons, nucleons, atoms, and even small molecules exhibit and are related to a system's wavefunction, not being a physical wave.
Photons have never been detected as waves and the theory which explains their behavior, quantum electrodynamics, explains them as particles.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)laconicsax
(14,860 posts)The wavefunction and wavelike properties of photons and other particles aren't the result of physical waves.
Photons are particles that exhibit wavelike properties, not wave-particles.
An analogy would be a cat that acts like a dog--it would be a cat that exhibits dog like properties, not a cat-dog.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Fact is quantum particles aren't like anything at the macro level. They're not waves, they're not particles, they're quantum goo.
Photons aren't particles because particles don't have wavefunctions or wavelike properties. So they need a new name, since neither "wave" nor "particle" will do. Physicists settled on wave-particle long ago, but they are not saying it's a particle, nor are they saying it's a wave. It's something else, and they just jammed the two names together to describe that something else.
You don't consider protons professional and heavy. So there's no need to consider wave-particles waves or particles.
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)The double-slit experiment has been performed with buckyballs, which are physical, tangible objects.
They diffracted.
Bose-Einstein condensates also demonstrate the wavelike properties of physical objects (atoms).
It's true that classical particles don't have obvious wavefunctions or wavelike properties, but classical mechanics is an incomplete approximation. That's why quantum mechanics had to be developed--at the atomic scale and smaller, particles no longer behave as their classical counterparts. That doesn't mean they aren't particles, but that they don't behave as classical particles.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)So are electrons, protons, neutrons, quarks, and all the rest that makes up the quantum world.
This argument works for the exact opposite position. "That doesn't mean they aren't waves. But they don't behave as classic waves."
Besides, you yourself concede that they aren't particles when you invented the term "classic particles".
You are arguing that a term chosen 80 years ago displeases you. That's nice, but it's like finding the word "neutron" displeasing. Not liking it doesn't make it wrong.
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)QED is about the interactions of particles of light (photons) and particles of matter (electrons)
QCD is about the interactions of particles of particles of matter (quarks) and particles of the strong force (gluons).
And so on.
The wavelike properties of matter have to do with probability amplitudes, not physical waves.
When a wave-particle duality is being talked about, it isn't about bosons, mesons, fermions, etc. being both particle and wave, it's about them being particles that exhibit a character analogous to waves in certain circumstances.
I'm not sure how to explain this any more clearly. A photon isn't both particle and wave, it's a particle that sometimes behaves as if it were a wave. A particle's wavelike character isn't the result of a physical wave but probability amplitudes--the wavefunction is about where the particle might be found at any given time.
Dead_Parrot
(14,478 posts)They got wavelength, polarization and propagation speed. I rather suspect it comes down to the definition of 'wave' - you seem happy to consider physical and probability waves as 'real' waves, but not electromagnetic/de Broglie waves (e.g. for the interfering C60, ? ? 2.5pm).
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)saying that they are both waves and particles is because they have been shown rather conclusively to be particles that have some wavelike aspects and not the converse.
The most accurate and complete description of how light behaves has light as particles and light is only detected as particles.
bananas
(27,509 posts)You left out the new stuff:
<snip>
The work of Segev's group might have remained theoretical, but by coincidence, a group led by John Dudley at the University of Franche-Comté in Besançon, France, has been performing its own experiments on self-bending light. By modifying the existing Airy function, Dudley's group managed to find initial phase values that match the Israeli group's solution, even though they were unaware of it. Using a device called a spatial light modulator to pre-adjust the phase of an expanded beam of laser light, the French group found that the resultant light self-bent by up to 60°, as it will report later this month in Optics Letters.
<snip>