Thread: Gamma rays - need refreshing for exam

Originally Posted by Sebastiani

I disagree. I would argue that the distinction is simply a matter of convention (ie: what effect is being studied) and also applies equally well to matter (the orbits of electrons around an atom, for instance, can be explained by simply interpreting the electron as a wave). Another example is the photo-electric effect, which can be stimulated by frequencies much lower than gamma rays, which can be explained by adopting a particle-centric viewpoint.

The photo-electric effect is what I was referring to when I said "sensitive equipment." Without deliberately looking for it, you will not perceive the particle nature of low-energy light.

I side with Feynman. Light is made of particles, not waves. The wave-like behavior is explained by the phasors of quantum field theory. But it isn't some strange thing that's both a wave and a particle -- it's a particle, period.

(If you doubt that Feynman took such a strong stance on the issue, read through his book "The strange theory of light and matter")

EDIT: Also, the original explanation of the energy levels of hydrogen in terms of an integral number of electron wavelengths "fitting" around the orbit came up with the right values, but only by coincidence. That explanation is not considered correct under modern quantum physics. It hinges on the concept of an "orbital radius" which is nonsense. It does say something about the beauty of physics, though, that you can come up with the right answer even if you use the wrong method