Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken G
Well, it may be a "poor choice" for you and rebel, who do not need to do actual calculations involving photons, but it's a good choice for all kinds of physicists who actually do ultra-accurate calculations involving photons. Still, I will give you the benefit of the doubt that what you really mean is that the classical concept of "particle" is of limited value.
All particles have wave functions, that does not in any way compromise what we mean by "particle", it just requires the term be better understood than classical analogies allow.
|
Well, we aren't the only ones that disagree with photons not agreeing with E=mc^2, the wikipedia doesn't like it either. Here is a clip from "Elementary Particles" from the wiki...
Main article: Standard Model
The Standard Model of particle physics contains 12 flavours of elementary fermions, plus their corresponding antiparticles, as well as elementary bosons that mediate the forces and the still undiscovered Higgs boson. However, the Standard Model is widely considered to be a provisional theory rather than a truly fundamental one,
since it is fundamentally incompatible with Einstein's general relativity. There are likely to be hypothetical elementary particles not described by the Standard Model, such as the graviton, the particle that would carry the gravitational force or the sparticles, supersymmetric partners of the ordinary particles.
I highlighted the discrepancy for you!