"Pure Energy"

[Jim Green <JMGreen@SISNA.COM>]

Can I jump into this dialogue -- as an other?  I'd like to refine my own
ideas about photons and how they fit into the discussion about energy:

I am not sure what we mean when we say that light (and presumably all E/M
radiation) has a dual nature.  Yes, light behaves in such a way that some
experiments are nicely interpreted as though light were a wave (ie
interference patterns) and light also behaves in such a way that other
experiments are nicely interpreted as though light were a particle (ie the
photoelectric effect) -- and sometimes the particle is called a photon.

BUT in out minds do we think that _sometimes_ light IS a wave and at
_other_ times light IS a collection of particles?

Or do we think that light is something we do not yet understand very well
-- and sometimes we mumble "photons" and at other times we mumble "waves"?

If light IS a wave at least sometimes, and there is nothing substantive
associated with it which could be said to have the "property of energy" ,
then I would be hard pressed to avoid the idea of "pure energy".  If
sometimes light IS a photon particle, I still have a problem -- I think
mostly because I haven't the foggiest of just what a photon might be (I say
this as though I did have the foggiest of what an electron, say,  might
be).  BUT if light is something else -- something we have not yet
illuminated (:-) --, then I have no problem assuming that that something
will turn out to be "substantive" and could indeed have the property of energy.

Until then I am not anxious to entertain the idea of "pure energy".

Jim Green

At 09:02 AM 9/11/99 -0500, you wrote:
> >  I have high school teachers asking me
> > if photons are pure energy. How do I answer such a question?
> > Most of them don't know what a photon is (I'm not sure I could
> > tell them) and if I tell them there's no such thing as "pure
> > energy" they just don't seem to want to hear me.
>
> Leigh,
>
> You may chose not to get into this but I wish you would.  I am one of those
> high school teachers and I am a bit confused.  Is the reason you would not
> call
> a photon pure energy because of the dual nature of light?  If there is no such
> thing as pure energy then what is a wave?  I have thought that describing a
> wave as pure energy was appropriate.  If this is not the case I would like to
> have you and or others help me to clarify my thinking.

Jim Green
mailto:JMGreen@sisna.com
http://users.sisna.com/jmgreen