0

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1604/1604.03869.pdf

"Substituting Eq. (19) into Eq. (6) gives the photon radius ... (20) where re is the classical radius of an electron. Since the length of a photon is equal to half of the wavelength and the radius is proportional to square root of the wavelength, the size and shape of a photon vary with the photon energy or wavelength. A photon is in shape like a thin stick if its energy is lower than the rest energy of an electron and like a plate if its radius is smaller than the classical radius of an electron".

I would presume that for a circle or sphere, the "length" would just be the diameter and 2*radius. Yet here, it says length is proportional to half the wavelength, while radius is proportional at a square root level.

So how does "length" differ from radius here? I presume a photon here is being treated as some sort of wave packet of light quanta, but I don't know what dimensions of measurement "length" and "radius" are referring to. And what would be the third dimension of measurement, would it be equal to the length, or to the radius?

Tristan
  • 774
  • 2
    I don't know if it is good for something and I didn't read the paper yet, but it, and your question, are surely related to this question https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/612110/is-it-possible-to-confine-a-photon-in-less-than-its-wavelength – Alchimista Nov 03 '21 at 12:03
  • 1
    This comes across as an alarming attempt to reverse-engineer quantum optics through a semi-classical Bohr-corpuscle vision of the photon. If you grasped the crank conceit of the paper, (1),(2),(3), visualizing photons as paintballs filled with an eigen-electric field, you might have pressed the alarm button much earlier in the paper... – Cosmas Zachos Nov 03 '21 at 14:35

0 Answers0