Photon
Composition  Elementary particle 

Statistics  Bosonic 
Interactions  Electromagnetic 
Symbol  γ 
Theorized  Albert Einstein 
Mass 
0 <1×10^{−18} eV/c^{2}^{[1]} 
Mean lifetime  Stable^{[1]} 
Electric charge 
0 <1×10^{−35} e^{[1]} 
Spin  1 
Parity  −1^{[1]} 
C parity  −1^{[1]} 
Condensed  I(J^{PC})=0,1(1^{−−})^{[1]} 
A photon is an elementary particle, the quantum of light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation, and the force carrier for the electromagnetic force, even when static via virtual photons. The effects of this force are easily observable at both the microscopic and macroscopic level, because the photon has zero rest mass; this allows long distance interactions. Like all elementary particles, photons are currently best explained by quantum mechanics and exhibit wave–particle duality, exhibiting properties of both waves and particles. For example, a single photon may be refracted by a lens or exhibit wave interference with itself, but also act as a particle giving a definite result when its position is measured.
The modern photon concept was developed gradually by Albert Einstein to explain experimental observations that did not fit the classical wave model of light. In particular, the photon model accounted for the frequency dependence of light's energy, and explained the ability of matter and radiation to be in thermal equilibrium. It also accounted for anomalous observations, including the properties of blackbody radiation, that other physicists, most notably Max Planck, had sought to explain using semiclassical models, in which light is still described by Maxwell's equations, but the material objects that emit and absorb light do so in amounts of energy that are quantized (i.e., they change energy only by certain particular discrete amounts and cannot change energy in any arbitrary way). Although these semiclassical models contributed to the development of quantum mechanics, many further experiments^{[2]}^{[3]} starting with Compton scattering of single photons by electrons, first observed in 1923, validated Einstein's hypothesis that light itself is quantized. In 1926 the optical physicist Frithiof Wolfers and the chemist Gilbert N. Lewis coined the name photon for these particles, and after 1927, when Arthur H. Compton won the Nobel Prize for his scattering studies, most scientists accepted the validity that quanta of light have an independent existence, and the term photon for light quanta was accepted.
In the Standard Model of particle physics, photons are described as a necessary consequence of physical laws having a certain symmetry at every point in spacetime. The intrinsic properties of photons, such as charge, mass and spin, are determined by the properties of this gauge symmetry. The photon concept has led to momentous advances in experimental and theoretical physics, such as lasers, Bose–Einstein condensation, quantum field theory, and the probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics. It has been applied to photochemistry, highresolution microscopy, and measurements of molecular distances. Recently, photons have been studied as elements of quantum computers and for applications in optical imaging and optical communication such as quantum cryptography.
Contents
 Nomenclature 1

Physical properties 2
 Experimental checks on photon mass 2.1
 Historical development 3
 Einstein's light quantum 4
 Early objections 5
 6 Wave–particle duality and uncertainty principles
 Bose–Einstein model of a photon gas 7
 Stimulated and spontaneous emission 8
 Second quantization 9
 The hadronic properties of the photon 10
 The photon as a gauge boson 11
 Contributions to the mass of a system 12
 Photons in matter 13
 Technological applications 14
 Recent research 15
 See also 16
 Notes 17
 References 18
 Additional references 19
Nomenclature
Standard Model of particle physics 

Large Hadron Collider tunnel at CERN

Constituents

Limitations

Scientists
Sudarshan · Koshiba · Davis, Jr. · Anderson · Fermi · Dirac · Feynman · Rubbia · GellMann · Kendall · Taylor · Friedman · Powell · P. W. Anderson · Glashow · Meer · Cowan · Nambu · Chamberlain · Cabibbo · Schwartz · Perl · Majorana · Weinberg · Lee · Ward · Salam · Kobayashi · Maskawa · Yang · Yukawa · 't Hooft · Veltman · Gross · Politzer · Wilczek · Cronin · Fitch · Vleck · Higgs · Englert · Brout · Hagen · Guralnik · Kibble · Ting · Richter

In 1900, Max Planck was working on blackbody radiation and suggested that the energy in electromagnetic waves could only be released in "packets" of energy. In his 1901 article ^{[4]} in Annalen der Physik he called these packets "energy elements". The word quanta (singular quantum) was used even before 1900 to mean particles or amounts of different quantities, including electricity. Later, in 1905, Albert Einstein went further by suggesting that electromagnetic waves could only exist in these discrete wavepackets.^{[5]} He called such a wavepacket the light quantum (German: das Lichtquant).^{[Note 1]} The name photon derives from the Greek word for light, φῶς (transliterated phôs). Arthur Compton used photon in 1928, referring to Gilbert N. Lewis.^{[6]} The same name was used earlier, by the American physicist and psychologist Leonard T. Troland, who coined the word in 1916, in 1921 by the Irish physicist John Joly and in 1926 by the French physiologist René Wurmser (18901993) and by the French physicist Frithiof Wolfers (ca. 18901971).^{[7]} The name was suggested initially as a unit related to the illumination of the eye and the resulting sensation of light and was used later on in a physiological context. Although Wolfers's and Lewis's theories were never accepted, as they were contradicted by many experiments, the new name was adopted very soon by most physicists after Compton used it.^{[7]}^{[Note 2]}
In physics, a photon is usually denoted by the symbol γ (the Greek letter gamma). This symbol for the photon probably derives from gamma rays, which were discovered in 1900 by Paul Villard,^{[8]}^{[9]} named by Ernest Rutherford in 1903, and shown to be a form of electromagnetic radiation in 1914 by Rutherford and Edward Andrade.^{[10]} In chemistry and optical engineering, photons are usually symbolized by hν, the energy of a photon, where h is Planck's constant and the Greek letter ν (nu) is the photon's frequency. Much less commonly, the photon can be symbolized by hf, where its frequency is denoted by f.
Physical properties
A photon is massless,^{[Note 3]} has no electric charge,^{[11]} and is stable. A photon has two possible polarization states. In the momentum representation, which is preferred in quantum field theory, a photon is described by its wave vector, which determines its wavelength λ and its direction of propagation. A photon's wave vector may not be zero and can be represented either as a spatial 3vector or as a (relativistic) fourvector; in the latter case it belongs to the light cone (pictured). Different signs of the fourvector denote different circular polarizations, but in the 3vector representation one should account for the polarization state separately; it actually is a spin quantum number. In both cases the space of possible wave vectors is threedimensional.
The photon is the gauge boson for electromagnetism,^{[12]} and therefore all other quantum numbers of the photon (such as lepton number, baryon number, and flavour quantum numbers) are zero.^{[13]}
Photons are emitted in many natural processes. For example, when a charge is accelerated it emits synchrotron radiation. During a molecular, atomic or nuclear transition to a lower energy level, photons of various energy will be emitted, from radio waves to gamma rays. A photon can also be emitted when a particle and its corresponding antiparticle are annihilated (for example, electron–positron annihilation).
In empty space, the photon moves at c (the speed of light) and its energy and momentum are related by E = pc, where p is the magnitude of the momentum vector p. This derives from the following relativistic relation, with m = 0:^{[14]}
 E^{2}=p^{2} c^{2} + m^{2} c^{4}.
The energy and momentum of a photon depend only on its frequency (ν) or inversely, its wavelength (λ):
 E=\hbar\omega=h\nu=\frac{hc}{\lambda}
 \boldsymbol{p}=\hbar\boldsymbol{k},
where k is the wave vector (where the wave number k = k = 2π/λ), ω = 2πν is the angular frequency, and ħ = h/2π is the reduced Planck constant.^{[15]}
Since p points in the direction of the photon's propagation, the magnitude of the momentum is
 p=\hbar k=\frac{h\nu}{c}=\frac{h}{\lambda}.
The photon also carries spin angular momentum that does not depend on its frequency.^{[16]} The magnitude of its spin is \scriptstyle{\sqrt{2} \hbar} and the component measured along its direction of motion, its helicity, must be ±ħ. These two possible helicities, called righthanded and lefthanded, correspond to the two possible circular polarization states of the photon.^{[17]}
To illustrate the significance of these formulae, the annihilation of a particle with its antiparticle in free space must result in the creation of at least two photons for the following reason. In the center of mass frame of reference, the colliding antiparticles have no net momentum, whereas a single photon always has momentum (since it is determined, as we have seen, only by the photon's frequency or wavelength—which cannot be zero). Hence, conservation of momentum (or equivalently, translational invariance) requires that at least two photons are created, with zero net momentum. (However, it is possible if the system interacts with another particle or field for annihilation to produce one photon, as when a positron annihilates with a bound atomic electron, it is possible for only one photon to be emitted, as the nuclear Coulomb field breaks translational symmetry.) The energy of the two photons, or, equivalently, their frequency, may be determined from conservation of fourmomentum. Seen another way, the photon can be considered as its own antiparticle. The reverse process, pair production, is the dominant mechanism by which highenergy photons such as gamma rays lose energy while passing through matter.^{[18]} That process is the reverse of "annihilation to one photon" allowed in the electric field of an atomic nucleus.
The classical formulae for the energy and momentum of electromagnetic radiation can be reexpressed in terms of photon events. For example, the pressure of electromagnetic radiation on an object derives from the transfer of photon momentum per unit time and unit area to that object, since pressure is force per unit area and force is the change in momentum per unit time.^{[19]}
Experimental checks on photon mass
Current commonly accepted physical theories imply or assume the photon to be strictly massless, but this should be also checked experimentally. If the photon is not a strictly massless particle, it would not move at the exact speed of light in vacuum, c. Its speed would be lower and depend on its frequency. Relativity would be unaffected by this; the socalled speed of light, c, would then not be the actual speed at which light moves, but a constant of nature which is the maximum speed that any object could theoretically attain in spacetime.^{[20]} Thus, it would still be the speed of spacetime ripples (gravitational waves and gravitons), but it would not be the speed of photons.
A massive photon would have other effects as well. Coulomb's law would be modified and the electromagnetic field would have an extra physical degree of freedom. These effects yield more sensitive experimental probes of the photon mass than the frequency dependence of the speed of light. If Coulomb's law is not exactly valid, then that would cause the presence of an electric field inside a hollow conductor when it is subjected to an external electric field. This thus allows one to test Coulomb's law to very high precision.^{[21]} A null result of such an experiment has set a limit of m ≲ 10^{−14} eV/c^{2}.^{[22]}
Sharper upper limits have been obtained in experiments designed to detect effects caused by the galactic vector potential. Although the galactic vector potential is very large because the galactic magnetic field exists on very long length scales, only the magnetic field is observable if the photon is massless. In case of a massive photon, the mass term \scriptstyle\frac{1}{2} m^2 A_{\mu}A^{\mu} would affect the galactic plasma. The fact that no such effects are seen implies an upper bound on the photon mass of m < 3×10^{−27} eV/c^{2}.^{[23]} The galactic vector potential can also be probed directly by measuring the torque exerted on a magnetized ring.^{[24]} Such methods were used to obtain the sharper upper limit of 10^{−18}eV/c^{2} (the equivalent of 1.07×10^{−27} atomic mass units) given by the Particle Data Group.^{[25]}
These sharp limits from the nonobservation of the effects caused by the galactic vector potential have been shown to be model dependent.^{[26]} If the photon mass is generated via the Higgs mechanism then the upper limit of m≲10^{−14} eV/c^{2} from the test of Coulomb's law is valid.
Photons inside superconductors do develop a nonzero effective rest mass; as a result, electromagnetic forces become shortrange inside superconductors.^{[27]}
Historical development
In most theories up to the eighteenth century, light was pictured as being made up of particles. Since particle models cannot easily account for the refraction, diffraction and birefringence of light, wave theories of light were proposed by René Descartes (1637),^{[28]} Robert Hooke (1665),^{[29]} and Christiaan Huygens (1678);^{[30]} however, particle models remained dominant, chiefly due to the influence of Isaac Newton.^{[31]} In the early nineteenth century, Thomas Young and August Fresnel clearly demonstrated the interference and diffraction of light and by 1850 wave models were generally accepted.^{[32]} In 1865, James Clerk Maxwell's prediction^{[33]} that light was an electromagnetic wave—which was confirmed experimentally in 1888 by Heinrich Hertz's detection of radio waves^{[34]}—seemed to be the final blow to particle models of light.
The Maxwell wave theory, however, does not account for all properties of light. The Maxwell theory predicts that the energy of a light wave depends only on its intensity, not on its frequency; nevertheless, several independent types of experiments show that the energy imparted by light to atoms depends only on the light's frequency, not on its intensity. For example, some chemical reactions are provoked only by light of frequency higher than a certain threshold; light of frequency lower than the threshold, no matter how intense, does not initiate the reaction. Similarly, electrons can be ejected from a metal plate by shining light of sufficiently high frequency on it (the photoelectric effect); the energy of the ejected electron is related only to the light's frequency, not to its intensity.^{[35]}^{[Note 4]}
At the same time, investigations of blackbody radiation carried out over four decades (1860–1900) by various researchers^{[36]} culminated in Max Planck's hypothesis^{[4]}^{[37]} that the energy of any system that absorbs or emits electromagnetic radiation of frequency ν is an integer multiple of an energy quantum E = hν. As shown by Albert Einstein,^{[5]}^{[38]} some form of energy quantization must be assumed to account for the thermal equilibrium observed between matter and electromagnetic radiation; for this explanation of the photoelectric effect, Einstein received the 1921 Nobel Prize in physics.^{[39]}
Since the Maxwell theory of light allows for all possible energies of electromagnetic radiation, most physicists assumed initially that the energy quantization resulted from some unknown constraint on the matter that absorbs or emits the radiation. In 1905, Einstein was the first to propose that energy quantization was a property of electromagnetic radiation itself.^{[5]} Although he accepted the validity of Maxwell's theory, Einstein pointed out that many anomalous experiments could be explained if the energy of a Maxwellian light wave were localized into pointlike quanta that move independently of one another, even if the wave itself is spread continuously over space.^{[5]} In 1909^{[38]} and 1916,^{[40]} Einstein showed that, if Planck's law of blackbody radiation is accepted, the energy quanta must also carry momentum p = h/λ, making them fullfledged particles. This photon momentum was observed experimentally^{[41]} by Arthur Compton, for which he received the Nobel Prize in 1927. The pivotal question was then: how to unify Maxwell's wave theory of light with its experimentally observed particle nature? The answer to this question occupied Albert Einstein for the rest of his life,^{[42]} and was solved in quantum electrodynamics and its successor, the Standard Model (see Second quantization and The photon as a gauge boson, below).
Einstein's light quantum
Unlike Planck, Einstein entertained the possibility that there might be actual physical quanta of light—what we now call photons. He noticed that a light quantum with energy proportional to its frequency would explain a number of troubling puzzles and paradoxes, including an unpublished law by Stokes, the
 Articles containing Ancient Greeklanguage text
 CS1 errors: dates
 CS1 Deutschlanguage sources (de)
 CS1 Françaislanguage sources (fr)
 Articles with Germanlanguage external links
 Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters
 CS1 errors: Chapter ignored
 Commons category template with no category set
 Commons category with page title same as on Wikidata
 Featured articles
 Bosons
 Concepts in physics
 Gauge bosons
 Elementary particles
 Electromagnetism
 Optics
 Quantum electrodynamics
 Photons


By date of publication:
 Clauser, J.F. (1974). "Experimental distinction between the quantum and classical fieldtheoretic predictions for the photoelectric effect".
 Kimble, H.J.; Dagenais, M.; Mandel, L. (1977). "Photon Antibunching in Resonance Fluorescence".
 Grangier, P.; Roger, G.; Aspect, A. (1986). "Experimental Evidence for a Photon Anticorrelation Effect on a Beam Splitter: A New Light on SinglePhoton Interferences".
 Special supplemental issue of Optics and Photonics News (vol. 14, October 2003) article web link
 Glauber, R. (2005). "One Hundred Years of Light Quanta". 2005 Physics Nobel Prize Lecture.
 Hentschel, K. (2007). "Light quanta: The maturing of a concept by the stepwise accretion of meaning". Physics and Philosophy 1 (2): 1–20.
Education with single photons:
Additional references
 ^ ^{a} ^{b} ^{c} ^{d} ^{e} ^{f} Amsler, C. (
 ^ Kimble, H.J.; Dagenais, M.; Mandel, L.; Dagenais; Mandel (1977). "Photon Antibunching in Resonance Fluorescence".
 ^ Grangier, P.; Roger, G.; Aspect, A.; Roger; Aspect (1986). "Experimental Evidence for a Photon Anticorrelation Effect on a Beam Splitter: A New Light on SinglePhoton Interferences".
 ^ ^{a} ^{b}
 ^ ^{a} ^{b} ^{c} ^{d} . An English translation is available from Wikisource.
 ^ "Discordances entre l'expérience et la théorie électromagnétique du rayonnement." In Électrons et Photons. Rapports et Discussions de Cinquième Conseil de Physique, edited by Institut International de Physique Solvay. Paris: GauthierVillars, pp. 5585.
 ^ ^{a} ^{b} Helge Kragh: Photon: New light on an old name. Arxiv, 2014228
 ^
 ^
 ^
 ^ Kobychev, V.V.; Popov, S.B. (2005). "Constraints on the photon charge from observations of extragalactic sources".
 ^ Role as gauge boson and polarization section 5.1 inAitchison, I.J.R.; Hey, A.J.G. (1993). Gauge Theories in Particle Physics.
 ^ See p.31 inAmsler, C.; et al. (2008). "Review of Particle Physics".
 ^ See section 1.6 in Alonso, M.; Finn, E.J. (1968). Fundamental University Physics Volume III: Quantum and Statistical Physics. AddisonWesley.
 ^ Davison E. Soper, Electromagnetic radiation is made of photons, Institute of Theoretical Science, University of Oregon
 ^ This property was experimentally verified by Raman and Bhagavantam in 1931:
 ^ E.g., section 1.3.3.2 in Burgess, C.; Moore, G. (2007). The Standard Model. A Primer. Cambridge University Press.
 ^ E.g., section 9.3 in Alonso, M.; Finn, E.J. (1968). Fundamental University Physics Volume III: Quantum and Statistical Physics. AddisonWesley.
 ^ E.g., Appendix XXXII in
 ^ Mermin, David (February 1984). "Relativity without light". American Journal of Physics 52 (2): 119–124.
 ^ Plimpton, S.; Lawton, W. (1936). "A Very Accurate Test of Coulomb's Law of Force Between Charges". Physical Review 50 (11): 1066.
 ^ Williams, E.; Faller, J.; Hill, H. (1971). "New Experimental Test of Coulomb's Law: A Laboratory Upper Limit on the Photon Rest Mass". Physical Review Letters 26 (12): 721.
 ^ Chibisov, G V (1976). "Astrophysical upper limits on the photon rest mass". Soviet Physics Uspekhi 19 (7): 624.
 ^ Lakes, Roderic (1998). "Experimental Limits on the Photon Mass and Cosmic Magnetic Vector Potential". Physical Review Letters 80 (9): 1826.
 ^ Amsler, C; Doser, M; Antonelli, M; Asner, D; Babu, K; Baer, H; Band, H; Barnett, R et al. (2008). "Review of Particle Physics⁎". Physics Letters B 667: 1. Summary Table
 ^ Adelberger, Eric; Dvali, Gia; Gruzinov, Andrei (2007). "PhotonMass Bound Destroyed by Vortices". Physical Review Letters 98 (1): 010402. preprint
 ^ Wilczek, Frank (2010). The Lightness of Being: Mass, Ether, and the Unification of Forces. Basic Books. p. 212.
 ^
 ^
 ^ . An English translation is available from Project Gutenberg
 ^ ^{a} ^{b}
 ^ Buchwald, J.Z. (1989). The Rise of the Wave Theory of Light: Optical Theory and Experiment in the Early Nineteenth Century.
 ^ This article followed a presentation by Maxwell on 8 December 1864 to the Royal Society.
 ^
 ^ Frequencydependence of luminiscence p. 276f., photoelectric effect section 1.4 in Alonso, M.; Finn, E.J. (1968). Fundamental University Physics Volume III: Quantum and Statistical Physics. AddisonWesley.
 ^ ^{a} ^{b}
 ^ ^{a} ^{b}
 ^ ^{a} ^{b} ^{c} . An English translation is available from Wikisource.
 ^ Presentation speech by Svante Arrhenius for the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics, December 10, 1922. Online text from [nobelprize.org], The Nobel Foundation 2008. Access date 20081205.
 ^ Also Physikalische Zeitschrift, 18, 121–128 (1917). (German)
 ^ ^{a} ^{b}
 ^ ^{a} ^{b} ^{c}
 ^ Einstein and the Quantum: The Quest of the Valiant Swabian, A. Douglas Stone, Princeton University Press, 2013.
 ^ ^{a} ^{b}
 ^ Hendry, J. (1980). "The development of attitudes to the waveparticle duality of light and quantum theory, 1900–1920".
 ^ Also Zeitschrift für Physik, 24, 69 (1924).
 ^
 ^
 ^
 ^ Saleh, B. E. A. and Teich, M. C. (2007). Fundamentals of Photonics. Wiley.
 ^
 ^ E.g., p. 10f. in Schiff, L.I. (1968). Quantum Mechanics (3rd ed.). McGrawHill.
 ^
 ^
 ^ Newton, T.D.;
 ^ BialynickiBirula, I. (1994). "On the wave function of the photon".
 ^ Sipe, J.E. (1995). "Photon wave functions".
 ^ BialynickiBirula, I. (1996). "Photon wave function".
 ^ Scully, M.O.; Zubairy, M.S. (1997). Quantum Optics. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press.
 ^ The best illustration is the Couder experiment, demonstrating the behaviour of a mechanical analog, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9yWv5dqSKk
 ^ Bell, J. S., "Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics", Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
 ^
 ^
 ^
 ^ Anderson, M.H.; Ensher, J.R.; Matthews, M.R.;
 ^ [2]
 ^ [3]
 ^ Streater, R.F.; Wightman, A.S. (1989). PCT, Spin and Statistics, and All That. AddisonWesley.
 ^
 ^ Section 1.4 in Wilson, J.; Hawkes, F.J.B. (1987). Lasers: Principles and Applications. New York:

^ P. 322 in :
Die Konstanten A^n_m and B^n_m würden sich direkt berechnen lassen, wenn wir im Besitz einer im Sinne der Quantenhypothese modifizierten Elektrodynamik und Mechanik wären."
 ^
 ^ ^{a} ^{b}
 ^ ^{a} ^{b}
 ^
 ^
 ^
 ^
 ^
 ^ Specifically, Born claimed to have been inspired by Einstein's neverpublished attempts to develop a "ghostfield" theory, in which pointlike photons are guided probabilistically by ghost fields that follow Maxwell's equations.
 ^
 ^
 ^ Photonphotonscattering section 731, renormalization chapter 82 in Itzykson, C.; Zuber, J.B. (1980). Quantum Field Theory. McGrawHill.
 ^ Weiglein, G. (2008). "Electroweak Physics at the ILC".
 ^ Bauer, T. H., Spital, R. D., Yennie, D. R. and Pipkin, F. M, The hadronic properties of the photon in highenergy interactions, Rev. Mod. Phys. 50, 261–436 (1978), pages 292–293
 ^ Theory of strong interactions, J. J. Sakurai, Ann. Phys., 11 (1960)
 ^ T.F. Walsh and P.M. Zerwas, Twophoton processes in the parton model, Physics Letters B44 (1973) 195
 ^ E.Witten, Anomalous crosssection for photon  photon scattering in gauge theories, Nuclear Physics B120 (1977) 189
 ^ R. Nisius, The photon structure from deep inelastic electron photon scattering, Physics Report 332 (2000) 165
 ^ ^{a} ^{b} Ryder, L.H. (1996). Quantum field theory (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
 ^ Sheldon Glashow Nobel lecture, delivered 8 December 1979.
 ^ Abdus Salam Nobel lecture, delivered 8 December 1979.
 ^ Steven Weinberg Nobel lecture, delivered 8 December 1979.
 ^ E.g., chapter 14 in Hughes, I. S. (1985). Elementary particles (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
 ^ E.g., section 10.1 in Dunlap, R.A. (2004). An Introduction to the Physics of Nuclei and Particles.
 ^ Radiative correction to electron mass section 712, anomalous magnetic moments section 721, Lamb shift section 732 and hyperfine splitting in positronium section 103 in Itzykson, C.; Zuber, J.B. (1980). Quantum Field Theory. McGrawHill.
 ^ E. g. sections 9.1 (gravitational contribution of photons) and 10.5 (influence of gravity on light) in Stephani, H.; Stewart, J. (1990). General Relativity: An Introduction to the Theory of Gravitational Field. Cambridge University Press. pp. 86 ff, 108 ff.
 ^ Naeye, R. (1998). Through the Eyes of Hubble: Birth, Life and Violent Death of Stars. CRC Press.
 ^ Ch 4 in Hecht, Eugene (2001). Optics.
 ^ Polaritons section 10.10.1, Raman and Brillouin scattering section 10.11.3 in Patterson, J.D.; Bailey, B.C. (2007). SolidState Physics: Introduction to the Theory. Springer. pp. 569 ff, 580 ff.
 ^ E.g., section 115 C in Pine, S.H.; Hendrickson, J.B.; Cram, D.J.; Hammond, G.S. (1980). Organic Chemistry (4th ed.). McGrawHill.
 ^ Nobel lecture given by G. Wald on December 12, 1967, online at nobelprize.org: The Molecular Basis of Visual Excitation.
 ^ Photomultiplier section 1.1.10, CCDs section 1.1.8, Geiger counters section 1.3.2.1 in Kitchin, C.R. (2008). Astrophysical Techniques. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press.
 ^ Denk, W.; Svoboda, K. (1997). "Photon upmanship: Why multiphoton imaging is more than a gimmick".
 ^ Lakowicz, J.R. (2006). Principles of Fluorescence Spectroscopy. Springer. pp. 529 ff.
 ^ Jennewein, T.; Achleitner, U.; Weihs, G.; Weinfurter, H.; Zeilinger, A. (2000). "A fast and compact quantum random number generator".
 ^ Stefanov, A.; Gisin, N.; Guinnard, O.; Guinnard, L.; Zbiden, H. (2000). "Optical quantum random number generator".
References
 ^ Although the 1967 Elsevier translation of Planck's Nobel Lecture interprets Planck's Lichtquant as "photon", the more literal 1922 translation by Hans Thacher Clarke and Ludwik Silberstein The origin and development of the quantum theory, The Clarendon Press, 1922 (here [1]) uses "lightquantum". No evidence is known that Planck himself used the term "photon" by 1926 (see also this note).
 ^
 ^ The mass of the photon is believed to be exactly zero, based on experiment and theoretical considerations described in the article. Some sources also refer to the relativistic mass concept, which is just the energy scaled to units of mass. For a photon with wavelength λ or energy E, this is h/λc or E/c^{2}. This usage for the term "mass" is no longer common in scientific literature. Further info: What is the mass of a photon? http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html
 ^ The phrase "no matter how intense" refers to intensities below approximately 10^{13} W/cm^{2} at which point perturbation theory begins to break down. In contrast, in the intense regime, which for visible light is above approximately 10^{14} W/cm^{2}, the classical wave description correctly predicts the energy acquired by electrons, called ponderomotive energy. (See also: Boreham et al. (1996). "Photon density and the correspondence principle of electromagnetic interaction".) By comparison, sunlight is only about 0.1 W/cm^{2}.
 ^ These experiments produce results that cannot be explained by any classical theory of light, since they involve anticorrelations that result from the quantum measurement process. In 1974, the first such experiment was carried out by Clauser, who reported a violation of a classical Cauchy–Schwarz inequality. In 1977, Kimble et al. demonstrated an analogous antibunching effect of photons interacting with a beam splitter; this approach was simplified and sources of error eliminated in the photonanticorrelation experiment of Grangier et al. (1986). This work is reviewed and simplified further in Thorn et al. (2004). (These references are listed below under #Additional references.)
 ^ An example is US Patent Nr. 5212709.
 ^ Introductorylevel material on the various subfields of quantum optics can be found in Fox, M. (2006). Quantum Optics: An Introduction. Oxford University Press.
Notes
 Advanced Photon Source at Argonne National Laboratory
 Ballistic photon
 Doppler shift
 Electromagnetic radiation
 HEXITEC
 Laser
 Light
 Luminiferous aether
 Medipix
 Phonons
 Photon counting
 Photon polarization
 Photonic molecule
 Photography
 Photonics
 Quantum optics
 Single photon sources
 Static forces and virtualparticle exchange
 Twophoton physics
 EPR paradox
 Dirac equation
See also
Much research has been devoted to applications of photons in the field of quantum optics. Photons seem wellsuited to be elements of an extremely fast quantum computer, and the quantum entanglement of photons is a focus of research. Nonlinear optical processes are another active research area, with topics such as twophoton absorption, selfphase modulation, modulational instability and optical parametric oscillators. However, such processes generally do not require the assumption of photons per se; they may often be modeled by treating atoms as nonlinear oscillators. The nonlinear process of spontaneous parametric down conversion is often used to produce singlephoton states. Finally, photons are essential in some aspects of optical communication, especially for quantum cryptography.^{[Note 7]}
Recent research
Several different kinds of hardware random number generator involve the detection of single photons. In one example, for each bit in the random sequence that is to be produced, a photon is sent to a beamsplitter. In such a situation, there are two possible outcomes of equal probability. The actual outcome is used to determine whether the next bit in the sequence is "0" or "1".^{[106]}^{[107]}
In some cases, two energy transitions can be coupled so that, as one system absorbs a photon, another nearby system "steals" its energy and reemits a photon of a different frequency. This is the basis of fluorescence resonance energy transfer, a technique that is used in molecular biology to study the interaction of suitable proteins.^{[105]}
Under some conditions, an energy transition can be excited by "two" photons that individually would be insufficient. This allows for higher resolution microscopy, because the sample absorbs energy only in the region where two beams of different colors overlap significantly, which can be made much smaller than the excitation volume of a single beam (see twophoton excitation microscopy). Moreover, these photons cause less damage to the sample, since they are of lower energy.^{[104]}
Planck's energy formula E=h\nu is often used by engineers and chemists in design, both to compute the change in energy resulting from a photon absorption and to predict the frequency of the light emitted for a given energy transition. For example, the emission spectrum of a fluorescent light bulb can be designed using gas molecules with different electronic energy levels and adjusting the typical energy with which an electron hits the gas molecules within the bulb.^{[Note 6]}
Individual photons can be detected by several methods. The classic photomultiplier tube exploits the photoelectric effect: a photon landing on a metal plate ejects an electron, initiating an everamplifying avalanche of electrons. Chargecoupled device chips use a similar effect in semiconductors: an incident photon generates a charge on a microscopic capacitor that can be detected. Other detectors such as Geiger counters use the ability of photons to ionize gas molecules, causing a detectable change in conductivity.^{[103]}
Photons have many applications in technology. These examples are chosen to illustrate applications of photons per se, rather than general optical devices such as lenses, etc. that could operate under a classical theory of light. The laser is an extremely important application and is discussed above under stimulated emission.
Technological applications
Photons can also be cistrans isomerization that, in combination with other such transitions, is transduced into nerve impulses. The absorption of photons can even break chemical bonds, as in the photodissociation of chlorine; this is the subject of photochemistry.^{[101]}^{[102]} Analogously, gamma rays can in some circumstances dissociate atomic nuclei in a process called photodisintegration.
Light of different frequencies may travel through matter at different speeds; this is called dispersion. In some cases, it can result in extremely slow speeds of light in matter. The effects of photon interactions with other quasiparticles may be observed directly in Raman scattering and Brillouin scattering.^{[100]}
Alternatively, photons may be viewed as always traveling at c, even in matter, but they have their phase shifted (delayed or advanced) upon interaction with atomic scatters: this modifies their wavelength and momentum, but not speed.^{[99]} A light wave made up of these photons does travel slower than the speed of light. In this view the photons are "bare", and are scattered and phase shifted, while in the view of the preceding paragraph the photons are "dressed" by their interaction with matter, and move without scattering or phase shifting, but at a lower speed.
The simplest explanation is that light that travels through transparent matter does so at a lower speed than c, the speed of light in a vacuum. In addition, light can also undergo scattering and absorption. There are circumstances in which heat transfer through a material is mostly radiative, involving emission and absorption of photons within it. An example would be in the core of the Sun. Energy can take about a million years to reach the surface.^{[98]} However, this phenomenon is distinct from scattered radiation passing diffusely through matter, as it involves local equilibrium between the radiation and the temperature. Thus, the time is how long it takes the energy to be transferred, not the photons themselves. Once in open space, a photon from the Sun takes only 8.3 minutes to reach Earth. The factor by which the speed of light is decreased in a material is called the refractive index of the material. In a classical wave picture, the slowing can be explained by the light inducing electric polarization in the matter, the polarized matter radiating new light, and the new light interfering with the original light wave to form a delayed wave. In a particle picture, the slowing can instead be described as a blending of the photon with quantum excitation of the matter (quasiparticles such as phonons and excitons) to form a polariton; this polariton has a nonzero effective mass, which means that it cannot travel at c.
Any 'explanation' of how photons travel through matter has to explain why different arrangements of matter are transparent or opaque at different wavelengths (light through carbon as diamond or not, as graphite) and why individual photons behave in the same way as large groups. Explanations that invoke 'absorption' and 'reemission' have to provide an explanation for the directionality of the photons (diffraction, reflection) and further explain how entangled photon pairs can travel through matter without their quantum state collapsing.
Photons in matter
Since photons contribute to the stress–energy tensor, they exert a gravitational attraction on other objects, according to the theory of general relativity. Conversely, photons are themselves affected by gravity; their normally straight trajectories may be bent by warped spacetime, as in gravitational lensing, and their frequencies may be lowered by moving to a higher gravitational potential, as in the Pound–Rebka experiment. However, these effects are not specific to photons; exactly the same effects would be predicted for classical electromagnetic waves.^{[97]}
This concept is applied in key predictions of quantum electrodynamics (QED, see above). In that theory, the mass of electrons (or, more generally, leptons) is modified by including the mass contributions of virtual photons, in a technique known as renormalization. Such "radiative corrections" contribute to a number of predictions of QED, such as the magnetic dipole moment of leptons, the Lamb shift, and the hyperfine structure of bound lepton pairs, such as muonium and positronium.^{[96]}
The energy of a system that emits a photon is decreased by the energy E of the photon as measured in the rest frame of the emitting system, which may result in a reduction in mass in the amount {E}/{c^2}. Similarly, the mass of a system that absorbs a photon is increased by a corresponding amount. As an application, the energy balance of nuclear reactions involving photons is commonly written in terms of the masses of the nuclei involved, and terms of the form {E}/{c^2} for the gamma photons (and for other relevant energies, such as the recoil energy of nuclei).^{[95]}
Contributions to the mass of a system
In the prevailing Standard Model of physics, the photon is one of four gauge bosons in the electroweak interaction; the other three are denoted W^{+}, W^{−} and Z^{0} and are responsible for the weak interaction. Unlike the photon, these gauge bosons have mass, owing to a mechanism that breaks their SU(2) gauge symmetry. The unification of the photon with W and Z gauge bosons in the electroweak interaction was accomplished by Sheldon Glashow, Abdus Salam and Steven Weinberg, for which they were awarded the 1979 Nobel Prize in physics.^{[91]}^{[92]}^{[93]} Physicists continue to hypothesize grand unified theories that connect these four gauge bosons with the eight gluon gauge bosons of quantum chromodynamics; however, key predictions of these theories, such as proton decay, have not been observed experimentally.^{[94]}
The quanta of an Abelian gauge field must be massless, uncharged bosons, as long as the symmetry is not broken; hence, the photon is predicted to be massless, and to have zero electric charge and integer spin. The particular form of the electromagnetic interaction specifies that the photon must have spin ±1; thus, its helicity must be \pm \hbar. These two spin components correspond to the classical concepts of righthanded and lefthanded circularly polarized light. However, the transient virtual photons of quantum electrodynamics may also adopt unphysical polarization states.^{[90]}
The electromagnetic field can be understood as a gauge field, i.e., as a field that results from requiring that a gauge symmetry holds independently at every position in spacetime.^{[90]} For the electromagnetic field, this gauge symmetry is the Abelian U(1) symmetry of a complex number, which reflects the ability to vary the phase of a complex number without affecting observables or real valued functions made from it, such as the energy or the Lagrangian.
The photon as a gauge boson
However, if experimentally probed at very short distances, the intrinsic structure of the photon is recognized as a flux of quark and gluon components, quasifree according to asymptotic freedom in QCD and described by the photon structure function.^{[87]}^{[88]} A comprehensive comparison of data with theoretical predictions is presented in a recent review.^{[89]}
A theory called Vector Meson Dominance (VMD) was developed to explain this effect. According to VMD, the photon is a superposition of the pure electromagnetic photon (which interacts only with electric charges) and vector meson.^{[86]}
Measurements of the interaction between energetic photons and hadrons show that the interaction is much more intense than expected by the interaction of merely photons with the hadron's electric charge. Furthermore, the interaction of energetic photons with protons is similar to the interaction of photons with neutrons^{[85]} in spite of the fact that the electric charge structures of protons and neutrons are substantially different.
The hadronic properties of the photon
where n_{k_i}\rangle represents the state in which \, n_{k_i} photons are in the mode k_i. In this notation, the creation of a new photon in mode k_i (e.g., emitted from an atomic transition) is written as n_{k_i}\rangle \rightarrown_{k_i}+1\rangle. This notation merely expresses the concept of Born, Heisenberg and Jordan described above, and does not add any physics.
 n_{k_0}\rangle\otimesn_{k_1}\rangle\otimes\dots\otimesn_{k_n}\rangle\dots
In modern physics notation, the quantum state of the electromagnetic field is written as a Fock state, a tensor product of the states for each electromagnetic mode
Dirac's secondorder perturbation theory can involve virtual photons, transient intermediate states of the electromagnetic field; the static electric and magnetic interactions are mediated by such virtual photons. In such quantum field theories, the probability amplitude of observable events is calculated by summing over all possible intermediate steps, even ones that are unphysical; hence, virtual photons are not constrained to satisfy E=pc, and may have extra polarization states; depending on the gauge used, virtual photons may have three or four polarization states, instead of the two states of real photons. Although these transient virtual photons can never be observed, they contribute measurably to the probabilities of observable events. Indeed, such secondorder and higherorder perturbation calculations can give apparently infinite contributions to the sum. Such unphysical results are corrected for using the technique of renormalization. Other virtual particles may contribute to the summation as well; for example, two photons may interact indirectly through virtual electron–positron pairs.^{[83]} In fact, such photonphoton scattering, as well as electronphoton scattering, is meant to be one of the modes of operations of the planned particle accelerator, the International Linear Collider.^{[84]}
Dirac took this one step further.^{[73]}^{[74]} He treated the interaction between a charge and an electromagnetic field as a small perturbation that induces transitions in the photon states, changing the numbers of photons in the modes, while conserving energy and momentum overall. Dirac was able to derive Einstein's A_{ij} and B_{ij} coefficients from first principles, and showed that the Bose–Einstein statistics of photons is a natural consequence of quantizing the electromagnetic field correctly (Bose's reasoning went in the opposite direction; he derived Planck's law of blackbody radiation by assuming B–E statistics). In Dirac's time, it was not yet known that all bosons, including photons, must obey Bose–Einstein statistics.
In 1925, Born, Heisenberg and Jordan reinterpreted Debye's concept in a key way.^{[82]} As may be shown classically, the Fourier modes of the electromagnetic field—a complete set of electromagnetic plane waves indexed by their wave vector k and polarization state—are equivalent to a set of uncoupled simple harmonic oscillators. Treated quantum mechanically, the energy levels of such oscillators are known to be E=nh\nu, where \nu is the oscillator frequency. The key new step was to identify an electromagnetic mode with energy E=nh\nu as a state with n photons, each of energy h\nu. This approach gives the correct energy fluctuation formula.
In 1910, Peter Debye derived Planck's law of blackbody radiation from a relatively simple assumption.^{[81]} He correctly decomposed the electromagnetic field in a cavity into its Fourier modes, and assumed that the energy in any mode was an integer multiple of h\nu, where \nu is the frequency of the electromagnetic mode. Planck's law of blackbody radiation follows immediately as a geometric sum. However, Debye's approach failed to give the correct formula for the energy fluctuations of blackbody radiation, which were derived by Einstein in 1909.^{[38]}
Second quantization
Einstein was troubled by the fact that his theory seemed incomplete, since it did not determine the direction of a spontaneously emitted photon. A probabilistic nature of lightparticle motion was first considered by Newton in his treatment of birefringence and, more generally, of the splitting of light beams at interfaces into a transmitted beam and a reflected beam. Newton hypothesized that hidden variables in the light particle determined which path it would follow.^{[31]} Similarly, Einstein hoped for a more complete theory that would leave nothing to chance, beginning his separation^{[42]} from quantum mechanics. Ironically, Max Born's probabilistic interpretation of the wave function^{[78]}^{[79]} was inspired by Einstein's later work searching for a more complete theory.^{[80]}
Einstein could not fully justify his rate equations, but claimed that it should be possible to calculate the coefficients A_{ij}, B_{ji} and B_{ij} once physicists had obtained "mechanics and electrodynamics modified to accommodate the quantum hypothesis".^{[71]} In fact, in 1926, Paul Dirac derived the B_{ij} rate constants in using a semiclassical approach,^{[72]} and, in 1927, succeeded in deriving all the rate constants from first principles within the framework of quantum theory.^{[73]}^{[74]} Dirac's work was the foundation of quantum electrodynamics, i.e., the quantization of the electromagnetic field itself. Dirac's approach is also called second quantization or quantum field theory;^{[75]}^{[76]}^{[77]} earlier quantum mechanical treatments only treat material particles as quantum mechanical, not the electromagnetic field.
The A and Bs are collectively known as the Einstein coefficients.^{[70]}
 A_{ij}=\frac{8 \pi h \nu^{3}}{c^{3}} B_{ij}.
where A_{ij} is the rate constant for emitting a photon spontaneously, and B_{ij} is the rate constant for emitting it in response to ambient photons (induced or stimulated emission). In thermodynamic equilibrium, the number of atoms in state i and that of atoms in state j must, on average, be constant; hence, the rates R_{ji} and R_{ij} must be equal. Also, by arguments analogous to the derivation of Boltzmann statistics, the ratio of N_{i} and N_{j} is g_i/g_j\exp{(E_jE_i)/kT)}, where g_{i,j} are the degeneracy of the state i and that of j, respectively, E_{i,j} their energies, k the Boltzmann constant and T the system's temperature. From this, it is readily derived that g_iB_{ij}=g_jB_{ji} and
 R_{ij}=N_{i} A_{ij} + N_{i} B_{ij} \rho(\nu) \!
where B_{ji} is the rate constant for absorption. For the reverse process, there are two possibilities: spontaneous emission of a photon, and a return to the lowerenergy state that is initiated by the interaction with a passing photon. Following Einstein's approach, the corresponding rate R_{ij} for the emission of photons of frequency \nu and transition from a higher energy E_{i} to a lower energy E_{j} is
 R_{ji}=N_{j} B_{ji} \rho(\nu) \!
Einstein began by postulating simple proportionality relations for the different reaction rates involved. In his model, the rate R_{ji} for a system to absorb a photon of frequency \nu and transition from a lower energy E_{j} to a higher energy E_{i} is proportional to the number N_{j} of atoms with energy E_{j} and to the energy density \rho(\nu) of ambient photons with that frequency,
In 1916, Einstein showed that Planck's radiation law could be derived from a semiclassical, statistical treatment of photons and atoms, which implies a relation between the rates at which atoms emit and absorb photons. The condition follows from the assumption that light is emitted and absorbed by atoms independently, and that the thermal equilibrium is preserved by interaction with atoms. Consider a cavity in thermal equilibrium and filled with electromagnetic radiation and atoms that can emit and absorb that radiation. Thermal equilibrium requires that the energy density \rho(\nu) of photons with frequency \nu (which is proportional to their number density) is, on average, constant in time; hence, the rate at which photons of any particular frequency are emitted must equal the rate of absorbing them.^{[69]}
Stimulated and spontaneous emission
The modern view on this is that photons are, by virtue of their integer spin, bosons (as opposed to fermions with halfinteger spin). By the spinstatistics theorem, all bosons obey Bose–Einstein statistics (whereas all fermions obey Fermi–Dirac statistics).^{[68]}
In 1924, Satyendra Nath Bose derived Planck's law of blackbody radiation without using any electromagnetism, but rather a modification of coarsegrained counting of phase space.^{[62]} Einstein showed that this modification is equivalent to assuming that photons are rigorously identical and that it implied a "mysterious nonlocal interaction",^{[63]}^{[64]} now understood as the requirement for a symmetric quantum mechanical state. This work led to the concept of coherent states and the development of the laser. In the same papers, Einstein extended Bose's formalism to material particles (bosons) and predicted that they would condense into their lowest quantum state at low enough temperatures; this Bose–Einstein condensation was observed experimentally in 1995.^{[65]} It was later used by Lene Hau to slow, and then completely stop, light in 1999^{[66]} and 2001.^{[67]}
Bose–Einstein model of a photon gas
Another interpretation, that avoids duality, is the De Broglie–Bohm theory: knowned also as the pilotwave model, the photon in this theory is both, wave and particle.^{[60]} "This idea seems to me so natural and simple, to resolve the waveparticle dilemma in such a clear and ordinary way, that it is a great mystery to me that it was so generally ignored",^{[61]} J.S.Bell.
Both photons and material particles such as electrons create analogous interference patterns when passing through a doubleslit experiment. For photons, this corresponds to the interference of a Maxwell light wave whereas, for material particles, this corresponds to the interference of the Schrödinger wave equation. Although this similarity might suggest that Maxwell's equations are simply Schrödinger's equation for photons, most physicists do not agree.^{[53]}^{[54]} For one thing, they are mathematically different; most obviously, Schrödinger's one equation solves for a complex field, whereas Maxwell's four equations solve for real fields. More generally, the normal concept of a Schrödinger probability wave function cannot be applied to photons.^{[55]} Being massless, they cannot be localized without being destroyed; technically, photons cannot have a position eigenstate \mathbf{r} \rangle, and, thus, the normal Heisenberg uncertainty principle \Delta x \Delta p > h/2 does not pertain to photons. A few substitute wave functions have been suggested for the photon,^{[56]}^{[57]}^{[58]}^{[59]} but they have not come into general use. Instead, physicists generally accept the secondquantized theory of photons described below, quantum electrodynamics, in which photons are quantized excitations of electromagnetic modes.
See coherent state and squeezed coherent state for more details.
 \Delta n \Delta \phi > 1
The analogous uncertainty principle for photons forbids the simultaneous measurement of the number n of photons (see Fock state and the Second quantization section below) in an electromagnetic wave and the phase \phi of that wave
giving the product \Delta x \Delta p \, \sim \, h, which is Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Thus, the entire world is quantized; both matter and fields must obey a consistent set of quantum laws, if either one is to be quantized.^{[52]}
 \Delta p \sim p_{\text{photon}} \sin\theta=\frac{h}{\lambda} \sin\theta
where \theta is the aperture angle of the microscope. Thus, the position uncertainty \Delta x can be made arbitrarily small by reducing the wavelength λ. The momentum of the electron is uncertain, since it received a "kick" \Delta p from the light scattering from it into the microscope. If light were not quantized into photons, the uncertainty \Delta p could be made arbitrarily small by reducing the light's intensity. In that case, since the wavelength and intensity of light can be varied independently, one could simultaneously determine the position and momentum to arbitrarily high accuracy, violating the uncertainty principle. By contrast, Einstein's formula for photon momentum preserves the uncertainty principle; since the photon is scattered anywhere within the aperture, the uncertainty of momentum transferred equals
 \Delta x \sim \frac{\lambda}{\sin \theta}
A key element of quantum mechanics is Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which forbids the simultaneous measurement of the position and momentum of a particle along the same direction. Remarkably, the uncertainty principle for charged, material particles requires the quantization of light into photons, and even the frequency dependence of the photon's energy and momentum. An elegant illustration is Heisenberg's thought experiment for locating an electron with an ideal microscope.^{[51]} The position of the electron can be determined to within the resolving power of the microscope, which is given by a formula from classical optics
Photons, like all quantum objects, exhibit both wavelike and particlelike properties. Their dual wave–particle nature can be difficult to visualize. The photon displays clearly wavelike phenomena such as diffraction and interference on the length scale of its wavelength. For example, a single photon passing through a doubleslit experiment lands on the screen exhibiting interference phenomena but only if no measure was made on the actual slit being run across. To account for the particle interpretation that phenomenon is called probability distribution but behaves according to Maxwell's equations.^{[49]} However, experiments confirm that the photon is not a short pulse of electromagnetic radiation; it does not spread out as it propagates, nor does it divide when it encounters a beam splitter.^{[50]} Rather, the photon seems to be a pointlike particle since it is absorbed or emitted as a whole by arbitrarily small systems, systems much smaller than its wavelength, such as an atomic nucleus (≈10^{−15} m across) or even the pointlike electron. Nevertheless, the photon is not a pointlike particle whose trajectory is shaped probabilistically by the electromagnetic field, as conceived by Einstein and others; that hypothesis was also refuted by the photoncorrelation experiments cited above. According to our present understanding, the electromagnetic field itself is produced by photons, which in turn result from a local gauge symmetry and the laws of quantum field theory (see the Second quantization and Gauge boson sections below).
Wave–particle duality and uncertainty principles
A few physicists persisted^{[48]} in developing semiclassical models in which electromagnetic radiation is not quantized, but matter appears to obey the laws of quantum mechanics. Although the evidence for photons from chemical and physical experiments was overwhelming by the 1970s, this evidence could not be considered as absolutely definitive; since it relied on the interaction of light with matter, a sufficiently complicated theory of matter could in principle account for the evidence. Nevertheless, all semiclassical theories were refuted definitively in the 1970s and 1980s by photoncorrelation experiments.^{[Note 5]} Hence, Einstein's hypothesis that quantization is a property of light itself is considered to be proven.
However, refined Compton experiments showed that energy–momentum is conserved extraordinarily well in elementary processes; and also that the jolting of the electron and the generation of a new photon in Compton scattering obey causality to within 10 ps. Accordingly, Bohr and his coworkers gave their model "as honorable a funeral as possible".^{[42]} Nevertheless, the failures of the BKS model inspired Werner Heisenberg in his development of matrix mechanics.^{[47]}
 Energy and momentum are conserved only on the average in interactions between matter and radiation, not in elementary processes such as absorption and emission. This allows one to reconcile the discontinuously changing energy of the atom (jump between energy states) with the continuous release of energy into radiation.
 Causality is abandoned. For example, spontaneous emissions are merely emissions induced by a "virtual" electromagnetic field.
Even after Compton's experiment, Niels Bohr, Hendrik Kramers and John Slater made one last attempt to preserve the Maxwellian continuous electromagnetic field model of light, the socalled BKS model.^{[46]} To account for the data then available, two drastic hypotheses had to be made:
Einstein's 1905 predictions were verified experimentally in several ways in the first two decades of the 20th century, as recounted in Robert Millikan's Nobel lecture.^{[44]} However, before Compton's experiment^{[41]} showing that photons carried momentum proportional to their wave number (or frequency) (1922), most physicists were reluctant to believe that electromagnetic radiation itself might be particulate. (See, for example, the Nobel lectures of Wien,^{[36]} Planck^{[37]} and Millikan.^{[44]}) Instead, there was a widespread belief that energy quantization resulted from some unknown constraint on the matter that absorbs or emits radiation. Attitudes changed over time. In part, the change can be traced to experiments such as Compton scattering, where it was much more difficult not to ascribe quantization to light itself to explain the observed results.^{[45]}
Early objections
[43]