Talk:Photonic molecule
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Photonic molecule article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Massless[edit]
"Individual (massless) photons interact with each other so strongly that they act as though they have mass." Hmm. In what way do they act as though they have mass? [Macossay 10/4/2013] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.208.102 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- I also find that this statement makes little sense. A particle's mass is generally determined by its interaction with the medium and how it propagates, not generally its interaction with similar particles. For example, in a superconductor, photons act as though they have mass by virtual of minimum energy (the energy gap), below which they are virtual particles (evanescent waves) and do not propagate through the material, with results such as the Meissner effect. This would have to be clarified in a similar vein here. — Quondum 15:33, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- It's in the reference. Sourced clarifications would be highly welcome. Paradoctor (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- Science Daily is not much of a reference. I prefer the statement in Nature that does not imply that the mass is derived from the interaction strength: "individual photons travel as massive particles with strong mutual attraction". — Quondum 18:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- If you read the article, you'll note that the actual source is not Science Daily, but Lukin, one of the Nature paper's lead authors. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 20:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- Nope, it is a quote attributed to him in a press release by Harvard University no doubt written by their PR department, in the usual hyperbolic style of the popular press, couched to suggest that he might have said this in an interview. But we're talking in circles here. There's little point in focusing on details such as this until the the article gains more sources and substance. For the moment, it is largely just echoing a press release, not acting as a reference on the topic. — Quondum 23:25, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- If you read the article, you'll note that the actual source is not Science Daily, but Lukin, one of the Nature paper's lead authors. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 20:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- Science Daily is not much of a reference. I prefer the statement in Nature that does not imply that the mass is derived from the interaction strength: "individual photons travel as massive particles with strong mutual attraction". — Quondum 18:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- It's in the reference. Sourced clarifications would be highly welcome. Paradoctor (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
section: construction[edit]
"just a few degrees above absolute zero" - thats a bit lousy. in physics say 2.5 degrees (above 0 K) probably makes a BIG difference compared to 3 degrees - contrary to what is suggested in the source and regretfully in the encyclopedia as well.89.134.199.32 (talk) 23:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC).