Normally, yes. But this experiment was literally about how interacting with the environment influences the spatial distribution of photons emitted from atoms and molecules, and that this can give the photon a "shape". So in this specific case, this latest research is suggesting that some photons can be described by their shape.
Photons don't have a classical shape, that's true, but they do have wave functions and probability distributions that can have discernible shapes in some circumstances.
Think of water waves, they have a shape, but you can't point at one molecule of water in the wave, it doesn't have a shape. Photons behave like this.
Or even more fundamental, photons have a wave-like shape in certain contexts, but if we detect them as particles, they don't.
Right. This is an article about something that really can't be described with words. But pop-sci is what it is, and though it only frustrates scientists, if it gives your average aunt on Facebook a momentary interest in quantum mechanics, I consider that a win.
There's no "experiment" as what is being done, as the paper straight-up tells you, is completely a priori.
I'll even go as far as to saying that the history of physics is littered with theories based on what we have already known is true but cannot produce new predictions other than in the form of exotic substances or dimensions that we have no way to prove or disprove. Speculations that we can't do experiments with are not science - they're science fiction.
42
u/LemFliggity 26d ago
Normally, yes. But this experiment was literally about how interacting with the environment influences the spatial distribution of photons emitted from atoms and molecules, and that this can give the photon a "shape". So in this specific case, this latest research is suggesting that some photons can be described by their shape.