|
De Brogle showed that all particles exhibit a wavelike motion. Bohr cointed the bord "Complementarity" as an all purpose methodology to cover the particle/wave debates. In short whether something exhibits behaviour as a particle or wave will depend on it method of measurement.
Along these lines one can look at the world as composed of waves, or at the very least define it by wave functions mathematically. Simplistically, one could say that the natural state of any wave in a vacuum and sans mass will be to travel at the speed of light in all directions unless prevented otherwise. Thus goes the way of all photons which in common parlance when grouped together we call light. This is the general case. When we add rest mass the wave slows down and when we combine particles the wavefunctions combine in a complex arrangement which generally are beyond our computation capacity to fully appreciate, but which in the macro sense lead to classical concepts.
A photon being massless does not require classical descriptions such as inertia and therefore does not require a compelling force. Upon creation a photon will entangle with others and in bulk they will generate the electromagnetic phenomena defined by Maxwells equations. A photon however does have to be created in the first instance as discussed here. The creation of photons by "quantum jumps" has been hotly debated for a century and defies any classical analysis. The semantics we use are probably insufficient to describe the phenomena. For instance to say an electron orbits the nucleus is incorrect as the physics of this do not work. To say it is a standing wave, vis a vis Schrodinger's equation is more mathematically pleasing but nevertheless fails closer scrutiny. The best we can say is that the electron, whateve that is, has a probability of being in a certain place at a certain time, with a certain momentum or energy, but both cannot be exactly defined together, the basis of this being of course Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Dirac made a clear point of this when he stated that his Theory of Electrodynamics assumed electrons behaved in a certain way for all "intents and purposes". Perhaps one day we will understand the actual mechanism of quantum jumps when we have a more stingent theory of everything.
As to a photon's frame of reference from the point of view of special relativity the main point is that energy is conserved. In our frame of reference energy is conserved by the balance of the expansion of the universe and the stretching of wavelength. I believe that is all that the basic physics requires.
As to the stupidity or otherwise of this question I believe the problem is the intermingling of classical and quantum mechanical concepts that creates the problem. Most classical descriptions in physics can boil down to an explanation that you can proverbially describe to your mother. Quantum mechanics however is counter intuitive. Therefore when one talks about light with a little bit or reading and some dumbing down of the calculus one can get a basic feel for Maxwells equations and their general context. However, once one delves into particles which "exist" in the order of the plank length then one has to deal with an epistomological and potentially metaphysical mindfield. Unfortunately modern media deals with a mix of classical and quantum mechanical phenomena in a mish mash of short statements deviod of any contextual basis and the result is mass confusion.
In this situation I am afraid the only way forward is either to leave the subject alone or undergo a serious amount of self education.
|