Jump to content

Photon creation


hobz
 Share

Recommended Posts

Or deceleration of rotational motion of a two-atomic molecule ;-)

 

Isn't that a form of "De-excitation of an atomic or nuclear system?" This is interesting. I thought photons only formed through de-excitation of excited electrons at the atomic level. I didn't know that whole atoms/systems could generate radiation. It almost seems as if there is a friction-producing medium that the systems are moving in that causes them to lose momentum and radiate it out in the form of photons? Since "ether" has been rejected, could the medium be omnipresent EM field-force, or maybe gravitation? I don't know why I keep coming back to the question of a medium for light but at this point gravitational field-force seems like a candidate to me. Is there any reason why it can't/couldn't be the medium for light?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't that a form of "De-excitation of an atomic or nuclear system?" This is interesting. I thought photons only formed through de-excitation of excited electrons at the atomic level. I didn't know that whole atoms/systems could generate radiation. It almost seems as if there is a friction-producing medium that the systems are moving in that causes them to lose momentum and radiate it out in the form of photons? Since "ether" has been rejected, could the medium be omnipresent EM field-force, or maybe gravitation? I don't know why I keep coming back to the question of a medium for light but at this point gravitational field-force seems like a candidate to me. Is there any reason why it can't/couldn't be the medium for light?

 

I do not think so. For example, a decaying "particle" is first entire and after a while it decomposes into pieces. No friction is necessary to describe it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

De-excitation of an atomic or nuclear system, acceleration of a charge, matter/antimatter annihilation.

 

Suppose I have an antenna where I drive the electrons back and forth using an alternating voltage source.

The acceleration will cause photons to emit. Do they spontaneously appear?

As photons carry momentum the accelerated charge will feel a force when the photon is created, right? Will this force accelerate the charge so that it will emit another photon?

Can the photon explanation be related to the wave explanation directly? As the electric(and magnetic) wave created by the acceleration does not propagate in the direction of acceleration, I assume that the wave function is zero in that direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not think so. For example, a decaying "particle" is first entire and after a while it decomposes into pieces. No friction is necessary to describe it.

It sounds like you are barely describing the phenomenon and then claiming that friction is not necessary in the explanation even though you don't really give a reason why/how it is logically frictionless. When a particle decays, I think that the energy that was holding it together gets released in the form of momentum of the daughter particles (i.e. the pieces). Is there photon-generation at the moment of the split? Honestly, I'm still trying to get a systematic picture of when photons get emitted, how, and in what amounts relative to the causal event. I'm not making statements claiming to be right - just exploring through hypothesis and critical feedback.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suppose I have an antenna where I drive the electrons back and forth using an alternating voltage source.

The acceleration will cause photons to emit. Do they spontaneously appear?

As photons carry momentum the accelerated charge will feel a force when the photon is created, right? Will this force accelerate the charge so that it will emit another photon?

Can the photon explanation be related to the wave explanation directly? As the electric(and magnetic) wave created by the acceleration does not propagate in the direction of acceleration, I assume that the wave function is zero in that direction.

 

I'm not sure how you mean spontaneously here. The photons appear as a result of the acceleration of the charge, You can look at what happens to the field of the electron when this happens and see that it will radiate. The quantum nature means that the emission will not be continuous. Beyond that I really don't have much experience in the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how you mean spontaneously here. The photons appear as a result of the acceleration of the charge, You can look at what happens to the field of the electron when this happens and see that it will radiate. The quantum nature means that the emission will not be continuous. Beyond that I really don't have much experience in the matter.

 

Suppose that I have one electron which I accelerate.

How far a distance must the electron move in order to cause the emission of one photon?

I.e. if the energy required to move the electron along a path must match the minimum energy of the emitted photon before the photon can be emitted?

Sort of like an energy-meter (a measuring device for energy) that has to be filled before a photon is emitted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suppose that I have one electron which I accelerate.

How far a distance must the electron move in order to cause the emission of one photon?

I.e. if the energy required to move the electron along a path must match the minimum energy of the emitted photon before the photon can be emitted?

Sort of like an energy-meter (a measuring device for energy) that has to be filled before a photon is emitted.

 

It works in steps. When an electron accelerates EVER, it always only revives a specific discrete value of energy, which in turn means that it emits a discrete value of energy. So to answer your question, it depends on what type of photon hits it. I suggest you study the spectra of atoms, theres some pattern like "the frequency of the emitted light is equal to the difference in the absorbed light and which energy level an electron moves back to" or something along those lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm.. so any acceleration will give off photons.

 

Suppose I jiggle one electron at a certain frequency over a certain distance.

Will the number of emitted photons be related to the distance, and how?

How is the frequency of my jiggling related to the frequency (or wavelength) of the photon?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm.. so any acceleration will give off photons.

 

Suppose I jiggle one electron at a certain frequency over a certain distance.

Will the number of emitted photons be related to the distance, and how?

How is the frequency of my jiggling related to the frequency (or wavelength) of the photon?

 

Well if an object accelerates or decelerates, then something about the amount of energy is changing. If you give an object more energy or more of a force, whether its resisting motion or not, it can cause electrons to leap since they can receive the energy. However, with most prosaic objects, the energy is given off in the infrared spectrum or below which is why everything isn't glowing. But there are ways other than acceleration to give off light. There's the combining of opposite particles for instance.

Edited by steevey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to the frequency, it's the same. If you drive electrons in a conductor at 1 kHz, you will get 1 kHz EM radiation.

 

That's pretty interesting. For if the creation of the photon happens to occur at some point, then the photon is, as such, unaware of the frequency of the jiggling at the point of its creation but still manages to have the "right" frequency property.

 

Steevy:

With one electron, there should be no leaping.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's pretty interesting. For if the creation of the photon happens to occur at some point, then the photon is, as such, unaware of the frequency of the jiggling at the point of its creation but still manages to have the "right" frequency property.

 

Steevy:

With one electron, there should be no leaping.

 

Perhaps this will help:

 

Ignoring how you wiggle an electron then when you do wiggle the electron you create a EM field.

The EM field is related to the probability of detecting a photon.

You can not say the electron emits a photon at a particular place any more than you can say which slit the photon went through in a double slit experiment.

 

The above is just part of what happens. In practice you going to use EM to wiggle the electron and the electron interacts with that EM and its own EM field but it does so via photons and probabilities.

 

You have to get away from the idea that a photon (and the electron) is a particle with clearly defined history but thats just QM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

How about this concept?

vacuum + energy -------------------->+ photon + anti-photon

.

+Photon : (+ electron wave part) + (+ magnetic wave part)

anti-photon : (- electron wave part ) + (-magnetic wave part)

.

photon = +photon + anti-photon

.

So photon consists of +photon and anti-photon pair particle.

.

Are there any problem?

Edited by alpha2cen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Photons and antiphotons are identical.

 

That's right.

I'd like to say is like this.

When we give the energy to the vacuum, the thing we only get is photon itself.

In the other particle cases when we give the energy to the vacuum, we can get particle and anti-particle.

From the 0 level one is positive, and the other one is negative.

To fellow this similarity, if it's not any trouble, how about write above style #18?

I do not consider all cases.

Edited by alpha2cen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.