Photon Generation: Need for Electrical Current?

[cam875]

is the only way to generate a photon by knocking an electron into a higher energy level and when it jumps back to its original energy level it releases the photon because of its excess energy. and wouldn't that mean that an electrical current is always needed so that the electron can initially be knocked into that higher energy level.

 

[jnorman]

Photons are generated when a charged particle undergoes acceleration, during a molecular, atomic or nuclear transition to a lower energy level, during fusion and fission reactions, and when a particle and its antiparticle are annihilated.

 

[ZapperZ]

is the only way to generate a photon by knocking an electron into a higher energy level and when it jumps back to its original energy level it releases the photon because of its excess energy. and wouldn't that mean that an electrical current is always needed so that the electron can initially be knocked into that higher energy level.

The light that comes from your incandescent light bulbs is not from electrons making an atomic transition. And neither is the light generated at all those http://www.lightsources.org/cms/" around the world. And we haven't even touched upon gamma ray sources.

Zz.

 

[Potentiator]

The light that comes from your incandescent light bulbs is not from electrons making an atomic transition. And neither is the light generated at all those synchrotron light sources around the world. And we haven't even touched upon gamma ray sources.

So, where do photons come from?

 

[malawi_glenn]

So, where do photons come from?

They are "created", from the vacuum.

Also it depends on what formalism you are using.

 

[Potentiator]

No formalism other than ordinary English.

The vacuum thing is interesting, though. I'm not sure what to make of it. Are you saying that something can come from nothing? This seems to violate all kinds of conservation laws!

 

[malawi_glenn]

No formalism other than ordinary English.

The vacuum thing is interesting, though. I'm not sure what to make of it. Are you saying that something can come from nothing? This seems to violate all kinds of conservation laws!

i) English is not any subdiscipline of physics...

I meant it matters if you have a classical electrodynamics approach or a Quantum Electrodynamical approach to it..

ii) The Vacuum is not "empty" in physics.

iii) How you think universie began to exist? ;)

What is interesting is conservation of momentum, energy and electric charge here.

 

[Potentiator]

i) English is not any subdiscipline of physics...

I sure see a lot of English words in this forum.

I meant it matters if you have a classical electrodynamics approach or a Quantum Electrodynamical approach to it..

Which approach should I have? I'm assuming QED since its more recent. Let's stick with that one. (I just hope it can be translated into English!)

ii) The Vacuum is not "empty" in physics.

Vacuum seems a rather poor choice of words then. I always hear about the "field". Perhaps that is a good choice of words for "spacestuff"?

iii) How you think universie began to exist? ;)

Let's not go down that road just yet!

 

[malawi_glenn]

propagator, path integral, wick rotation, are english words, but what do they mean? ;-)

Should have? ok, the photon is created from the vacuum.


This is physics, we DEFINE vacuum and annihilation from OUR prescription! Even thoug they can sound phiolosophical incoherent and non logic. So don't come here and tell us how we should name our definitions, theorems etc.

 

[Potentiator]

This is physics, we DEFINE vacuum and annihilation from OUR prescription!

What is the physics definition for "vacuum"?

 

[malawi_glenn]

What is the physics definition for "vacuum"?

Just to confuse you even more, it can mean many things depending on what branch of physics you are in ;-)

Can be "Abscence of excitation" (i.e ground state), "Abscense of real particles" etc.

If you like wikipedia, there is a quite nice section about physics vacuum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum#Quantum-mechanical_definition

 

[Potentiator]

If you like wikipedia, there is a quite nice section about physics vacuum.

Consider a vacuum chamber that has been completely evacuated, so that the (classical) particle concentration is zero. The walls of the chamber will emit light in the form of black body radiation.

Which brings us back to the original question... what is it about the walls that make them "light-emitting"?

 

[malawi_glenn]

but the vacuum in the vacuum chamber is "another" vacuum. With the term vacuum in vacuum chamber one means "absence of matter".

I asked you to read the physics section: "Quantum-mechanical definition", so you could understand what a physiscists means when he is talking about THE vacuum

 

[Potentiator]

I read it carefully, and it seems the whole point they were trying to make about the vacuum is that it is nowhere "empty", that is, devoid of energy content. Whether it is because of the very large scale (cosmic microwave background) or the very small scale (vacuum fluctuation), the physics vacuum is very much unvacuous, mainly because of all of these photons that are flying all over the place.

I did not understand any kind of causal significance of the vacuum as regards the notion of photons. Rather, I understood only that photons are what make the vacuum everywhere non-empty.

The original questioner asked about what causes photons, rather than the fact that they make something called a "vacuum" very much un-vacuumlike.

 

[malawi_glenn]

Well you where referring to the vacuum chamber which was not mentioned in that section.

You are again mixing concepts, you think that the physics vacuum I was referring to when I said "photons are cretaed from the vacuum" with the vacuum in the "vacuum chamber" which consists of photons from BB-radiation.

So forget about EVERYTHING in that article, except that part of "Quantum-mechanical definition", and don't mix the concepts and different vaccua ;-)

You have the same semantics problem when physicsists talks about "annihilation" of particles... ;-)

 

[ZapperZ]

No formalism other than ordinary English.

The vacuum thing is interesting, though. I'm not sure what to make of it. Are you saying that something can come from nothing? This seems to violate all kinds of conservation laws!

In all of this, you seem to have not mentioned what are the "all kinds" of conservation law that is being broken. For example, in a Bremsstrahlung radiation, what conservation law is being broken there? In a synchrotron center where they generate light from hard x-ray to soft UV and IR by having the electron bunches passing through a series of undulators, what conservation laws are broken there?

Zz.

 

[Potentiator]

Is the fact that there may or may not be a conservation law that is ever broken in any conceivable situation relevant to the simple question of how photons are born? If the two concepts called "law of conservation of energy" and "the cause of photon creation" are related, then it what way are they related?

 

[ZapperZ]

Is the fact that there may or may not be a conservation law that is ever broken in any conceivable situation relevant to the simple question of how photons are born? If the two concepts called "law of conservation of energy" and "the cause of photon creation" are related, then it what way are they related?

Photons are born because of the conservation laws - both spin and energy!

But you are evading the question. You insisted that there were conservation laws broken. When you are asked directly to point out what these are, you are now trying to evade the question.

So again, what ARE the conservation laws that are broken here?

Zz.

 

[Potentiator]

But you are evading the question. You insisted that there were conservation laws broken. When you are asked directly to point out what these are, you are now trying to evade the question.

I made that statement before I realized that a physics vacuum has nothing whatever to do with emptiness. So I am taking back that reservation. A vacuum is just filled with stuff, that is always conserved, and that is also responsible for photon creation. But in what way it is responsible, I am still not sure.

So now you say that conservation laws are the cause of photon creation. It seems to me that a conservation law just has to do with the "equilibrium" between photon destruction and photon creation.

I don't see how the simple fact of the equality of the values shared between these two events goes very far in describing the physical nature of either of these events.

So now the question is: are you going to evade that question?

 

[ZapperZ]

I made that statement before I realized that a physics vacuum has nothing whatever to do with emptiness. So I am taking back that reservation. A vacuum is just filled with stuff, that is always conserved, and that is also responsible for photon creation. But in what way it is responsible, I am still not sure.

So now you say that conservation laws are the cause of photon creation. It seems to me that a conservation law just has to do with the "equilibrium" between photon destruction and photon creation.

I don't see how the simple fact of the equality of the values shared between these two events goes very far in describing the physical nature of either of these events.

So now the question is: are you going to evade that question?

What question? You asked me where photons come from. I answered.

You will note that your claim that the light source I mentioned broke conservation laws were all that I was interested in. Since you took that back, I'm done. You should not confuse your discussion with malawi_glenn with what *I* was asking you on.

Zz.

 

[edguy99]

is the only way to generate a photon by knocking an electron into a higher energy level and when it jumps back to its original energy level it releases the photon because of its excess energy. and wouldn't that mean that an electrical current is always needed so that the electron can initially be knocked into that higher energy level.

I think it is ok to say there are lots of ways of generating photons.

Are these all valid?

1/ Electron knocked from lower energy to higher energy level by passing electrons. When the electron falls back to the original energy level it emits a photon.
2/ Electron pulled out of a lower energy level by a fluctuating magnetic field, then falling back and emitting a photon or falling into a different molecules empty lower energy level.
3/ Electron hit by a passing photon (absorbtion) and the photons momentum carries the electron out of the lower orbital into a higher orbital. When the electron falls back to the lower energy level it emits a photon.

 

[malawi_glenn]

zapp, it was not Potentiator who you answered in your first post ;-)

 

[Potentiator]

You asked me where photons come from. I answered.

A photon is emitted because of the conservation of the energy of a destroyed photon? That's as sophisticated as we can get when it comes to describing just what the heck is happening when a photon is created?

Isn't that sort of like saying that a baby is born because someone dies? The conservation of "human energy"?

Or are we just saying that the sense of the question, "Where do photons come from?" is inherently meaningless?

 

[malawi_glenn]

But there is no claim that the number of humans should be conserved... don't make these analogies. Maybe you won't understand the physical answer since you don't know anything about physics? The answer has to be adjusted to the level of what preknowledge the asking person has.

 

[ZapperZ]

A photon is emitted because of the conservation of the energy of a destroyed photon?

Where did I say that?

I only said it is because of the "conservation of energy and spin"!

How did you arrive at the "destroyed photon"? Could you point me to the post where I said that?

Zz.

 

[malawi_glenn]

I think this is a classical "physicsits know nothing since they can't explain to me so that I understand"

 

[ZapperZ]

I think it is ok to say there are lots of ways of generating photons.


Electron pulled out of a lower energy level by a fluctuating magnetic field, then falling back and emitting a photon or falling into a different molecules empty lower energy level.

Er... what "lower energy level" when you have free electrons? Those electrons in synchrotrons and FELs are free electrons.

Zz.

 

[Potentiator]

Where did I say that?

I only said it is because of the "conservation of energy and spin"!

How did you arrive at the "destroyed photon"? Could you point me to the post where I said that?

Zz.

No you're right. You didn't say it, but I'm just trying to do everything I can to understand. I'm just trying to appreciate the significance behind the notion that a photon is created because of this string of five words: "conservation of energy and spin".

Now, I have a pretty good handle on the "classical" significance of those words. I can imagine something moving around and spinning and then hitting something else, causing it to move in an "equal and opposite way".

But there is no objective thing contained anywhere within those five words so that I can imagine it doing something to cause the emission of a photon.

This is the first "hit" that I got on the web when I googled "photon emission":

Photons[/PLAIN] are emitted when an electron in some atom moves from a higher energy state to a lower energy state.

The very first post in this thread echoed the same basic premise, which you, a "PF Mentor," explicitly denied without offering any explanation as to the "real" reason. That's where I came in.

Now, I've gotten two expert opinions so far:

1) Photons come from "the vacuum".
2) Photons come from "the conservation of energy and spin".

These both seem to be very different from each other, as well as being very different from the "common notion" of where they come from. How am I supposed to start wrapping my head around all of these apparent discrepancies?

 

[ZapperZ]

No you're right. You didn't say it, but I'm just trying to do everything I can to understand. I'm just trying to appreciate the significance behind the notion that a photon is created because of this string of five words: "conservation of energy and spin".

For example, when light is generated by an atomic transition, look at the dipole selection rule that is obeyed in the transition. Not only do you have a change in energy, but the atom also undergoes a change in atomic orbital. And that change happens to be exactly an angular momentum equal to "1". A photon that is emitted carries that energy AND has a spin angular momentum of... "1"!

The system of atom+photon, when compared to the original excited atom, conserve both energy and angular momentum.

"spin" has nothing to do with classical spin. You are using the word "photon". So why are you trying to invoke classical physics?

Zz.

 

[malawi_glenn]

you should say that photons come DUE TO conservation of energy and spin, not that the come FROM ...

 

[Potentiator]

For example, when light is generated by an atomic transition, look at the dipole selection rule that is obeyed in the transition. Not only do you have a change in energy, but the atom also undergoes a change in atomic orbital. And that change happens to be exactly an angular momentum equal to "1". A photon that is emitted carries that energy AND has a spin angular momentum of... "1"!

Okay, the part that I've emboldened is the thing that I'm trying to understand... the nature of the "atomic transition". It seems awful close to the points that all of the "electron energy level transitionists" were trying to say.

And what precisely is meant by "atomic orbital"? This sounds a lot like "electron energy level," but you don't seem to like the idea of invoking "electrons," as things that carry energy in and of themselves.

I think that it is at this point where we have something in common. As a simple minded "intitutionist", I also have a problem with the concept of the idealized point particle that is denoted by the term "electron". I like to think of atoms as "fuzzy balls" that have strange internal resonation frequencies that show up in their various "spectral line" patterns, and it is these frequencies that determine their masses and various chemical characteristics.

Now, I disagree with classical physics because it aims a kind of "absolute transcendental determinism." But I also disagree with certain interpretations of QM, that simply dogmatically point to various formulations as if they were eternal Platonic Ideas. To me, they are simply human formulations whose job it is to efficiently "organize" knowledge, given the current state of observational data. That is, the formulations are not Kantian "things-in-themselves," but they are simple categorizing devices that are not "predictive" in the strictest sense of the term; they are merely "conformal".

 

[ZapperZ]

I'm not doing any "interpretation" here. The formalism of QM is independent of any interpretation.

Furthermore, do you think it is valid for you to be making judgment on something based on an incomplete understanding? In other areas of life, this is called "bigotry".

Maybe before you continue with this discussion, you might want to pick up a QM text and learn a bit about it, especially on the derivation of the solution to the Schrodinger equation for a hydrogen atom. I can't possibly teach you QM on this forum. We are not making any progress here. Every single answer that I gave, I seem to have to take another step back and explain the answer.

Zz.

 

[Potentiator]

I'm not doing any "interpretation" here. The formalism of QM is independent of any interpretation.

What in the heck is the Copenhagen interpretation all about then?

Furthermore, do you think it is valid for you to be making judgment on something based on an incomplete understanding? In other areas of life, this is called "bigotry".

And you feel that you have some sort of "complete understanding" about something? About what, exactly? I would upold that this is an even more egregious form of "bigotry".

Maybe before you continue with this discussion, you might want to pick up a QM text and learn a bit about it, especially on the derivation of the solution to the Schrodinger equation for a hydrogen atom. I can't possibly teach you QM on this forum. We are not making any progress here. Every single answer that I gave, I seem to have to take another step back and explain the answer.

I disagree entirely. In the beginning, you offered no explanation whatsoever. All you said was that the original poster was wrong. Then you offered a highly cryptic 5 word explanation. After plenty of egging you on, you finally came out with something I felt I could finally relate to.

But you don't like this idea. You like your "formalism of QM that is independent of any interpretation". If you truly think of QM in that way, then I will be extremely happy to throw back quote after quote of the original inventors of QM tearing each other apart, in a veritable interpretive free-for-all.

 

[ZapperZ]

What in the heck is the Copenhagen interpretation all about then?
And you feel that you have some sort of "complete understanding" about something? About what, exactly? I would upold that this is an even more egregious form of "bigotry".
I disagree entirely. In the beginning, you offered no explanation whatsoever. All you said was that the original poster was wrong. Then you offered a highly cryptic 5 word explanation. After plenty of egging you on, you finally came out with something I felt I could finally relate to.

But you don't like this idea. You like your "formalism of QM that is independent of any interpretation". If you truly think of QM in that way, then I will be extremely happy to throw back quote after quote of the original inventors of QM tearing each other apart, in a veritable interpretive free-for-all.

You're forgetting Feyman's "Shut Up And Calculate"! Do you think most practicing physicists actually CARE about any kind of interpretation of QM in their daily working? Once again, the formalism is INDEPENDENT of the interpretation.

Here's the thing. When you start talking about QED and start making judgment about QM, I thought you KNEW what QM is. In my book, someone who is ready to make such judgment should know what he or she is talking about. That's why I gave you the answer the way I did under the impression that you actually HAVE studied QM. After all, everyone who has taken even intro QM would have seen the derivation for the Hydrogen atom. That's a standard material.

Obviously, in your case, this isn't true, and that's why I advised you to go back to the basics first. And I never said I had a complete understanding, the same way I never said many of the things you have misread already. So once again, do NOT put words into my mouth, because this is getting to be very annoying. But at the very least, I know what I'm talking about, rather than just simply having some vague understanding of it AND wanting to argue about it with someone who knows more.

I responded to the OP to falsify the original premise. And now, I'm waiting for him/her to come back and give a feedback to see if he/she understood my answer. That's the ONLY way I can judge the level of what he/she has already understood for me to be able to give a further explanation. It is a waste of my time (as can be seen here already) to assume that the OP can understand a highly technical explanation when there's no indication the he/she can. Why you are so set to somehow disagree with that, I have no idea and that's your problem. I have zero desire right now to correct your erroneous understanding if you are too lazy to put in your own effort to understand it.

Zz.

 

[cam875]

wow, this got pretty funny. anyways besides all this arguing and back to physics. would you say that it is a good idea to have a good understanding of quantum physics before delving into understanding photon emissions properly, because most of this talk I got lost and didnt know what was happening because I thought it was based on classical physics, but that would explain why the thread was moved. And where is a good place to start or a good text to get some good info on learning the fundamentals of QM.