Where Do Photons Go After They Are Created?

  • Thread starter Thread starter magicman54494
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Photons
magicman54494
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
I need to explain a bit before asking my question. I have been reading about where photons come from and I feel I understand that part fairly well. I am wondering where they end up. It only makes sense that without photons being eliminated there would eventually be more and more and more. I read that they are absorbed by electrons but from what I understand they are again released so they really arent eliminated by that means. There seem to be conflicting info as to whether they are absorbed and released or absorbed and a new photon emitted. In eithor case it's a one to one ratio so it ends up being a wash in reguards to elimination. So my question is: Where do photons go? Do they ever cease to exist or are there just more and more created?

Also I read that they are electromagnetic but I also read that they don't have an electrical charge. I don't understand. can someone explain this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hey Magicman, I might be wrong on this, so if I am I hope that someone will correct me. Anyway though. When photons are readmitted they don't have to be readmitted at the same frequency. For example, some types of substances can absorb UV light and readmit it as visible like. When one photon of UV light is absorbed two photons (or maybe more I am not sure) of visible light are emitted. And many other kinds of substances can absorb visible light and readmit it as heat. And after that the inferred photons can be absorbed and admitted at an even lower frequency. I guess what I am trying to get at is that the frequency of the photons keeps going down, so that in the end it just becomes background radiation that we would not notice. You might already know this, but photons are bosons, so an infinite number can occupy the same space. The number of photons that can be produced is limitless. Also as the universe expands it thins these photons out.

If I am wrong on any of this, I would like to be corrected by someone.

They don't have a charge because they are the charge.
 
Forestman said:
The number of photons that can be produced is limitless.
Yes, but numbers are meaningless, just because of that. The only thing that counts is the energy density of the photon field (i.e., the electromagnetic radiation field), and a number of related field quantities.
Forestman said:
If I am wrong on any of this, I would like to be corrected by someone.

They don't have a charge because they are the charge.
Photons are chargeless. The electromagnetic field is generated by charges, but it is not charged itself.
 
Forestman said:
When photons are readmitted they don't have to be readmitted at the same frequency.
Are they sometimes emitted at the same frequency?


Forestman said:
I guess what I am trying to get at is that the frequency of the photons keeps going down, so that in the end it just becomes background radiation that we would not notice.

Is this the normal "life" of a photon? I'm not educated in physics so I might not be using the right terminology. It just seems to me that if some sort of order or balance is to be maintained that if photons are constantly being made being made some would have to go away.
 
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Back
Top