## Maxwell versus Compton

In classical EM theory if a plane EM wave moves in direction (+x) E,M
are perpendicular to x.
Let's have an electron in x1. The force would be eE and the electron
moves (becomes an impulse) preferably perpendicular to x. Preferably
because there is diffracted light which carries some impulse.
Nevertheless the main direction of the impulse must be perpendicular
to x (as I think).

But this is also the Compton effect. The electron is hit by a photon
(its direction and impulse must coincide with that of the classical
wave.) But then preferably the electron should move parallel to x
(with some angles spread around x due to the diffracted photons) -
look at this as statistical snooker.

Summary:
I. According classical Maxwell theory the electron moves preferably
perpendicular to x

II. According QM (Compton) the electron moves preferably parallel to
x.

What is wrong here?????

 kvblake wrote: > In classical EM theory if a plane EM wave moves in direction (+x) E,M > are perpendicular to x. > Let's have an electron in x1. The force would be eE and the electron > moves (becomes an impulse) preferably perpendicular to x. Preferably > because there is diffracted light which carries some impulse. > Nevertheless the main direction of the impulse must be perpendicular > to x (as I think). > > But this is also the Compton effect. The electron is hit by a photon > (its direction and impulse must coincide with that of the classical > wave.) But then preferably the electron should move parallel to x > (with some angles spread around x due to the diffracted photons) - > look at this as statistical snooker. > > Summary: > I. According classical Maxwell theory the electron moves preferably > perpendicular to x > > II. According QM (Compton) the electron moves preferably parallel to > x. > > What is wrong here????? > The classical motion actually consists of oscillations perpendicular to x with a superimposed acceleration parallel to x, when you take both the electric field and the magneitc field into account. Read Section 34-9 of Volume 2 of the Feynman Lectures on Physics. - Bill Frensley
 On Jun 5, 1:15 pm, kvblake wrote: > In classical EM theory if a plane EM wave moves in direction (+x) E,M > are perpendicular to x. > Let's have an electron in x1. The force would be eE and the electron > moves (becomes an impulse) preferably perpendicular to x. Preferably > because there is diffracted light which carries some impulse. > Nevertheless the main direction of the impulse must be perpendicular > to x (as I think). > > But this is also the Compton effect. The electron is hit by a photon > (its direction and impulse must coincide with that of the classical > wave.) But then preferably the electron should move parallel to x > (with some angles spread around x due to the diffracted photons) - > look at this as statistical snooker. > > Summary: > I. According classical Maxwell theory the electron moves preferably > perpendicular to x > > II. According QM (Compton) the electron moves preferably parallel to > x. > > What is wrong here????? Classical EM theory doesn't include the concept of photons.

## Maxwell versus Compton

William R. Frensley wrote:
> kvblake wrote:
>
>>In classical EM theory if a plane EM wave moves in direction (+x) E,M
>>are perpendicular to x.
>>Let's have an electron in x1. The force would be eE and the electron
>>moves (becomes an impulse) preferably perpendicular to x. Preferably
>>because there is diffracted light which carries some impulse.
>>Nevertheless the main direction of the impulse must be perpendicular
>>to x (as I think).
>>
>>But this is also the Compton effect. The electron is hit by a photon
>>(its direction and impulse must coincide with that of the classical
>>wave.) But then preferably the electron should move parallel to x
>>(with some angles spread around x due to the diffracted photons) -
>>look at this as statistical snooker.
>>
>>Summary:
>>I. According classical Maxwell theory the electron moves preferably
>>perpendicular to x
>>
>>II. According QM (Compton) the electron moves preferably parallel to
>>x.
>>
>>What is wrong here?????
>>

>
> The classical motion actually consists of oscillations perpendicular
> to x with a superimposed acceleration parallel to x, when you take
> both the electric field and the magneitc field into account. Read
> Section 34-9 of Volume 2 of the Feynman Lectures on Physics.
>
> - Bill Frensley
>

It is actually in Volume 1. My copies are so worn it is hard to