Comparing Coumlomb's Force Law & QED for Electromagnetic Forces

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the comparison between Coulomb's Force Law and Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) in predicting electromagnetic forces between charged particles. It is established that Coulomb's law is accurate up to 10^-12 m, while QED provides a more precise framework for calculations at smaller scales. QED does not directly deal with forces but rather with probabilities and effects, yielding results that align with Coulomb's law over a broad range of parameters. The conversation highlights the significance of QED, particularly its high accuracy, as recognized by the Nobel Prize awarded to Richard Feynman and others for their contributions.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Coulomb's Force Law and its limitations
  • Familiarity with Quantum Mechanics (QM) principles
  • Knowledge of Quantum Field Theory (QFT) and its application in QED
  • Basic grasp of Maxwell's Equations in Electrodynamics
NEXT STEPS
  • Explore the mathematical foundations of Quantum Electrodynamics (QED)
  • Study the implications of Maxwell's Equations in classical and quantum contexts
  • Investigate the role of probability density in Quantum Mechanics
  • Review the historical development of Quantum Field Theory and its key contributors
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of quantum mechanics, and researchers interested in the foundational principles of electromagnetic theory and its quantum implications.

Sheyr
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
In textbooks I’ve read that the Coulomb’s force law is accurate up to 10^-12 m. Below this limit the force between charged particles should rather be calculated according to QED. But I’ve found no answer what are in fact the differences…

So, are the electromagnetic forces between charged particles, predicted by QED, stronger or weaker than the forces computed with use of Coulomb’s law?

Sheyr
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Sheyr,

Electrodynamics deals with charges, even in motion, through Maxwell's Equations, and on an individual basis.

Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Field Mechanics, however, deal with the situation from another point of view. It speakes about the probability of finding a charge (or a particle in general) per certain volume, within this system, at a certain position "at certain time (for time dependent fields)". So as to say it deals with the volumetric probability-density. But, it describes only an ensemble of events, rather being capable of speaking about only one event.

Of course, QM and ,more effectively, QFTs (especially QED) give significantly much more exact results rather than Electrodynamics, in certain domains of energy and dimensions.

Schrödinger, the founder of the wave-function concept and the mathematical structure of QM, had the idea that QM are covering some unknown property by the wave function. And, the right imagination, according to QM, come late in his age by a known scientist (I don't remeber his name) that its squared modulus introduces the probability density. This can be found in Shrodinger Original Papers, and he implicitly emphasized that this coincided with his thought about the nature of QM. Strange Papers! I will do my best to get them and share them together.
Schrödinger Equation was then made relativitistic by Dirac's for Fermions and By Klein and Gordon for Bosons.
However, there was something missing, the quantization of the field due to the quantized particles (or something like this). And, by the use of nature of Relativistic Quantum Mechanics and the equations of electromagnetic fields, QED was reformulated by Feynman and Tomonagi (And his partner), independently, at the same time! And, they got the noble prize after that for their work, and they deserve it. QED, in particular, is called by not-few scientists as the jewel of physics for its high accuracy.

Returning to the question, QED doesn't deal with forces. We can speak here about effects, in order to be able to compare it to Coulomb Force. For a very large domain of parameters' values, effects are the same (check atomic radii, ... by coulomb and by QM), but the problem is in the characteristic of the distribution of "Many Particles {not interacting mutually}" through space. Actually, these distributions are being graphed in QM, by Surface Graphs, not Curves.

By the way, whne you are talking about coulomb only, i.e. static electric field, then you are not in need for QED, you only need Dirac's QM.

Thank you very much for your patience {:-)] It was a good step in the way.

Yours,
Amr Morsi.
 
Thank you very much for the explanation Amr Morsi…. but unfortunately I’m not so easy to satisfy ;)

I understand that QM speaks about probabilities and not forces. And, if I understand your post well, the result of interaction between 2 particles, computed with QM, is the probability of finding each particle in a certain volume. In other words, we can calculate the volume, in which it is most probable to find the particle.

Further, I can imagine, that if we calculate the particle-to-particle interaction using Coulomb law, we can also get the volume where we can find the particle? If I’m still right, can we compare this results (the volumes)? If we can what is the result of this comparison?

S.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
989
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K