Defining electromagnetic waves

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the definitions and nature of electromagnetic waves, specifically contrasting perspectives that describe them in terms of electrons versus photons. Participants explore how electromagnetic waves are produced, the role of alternating current, and the implications of these definitions in both classical electromagnetism and quantum field theory.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that electromagnetic waves can be described in terms of photons, while others argue that they are fundamentally linked to electrons and their behavior.
  • It is suggested that alternating current generates electromagnetic waves through accelerated electrons, but questions arise about how this relates to the propagation of waves in a vacuum.
  • Participants discuss the distinction between classical electromagnetism, governed by Maxwell's equations, and quantum electrodynamics (QED), noting that classical EM does not include photons.
  • There is a claim that many discussions about EM radiation being made of photons may be misleading or incorrect, depending on the perspective taken.
  • Some participants clarify that electromagnetic waves consist of oscillating electric and magnetic fields, not electrons themselves, drawing analogies to water waves created by a stone.
  • Questions are raised about the existence of electrons in a vacuum and how electromagnetic waves can travel through it, with some asserting that the EM field occupies the vacuum.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether electromagnetic waves are fundamentally composed of photons or electrons, leading to an unresolved debate. There is no consensus on the definitions or the implications of these concepts.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in understanding due to varying definitions and perspectives on electromagnetic waves, particularly in the context of classical versus quantum theories. The discussion reflects ongoing uncertainties about the nature of electromagnetic fields and their behavior in different contexts.

Andreea007
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
TL;DR
Which ones describe electromagnetic waves? Photons or electrons?
Hi! So I'm trying to understand electromagnetic waves but I encountered different definitions: one in terms of electrons and one in terms of photons. Which ones are actually used to produce electromagnetic waves and how?
Also, I saw that alternating current generates electro magnetic waves, but ac is all about accelerated electrons, so how is it possible?
Thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Visible light/which is photons/ is an electromagnetic field. In QFT the electron field is what produces electrons. Different situations.
 
EPR said:
Visible light/which is photons/ is an electromagnetic field. In QFT the electron field is what produces electrons. Different situations.
Can you be a little more specific? What do you mean by electron field? Isn't it the same as electromagnetic field?
 
Andreea007 said:
Summary:: Which ones describe electromagnetic waves? Photons or electrons?

Hi! So I'm trying to understand electromagnetic waves but I encountered different definitions: one in terms of electrons and one in terms of photons. Which ones are actually used to produce electromagnetic waves and how?
Also, I saw that alternating current generates electro magnetic waves, but ac is all about accelerated electrons, so how is it possible?
Thank you!
Electromagnetic waves and electromagnetic fields in general are part of classical electromagnetism (EM), governed by Maxwell's equations. The electron is a fundamental charged particle that creates an EM field; and, an accelerated electron produces electromagnetic radiation. There are no photons in classical EM.

The photon is a massless particle in Quantum Electrodynamics (QED), which is a quantum theory of light. The electron remains a fundamental charged particle.

Although EM and QED produce approximately the same results in many cases, in terms of high-energy particle interactions, EM tends to break down and QED is seen to be the more accurate theory.

Many people talk loosely of EM radiation "being made of photons", but this is either sloppy or simply wrong depending on yout point of view.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71 and Dale
Andreea007 said:
Can you be a little more specific? What do you mean by electron field? Isn't it the same as electromagnetic field?
In QFT (Quantum Field Theory), there is a quantised EM field (which is a quantum mechanical upgrade to the classical EM field) and an electron field (which has no analogue in classical EM). Photons are the quanta of the EM field and electrons are the quanta of the electron field - and, indeed, particles in QFT generally are the quanta of the appropriate field.
 
PeroK said:
Electromagnetic waves and electromagnetic fields in general are part of classical electromagnetism (EM), governed by Maxwell's equations. The electron is a fundamental charged particle that creates an EM field; and, an accelerated electron produces electromagnetic radiation. There are no photons in classical EM.

The photon is a massless particle in Quantum Electrodynamics (QED), which is a quantum theory of light. The electron remains a fundamental charged particle.

Although EM and QED produce approximately the same results in many cases, in terms of high-energy particle interactions, EM tends to break down and QED is seen to be the more accurate theory.

Many people talk loosely of EM radiation "being made of photons", but this is either sloppy or simply wrong depending on yout point of view.
I have a question for you. If the electromagnetic waves are made up of accelerated electrons, then what about the vacuum? I mean, the light travels through space, right? Electrons are not massless particles, but there is no mass in the vacuum because there is no substance, so there are no electrons. How do you explain that?
 
Andreea007 said:
Summary:: Which ones describe electromagnetic waves? Photons or electrons?

I encountered different definitions: one in terms of electrons and one in terms of photons. Which ones are actually used to produce electromagnetic waves and how?
It would help if you could link to these two specific definitions that are confusing you. That way we can see if they are genuinely conflicting or not.

An EM wave is just a specific configuration of the EM fields, specifically one in which the fields are oscillating in a wave pattern and energy is being transported. Electrons are sources of the EM field. They are not the EM field itself any more than your faucet (a source of water) is water itself.
 
Andreea007 said:
I have a question for you. If the electromagnetic waves are made up of accelerated electrons,
I'm not sure where you got that idea from. An electromagnetic wave is the propagation of alternating electric and magentic fields - and is also known as light.

An electron at rest produces a simple electric field. But, an accelerated electron produces an EM wave:

http://labman.phys.utk.edu/phys222core/modules/m6/production_of_em_waves.html

PS note that this is classical EM, not quantum physics.
 
Dale said:
They are not the EM field itself any more than your faucet (a source of water) is water itself.
Perhaps a stone dropped into a pool that creates water waves would also be a good analogy. The water waves are not made of stones, but are oscillations in the surface of the water.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Dale
  • #10
PeroK said:
I'm not sure where you got that idea from. An electromagnetic wave is the propagation of alternating electric and magentic fields - and is also known as light.

An electron at rest produces a simple electric field. But, an accelerated electron produces an EM wave:

http://labman.phys.utk.edu/phys222core/modules/m6/production_of_em_waves.html

PS note that this is classical EM, not quantum physics.
Yeah I still don't get it. I'm asking you again, how do electromagnetic waves travel through vacuum (void) ? Are there any electrons in the void? Because, if they exists then it means particles exists, and for all we know void is void.
 
  • Skeptical
Likes   Reactions: PeroK
  • #11
Andreea007 said:
Yeah I still don't get it. I'm asking you again, how do electromagnetic waves travel through vacuum (void) ? Are there any electrons in the void? Because, if they exists then it means particles exists, and for all we know void is void.
The EM field occupies the vacuum. And, therefore, technically it isn't vaccum, but space with EM radiation.
 
  • #12
Andreea007 said:
Yeah I still don't get it. I'm asking you again, how do electromagnetic waves travel through vacuum (void) ?
Electrical and magnetic fields pass through a vacuum just fine. Put a charged particle in a vacuum chamber and its electrical field will affect other particles even though it's in a vacuum.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PeroK
  • #13
Andreea007 said:
I'm trying to understand electromagnetic waves but I encountered different definitions: one in terms of electrons and one in terms of photons.
Where did you encounter these definitions? Please give specific references.
 
  • #14
Andreea007 said:
If the electromagnetic waves are made up of accelerated electrons
They aren't. Accelerated electrons produce electromagnetic waves, but that doesn't mean the electromagnetic waves themselves are made of accelerated electrons. They aren't.
 
  • #15
PeroK said:
Many people talk loosely of EM radiation "being made of photons", but this is either sloppy or simply wrong depending on yout point of view.
It's simply wrong, particularly if you imply that a photon is just a massless "particle", as if it were in any sense localizable as a small lump of matter. It is almost always better to think in terms of waves when thinking about light.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K