I Electrons Emitting Photons And Ambient Light

[D English]

Ambient for lack of a better term...

I'm reading "Beyond The Cosmic Landscape". Perhaps out of date, but a very understandable explanation of QED.

Am I right to deduce that the air which surrounds us is jam-packed with electrons emitting photons?

Thanks...

 

[ZapperZ]

Ambient for lack of a better term...

I'm reading "Beyond The Cosmic Landscape". Perhaps out of date, but a very understandable explanation of QED.

Am I right to deduce that the air which surrounds us is jam-packed with electrons emitting photons?

Thanks...

This is VERY confusing and puzzling if I take what you wrote literally.

Are you actually asking if the air particles are continually emitting photons, and this is all due to "jam-packed electrons"?

When you are out in complete darkness (and presumably, not in a vacuum), do you see the air somehow glowing in such darkness?

Zz.

 

[D English]

This is VERY confusing and puzzling if I take what you wrote literally.

Are you actually asking if the air particles are continually emitting photons, and this is all due to "jam-packed electrons"?

When you are out in complete darkness (and presumably, not in a vacuum), do you see the air somehow glowing in such darkness?

Zz.

I started thinking the same thing after I wrote it. Sorry-

I'm trying to connect the idea of QED (as I understand it) -that electrons emit photons- with the light that surrounds us, and I'm far from being able to articulate that intelligibly.

Perhaps the best way to say it is...does QED explain visible light?

 

[ZapperZ]

I started thinking the same thing after I wrote it. Sorry-

I'm trying to connect the idea of QED (as I understand it) -that electrons emit photons- with the light that surrounds us, and I'm far from being able to articulate that intelligibly.

Perhaps the best way to say it is...does QED explain visible light?

1. Why "visible light" in particular? That is such a small and restricted range of EM radiation.

2. I still don't understand this idea of "electrons emit photons". Will you drop flat on the floor if I tell you that protons can also be made to produce light? Or what about positrons and muons? I CAN make "electrons to emit light" by jigging it up and down (this is done in synchrotron centers all over the world), but this is well-known even from classical E&M (accelerating charged particles emit EM radiation). But if it is sitting still, minding its own business, it doesn't emit "light". So simply asking if "electrons emit photons" is vague, because it requires that the electrons have to DO something to emit light. And this applies to ALL charged particles.

3. I think you have a severe misunderstanding of QED, and I think you're coming in right in the middle of the story and missed the beginning of it. You may want to go several steps back and re-establish some basic foundation that we call can agree upon before trying to build on it.

Zz.

 

[PeterDonis]

I'm reading "Beyond The Cosmic Landscape". Perhaps out of date, but a very understandable explanation of QED.

Since this is a popular science book, not a textbook, its usefulness if you are actually trying to learn the science is limited. An explanation in ordinary language for lay readers is always going to leave out crucial information, and you won't be able to reason from it the way you can from knowledge of the actual science.

does QED explain visible light?

The answer to this is easy: yes. Next question?

As @ZapperZ says, you might want to take a few steps back and start with something more basic than how QED explains a particular phenomenon.

 

[D English]

Since this is a popular science book, not a textbook, its usefulness if you are actually trying to learn the science is limited. An explanation in ordinary language for lay readers is always going to leave out crucial information, and you won't be able to reason from it the way you can from knowledge of the actual science.
The answer to this is easy: yes. Next question?

As @ZapperZ says, you might want to take a few steps back and start with something more basic than how QED explains a particular phenomenon.

Thanks Peter. I thought I had stumbled upon a revelation and got excited. I needed feedback.

What would you suggest as a good few steps back"?

A statement of qualification, as I am bound to come up with more dumb questions. I will never come here looking for an argument, and I will never have a firm grasp of any of this. My life path brought me to a life of service, not advanced learning. I never knew what I was missing until -by chance- I picked up a book written by a guy in a wheelchair. Never the less, I will try to have a deeper understanding of what I observe, and will be drawn to places that fuse science and community. I think Dick Feynman would encourage that.

 

[Nugatory]

What would you suggest as a good few steps back"?

One plausible approach: first, be sure that you have a solid grasp of classical electrodynamics and how electromagnetic radiation, including light, is a consequence of Maxwell's equations. Then read about the "ultraviolet catastrophe" and how Max Planck resolved it (without any recourse to the modern understanding of quantum mechanics, because that didn't come for another quarter-century). From there you can switch tracks and learn about the quantum mechanical solution to the harmonic oscillator... and then take on some of our many threads about "what is a photon".

 

[D English]

One plausible approach: first, be sure that you have a solid grasp of classical electrodynamics and how electromagnetic radiation, including light, is a consequence of Maxwell's equations. Then read about the "ultraviolet catastrophe" and how Max Planck resolved it (without any recourse to the modern understanding of quantum mechanics, because that didn't come for another quarter-century). From there you can switch tracks and learn about the quantum mechanical solution to the harmonic oscillator... and then take on some of our many threads about "what is a photon".

Is that all? :)

Thanks for the guidance.