Emission of a Photon: Origin and Role of Electron Constituents

  • Thread starter Thread starter Naveen345
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Emission Photon
Click For Summary
When an electron transitions to a lower energy level, it emits a photon, which is produced through a three-way interaction vertex in quantum electrodynamics. The photon is not pre-existing; it is generated at the moment of emission, and the electron retains its charge throughout the process. The concept of an electron "jumping" is a simplification, as the transition is better described as a gradual change characterized by a superposition of states. The emission of the photon is linked to the oscillating electric dipole moment during the transition, and the probabilities of detecting the photon evolve over time. Overall, the discussion emphasizes that the emission process is spontaneous and not continuous, with no known sub-structure or constituents of the electron involved in the photon generation.
  • #31
Only if you use the concept of relativistic mass, which is done in ancient textbooks and bad TV documentations only.
mass of electron in natural units is 0.511 Mev.
 
Science news on Phys.org
  • #32
I don't see how your post is related to the others in this thread.
c=1 is a conventional choice, but this does not mean that my height is some nanometers.
 
  • #33
that is just a conventional way.To get back to original requires some work.And what you don't see.
 
  • #34
You are missing the point. E=mc² is wrong. The correct formula is E² = p²c² + (mc²)²
 
  • #35
K^2 said:
You are missing the point. E=mc² is wrong. The correct formula is E² = p²c² + (mc²)²
if you don't use the definition of relativistic mass then,right.Otherwise both are same.Energy is time component of four momentum and mass is invariant,so they are really different. if one avoids the notion of relativistic mass which is already abandoned then of course it is wrong.But that is just not what I say.It is a matter of definition.
 
  • #36
Fact that use of m as symbol for relativistic mass is outdated was the whole point of mfd's comment, and the reason for your reply to denisfl8 being at very least incomplete.

Mass, without qualifier, is assumed to be invariant mass. If you want to talk about relativistic mass, you should qualify that for clarity. Were you to reply that, "Energy is equivalent to relativistic mass," there would be no complaint.
 
  • #37
K^2 said:
Fact that use of m as symbol for relativistic mass is outdated was the whole point of mfd's comment, and the reason for your reply to denisfl8 being at very least incomplete.

Mass, without qualifier, is assumed to be invariant mass. If you want to talk about relativistic mass, you should qualify that for clarity. Were you to reply that, "Energy is equivalent to relativistic mass," there would be no complaint.
Oh,sorry for that.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K