Does the Charge of Photons Change Our Understanding of Light?

ArielGenesis
Messages
238
Reaction score
0
recently, I read a news that stated that photons, or light particle, has a small amount of charge. what does this suppose to means, and how we know, and how come?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This is a serious misunderstanding. The charge of the photon is still supposed to be 0, but it is not possible to determine it to 0 with 100% accuracy experimentally.

So a recent experiment has shown, that the upper bound for the photon charge is somewhere around 10^{-46} times the charge of an electron. Before the experimental upper bound was somewhere around 10^{-33} times the charge of an electron.
This does not mean, that a photon is charged. We just got closer to 0.

You certainly mean this article:
Bound on the Photon Charge from the Phase Coherence of Extragalactic Radiation by Brett Altschul
Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 261801 (2007)
 
ArielGenesis said:
recently, I read a news that stated that photons, or light particle, has a small amount of charge. what does this suppose to means, and how we know, and how come?

Where did you read that?

Photons do not have charge, otherwise we would be able bend light with an
electric field. Also, charge is quantized. It does not come in arbitrary small
amounts.

The photon has two big brothers which do have a positive and negative
charge equal to that of the electron. These are the intermediate vector
bosons W+ and W- which propagate only over extremely small ranges,
smaller as the radius of an atom's nucleus.

Regards, Hans
 
ArielGenesis said:
recently, I read a news that stated that photons, or light particle, has a small amount of charge. what does this suppose to means, and how we know, and how come?

Again, as has been repeated many times, such a "reference" is not sufficient to conduct any sense of a rational discussion. You must cite a proper reference. It is no longer sufficient here on PF to simply use "I heard" or "I read" when trying to discuss something in this context.

So this is a reminder to everyone else, especially new members on here. If you cannot provide a sufficiently clear source that you can cite, then it can't be that important to you for you not to jot it down, and it can't be discuss with any sense of clarity on here.

Zz.
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top