Fundamental process of a photon elastically scattering from an electon

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the fundamental process of a photon elastically scattering from an electron, specifically addressing the nature of Compton scattering and the distinctions between elastic and inelastic scattering in different contexts. Participants explore theoretical implications, terminology differences, and conceptual clarifications related to scattering processes.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that Compton scattering is inelastic, citing that the final photon has less energy than the incident photon due to energy transfer to the electron.
  • Others argue that Compton scattering can be considered elastic in certain contexts, particularly when discussing conservation of total energy and momentum.
  • There is a discussion about the terminology used in condensed matter research, where elastic scattering may refer to emission and reabsorption, while inelastic scattering involves a loss of energy by the photon.
  • Some participants express confusion over the definitions of elastic and inelastic scattering, particularly in relation to the behavior of photons and electrons during interactions.
  • A participant questions the adequacy of the "absorb and reemit" explanation for how light behaves in media like water, suggesting it may not fully capture the underlying physics.
  • There is a mention of the potential for different interpretations of scattering processes based on the background of the participants, leading to varied understandings of momentum transfer.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether Compton scattering should be classified as elastic or inelastic, with multiple competing views remaining on the definitions and implications of these terms.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight that terminology may vary significantly between fields, such as optics and condensed matter physics, which could lead to misunderstandings about the nature of scattering processes. Additionally, the discussion reveals that assumptions about energy conservation and momentum transfer are critical to the arguments presented.

actionintegral
Messages
305
Reaction score
5
I learned a lot from the discussion of the converse problem, photon absorption. What about this case? Perfectly elastic.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Is there something specific that you have in mind?
 
Yes, the thread I refer to (inelastic scattering) generated three pages of discussion. Is elastic scattering so well understood that it prompts no discussion?
 
Elastic scattering of a photon by an electron is called Compton scattering.
It is well understood in QED, but that won't stop discussion in this forum.
 
Meir Achuz said:
Elastic scattering of a photon by an electron is called Compton scattering.

Compton scattering is inelastic.
 
inha said:
Compton scattering is inelastic.

How so? The total kinetic energy before equals the total kinetic energy after the scattering. (A photon's total energy equals its kinetic energy because it has no rest energy.)
 
There's momentum transfer in Compton scattering. The total momentum and energy are of course conserved but Compton scattering spectroscopy for example is always referred to as a type of inelastic scattering techinque.
 
inha said:
There's momentum transfer in Compton scattering.

Most any collision, elastic or inelastic, has momentum transfer. If there's no momentum transfer, the incoming particles each maintain their original momenta, which is the same result as no collision at all!

Or are you thinking of something different than I am, by "momentum transfer"? Conservation of momentum says

[tex]{\vec p}_1 + {\vec p}_2 = {\vec p}_1 \prime + {\vec p}_2 \prime[/tex]

[tex]-({\vec p}_1 \prime - {\vec p}_1) = {\vec p}_2 \prime - {\vec p}_2[/tex]

To me, either side of the second equation gives the momentum transfer, depending on which particle you think of the momentum as "coming from."
 
Yeah it seems like we're using different terminology maybe due to coming from different backgrounds. By momentum transfer I mean that the outgoing photon has different magnitude of momentum than the incoming one had. That's what differentiates between inelastic and elastic light scattering techniques in condensed matter research.
 
  • #10
inha said:
That's what differentiates between inelastic and elastic light scattering techniques in condensed matter research.

Please expand on this
 
  • #11
inha said:
By momentum transfer I mean that the outgoing photon has different magnitude of momentum than the incoming one had.
That's what differentiates between inelastic and elastic light scattering techniques in condensed matter research.
This sounds like “elastic light scattering” means no scattering of the light at all; as it just continues as before unaffected by the electron “absorbing and re-emitting” it.

Is this the type of “Absorption and reemission” that is used to account for light going though water as an example completely unchanged accept by speed while in the water?
The speed change of course accounting for refraction of light at interfaces of media imposing different speeds on the photon.

It has always seemed to me this “absorb & reemit” explanation was a too convenient, and incomplete, explanation of how the speed of light slows down in a media like water.

Is there a detailed understanding of such elastic “Absorption and reemission” effects on a photon; and what is happening to the electron as it does this?
Since the change to the photon is not completely zero as it is “slowed down” while in the media; is there any affect on the water or the electrons there in any measurable way?
 
  • #12
So Condensed Matter people refer to elastic scattering as emission and reabsorption? And they refer to inelastic scattering as a loss of energy by the photon?
 
  • #13
actionintegral said:
So Condensed Matter people refer to elastic scattering as emission and reabsorption? And they refer to inelastic scattering as a loss of energy by the photon?
I don't see any post here that says either of those things.
 
  • #14
Compton scattering is elastic. If initially at rest, the electron recoils so that the final photon has less energy than the incident photon (by the amount of energy given to the electron. In physics, this is elastic scattering. To the extent that optics is not physics, it could be called inelastic.
 
  • #15
RandallB said:
This sounds like “elastic light scattering” means no scattering of the light at all; as it just continues as before unaffected by the electron “absorbing and re-emitting” it.

That's what I took away from this statement
 
  • #16
Meir Achuz said:
Compton scattering is elastic. If initially at rest, the electron recoils so that the final photon has less energy than the incident photon (by the amount of energy given to the electron. In physics, this is elastic scattering. To the extent that optics is not physics, it could be called inelastic.

Well then there's a lot of really bad terminology used in peer reviewed journals. That's how people who scatter x-rays off stuff just talk about this. You are correct about this but I still wouldn't call RIXS an elastic scattering method although total energy and momentum are of course conserved.
 
  • #17
Meir Achuz said:
Compton scattering is elastic. If initially at rest, the electron recoils so that the final photon has less energy than the incident photon (by the amount of energy given to the electron. In physics, this is elastic scattering.
The only way the final photon could have less energy is if it changed Frequency (Wavelength). An interaction where the light changed wavelength such as one photon being absorbed pushing an electron high energy “orbit” then emitting two photons by dropping to an intermediate energy level and then back to the original would not be considered “scattering”.

You say Compton is elastic inha calls it inelastic?
Seems to me inelastic is the better description.
 
  • #18
RandallB said:
You say Compton is elastic inha calls it inelastic?
Seems to me inelastic is the better description.


How so? Energy is conserved. It seems inelastic would be when the photon "merges" with the electron as in pushing it to a higher energy level.
Of course energy is still conserved in this case, but not in terms of the participants of the collision
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
13K
  • · Replies 134 ·
5
Replies
134
Views
12K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 81 ·
3
Replies
81
Views
8K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K