Moving charges: Describing its field as photons

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter McLaren Rulez
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Charges Field Photons
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between moving charges, their electric fields, and the concept of photons, particularly in the context of Cherenkov radiation. Participants explore the implications of viewing electric fields as photons and the conditions under which moving charges may or may not emit light.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses discomfort with the idea of an electric field being viewed as photons, noting that static electric fields do not involve photons and questioning the connection for moving charges.
  • Another participant states that classical electromagnetic fields are better described by coherent states rather than photon-Fock states, suggesting a preference for classical descriptions in certain contexts.
  • A different viewpoint suggests that photons are useful for describing interactions between particles, such as how electrons perceive each other's presence through photon exchange.
  • Regarding Cherenkov radiation, it is proposed that the moving particle does not emit light directly; instead, the medium emits light as it rearranges due to the influence of the particle's electric field.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the relationship between electric fields and photons, with multiple competing views presented regarding the nature of moving charges and their interaction with the medium in Cherenkov radiation.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved questions about the definitions and assumptions underlying the discussion, particularly regarding the conditions under which classical electromagnetic theory applies versus quantum descriptions involving photons.

McLaren Rulez
Messages
289
Reaction score
3
Hi,

I was studying Cherenkov radiation and here's what I read. A charged particle moving through a medium has an electric field. This is equivalent to the particle emitting photons which are absorbed by the atoms of the medium and causes them to reorient themselves.

I am a little uncomfortable with the electric field being viewed as photons. For instance, a static electric field has nothing to do with photons. Also, electromagnetic radiation is quantized as photons. But a moving charge seems to be something in between the two so how is it explained? And does this mean that a moving charge (just moving, not accelerating) emits light? I'm quite muddled about this connection so I'd appreciate an explanation or a good source.

Thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
A classical electromagnetic field is not described by photon-Fock states but by coherent states. I don't know, why many people think the photon picture is better than classical electromagnetic fields, if you deal with a situation where classical electromagnetics applies!
 
The photons are used when you want to describe interactions of particles. Ie. if you have 2 electrons with their own electric fields. "How do they know where and what the other one is"? It's easier for us to imagine that they exchange something that gives both a sense of their surroundings, in this case a photon.
Now for Cherenkov light, actually particle doesn't emitt light, the medium does. When a particle faster than light in that medium travels through it, it "rearranges" the molecules and atoms with it's field, or as your professor put it, it gives off imaginary photons so the atoms in material "see" where particle is and where is it going. When the particle passes the molecules and atoms rearrange themselves back and that emitts photons you see as Cherenkov light.
 
Thank you. I think I get it now.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
10K