Number of photon in the electromagnetic wave

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between the energy of electromagnetic waves and the number of photons, exploring both classical and quantum perspectives. Participants examine the implications of electromagnetic theory and quantum field theory in understanding photon states, particularly in the context of lasers and coherent states.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that the number of photons can be derived from the energy density of an electromagnetic wave, leading to the expression \(\varepsilon_0 E^2/\hbar\omega\), but expresses confusion about the result.
  • Another participant critiques the historical introduction of photons in quantum physics, arguing that it presents an outdated view and emphasizes the modern understanding of one-photon states in quantum field theory.
  • A participant clarifies that the average photon number calculated from the energy density is relevant for coherent states, which are superpositions of different photon number states, rather than single-photon states.
  • There is a correction regarding the time average of \(E^2\), which participants agree should include a factor of 1/2.
  • Concerns are raised about the common misconception that dimmed lasers produce single-photon states, with participants arguing that lasers produce coherent states instead.
  • One participant notes that plane waves, while useful in theoretical contexts, cannot be realized physically due to infinite energy implications.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the nature of photons, coherent states, and the implications of electromagnetic theory. There is no consensus on the interpretation of the relationship between energy density and photon number, nor on the characterization of laser outputs.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in understanding photon states, particularly in the context of historical versus modern interpretations of quantum mechanics. The discussion also touches on the mathematical assumptions underlying the derivations presented.

jackychenp
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
From EM, the energy of electromagnetic wave in unit volume is [itex]\varepsilon_0 E^2[/itex]. Does that mean the number of photon is [itex]\varepsilon_0 E^2/\hbar\omega[/itex]( [itex]\omega[/itex] is frequency of wave)? In 1-D, [itex]E=E_0cos(\omega t+kx)[/itex], then the number of photon in average is [itex]\frac{1}{(2\pi/\omega)}\int_{0}^{2\pi /\omega}\varepsilon_0 E_0^2cos^2(\omega t+kx)/\hbar\omega dt = \varepsilon_0 E_0^2/\hbar\omega[/itex]. This result looks very weird. Please correct me if something is wrong!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Photons are mostly introduced in the most unfortunate way to beginners in quantum physics. The reason is that usually people prefer a historical approach to introduce quantum theory, and the photon has been the first quantum phenomenon ever since Planck discovered the quantum behavior of nature through the quantum nature of thermal electromagnetic radiation. This lead Einstein to his famous 1905 article on a "heuristic point of view" of "light particles", nowadays called photons. One can not emphasize enough that this is an outdated picture of affaires, although it has been a genius invention at the time.

Nowadays a one-photon state is a well-defined concept in relativistic quantum field theory. It's given by

[tex]|\psi \rangle=\int \frac{\mathrm{d}^3 \vec{p}}{\sqrt{(2 \pi)^3 2 \omega_{\vec{p}}}} \hat{a}^{\dagger}(\vec{p},\lambda) A(\vec{p}) |\Omega \rangle.[/tex]

Here, [itex]\hat{a}^{\dagger}(\vec{p},\lambda)[/itex] denotes the creation operator for a photon of momentum, [itex]\vec{p}[/itex] and a polarization indicated by [itex]\lambda[/itex] (e.g., the helicity, i.e., left or right circular polarized states). Further [itex]A[/itex] is some square integrable function, and [itex]|\Omega \rangle[/itex] is the vacuum state.

Such a single-photon state is not so easy to prepare, although nowadays it's common in quantum-optics labs: One uses some crystal to create an entangled pair of photons and measuring one of them to make sure that one is left with a pure one-photon state.

Often, it's stated, one creates one-photon states by a dimmed laser. This is wrong! Lasers produce something close to a classical em. wave with a small spectral width, i .e., with high spatial and temporatl coherence but never single-photon states (nor any state of determined photon number, or Fock state). Quantum mechanically such a thing is described by a coherent state, which is the superposition of many states of different photon number. For a dimmed laser, where the intensity is such that the energy divided by [itex]\hbar \omega[/itex] is small, e.g., close to 1, the dominating state is in fact the vacuum state superposed by the one-photon state. The photon number in such a state is Poisson distributed with an expectation value (and thus also variance!) of 1. So, what you calculate with [itex]\mathcal{E}/(\hbar \omega)=\epsilon_0 \int \mathrm{d}^3 x E^2/(\hbar \omega)[/itex] is an average photon number for the given (classical approximation of a) coherent state. This is the only physical sense you can make out of this number.

Of course, a plane wave can never be realized, since this implies and infinite energy. Plane waves are modes, used to provide a Fourier representation of the electromagnetic field, it's not somthing physical!
 
jackychenp said:
From EM, the energy of electromagnetic wave in unit volume is [itex]\varepsilon_0 E^2[/itex]. Does that mean the number of photon is [itex]\varepsilon_0 E^2/\hbar\omega[/itex]( [itex]\omega[/itex] is frequency of wave)? In 1-D, [itex]E=E_0cos(\omega t+kx)[/itex], then the number of photon in average is [itex]\frac{1}{(2\pi/\omega)}\int_{0}^{2\pi /\omega}\varepsilon_0 E_0^2cos^2(\omega t+kx)/\hbar\omega dt = \varepsilon_0 E_0^2/\hbar\omega[/itex]. This result looks very weird. Please correct me if something is wrong!
Your equations are correct. The time average of E^2 just gives a factor of 1/2.
 
jackychenp said:
This result looks very weird.

Why?
 
vanhees71 said:
Often, it's stated, one creates one-photon states by a dimmed laser. This is wrong! Lasers produce something close to a classical em. wave with a small spectral width, i .e., with high spatial and temporatl coherence but never single-photon states (nor any state of determined photon number, or Fock state). Quantum mechanically such a thing is described by a coherent state, which is the superposition of many states of different photon number. For a dimmed laser, where the intensity is such that the energy divided by [itex]\hbar \omega[/itex] is small, e.g., close to 1, the dominating state is in fact the vacuum state superposed by the one-photon state. The photon number in such a state is Poisson distributed with an expectation value (and thus also variance!) of 1. So, what you calculate with [itex]\mathcal{E}/(\hbar \omega)=\epsilon_0 \int \mathrm{d}^3 x E^2/(\hbar \omega)[/itex] is an average photon number for the given (classical approximation of a) coherent state. This is the only physical sense you can make out of this number.
I just wanted to "second" this excellent description of a coherent state.
 
Vanhees, thanks for your fabulous comments.
clem, I forgot a factor 1/2. Thanks for pointing it out.

vanhees71 said:
Photons are mostly introduced in the most unfortunate way to beginners in quantum physics. The reason is that usually people prefer a historical approach to introduce quantum theory, and the photon has been the first quantum phenomenon ever since Planck discovered the quantum behavior of nature through the quantum nature of thermal electromagnetic radiation. This lead Einstein to his famous 1905 article on a "heuristic point of view" of "light particles", nowadays called photons. One can not emphasize enough that this is an outdated picture of affaires, although it has been a genius invention at the time.

Nowadays a one-photon state is a well-defined concept in relativistic quantum field theory. It's given by

[tex]|\psi \rangle=\int \frac{\mathrm{d}^3 \vec{p}}{\sqrt{(2 \pi)^3 2 \omega_{\vec{p}}}} \hat{a}^{\dagger}(\vec{p},\lambda) A(\vec{p}) |\Omega \rangle.[/tex]

Here, [itex]\hat{a}^{\dagger}(\vec{p},\lambda)[/itex] denotes the creation operator for a photon of momentum, [itex]\vec{p}[/itex] and a polarization indicated by [itex]\lambda[/itex] (e.g., the helicity, i.e., left or right circular polarized states). Further [itex]A[/itex] is some square integrable function, and [itex]|\Omega \rangle[/itex] is the vacuum state.

Such a single-photon state is not so easy to prepare, although nowadays it's common in quantum-optics labs: One uses some crystal to create an entangled pair of photons and measuring one of them to make sure that one is left with a pure one-photon state.

Often, it's stated, one creates one-photon states by a dimmed laser. This is wrong! Lasers produce something close to a classical em. wave with a small spectral width, i .e., with high spatial and temporatl coherence but never single-photon states (nor any state of determined photon number, or Fock state). Quantum mechanically such a thing is described by a coherent state, which is the superposition of many states of different photon number. For a dimmed laser, where the intensity is such that the energy divided by [itex]\hbar \omega[/itex] is small, e.g., close to 1, the dominating state is in fact the vacuum state superposed by the one-photon state. The photon number in such a state is Poisson distributed with an expectation value (and thus also variance!) of 1. So, what you calculate with [itex]\mathcal{E}/(\hbar \omega)=\epsilon_0 \int \mathrm{d}^3 x E^2/(\hbar \omega)[/itex] is an average photon number for the given (classical approximation of a) coherent state. This is the only physical sense you can make out of this number.

Of course, a plane wave can never be realized, since this implies and infinite energy. Plane waves are modes, used to provide a Fourier representation of the electromagnetic field, it's not somthing physical!

clem said:
Your equations are correct. The time average of E^2 just gives a factor of 1/2.

jtbell said:
Why?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
7K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 68 ·
3
Replies
68
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K