Undergrad Phonon emission : Discrete event or a process with inner detail?

Click For Summary
Phonon emission is typically viewed as a discrete event, similar to photon emission, but the nature of this discreteness is debated. While photon emission is often considered an atomic event without further breakdown, phonon emission may involve more complex underlying processes. The discussion raises questions about the implications of emitting fractional photons and how to measure differences between discrete and continuous emission processes. Unlike photons, phonons are understood to emerge from more fundamental theories, suggesting that phonon interactions may be more intricate. Ultimately, the conversation highlights the need for further exploration into the fundamental nature of both phonons and photons.
Swamp Thing
Insights Author
Messages
1,041
Reaction score
775
If I understand correctly, when an electron drops to a lower energy state and emits a phoTon, this is a discrete or "atomic" event in the sense that it can't be meaningfully broken down in terms of more detailed sub-processes or interactions.

Now in the case of phoNon emission, it is also usually thought of as a discrete event... but is this done merely for convenience and simplicity, or is it also inherently discrete/"atomic" with no inner machinery?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What would it mean to emit half a photon? More generally, what kind of measurement could you make to distinguish those two possibilities?
 
We know that phonon interactions emerge from a more fundamental theory in which phonons are not fundamental objects. We do not have such a knowledge for photons, even though we have some theoretical candidates (e.g. string theory). So I would reverse the question. The emission of phonons can be "meaningfully broken down in terms of more detailed sub-processes or interactions", while the open question is whether it can be done for photons.
 
  • Like
Likes phinds and Swamp Thing
I am slowly going through the book 'What Is a Quantum Field Theory?' by Michel Talagrand. I came across the following quote: One does not" prove” the basic principles of Quantum Mechanics. The ultimate test for a model is the agreement of its predictions with experiments. Although it may seem trite, it does fit in with my modelling view of QM. The more I think about it, the more I believe it could be saying something quite profound. For example, precisely what is the justification of...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
12K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 52 ·
2
Replies
52
Views
6K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
10K