Photon energies from Planck-Einstein: confirmed in practice?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter DavidReishi
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Energies Photon
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the experimental confirmation of photon energies as described by the Planck-Einstein relation, exploring whether these values are exact or merely approximations. Participants delve into the theoretical underpinnings of photon behavior, including the implications of modern quantum field theory versus classical interpretations.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether the photon energies derived from the Planck-Einstein relation have been confirmed experimentally, and if so, whether this confirmation applies universally or selectively.
  • Another participant asserts that the energy-momentum relation for photons is exact by definition, indicating a misunderstanding of the original question regarding the Planck-Einstein relation.
  • A clarification is made that the concern is about the precision of the values given by the Planck-Einstein relation, suggesting that these values may not be perfect representations of photon energies.
  • There is a discussion about the obsolescence of the old quantum theory and the inadequacy of describing photons as particles in the context of modern relativistic quantum field theory.
  • One participant seeks recommendations for authors who express views that reject classical interpretations of photons, indicating an interest in further reading on the topic.
  • A technical explanation is provided regarding the modern description of photons through the quantization of the electromagnetic field, linking the relations of energy and momentum to the dispersion relation of electromagnetic waves.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of photon energies and the validity of classical versus modern interpretations. There is no consensus on the experimental confirmation of the Planck-Einstein relation or the implications of modern quantum field theory.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in understanding related to the transition from classical to modern theories, and the necessity of a solid foundation in classical electrodynamics, special relativity, and non-relativistic quantum theory to grasp the complexities of relativistic quantum field theory.

DavidReishi
Messages
67
Reaction score
1
I understand that the photon energies given by the Planck-Einstein relation, though highly precise, are approximations. But have they been confirmed at all experimentally or in practice? If so, across the board or just some of them?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What do you mean by approximations? The energy-momentum relation for Photons ##E=|\vec{p}| c## is exact by definition (a photon is an asymptotic free one-photon Fock state).
 
I don't mean the energy-momentum relation. I mean the Planck-Einstein relation, i.e. between frequency or wavelength and energy.
 
There cannot be anything approximate here, because a photon is by definition a single-particle Fock state of the quantized electromagnetic field, but perhaps I don't understand you question right. Of course, the socalled old quantum theory by de Broglie and Einstein is obsolete. So there's no way to describe photons as particles (they don't even have a position observable in the strict sense) nor is there anything like "wave-particle duality" that makes sense in the context of modern relativistic quantum field theory!
 
vanhees71 said:
There cannot be anything approximate here, because a photon is by definition a single-particle Fock state of the quantized electromagnetic field, but perhaps I don't understand you question right.

Yeah, you misunderstood my question. I don't mean that the Planck-Einstein relation treats photon-energies as approximate. I mean that the values themselves of the photon-energies given by the equation, though very precise, are approximations. That is, the correspondence between frequency and energy given by the equation isn't perfect.

Of course, the socalled old quantum theory by de Broglie and Einstein is obsolete. So there's no way to describe photons as particles (they don't even have a position observable in the strict sense) nor is there anything like "wave-particle duality" that makes sense in the context of modern relativistic quantum field theory!

Good to hear, and I find those words very interesting. Can you point me to a good writer or two in whom such views, i.e. more or less rejection of the classical Einstein photon, are expressed most clearly?
 
The modern way of describing photons is through the quantization of the free electromagnetic field. The relations ##E=\hbar \omega## and ##\vec{p}=\hbar \vec{k}## follow from the decomposition of the electromagnetic field in momentum eigenmodes you also get the energy-momentum relation from the dispersion relation of electromagnetic waves, i.e., ##\omega = c |\vec{k}|##. Multiplying by ##\hbar## leads to ##E=c |\vec{p}|##, i.e., in momentum space the photon energy-momentum relation is that of a massless particle.

You can read about this in any textbook on relativistic quantum field theory. Some good introductory ones are

T. Lancaster, S. J. Blundell, Quantum Field Theory for the Gifted Amateur, Oxford University Press (2014)
Schwartz, M. D.: Quantum field theory and the Standard Model, Cambridge University Press, 2014

but be warned. You need quite some knowledge about classical electrodynamics, special relativity, and non-relativistic quantum theory to understand relativistic QFT.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
7K
  • · Replies 78 ·
3
Replies
78
Views
7K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K