Photon Generation: Need for Electrical Current?

[Potentiator]

For example, when light is generated by an atomic transition, look at the dipole selection rule that is obeyed in the transition. Not only do you have a change in energy, but the atom also undergoes a change in atomic orbital. And that change happens to be exactly an angular momentum equal to "1". A photon that is emitted carries that energy AND has a spin angular momentum of... "1"!

Okay, the part that I've emboldened is the thing that I'm trying to understand... the nature of the "atomic transition". It seems awful close to the points that all of the "electron energy level transitionists" were trying to say.

And what precisely is meant by "atomic orbital"? This sounds a lot like "electron energy level," but you don't seem to like the idea of invoking "electrons," as things that carry energy in and of themselves.

I think that it is at this point where we have something in common. As a simple minded "intitutionist", I also have a problem with the concept of the idealized point particle that is denoted by the term "electron". I like to think of atoms as "fuzzy balls" that have strange internal resonation frequencies that show up in their various "spectral line" patterns, and it is these frequencies that determine their masses and various chemical characteristics.

Now, I disagree with classical physics because it aims a kind of "absolute transcendental determinism." But I also disagree with certain interpretations of QM, that simply dogmatically point to various formulations as if they were eternal Platonic Ideas. To me, they are simply human formulations whose job it is to efficiently "organize" knowledge, given the current state of observational data. That is, the formulations are not Kantian "things-in-themselves," but they are simple categorizing devices that are not "predictive" in the strictest sense of the term; they are merely "conformal".

 

[ZapperZ]

I'm not doing any "interpretation" here. The formalism of QM is independent of any interpretation.

Furthermore, do you think it is valid for you to be making judgment on something based on an incomplete understanding? In other areas of life, this is called "bigotry".

Maybe before you continue with this discussion, you might want to pick up a QM text and learn a bit about it, especially on the derivation of the solution to the Schrodinger equation for a hydrogen atom. I can't possibly teach you QM on this forum. We are not making any progress here. Every single answer that I gave, I seem to have to take another step back and explain the answer.

Zz.

 

[Potentiator]

I'm not doing any "interpretation" here. The formalism of QM is independent of any interpretation.

What in the heck is the Copenhagen interpretation all about then?

Furthermore, do you think it is valid for you to be making judgment on something based on an incomplete understanding? In other areas of life, this is called "bigotry".

And you feel that you have some sort of "complete understanding" about something? About what, exactly? I would upold that this is an even more egregious form of "bigotry".

Maybe before you continue with this discussion, you might want to pick up a QM text and learn a bit about it, especially on the derivation of the solution to the Schrodinger equation for a hydrogen atom. I can't possibly teach you QM on this forum. We are not making any progress here. Every single answer that I gave, I seem to have to take another step back and explain the answer.

I disagree entirely. In the beginning, you offered no explanation whatsoever. All you said was that the original poster was wrong. Then you offered a highly cryptic 5 word explanation. After plenty of egging you on, you finally came out with something I felt I could finally relate to.

But you don't like this idea. You like your "formalism of QM that is independent of any interpretation". If you truly think of QM in that way, then I will be extremely happy to throw back quote after quote of the original inventors of QM tearing each other apart, in a veritable interpretive free-for-all.

 

[ZapperZ]

What in the heck is the Copenhagen interpretation all about then?
And you feel that you have some sort of "complete understanding" about something? About what, exactly? I would upold that this is an even more egregious form of "bigotry".
I disagree entirely. In the beginning, you offered no explanation whatsoever. All you said was that the original poster was wrong. Then you offered a highly cryptic 5 word explanation. After plenty of egging you on, you finally came out with something I felt I could finally relate to.

But you don't like this idea. You like your "formalism of QM that is independent of any interpretation". If you truly think of QM in that way, then I will be extremely happy to throw back quote after quote of the original inventors of QM tearing each other apart, in a veritable interpretive free-for-all.

You're forgetting Feyman's "Shut Up And Calculate"! Do you think most practicing physicists actually CARE about any kind of interpretation of QM in their daily working? Once again, the formalism is INDEPENDENT of the interpretation.

Here's the thing. When you start talking about QED and start making judgment about QM, I thought you KNEW what QM is. In my book, someone who is ready to make such judgment should know what he or she is talking about. That's why I gave you the answer the way I did under the impression that you actually HAVE studied QM. After all, everyone who has taken even intro QM would have seen the derivation for the Hydrogen atom. That's a standard material.

Obviously, in your case, this isn't true, and that's why I advised you to go back to the basics first. And I never said I had a complete understanding, the same way I never said many of the things you have misread already. So once again, do NOT put words into my mouth, because this is getting to be very annoying. But at the very least, I know what I'm talking about, rather than just simply having some vague understanding of it AND wanting to argue about it with someone who knows more.

I responded to the OP to falsify the original premise. And now, I'm waiting for him/her to come back and give a feedback to see if he/she understood my answer. That's the ONLY way I can judge the level of what he/she has already understood for me to be able to give a further explanation. It is a waste of my time (as can be seen here already) to assume that the OP can understand a highly technical explanation when there's no indication the he/she can. Why you are so set to somehow disagree with that, I have no idea and that's your problem. I have zero desire right now to correct your erroneous understanding if you are too lazy to put in your own effort to understand it.

Zz.

 

[cam875]

wow, this got pretty funny. anyways besides all this arguing and back to physics. would you say that it is a good idea to have a good understanding of quantum physics before delving into understanding photon emissions properly, because most of this talk I got lost and didnt know what was happening because I thought it was based on classical physics, but that would explain why the thread was moved. And where is a good place to start or a good text to get some good info on learning the fundamentals of QM.