Photon interaction during refraction

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the interaction of photons during refraction in solid dielectrics, exploring the nature of photons, energy exchange with matter, and the implications of these interactions on the understanding of refraction. The conversation includes theoretical considerations, interpretations of photon behavior, and the role of virtual states in these processes.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that an optical photon traversing a solid dielectric interacts with atoms by transferring energy into oscillations, leading to a delayed photon due to secondary wavelets emitted with a phase delay.
  • Others argue that bare photons are not eigenstates of the light field in matter, and that absorption and emission processes lead to virtual states rather than real ones, particularly in weak coupling regimes.
  • A participant questions how energy can be taken from a photon, especially for those who view photons as indivisible particles, and discusses the implications of this perspective on the explanation of refraction.
  • There is a contention regarding the idea that photons are absorbed and re-emitted by phonons, with some asserting that this view leads to inconsistencies unless virtual states are considered.
  • Concerns are raised about the nature of energy exchange, suggesting that only a portion of the photon's energy is exchanged at any time, and that the maximum kinetic energy of oscillating electrons is less than a quantum of energy.
  • Another participant discusses the uncertainty principle, suggesting that while the total photon energy can transition to other modes on short timescales, it remains in the photon mode in the long run, complicating the understanding of energy loss during these interactions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the nature of photon interactions during refraction, particularly concerning the concepts of energy exchange, virtual versus real states, and the interpretation of absorption and re-emission processes. The discussion remains unresolved with no consensus reached.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on interpretations of photon behavior, the ambiguity surrounding energy definitions during short timescales, and the unresolved nature of the mathematical treatment of these interactions.

harrylin
Messages
3,874
Reaction score
93
This is a follow-up of the following thread on refraction:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=576212&highlight=photon

In a nutshell, an optical photon that traverses a solid dielectric extends over many atoms. While the photon traverses the dielectric, it continuously transmits some of its energy into a forced oscillation of charges which return the energy by emitting secondary waves (perhaps better to say wavelets) with a slight, progressive phase delay. The result is a delayed photon.

However, in post #19 the following question came up:
Antiphon said:
How do you take some energy from a photon?

Indeed, it is no conceptual problem for those of us who regard a photon as a kind of wave packet, and the Planck energy as the characteristic energy of emission and detection.
However, it may be a problem for those who regard a photon as an indivisible particle, and/or the Planck energy as a true atom of energy, independent of observation. With such an interpretation, how does one explain refraction?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
At first it should be stated that bare photons are never eigenstates of the light field in matter.

Now, the question is how one treats the difference. In the weak coupling regime one can still use perturbation theory up to second order which gives a refractive index like
n\approx 1 +\left|\sum_z \frac{\langle i|H_D|z\rangle \langle z|H_D|i\rangle}{E_z-E_i-\hbar \omega}\right|^2.

It should be emphasized that the absorption and emission processes involved lead to virtual states, not real ones. That treatment of course must fail on resonance, that means when the denominator approaches zero.

In that case, the light field and the material excitation behave light coupled harmonical oscillators in the simplest case which can exchange energy effectively, so that spontaneous emission can become reversible and you now have real absorption and emission instead of virtual ones. In that case perturbation theory must be replaced by exact bookkeeping of these interactions. What one typically does is a diagonalization of the interaction Hamiltonian via a Bogoliubov transform which leads to new eigenstates. These are now partially photon-like and partially excitation-like and typically called polaritons.

The energy is in both cases taken from the photonic mode in the time-average only which is no problem for any model, I suppose.
 
Cthugha said:
At first it should be stated that bare photons are never eigenstates of the light field in matter.
[..]
It should be emphasized that the absorption and emission processes involved lead to virtual states, not real ones. That treatment of course must fail on resonance, that means when the denominator approaches zero.
[..]
The energy is in both cases taken from the photonic mode in the time-average only which is no problem for any model, I suppose.
Thanks, I guess that one could see the photon as a particle that exchanges energy with the medium. But I'm afraid that this doesn't really address the question of Antiphon, who holds that 'the photons are absorbed and re-emitted by the phonons'.

Also in your description, at any time only some of the photon's energy is exchanged, and with a great number of electrons - thus I think that also as your picture it, less than a quantum of energy is exchanged at any time, and the maximum additional kinetic energy of each oscillating electron is again much smaller than that. Is that correct?
 
harrylin said:
Thanks, I guess that one could see the photon as a particle that exchanges energy with the medium. But I'm afraid that this doesn't really address the question of Antiphon, who holds that 'the photons are absorbed and re-emitted by the phonons'.

The point of view that photons are generally being absorbed and re-emitted by photons is plain wrong and leads to inconsistencies - unless of course absorption to virtual states is implied. The FAQ of these forums already has an entry on that: https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=899393&postcount=1 where it is written that "So the lattice does not absorb this photon and it is re-emitted but with a very slight delay." Although I must admit that the term re-emitted is a bit off as it is explicitly stated that absorption does not happen.

Real absorption and reemission processes happen way too slow to explain refraction and should also randomize the direction in which light is traveling.

harrylin said:
Also in your description, at any time only some of the photon's energy is exchanged, and with a great number of electrons - thus I think that also as your picture it, less than a quantum of energy is exchanged at any time, and the maximum additional kinetic energy of each oscillating electron is again much smaller than that. Is that correct?

On very short timescales as implied by uncertainty the "total" photon energy can go to other modes. However, the energy of the photon is of course not too well defined on these timescales and as transitions to these modes are not allowed due to energy mismatch the energy will stay in the photon mode in the long run. Averaging over timescales longer than the typical timescales on which uncertainty is important then gives you an effective portion of energy that goes into these transitions on average, but that does not mean that at some instant the photon loses only some percentage of its energy.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
5K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
13K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
6K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
8K