Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Photon, not the electron

  1. Sep 19, 2003 #1
    Electric energy = electromagnitism. In other words, electric energy is composed of an electromagnetic field. And in the electric curcuit, electrical energy doesn't flow inside the conductor, but inbetween the empty are surrounding the conductor. So it is safe to say that photons are our charge carriers of electrical energy, not the electron.

    Now, I may be restating a well known fact, or maybe I'm on to something, but wouldn't it (given the facts above) be logical to state that the energy we use to power our everyday electrical devices, are given rise by photons, and not presently thought electrons?

    Would this not also make it easier to define an electromagnetic field. Since the electromagnetic field is made by the buildup of an electric charge, it is easier to see that the electric charge is created by the photon and not the electron, because the particle form of EM radiation is a photon.

    "There is no inbetween." -This statement could be used in many different interpretations here.
    Paden Roder
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 20, 2003 #2

    jcsd

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    photons are the force carriers for EM, but they are chargeless so they certainly are not the charge carriers in an eletric circuit. In a circuit the electrical enrgy is created by the movement of electrons and hence charge.
     
  4. Sep 20, 2003 #3
    But the electrons give rise to energy as photons. I'm saying that these photons actually power our electrical devices, not the electron.
    Paden Roder
     
  5. Sep 20, 2003 #4

    jcsd

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Photons produced by an electric circuit are just electrical interference.
     
  6. Sep 20, 2003 #5
    How so?
     
  7. Sep 20, 2003 #6

    jcsd

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Cos any accelrating charge produces photons, so for example in an AC circuit photons are produced of very long wavelengths and mainfest themselves as electrical interference.
     
  8. Sep 20, 2003 #7

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    No, it wouldn't, because there is a mountain of experimental evidence that states uniquivocally that the photon has no charge and that the electron has a charge of 1.6×10-19C.

    No, it wouldn't make it easier to define the EM field. The EM field is currently very well defined both classically and quantum mechanically, and in such a way as to fit perfectly with the rest of physics.

    This thread has nothing to do with the physics of particles and nuclei. It belongs in Theory Development.
     
  9. Sep 20, 2003 #8
    I know a photon has no charge, but it does carry energy. Right? A photon's energy is equivilent to it's momentum (I may be mistaken). Is not energy needed to establish an electical current in the first place?
    Paden Roder
     
  10. Sep 20, 2003 #9
    A recent experiment has determined that if a photon does have mass, it would have to be less than 1.2x10^-51 grams and the photons charge would have to be less than 8.5x10^-17e.

    www.aps.org/media/tips/tips32.html - 14k - Sep 19, 2003
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2003
  11. Sep 21, 2003 #10
    Very interesting. Thanks for the post.

    And also to prove my point. Electrons constantly emit certain quanta of energy when excited. This emitting and reabsorbing would accound for our positive and negative state of atoms, without which , the concept of electricity wouldn't make sense.

    And we also know that when electrons are excited, they emit photons. And the frequencies vary, depending on the level of excitation. So it is logical to assume that EMF are given rise by the HUGE amount of photons which excitation of the electrons in the wire gives rise to and that each such photon has its own EMF. So it is reasonable to assume that the EMF is associated w/ the photon, NOT the other way around.
    Paden Roder
     
  12. Sep 22, 2003 #11

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Right.

    No, it is not. The photon's 4-momentum is given by:

    pμ=(p,E/c).

    The momentum is a 3-vector, and the energy is the timelike piece of a 4-vector. They behave differently under Lorentz transformations.

    What is your point?

    Just because light carries energy, and energy is needed to have an electric current, that does not even remotely imply that light is the charge carrier in a wire. Water waves carry energy, too, but you wouldn't suggest that they are responsible for carrying electrical current (would you?!).
     
  13. Sep 22, 2003 #12

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    No, all experimental evidence indicates that electrons do not become excited, and no electron has ever been observed to emit quanta. Only structured entities can be found in excited states, and by deexcitation, emit quanta.

    No, electricity makes perfect sense apart from atoms. Just put a bunch of electrons in a glass tube and apply a potential difference. Similarly, the electrons in a wire are not localized to any particular nucleus, and their wavefunctions are not atomic wavefunctions.


    Since the premises are wrong, so is the conclusion.
     
  14. Sep 22, 2003 #13
    1)But isn't it to that when electrons absorb photons, (because photons directly relate to energy) the electron takes on more energy and thus it's kinetic molecular motion is increased (excitation)? Or am I off here?

    2) Are you saying that when electron/electron interaction occurs, It DOESN'T result in photons?

    3) And the resulting photon DOESN'T depend on the level of excitation the electrons were in?

    I may be wrong in all of those questions, but I always have been under the impression that when there is an electron/electron interaction, the electrons give off energy known as a virtual photons, which are very short lived, and then these photons are then very quickly absorbed once again by the electrons.
    Paden Roder
     
  15. Sep 23, 2003 #14

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    My point was precisely that electrons do not "absorb photons". All experimental evidence indicates that photons scatter off of electrons. Structured bodies such as atoms and nuclei, however, do absorb and emit photons.

    That's right.

    Since my point was that electrons do not have excited states, this question doesn't even make it to the table.

    It is true that the electron-electron scattering is mediated by virtual photons. As you further note, it is also true that the energy of the photon is short lived. In fact it is precisely so short lived as to not be observable, so there is no way it serve as the source for a current in a wire.
     
  16. Sep 23, 2003 #15
    Just to give addition on Tom's statement with virtual photons:Electron emitts photons butthat photons carry momentum,and not energy so the electro doesn't lose energy or absorb im meaning gets.So Einstein equation E^2-p^2c^2=m^2c^4 for REAL photo is (because rest mass of photon =0) E^2-p^2c^2=0,but as that photon (virtual) doesn't carry energy E=0 so we get that for VIRTUAL photon:
    E^2-p^2c^2<0 or to generalize for or VIRTUAL particles:
    E^2-p^2c^2 different of m^2c^4..
    Best wishes
    SVRadic
     
  17. Sep 23, 2003 #16

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    In general, virtual photons have both energy and momentum. In, say, an e-&mu;- scattering reaction, let pn and pn' be the incoming and outgoing electron momenta, respectively, and let qn and qn' be the incoming and outgoing muon momenta, respectively. The momentum of the virtual photon can be expressed in terms of the particle momenta as follows:

    kn=qn'-qn=pn-pn'

    In general, the timelike pieces of q and q', or p and p', are not the same. In the initial rest frame of the muon, for instance, the muon definitely gains energy, so the timelike piece of the virtual photon's momentum is nonzero.

    On more general grounds, we do not expect the virtual photon energy to always be zero because energy is not a Lorentz invariant.

    edit: fixed a typo
     
  18. Sep 24, 2003 #17
    Ok, let's look at this from a theoretical standpoint. I just read an article on how the photon actually has a rest mass. (Small, but a rest mass) This mass makes it impossible for a photon to travel as speed c . *For your info, the conclusion made that a photon has a small rest energy was derived from Maxwell's equations.

    But if the photon were to have a mass, even if small, would it not imply it had a charge?

    *Also note, I'm really trying to prove this theory, I'm looking at this as a nonprejudice veiw point. Pointing out the downfalls of this theory is very helpful, but also, maybe if you were to point me in the right direction (things that I say are logical) that would be muched appreciated.

    Paden Roder
     
  19. Sep 24, 2003 #18

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I have been! The theoretical standpoint I have been taking is the Standard Model (Electroweak+QCD).

    Do you have a reference?

    That is not possible. The massless photon is precisely what allows the gauge invariance of Maxwell's equations. In order to accomodate a massive photon, the EM Lagrangian:

    LEM=j&mu;A&mu;+(1/4&mu;0)F&mu;&nu;F&mu;&nu;

    would have to be replaced by the Proca Lagrangian:

    LProca=LEM+m2A&mu;A&mu;,

    where m is the photon mass. A massive vector field (aka "Proca field") has completely different equations. Since the 4-potential appears quadratically in the Lagrangian, the potential itself appears in the field equations, giving rise to the aforementioned spoiling of gauge freedom that the Maxwell field enjoys.

    No, it would not.

    The "right direction" would be to start looking into the things I am telling you and to rid yourself of these misconceptions you have.
     
  20. Sep 24, 2003 #19
    Yep, thanks. That's why I'm asking the expert.

    Also, for the reference of that book. Just today I was doing some research on it in Iowa State's library. When having a discussion with the professor, he also asked for the book, and I drew a blank. Um.... I know the book's main title was "PHOTON" then there was a subtitle: (something like) "The old and new conception" I dunno, if you're really interested, maybe try looking that up. If not, what can I say?

    Thanks
    Paden Roder
     
  21. Sep 25, 2003 #20

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I searched at Google and Amazon, but came up empty. :frown:
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Photon, not the electron
  1. Photons and electrons (Replies: 3)

  2. Electrons and Photons (Replies: 5)

Loading...