Two Degrees of Freedom for Photons - Energy & Momentum

Lapidus
Messages
344
Reaction score
12
They say that the two degrees of freedom of a photon are its two helicity states.

Why are the energy or the momentum of a photon not degrees of freedom of a photon? They can differ and they are Lorentz invariant.

thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
For each value of the propagation vector there are two degrees of freedom.
 
thanks, Bill

Now I see it is a silly question. In mechanics, like a ball moving around, momentum is not a df, either. But the directions it can move are.
 
Lapidus said:
thanks, Bill

Now I see it is a silly question. In mechanics, like a ball moving around, momentum is not a df, either. But the directions it can move are.

Wouldn't a constraint on the directions it can move be a constraint on its momentum? I think the usual example of this type of constraint is something like an ice skate -- where the velocity / momentum can only be in one direction (or perhaps within a small range).

Maybe I'm confusing phase space coordinates with degrees of freedom...anyone feel like discussing the differences between the two, or expanding on what exactly a degree of freedom is?
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top