Photon Creation

[Little Bang]

An accelerated charged particle will emit radiation perpendicular to the direction of acceleration.* http://www.cv.nrao.edu/course/astr534/LarmorRad.html* *It seems reasonable to think that accelerating a charged particle changes the position of it's field with respect to it's original position and that change propagates at C. I propose that change is what we call a photon and it will propagate without the need of virtual particles as the medium. The medium is the charged particle's own field. The particle must be accelerated with respect to any observer to emit radiation. If the observer is accelerated at the same rate as the particle then the field lines of the observer change at the same rate as the particles and therefore the observer does not see the particle emitting radiation.

 

It should be understood that a charged particle has an electric field extending from it three hundred and sixty degrees in all directions. The diagram below is a simple illustration to show how a photon is formed.

 

Photonpdf.pdf

 

The vertical blue line above the blue stationary charged particle represents the collapsing (at C) electric field. The red dashed line represents a changing electric field. The red line above the red accelerating charged particle represents an expanding (at C) electric field. The angle of the dashed red line is just to show that the energy of the photon is dependent upon the acceleration of the charged particle. It should be noted that accelerating an atom or molecule will produce wave fronts according to the number of charged particles involved. To an observer the red dashed line would appear as the magnetic component of the photon and the red line as the electric component of the photon. It should be understood also that a three dimensional picture of the photon would resemble an expanding torus. Using this picture of the photon I will explain the photon double slit experiment and the electron double slit experiment.

 

In the photon double slit the experimenter designed the emitter device to emit a single photon, but according to the above description of the photon the experimenter was releasing a complete wave that would always pass through a single or double slit producing the corresponding interference pattern.

 

In the case of the electron double slit the details of exactly how the devise was designed is relatively inadequate. The emitter releases an electron that is accelerated toward a positive plate that has the double slit. Again, from the above, we know the electron will produce a wave that will pass through a single or double slit producing the corresponding interference pattern.

[Erasmus00]

An accelerated charged particle will emit radiation perpendicular to the direction of acceleration.* http://www.cv.nrao.edu/course/astr534/LarmorRad.html* *It seems reasonable to think that accelerating a charged particle changes the position of it's field with respect to it's original position and that change propagates at C. I propose that change is what we call a photon and it will propagate without the need of virtual particles as the medium.

 

The Larmor radiation discussed in you link is entirely classical, and can be understood from Maxwell's equations. You are correct, a change in the field is what we call an electromagnetic wave.

 

Now, the interesting fact that your description cannot explain is that this radiation is lumpy, and that the energy of the lumps depends on frequency, not the amplitude of the wave. Maxwell's equations cannot explain this. Maxwell's equations are an incredibly good first appoximation, but they are not the whole story of the electromagnetic field.

 

QED would say that even a static electron is surrounded by virtual photons. What we call an electromagnetic field, in fact, is a swarm of photons, some virtual, some real.

[Pyrotex]

Sorry, but I could not follow you. I've got a strong educational background in physics and elementary particles -- and I read through your text 3 times, and examined the picture -- but I still can't make heads or tails of what you're trying to say.

More diagrams may be necessary.

First of all, can you state in one sentence what you are trying to prove?

And is it in accordance with or opposed to the conventional physics of accellerated particles?

[Little Bang]

Eras, do we not detect these lumps by the energy level changes in electron orbitals and if so then there is no correlation between these lumps and the actual energy of a photon. Especially since the energy of the photon can be anything from zero to infinity.

 

Pyro, I am saying that photons are only created by accelerated charged particles and do not need a medium in which to propagate since the photon is simply a change in the position of the field surrounding all charged particles. Suppose that the only thing created by the BB was a single proton. The proton's field would start expanding creating space time. Now suppose some force suddenly shifted the proton. It's field would start expanding again and the difference between the old still expanding field and the new expanding field is what we call a photon.

[Little Bang]

A little more detailed explanation of rhe electron double slit.

 

I'm sure the part of the double slit experiment you would like me to explain is where the electron acts like a wave in one instant but a particle in the next. In the electron double slit they heat a tungsten element until it starts emitting electrons at high speed and they can set it to emit one electron at a time. The electrons pass through one slit or the other and are detected by a device called an electron multiplier. I won't go into a complete description of how it works, suffice it to say that if a single electron hits the emissive material it creates an avalanche of electrons that can be detected. All of this is done in a vacuum. There is one problem with this type of detector. One photon with the right energy can also trigger this avalanche. The designers of this experiment had obviously ruled out the possibility of any photons in the experiment and as we know that is not the case. Now if we put a detector in front of one slit in order to find out which slit the electron/photon goes through we get one maxima which implies that it is acting like a particle but guess what, if you put a detector in front of one slit in a photon double slit device you get exactly the same result. So the interference pattern is coming from the photons created by the accelerated electrons.

[Erasmus00]

Eras, do we not detect these lumps by the energy level changes in electron orbitals and if so then there is no correlation between these lumps and the actual energy of a photon. Especially since the energy of the photon can be anything from zero to infinity.

 

The key point is that the energy is frequency dependent, which cannot be explained by Maxwell. Are you familiar with the photo-electric effect? It is these results we need quantum mechanics to explain. In this case, electrons are ejected from the metal, so their energy difference is not quantized, but rather continuous (free electrons can have any energy).

[Little Bang]

The energy is frequency dependent because the electron won't interact with photons that don't have the right frequency. If WE knew what an electron was I could explain the photo electric effect.

[Little Bang]

Eras, the logic that leads to my view of the photon is accurate. You know it, I know it and anyone who reads this thread knows it. Any argument against it must hold that an accelerated charged particle does not emit radiation and that is patently false. As I said before a photon propagates without the need of virtual particles. Without that ornament on your standard model Christmas tree it will come tumbling down.

[Little Bang]

Please revisit drawing. It is a better explanation with more detail.

[Erasmus00]

Eras, the logic that leads to my view of the photon is accurate.

 

Your view of the photon is EXACTLY the classical view of electromagnetic waves. See, for instance, the appendix in Purcell's E&M book! It has sketches of exactly what you are describing.

 

My only point is that there is of course a reason that science has moved past classical E&M- there are things it cannot explain. Your description is great for classical radiation, and less great for photons.

[Little Bang]

Thank you eras. I will try to look at his book.

 

Your are correct and we need to move on to anther new theory that explains gravity, inertia, charge and mass. Qm has had over a hundred years to do so without success.

[Little Bang]

Eras, if you have access to that book could you tell me on what page the diagram can be found?

[Erasmus00]

Its in the appendix on radiation from an accelerated charge.

[andrewgray]

Little Bang,

 

What you are referring to is sometimes referred to as the "Thompson Principle". Here is how he understood it:

Here we see a charge that is suddenly accelerated to the right. Since lines of E don't end in classical E&M, they remain continuous and transverse across the acceleration shell.

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

[Little Bang]

Yes, that is a much more comprehensive drawing. Thank you, I had not seen that before.

[Little Bang]

Does a charged particle emit radiation when it is just moving with respect to an observer? I would say yes but that radiation would not be changing frequency like when accelerated.

[Erasmus00]

Does a charged particle emit radiation when it is just moving with respect to an observer? I would say yes but that radiation would not be changing frequency like when accelerated.

 

No. Radiation involves changing energy, which every inertial observer can agree on.

 

Hence, you can answer this question by considering an observer stationary with the charge (in which case, it clearly does not radiate).

-Will