Tag Info

15

Comments to the question: First it should be stressed, as OP does, that the Euler-Lagrange equations (= classical equations of motion = Maxwell's equations) are unaffected by scaling the action $S[A]$ with an overall (non-zero) constant. So classically, one may choose any overall normalization that one would like. As Frederic Brünner mentions a ...

12

Frequency is not quantized, and has a continuous spectrum. As such, a photon can have any energy, as $E=\hbar\omega$. However, quantum mechanically, if a particle is restricted by a potential, i.e. $$\hat{H}=-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\nabla^2 + \hat{V}$$ for $V\neq 0$, the energy spectrum is discrete. For example, in the case of the harmonic oscillator, ...

12

There is only one kind of photon. Indeed, when we describe elementary interactions between two electrons for example, we call the photon "virtual" as opposed to a physical photon that might exist outside of this process. Still, these are the same particles, i.e. excitations of the same fundamental field, as the photons that make up light for example. ...

12

The factor is there so that once you add a source term, i.e. $J^\mu A_\mu,$ you get the correct equations of motion, namely Maxwell's equations: $\partial_\nu F^{\mu\nu}=J^\mu.$ Furthermore, this convention produces the usual $1/2$ in front of the kinetic term of the gauge fields.

12

Photons do not exhibit the property of virtual particles, but it is not your reasoning that is faulty, you have simply fallen prey to an imprecise use of terminology. Let me start with my view of the wave/particle duality. Most of the images of "particles" and "waves" comes from a time when we really didn't understand the quantum world, and some ...

9

I'm a bit rusty on my qed, but I'll give this a shot. The simplest case would be described by a diagram similar to: But the $e^--e^--\nu_e$ vertex doesn't exist (also note that I can't draw the required arrow on the neutrino) - the vertices of the standard model (with the exception of vertices involving the Higgs and neutrino oscillations) are: With ...

8

Both the wave theory of light and the particle theory of light are approximations to a deeper theory called Quantum Electrodynamics (QED for short). Light is not a wave nor a particle but instead it is an excitation in a quantum field. QED is a complicated theory, so while it is possible to do calculations directly in QED we often find it simpler to use an ...

8

This is a perceptive question. Consider the following from the Wikipedia article "Virtual Particle": As a consequence of quantum mechanical uncertainty, any object or process that exists for a limited time or in a limited volume cannot have a precisely defined energy or momentum. This is the reason that virtual particles — which exist only ...

7

The magnetic moment of the electron is a magnetic moment, so the right magnetic field around it is $$\mathbf{B}({\mathbf{r}})=\nabla\times{\mathbf{A}}=\frac{\mu_{0}}{4\pi}\left(\frac{3\mathbf{r}(\mathbf{\mu}\cdot\mathbf{r})}{r^{5}}-\frac{{\mathbf{\mu}}}{r^{3}}\right).$$ The world is quantum mechanical – and so is any viable description of the spin – so we ...

7

Short answer: A virtual particle is not the opposite of a classical particle. While the other answer captures some aspects correctly, there are still a few flaws and inaccuracies which in the following, I will try to set straight. Wave-particle duality Strictly speaking, quantum objects are neither waves or particles. They are entities behaving like ...

7

We assume a square box, because it simplifies the argument. Yes, in the limit of $L_1, L_2, L_3 \to \infty$ this is equivalent to a square box in the limit $L \to \infty$ (we can't measure the difference between infinities). Also, in the limit $L \to \infty$ the quantized momenta will eventually cover all of momentum space, making the distinction ...

6

Yes, you would have to introduce another gauge field. For example in the Standard Model there is gauge invariance under $SU(3)\times SU(2) \times U(1)$, and so there are three gauge fields: the gluons, the $W^\pm, Z$ weak gauge bosons and the photon. In general terms, it is simpler to argue like this: if you have gauge invariance under a Lie group $G$, the ...

6

A major difference between real and virtual photons is that virtual particles are not required to have energy and momentum on the "mass shell". That is, virtual photons may have $E^2-p^2 \neq m^2$, while real photons must obey $E^2-p^2=m^2=0$. My memory disagrees with Neuneck (v1): I think that a coherent superposition of real photons is a laser, while ...

6

The Lagrangian has many parts that are each guessed at according to symmetry principles, requirements that the theory be well behaved, and reproduce experimental results. It's not something you can do from first principles, because the first principles aren't known. But the aforementioned process took about a 75 years and many Nobel prizes and PhDs were ...

6

Pure QED, unlike Pure Yang Mills ('pure' in the sense that there is only an $F^2$ term in the lagrangian, and it doesn't couple to matter) is a free theory. That means that it's boring, there's no need for renormalization or perturbation theory or anything. So the coupling constant (in this case the wave function renormalization of the photon) doesn't run ...

6

Forward scattering need not be equivalent to "no scattering" - and, indeed, will only rarely be indistinguishable from it. In the usual scattering-theory setup, you have an electron coming in in a plane wave $$\psi(\mathbf{r})=e^{i\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{r}}=e^{ikz}$$ and impinging on some short-range potential. This will add to the wavefunction a scattered ...

5

The electron field transforms under the $\mathbf 1$ of $U(1)$, i.e., the generator is $i$ or $1$ depending on your convention/notation. The gauge fields transform in the adjoint representation , but they transform as a connection, as @Adam mentioned. In other words, if $\psi \to g \psi$, then $D_\mu \psi \to g D_\mu \psi$ implies that $A_\mu \to g D_\mu ... 5$U(1)$is an Abelian group. Abelian groups only have 1-dimensional irreducible representation. Namely, transformation by a phase (in the case of the electron). The charge of fermion field is proportional to the coefficient of the phase. In particular, a field of charge$q$transforms as$\Psi \to e^{i q \theta(x)} \Psi$EDIT: As pointed out in the comments, ... 5 In this link there exists a mathematical explanation of how an ensemble of photons of frequency$\nu$and energy$E=h\nu$end up building coherently the classical electromagnetic wave of frequency$\nu$. It is not simple to follow if one does not have the mathematical background. Conceptually watching the build up of interference fringes from single photons ... 5 The QFT for the scalar is considered to be massive for a very good reason: it is infinitely unlikely for the mass to vanish. There is no symmetry principle that would protect the scalar field from acquiring a generic mass. (The gauge symmetry is the principle that protects the masslessness of the photon but the scalar fields can't sacrifice to lose ... 5 In the first case, the vertex is a vertex in the common sense (used to construct diagrams). In the second case, the gauge field is not dynamic (in a path integral formulation, you do not integrate over), it is a background field that is fixed. In that case, we are interested on the effect of this non-dynamical field on the electron field. This is useful to ... 4 For instance, how did he come up with interpreting the propagator as the propagation of particles? The path integral is usually introduced as a matrix element of the time evolution operator $$\langle x_f\lvert\mathrm e^{-\frac{\mathrm i}{\hbar}\hat{H}(t_f-t_i)}\lvert x_i\rangle,$$ which is a measure of the probability of finding a system in final ... 4 Virtual particles are not real It's in the name. You may draw Feynman diagrams where there are internal lines, and we call these internal lines virtual particles. They are not real. You will never detect a virtual particle. They are not really exchanged between the real charged particles. Virtual particles are a just-so stories designed to explain Feynman ... 4 Classical electrodynamics and quantum electrodynamics don't agree with each other in general. They are distinct, inequivalent theories. Your observation that classical electrodynamics is deterministic, unlike QED, is one sufficient proof that they're inequivalent. At most, the expectation values of some observables in quantum electrodynamics obey the same ... 4 There are, in general, no closed form solutions (aka formulas) for the spectra of multi-electron atoms. There are reasonably precise formulas for special cases, like approximate values of x-ray transitions from inner shell electrons, though. Unlike in case of hydrogen and Rydberg atoms, which can be treated as a non-relativistic one-body problems (i.e. for ... 4 Disclaimer: This is answer is given from a mathematical physics point of view, and it is a little bit technical. Any comment or additional answer from other points of view is welcome. The classical limit of quantum theories and quantum field theories is not straightforward. It is now a very active research topic in mathematical physics and analysis. The ... 4 The photon polarization directions are only transversal when it is free in space . The polarization of an interacting photon or a photon with nonfree boundary conditions is not transversal in general. One example is that electromagnetic waves possess longitudinal polarizations in waveguides. Another relatively simple example where (a certain combination ... 4 These are just my thoughts as someone who studied the subject for a while: The concept of virtual photons that mediate interaction should not be seen as "what really happens". A virtual photon is not a real object (hence the name "virtual"), but an artifact of perturbation theory. If we knew an effective way (or even "a" way) to do the calculations without ... 4 In particle physics there exists elastic scattering for all interactions: change of direction but not of energies. When a photon penetrates into a medium composed of particles whose sizes are much smaller than the wavelength of the incident photon, the scattering process, also known as Rayleigh scattering, is also elastic. In this scattering process, ... 4 The same way you determine if the interval is space-like or time-like. In fact you do it by computing the square of the four-momentum and examining the sign. Which sign is space-like and which time-like is a matter of convention, and varies from source to source. I like to compute the squared-interval as$\$ (\Delta s)^2 = (\Delta t)^2 - (\Delta \vec{x})^2 ...

Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible