Light and qm

[Butch]

Has anyone ever investigated the idea that the nature of light quanta could actually be the nature of matter to accept energy in specific quantities?

[interested]

27 minutes ago, Butch said:

Has anyone ever investigated the idea that the nature of light quanta could actually be the nature of matter to accept energy in specific quantities?

yes, why do you ask

[Butch]

6 minutes ago, interested said:

yes, why do you ask

I am learning qm (self teaching) and I am keeping my head on a swivel so I don't miss anything. Such nature of matter would be the anti thesis of light quanta and I would like to see how it was eliminated as a possibility. Can you provide information or a link?

[Mordred]

Your going about self teaching QM in the wrong manner. You would be far better off picking up an Intoductory textbook and studying it.

The Feyman lectures would be a good start point.

Work through all three books in order the vol 3 is QM you need the preliminaries of the prior 2.

http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu

In order to properly understand QM you must work with the scalar, vectors and spinor relations otherwise you will make mistakes

Edited December 17, 2017 by Mordred

[interested]

There are lots of links to follow, for me at the moment I like quantum field theory, but have also looked at string theory, and relativity. You may like to try different theories, depending on the scale you are looking at.  

Here is a wiki link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory 

Swansont gave me a tip when searching the web, if you add arxiv to the search parameters you get more technical results than the usual pop science that turns up with google. 

Here is a hit with arxiv in the search https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0510040 and the pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0510040.pdf

What level of info do you prefer

Oh and anything Mordred says read it and absorb it.

Edited December 17, 2017 by interested
cross posted

[StringJunky]

6 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Your going about self teaching QM in the wrong manner. You would be far better off picking up an Intoductory textbook and studying it.

The Feyman lectures would be a good start point.

Work through all three books in order the vol 3 is QM you need the preliminaries of the prior 2.

http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu

How long would it take to work through the three volumes if ones maths was up to scratch?

[Mordred]

If you math is up to par roughly a month per volume to properly understand them.

[StringJunky]

2 minutes ago, Mordred said:

If you math is up to par roughly a month per volume to properly understand them.

Not that long then. Cheers.

[studiot]

52 minutes ago, Butch said:

I am learning qm (self teaching) and I am keeping my head on a swivel so I don't miss anything. Such nature of matter would be the anti thesis of light quanta and I would like to see how it was eliminated as a possibility. Can you provide information or a link?

'Tis pity (John Ford 1629) you've fallen out with John Cuthber, forsooth chemical QM is far easier to digest then physical QM.

 

 

 

[Butch]

Well, I do have my head around wave function now... I think.

Edited December 17, 2017 by Butch
Elaboration

[Mordred]

Good those lectures will give you the needed mathematics to understand them. A little hint always think in terms of graphs to understand the mathematics. Vector calculus of graphs is a primary tool to understand how physics describes relations.

Ie a straiht line on a graph is a linear relation that can be described by y=mx+b

 

Terms like states, manifold, fields  are all graphical representations. They will comprise of scalar and vector functions at each graph coordinate.  When you compare two graphs, you can apply transformation equations between two graphs. These are your translations such as rotation, time and spacial translations.

All interactions will correspond to a graphical plot or several seperate plots with graphical plots to describe the translations. 

This will help with all the fancy terminology.

Edited December 17, 2017 by Mordred

[Butch]

Yes, thank you, graphs and geometry... Although I did have some trouble conveying simple acceleration in a graph recently.

[Mordred]

exactly. It doesn't matter what theory under physics your studying they all involve graphs.

Edited December 17, 2017 by Mordred

[Sensei]

2 hours ago, Butch said:

Has anyone ever investigated the idea that the nature of light quanta could actually be the nature of matter to accept energy in specific quantities?

Atom (nucleus + electrons) is normally in ground state. When other particle hits it (photon, electron, proton, alpha etc.), atom's electrons are absorbing part or the all energy of incoming particle, we say atom is in excited state. After a while excited atom, releases energy in form of photons, and goes back to ground state. Photon is emitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_state

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excited_state

 

When there is enough energy to ionize atom, electron is ejected.

In photoelectric effect incoming particle is photon, and electron (called photoelectron) is ejected. Photon disappears (it's absorbed). Kinetic energy of free electron corresponds to energy of incoming photon minus energy needed to eject it (Work function).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect

 

Different elements have slightly different energies of ionization, for each electron.

 

Ionization energies of the elements, per electron (shell/sub-shell):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionization_energies_of_the_elements_(data_page)

(the table is not final)

 

Edited December 17, 2017 by Sensei

[swansont]

3 hours ago, Butch said:

Has anyone ever investigated the idea that the nature of light quanta could actually be the nature of matter to accept energy in specific quantities?

It is the nature of matter to accept energy in specific quanta.

It is the nature of light to exist as quanta, in those interactions with matter.

Both are true.

[Butch]

22 hours ago, swansont said:

It is the nature of matter to accept energy in specific quanta.

It is the nature of light to exist as quanta, in those interactions with matter.

Both are true.

I have educated myself now to the point that I understand that matter and em are no different when it comes to wave function.

Thanks all.

[Mordred]

Ok that is an understandable impression he delivers in the earlier chapters with regards to atoms. He will later explain that it isn't the complete picture. Matter link volume 1

He is stepping you away from the old image of the atom and into seeing the probablistic nature which are modelled via wavefunctions and later on fluctuations and excitations.

He will later on add the strong and weak forces but largely everyday matter is comprised of the EM field.

 

Edited December 19, 2017 by Mordred