Does a photon require an EM field to exist?
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
An excitation in the electromagnetic field is called an electromagnetic wave. The smallest possible part of the electromagnetic wave is called a photon.
But if the photon is always accompanied by an electromagnetic field, then how is the compton effect possible, even theoretically, since if the electron is interacting with the photon, then it is inevitably also interacting with an electromagnetic field?
electromagnetic-radiation photons quantum-electrodynamics
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
An excitation in the electromagnetic field is called an electromagnetic wave. The smallest possible part of the electromagnetic wave is called a photon.
But if the photon is always accompanied by an electromagnetic field, then how is the compton effect possible, even theoretically, since if the electron is interacting with the photon, then it is inevitably also interacting with an electromagnetic field?
electromagnetic-radiation photons quantum-electrodynamics
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
An excitation in the electromagnetic field is called an electromagnetic wave. The smallest possible part of the electromagnetic wave is called a photon.
But if the photon is always accompanied by an electromagnetic field, then how is the compton effect possible, even theoretically, since if the electron is interacting with the photon, then it is inevitably also interacting with an electromagnetic field?
electromagnetic-radiation photons quantum-electrodynamics
An excitation in the electromagnetic field is called an electromagnetic wave. The smallest possible part of the electromagnetic wave is called a photon.
But if the photon is always accompanied by an electromagnetic field, then how is the compton effect possible, even theoretically, since if the electron is interacting with the photon, then it is inevitably also interacting with an electromagnetic field?
electromagnetic-radiation photons quantum-electrodynamics
electromagnetic-radiation photons quantum-electrodynamics
edited 2 days ago
Qmechanic♦
99.5k121781113
99.5k121781113
asked Nov 18 at 3:14
Abdul Moiz Qureshi
3510
3510
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
5
down vote
The electromagnetic field is a quantum field that can manifest itself in different ways, depending on the state of the system. A photon is one manifestation of the electromagnetic field. An ordinary radio wave (produced by an oscillating current in an antenna) is another manifestation of the quantum electromagnetic field.
It's not quite correct to say that a photon is accompanied by an electromagnetic field; instead, a photon is a manifestation of the electromagnetic field. All of the photons in the universe, all of the radio waves in the universe, and all of the magnetic fields of all of the refrigerator-magnets in the universe are all manifestations of the one-and-only quantum electromagnetic field.
This can be illustrated explicitly in a simplified version of quantum electrodynamics in which matter (electric currents, etc) is treated as a prescribed source rather than a dynamic entity, so that the only dynamic entity is the quantum electromagnetic field itself. In this model, exact calculations are possible, and we can verify explicitly that the thing we experience as an ordinary macroscopic electromagnetic wave is equivalent to a quantum superposition of many different numbers of photons. These are not two different things; they are two different ways of describing the same thing. The reason an ordinary electromagnetic wave doesn't seem "quantum" is — ironically — closely related to the fact that it can be expressed as a quantum superposition of many different numbers of photons. (This is one of those cases where the math is much more clear than the words!)
...if the electron is interacting with the photon, then it is inevitably also interacting with an electromagnetic field?
The interaction of the electromagnetic with itself (such as the interaction of photons with the electric field of an electron) is extremely weak. In the simplified model mentioned in the preceding paragraph, it is exactly zero. In the more realistic version of quantum electrodynamics, which includes things like dynamic electrons, the interaction of the electromagnetic with itself is not exactly zero, but it is very weak. Under normal circumstances, it is utterly negligible, although it can become significant at very high energies.
The degree to which the electromagnetic interacts with itself can be quantified by considering the cross-section for photon-photon scattering. This is analyzed in these papers:
"Photon-photon scattering: a tutorial", https://arxiv.org/abs/1111.6126
"Photon-Photon Collisions — Past and Future", https://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/slacpubs/11500/slac-pub-11581.pdf
According to section 7-3-1 in Itzykson and Zuber's book Quantum Field Theory, the cross-section for photon-photon scattering is
$$
sigma sim frac{alpha^4}{m^2},left(frac{omega}{m}right)^6,
tag{1}
$$
where $alphasim 1/137$ is the fine-structure constant, $m$ is the mass of an electron, and $omega$ is the photon's energy. (This expression uses units in which Planck's constant and the speed of light are both equal to 1.) For comparison, according to section 5-2-1 in the same book, the cross-section for Compton scattering is
$$
sigma sim frac{alpha^2}{m^2}.
tag{2}
$$
So the cross-section for photon-photon scattering is smaller than the cross-section for photon-electron scattering by a factor of
$$
sim alpha^2,left(frac{omega}{m}right)^6.
$$
Quantitatively, the electron mass is $sim$ 500 keV and the energy of an X-ray photon is $sim$ 100 keV (at the upper end of the X-ray energy range), so photon-photon scattering is weaker than photon-electron scattering by a factor
$$
sim alpha^2,left(frac{omega}{m}right)^6
sim frac{1}{137^2},frac{1}{5^6}sim 10^{-9}
$$
at the highest X-ray energies.
This is one reason why the interaction between photons and the electron's electric field can safely be neglected when considering phenomena like the Compton effect.
Can you please provide a reference where I can find a worked-out example of an exact calculation in the simplified QED that you describe? I wish I had learned QED starting from this approach when I was in graduate school.
– G. Smith
Nov 18 at 5:15
@G.Smith Actually, the only reference I have is my own home-grown notes, because I was never able to find a good reference on this either! I actually considered including a worked-out example in this post, but I decided that would have made the post too long and overwhelming. Would it be poor form for me to post a question and then answer my own question, just as a way of sharing a worked-out example? I'm thinking of an example where an external (prescribed) oscillating current produces a quantum electromagnetic wave, which turns out (not surprisingly) to be a "coherent state."
– Dan Yand
Nov 18 at 5:23
1
Please post this as a question and answer when you have time. I don’t think this is frowned on. Thanks!
– G. Smith
Nov 18 at 5:26
@G.Smith Might be a couple of days before I get to it, but when it's done, I'll post a comment here with a link, so it shows up in your inbox.
– Dan Yand
Nov 18 at 5:47
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
5
down vote
The electromagnetic field is a quantum field that can manifest itself in different ways, depending on the state of the system. A photon is one manifestation of the electromagnetic field. An ordinary radio wave (produced by an oscillating current in an antenna) is another manifestation of the quantum electromagnetic field.
It's not quite correct to say that a photon is accompanied by an electromagnetic field; instead, a photon is a manifestation of the electromagnetic field. All of the photons in the universe, all of the radio waves in the universe, and all of the magnetic fields of all of the refrigerator-magnets in the universe are all manifestations of the one-and-only quantum electromagnetic field.
This can be illustrated explicitly in a simplified version of quantum electrodynamics in which matter (electric currents, etc) is treated as a prescribed source rather than a dynamic entity, so that the only dynamic entity is the quantum electromagnetic field itself. In this model, exact calculations are possible, and we can verify explicitly that the thing we experience as an ordinary macroscopic electromagnetic wave is equivalent to a quantum superposition of many different numbers of photons. These are not two different things; they are two different ways of describing the same thing. The reason an ordinary electromagnetic wave doesn't seem "quantum" is — ironically — closely related to the fact that it can be expressed as a quantum superposition of many different numbers of photons. (This is one of those cases where the math is much more clear than the words!)
...if the electron is interacting with the photon, then it is inevitably also interacting with an electromagnetic field?
The interaction of the electromagnetic with itself (such as the interaction of photons with the electric field of an electron) is extremely weak. In the simplified model mentioned in the preceding paragraph, it is exactly zero. In the more realistic version of quantum electrodynamics, which includes things like dynamic electrons, the interaction of the electromagnetic with itself is not exactly zero, but it is very weak. Under normal circumstances, it is utterly negligible, although it can become significant at very high energies.
The degree to which the electromagnetic interacts with itself can be quantified by considering the cross-section for photon-photon scattering. This is analyzed in these papers:
"Photon-photon scattering: a tutorial", https://arxiv.org/abs/1111.6126
"Photon-Photon Collisions — Past and Future", https://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/slacpubs/11500/slac-pub-11581.pdf
According to section 7-3-1 in Itzykson and Zuber's book Quantum Field Theory, the cross-section for photon-photon scattering is
$$
sigma sim frac{alpha^4}{m^2},left(frac{omega}{m}right)^6,
tag{1}
$$
where $alphasim 1/137$ is the fine-structure constant, $m$ is the mass of an electron, and $omega$ is the photon's energy. (This expression uses units in which Planck's constant and the speed of light are both equal to 1.) For comparison, according to section 5-2-1 in the same book, the cross-section for Compton scattering is
$$
sigma sim frac{alpha^2}{m^2}.
tag{2}
$$
So the cross-section for photon-photon scattering is smaller than the cross-section for photon-electron scattering by a factor of
$$
sim alpha^2,left(frac{omega}{m}right)^6.
$$
Quantitatively, the electron mass is $sim$ 500 keV and the energy of an X-ray photon is $sim$ 100 keV (at the upper end of the X-ray energy range), so photon-photon scattering is weaker than photon-electron scattering by a factor
$$
sim alpha^2,left(frac{omega}{m}right)^6
sim frac{1}{137^2},frac{1}{5^6}sim 10^{-9}
$$
at the highest X-ray energies.
This is one reason why the interaction between photons and the electron's electric field can safely be neglected when considering phenomena like the Compton effect.
Can you please provide a reference where I can find a worked-out example of an exact calculation in the simplified QED that you describe? I wish I had learned QED starting from this approach when I was in graduate school.
– G. Smith
Nov 18 at 5:15
@G.Smith Actually, the only reference I have is my own home-grown notes, because I was never able to find a good reference on this either! I actually considered including a worked-out example in this post, but I decided that would have made the post too long and overwhelming. Would it be poor form for me to post a question and then answer my own question, just as a way of sharing a worked-out example? I'm thinking of an example where an external (prescribed) oscillating current produces a quantum electromagnetic wave, which turns out (not surprisingly) to be a "coherent state."
– Dan Yand
Nov 18 at 5:23
1
Please post this as a question and answer when you have time. I don’t think this is frowned on. Thanks!
– G. Smith
Nov 18 at 5:26
@G.Smith Might be a couple of days before I get to it, but when it's done, I'll post a comment here with a link, so it shows up in your inbox.
– Dan Yand
Nov 18 at 5:47
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
The electromagnetic field is a quantum field that can manifest itself in different ways, depending on the state of the system. A photon is one manifestation of the electromagnetic field. An ordinary radio wave (produced by an oscillating current in an antenna) is another manifestation of the quantum electromagnetic field.
It's not quite correct to say that a photon is accompanied by an electromagnetic field; instead, a photon is a manifestation of the electromagnetic field. All of the photons in the universe, all of the radio waves in the universe, and all of the magnetic fields of all of the refrigerator-magnets in the universe are all manifestations of the one-and-only quantum electromagnetic field.
This can be illustrated explicitly in a simplified version of quantum electrodynamics in which matter (electric currents, etc) is treated as a prescribed source rather than a dynamic entity, so that the only dynamic entity is the quantum electromagnetic field itself. In this model, exact calculations are possible, and we can verify explicitly that the thing we experience as an ordinary macroscopic electromagnetic wave is equivalent to a quantum superposition of many different numbers of photons. These are not two different things; they are two different ways of describing the same thing. The reason an ordinary electromagnetic wave doesn't seem "quantum" is — ironically — closely related to the fact that it can be expressed as a quantum superposition of many different numbers of photons. (This is one of those cases where the math is much more clear than the words!)
...if the electron is interacting with the photon, then it is inevitably also interacting with an electromagnetic field?
The interaction of the electromagnetic with itself (such as the interaction of photons with the electric field of an electron) is extremely weak. In the simplified model mentioned in the preceding paragraph, it is exactly zero. In the more realistic version of quantum electrodynamics, which includes things like dynamic electrons, the interaction of the electromagnetic with itself is not exactly zero, but it is very weak. Under normal circumstances, it is utterly negligible, although it can become significant at very high energies.
The degree to which the electromagnetic interacts with itself can be quantified by considering the cross-section for photon-photon scattering. This is analyzed in these papers:
"Photon-photon scattering: a tutorial", https://arxiv.org/abs/1111.6126
"Photon-Photon Collisions — Past and Future", https://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/slacpubs/11500/slac-pub-11581.pdf
According to section 7-3-1 in Itzykson and Zuber's book Quantum Field Theory, the cross-section for photon-photon scattering is
$$
sigma sim frac{alpha^4}{m^2},left(frac{omega}{m}right)^6,
tag{1}
$$
where $alphasim 1/137$ is the fine-structure constant, $m$ is the mass of an electron, and $omega$ is the photon's energy. (This expression uses units in which Planck's constant and the speed of light are both equal to 1.) For comparison, according to section 5-2-1 in the same book, the cross-section for Compton scattering is
$$
sigma sim frac{alpha^2}{m^2}.
tag{2}
$$
So the cross-section for photon-photon scattering is smaller than the cross-section for photon-electron scattering by a factor of
$$
sim alpha^2,left(frac{omega}{m}right)^6.
$$
Quantitatively, the electron mass is $sim$ 500 keV and the energy of an X-ray photon is $sim$ 100 keV (at the upper end of the X-ray energy range), so photon-photon scattering is weaker than photon-electron scattering by a factor
$$
sim alpha^2,left(frac{omega}{m}right)^6
sim frac{1}{137^2},frac{1}{5^6}sim 10^{-9}
$$
at the highest X-ray energies.
This is one reason why the interaction between photons and the electron's electric field can safely be neglected when considering phenomena like the Compton effect.
Can you please provide a reference where I can find a worked-out example of an exact calculation in the simplified QED that you describe? I wish I had learned QED starting from this approach when I was in graduate school.
– G. Smith
Nov 18 at 5:15
@G.Smith Actually, the only reference I have is my own home-grown notes, because I was never able to find a good reference on this either! I actually considered including a worked-out example in this post, but I decided that would have made the post too long and overwhelming. Would it be poor form for me to post a question and then answer my own question, just as a way of sharing a worked-out example? I'm thinking of an example where an external (prescribed) oscillating current produces a quantum electromagnetic wave, which turns out (not surprisingly) to be a "coherent state."
– Dan Yand
Nov 18 at 5:23
1
Please post this as a question and answer when you have time. I don’t think this is frowned on. Thanks!
– G. Smith
Nov 18 at 5:26
@G.Smith Might be a couple of days before I get to it, but when it's done, I'll post a comment here with a link, so it shows up in your inbox.
– Dan Yand
Nov 18 at 5:47
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
up vote
5
down vote
The electromagnetic field is a quantum field that can manifest itself in different ways, depending on the state of the system. A photon is one manifestation of the electromagnetic field. An ordinary radio wave (produced by an oscillating current in an antenna) is another manifestation of the quantum electromagnetic field.
It's not quite correct to say that a photon is accompanied by an electromagnetic field; instead, a photon is a manifestation of the electromagnetic field. All of the photons in the universe, all of the radio waves in the universe, and all of the magnetic fields of all of the refrigerator-magnets in the universe are all manifestations of the one-and-only quantum electromagnetic field.
This can be illustrated explicitly in a simplified version of quantum electrodynamics in which matter (electric currents, etc) is treated as a prescribed source rather than a dynamic entity, so that the only dynamic entity is the quantum electromagnetic field itself. In this model, exact calculations are possible, and we can verify explicitly that the thing we experience as an ordinary macroscopic electromagnetic wave is equivalent to a quantum superposition of many different numbers of photons. These are not two different things; they are two different ways of describing the same thing. The reason an ordinary electromagnetic wave doesn't seem "quantum" is — ironically — closely related to the fact that it can be expressed as a quantum superposition of many different numbers of photons. (This is one of those cases where the math is much more clear than the words!)
...if the electron is interacting with the photon, then it is inevitably also interacting with an electromagnetic field?
The interaction of the electromagnetic with itself (such as the interaction of photons with the electric field of an electron) is extremely weak. In the simplified model mentioned in the preceding paragraph, it is exactly zero. In the more realistic version of quantum electrodynamics, which includes things like dynamic electrons, the interaction of the electromagnetic with itself is not exactly zero, but it is very weak. Under normal circumstances, it is utterly negligible, although it can become significant at very high energies.
The degree to which the electromagnetic interacts with itself can be quantified by considering the cross-section for photon-photon scattering. This is analyzed in these papers:
"Photon-photon scattering: a tutorial", https://arxiv.org/abs/1111.6126
"Photon-Photon Collisions — Past and Future", https://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/slacpubs/11500/slac-pub-11581.pdf
According to section 7-3-1 in Itzykson and Zuber's book Quantum Field Theory, the cross-section for photon-photon scattering is
$$
sigma sim frac{alpha^4}{m^2},left(frac{omega}{m}right)^6,
tag{1}
$$
where $alphasim 1/137$ is the fine-structure constant, $m$ is the mass of an electron, and $omega$ is the photon's energy. (This expression uses units in which Planck's constant and the speed of light are both equal to 1.) For comparison, according to section 5-2-1 in the same book, the cross-section for Compton scattering is
$$
sigma sim frac{alpha^2}{m^2}.
tag{2}
$$
So the cross-section for photon-photon scattering is smaller than the cross-section for photon-electron scattering by a factor of
$$
sim alpha^2,left(frac{omega}{m}right)^6.
$$
Quantitatively, the electron mass is $sim$ 500 keV and the energy of an X-ray photon is $sim$ 100 keV (at the upper end of the X-ray energy range), so photon-photon scattering is weaker than photon-electron scattering by a factor
$$
sim alpha^2,left(frac{omega}{m}right)^6
sim frac{1}{137^2},frac{1}{5^6}sim 10^{-9}
$$
at the highest X-ray energies.
This is one reason why the interaction between photons and the electron's electric field can safely be neglected when considering phenomena like the Compton effect.
The electromagnetic field is a quantum field that can manifest itself in different ways, depending on the state of the system. A photon is one manifestation of the electromagnetic field. An ordinary radio wave (produced by an oscillating current in an antenna) is another manifestation of the quantum electromagnetic field.
It's not quite correct to say that a photon is accompanied by an electromagnetic field; instead, a photon is a manifestation of the electromagnetic field. All of the photons in the universe, all of the radio waves in the universe, and all of the magnetic fields of all of the refrigerator-magnets in the universe are all manifestations of the one-and-only quantum electromagnetic field.
This can be illustrated explicitly in a simplified version of quantum electrodynamics in which matter (electric currents, etc) is treated as a prescribed source rather than a dynamic entity, so that the only dynamic entity is the quantum electromagnetic field itself. In this model, exact calculations are possible, and we can verify explicitly that the thing we experience as an ordinary macroscopic electromagnetic wave is equivalent to a quantum superposition of many different numbers of photons. These are not two different things; they are two different ways of describing the same thing. The reason an ordinary electromagnetic wave doesn't seem "quantum" is — ironically — closely related to the fact that it can be expressed as a quantum superposition of many different numbers of photons. (This is one of those cases where the math is much more clear than the words!)
...if the electron is interacting with the photon, then it is inevitably also interacting with an electromagnetic field?
The interaction of the electromagnetic with itself (such as the interaction of photons with the electric field of an electron) is extremely weak. In the simplified model mentioned in the preceding paragraph, it is exactly zero. In the more realistic version of quantum electrodynamics, which includes things like dynamic electrons, the interaction of the electromagnetic with itself is not exactly zero, but it is very weak. Under normal circumstances, it is utterly negligible, although it can become significant at very high energies.
The degree to which the electromagnetic interacts with itself can be quantified by considering the cross-section for photon-photon scattering. This is analyzed in these papers:
"Photon-photon scattering: a tutorial", https://arxiv.org/abs/1111.6126
"Photon-Photon Collisions — Past and Future", https://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/slacpubs/11500/slac-pub-11581.pdf
According to section 7-3-1 in Itzykson and Zuber's book Quantum Field Theory, the cross-section for photon-photon scattering is
$$
sigma sim frac{alpha^4}{m^2},left(frac{omega}{m}right)^6,
tag{1}
$$
where $alphasim 1/137$ is the fine-structure constant, $m$ is the mass of an electron, and $omega$ is the photon's energy. (This expression uses units in which Planck's constant and the speed of light are both equal to 1.) For comparison, according to section 5-2-1 in the same book, the cross-section for Compton scattering is
$$
sigma sim frac{alpha^2}{m^2}.
tag{2}
$$
So the cross-section for photon-photon scattering is smaller than the cross-section for photon-electron scattering by a factor of
$$
sim alpha^2,left(frac{omega}{m}right)^6.
$$
Quantitatively, the electron mass is $sim$ 500 keV and the energy of an X-ray photon is $sim$ 100 keV (at the upper end of the X-ray energy range), so photon-photon scattering is weaker than photon-electron scattering by a factor
$$
sim alpha^2,left(frac{omega}{m}right)^6
sim frac{1}{137^2},frac{1}{5^6}sim 10^{-9}
$$
at the highest X-ray energies.
This is one reason why the interaction between photons and the electron's electric field can safely be neglected when considering phenomena like the Compton effect.
answered Nov 18 at 4:34
Dan Yand
2,9641316
2,9641316
Can you please provide a reference where I can find a worked-out example of an exact calculation in the simplified QED that you describe? I wish I had learned QED starting from this approach when I was in graduate school.
– G. Smith
Nov 18 at 5:15
@G.Smith Actually, the only reference I have is my own home-grown notes, because I was never able to find a good reference on this either! I actually considered including a worked-out example in this post, but I decided that would have made the post too long and overwhelming. Would it be poor form for me to post a question and then answer my own question, just as a way of sharing a worked-out example? I'm thinking of an example where an external (prescribed) oscillating current produces a quantum electromagnetic wave, which turns out (not surprisingly) to be a "coherent state."
– Dan Yand
Nov 18 at 5:23
1
Please post this as a question and answer when you have time. I don’t think this is frowned on. Thanks!
– G. Smith
Nov 18 at 5:26
@G.Smith Might be a couple of days before I get to it, but when it's done, I'll post a comment here with a link, so it shows up in your inbox.
– Dan Yand
Nov 18 at 5:47
add a comment |
Can you please provide a reference where I can find a worked-out example of an exact calculation in the simplified QED that you describe? I wish I had learned QED starting from this approach when I was in graduate school.
– G. Smith
Nov 18 at 5:15
@G.Smith Actually, the only reference I have is my own home-grown notes, because I was never able to find a good reference on this either! I actually considered including a worked-out example in this post, but I decided that would have made the post too long and overwhelming. Would it be poor form for me to post a question and then answer my own question, just as a way of sharing a worked-out example? I'm thinking of an example where an external (prescribed) oscillating current produces a quantum electromagnetic wave, which turns out (not surprisingly) to be a "coherent state."
– Dan Yand
Nov 18 at 5:23
1
Please post this as a question and answer when you have time. I don’t think this is frowned on. Thanks!
– G. Smith
Nov 18 at 5:26
@G.Smith Might be a couple of days before I get to it, but when it's done, I'll post a comment here with a link, so it shows up in your inbox.
– Dan Yand
Nov 18 at 5:47
Can you please provide a reference where I can find a worked-out example of an exact calculation in the simplified QED that you describe? I wish I had learned QED starting from this approach when I was in graduate school.
– G. Smith
Nov 18 at 5:15
Can you please provide a reference where I can find a worked-out example of an exact calculation in the simplified QED that you describe? I wish I had learned QED starting from this approach when I was in graduate school.
– G. Smith
Nov 18 at 5:15
@G.Smith Actually, the only reference I have is my own home-grown notes, because I was never able to find a good reference on this either! I actually considered including a worked-out example in this post, but I decided that would have made the post too long and overwhelming. Would it be poor form for me to post a question and then answer my own question, just as a way of sharing a worked-out example? I'm thinking of an example where an external (prescribed) oscillating current produces a quantum electromagnetic wave, which turns out (not surprisingly) to be a "coherent state."
– Dan Yand
Nov 18 at 5:23
@G.Smith Actually, the only reference I have is my own home-grown notes, because I was never able to find a good reference on this either! I actually considered including a worked-out example in this post, but I decided that would have made the post too long and overwhelming. Would it be poor form for me to post a question and then answer my own question, just as a way of sharing a worked-out example? I'm thinking of an example where an external (prescribed) oscillating current produces a quantum electromagnetic wave, which turns out (not surprisingly) to be a "coherent state."
– Dan Yand
Nov 18 at 5:23
1
1
Please post this as a question and answer when you have time. I don’t think this is frowned on. Thanks!
– G. Smith
Nov 18 at 5:26
Please post this as a question and answer when you have time. I don’t think this is frowned on. Thanks!
– G. Smith
Nov 18 at 5:26
@G.Smith Might be a couple of days before I get to it, but when it's done, I'll post a comment here with a link, so it shows up in your inbox.
– Dan Yand
Nov 18 at 5:47
@G.Smith Might be a couple of days before I get to it, but when it's done, I'll post a comment here with a link, so it shows up in your inbox.
– Dan Yand
Nov 18 at 5:47
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f441655%2fdoes-a-photon-require-an-em-field-to-exist%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown