1
$\begingroup$

First of all, what causes electrons to emit photons in QED? Why wouldn't electrons just not interact in that way

Second question, how do electrons even get close enough to interact/exchange photons. Shouldn't they just be repelled due to being the same charge?

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Do you mean "how do electrons even get close enough to interact/exchange photons"? If so, notice that the repulsion of electrons is a consequence of the exchange of photons. If not, could you clarify what you mean by electron exchange? $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 4, 2022 at 7:47
  • $\begingroup$ Your right I meant exchange of photons. But I still don't understand how the the fact that they are the same charge doesn't effect the interaction at all. $\endgroup$
    – TheLayman
    Commented Feb 4, 2022 at 7:57

2 Answers 2

1
$\begingroup$

QED is the theory of Quantum Electrodynamics and not of electrons alone. Sure you can have noninteracting electrons theory but it is a bit boring in that case... The reason for the emission/absorption of photons by electrons is the coupling between them. Indeed, imposing the local $\text{U}(1)$ invariance imposes the presence of the interaction term in the Lagrangian density. The latter is of the following form: \begin{equation} \mathcal{L}=\underbrace{-\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu}F^{\mu \nu}}_{\text{EM field term}}+\underbrace{\overline{\Psi}(i\gamma^\mu \partial_\mu-m)\Psi}_{\text{Fermions' term}} \underbrace{-e\overline{\Psi}\gamma^\mu A_\mu \Psi}_{\text{Coupling term}} \end{equation} Note that the minus sign in the interaction term is included by convention. So the local $\text{U}(1)$ invariance, that is a symmetry of the theory tells us that electrons must interact through electromagnetism. Now one can ask "But why $\text{U}(1)$ invariance and what does it mean?". $\text{U(1)}$ is the group associated with the charge of complex-valuated objects. Our fermions are Dirac bi-spinors. So they are some sort of complexification of spinors. But this symmetry is a Global one. Namely, the "fermions' term" in the Lagrangian density is invariant by the change $\Psi \leadsto \Psi\times e^{i\theta}$ with $\theta$ some constant phase. The theory is then non-interacting. In order to correctly recover electromagnetism, because our Lagrangian density is devoted to this, one has two choices:

  1. Adding "by hands" an interaction term.

  2. Searching for a way for an interaction term to pop out from the maths

These two methods give the same answer and it is the local $\text{U}(1)$ symmetry. Then it means that our fermions are bathed in the electromagnetic field and that they are in some sense free in it: like stones in a water flow, they follow paths guided by the electromagnetic field.

For your second question, well roughly speaking, this is because electrons exchange virtual photons that they get repelled. In some sense, the repelling of electrons is the exchange of virtual photons. Virtual particles are mathematical artifacts that arise from the perturbative expansion of what we call the $S$ matrix: an operator that makes evolve a state far from the past to a state far into the future (asymptotic states). When we do this expansion at the lowest order, the virtual photon alone is represented by a "propagator": as per Wikipedia, a propagator is "a function that specifies the probability amplitude for a particle to travel from one place to another in a given period of time, or to travel with a certain energy and momentum". In fact, this very propagator for the electromagnetic field gives (it is in fact no coincidence) exactly the Coulomb potential.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for answering. I don't really understand the math (im in gr.8) but i think i get the concept. Could you explain what U(1) invariance is again? I didn't really understand that $\endgroup$
    – TheLayman
    Commented Feb 4, 2022 at 19:12
  • $\begingroup$ @TheLayman U(1) is a group of symmetry, it is represented by complex numbers in this case. Symmetries involving complex numbers are associated with the charge of particles (the Noether theorem that tells us this). Local U(1) invariance just means that locally, this symmetry is involved. I advise you to wait a bit until you have more knowledge in math and in physics if you want to really understand what's going on in the theory. Or you can do like me: don't wait and study on your own :) $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 5, 2022 at 8:31
  • $\begingroup$ ya I don't understand what a group of symmetry is, but thanks for explaining. Currently i'm learning math at gr.10/11 level, but what type of math is required for physics? At what level of math can you start understanding the mathematical side of physics? $\endgroup$
    – TheLayman
    Commented Feb 5, 2022 at 17:54
  • $\begingroup$ @TheLayman There are multiple layers of abstraction and complexity in physics with maths. But I can recommend you to study differential geometry for general relativity and group theory, calculus, linear algebra for quantum mechanics. These topics are a bit harsh to understand at first sight, but by searching every single concept you don't understand you will find something you do, and then you can go back to the rest, this is what I've done. As you may already know, at the moment it is better to work with examples than with pure abstract maths. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 5, 2022 at 18:20
  • $\begingroup$ Ok i will, thanks again $\endgroup$
    – TheLayman
    Commented Feb 5, 2022 at 20:31
1
$\begingroup$

In Quantum Electrodynamics the electromagnetic field is quantized. So the fields as we are used to are actually represented by the quanta (therefore the name Quantum Electrodynamics) -- namely the photons.

So according to this concept the electron will not feel any attraction or repulsion if it does not meet a quantum of the electromagnetic field, the photon. The interaction is local, not over "remote interaction" as this would contradict the concept of locality of a(n electromagnetic) field theory.

Attraction and repulsion can be correctly described by the formalism of Quantum Electrodynamics but is rather complicated and large, too large to be posted here. But I can later give an argument for the attraction of 2 opposed charges based on QED-formalism as an extension of this post.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Ok so if I understand this correctly, attraction and repulsion of charges is due to Quantum Electro dynamics? That is crazy. $\endgroup$
    – TheLayman
    Commented Feb 4, 2022 at 17:28
  • $\begingroup$ @TheLayman yes,because Quantum Field theory (for instance QED) is considered as the underlying theory of classical physics. One would "only" use classical physics when quantum effects can be neglected (the conditions to be fulfilled for doing so is grosso modo slow and weak fields -- this is not an exact statement -- just giving you an idea) . Classical physics is obtained as limiting case of Quantum Field theory. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 4, 2022 at 18:17
  • $\begingroup$ Wow. Just to clarify its completely random how and when electrons and other particles emit photons. Also how does charge come into effect here. We know opposites attract, but how does that translate to QED. $\endgroup$
    – TheLayman
    Commented Feb 4, 2022 at 19:10
  • $\begingroup$ the charge is called in QFT/QED the coupling. If the coupling/charge is zero, no photons are emitted because they would not couple. An example is a neutrino, it has no electric charge.I guess other question is how an electron knows that another electron comes by: actually an electron emits permanently virtual photons which are absorbed "shortly" afterwards by the same electron except if another charged particle comes by, then the emitted photon gets absorbed by the charged particle coming by. These are only pictures. We don't know how a photons looks like, the answer only gives the formalism. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 4, 2022 at 22:58
  • $\begingroup$ Ok that makes sense, thankyou $\endgroup$
    – TheLayman
    Commented Feb 5, 2022 at 17:57

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.