4 ms·

Oh apparently it was Schrodinger himself that wrote about a semiclassical Compton scattering approach: http://www.regels.org/Compton-effect.htm http://www.rege

Oh apparently it was Schrodinger himself that wrote about a semiclassical Compton scattering approach: http://www.regels.org/Compton-effect.htm http://www.regels.org/Compton-effect.htm

jpmattia 3y ago
So Strnad is an interesting paper (I put the full cite as [1].) My take after skimming [1] plus references therein, plus those that cited [1]: There is a cottage industry of papers trying to replay the early work on QED. Each paper takes one effect as it was known around 1930 or so, and then explains it using something other than QED. I find the papers interesting in an academic sense. However, as guidance for how the world works, they build a box around the things they are trying to explain, but ignore the more difficult aspects of experimental data found after the 1930s. For the case of Compton, there are higher order scattering processes which lead to nonlinear Compton scattering, which happened in the 1960s. To make a specific answer to your comment: My quick read is that Schrodinger's explanation fails at higher intensities, since the semiclassical treatment of E&M will increase only the amplitude of the radiation field, whereas nonlinear Compton scattering will need something in the way of additional terms or mechanisms to explain the experimental results. More generally, that set of papers seemed to address only the singleton mechanisms but ignored the more general problem of noise and statistics. For example: Increasing the field amplitude in various experiments will reveal the shot-noise profile of photons, but I saw nobody try to approach that problem in my brief survey. In any case, thanks for the reference. It lead to some interesting reading. [1] Strnad, J. (1986). The Compton effect-Schrodinger’s treatment. European Journal of Physics, 7(4), 217–221. doi:10.1088/0143-0807/7/4/001
- Ono-Sendai 3y ago
  Glad you like it. I haven't gone through any of the maths in detail. I do however have a semi-classical electrodynamics computer simulation that I occasionally work on, so why do the maths when you can just run a simulation :) When I get back to it maybe I will try and simulate Compton scattering or the photoelectric effect.

Oh apparently it was Schrodinger himself that wrote about a semiclassical Compton scattering approach: http://www.regels.org/Compton-effect.htm http://www.regels.org/Compton-effect.htm

jpmattia 3y ago

So Strnad is an interesting paper (I put the full cite as [1].) My take after skimming [1] plus references therein, plus those that cited [1]: There is a cottage industry of papers trying to replay the early work on QED. Each paper takes one effect as it was known around 1930 or so, and then explains it using something other than QED. I find the papers interesting in an academic sense. However, as guidance for how the world works, they build a box around the things they are trying to explain, but ignore the more difficult aspects of experimental data found after the 1930s. For the case of Compton, there are higher order scattering processes which lead to nonlinear Compton scattering, which happened in the 1960s. To make a specific answer to your comment: My quick read is that Schrodinger's explanation fails at higher intensities, since the semiclassical treatment of E&M will increase only the amplitude of the radiation field, whereas nonlinear Compton scattering will need something in the way of additional terms or mechanisms to explain the experimental results. More generally, that set of papers seemed to address only the singleton mechanisms but ignored the more general problem of noise and statistics. For example: Increasing the field amplitude in various experiments will reveal the shot-noise profile of photons, but I saw nobody try to approach that problem in my brief survey. In any case, thanks for the reference. It lead to some interesting reading. [1] Strnad, J. (1986). The Compton effect-Schrodinger’s treatment. European Journal of Physics, 7(4), 217–221. doi:10.1088/0143-0807/7/4/001

Ono-Sendai 3y ago
Glad you like it. I haven't gone through any of the maths in detail. I do however have a semi-classical electrodynamics computer simulation that I occasionally work on, so why do the maths when you can just run a simulation :) When I get back to it maybe I will try and simulate Compton scattering or the photoelectric effect.