Another example of a misidentification of a phenomenon, which is why physicists had to come up with some

new-old name-denial.

Spinoza: Omnis determinatio est negatio. Every definition is a negation.

The generally accepted definition of the Compton effect is as follows:

“Scattering of electromagnetic radiation by a free or loosely bound electron, in which a single photon transfers part of its momentum and part of its energy to it as a result of an elastic collision.”

The definition is inappropriate for this specific effect (the most common photoelectric effect fits exactly into the same definition, any “excitation of atoms” and their photoionization caused by quanta, etc.) and is inherently incorrect, because it asserts a certain “division” of the momentum and energy of a photon, while both INDIVISIBLE – there is no “piece” of momentum-energy of a quantum-photon!

If the term “scattering” of photons by electrons corresponds to one variant of the interaction, then adding energy to light quanta by “high-energy” electrons, to call the latter “scattering by photons” is simply absurd.

The phenomenon of real scattering of electrons and atoms (particle diffraction) on the electromagnetic fields of standing light waves, their nodes and antinodes, creating a kind of electromagnetic similarity of diffraction gratings – the Kapitza-Dirac effect, predicted by them in 1933, about the scattering of electrons in an electromagnetic field, was discovered relatively recently (1986, 2001), but there is no connection with the Compton effect!

Instead of this initially (historically) unsuccessful definition, the Compton effect should have been defined more simply and concretely:

“The phenomenon of the exchange of HIGH energy between photons and electrons (or other particles), depending on the possession of one of the mentioned elements of the pair. Energy can be transferred from a high-energy photon to low-energy electrons or from high-energy electrons to low-energy photons.”

We will consider this last option of momentum-energy exchange. (In full accordance with the ridiculous definition of the Compton effect at the beginning of this note, it was called, with the same NON PRECISION inherent in physics as PRECISION science, the “Inverse Compton effect”, that is, the already mentioned delusional “scattering of electrons by photons”).

Here, in my opinion, the distribution of the momentum-energy exchange should be considered not on an average basis between isotropically distributed electrons and photons, but two marginal cases: When photons and electrons move in the same direction (their velocity vectors are unidirectional) and when their “head-on” collision occurs (velocity vectors are counter-directional).

I believe that in the case of unidirectional movement of a pair of particles, NO significant momentum-energy exchange is could be observed, because photons overtake relativistic (moving at subluminal speed) electrons and cannot add anything to them or receive anything from them (the double “balancing” Doppler effect is catching up with a blue shift and running ahead with a red shift!).

It is also impossible for electrons to give part of their kinetic energy to photons, which simply catch up and overtake them.

But in a head-on collision, an interesting picture arises. Photons acquire a strong blue Doppler shift in relation to electrons moving towards them at subluminal speed, that is, they become much more energetic in relation only to electrons.

A visual mechanical analogy: Imagine a kind of flying core, towards which a massive absolutely elastic steel wall is flying at a speed equal to its speed! Then it will bounce off hitting her, having DOUBLE the speed!

Something similar will happen to the photon: The electron, due to its initial rest mass and its relativistic increment, will also become a kind of massive steel wall. There is nowhere to add speed to the photon, the speed of light is constant and unchangeable, but its frequency “nyu” (according to Planck’s formula) will increase sharply and such a reflected and already energetic photon will continue to move in the same direction as the electron, and the electron will lose a significant “relativistic” part of its energy, because relativistic electrons very easily lose it in according to the Special Theory of Relativity – STR.

(See the note “A slap in the face of a steam locomotive”).

In fact, we are considering the case of a collision of two particles with different mass and energy. Of course, the laws of conservation of momentum and energy according to the STR formulas will be observed.

Faciant meliora potentes.

9 IX 2026