I'm pretty sure that the book is trying to extend "Compton scattering" to include Mie scattering and Raman scattering because they're both "photon plus charge goes to photon plus charge". Similarly they are counting atomic light absorption as the photoelectric effect, and stimulated emission as the photoelectric effect but backwards. They explicitly include pair production.

@knzhou But is that a right thing to say?

@PhyEnthusiast I mean, is it right to say that a taco is technically a sandwich? It's all about how you define words. If you say this in public you'll get some people who disagree (freecharly), some people who agree (Cosmas), and some people who are like 'eh, maybe but that's a bad way of saying it' (me).

But is reflection explained in QED as a Compton scattering??

I doubt that QED can derive specular reflection.

@Pieter Of course it can in principle. Whether or not any specific person can, I don't know, since it'd be very clunky. Even describing a single atom is already very hard.

@knzhou _ I think that you are right that here the definitions of the three interactions are essential. Therefore, it would be interesting to know the actual definitions of the three interactions that supposedly encompass all interactions. The question is then whether these still correspond to the original meaning of Compton scattering, photoelectric effect and pair production, or whether they are just over-extensions of these concepts.

This answer is incorrect particularly because it does not add anything useful or meaningful to the debate, and more specifically because none of the processes that you mention in this answer has a different status to the processes mentioned in the question. If you want to argue that there is no sense at all in which the quote could possibly be correct, then do so, but piling on more examples that are functionally identical to those already mentioned does not actually add anything.

@EmilioPisanty - In my opinion, and I speak as a researcher and academic teacher, such an reductionist classification of photon-matter interactions is at best useful for a few theorists studying QED and a mere curiosity. For the general physicist, especially students, such a classification is mostly harmful. It doesn't help at all to understand, much less quantitatively describe, most of the important physical effects squeezed into it.

@freecharly Why are you insisting on arguing with me? (and in a harrassing, stalking way, too) Put it in your answer. The quote means what it means (LMIs can be (not "must always be") reduced to a finite set of diagrams and their combinations and superpositions) and it is formally correct because that is how QED works, and no one is seriously arguing that this is how reflection or absorption should be analyzed. Heck, you don't even have a textual quote or a reference to OP's text that would enable you to analyze the pedagogical harm done to the students, (cont.)

... but the harm would come from actually attempting to use that reductionist classification in practice (which would indeed be harmful and stupid, except that it just wouldn't work because it wouldn't produce science that's usable by humans), and not by mentioning the fact that the classification is possible in principle. Kind of like when we say that in principle chemistry is just a complicated physical system - it's a not useful way to do science, but you don't get to deny the fact either.

@EmilioPisanty - I was only responding to your comment above where you insist that "this answer is incorrect" which I obviously don't agree with. In the end I suspect that you are not so fond of this classification either. As suggested, I will put my comment into my answer.

@freecharly There doesn't seem to be any way to communicate to you that your answers are incorrect.

I have left comments explaining the reasons and you've gone off on tangents and demanded full answers (to extremely unconstructive off-topic questions, no less).

I have provided such answers explaining in detail why your post didn't bring anything to the table and you responded by going on an extended rant about how you don't like the literature's use of terminology.

I have provided concrete, constructive feedback on your answers about why exactly they do not form constructive additions to the conversation, and you have completely ignored that feedback and kept on with your rant.

I really don't see a reason to provide you with constructive feedback in the future. There simply isn't anything to suggest that you'll actually engage with it on honest terms. In the future I'll limit myself to downvoting your answers where incorrect (unless you're exposed to a broader audience that needs a suitable disclaimer from the community), and providing correct explanations where I can.

However, I'll kindly ask you to refrain from posting off-topic rants on my posts, like you've done here. If you want to respond to criticism, do so constructively and addressing the physics.

@EmilioPisanty - Take it easy! You should probably learn to accept that somebody is not of your opinion. I am not aware of any "off-topic" posts or "rants" of mine, much less "rude or abusive" ones. The single comment you are complaining about was actually on topic, admittedly with a humorous twist, but definitely not rude and abusive. When you are frequently very rough with others, you should yourself not be a mimosa.