Could energy be destroyed during particle annihilation?

[KleinMoretti]

TL;DR Summary

how can we know energy is not being destroyed and then created during particle annihilation.

So I understand that when a pair of particle and antiparticle annihilate each other, the result which is usually a photon, conserves the total energy of the 2 particles. My question is what if the energy of the particles was in fact destroyed and then new energy was created which just so happens to account for the total energy of the particles.

 

[Dale]

Then Occham would complain, but I guess since he is dead you can ignore him if you want.

 

[DaveE]

If a tree falls in the forest... Wait never mind, you've probably thought more than me about this quandary.

 

[KleinMoretti]

s

Then Occham would complain, but I guess since he is dead you can ignore him if you want.

so you are saying is because it's simplest explanation?

 

[PeterDonis]

when a pair of particle and antiparticle annihilate each other, the result which is usually a photon

No, it's a pair of photons. Why? Because it would be impossible to conserve both energy and momentum if a particle and antiparticle annihilated each other leaving a single photon. Proving this is often given as a homework problem.

My question is what if the energy of the particles was in fact destroyed and then new energy was created

What does this even mean?

 

[KleinMoretti]

No, it's a pair of photons. Why? Because it would be impossible to conserve both energy and momentum if a particle and antiparticle annihilated each other leaving a single photon. Proving this is often given as a homework problem.


What does this even mean?

you know the whole energy can neither be created or destroyed only transformed, but in the example how can we know that it's the energy of the pair of particles that is being transformed into the energy of the pair of photons instead of just energy being destroyed/lost and new energy being created

 

[PeterDonis]

you know the whole energy can neither be created or destroyed only transformed

Ok.

in the example how can we know that it's the energy of the pair of particles that is being transformed into the energy of the pair of photons

Because the pair of particles comes in and the pair of photons comes out. There are no other particles involved.

instead of just energy being destroyed/lost and new energy being created

This would contradict what you said above, that the energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed.

 

[KleinMoretti]

Because the pair of particles comes in and the pair of photons comes out. There are no other particles involved.

This Is why I have this doubt if we only know that a pair of particles comes in and a pair of photons come out then how can we know that what I said above about the energy of the particles being destroyed and the energy of the photons created isn't what's happening

 

[weirdoguy]

And how would you model this mathematically?

 

[KleinMoretti]

And how would you model this mathematically?

I dont think there would be a difference, my question is really just how do we know the energy of photons produced actually comes from the pair of particles

 

[PeroK]

I dont think there would be a difference, my question is really just how do we know the energy of photons produced actually comes from the pair of particles

How do you know when you burn coal the energy comes from the coal? Maybe the coal energy is destroyed and new heat energy is created mysteriously from somewhere else and just happens to balance the energy lost by the coal?

How is that an enlightening or helpful way to look at it?

Maybe when you make an omelette the eggs disappear into the void and the omelette appears from out of the ether?

 

[Dale]

I dont think there would be a difference

There would be a huge difference. By Noether’s theorem a conservation law implies a symmetry in the laws of physics. So if you violate the conservation law then you must not have the corresponding symmetry.

In this case, the conservation of energy is associated with time translation symmetry. So for what you describe, the laws of physics would not be the same from one moment to the next. They would change on small time scales but only in a specific way that would hide the change at larger scales.

It could be done, but it would result in very complicated laws of physics that are currently indistinguishable from the existing laws of physics. This additional complication would not resolve any existing theoretical or experimental issue.

 

[KleinMoretti]

How do you know when you burn coal the energy comes from the coal? Maybe the coal energy is destroyed and new heat energy is created mysteriously from somewhere else and just happens to balance the energy lost by the coal?

How is that an enlightening or helpful way to look at it?

Maybe when you make an omelette the eggs disappear into the void and the omelette appears from out of the ether?

well that's why I want to know if we know for sure that's not what's happening.

 

[DaveE]

This is a pointless philosophical question. We will never know. That's not how the physical sciences work. We build the best model of the real world that we can. How would your supposition make our model better? You are free to create your own models, of course, but we probably won't be of much help.

 

[Vanadium 50]

How do we know that energy is not being simultaneously created and destroyed in just the way that it appears that energy is conserved?

How do we know The Odyssey was written by Homer and not another blind poet of the same name?

 

[PeterDonis]

if we only know that a pair of particles comes in and a pair of photons come out then how can we know that what I said above about the energy of the particles being destroyed and the energy of the photons created isn't what's happening

Because, as you have already agreed, energy cannot be created or destroyed. You said so yourself in post #6.

 

[PeterDonis]

@KleinMoretti you have already answered your own question. There is no point in taking up other people's time with it any more. Thread closed.