A Conservation of angular momentum in positron-electron annihilation

Simon Bridge
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Messages
17,871
Reaction score
1,661
TL;DR Summary
if we have spin polarized electrons and positrons, how is the annihilation probability affected by spin orientation?
Pretty much in a nutshell... fielded a question about how spin affects electron positron annihilation... ie do the spins have to be opposite in order to conserve angular momentum for two-photon annihilation to happen?

Intuitively I figured that looks reasonable ... but decided to check, and found lots of discussions of electron-positron scattering re spin polarization, but nothing that seemed to come definitely to a clear conclusion on this. Standard texts on the matter to hand do not cover the spin part... so I am probably forgetting something obvious.

It's been a while.
Someone want to point me in the right direction?

I'll want to understand this fairly solidly (A), but be able to give a description to intermediate level (I).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Creation of electron positron pairs by photons conserved but Wikipedia e-p anhiliation article says conserved. But electron and positron are spin 1/2 and both emitted photons are spin 1.
 
The e-p pair must be in a spin zero state. The two photons cannot be in a spin one state, because the spin addition 1+1=1 is antisymmetric, and the photons are bosons.
 
ie. if the e-p pair had aligned spins, then the probability of 2-photon annihilation is zero?
Is there a paper to back this up?

I am thinking of thought experiment where the spins of both particles are deliberately polarized.
They could have prepared initial polarization angles to whatever angle we want.

If randomly aligned, could I argue that the particles interact magnetically so establishing a spin 1 or spin 0 measured combined state?

Spin 1 allowing odd-photon annihilation and spin 0 allowing even-photon annihilation?

I'm trying to get my head clear on this.
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top