B Could Spontaneous symmetry breaking cause momentum change in an atom?

Click For Summary
Spontaneous symmetry breaking does not alter the momentum of an atom in a vacuum, as it primarily affects larger systems through subatomic fluctuations without changing the atom's form. The discussion clarifies that while spontaneous symmetry breaking can occur in macroscopic systems, it does not lead to changes in momentum for a single atom. An example given is a pencil balanced on its point, which illustrates that while the underlying laws are symmetric, the outcome is not. The conversation concludes with a recognition that the initial stationary state of the pencil is crucial for understanding its subsequent motion. Overall, spontaneous symmetry breaking does not translate to momentum changes in isolated atoms.
Matthew-Champion
Messages
7
Reaction score
2
TL;DR
If you were to fire a single atom from a fixed point into a chamber of perfect vacuum and measure where it collides with the opposite wall. Could Spontaneous symmetry breaking in the sub atomic particles cause momentum change in the atom, changing the part of the wall the atom interacted with?
If you were to fire a single atom from a fixed point into a chamber of perfect vacuum and measure where it collides with the opposite wall. Could Spontaneous symmetry breaking in the sub atomic particles cause momentum change in the atom, changing the part of the wall the atom interacted with?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No. Do you know what spontaneous symmetry breaking is?
 
From what I've read A brief summary of how I understand it is that spontaneous symmetry breaking is a process which allows small fluctuations on a sub atomic level to affect aspects of a larger system and when occurring in a spontaneous manner these fluctuations cannot change or distort the form of the system it is occurring in. I had wondered whether through some mechanism I have not heard about the inability of a spontaneous symmetry break to change the form of say an atom could be translated into a small change in momentum. You have answered my question thank you. If you know of no way than that's good enough for me.
 
Matthew-Champion said:
A brief summary of how I understand it is that spontaneous symmetry breaking is a process which allows small fluctuations on a sub atomic level to affect aspects of a larger system
No, that's not what spontaneous symmetry breaking is. It can occur even in macroscopic classical systems.

For example, consider a pencil balanced on its point. There is rotational symmetry in the underlying physical law governing the pencil: it is equally likely to fall over in any direction. However, once it does fall over, it will fall over in some specific direction. So the actual outcome of the physical law in this case is not rotationally symmetric--the pencil falls in one particular direction--even though the underlying physical law is. That is spontaneous symmetry breaking: particular solutions of a physical law do not have a symmetry that the law itself has.
 
Thank you for the clarification. in this example If the pencil is equally likely to fall in any direction is there an aspect of the underlying law I could assign the change in momentum of the pencil to?
an equal possibility of any outcome implies the pencil was stationary at the start of the experiment and then fell?
 
Last edited:
We often see discussions about what QM and QFT mean, but hardly anything on just how fundamental they are to much of physics. To rectify that, see the following; https://www.cambridge.org/engage/api-gateway/coe/assets/orp/resource/item/66a6a6005101a2ffa86cdd48/original/a-derivation-of-maxwell-s-equations-from-first-principles.pdf 'Somewhat magically, if one then applies local gauge invariance to the Dirac Lagrangian, a field appears, and from this field it is possible to derive Maxwell’s...
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
First, I need to check that I have the 3 notations correct for an inner product in finite vector spaces over a complex field; v* means: given the isomorphism V to V* then: (a) physicists and others: (u,v)=v*u ; linear in the second argument (b) some mathematicians: (u,v)=u*v; linear in the first argument. (c) bra-ket: <v|u>= (u,v) from (a), so v*u . <v|u> is linear in the second argument. If these are correct, then it would seem that <v|u> being linear in the second...