Electron-positron annihilation

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter sandy stone
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Annihilation
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

This discussion revolves around the topic of electron-positron annihilation within the context of quantum field theory (QFT), specifically focusing on the implications of the Dyson expansion of the S operator and Wick's Theorem. Participants explore the nature of Feynman diagrams, the physical reality of annihilation processes, and the concept of renormalization.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the dismissal of first-order terms in the Dyson expansion, noting that electron-positron annihilation to produce a high-energy photon is an experimentally observed interaction.
  • Another participant corrects that annihilation actually produces two high-energy photons, which is supported by the corresponding tree diagram structure.
  • There is a discussion about the implications of ignoring first-order expansion terms in QFT, with one participant expressing concern about their relevance to physical reality.
  • A participant explains that the renormalization process simplifies the analysis by eliminating contributions from single-vertex diagrams, which they argue do not correspond to physical scattering processes.
  • It is noted that the contribution of single-vertex Feynman diagrams to scattering processes is zero due to momentum conservation constraints.
  • One participant mentions a tutorial paper on renormalization, suggesting that the process is more than a mere simplification and plays a crucial role in addressing infinities in QFT.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity and implications of first-order terms in the Dyson expansion and the physical interpretation of single-vertex diagrams. There is no consensus on the discomfort expressed regarding the necessity to ignore certain terms in QFT.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations related to the assumptions in the analysis of Feynman diagrams and the conditions under which certain terms are considered unphysical. The discussion also touches on the complexities of renormalization without resolving the underlying mathematical intricacies.

sandy stone
Messages
248
Reaction score
182
I am presently slogging through an introductory text on QFT (a Christmas present - does that officially make me a nerd?) and I have gotten as far as the Dyson expansion of the S operator and Wick's Theorem. The author dismisses all first-order terms of the expansion as being represented by single-vertex Feynman diagrams, which are unphysical. As an example, he uses the interaction where an electron and positron enter and a photon leaves, which is not possible because a real photon cannot carry away the 4-momentum the massive particles entered with. However, I am under the impression that an electron and positron annihilating to produce a high-energy photon is an experimentally observed interaction. Where am I going wrong?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
sandy stone said:
However, I am under the impression that an electron and positron annihilating to produce a high-energy photon is an experimentally observed interaction
Annihilation produces TWO high-energy photons.
 
Nugatory said:
Annihilation produces TWO high-energy photons.
Hence the corresponding tree diagram has two vertices joined by a fermion line, each with two external legs (a fermion and a photon).
 
Ohhh... OK, that wasn't too hard. Thanks. On a somewhat related note, I understand that QFT (QED) has made the most precise experimental predictions in history, but isn't it somewhat unsettling that after a thorough mathematical analysis you have to just ignore all your first-order expansion terms because they don't apply to reality?
 
sandy stone said:
you have to just ignore all your first-order expansion terms because they don't apply to reality?
This is just the simplest instance of a complicated process called renormalization that in fact does much more - it also shrinks all subdiagrams that are connected to a bigger diagram by exactly two (external or internal) lines of the same kind to a single line of this kind, no matter how complicated the mess in between. The result is that one is left with 1PI (1-particle-irreducible) diagrams with more than one vertex - these contain the real physics. Everything else is only scaffolding needed to set up the perturbative formalism in a consistent way.
 
Last edited:
sandy stone said:
single-vertex Feynman diagrams, which are unphysical
In QED, their contribution to scattering processes is in fact exactly zero: External legs must correspond to on-shell particles with the correct mass. But a straightforward calculation shows (that you should do yourself - it is really instructive. Doing the same for the above tree diagram will reveal the difference!) that there is no way to assign momenta to the legs such that total momentum is conserved. Therefore the delta function in the corresponding integral forces the value of the integral to zero.

So only zeros are thrown away, which doesn't change any result but simplifies the analysis.

Full renormalization, on the other hand, achieves a miracle since it makes all infinities disappear. If you are interested in understanding why the miracle (stated everywhere, but hardly ever explained in an understandable way) is not just a happy accident, read my tutorial paper on renormalization!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: stevendaryl

Similar threads

  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K