Explain crossing without invoking QFT?

In summary: Without QFT, the only thing you can say for sure is that antiparticles have the opposite charge of the particle they were created from.
  • #1
MWBratton
11
0
Explain "crossing" without invoking QFT?

Hi there

For someone learning particle physics for the first time (Griffiths' intro book, no knowledge of QFT yet): Why can you "cross" a reaction? Is there an intuitive answer or does one truly need understanding of scattering amplitudes, quantum fields and something called "the S-matrix?"
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
The best you can do is say "antiparticles are particles moving backwards in time." :uhh: Which is wrong, of course, but without QFT that's the best you can do. :frown:
 
  • #3
thanks
 
  • #4
Bill_K said:
The best you can do is say "antiparticles are particles moving backwards in time." :uhh: Which is wrong, of course, but without QFT that's the best you can do. :frown:
I am not sure why you say it is "wrong". Thinking of antiparticles in this manner is useful enough that it should be recommended for every student to ponder about it at least once. AFAIK, many students are still told about antiparticles as "holes in the sea of negative energy particles" from Dirac, which has interesting historical value, but is more complicated and much more limited technically (e.g. it does not work for bosons). Thinking of antiparticles as "time-parity reversed particles" immediately let's you understand why relativity implies the necessity of fields (in the sense that all electrons are indistinguishable, no matter how they were created). It is the heart of the CPT theorem. There are caveats, sure. A particle moving "backwards in time" should carry "negative energy" along its proper (backwards) time. But realizing this caveats also allows one to understand better the definition of "particles" and why particle number ambiguous globally in curved spacetimes.
 
  • #5
humanino said:
I am not sure why you say it is "wrong". Thinking of antiparticles in this manner is useful enough that it should be recommended for every student to ponder about it at least once. AFAIK, many students are still told about antiparticles as "holes in the sea of negative energy particles" from Dirac, which has interesting historical value, but is more complicated and much more limited technically (e.g. it does not work for bosons). Thinking of antiparticles as "time-parity reversed particles" immediately let's you understand why relativity implies the necessity of fields (in the sense that all electrons are indistinguishable, no matter how they were created). It is the heart of the CPT theorem. There are caveats, sure. A particle moving "backwards in time" should carry "negative energy" along its proper (backwards) time. But realizing this caveats also allows one to understand better the definition of "particles" and why particle number ambiguous globally in curved spacetimes.
Here we go again. :yuck:
 
  • #6
Bill_K said:
Here we go again. :yuck:

I still do not understand your point. I am merely trying to engage students' thoughts. For that purpose, the picture you suggested is not "wrong", it is appropriate. For instance, it was used by Feynman in his 1986 "Dirac Memorial Lectures" to explain "the reason for antiparticles". I do not like "arguments by authority" but one would think Feynman is a good reference for teaching perturbative quantum field theory "for someone learning particle physics for the first time".
 
  • #7
I understand "antiparticles moving backward in time" as a crude way of putting what is really going on. Relativity of simultaneity says one cannot tell the order of two events which are somewhat close together: Something like "Feynman vertex (1) emitted W+ which was, a short time later, absorbed by Feynman vertex (2)." But, according to special relativity, there exists yet another Lorentz frame in which the chronology is reversed, and the W+ must become a W- to conserve charge, and W- is its antiparticle. But even understanding that, "crossing" still seems somewhat arbitrary

theres a feynman story along the lines of: he tried to find an explanation of the spin-statistics theorem to give to freshmen, and when he couldn't do it satisfactorily he concluded "in the body of scientific knowledge, spin-statistics must not be understood well enough, because I can't explain it to freshmen." but i guess it comes down to, in our case, either explain using the full story (QFT) or be content with particles moving backward in time, which IS the "freshmen" explanation, and there's not a better one
 
  • #8
"Particle" is not a very useful concept, here. It is maybe more appropriate to think in terms of "charges" in the sense that an anti-particle is only defined for particles carrying charge. The point is that properties of particles like mass are due to the self-energy of a charge coupling to some field. This coupling has to be symmetric with respect to charge conjugation, if not, the vacuum (= lowest energy state) would not be chargeless.
 

1. What is crossing in physics?

Crossing, also known as crossing symmetry, is a fundamental principle in physics that states that the results of a physical process should be the same regardless of the direction in which the process is observed. In other words, if the direction of time or the roles of particles and antiparticles are reversed, the outcome should remain the same.

2. How is crossing related to quantum field theory (QFT)?

Crossing is a principle that is applicable to all physical theories, including quantum field theory. However, crossing symmetry is particularly important in QFT because it helps to constrain the possible interactions between particles and can be used to test the validity of a theory.

3. Can crossing be explained without using QFT?

Yes, crossing can be explained without invoking QFT. The principle of crossing was first introduced in the context of classical field theory and has since been applied to other physical theories, such as quantum mechanics and general relativity.

4. What are the implications of crossing for particle physics?

The principle of crossing has important implications for particle physics. It helps to determine the possible interactions between particles, and can be used to predict the outcomes of particle collisions. In addition, crossing symmetry is an important tool for testing the validity of theories, such as the Standard Model of particle physics.

5. Are there any exceptions to crossing symmetry?

While crossing symmetry is a fundamental principle, there are some cases where it may not hold true. In certain scenarios, such as at very high energies, the principle of crossing may be violated. However, these exceptions are typically accounted for in theoretical calculations and do not undermine the overall validity of crossing symmetry.

Similar threads

  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
3
Replies
91
Views
5K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
1
Views
737
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
2
Views
641
  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
0
Views
645
  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
3
Views
1K
Back
Top