Feynmann diagram - positron representation

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion clarifies the representation of positrons in Feynman diagrams, emphasizing that they do not travel backwards in time. Quantum field theory maintains causality, preventing any signals from propagating faster than light or into the past. The interpretation of antiparticles has evolved, moving from Dirac's 'hole theory' to a more accurate understanding where negative frequency components in the operator φ(x, t) do not signify negative energy states or backward time travel. Instead, these components represent antiparticle annihilation operators, confirming that positrons originate from positive energy states rather than traveling from the past.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum field theory concepts
  • Familiarity with Feynman diagrams and their interpretations
  • Knowledge of Dirac's hole theory and its limitations
  • Basic principles of relativistic quantum mechanics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the operator formalism in quantum field theory
  • Explore the implications of causality in quantum mechanics
  • Investigate the role of antiparticles in particle physics
  • Read the paper linked in the discussion for deeper insights: PhysRev.76.749
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of quantum mechanics, and anyone interested in the advanced concepts of particle physics and the interpretation of Feynman diagrams.

prajor
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
Hello, this might be a basic question. In feynman diagram's we represent the positron as traveling backwards in time. Is that correct ? How do we interpret this ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
prajor, Nothing travels backward in time, including positrons. Quantum field theory is carefully designed to preserve causality, which means that signals cannot propagate faster than light or into the past. The interpretation of antiparticles has been modified several times as we came to understand them better.

Originally it was thought that relativistic quantum mechanics would be described by a wavefunction φ(x, t) analogous to the Schrödinger wavefunction. As usual, what you do is Fourier transform φ and speak of plane waves, φ ~ exp(i(k·x - ωt)) But among these now are solutions with ω < 0. However they do not violate causality. On the contrary, including them is necessary to preserve causality.

Since the usual quantum interpretation is p = hk, E = hω, the first thought was that these states represented negative energy solutions. But the difficulty with this was quickly realized: any interaction would cause positive energy solutions to decay into negative energy ones, and consequently normal states including the vacuum state would be unstable.

So Dirac proposed his 'hole theory', in which the negative energy levels are fully occupied. The Pauli principle would prevent the transition of any more particles to those levels. In this theory the positron was seen as an unoccupied negative energy level. But hole theory is wrong. In the first place it only works for fermions. In the second place the fully occupied sea would result in the vacuum having infinite energy and infinite charge, with real physical consequences which are not observed.

Feynman's idea of positrons moving backwards in time was next, and while this, along with his diagram expansion, made his calculations much easier, it is wrong also.

Here's what we now understand. Relativistic quantum theory is not described by a wavefunction analogous to the Schrödinger wavefunction. The quantity φ(x, t) is an operator. Its negative frequency components do not represent negative energy particles, nor do they represent particles traveling backwards in time. There simply are no negative energy states. The Hilbert space does not contain them. What it contains instead are positive energy states for the antiparticles. The positive frequency terms in φ are particle creation operators, and the mysterious negative frequency terms are antiparticle annihilation operators. Feynman's idea was right in that the amplitudes for electron emission and positron absorption are related. But in such a case the positron does not travel to the past, it comes from it.
 
Bill, thanks a lot for the elaborate answer. That really helps.

BTW, may I know if there is a comprehensive source (book / site) covering other areas, leading to the current understanding as you explained ?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K