How Uncertain Is the Energy of Virtual Photons in Scattering on Heavy Nuclei?

exponent137
Messages
562
Reaction score
35
I suppose that momentum of virtual photons is known precisely and energy of them is uncertain. But how uncertain? Maybe let us look the simplest example: scattering on heavy nuclei. Or, there are some more simple examples as scalar photons.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In any process you will encounter virtual photons that have all allowed momentum and energies. The reason is that in higher order perturbation theory one sums over all "possible" intermediate states. This includes so-called loop diagrams, in which photons or electrons or whatever essentially are created and annihilated with themself. The "weight" that is given to a certain intermediate state is given by the exponential of the action evaluated wrt that specific intermediate state: exp(iS). By summing over all possible intermediate states you get the total cross section, \intexp(iS).

The fact that these intermediate states sum over all allowed momentum is also the reason why perturbation theory beyond first order is divergent -- the virtual photons with very high energies give divergent contributions. One The trick is to get rid of these contributions in a systematic way, which is what renormalization means.

Now, one point that should be made clear, again and again: virtual photons do not exist. For one, they cannot be measured. But more specifically is that they resemble mathematical objects -- higher order terms in a perturbative approach. If we would have a non-perturbative way of determing cross-sections (which exist in some specific theories) we would never encounter these intermediate states and the whole idea of a virtual photon becomes obsolete.
 
But scattering on heavy nuclei: here divergence does not exist?

"virtual photons do not exist": But calculations give their presence. They cannot be measured directly, but their consequences are measured.

"If we would have a non-perturbative way of determing cross-sections (which exist in some specific theories) we would never encounter these intermediate states and the whole idea of a virtual photon becomes obsolete."
But for now we do not have non-perturbative way and this perturbative way gives good results?? I think that working mathematics is blueprint of physical state.
 
Virtual photons do not even exist mathematically as single particles with fixed energy and momentum; they exist only in an integral which integrates over dE d³p.

At every vertex energy and momentum is conserved.

In the loops virtual photons violate E²-p²=m², they are off-shell!

@xepma: I agree with you that virtual photons are mathematical artefacts. But one could turn things round and say that ONLY virtual photons can be measured (they are absorbed by the detector, so their lines of the Feynman diagrams end). Then real photons do NOT exist, as they are the asymptotic states only which are NEVER detected :-)
 
So renormalization means that mass of electron also becomes infinite, so impact of self photons is finite.

But, what is average energy and uncertainty of it at scattering on heavy nuclei? Average energy is not zero, otherwise there would not be problems at quantization of gravity.
 
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
If we release an electron around a positively charged sphere, the initial state of electron is a linear combination of Hydrogen-like states. According to quantum mechanics, evolution of time would not change this initial state because the potential is time independent. However, classically we expect the electron to collide with the sphere. So, it seems that the quantum and classics predict different behaviours!
According to recent podcast between Jacob Barandes and Sean Carroll, Barandes claims that putting a sensitive qubit near one of the slits of a double slit interference experiment is sufficient to break the interference pattern. Here are his words from the official transcript: Is that true? Caveats I see: The qubit is a quantum object, so if the particle was in a superposition of up and down, the qubit can be in a superposition too. Measuring the qubit in an orthogonal direction might...
Back
Top