Minimum distance for annihilation

  1. How close does does a particle and anti-particle pair have to be with each other in order to achieve annihilation?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. My best guess is that the closer they are the more likely annihilation gets. In positronium the separation is typically 1 ångström. For parallel spins and the lifetime is 0.12 ns and for antiparallel 0.14 µs. In excited states where the expected distance is larger, the lifetime increases.
     
    1 person likes this.
  4. It depends on many factors, such as the relative momentum of the two particles, their masses, what particles they are etc. But I think roughly speaking you should just imagine the two particles as wave-packets, and if those wave-packets overlap, then there is some probability that the particles will annihilate. So typically they will need to be separated by a distance of the same order as their wavelength.
     
    1 person likes this.
  5. Bill_K

    Bill_K 4,159
    Science Advisor

    Cross sections and reaction rates in QED are conveniently expressed in terms of a distance:

    [tex]r_0 = \frac{e^2}{mc^2}[/tex]
    which goes by the (most unfortunate!) name of "classical electron radius." Its value happens to be 2.82 x 10-13 cm.

    Also, if a particle is placed in a box of side a, its wavefunction at the origin is order of magnitude |ψ(0)|2 = 1/a3.

    These two remarks lend intuitive support to the following answer obtained from QED:
    The e+e- annihilation probability per unit time is

    [tex]\Gamma = \frac{r_0^2 \,c}{a^3}[/tex]
    where a is their average distance apart. For positronium, a is approximately the Bohr radius, 10-8 cm, and if you put these values together you'll get the positronium lifetime that my2cts quoted, 0.1 ns.
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2014
  6. Meir Achuz

    Meir Achuz 2,058
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Close enough for their wave functions to overlap.
     
  7. Bill_K

    Bill_K 4,159
    Science Advisor

    Seems obvious, but actually not! Look at the Feynman diagram, there's two vertices x1 and x2. The electron arrives at point x1 and emits a photon, the positron arrives at point x2 and emits a photon. In between, a virtual particle. The amplitude is obtained by integrating over all x1, x2, but there's no requirement that they coincide.
     
  8. Meir Achuz

    Meir Achuz 2,058
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Your Feynman diagram is for free particles. Include spatial bound state wave functions in the full calculation, and then "close enough for their wave functions to overlap" is relevant.
    That is why P waves don't annihilate, but S waves do, with the rate proportional to |\psi(0)|^2
     
  9. Bill_K

    Bill_K 4,159
    Science Advisor

    It's not "my" Feynman diagram. But I appreciate the offer! :smile:

    "Relevant", I guess, but not accurate. The Feynman diagram approach still works. Just take the result for plane waves and integrate it over the momentum distribution for a bound state. Doesn't change the fact that there are two vertices that need not coincide.

    P-wave states most certainly do annihilate, even though |ψ(0)|2 = 0. However the rate is suppressed by the usual factor for the centrifugal barrier, (p/mc)2L, since the particles spend more of their time farther apart.

    For a p-wave, L = 1, this factor is basically v2/c2, or the ratio of the potential energy to the rest energy, 6 eV/0.5 MeV, about 10-5. Instead of nanoseconds, the lifetime for p-wave annihilation is therefore in the microsecond range. But the radiative decay to s-wave via electric dipole transition takes place in 10-8 sec. So the direct annihilation from p-wave is perfectly possible, but has too small a branching ratio to be observed.
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2014
  10. Is it a bare prediction, or is direct p-wave annihilation something that can be and has been observed, and measured to have a branching ratio matching the predictions?
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share a link to this question via email, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

0
Draft saved Draft deleted