Particle annihilation in quantum vacuum

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Particle annihilation in quantum vacuum involves the creation of particle-antiparticle pairs due to quantum fluctuations, adhering to the uncertainty principle expressed as σe * σa/|(d/dt)| ≥ ½ℏ. When these pairs meet, they can annihilate, emitting photons or other particle pairs if sufficient energy is present. Quantum foam operates at a scale much smaller than typical collision cross-sections, allowing for annihilation processes to occur, albeit rapidly. The discussion highlights the nuances of quantum mechanics and the importance of understanding the standard deviation in relation to uncertainty.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics principles, particularly the uncertainty principle
  • Familiarity with particle physics, including particle-antiparticle pairs
  • Knowledge of quantum fluctuations and their implications in quantum vacuum
  • Basic grasp of energy-mass equivalence and annihilation processes
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics, focusing on σxᵢ * σpᵢ ≥ ½ℏ
  • Explore the concept of quantum foam and its implications in particle physics
  • Research particle-antiparticle annihilation processes and energy requirements for different particle pairs
  • Read introductory texts on quantum mechanics and particle physics for foundational knowledge
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, particularly those interested in quantum mechanics and particle physics, as well as educators seeking to clarify concepts related to particle annihilation and quantum fluctuations.

pabloxd43
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Well this is a doubt that comes from some time ago and I haven't found the answer on the net. Quantum fluctuations in quantum vacuum create particle-antiparticle pairs for very short periods of time satisfying ΔEΔt≥\frac{\hslash}{2} It is very well known that when a pair particle-antiparticle come together annihilate and emite two photons. What happens exactly in quantum foam, why does't this happen. Do they disappear too fast for even annihilating?

By the way sorry for my english I'm from Spain :D
 
Physics news on Phys.org
ΔEΔt ≥ ½ℏ is not correct, although is often stated as fact. Given two observables A and E, where E is the system's energy and A,E are non-commuting. The "spread" of the observable can be characterized by its standard deviation σ. Hence σe * σa/|(d<A>/dt)| ≥ ½ℏ for non-relativistic Quantum Mechanics. The equivalent expression which you have learned as Δxᵢ* Δpᵢ ≥ ½ℏ is actually σxᵢ * σpᵢ ≥ ½ℏ, so as long as you accept the idea that 'uncertainty' equals the standard deviation, the position (x) momentum (p) uncertainty principle holds. It is not equivalent with time, however.
"It is very well known that when a pair particle-antiparticle come together annihilate and emit two photons."
This is one of many possibilities, any pair of particle+antiparticle can be emitted iff the annihilation contains enough energy to make the rest mass of the pair. This means that while massless particles (such as the photon) are 'easiest' to make, as the annihilating pair get more massive (or more energetic), it becomes possible to create neutrino-antineutrino pairs, electron-positron pairs, and even proton-antiproton pairs (etc.).
Quantum foam is much much smaller than collision cross-sections, what leads you to believe it doesn't happen at that scale? see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam where annihilation is discussed in the foam.
 
Thanks a lot for answering. I'm still introducing myself into physics, I'm only 15 years old, so I didn't catch most of the things you said so I will reread it again ;)

I wrote it a little bit fast last night and I'm new to this blog so I'm not very used to formalism. Could you recommend me a good book which explains all this?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
1K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K