[particle physices] pair production not possible in absence of matter?

nonequilibrium
Messages
1,412
Reaction score
2

Homework Statement


"Prove that pair production is not possible in the absence of matter."

Homework Equations


/

The Attempt at a Solution


First of all, I'll assume a photon is considered matter, cause two photons can create a pair.
Second: I thought pairs pop into and out of existence all the time, in the absence of matter (vacuum fluctuations). So I'll also assume they mean non-virtual pairs.

Okay: imagine a virtual pair popping into existence. If there isn't anything with energy/that can give off energy nearby (matter), nothing can pay for the virtual energy, thus the pair must annihilate.

That's my attempt... Maybe I'm missing the point? (it certainly feels like that)

Thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yeah, you're missing the point. The question is asking you to explain why a single real photon of sufficient energy can't spontaneously decay (by itself) into, say, an electron-positron pair.
 
Huh? Okay I get that that is not possible (momentum and energy conservation), but can you please tell me how you got that that was the question? Why can we exclude two photons coming together to form a pair?
 
I've heard it before, even phrased exactly like that. It's a pretty common homework question in particle physics courses.

You can't exclude the possibility of two photons interacting to produce a pair, but I'd guess that pair production more typically occurs when a single photon is in the vicinity of matter.
 
Oh... okay then, thanks a lot :)
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top