Potential between Photons via Delbruck Scattering

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter DuckAmuck
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Scattering
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of potential between photons as described through Delbruck scattering, exploring its implications in quantum electrodynamics (QED). Participants examine the relationship between scattering amplitudes and potentials, and the nature of interactions between massless particles like photons.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that a potential can be derived from the scattering amplitude of Delbruck scattering, leading to the implication of long-range interactions between photons, but expresses uncertainty about this conclusion.
  • Another participant counters that there is no "potential between photons" and emphasizes the complexity of Delbruck scattering, which involves box diagrams and is described in leading order QED.
  • A later reply mentions that the terminology "light by light" is more appropriate than "Delbruck" and notes that at leading order, scattering can be interpreted as both attraction and repulsion, with the first significant differences appearing at higher orders.
  • One participant raises the point that massless particles do not form bound states, suggesting that definitions of attraction and repulsion need careful consideration, and hints at a dependence on the relative phases of the photons.
  • Another participant elaborates on the nature of the box diagrams involved in the scattering process, highlighting that it is a relativistic effect and a pure quantum effect due to quantum fluctuations, while also discussing the implications of divergences in the calculations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the existence and nature of a potential between photons, with some asserting that such a potential does not exist while others explore the implications of scattering amplitudes. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the interpretation of these interactions.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention the complexity of calculations involved in Delbruck scattering and the potential divergences in box diagrams, indicating that assumptions about the nature of interactions and the mathematical treatment are not fully settled.

DuckAmuck
Messages
238
Reaction score
40
TL;DR
Delbruck scattering generates potential between photons.
From the Born Approximation, you can relate the potential to the scattering amplitude. So it follows that a potential can be derived from the scattering amplitude from Delbruck scattering. I tried to solve this myself, and get a scattering amplitude with only angular dependence, no momentum dependence. This seems to imply that the potential and force between two photons would be long-range? This is clearly incorrect. I would appreciate any help.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: topsquark
Physics news on Phys.org
It's hard to guess, what you did. Of course there's no "potential between photons". Delbrück scattering is described in leading order QED by box diagrams with four external photon lines. It's a pretty cumbersome calculation. See Landau&Lifshitz vol. 4.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: topsquark and PeroK
On an unrelated note: Thank you! I didn't know the name for this. All I had heard of was "scattering of light by light."

-Dan
 
DuckAmuck said:
TL;DR Summary: Delbruck scattering generates potential between photons.

From the Born Approximation, you can relate the potential to the scattering amplitude. So it follows that a potential can be derived from the scattering amplitude from Delbruck scattering. I tried to solve this myself, and get a scattering amplitude with only angular dependence, no momentum dependence. This seems to imply that the potential and force between two photons would be long-range? This is clearly incorrect. I would appreciate any help.
Perhaps worthwhile would be to post some if not all of your calculations. As a PDF would be ok.
 
First, I agree - we should call this "light by light" and not "Delvruck". It's closer to what you mean.

Next, at leading order, scattering is the same for attraction and repulsion. So the first order where it makes a difference is α6. I suspect that this is calculated somewhere, probably in someone's thesis. Maybe it's published somewhere.

Massless particles don't form bound states, so what is meant by attraction and repulsion needs to be carefully defined. Without doing the calculation (well beyond my abilities) I suspect there is a dependence on the relative phases of the photons.
 
The leading order are box diagrams with four vertices, i.e., the cross section is of order ##\alpha^4##. It's a genuinely relativistic effect of course, because it involves the massless photons, and thus you cannot expect that this has anything to do with potentials. It's also a pure quantum effect, i.e., due to quantum fluctuations of the quantum fields involved. As I said, you find the calculation in Landau and Lifshitz vol. IV. The calculation is indeed very cumbersome.

What's important to note is that this four-photon diagram is superficially logarithmically divergent. If it were really divergent, it would be a desaster for the renormalizability of QED, because there is no renormalizable counter term for such a divergence. Fortunately, gauge invariance comes to the rescue, and the Ward-Takashi identities tell you before you have done any calculation that indeed the four-photon vertex is finite. This is not true for any single box diagram but for the sum of all the 6 box diagrams.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: strangerep and dextercioby

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
625
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
13K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K