Problem with classical electrostatic potential energy

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the classical electrostatic potential energy and its implications in the context of electron-positron annihilation. Participants explore the limitations of potential energy as the distance between charged particles approaches zero and whether quantum electrodynamics (QED) provides an explanation for these phenomena.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that classical electrostatic potential energy is not limited as distance approaches zero, raising concerns about the implications for particle annihilation and the constancy of charge.
  • Another participant suggests that ordinary quantum mechanics suffices to explain the situation, as it provides a ground state with finite binding energy.
  • A third participant discusses the potential for negative values of energy in an electron-positron system and emphasizes the role of QED in addressing annihilation events, particularly when particles are forced close together.
  • A later reply acknowledges the understanding that the ground state energy level in quantum mechanics does not exceed the maximum binding energy, which is determined by the rest masses of unbound particles.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether QED is necessary to explain the issues raised, with some suggesting that quantum mechanics alone is sufficient. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the necessity of QED and the implications of potential energy in particle interactions.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the discussion regarding assumptions about the nature of potential energy and the definitions of binding energy, as well as the mathematical treatment of energy eigenstates in quantum mechanics.

zonde
Gold Member
Messages
2,960
Reaction score
224
In classical physics electrostatic potential energy is: ##U=k_e\frac{q_1q_2}{r}##
So amount of potential energy is not limited as ##r\rightarrow 0##
But obviously potential energy (= binding energy) is limited by masses of charge carrying particles. Say when electron and positron annihilates their combined mass is converted into photons. So it would seem like annihilation happens at non-zero overlap of two particles.
Well, for me it seems like a problem that needs an explanation. Say, are charges not constant?
As QED is current most complete description of electromagnetic phenomena, I would like to ask if QED holds some explanation for this problem (given I correctly identify it as a problem)? May be there is ready explanation for this problem to which you can point me?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You do not need QED. Ordinary quantum mechanics works fine, giving a ground state with finite binding energy.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: zonde
The potential energy of an electron-positron system can temporarily have a negative value of arbitrary magnitude, but then it isn't necessarily an energy eigenstate (with a hydrogen-like wavefunction, ##1s, 2s, 2p_x##...). The electron-positron annihilation has to be dealt with by QED. If you force an electron and positron really close to each other and they annihilate, the resulting photon energies have to contain the potential energy of the initial state that had a short electron-positron distance.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: zonde
Okay, I understand that this is not a problem in QM because there is ground state energy level that does not exceed maximum of binding energy (determined by sum of unbound particle rest masses). So to understand it better I would have to try to understand why the ground state has the energy it has.
Thanks Orodruin and hilbert2, now I have an idea where to look further.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
28
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
631
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K