Proton-proton I chain and mass defect reactants and products

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The proton-proton (p-p) chain reaction converts four hydrogen nuclei (protons) into a helium-4 (^4_2He) nucleus, producing two positrons, two neutrinos, and four gamma rays. The two electrons in the reaction are indeed the ones that annihilate with the positrons, and while the four gamma rays may seem excessive, they arise from the conservation of energy and momentum during the annihilation process. Specifically, each positron-electron annihilation produces at least two gamma photons, with the possibility of three depending on the spin states of the particles involved. Understanding the intermediate steps of this reaction is crucial for grasping the overall process.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of nuclear fusion processes
  • Familiarity with particle physics concepts, including positrons and neutrinos
  • Knowledge of energy conservation in particle interactions
  • Basic grasp of quantum mechanics, particularly regarding particle spin
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the detailed mechanisms of the proton-proton chain reaction in stellar environments
  • Learn about positronium states and their decay processes
  • Research the role of neutrinos in astrophysical phenomena
  • Explore the principles of gamma-ray detection in astrophysics, particularly in PET and PAS technologies
USEFUL FOR

Astrophysics students, particle physicists, and researchers interested in stellar nucleosynthesis and gamma-ray detection methods.

Bried
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Hello there,

I'm starting S382 astrophysics with the OU. The course book says "The proton-proton chain converts four hydrogen nuclei (protons) into a ^4_2He nucleus, two positrons that quickly collide with electrons and are annihilated, and two neutrinos. Hence, branch I of the p-p chain may be summarised as:

2e- + 4p goes to ^4_2He + 2v_e + 2gamma_pd + 4gamma_e "

I don't quite understand where all of the reactants and products are coming from. The 4p is obvious but the 2e^- I can only think are the two electrons that annihilate with the two positrons. If this is the case then should they really be included as part of the p-p I chain? What is also throwing me is the four gamma rays associated with electrons. Is this gamma ray a product of the electron-positron annihilation? If so why are there four? I would have thought there should only be two!

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Sorry about the layout. I would have used latex but I'm on my tablet and it won't work.

Thanks.

Brian
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Bried said:
What is also throwing me is the four gamma rays associated with electrons. Is this gamma ray a product of the electron-positron annihilation? If so why are there four? I would have thought there should only be two!
A positron-electron annihilation produces two gammas of at least 0.511 MeV. Think of conservation of energy and momentum.

Note the intermediate steps - http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/procyc.html#c1
 
Bried said:
The 4p is obvious but the 2e^- I can only think are the two electrons that annihilate with the two positrons.
Right.
A more "charge-neutral" way to write it down would include 4 electrons on the left side (corresponding to the 4 protons - so the sum is equivalent to four neutral hydrogen atoms) and two on the right side (so one could form a neutral helium atom out of them). As those two additional electrons don't participate in the reaction they are ignored.
 
Astronuc said:
A positron-electron annihilation produces two gammas of at least 0.511 MeV. Think of conservation of energy and momentum.
At least two gammas. A positron is equally likely to encounter a same spin electron, in which case at least three gammas are produced.
 
snorkack said:
A positron is equally likely to encounter a same spin electron, in which case at least three gammas are produced.

The 3 photon decays is not as likely as the 2 photon decay... Even if the angular momenta were not considered, the 3 gets supressed by a factor of ~100.
 
ChrisVer said:
The 3 photon decays is not as likely as the 2 photon decay... Even if the angular momenta were not considered, the 3 gets supressed by a factor of ~100.
That difference just means orthopositronium lives much longer than parapositronium - a factor of about 1000. There is no state where there would be a (relevant) choice between the two decay mechanisms. The fraction that decays to two photons is given by the initial formation, and both types are formed with a similar probability.
 
mfb said:
There is no state where there would be a (relevant) choice between the two decay mechanisms. The fraction that decays to two photons is given by the initial formation, and both types are formed with a similar probability.

?
Wouldn't the 3 photons have an \alpha^3 vs the two photons with \alpha^2?
 
Consider 1000 positrons produced and slowed to thermal energies.
About 500 will form parapositronium. Those decay to their ground state, and decay to 2 photons after (on average) 125 picoseconds.
About 500 will form orthopositronium. Those decay to their ground state, and decays to 3 photons after (on average) 140 nanoseconds.

The power of alpha gives a rough estimate for the relative lifetimes, the details of the decay (phase space, ...) are responsible for details. It does not influence how often which type of positronium is formed.
 
  • #10
mfb said:
Consider 1000 positrons produced and slowed to thermal energies.
About 500 will form parapositronium. Those decay to their ground state, and decay to 2 photons after (on average) 125 picoseconds.
About 500 will form orthopositronium. Those decay to their ground state, and decays to 3 photons after (on average) 140 nanoseconds.

The power of alpha gives a rough estimate for the relative lifetimes, the details of the decay (phase space, ...) are responsible for details. It does not influence how often which type of positronium is formed.
This is interesting because in PET and PAS, the emphasis is on the two (collinear) gammas, rather than two or three.
http://www.princeton.edu/~romalis/PHYS312/Positron.pdf

Perhaps the collinear gammas are easier with respect to discrimination.
 
  • #11
The scanners usually just cover a small fraction of the full solid angle (too expensive, and also for practical reasons - the patient has to be somewhere). Finding two photons is easy - you know the energy, and you know they fly in opposite directions so if you detect one you also find the other one with a symmetric detector.
Finding three is much harder - the probability that one does not fly into your detector is very large, and you don't know the energy.
To make it worse, you would have to detect the flight directions or the detection time ("Time-of-Flight PET") to reconstruct the production point. More modern scanners can do this, but older ones cannot.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
6K
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
11K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
8K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K