- #1

- 142

- 13

Where (on earth and/or in space) does this occur? And why don't ALL gamma rays produce e+ and e- particles, but some gamma rays evidently do? Are there environmental requirements?

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- I
- Thread starter mark!
- Start date

- #1

- 142

- 13

Where (on earth and/or in space) does this occur? And why don't ALL gamma rays produce e+ and e- particles, but some gamma rays evidently do? Are there environmental requirements?

- #2

- 17,163

- 6,967

- #3

- 142

- 13

@Orodruin Quantum fluctuations ("borrowing" energy from the universe) are violating the law of conservation of energy (which doesn't automatically mean it can't occur), don't you agree?

Moreover, 4-momentum is a term from 'special relativity', which contradicts 'quantum physics' on so many more levels, so I'm not sure whether this comparison is applicable.

Moreover, 4-momentum is a term from 'special relativity', which contradicts 'quantum physics' on so many more levels, so I'm not sure whether this comparison is applicable.

Last edited:

- #4

- 17,163

- 6,967

No. In fact, what is violated by "virtual particles" is not energy or momentum conservation, but the dispersion relation of on-shell particles. Also, I suggest you read this.Quantum fluctuations ("borrowing" energy from the universe) are violating the law of conservation of energy (which doesn't automatically mean it can't occur), don't you agree?

This is just wrong. Besides, energy and momentum is conserved even in classical physics.Moreover, 4-momentum is a term from 'special relativity', which contradicts 'quantum physics' on so many more levels

- #5

- 17,813

- 8,777

A single photon cannot decay to a pair of massive particles at all, because you cannot satisfy energy-momentum conservation.

Last but not least, "virtual particles" are called "virtual", because they don't exist in Nature. It's just sloppy language for a formal expression from QFT perturbation theory. In Feynman diagrams its symbolized by internal lines, which stand for (time-ordered) propagators of the corresponding fields.

- #6

- 710

- 556

Moreover, 4-momentum is a term from 'special relativity', which contradicts 'quantum physics' on so many more levels

It does not contradict relativistic quantum physics. Have you ever heard about quantum field theories? SR is built in most of them. You've mistaken SR with general relativity. Special relativity blends excelent with quantum theories.

- #7

- 17,813

- 8,777

- #8

- 142

- 13

A single photon cannot decay to a pair of massive particles at all, because you cannot satisfy energy-momentum conservation.

If you need

- #9

- 17,813

- 8,777

The photon must be near a nucleus in order to satisfy conservation of momentum, as an electron-positron pair producing in free space cannot both satisfy conservation of energy and momentum.[4] Because of this, when pair production occurs, the atomic nucleus receives some recoil. The reverse of this process is electron positron annihilation.

- #10

- 142

- 13

- #11

- 17,813

- 8,777

Let's do the calculation to prove that ##\mathrm{e}^+ + \mathrm{e}^- \rightarrow \gamma## is impossible. Let ##p_1## and ##p_2## the four-momenta of the electron and positron in the initial and ##q## the four-momentum of the photon in the final state. We use natural units with ##\hbar=c=1## then the kinematical constraints read

$$p_1+p_2=q,$$

which is energy-momentum conservation for the process and

$$p_1^2=p_2^2=m^2, \quad q^2=0$$

where ##m## is the electron mass, and photons are massless. Now you have

$$(p_1+p_2)^2=p_1^2+p_2^2+2 p_1 \cdot p_2=2 (m^2 + p_1 \cdot p_2)=0.$$

Now you can go into the center of mass frame of the incoming electrons, i.e., you make

$$\vec{p}_1=-\vec{p}_2=\vec{p}_{\text{cm}},$$

and then you get

$$(p_1+p_2)^2=2 (m^2+E_{\text{cm}}^2+\vec{p}_{\text{cm}}^2)>0,$$

i.e., for no ##\vec{p}_{\text{cm}}## you can fullfil the onshell condition for the photon. Thus the process cannot happen.

- #12

- 142

- 13

- #13

- 17,813

- 8,777

Read the stuff careful!!!! Nowhere in the entire Wikipedia article is written what you've claimed!!!

- #14

- 142

- 13

- #15

- 17,813

- 8,777

- #16

- 142

- 13

@vanhees71 Thanks a lot!

- #17

- 142

- 13

@vanhees71 Is it true that photons don't have number conservation? Then why, if I understand you correctly, aren't we able to therefore conclude that they're able to just (dis-)appear without the "help" of nucleus, and produce pairs?

To prove your point, you calculated that e+ + e- = gamma ray = impossible. I'm not able to understand all your calculations, but I believe you. So, if this is this case, could you therefore explain why this reaction seem te be happening in our sun (in the proton-proton chain this matter-antimatter-annihilation happens all the time). Or, if it's still not possible without a nucleus, how/where is this nucleus involved in the process?

I prefer an explanation without too much mathematical equations. I hope that's possible ;)

To prove your point, you calculated that e+ + e- = gamma ray = impossible. I'm not able to understand all your calculations, but I believe you. So, if this is this case, could you therefore explain why this reaction seem te be happening in our sun (in the proton-proton chain this matter-antimatter-annihilation happens all the time). Or, if it's still not possible without a nucleus, how/where is this nucleus involved in the process?

I prefer an explanation without too much mathematical equations. I hope that's possible ;)

Last edited:

- #18

- 17,163

- 6,967

Because they carry 4-momentum and 4-momentum is conserved.Then why, if I understand you correctly, aren't we able to therefore conclude that they're able to just (dis-)appear without the "help" of nucleus, and produce pairs?

- #19

Nugatory

Mentor

- 13,397

- 6,395

The problem with that reaction isn't that it changes the number of photons (which happens all the time), it is that it would violate at least one of energy conservation and momentum conservation. The momentum of a photon with a given energy is greater than the momentum of an electron-positron pair with the same energy so if the photon were to turn into two photons we'd end up with more energy or less momentum.@vanhees71 Is it true that photons don't have number conservation? Then why, if I understand you correctly, aren't we able to therefore conclude that it's able to just (dis-)appear without the "help" of nucleus, and produce pairs?

Are you asking about pair production or matter-antimatter annnihilation? The annihilation reaction for electrons is ##e^++e^-\rightarrow\gamma+\gamma## (two photons are created, not one, and no heavy nucleus is required) and similarly for other types of particle-antiparticle pairs. The pair production reaction is ##\gamma+Z\rightarrow{e}^++e^-+Z##. The nucleus ##Z## appears unchanged by the reaction but in fact its momentum does change, just enough to make up for the difference between the momentum of the photon and the combined momentum of the electron and the positron.Could you therefore explain why this reaction seem te be happening in our sun (in the proton-proton chain this matter-antimatter-annihilation happens all the time). Or, if it's still not possible without a nucleus, how then is this nucleus involved in the process?

Last edited:

- #20

- 17,813

- 8,777

As has been already explained by @Orodruin and @Nugatory, indeed photon number is not conserved. In relativistic physics in general numbers of particles are not conserved, but only charge-like quantities (electric charge, baryon number, strangeness, etc., and approximately isospin as far as the electromagnetic and strong interaction is concerned). The reason is that in order to have a description as a local relativistic quantum-field theory (which is the so far only (very) successful kind of relativistic quantum theory disovered) you necessarily have to introduce for each particle also an antiparticle. You can always find a possibility to make the particles and antiparticles the same (such particles are called "strictly neutral"). The photon is an example for a strictly neutral particle.@vanhees71 Is it true that photons don't have number conservation? Then why, if I understand you correctly, aren't we able to therefore conclude that they're able to just (dis-)appear without the "help" of nucleus, and produce pairs?

To prove your point, you calculated that e+ + e- = gamma ray = impossible. I'm not able to understand all your calculations, but I believe you. So, if this is this case, could you therefore explain why this reaction seem te be happening in our sun (in the proton-proton chain this matter-antimatter-annihilation happens all the time). Or, if it's still not possible without a nucleus, how/where is this nucleus involved in the process?

I prefer an explanation without too much mathematical equations. I hope that's possible ;)

All conservation laws are related to symmetries since any conserved quantity in a Hamiltonian system generates the corresponding symmetry operations via a Poisson bracket (one of Noether's famous theorems). In the case of the charge conservation rules of the standard model the symmetry is the symmetry of the fields' equations of motion under multiplication by a global (i.e., space-time independent) phase factor, realizing the symmetry group U(1) or more complicated matrix multiplications of multi-component fields, where the matrices build another group like SU(N) or SO(N) etc.

Of course, there are still the conservation laws from the fundamental symmetries of special relativistic spacetime, which is ruled by the proper orthochronous Poincare group, which is built by translations in space and time (homogeneity of space and time), rotations of space (isotropy of space), and Lorentz boosts (special principle of relativity). The corresponding 10 conserved quantities are energy (time translations), momentum (spatial translations), angular momentum (spatial rotations), and center of momentum (boosts).

So for pair creation from the point of view of charge conservation in the standard model you could well make an electron-positron pair (electric charge and total lepton number 0) to a single photon, but as we have seen above, that's not compatible with energy-momentum conservation, and thus this process does not happen in nature (at least as far as the standard model is telling us, and as far as empirical evidence so far confirms). What can happen according to all conservation laws is that an electron-positron pair annihilates to two photons, and that has been observed for a long time (I don't know the history by hard), including the correct quantitative prediction of the corresponding cross section.

Share: