Solving a Quantum Field Theory Question on Electron-Positron Pair Creation

Kruger
Messages
213
Reaction score
0
Hello all. Seems to be an excellent forum with many experts.

I'm interested in quantum field theory. There's a question in my textbook (introduction to QM and QFT) and I'm not sure if I found the right solution and its interpretation.

Question 1: How many energy is needed to create a electron positron pair.
Answer 1: (easy) 2*m(y)*c^2 where m(y) is the relativistic mass, you know.

Question 2: Calculate the uncertainty relation between Energy and time.
Answer 2: d(H)d(t)>=h/4pi (easy)

And now there is the trickier part, a combination of these two. (the textbook derived the discret energy values of the harmonic oscillator and shows that its ground state isn't zero).

Question 11: The life time of a virtual e-e+-pair is given by the HUP and if there is a strong electric field in "empty" space with electromagnetic ground state oscillations how can the ground state oscillations create an e-e+-pair?

my Answer: I tried to calculate this: [H,N] where H is the energy of the oscillation and N the number operator. I didn't find the solution of this and got [H,N]=0 (I think not the right one). My oppinion is: The N has to raise from 0 to 1 (to create a photon in vacuum). The "N" takes the needed energy for this from HUP. After this the photon interacts with the electric field and e-e+-pair will be created for time d(t) (HUP). After this happened the pair will annihilate and the N operator will lower (N=0) and the energy is given back to "empty" space.
But as I got [H,N]=0 this can't be.

Oh, please help me. There aren't answers in this book (only questions, well the most questions are easy, but that is a difficult one).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Can nobody help?
 
I don't know the answer to your problem, but try typing:

"uncertainty relation" "energy and time"

into Google. Stuff does come up that may help you.
 
Sorry, but I coudn't find what I looked for.
 
Does nobody know this?
 
Question 2: Ground state has energy what ever you want. Only energy shifts are measurable quantities.

Question 11: I don't understand what you are trying to say. It looks like non-Relativistic QM + creation of virtual particles (!?). Bad combination. The only thing I can understand is [H,N]=0. Which is true in, otherwise how would you get the energies of the harmonic oscilator?
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
According to recent podcast between Jacob Barandes and Sean Carroll, Barandes claims that putting a sensitive qubit near one of the slits of a double slit interference experiment is sufficient to break the interference pattern. Here are his words from the official transcript: Is that true? Caveats I see: The qubit is a quantum object, so if the particle was in a superposition of up and down, the qubit can be in a superposition too. Measuring the qubit in an orthogonal direction might...
Back
Top