The Dirac Field

  • Thread starter McQueen
  • Start date
258
0
I have a question about the Dirac field. If as quantum field theory states , every point in the Universe is filled with "virtual" photons , and if these "virtual" photons in turn give rise to electron-positron pairs , which being components of matter and anti-matter collide and annihilate each other giving rise in the process to a real photon , how are the conservation laws met ? The creation of a real photon implies real energy , which in turn implies its absorption by an electron which means more energy. How does everything balance out ?
 
837
1
Originally posted by McQueen
I have a question about the Dirac field. If as quantum field theory states , every point in the Universe is filled with "virtual" photons , and if these "virtual" photons in turn give rise to electron-positron pairs , which being components of matter and anti-matter collide and annihilate each other giving rise in the process to a real photon , how are the conservation laws met ? The creation of a real photon implies real energy , which in turn implies its absorption by an electron which means more energy. How does everything balance out ?
Virtual interaction vertices always conserve energy-momentum. They're just off-shell (in that the relation E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 isn't obeyed). Virtual processes in vacuum never give rise to real photons, unless you're thinking of something like the Hawking effect, in which case the real photons extract real energy from the real gravitational field.
 
258
0
Virtual processes in vacuum never give rise to real photons, unless you're thinking of something like the Hawking effect, in which case the real photons extract real energy from the real gravitational field.
Ambitwistor
The process of creation of a real photon does take place in a process known as "polarization of a vacuum " . A photon is transformed into a virtual electron-positron pair , which is annihilated and transformed again into a photon. The members of this virtual pair (electron - positron ) during their lifetime may generate virtual photons and consequently new electron - positron pairs , which annihilate themselves to create a real photon , ann so on. Correct me if I'm wrong about this.
 
837
1
Originally posted by McQueen
The process of creation of a real photon does take place in a process known as "polarization of a vacuum " . A photon is transformed into a virtual electron-positron pair , which is annihilated and transformed again into a photon.
Vacuum polarization is a virtual correction to the photon propagator, but it doesn't manufacture real photons out of nothing. A real photon can virtually split into an electron-positron pair and then re-form into a real photon as it propagates, and likewise a virtual photon's propagation can be dressed by vacuum polarization, but it does not produce real photons out of vacuum.
 
369
0
Originally posted by McQueen
Ambitwistor
The process of creation of a real photon does take place in a process known as "polarization of a vacuum " . A photon is transformed into a virtual electron-positron pair , which is annihilated and transformed again into a photon. The members of this virtual pair (electron - positron ) during their lifetime may generate virtual photons and consequently new electron - positron pairs , which annihilate themselves to create a real photon , ann so on. Correct me if I'm wrong about this.
Yes..do a search for H.E.Puthoff in Xarchive pre-prints.look for:

Polarizable-Vacuum (PV) representation of general relativity.

There are conditions where the PV acts as an active field in response to a hidden variable elswhere in the Universe. VP can appear from an un-observed location, as if they have just 'popped-in' so to speak.
 
837
1
Originally posted by ranyart
Yes..do a search for H.E.Puthoff in Xarchive pre-prints.
I have not read Puthoff's work. I do know that he is widely regarded as a crank, and that I have not heard of any physicists other than his collaborators who think his results concerning energy extraction from the vacuum are credible. I also know that an earlier proposal to obtain gravity from vacuum effects was shown to be badly wrong by Carlip. None of this encourages me to spend time checking his results. You , of course, are welcome to do so, but perhaps your time would be better spent learning conventional quantum field theory.
 
369
0
Originally posted by Ambitwistor
I have not read Puthoff's work. I do know that he is widely regarded as a crank, and that I have not heard of any physicists other than his collaborators who think his results concerning energy extraction from the vacuum are credible. I also know that an earlier proposal to obtain gravity from vacuum effects was shown to be badly wrong by Carlip. None of this encourages me to spend time checking his results. You , of course, are welcome to do so, but perhaps your time would be better spent learning conventional quantum field theory.
Wisdom noted, I do not subscribe to the notion:energy extraction from the vacuum , and I am studying conventional QFT, if one can describe Quantum Fields as being conventional!
 

Related Threads for: The Dirac Field

  • Posted
Replies
14
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
644
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
8
Views
4K
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
813

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top