Vacuum fluctuations - possible stupid question

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of vacuum fluctuations in quantum mechanics, specifically addressing the nature of virtual particles and their implications, such as the annihilation of electron-positron pairs and the resulting photons. Participants explore theoretical aspects and seek clarification on the observable consequences of these phenomena.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why the universe is not filled with 511 keV photons from virtual positronium annihilation events, indicating a gap in their understanding of vacuum fluctuations.
  • Another participant explains that while real electron-positron pairs have a minimum energy of 2x511 keV, virtual pairs can have zero or even negative energy, which complicates their behavior.
  • A different participant describes how virtual electron-positron pairs can exist and annihilate without necessarily producing photons, using Feynman diagrams to illustrate the concept of isolated loops in quantum field theory.
  • One participant suggests reading external resources to improve understanding of vacuum fluctuations, while another humorously acknowledges their own misconceptions and the complexity of the topic.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of virtual particles and their implications, with no consensus reached on the understanding of vacuum fluctuations and the observable effects of virtual particle interactions.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the discussion regarding the definitions of virtual particles and quantum fluctuations, as well as the assumptions made about energy states and interactions. These aspects remain unresolved.

Tim Gillespie
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
My background is in Health Physics and as such, I have had only rudimentary instruction in quantum mechanics, so my understanding (such as it is) is largely conceptual. With that in mind, this may be a very ignorant question, so I apologize in advance.

I understand the theoretical basis for vacuum fluctuations and I understand the implications like the Casimir effect and Hawking radiation. However, one large piece of my understanding is missing. In simple terms, an electron, for example, may interact with a positronium virtual particle, which will very quickly annihilate. This is a "virtual" interaction and can only be detected indirectly by the effects mentioned above and others. So far, so good. My question is - what happens to the annihilation photons? Shouldn't the universe be awash with 511 keV photons from virtual positronium annihilation events? Clearly it is not, and the fault is with my understanding of vacuum fluctuations.

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Real electron-positron pair has energy 2x511 keV's or more. But virtual electron-positron pair does not need to have that energy. Their total energy may even be zero, as one of them may have negative energy. A real particle cannot have negative energy, but a virtual one can.

That being said, I would also add that Casimir and Hawking effects cannot be well described in terms of virtual particles. Both effects are related to quantum fluctuations, but the concept of quantum fluctuations is much more general than the concept of virtual particles.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: BvU
Tim Gillespie said:
My question is - what happens to the annihilation photons?

A virtual electron-positron pair doesn't have to be created from a pair of photons or annihilate into a pair of photons. If you're familiar with Feynman diagrams, imagine a diagram that's just a circle: an isolated loop consisting of one electron/positron line. Viewed as a sequence of "time slices", this looks like an electron/positron pair popping out of the vacuum, then annihilating back into the vacuum, without interacting with anything else.
 
A. Neumaier said:
To improve your understanding of vacuum fluctuations

I suggest 'To debunk your (mis)understanding ...' ;-)

At least it was that result for me. Where there was misconception, there is now a big question mark. I guess that is progress.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Demystifier

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 75 ·
3
Replies
75
Views
12K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
9K