Why don't electron-positron collisions release infinite energy?












39












$begingroup$


Questions of the form:




An electron and a positron collide with E MeV of energy, what is the frequency of the photons released.




quite often come up in my A Level course (for often fairly arbitrary E). But this got me thinking. There is energy stored in the separation of an electron and a positron, which, as they get closer and closer together, should all be converted into kinetic energy. As the potential is of the form $frac{1}{r}$, this implies that at arbitrarily small distances and arbitrarily high amount of energy is given off. Given that both electrons and positrons are typically regarded as point particles, in order for them to collide, they would have to be arbitrarily close together, which would imply that over the course of their collision they should have released arbitrarily high amounts of energy, in the form of kinetic energy. As this would imply photons of arbitrarily high frequency given off, I assume that I must have missed out some piece of physics somewhere, but I am uncertain where. Ideas I have had so far include:




  • Energy should be given off, anyway, by an accelerating electron, in the form of light, according to classical EM, although I don't know how this changes from classical to quantum ideas of EM - we certainly can't have all the energy given off in a continuous stream, because we need quantised photons, so does the electron itself experience quantised energy levels as it accelerates inwards (my only issue with treating the electron in such a quantised way is that, to my mind, it'd be equivalent of treating it mathematically as a hydrogen-like atom, where the probability of the electron colliding with the positron is still extremely low, and unlike electron capture, there'd be no weak force interaction to mediate this 'electron-positron atom').

  • The actual mechanism for the decay occurs at a non-zero separation distance, perhaps photons pass between the two particles to mediate the decay at non-infinitesimal distances.

  • At relativistic speeds our classical model of electrodynamics breaks down. Now, I know this to be true - considering the fact that magnetism is basically the relativistic component of electrodynamics. However, given the fact that magnetism is the only relativistic force which'd be involved, I don't see how it'd act to counteract this infinite release of energy - so is there another force which I'm forgetting?


These are just ideas I've come up with whilst thinking about the problem, and I don't know if any of them have any physical significance in this problem, so any advice is appreciated!










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Thinking from the other side: if this would release infinite energy then you would have also needed an infinite amount to create the positrons.
    $endgroup$
    – lalala
    20 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Agreed - logically in order to create them, my misunderstanding would have stated that I would have needed to work against an infinitely high force to do so, thus precluding any matter/anti-matter creation in the universe...
    $endgroup$
    – DoublyNegative
    7 hours ago
















39












$begingroup$


Questions of the form:




An electron and a positron collide with E MeV of energy, what is the frequency of the photons released.




quite often come up in my A Level course (for often fairly arbitrary E). But this got me thinking. There is energy stored in the separation of an electron and a positron, which, as they get closer and closer together, should all be converted into kinetic energy. As the potential is of the form $frac{1}{r}$, this implies that at arbitrarily small distances and arbitrarily high amount of energy is given off. Given that both electrons and positrons are typically regarded as point particles, in order for them to collide, they would have to be arbitrarily close together, which would imply that over the course of their collision they should have released arbitrarily high amounts of energy, in the form of kinetic energy. As this would imply photons of arbitrarily high frequency given off, I assume that I must have missed out some piece of physics somewhere, but I am uncertain where. Ideas I have had so far include:




  • Energy should be given off, anyway, by an accelerating electron, in the form of light, according to classical EM, although I don't know how this changes from classical to quantum ideas of EM - we certainly can't have all the energy given off in a continuous stream, because we need quantised photons, so does the electron itself experience quantised energy levels as it accelerates inwards (my only issue with treating the electron in such a quantised way is that, to my mind, it'd be equivalent of treating it mathematically as a hydrogen-like atom, where the probability of the electron colliding with the positron is still extremely low, and unlike electron capture, there'd be no weak force interaction to mediate this 'electron-positron atom').

  • The actual mechanism for the decay occurs at a non-zero separation distance, perhaps photons pass between the two particles to mediate the decay at non-infinitesimal distances.

  • At relativistic speeds our classical model of electrodynamics breaks down. Now, I know this to be true - considering the fact that magnetism is basically the relativistic component of electrodynamics. However, given the fact that magnetism is the only relativistic force which'd be involved, I don't see how it'd act to counteract this infinite release of energy - so is there another force which I'm forgetting?


These are just ideas I've come up with whilst thinking about the problem, and I don't know if any of them have any physical significance in this problem, so any advice is appreciated!










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Thinking from the other side: if this would release infinite energy then you would have also needed an infinite amount to create the positrons.
    $endgroup$
    – lalala
    20 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Agreed - logically in order to create them, my misunderstanding would have stated that I would have needed to work against an infinitely high force to do so, thus precluding any matter/anti-matter creation in the universe...
    $endgroup$
    – DoublyNegative
    7 hours ago














39












39








39


6



$begingroup$


Questions of the form:




An electron and a positron collide with E MeV of energy, what is the frequency of the photons released.




quite often come up in my A Level course (for often fairly arbitrary E). But this got me thinking. There is energy stored in the separation of an electron and a positron, which, as they get closer and closer together, should all be converted into kinetic energy. As the potential is of the form $frac{1}{r}$, this implies that at arbitrarily small distances and arbitrarily high amount of energy is given off. Given that both electrons and positrons are typically regarded as point particles, in order for them to collide, they would have to be arbitrarily close together, which would imply that over the course of their collision they should have released arbitrarily high amounts of energy, in the form of kinetic energy. As this would imply photons of arbitrarily high frequency given off, I assume that I must have missed out some piece of physics somewhere, but I am uncertain where. Ideas I have had so far include:




  • Energy should be given off, anyway, by an accelerating electron, in the form of light, according to classical EM, although I don't know how this changes from classical to quantum ideas of EM - we certainly can't have all the energy given off in a continuous stream, because we need quantised photons, so does the electron itself experience quantised energy levels as it accelerates inwards (my only issue with treating the electron in such a quantised way is that, to my mind, it'd be equivalent of treating it mathematically as a hydrogen-like atom, where the probability of the electron colliding with the positron is still extremely low, and unlike electron capture, there'd be no weak force interaction to mediate this 'electron-positron atom').

  • The actual mechanism for the decay occurs at a non-zero separation distance, perhaps photons pass between the two particles to mediate the decay at non-infinitesimal distances.

  • At relativistic speeds our classical model of electrodynamics breaks down. Now, I know this to be true - considering the fact that magnetism is basically the relativistic component of electrodynamics. However, given the fact that magnetism is the only relativistic force which'd be involved, I don't see how it'd act to counteract this infinite release of energy - so is there another force which I'm forgetting?


These are just ideas I've come up with whilst thinking about the problem, and I don't know if any of them have any physical significance in this problem, so any advice is appreciated!










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




Questions of the form:




An electron and a positron collide with E MeV of energy, what is the frequency of the photons released.




quite often come up in my A Level course (for often fairly arbitrary E). But this got me thinking. There is energy stored in the separation of an electron and a positron, which, as they get closer and closer together, should all be converted into kinetic energy. As the potential is of the form $frac{1}{r}$, this implies that at arbitrarily small distances and arbitrarily high amount of energy is given off. Given that both electrons and positrons are typically regarded as point particles, in order for them to collide, they would have to be arbitrarily close together, which would imply that over the course of their collision they should have released arbitrarily high amounts of energy, in the form of kinetic energy. As this would imply photons of arbitrarily high frequency given off, I assume that I must have missed out some piece of physics somewhere, but I am uncertain where. Ideas I have had so far include:




  • Energy should be given off, anyway, by an accelerating electron, in the form of light, according to classical EM, although I don't know how this changes from classical to quantum ideas of EM - we certainly can't have all the energy given off in a continuous stream, because we need quantised photons, so does the electron itself experience quantised energy levels as it accelerates inwards (my only issue with treating the electron in such a quantised way is that, to my mind, it'd be equivalent of treating it mathematically as a hydrogen-like atom, where the probability of the electron colliding with the positron is still extremely low, and unlike electron capture, there'd be no weak force interaction to mediate this 'electron-positron atom').

  • The actual mechanism for the decay occurs at a non-zero separation distance, perhaps photons pass between the two particles to mediate the decay at non-infinitesimal distances.

  • At relativistic speeds our classical model of electrodynamics breaks down. Now, I know this to be true - considering the fact that magnetism is basically the relativistic component of electrodynamics. However, given the fact that magnetism is the only relativistic force which'd be involved, I don't see how it'd act to counteract this infinite release of energy - so is there another force which I'm forgetting?


These are just ideas I've come up with whilst thinking about the problem, and I don't know if any of them have any physical significance in this problem, so any advice is appreciated!







quantum-mechanics particle-physics






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked 2 days ago









DoublyNegativeDoublyNegative

516412




516412








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Thinking from the other side: if this would release infinite energy then you would have also needed an infinite amount to create the positrons.
    $endgroup$
    – lalala
    20 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Agreed - logically in order to create them, my misunderstanding would have stated that I would have needed to work against an infinitely high force to do so, thus precluding any matter/anti-matter creation in the universe...
    $endgroup$
    – DoublyNegative
    7 hours ago














  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Thinking from the other side: if this would release infinite energy then you would have also needed an infinite amount to create the positrons.
    $endgroup$
    – lalala
    20 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Agreed - logically in order to create them, my misunderstanding would have stated that I would have needed to work against an infinitely high force to do so, thus precluding any matter/anti-matter creation in the universe...
    $endgroup$
    – DoublyNegative
    7 hours ago








2




2




$begingroup$
Thinking from the other side: if this would release infinite energy then you would have also needed an infinite amount to create the positrons.
$endgroup$
– lalala
20 hours ago




$begingroup$
Thinking from the other side: if this would release infinite energy then you would have also needed an infinite amount to create the positrons.
$endgroup$
– lalala
20 hours ago












$begingroup$
Agreed - logically in order to create them, my misunderstanding would have stated that I would have needed to work against an infinitely high force to do so, thus precluding any matter/anti-matter creation in the universe...
$endgroup$
– DoublyNegative
7 hours ago




$begingroup$
Agreed - logically in order to create them, my misunderstanding would have stated that I would have needed to work against an infinitely high force to do so, thus precluding any matter/anti-matter creation in the universe...
$endgroup$
– DoublyNegative
7 hours ago










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















38












$begingroup$

This is a great question! It can be answered on many different levels.



You are absolutely right that if we stick to the level of classical high school physics, something doesn't make sense here. However, we can get an approximately correct picture by "pasting" together a classical and a quantum description. To do this, let's think of when the classical picture breaks down.



In relativistic quantum field theory, particles can only be localized on the scale of their Compton wavelength
$$lambda = frac{hbar}{mc}.$$
This means that the classical picture of point particles must break down as we approach this separation distance. Now, the electric potential energy released at this point is
$$E = frac{e^2}{r} = frac{e^2 m c}{hbar}$$
in cgs units. Here one of the most important constants in physics has appeared, the fine structure constant which characterizes the strength of electromagnetism,
$$alpha = frac{e^2}{hbar c} approx frac{1}{137}.$$
The energy released up to this point is
$$E approx alpha m c^2$$
which is not infinite, but rather only a small fraction of the total energy.



Past this radius we should use quantum mechanics, which renders the $1/r$ potential totally unapplicable -- not only do the electrons not have definite positions, but the electromagnetic field doesn't even have a definite value. Actually thinking about the full quantum state of the system at this point is so hairy that not even graduate-level textbooks do it; they usually black-box the process and only think about the final results, just like your high school course is doing. Using the full theory of quantum electrodynamics, one can show the most probable final outcome is to have two energetic photons come out. In high school you just assume this happens and use conservation laws to describe the photons long after the process is over.



For separations much greater than $lambda$, the classical picture should be applicable, and we can think of part of the energy as being released as classical electromagnetic radiation, which occurs generally when charges accelerate. (At the quantum level, the number of photons released is infinite, indicating a so-called infrared divergence, but they are individually very low in energy, and their total energy is perfectly finite.) As you expected, this energy is lost before the black-boxed quantum process starts, so the answers in your school books are actually off by around $1/137$. But this is a small enough number we don't worry much about it.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    So, in some way, it would appear that we end up with some form of action at a distance. Would it be worthwhile to understand this in terms of some sort of photon exchange, or simply as some interaction between the probability fields (or not go down the route of using inaccurate intuitive understanding until I learn about QED?)
    $endgroup$
    – DoublyNegative
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    @DoublyNegative Are you referring to the classical part of the process or the quantum part? The quantum process is definitely not a photon exchange, it's an annihilation along with the emission of two photons. Also, both the classical and quantum parts are 100% local, there is no action at a distance since everything is mediated by the field.
    $endgroup$
    – knzhou
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    I'm referring to the quantum part of the process. What counts as a collision when we only have two interacting wavefunctions?
    $endgroup$
    – DoublyNegative
    2 days ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @DoublyNegative When the wavefunctions of the electron and positron overlap in space, they can decrease in magnitude, with the accompanying creation of a photon. Everything is perfectly local: if the wavefunctions don't overlap, they won't annihilate. Also, even if their wavefunctions collide head-on, they won't annihilate to photons all of the time -- there will also be some amplitude for them to pass right through each other.
    $endgroup$
    – knzhou
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    Ah, ok, that makes sense, thanks!
    $endgroup$
    – DoublyNegative
    2 days ago



















6












$begingroup$

Positronium is what you're describing in your first idea.



Until/unless a believable model of the electron is developed, pretty much the best we can do is say that the rest mass of the electron-positron system is the only energy available to be converted to radiation in an annihilation event.



This experiment will reveal a lot more about what happens in very close encounters between electrons and positrons.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    This would imply that the idea of using the kinetic energy of the particles is fundamentally flawed, then?
    $endgroup$
    – DoublyNegative
    2 days ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Not exactly. The idea of rest mass is kind of messy. For example, the rest mass of a system of particles [think of them as being in a box] is the total energy of the particles: their rest masses, their kinetic energies, etc. If the box itself is massless but it can contain the particles, and if the mass of the box-plus-contents is measured, that might be called the mass of the system. The mass measured when the box is stationary would be its rest mass.
    $endgroup$
    – S. McGrew
    2 days ago



















-1












$begingroup$

Your whole question is based on the idea that the potential energy stored by separation would convert to infinite kinetic energy. But this premise is wrong.



This requires that potential energy to be infinite. However, the potential energy is finite even when two charged particles are at infinite separation.



Potential is definitely not in the form of $frac{1}{r}$. If it were, that would mean the potential would increase as the particles are closing in. That is not the case.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$














    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "151"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f470922%2fwhy-dont-electron-positron-collisions-release-infinite-energy%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    38












    $begingroup$

    This is a great question! It can be answered on many different levels.



    You are absolutely right that if we stick to the level of classical high school physics, something doesn't make sense here. However, we can get an approximately correct picture by "pasting" together a classical and a quantum description. To do this, let's think of when the classical picture breaks down.



    In relativistic quantum field theory, particles can only be localized on the scale of their Compton wavelength
    $$lambda = frac{hbar}{mc}.$$
    This means that the classical picture of point particles must break down as we approach this separation distance. Now, the electric potential energy released at this point is
    $$E = frac{e^2}{r} = frac{e^2 m c}{hbar}$$
    in cgs units. Here one of the most important constants in physics has appeared, the fine structure constant which characterizes the strength of electromagnetism,
    $$alpha = frac{e^2}{hbar c} approx frac{1}{137}.$$
    The energy released up to this point is
    $$E approx alpha m c^2$$
    which is not infinite, but rather only a small fraction of the total energy.



    Past this radius we should use quantum mechanics, which renders the $1/r$ potential totally unapplicable -- not only do the electrons not have definite positions, but the electromagnetic field doesn't even have a definite value. Actually thinking about the full quantum state of the system at this point is so hairy that not even graduate-level textbooks do it; they usually black-box the process and only think about the final results, just like your high school course is doing. Using the full theory of quantum electrodynamics, one can show the most probable final outcome is to have two energetic photons come out. In high school you just assume this happens and use conservation laws to describe the photons long after the process is over.



    For separations much greater than $lambda$, the classical picture should be applicable, and we can think of part of the energy as being released as classical electromagnetic radiation, which occurs generally when charges accelerate. (At the quantum level, the number of photons released is infinite, indicating a so-called infrared divergence, but they are individually very low in energy, and their total energy is perfectly finite.) As you expected, this energy is lost before the black-boxed quantum process starts, so the answers in your school books are actually off by around $1/137$. But this is a small enough number we don't worry much about it.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      So, in some way, it would appear that we end up with some form of action at a distance. Would it be worthwhile to understand this in terms of some sort of photon exchange, or simply as some interaction between the probability fields (or not go down the route of using inaccurate intuitive understanding until I learn about QED?)
      $endgroup$
      – DoublyNegative
      2 days ago










    • $begingroup$
      @DoublyNegative Are you referring to the classical part of the process or the quantum part? The quantum process is definitely not a photon exchange, it's an annihilation along with the emission of two photons. Also, both the classical and quantum parts are 100% local, there is no action at a distance since everything is mediated by the field.
      $endgroup$
      – knzhou
      2 days ago










    • $begingroup$
      I'm referring to the quantum part of the process. What counts as a collision when we only have two interacting wavefunctions?
      $endgroup$
      – DoublyNegative
      2 days ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @DoublyNegative When the wavefunctions of the electron and positron overlap in space, they can decrease in magnitude, with the accompanying creation of a photon. Everything is perfectly local: if the wavefunctions don't overlap, they won't annihilate. Also, even if their wavefunctions collide head-on, they won't annihilate to photons all of the time -- there will also be some amplitude for them to pass right through each other.
      $endgroup$
      – knzhou
      2 days ago










    • $begingroup$
      Ah, ok, that makes sense, thanks!
      $endgroup$
      – DoublyNegative
      2 days ago
















    38












    $begingroup$

    This is a great question! It can be answered on many different levels.



    You are absolutely right that if we stick to the level of classical high school physics, something doesn't make sense here. However, we can get an approximately correct picture by "pasting" together a classical and a quantum description. To do this, let's think of when the classical picture breaks down.



    In relativistic quantum field theory, particles can only be localized on the scale of their Compton wavelength
    $$lambda = frac{hbar}{mc}.$$
    This means that the classical picture of point particles must break down as we approach this separation distance. Now, the electric potential energy released at this point is
    $$E = frac{e^2}{r} = frac{e^2 m c}{hbar}$$
    in cgs units. Here one of the most important constants in physics has appeared, the fine structure constant which characterizes the strength of electromagnetism,
    $$alpha = frac{e^2}{hbar c} approx frac{1}{137}.$$
    The energy released up to this point is
    $$E approx alpha m c^2$$
    which is not infinite, but rather only a small fraction of the total energy.



    Past this radius we should use quantum mechanics, which renders the $1/r$ potential totally unapplicable -- not only do the electrons not have definite positions, but the electromagnetic field doesn't even have a definite value. Actually thinking about the full quantum state of the system at this point is so hairy that not even graduate-level textbooks do it; they usually black-box the process and only think about the final results, just like your high school course is doing. Using the full theory of quantum electrodynamics, one can show the most probable final outcome is to have two energetic photons come out. In high school you just assume this happens and use conservation laws to describe the photons long after the process is over.



    For separations much greater than $lambda$, the classical picture should be applicable, and we can think of part of the energy as being released as classical electromagnetic radiation, which occurs generally when charges accelerate. (At the quantum level, the number of photons released is infinite, indicating a so-called infrared divergence, but they are individually very low in energy, and their total energy is perfectly finite.) As you expected, this energy is lost before the black-boxed quantum process starts, so the answers in your school books are actually off by around $1/137$. But this is a small enough number we don't worry much about it.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      So, in some way, it would appear that we end up with some form of action at a distance. Would it be worthwhile to understand this in terms of some sort of photon exchange, or simply as some interaction between the probability fields (or not go down the route of using inaccurate intuitive understanding until I learn about QED?)
      $endgroup$
      – DoublyNegative
      2 days ago










    • $begingroup$
      @DoublyNegative Are you referring to the classical part of the process or the quantum part? The quantum process is definitely not a photon exchange, it's an annihilation along with the emission of two photons. Also, both the classical and quantum parts are 100% local, there is no action at a distance since everything is mediated by the field.
      $endgroup$
      – knzhou
      2 days ago










    • $begingroup$
      I'm referring to the quantum part of the process. What counts as a collision when we only have two interacting wavefunctions?
      $endgroup$
      – DoublyNegative
      2 days ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @DoublyNegative When the wavefunctions of the electron and positron overlap in space, they can decrease in magnitude, with the accompanying creation of a photon. Everything is perfectly local: if the wavefunctions don't overlap, they won't annihilate. Also, even if their wavefunctions collide head-on, they won't annihilate to photons all of the time -- there will also be some amplitude for them to pass right through each other.
      $endgroup$
      – knzhou
      2 days ago










    • $begingroup$
      Ah, ok, that makes sense, thanks!
      $endgroup$
      – DoublyNegative
      2 days ago














    38












    38








    38





    $begingroup$

    This is a great question! It can be answered on many different levels.



    You are absolutely right that if we stick to the level of classical high school physics, something doesn't make sense here. However, we can get an approximately correct picture by "pasting" together a classical and a quantum description. To do this, let's think of when the classical picture breaks down.



    In relativistic quantum field theory, particles can only be localized on the scale of their Compton wavelength
    $$lambda = frac{hbar}{mc}.$$
    This means that the classical picture of point particles must break down as we approach this separation distance. Now, the electric potential energy released at this point is
    $$E = frac{e^2}{r} = frac{e^2 m c}{hbar}$$
    in cgs units. Here one of the most important constants in physics has appeared, the fine structure constant which characterizes the strength of electromagnetism,
    $$alpha = frac{e^2}{hbar c} approx frac{1}{137}.$$
    The energy released up to this point is
    $$E approx alpha m c^2$$
    which is not infinite, but rather only a small fraction of the total energy.



    Past this radius we should use quantum mechanics, which renders the $1/r$ potential totally unapplicable -- not only do the electrons not have definite positions, but the electromagnetic field doesn't even have a definite value. Actually thinking about the full quantum state of the system at this point is so hairy that not even graduate-level textbooks do it; they usually black-box the process and only think about the final results, just like your high school course is doing. Using the full theory of quantum electrodynamics, one can show the most probable final outcome is to have two energetic photons come out. In high school you just assume this happens and use conservation laws to describe the photons long after the process is over.



    For separations much greater than $lambda$, the classical picture should be applicable, and we can think of part of the energy as being released as classical electromagnetic radiation, which occurs generally when charges accelerate. (At the quantum level, the number of photons released is infinite, indicating a so-called infrared divergence, but they are individually very low in energy, and their total energy is perfectly finite.) As you expected, this energy is lost before the black-boxed quantum process starts, so the answers in your school books are actually off by around $1/137$. But this is a small enough number we don't worry much about it.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    This is a great question! It can be answered on many different levels.



    You are absolutely right that if we stick to the level of classical high school physics, something doesn't make sense here. However, we can get an approximately correct picture by "pasting" together a classical and a quantum description. To do this, let's think of when the classical picture breaks down.



    In relativistic quantum field theory, particles can only be localized on the scale of their Compton wavelength
    $$lambda = frac{hbar}{mc}.$$
    This means that the classical picture of point particles must break down as we approach this separation distance. Now, the electric potential energy released at this point is
    $$E = frac{e^2}{r} = frac{e^2 m c}{hbar}$$
    in cgs units. Here one of the most important constants in physics has appeared, the fine structure constant which characterizes the strength of electromagnetism,
    $$alpha = frac{e^2}{hbar c} approx frac{1}{137}.$$
    The energy released up to this point is
    $$E approx alpha m c^2$$
    which is not infinite, but rather only a small fraction of the total energy.



    Past this radius we should use quantum mechanics, which renders the $1/r$ potential totally unapplicable -- not only do the electrons not have definite positions, but the electromagnetic field doesn't even have a definite value. Actually thinking about the full quantum state of the system at this point is so hairy that not even graduate-level textbooks do it; they usually black-box the process and only think about the final results, just like your high school course is doing. Using the full theory of quantum electrodynamics, one can show the most probable final outcome is to have two energetic photons come out. In high school you just assume this happens and use conservation laws to describe the photons long after the process is over.



    For separations much greater than $lambda$, the classical picture should be applicable, and we can think of part of the energy as being released as classical electromagnetic radiation, which occurs generally when charges accelerate. (At the quantum level, the number of photons released is infinite, indicating a so-called infrared divergence, but they are individually very low in energy, and their total energy is perfectly finite.) As you expected, this energy is lost before the black-boxed quantum process starts, so the answers in your school books are actually off by around $1/137$. But this is a small enough number we don't worry much about it.







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered 2 days ago









    knzhouknzhou

    46.8k11126224




    46.8k11126224












    • $begingroup$
      So, in some way, it would appear that we end up with some form of action at a distance. Would it be worthwhile to understand this in terms of some sort of photon exchange, or simply as some interaction between the probability fields (or not go down the route of using inaccurate intuitive understanding until I learn about QED?)
      $endgroup$
      – DoublyNegative
      2 days ago










    • $begingroup$
      @DoublyNegative Are you referring to the classical part of the process or the quantum part? The quantum process is definitely not a photon exchange, it's an annihilation along with the emission of two photons. Also, both the classical and quantum parts are 100% local, there is no action at a distance since everything is mediated by the field.
      $endgroup$
      – knzhou
      2 days ago










    • $begingroup$
      I'm referring to the quantum part of the process. What counts as a collision when we only have two interacting wavefunctions?
      $endgroup$
      – DoublyNegative
      2 days ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @DoublyNegative When the wavefunctions of the electron and positron overlap in space, they can decrease in magnitude, with the accompanying creation of a photon. Everything is perfectly local: if the wavefunctions don't overlap, they won't annihilate. Also, even if their wavefunctions collide head-on, they won't annihilate to photons all of the time -- there will also be some amplitude for them to pass right through each other.
      $endgroup$
      – knzhou
      2 days ago










    • $begingroup$
      Ah, ok, that makes sense, thanks!
      $endgroup$
      – DoublyNegative
      2 days ago


















    • $begingroup$
      So, in some way, it would appear that we end up with some form of action at a distance. Would it be worthwhile to understand this in terms of some sort of photon exchange, or simply as some interaction between the probability fields (or not go down the route of using inaccurate intuitive understanding until I learn about QED?)
      $endgroup$
      – DoublyNegative
      2 days ago










    • $begingroup$
      @DoublyNegative Are you referring to the classical part of the process or the quantum part? The quantum process is definitely not a photon exchange, it's an annihilation along with the emission of two photons. Also, both the classical and quantum parts are 100% local, there is no action at a distance since everything is mediated by the field.
      $endgroup$
      – knzhou
      2 days ago










    • $begingroup$
      I'm referring to the quantum part of the process. What counts as a collision when we only have two interacting wavefunctions?
      $endgroup$
      – DoublyNegative
      2 days ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @DoublyNegative When the wavefunctions of the electron and positron overlap in space, they can decrease in magnitude, with the accompanying creation of a photon. Everything is perfectly local: if the wavefunctions don't overlap, they won't annihilate. Also, even if their wavefunctions collide head-on, they won't annihilate to photons all of the time -- there will also be some amplitude for them to pass right through each other.
      $endgroup$
      – knzhou
      2 days ago










    • $begingroup$
      Ah, ok, that makes sense, thanks!
      $endgroup$
      – DoublyNegative
      2 days ago
















    $begingroup$
    So, in some way, it would appear that we end up with some form of action at a distance. Would it be worthwhile to understand this in terms of some sort of photon exchange, or simply as some interaction between the probability fields (or not go down the route of using inaccurate intuitive understanding until I learn about QED?)
    $endgroup$
    – DoublyNegative
    2 days ago




    $begingroup$
    So, in some way, it would appear that we end up with some form of action at a distance. Would it be worthwhile to understand this in terms of some sort of photon exchange, or simply as some interaction between the probability fields (or not go down the route of using inaccurate intuitive understanding until I learn about QED?)
    $endgroup$
    – DoublyNegative
    2 days ago












    $begingroup$
    @DoublyNegative Are you referring to the classical part of the process or the quantum part? The quantum process is definitely not a photon exchange, it's an annihilation along with the emission of two photons. Also, both the classical and quantum parts are 100% local, there is no action at a distance since everything is mediated by the field.
    $endgroup$
    – knzhou
    2 days ago




    $begingroup$
    @DoublyNegative Are you referring to the classical part of the process or the quantum part? The quantum process is definitely not a photon exchange, it's an annihilation along with the emission of two photons. Also, both the classical and quantum parts are 100% local, there is no action at a distance since everything is mediated by the field.
    $endgroup$
    – knzhou
    2 days ago












    $begingroup$
    I'm referring to the quantum part of the process. What counts as a collision when we only have two interacting wavefunctions?
    $endgroup$
    – DoublyNegative
    2 days ago




    $begingroup$
    I'm referring to the quantum part of the process. What counts as a collision when we only have two interacting wavefunctions?
    $endgroup$
    – DoublyNegative
    2 days ago




    2




    2




    $begingroup$
    @DoublyNegative When the wavefunctions of the electron and positron overlap in space, they can decrease in magnitude, with the accompanying creation of a photon. Everything is perfectly local: if the wavefunctions don't overlap, they won't annihilate. Also, even if their wavefunctions collide head-on, they won't annihilate to photons all of the time -- there will also be some amplitude for them to pass right through each other.
    $endgroup$
    – knzhou
    2 days ago




    $begingroup$
    @DoublyNegative When the wavefunctions of the electron and positron overlap in space, they can decrease in magnitude, with the accompanying creation of a photon. Everything is perfectly local: if the wavefunctions don't overlap, they won't annihilate. Also, even if their wavefunctions collide head-on, they won't annihilate to photons all of the time -- there will also be some amplitude for them to pass right through each other.
    $endgroup$
    – knzhou
    2 days ago












    $begingroup$
    Ah, ok, that makes sense, thanks!
    $endgroup$
    – DoublyNegative
    2 days ago




    $begingroup$
    Ah, ok, that makes sense, thanks!
    $endgroup$
    – DoublyNegative
    2 days ago











    6












    $begingroup$

    Positronium is what you're describing in your first idea.



    Until/unless a believable model of the electron is developed, pretty much the best we can do is say that the rest mass of the electron-positron system is the only energy available to be converted to radiation in an annihilation event.



    This experiment will reveal a lot more about what happens in very close encounters between electrons and positrons.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$









    • 1




      $begingroup$
      This would imply that the idea of using the kinetic energy of the particles is fundamentally flawed, then?
      $endgroup$
      – DoublyNegative
      2 days ago






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      Not exactly. The idea of rest mass is kind of messy. For example, the rest mass of a system of particles [think of them as being in a box] is the total energy of the particles: their rest masses, their kinetic energies, etc. If the box itself is massless but it can contain the particles, and if the mass of the box-plus-contents is measured, that might be called the mass of the system. The mass measured when the box is stationary would be its rest mass.
      $endgroup$
      – S. McGrew
      2 days ago
















    6












    $begingroup$

    Positronium is what you're describing in your first idea.



    Until/unless a believable model of the electron is developed, pretty much the best we can do is say that the rest mass of the electron-positron system is the only energy available to be converted to radiation in an annihilation event.



    This experiment will reveal a lot more about what happens in very close encounters between electrons and positrons.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$









    • 1




      $begingroup$
      This would imply that the idea of using the kinetic energy of the particles is fundamentally flawed, then?
      $endgroup$
      – DoublyNegative
      2 days ago






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      Not exactly. The idea of rest mass is kind of messy. For example, the rest mass of a system of particles [think of them as being in a box] is the total energy of the particles: their rest masses, their kinetic energies, etc. If the box itself is massless but it can contain the particles, and if the mass of the box-plus-contents is measured, that might be called the mass of the system. The mass measured when the box is stationary would be its rest mass.
      $endgroup$
      – S. McGrew
      2 days ago














    6












    6








    6





    $begingroup$

    Positronium is what you're describing in your first idea.



    Until/unless a believable model of the electron is developed, pretty much the best we can do is say that the rest mass of the electron-positron system is the only energy available to be converted to radiation in an annihilation event.



    This experiment will reveal a lot more about what happens in very close encounters between electrons and positrons.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    Positronium is what you're describing in your first idea.



    Until/unless a believable model of the electron is developed, pretty much the best we can do is say that the rest mass of the electron-positron system is the only energy available to be converted to radiation in an annihilation event.



    This experiment will reveal a lot more about what happens in very close encounters between electrons and positrons.







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered 2 days ago









    S. McGrewS. McGrew

    9,12521236




    9,12521236








    • 1




      $begingroup$
      This would imply that the idea of using the kinetic energy of the particles is fundamentally flawed, then?
      $endgroup$
      – DoublyNegative
      2 days ago






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      Not exactly. The idea of rest mass is kind of messy. For example, the rest mass of a system of particles [think of them as being in a box] is the total energy of the particles: their rest masses, their kinetic energies, etc. If the box itself is massless but it can contain the particles, and if the mass of the box-plus-contents is measured, that might be called the mass of the system. The mass measured when the box is stationary would be its rest mass.
      $endgroup$
      – S. McGrew
      2 days ago














    • 1




      $begingroup$
      This would imply that the idea of using the kinetic energy of the particles is fundamentally flawed, then?
      $endgroup$
      – DoublyNegative
      2 days ago






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      Not exactly. The idea of rest mass is kind of messy. For example, the rest mass of a system of particles [think of them as being in a box] is the total energy of the particles: their rest masses, their kinetic energies, etc. If the box itself is massless but it can contain the particles, and if the mass of the box-plus-contents is measured, that might be called the mass of the system. The mass measured when the box is stationary would be its rest mass.
      $endgroup$
      – S. McGrew
      2 days ago








    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    This would imply that the idea of using the kinetic energy of the particles is fundamentally flawed, then?
    $endgroup$
    – DoublyNegative
    2 days ago




    $begingroup$
    This would imply that the idea of using the kinetic energy of the particles is fundamentally flawed, then?
    $endgroup$
    – DoublyNegative
    2 days ago




    3




    3




    $begingroup$
    Not exactly. The idea of rest mass is kind of messy. For example, the rest mass of a system of particles [think of them as being in a box] is the total energy of the particles: their rest masses, their kinetic energies, etc. If the box itself is massless but it can contain the particles, and if the mass of the box-plus-contents is measured, that might be called the mass of the system. The mass measured when the box is stationary would be its rest mass.
    $endgroup$
    – S. McGrew
    2 days ago




    $begingroup$
    Not exactly. The idea of rest mass is kind of messy. For example, the rest mass of a system of particles [think of them as being in a box] is the total energy of the particles: their rest masses, their kinetic energies, etc. If the box itself is massless but it can contain the particles, and if the mass of the box-plus-contents is measured, that might be called the mass of the system. The mass measured when the box is stationary would be its rest mass.
    $endgroup$
    – S. McGrew
    2 days ago











    -1












    $begingroup$

    Your whole question is based on the idea that the potential energy stored by separation would convert to infinite kinetic energy. But this premise is wrong.



    This requires that potential energy to be infinite. However, the potential energy is finite even when two charged particles are at infinite separation.



    Potential is definitely not in the form of $frac{1}{r}$. If it were, that would mean the potential would increase as the particles are closing in. That is not the case.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$


















      -1












      $begingroup$

      Your whole question is based on the idea that the potential energy stored by separation would convert to infinite kinetic energy. But this premise is wrong.



      This requires that potential energy to be infinite. However, the potential energy is finite even when two charged particles are at infinite separation.



      Potential is definitely not in the form of $frac{1}{r}$. If it were, that would mean the potential would increase as the particles are closing in. That is not the case.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$
















        -1












        -1








        -1





        $begingroup$

        Your whole question is based on the idea that the potential energy stored by separation would convert to infinite kinetic energy. But this premise is wrong.



        This requires that potential energy to be infinite. However, the potential energy is finite even when two charged particles are at infinite separation.



        Potential is definitely not in the form of $frac{1}{r}$. If it were, that would mean the potential would increase as the particles are closing in. That is not the case.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        Your whole question is based on the idea that the potential energy stored by separation would convert to infinite kinetic energy. But this premise is wrong.



        This requires that potential energy to be infinite. However, the potential energy is finite even when two charged particles are at infinite separation.



        Potential is definitely not in the form of $frac{1}{r}$. If it were, that would mean the potential would increase as the particles are closing in. That is not the case.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered yesterday









        sampathsrissampathsris

        1439




        1439






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f470922%2fwhy-dont-electron-positron-collisions-release-infinite-energy%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Færeyskur hestur Heimild | Tengill | Tilvísanir | LeiðsagnarvalRossið - síða um færeyska hrossið á færeyskuGott ár hjá færeyska hestinum

            He _____ here since 1970 . Answer needed [closed]What does “since he was so high” mean?Meaning of “catch birds for”?How do I ensure “since” takes the meaning I want?“Who cares here” meaningWhat does “right round toward” mean?the time tense (had now been detected)What does the phrase “ring around the roses” mean here?Correct usage of “visited upon”Meaning of “foiled rail sabotage bid”It was the third time I had gone to Rome or It is the third time I had been to Rome

            Slayer Innehåll Historia | Stil, komposition och lyrik | Bandets betydelse och framgångar | Sidoprojekt och samarbeten | Kontroverser | Medlemmar | Utmärkelser och nomineringar | Turnéer och festivaler | Diskografi | Referenser | Externa länkar | Navigeringsmenywww.slayer.net”Metal Massacre vol. 1””Metal Massacre vol. 3””Metal Massacre Volume III””Show No Mercy””Haunting the Chapel””Live Undead””Hell Awaits””Reign in Blood””Reign in Blood””Gold & Platinum – Reign in Blood””Golden Gods Awards Winners”originalet”Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Looks Back On 37-Year Career In New Video Series: Part Two””South of Heaven””Gold & Platinum – South of Heaven””Seasons in the Abyss””Gold & Platinum - Seasons in the Abyss””Divine Intervention””Divine Intervention - Release group by Slayer””Gold & Platinum - Divine Intervention””Live Intrusion””Undisputed Attitude””Abolish Government/Superficial Love””Release “Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer” by Various Artists””Diabolus in Musica””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””God Hates Us All””Systematic - Relationships””War at the Warfield””Gold & Platinum - War at the Warfield””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””Gold & Platinum - Still Reigning””Metallica, Slayer, Iron Mauden Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Eternal Pyre””Eternal Pyre - Slayer release group””Eternal Pyre””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Bullet-For My Valentine booed at Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Unholy Aliance””The End Of Slayer?””Slayer: We Could Thrash Out Two More Albums If We're Fast Enough...””'The Unholy Alliance: Chapter III' UK Dates Added”originalet”Megadeth And Slayer To Co-Headline 'Canadian Carnage' Trek”originalet”World Painted Blood””Release “World Painted Blood” by Slayer””Metallica Heading To Cinemas””Slayer, Megadeth To Join Forces For 'European Carnage' Tour - Dec. 18, 2010”originalet”Slayer's Hanneman Contracts Acute Infection; Band To Bring In Guest Guitarist””Cannibal Corpse's Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer's Guest Guitarist”originalet”Slayer’s Jeff Hanneman Dead at 49””Dave Lombardo Says He Made Only $67,000 In 2011 While Touring With Slayer””Slayer: We Do Not Agree With Dave Lombardo's Substance Or Timeline Of Events””Slayer Welcomes Drummer Paul Bostaph Back To The Fold””Slayer Hope to Unveil Never-Before-Heard Jeff Hanneman Material on Next Album””Slayer Debut New Song 'Implode' During Surprise Golden Gods Appearance””Release group Repentless by Slayer””Repentless - Slayer - Credits””Slayer””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer - to release comic book "Repentless #1"””Slayer To Release 'Repentless' 6.66" Vinyl Box Set””BREAKING NEWS: Slayer Announce Farewell Tour””Slayer Recruit Lamb of God, Anthrax, Behemoth + Testament for Final Tour””Slayer lägger ner efter 37 år””Slayer Announces Second North American Leg Of 'Final' Tour””Final World Tour””Slayer Announces Final European Tour With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Tour Europe With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Play 'Last French Show Ever' At Next Year's Hellfst””Slayer's Final World Tour Will Extend Into 2019””Death Angel's Rob Cavestany On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour: 'Some Of Us Could See This Coming'””Testament Has No Plans To Retire Anytime Soon, Says Chuck Billy””Anthrax's Scott Ian On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour Plans: 'I Was Surprised And I Wasn't Surprised'””Slayer””Slayer's Morbid Schlock””Review/Rock; For Slayer, the Mania Is the Message””Slayer - Biography””Slayer - Reign In Blood”originalet”Dave Lombardo””An exclusive oral history of Slayer”originalet”Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman”originalet”Thinking Out Loud: Slayer's Kerry King on hair metal, Satan and being polite””Slayer Lyrics””Slayer - Biography””Most influential artists for extreme metal music””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dies aged 49””Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer””Gateway to Hell: A Tribute to Slayer””Covered In Blood””Slayer: The Origins of Thrash in San Francisco, CA.””Why They Rule - #6 Slayer”originalet”Guitar World's 100 Greatest Heavy Metal Guitarists Of All Time”originalet”The fans have spoken: Slayer comes out on top in readers' polls”originalet”Tribute to Jeff Hanneman (1964-2013)””Lamb Of God Frontman: We Sound Like A Slayer Rip-Off””BEHEMOTH Frontman Pays Tribute To SLAYER's JEFF HANNEMAN””Slayer, Hatebreed Doing Double Duty On This Year's Ozzfest””System of a Down””Lacuna Coil’s Andrea Ferro Talks Influences, Skateboarding, Band Origins + More””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Into The Lungs of Hell””Slayer rules - en utställning om fans””Slayer and Their Fans Slashed Through a No-Holds-Barred Night at Gas Monkey””Home””Slayer””Gold & Platinum - The Big 4 Live from Sofia, Bulgaria””Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Kerry King””2008-02-23: Wiltern, Los Angeles, CA, USA””Slayer's Kerry King To Perform With Megadeth Tonight! - Oct. 21, 2010”originalet”Dave Lombardo - Biography”Slayer Case DismissedArkiveradUltimate Classic Rock: Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dead at 49.”Slayer: "We could never do any thing like Some Kind Of Monster..."””Cannibal Corpse'S Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer'S Guest Guitarist | The Official Slayer Site”originalet”Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Kerrang! Awards 2006 Blog: Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Kerrang! Awards 2013: Kerrang! Legend”originalet”Metallica, Slayer, Iron Maien Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Bullet For My Valentine Booed At Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer's Concert History””Slayer - Relationships””Slayer - Releases”Slayers officiella webbplatsSlayer på MusicBrainzOfficiell webbplatsSlayerSlayerr1373445760000 0001 1540 47353068615-5086262726cb13906545x(data)6033143kn20030215029