Doesn't the speed of light limit imply the same electron can be annihilated twice?Can I steal your...

Graphs for which a calculus student can reasonably compute the arclength

Some pads on a PCB are marked in clusters and I can't understand which one is which

Is this bar slide trick shown on Cheers real or a visual effect?

If a person claims to know anything could it be disproven by saying 'prove that we are not in a simulation'?

Suspension compromise for urban use

What should I do if actually I found a serious flaw in someone's PhD thesis and an article derived from that PhD thesis?

How to prevent criminal gangs from making/buying guns?

What should we do with manuals from the 80s?

Locked room poison mystery!

Why does Japan use the same type of AC power outlet as the US?

How would armour (and combat) change if the fighter didn't need to actually wear it?

The oceans and the moon

Does an Irish VISA WARNING count as "refused entry at the border of any country other than the UK?"

Solving pricing problem heuristically in column generation algorithm for VRP

How do I ask for 2-3 days per week remote work in a job interview?

Are there liquid fueled rocket boosters having coaxial fuel/oxidizer tanks?

Doesn't the speed of light limit imply the same electron can be annihilated twice?

Unconventional examples of mathematical modelling

Word for an event that will likely never happen again

When was "Fredo" an insult to Italian-Americans?

Can the average speed of a moving body be 0?

Why aren't rainbows blurred-out into nothing after they are produced?

List, map function based on a condition

What's the relationship betweeen MS-DOS and XENIX?



Doesn't the speed of light limit imply the same electron can be annihilated twice?


Can I steal your electron?How can one always be standing still when compared to the speed of light?Relativistic Mass and Potential EnergyWhere are the photons coming from?Observer travelling near speed of light observing a laser pointer seeing photons at speed of light?Why doesn't electron-photons interactions and the principle of quantum superposition cause most things to be transparent?Virtual photon exchange instantaneously






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}







31












$begingroup$


If I understand correctly, there is a small probability the same electron to be found anywhere in the universe.



Suppose that an anti-electron collides with an electron, annihilating it and producing two photons. Assuming the speed of light limit is correct, right after the collision, the probability that the electron is found at a distance of $d$ from the collision must still be non-zero for a time of at least $d/c$.



But wouldn't this mean that it's still possible for the annihilated electron to still be present somewhere else and collide with another anti-electron, meaning that the same electron was annihilated twice?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$










  • 5




    $begingroup$
    What would that mean for energy conservation? Also, why stop at twice?
    $endgroup$
    – G. Smith
    yesterday






  • 12




    $begingroup$
    Stefan, non-relativistic quantum mechanics (QM) is (unsurprisingly) incompatible with Special Relativity (SR). Reconciling QM with SR eventually led to quantum field theory (QFT). What is the context of your question, QM or QFT?
    $endgroup$
    – Alfred Centauri
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    @AlfredCentauri if I understand your comment correctly, I could say that given A, B and C QM predicts X but SR proves that X is impossible, and QFT predicts Y which neither QM or SR can prove is impossible, right? If so, can I say that in the context of A, B and C QM is wrong and QFT can't be proven wrong so far, so QM is an invalid context for a question about A, B and C and a context that we so far consider valid is QFT?
    $endgroup$
    – Blueriver
    yesterday








  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Nice, a double-free vulnerability in the universe
    $endgroup$
    – Addison Crump
    18 hours ago


















31












$begingroup$


If I understand correctly, there is a small probability the same electron to be found anywhere in the universe.



Suppose that an anti-electron collides with an electron, annihilating it and producing two photons. Assuming the speed of light limit is correct, right after the collision, the probability that the electron is found at a distance of $d$ from the collision must still be non-zero for a time of at least $d/c$.



But wouldn't this mean that it's still possible for the annihilated electron to still be present somewhere else and collide with another anti-electron, meaning that the same electron was annihilated twice?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$










  • 5




    $begingroup$
    What would that mean for energy conservation? Also, why stop at twice?
    $endgroup$
    – G. Smith
    yesterday






  • 12




    $begingroup$
    Stefan, non-relativistic quantum mechanics (QM) is (unsurprisingly) incompatible with Special Relativity (SR). Reconciling QM with SR eventually led to quantum field theory (QFT). What is the context of your question, QM or QFT?
    $endgroup$
    – Alfred Centauri
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    @AlfredCentauri if I understand your comment correctly, I could say that given A, B and C QM predicts X but SR proves that X is impossible, and QFT predicts Y which neither QM or SR can prove is impossible, right? If so, can I say that in the context of A, B and C QM is wrong and QFT can't be proven wrong so far, so QM is an invalid context for a question about A, B and C and a context that we so far consider valid is QFT?
    $endgroup$
    – Blueriver
    yesterday








  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Nice, a double-free vulnerability in the universe
    $endgroup$
    – Addison Crump
    18 hours ago














31












31








31


8



$begingroup$


If I understand correctly, there is a small probability the same electron to be found anywhere in the universe.



Suppose that an anti-electron collides with an electron, annihilating it and producing two photons. Assuming the speed of light limit is correct, right after the collision, the probability that the electron is found at a distance of $d$ from the collision must still be non-zero for a time of at least $d/c$.



But wouldn't this mean that it's still possible for the annihilated electron to still be present somewhere else and collide with another anti-electron, meaning that the same electron was annihilated twice?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




If I understand correctly, there is a small probability the same electron to be found anywhere in the universe.



Suppose that an anti-electron collides with an electron, annihilating it and producing two photons. Assuming the speed of light limit is correct, right after the collision, the probability that the electron is found at a distance of $d$ from the collision must still be non-zero for a time of at least $d/c$.



But wouldn't this mean that it's still possible for the annihilated electron to still be present somewhere else and collide with another anti-electron, meaning that the same electron was annihilated twice?







quantum-mechanics special-relativity speed-of-light






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 11 hours ago









Peter Mortensen

2,0171 gold badge14 silver badges24 bronze badges




2,0171 gold badge14 silver badges24 bronze badges










asked yesterday









StefanStefan

2782 silver badges5 bronze badges




2782 silver badges5 bronze badges











  • 5




    $begingroup$
    What would that mean for energy conservation? Also, why stop at twice?
    $endgroup$
    – G. Smith
    yesterday






  • 12




    $begingroup$
    Stefan, non-relativistic quantum mechanics (QM) is (unsurprisingly) incompatible with Special Relativity (SR). Reconciling QM with SR eventually led to quantum field theory (QFT). What is the context of your question, QM or QFT?
    $endgroup$
    – Alfred Centauri
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    @AlfredCentauri if I understand your comment correctly, I could say that given A, B and C QM predicts X but SR proves that X is impossible, and QFT predicts Y which neither QM or SR can prove is impossible, right? If so, can I say that in the context of A, B and C QM is wrong and QFT can't be proven wrong so far, so QM is an invalid context for a question about A, B and C and a context that we so far consider valid is QFT?
    $endgroup$
    – Blueriver
    yesterday








  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Nice, a double-free vulnerability in the universe
    $endgroup$
    – Addison Crump
    18 hours ago














  • 5




    $begingroup$
    What would that mean for energy conservation? Also, why stop at twice?
    $endgroup$
    – G. Smith
    yesterday






  • 12




    $begingroup$
    Stefan, non-relativistic quantum mechanics (QM) is (unsurprisingly) incompatible with Special Relativity (SR). Reconciling QM with SR eventually led to quantum field theory (QFT). What is the context of your question, QM or QFT?
    $endgroup$
    – Alfred Centauri
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    @AlfredCentauri if I understand your comment correctly, I could say that given A, B and C QM predicts X but SR proves that X is impossible, and QFT predicts Y which neither QM or SR can prove is impossible, right? If so, can I say that in the context of A, B and C QM is wrong and QFT can't be proven wrong so far, so QM is an invalid context for a question about A, B and C and a context that we so far consider valid is QFT?
    $endgroup$
    – Blueriver
    yesterday








  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Nice, a double-free vulnerability in the universe
    $endgroup$
    – Addison Crump
    18 hours ago








5




5




$begingroup$
What would that mean for energy conservation? Also, why stop at twice?
$endgroup$
– G. Smith
yesterday




$begingroup$
What would that mean for energy conservation? Also, why stop at twice?
$endgroup$
– G. Smith
yesterday




12




12




$begingroup$
Stefan, non-relativistic quantum mechanics (QM) is (unsurprisingly) incompatible with Special Relativity (SR). Reconciling QM with SR eventually led to quantum field theory (QFT). What is the context of your question, QM or QFT?
$endgroup$
– Alfred Centauri
yesterday




$begingroup$
Stefan, non-relativistic quantum mechanics (QM) is (unsurprisingly) incompatible with Special Relativity (SR). Reconciling QM with SR eventually led to quantum field theory (QFT). What is the context of your question, QM or QFT?
$endgroup$
– Alfred Centauri
yesterday












$begingroup$
@AlfredCentauri if I understand your comment correctly, I could say that given A, B and C QM predicts X but SR proves that X is impossible, and QFT predicts Y which neither QM or SR can prove is impossible, right? If so, can I say that in the context of A, B and C QM is wrong and QFT can't be proven wrong so far, so QM is an invalid context for a question about A, B and C and a context that we so far consider valid is QFT?
$endgroup$
– Blueriver
yesterday






$begingroup$
@AlfredCentauri if I understand your comment correctly, I could say that given A, B and C QM predicts X but SR proves that X is impossible, and QFT predicts Y which neither QM or SR can prove is impossible, right? If so, can I say that in the context of A, B and C QM is wrong and QFT can't be proven wrong so far, so QM is an invalid context for a question about A, B and C and a context that we so far consider valid is QFT?
$endgroup$
– Blueriver
yesterday






4




4




$begingroup$
Nice, a double-free vulnerability in the universe
$endgroup$
– Addison Crump
18 hours ago




$begingroup$
Nice, a double-free vulnerability in the universe
$endgroup$
– Addison Crump
18 hours ago










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















90












$begingroup$

No, you have to apply the superposition principle consistently. Schematically, the initial state is
$$|text{electron here} rangle + |text{electron there} rangle$$
where I've dropped normalization constants, and a $+$ denotes quantum superposition. Now suppose a lot of positrons come through, so electron states get annihilated,
$$|text{electron here} rangle mapsto |text{some gamma rays here} rangle,$$
$$|text{electron there} rangle mapsto |text{some gamma rays there} rangle.$$
What you're essentially claiming is that the final state is
$$|text{some gamma rays here } textbf{and} text{ some gamma rays there}rangle$$
but if you just apply linearity, the final state is actually
$$|text{some gamma rays here} rangle + |text{some gamma rays there} rangle.$$
This reasoning implies you can't get double the gamma rays, no matter how severe the speed of light delay or any other delays are. Instead the superposition of electron positions can at best turn into a superposition of gamma ray positions. The mistake you made is essentially forgetting that the electromagnetic field behaves quantum mechanically too. (It's a forgivable mistake, which was made by many in the early days of quantum mechanics, leading to precisely the same kinds of paradoxes.)






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$











  • 37




    $begingroup$
    +1, this is one of the easiest-to-understand quantum mechanics answer I've seen on this site.
    $endgroup$
    – jpa
    yesterday






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Please tell me if I'm wrong: Once the positron hit the electron at a location L, the probability the electron is anywhere else not L drops to zero. - It's basic probability. The probability an observed, previous event happened the way it happened is 1. - Also, Morpheus lied to Neo in the Mero's elevator.
    $endgroup$
    – Mindwin
    yesterday








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @Mindwin That's not an ideal way to put it because it treats the positron as being some magical object not subject to quantum mechanics (just as I complained the OP was treating gamma rays). The rules for everything are the same. In the absence of measurements, a superposition just turns into another superposition.
    $endgroup$
    – knzhou
    20 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @knzhou I thought that photons did not have a position operator. So is |some gamma rays here> a valid state in QFT?
    $endgroup$
    – Dale
    10 hours ago



















16












$begingroup$

The nice answer by knzhou considers a situation in which the electron is annihilated with probability $1$. The following answer considers a situation in which the final state is a superposition of already-annihilated and not-yet-annihilated.



Choose two points in space, $x_1$ and $x_2$, that are arbitrarily far away from each other. Consider an electron in the state
$$
|psirangle = |1rangle + |2rangle,
$$

where




  • $|1rangle$ is a state in which the electron is tightly localized near $x_1$, and an antielectron is approaching $x_1$.


  • $|2rangle$ is a state in which the electron is tightly localized near $x_2$, and an antielectron is approaching $x_1$. (This is not a typo! The antielectron is approaching $x_1$ in both $|1rangle$ and $|2rangle$.)



When the antielectron reaches the point $x_1$,




  • $|1rangle$ becomes $|1'rangle$, a state with two photons propagating outward from $x_1$.


  • $|2rangle$ becomes $|2'rangle$, a state with one electron at $x_2$ and one antielectron receding from $x_1$.



Time-evolution is linear, so the final state overall is
$$
|psi'rangle = |1'rangle + |2'rangle.
$$

This is a superposition of "electron already annihilated" and "electron still present at $x_2$," so there is still a non-zero probability
$$
frac{langle 2'|2'rangle}{langlepsi'|psi'rangle}
$$

that an antielectron can annihilate the electron at $x_2$.



Be careful, though: this does not mean that the same electron can be annihilated twice! The electron is only annihilated once, but it can be in a state that is a superposition of already-annihilated and not-yet-annihilated. If we measure some observable to tell us how many times the electron was annihilated (say, by counting pairs of outgoing photons), the answer will be either $0$ or $1$, with probabilities calculated as shown above.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$























    5












    $begingroup$

    What you need to realize, is that quantum mechanics throws the concept of local realism out of the window. When you measure one entangled particle, you instantly change the state of the other.



    With your electron, annihilation with a localized positron is a measurement of locality. And the result of that measurement instantly changes the entire wave function of the electron (I'm using the Copenhagen Interpretation here). The other possible annihilation is another measurement of locality on the same wave function, and if either annihilation succeeds, the other won't.



    Note that this does not mean that you can communicate any information faster than light: You cannot tell from the results of the measurements which measurement happened first on an entangled state, you can only tell that the two measurements influence each other.



    If you are uneasy about this "spooky action at a distance", congrats, you are in good company. Einstein had similar concerns. He and others came up with the EPR paradox to show that quantum mechanics could not be complete because it predicted such "spooky action at a distance", which simply could not be. Unfortunately for these three brilliant physicists, later experiments have shown that the predictions of quantum mechanics are indeed correct, and that no theory with local realism can adequately describe reality.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$















    • $begingroup$
      I appreciate your plain-language response. It's the only one I'm competent to read. No doubt contained within the other answers and firmly implied in your is this: the death of an electron here does not "prevent" its annihilation elsewhere. That would be a causal relationship. Like statistics, we cannot state what can happen in any particular case -- all we can say is that it cannot die in two places.
      $endgroup$
      – Haakon Dahl
      13 hours ago
















    Your Answer








    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%2f496678%2fdoesnt-the-speed-of-light-limit-imply-the-same-electron-can-be-annihilated-twic%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









    90












    $begingroup$

    No, you have to apply the superposition principle consistently. Schematically, the initial state is
    $$|text{electron here} rangle + |text{electron there} rangle$$
    where I've dropped normalization constants, and a $+$ denotes quantum superposition. Now suppose a lot of positrons come through, so electron states get annihilated,
    $$|text{electron here} rangle mapsto |text{some gamma rays here} rangle,$$
    $$|text{electron there} rangle mapsto |text{some gamma rays there} rangle.$$
    What you're essentially claiming is that the final state is
    $$|text{some gamma rays here } textbf{and} text{ some gamma rays there}rangle$$
    but if you just apply linearity, the final state is actually
    $$|text{some gamma rays here} rangle + |text{some gamma rays there} rangle.$$
    This reasoning implies you can't get double the gamma rays, no matter how severe the speed of light delay or any other delays are. Instead the superposition of electron positions can at best turn into a superposition of gamma ray positions. The mistake you made is essentially forgetting that the electromagnetic field behaves quantum mechanically too. (It's a forgivable mistake, which was made by many in the early days of quantum mechanics, leading to precisely the same kinds of paradoxes.)






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$











    • 37




      $begingroup$
      +1, this is one of the easiest-to-understand quantum mechanics answer I've seen on this site.
      $endgroup$
      – jpa
      yesterday






    • 4




      $begingroup$
      Please tell me if I'm wrong: Once the positron hit the electron at a location L, the probability the electron is anywhere else not L drops to zero. - It's basic probability. The probability an observed, previous event happened the way it happened is 1. - Also, Morpheus lied to Neo in the Mero's elevator.
      $endgroup$
      – Mindwin
      yesterday








    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @Mindwin That's not an ideal way to put it because it treats the positron as being some magical object not subject to quantum mechanics (just as I complained the OP was treating gamma rays). The rules for everything are the same. In the absence of measurements, a superposition just turns into another superposition.
      $endgroup$
      – knzhou
      20 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @knzhou I thought that photons did not have a position operator. So is |some gamma rays here> a valid state in QFT?
      $endgroup$
      – Dale
      10 hours ago
















    90












    $begingroup$

    No, you have to apply the superposition principle consistently. Schematically, the initial state is
    $$|text{electron here} rangle + |text{electron there} rangle$$
    where I've dropped normalization constants, and a $+$ denotes quantum superposition. Now suppose a lot of positrons come through, so electron states get annihilated,
    $$|text{electron here} rangle mapsto |text{some gamma rays here} rangle,$$
    $$|text{electron there} rangle mapsto |text{some gamma rays there} rangle.$$
    What you're essentially claiming is that the final state is
    $$|text{some gamma rays here } textbf{and} text{ some gamma rays there}rangle$$
    but if you just apply linearity, the final state is actually
    $$|text{some gamma rays here} rangle + |text{some gamma rays there} rangle.$$
    This reasoning implies you can't get double the gamma rays, no matter how severe the speed of light delay or any other delays are. Instead the superposition of electron positions can at best turn into a superposition of gamma ray positions. The mistake you made is essentially forgetting that the electromagnetic field behaves quantum mechanically too. (It's a forgivable mistake, which was made by many in the early days of quantum mechanics, leading to precisely the same kinds of paradoxes.)






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$











    • 37




      $begingroup$
      +1, this is one of the easiest-to-understand quantum mechanics answer I've seen on this site.
      $endgroup$
      – jpa
      yesterday






    • 4




      $begingroup$
      Please tell me if I'm wrong: Once the positron hit the electron at a location L, the probability the electron is anywhere else not L drops to zero. - It's basic probability. The probability an observed, previous event happened the way it happened is 1. - Also, Morpheus lied to Neo in the Mero's elevator.
      $endgroup$
      – Mindwin
      yesterday








    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @Mindwin That's not an ideal way to put it because it treats the positron as being some magical object not subject to quantum mechanics (just as I complained the OP was treating gamma rays). The rules for everything are the same. In the absence of measurements, a superposition just turns into another superposition.
      $endgroup$
      – knzhou
      20 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @knzhou I thought that photons did not have a position operator. So is |some gamma rays here> a valid state in QFT?
      $endgroup$
      – Dale
      10 hours ago














    90












    90








    90





    $begingroup$

    No, you have to apply the superposition principle consistently. Schematically, the initial state is
    $$|text{electron here} rangle + |text{electron there} rangle$$
    where I've dropped normalization constants, and a $+$ denotes quantum superposition. Now suppose a lot of positrons come through, so electron states get annihilated,
    $$|text{electron here} rangle mapsto |text{some gamma rays here} rangle,$$
    $$|text{electron there} rangle mapsto |text{some gamma rays there} rangle.$$
    What you're essentially claiming is that the final state is
    $$|text{some gamma rays here } textbf{and} text{ some gamma rays there}rangle$$
    but if you just apply linearity, the final state is actually
    $$|text{some gamma rays here} rangle + |text{some gamma rays there} rangle.$$
    This reasoning implies you can't get double the gamma rays, no matter how severe the speed of light delay or any other delays are. Instead the superposition of electron positions can at best turn into a superposition of gamma ray positions. The mistake you made is essentially forgetting that the electromagnetic field behaves quantum mechanically too. (It's a forgivable mistake, which was made by many in the early days of quantum mechanics, leading to precisely the same kinds of paradoxes.)






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



    No, you have to apply the superposition principle consistently. Schematically, the initial state is
    $$|text{electron here} rangle + |text{electron there} rangle$$
    where I've dropped normalization constants, and a $+$ denotes quantum superposition. Now suppose a lot of positrons come through, so electron states get annihilated,
    $$|text{electron here} rangle mapsto |text{some gamma rays here} rangle,$$
    $$|text{electron there} rangle mapsto |text{some gamma rays there} rangle.$$
    What you're essentially claiming is that the final state is
    $$|text{some gamma rays here } textbf{and} text{ some gamma rays there}rangle$$
    but if you just apply linearity, the final state is actually
    $$|text{some gamma rays here} rangle + |text{some gamma rays there} rangle.$$
    This reasoning implies you can't get double the gamma rays, no matter how severe the speed of light delay or any other delays are. Instead the superposition of electron positions can at best turn into a superposition of gamma ray positions. The mistake you made is essentially forgetting that the electromagnetic field behaves quantum mechanically too. (It's a forgivable mistake, which was made by many in the early days of quantum mechanics, leading to precisely the same kinds of paradoxes.)







    share|cite|improve this answer














    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer








    edited yesterday

























    answered yesterday









    knzhouknzhou

    54.1k13 gold badges154 silver badges262 bronze badges




    54.1k13 gold badges154 silver badges262 bronze badges











    • 37




      $begingroup$
      +1, this is one of the easiest-to-understand quantum mechanics answer I've seen on this site.
      $endgroup$
      – jpa
      yesterday






    • 4




      $begingroup$
      Please tell me if I'm wrong: Once the positron hit the electron at a location L, the probability the electron is anywhere else not L drops to zero. - It's basic probability. The probability an observed, previous event happened the way it happened is 1. - Also, Morpheus lied to Neo in the Mero's elevator.
      $endgroup$
      – Mindwin
      yesterday








    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @Mindwin That's not an ideal way to put it because it treats the positron as being some magical object not subject to quantum mechanics (just as I complained the OP was treating gamma rays). The rules for everything are the same. In the absence of measurements, a superposition just turns into another superposition.
      $endgroup$
      – knzhou
      20 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @knzhou I thought that photons did not have a position operator. So is |some gamma rays here> a valid state in QFT?
      $endgroup$
      – Dale
      10 hours ago














    • 37




      $begingroup$
      +1, this is one of the easiest-to-understand quantum mechanics answer I've seen on this site.
      $endgroup$
      – jpa
      yesterday






    • 4




      $begingroup$
      Please tell me if I'm wrong: Once the positron hit the electron at a location L, the probability the electron is anywhere else not L drops to zero. - It's basic probability. The probability an observed, previous event happened the way it happened is 1. - Also, Morpheus lied to Neo in the Mero's elevator.
      $endgroup$
      – Mindwin
      yesterday








    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @Mindwin That's not an ideal way to put it because it treats the positron as being some magical object not subject to quantum mechanics (just as I complained the OP was treating gamma rays). The rules for everything are the same. In the absence of measurements, a superposition just turns into another superposition.
      $endgroup$
      – knzhou
      20 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @knzhou I thought that photons did not have a position operator. So is |some gamma rays here> a valid state in QFT?
      $endgroup$
      – Dale
      10 hours ago








    37




    37




    $begingroup$
    +1, this is one of the easiest-to-understand quantum mechanics answer I've seen on this site.
    $endgroup$
    – jpa
    yesterday




    $begingroup$
    +1, this is one of the easiest-to-understand quantum mechanics answer I've seen on this site.
    $endgroup$
    – jpa
    yesterday




    4




    4




    $begingroup$
    Please tell me if I'm wrong: Once the positron hit the electron at a location L, the probability the electron is anywhere else not L drops to zero. - It's basic probability. The probability an observed, previous event happened the way it happened is 1. - Also, Morpheus lied to Neo in the Mero's elevator.
    $endgroup$
    – Mindwin
    yesterday






    $begingroup$
    Please tell me if I'm wrong: Once the positron hit the electron at a location L, the probability the electron is anywhere else not L drops to zero. - It's basic probability. The probability an observed, previous event happened the way it happened is 1. - Also, Morpheus lied to Neo in the Mero's elevator.
    $endgroup$
    – Mindwin
    yesterday






    2




    2




    $begingroup$
    @Mindwin That's not an ideal way to put it because it treats the positron as being some magical object not subject to quantum mechanics (just as I complained the OP was treating gamma rays). The rules for everything are the same. In the absence of measurements, a superposition just turns into another superposition.
    $endgroup$
    – knzhou
    20 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    @Mindwin That's not an ideal way to put it because it treats the positron as being some magical object not subject to quantum mechanics (just as I complained the OP was treating gamma rays). The rules for everything are the same. In the absence of measurements, a superposition just turns into another superposition.
    $endgroup$
    – knzhou
    20 hours ago












    $begingroup$
    @knzhou I thought that photons did not have a position operator. So is |some gamma rays here> a valid state in QFT?
    $endgroup$
    – Dale
    10 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    @knzhou I thought that photons did not have a position operator. So is |some gamma rays here> a valid state in QFT?
    $endgroup$
    – Dale
    10 hours ago













    16












    $begingroup$

    The nice answer by knzhou considers a situation in which the electron is annihilated with probability $1$. The following answer considers a situation in which the final state is a superposition of already-annihilated and not-yet-annihilated.



    Choose two points in space, $x_1$ and $x_2$, that are arbitrarily far away from each other. Consider an electron in the state
    $$
    |psirangle = |1rangle + |2rangle,
    $$

    where




    • $|1rangle$ is a state in which the electron is tightly localized near $x_1$, and an antielectron is approaching $x_1$.


    • $|2rangle$ is a state in which the electron is tightly localized near $x_2$, and an antielectron is approaching $x_1$. (This is not a typo! The antielectron is approaching $x_1$ in both $|1rangle$ and $|2rangle$.)



    When the antielectron reaches the point $x_1$,




    • $|1rangle$ becomes $|1'rangle$, a state with two photons propagating outward from $x_1$.


    • $|2rangle$ becomes $|2'rangle$, a state with one electron at $x_2$ and one antielectron receding from $x_1$.



    Time-evolution is linear, so the final state overall is
    $$
    |psi'rangle = |1'rangle + |2'rangle.
    $$

    This is a superposition of "electron already annihilated" and "electron still present at $x_2$," so there is still a non-zero probability
    $$
    frac{langle 2'|2'rangle}{langlepsi'|psi'rangle}
    $$

    that an antielectron can annihilate the electron at $x_2$.



    Be careful, though: this does not mean that the same electron can be annihilated twice! The electron is only annihilated once, but it can be in a state that is a superposition of already-annihilated and not-yet-annihilated. If we measure some observable to tell us how many times the electron was annihilated (say, by counting pairs of outgoing photons), the answer will be either $0$ or $1$, with probabilities calculated as shown above.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$




















      16












      $begingroup$

      The nice answer by knzhou considers a situation in which the electron is annihilated with probability $1$. The following answer considers a situation in which the final state is a superposition of already-annihilated and not-yet-annihilated.



      Choose two points in space, $x_1$ and $x_2$, that are arbitrarily far away from each other. Consider an electron in the state
      $$
      |psirangle = |1rangle + |2rangle,
      $$

      where




      • $|1rangle$ is a state in which the electron is tightly localized near $x_1$, and an antielectron is approaching $x_1$.


      • $|2rangle$ is a state in which the electron is tightly localized near $x_2$, and an antielectron is approaching $x_1$. (This is not a typo! The antielectron is approaching $x_1$ in both $|1rangle$ and $|2rangle$.)



      When the antielectron reaches the point $x_1$,




      • $|1rangle$ becomes $|1'rangle$, a state with two photons propagating outward from $x_1$.


      • $|2rangle$ becomes $|2'rangle$, a state with one electron at $x_2$ and one antielectron receding from $x_1$.



      Time-evolution is linear, so the final state overall is
      $$
      |psi'rangle = |1'rangle + |2'rangle.
      $$

      This is a superposition of "electron already annihilated" and "electron still present at $x_2$," so there is still a non-zero probability
      $$
      frac{langle 2'|2'rangle}{langlepsi'|psi'rangle}
      $$

      that an antielectron can annihilate the electron at $x_2$.



      Be careful, though: this does not mean that the same electron can be annihilated twice! The electron is only annihilated once, but it can be in a state that is a superposition of already-annihilated and not-yet-annihilated. If we measure some observable to tell us how many times the electron was annihilated (say, by counting pairs of outgoing photons), the answer will be either $0$ or $1$, with probabilities calculated as shown above.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$


















        16












        16








        16





        $begingroup$

        The nice answer by knzhou considers a situation in which the electron is annihilated with probability $1$. The following answer considers a situation in which the final state is a superposition of already-annihilated and not-yet-annihilated.



        Choose two points in space, $x_1$ and $x_2$, that are arbitrarily far away from each other. Consider an electron in the state
        $$
        |psirangle = |1rangle + |2rangle,
        $$

        where




        • $|1rangle$ is a state in which the electron is tightly localized near $x_1$, and an antielectron is approaching $x_1$.


        • $|2rangle$ is a state in which the electron is tightly localized near $x_2$, and an antielectron is approaching $x_1$. (This is not a typo! The antielectron is approaching $x_1$ in both $|1rangle$ and $|2rangle$.)



        When the antielectron reaches the point $x_1$,




        • $|1rangle$ becomes $|1'rangle$, a state with two photons propagating outward from $x_1$.


        • $|2rangle$ becomes $|2'rangle$, a state with one electron at $x_2$ and one antielectron receding from $x_1$.



        Time-evolution is linear, so the final state overall is
        $$
        |psi'rangle = |1'rangle + |2'rangle.
        $$

        This is a superposition of "electron already annihilated" and "electron still present at $x_2$," so there is still a non-zero probability
        $$
        frac{langle 2'|2'rangle}{langlepsi'|psi'rangle}
        $$

        that an antielectron can annihilate the electron at $x_2$.



        Be careful, though: this does not mean that the same electron can be annihilated twice! The electron is only annihilated once, but it can be in a state that is a superposition of already-annihilated and not-yet-annihilated. If we measure some observable to tell us how many times the electron was annihilated (say, by counting pairs of outgoing photons), the answer will be either $0$ or $1$, with probabilities calculated as shown above.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        The nice answer by knzhou considers a situation in which the electron is annihilated with probability $1$. The following answer considers a situation in which the final state is a superposition of already-annihilated and not-yet-annihilated.



        Choose two points in space, $x_1$ and $x_2$, that are arbitrarily far away from each other. Consider an electron in the state
        $$
        |psirangle = |1rangle + |2rangle,
        $$

        where




        • $|1rangle$ is a state in which the electron is tightly localized near $x_1$, and an antielectron is approaching $x_1$.


        • $|2rangle$ is a state in which the electron is tightly localized near $x_2$, and an antielectron is approaching $x_1$. (This is not a typo! The antielectron is approaching $x_1$ in both $|1rangle$ and $|2rangle$.)



        When the antielectron reaches the point $x_1$,




        • $|1rangle$ becomes $|1'rangle$, a state with two photons propagating outward from $x_1$.


        • $|2rangle$ becomes $|2'rangle$, a state with one electron at $x_2$ and one antielectron receding from $x_1$.



        Time-evolution is linear, so the final state overall is
        $$
        |psi'rangle = |1'rangle + |2'rangle.
        $$

        This is a superposition of "electron already annihilated" and "electron still present at $x_2$," so there is still a non-zero probability
        $$
        frac{langle 2'|2'rangle}{langlepsi'|psi'rangle}
        $$

        that an antielectron can annihilate the electron at $x_2$.



        Be careful, though: this does not mean that the same electron can be annihilated twice! The electron is only annihilated once, but it can be in a state that is a superposition of already-annihilated and not-yet-annihilated. If we measure some observable to tell us how many times the electron was annihilated (say, by counting pairs of outgoing photons), the answer will be either $0$ or $1$, with probabilities calculated as shown above.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered yesterday









        Chiral AnomalyChiral Anomaly

        18.7k3 gold badges26 silver badges60 bronze badges




        18.7k3 gold badges26 silver badges60 bronze badges


























            5












            $begingroup$

            What you need to realize, is that quantum mechanics throws the concept of local realism out of the window. When you measure one entangled particle, you instantly change the state of the other.



            With your electron, annihilation with a localized positron is a measurement of locality. And the result of that measurement instantly changes the entire wave function of the electron (I'm using the Copenhagen Interpretation here). The other possible annihilation is another measurement of locality on the same wave function, and if either annihilation succeeds, the other won't.



            Note that this does not mean that you can communicate any information faster than light: You cannot tell from the results of the measurements which measurement happened first on an entangled state, you can only tell that the two measurements influence each other.



            If you are uneasy about this "spooky action at a distance", congrats, you are in good company. Einstein had similar concerns. He and others came up with the EPR paradox to show that quantum mechanics could not be complete because it predicted such "spooky action at a distance", which simply could not be. Unfortunately for these three brilliant physicists, later experiments have shown that the predictions of quantum mechanics are indeed correct, and that no theory with local realism can adequately describe reality.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$















            • $begingroup$
              I appreciate your plain-language response. It's the only one I'm competent to read. No doubt contained within the other answers and firmly implied in your is this: the death of an electron here does not "prevent" its annihilation elsewhere. That would be a causal relationship. Like statistics, we cannot state what can happen in any particular case -- all we can say is that it cannot die in two places.
              $endgroup$
              – Haakon Dahl
              13 hours ago


















            5












            $begingroup$

            What you need to realize, is that quantum mechanics throws the concept of local realism out of the window. When you measure one entangled particle, you instantly change the state of the other.



            With your electron, annihilation with a localized positron is a measurement of locality. And the result of that measurement instantly changes the entire wave function of the electron (I'm using the Copenhagen Interpretation here). The other possible annihilation is another measurement of locality on the same wave function, and if either annihilation succeeds, the other won't.



            Note that this does not mean that you can communicate any information faster than light: You cannot tell from the results of the measurements which measurement happened first on an entangled state, you can only tell that the two measurements influence each other.



            If you are uneasy about this "spooky action at a distance", congrats, you are in good company. Einstein had similar concerns. He and others came up with the EPR paradox to show that quantum mechanics could not be complete because it predicted such "spooky action at a distance", which simply could not be. Unfortunately for these three brilliant physicists, later experiments have shown that the predictions of quantum mechanics are indeed correct, and that no theory with local realism can adequately describe reality.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$















            • $begingroup$
              I appreciate your plain-language response. It's the only one I'm competent to read. No doubt contained within the other answers and firmly implied in your is this: the death of an electron here does not "prevent" its annihilation elsewhere. That would be a causal relationship. Like statistics, we cannot state what can happen in any particular case -- all we can say is that it cannot die in two places.
              $endgroup$
              – Haakon Dahl
              13 hours ago
















            5












            5








            5





            $begingroup$

            What you need to realize, is that quantum mechanics throws the concept of local realism out of the window. When you measure one entangled particle, you instantly change the state of the other.



            With your electron, annihilation with a localized positron is a measurement of locality. And the result of that measurement instantly changes the entire wave function of the electron (I'm using the Copenhagen Interpretation here). The other possible annihilation is another measurement of locality on the same wave function, and if either annihilation succeeds, the other won't.



            Note that this does not mean that you can communicate any information faster than light: You cannot tell from the results of the measurements which measurement happened first on an entangled state, you can only tell that the two measurements influence each other.



            If you are uneasy about this "spooky action at a distance", congrats, you are in good company. Einstein had similar concerns. He and others came up with the EPR paradox to show that quantum mechanics could not be complete because it predicted such "spooky action at a distance", which simply could not be. Unfortunately for these three brilliant physicists, later experiments have shown that the predictions of quantum mechanics are indeed correct, and that no theory with local realism can adequately describe reality.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$



            What you need to realize, is that quantum mechanics throws the concept of local realism out of the window. When you measure one entangled particle, you instantly change the state of the other.



            With your electron, annihilation with a localized positron is a measurement of locality. And the result of that measurement instantly changes the entire wave function of the electron (I'm using the Copenhagen Interpretation here). The other possible annihilation is another measurement of locality on the same wave function, and if either annihilation succeeds, the other won't.



            Note that this does not mean that you can communicate any information faster than light: You cannot tell from the results of the measurements which measurement happened first on an entangled state, you can only tell that the two measurements influence each other.



            If you are uneasy about this "spooky action at a distance", congrats, you are in good company. Einstein had similar concerns. He and others came up with the EPR paradox to show that quantum mechanics could not be complete because it predicted such "spooky action at a distance", which simply could not be. Unfortunately for these three brilliant physicists, later experiments have shown that the predictions of quantum mechanics are indeed correct, and that no theory with local realism can adequately describe reality.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered yesterday









            cmastercmaster

            83312 bronze badges




            83312 bronze badges















            • $begingroup$
              I appreciate your plain-language response. It's the only one I'm competent to read. No doubt contained within the other answers and firmly implied in your is this: the death of an electron here does not "prevent" its annihilation elsewhere. That would be a causal relationship. Like statistics, we cannot state what can happen in any particular case -- all we can say is that it cannot die in two places.
              $endgroup$
              – Haakon Dahl
              13 hours ago




















            • $begingroup$
              I appreciate your plain-language response. It's the only one I'm competent to read. No doubt contained within the other answers and firmly implied in your is this: the death of an electron here does not "prevent" its annihilation elsewhere. That would be a causal relationship. Like statistics, we cannot state what can happen in any particular case -- all we can say is that it cannot die in two places.
              $endgroup$
              – Haakon Dahl
              13 hours ago


















            $begingroup$
            I appreciate your plain-language response. It's the only one I'm competent to read. No doubt contained within the other answers and firmly implied in your is this: the death of an electron here does not "prevent" its annihilation elsewhere. That would be a causal relationship. Like statistics, we cannot state what can happen in any particular case -- all we can say is that it cannot die in two places.
            $endgroup$
            – Haakon Dahl
            13 hours ago






            $begingroup$
            I appreciate your plain-language response. It's the only one I'm competent to read. No doubt contained within the other answers and firmly implied in your is this: the death of an electron here does not "prevent" its annihilation elsewhere. That would be a causal relationship. Like statistics, we cannot state what can happen in any particular case -- all we can say is that it cannot die in two places.
            $endgroup$
            – Haakon Dahl
            13 hours ago




















            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%2f496678%2fdoesnt-the-speed-of-light-limit-imply-the-same-electron-can-be-annihilated-twic%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

            Taj Mahal Inhaltsverzeichnis Aufbau | Geschichte | 350-Jahr-Feier | Heutige Bedeutung | Siehe auch |...

            Baia Sprie Cuprins Etimologie | Istorie | Demografie | Politică și administrație | Arii naturale...

            Nicolae Petrescu-Găină Cuprins Biografie | Opera | In memoriam | Varia | Controverse, incertitudini...