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;
}
$begingroup$
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?
quantum-mechanics special-relativity speed-of-light
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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?
quantum-mechanics special-relativity speed-of-light
$endgroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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?
quantum-mechanics special-relativity speed-of-light
$endgroup$
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
quantum-mechanics special-relativity speed-of-light
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
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.)
$endgroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
$begingroup$
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.)
$endgroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.)
$endgroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.)
$endgroup$
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.)
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
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.
answered yesterday
Chiral AnomalyChiral Anomaly
18.7k3 gold badges26 silver badges60 bronze badges
18.7k3 gold badges26 silver badges60 bronze badges
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
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.
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
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