Saturday, November 30, 2019

The vacuum polarization loop

The ideas of Gordon in Compton scattering have helped us forward with the analysis of the vacuum polarization loop in Feynman diagrams.

                               wave of an
                                emitted photon

    electron wave         \   \
                      ---------        \   \
^ time           ---------
|
|             ____________
           \    ____________    positron wave
        \   \   ____________
     \   \   \
       \   \   \
      photon wave


1. Let us imagine that there is a positron around. The positron is a solution of the Dirac equation with no electromagnetic field.

2. A (virtual) photon causes a disturbance in the positron field. The disturbance is a source term in the Dirac equation.

3. We try to remedy the solution of the Dirac equation by using Green's functions of the Dirac equation to cancel the source term.

4. Green's functions produce an electron wave. We may interpret that the positron traveling backward in time absorbed the photon and turned into an electron. 

5. Next we imagine that there is an electromagnetic wave which corresponds to the electromagnetic wave which would be produced by the electron emitting the photon which it absorbed earlier.

6. The imagined wave disturbs the wave of the electron. The disturbance produces a positron wave which matches the original positron solution. An emitted photon wave is also produced.


The loop is complete! The positron, which we first just imagined, was "produced" by the scattering of the electron backwards in time, and the scattering also produced the emitted photon wave, which we originally only imagined to exist.

It is like trying to find solutions for the perturbed Dirac equation by assembling Lego blocks. We can use a block where an incoming photon produces an electron-positron pair.

If we turn that block around, we have a block where an incoming electron and a positron produce a photon.

As long as we can assemble a diagram which obeys certain rules, we are free to "imagine" the existence of whatever particle.

Note that in the diagram, all the waves really span the entire diagram area, and are overlapped. There is a large spatial uncertainty about the location of each particle.


What if the waves were classical waves?


Classically, we cannot just imagine the existence of any non-zero wave. In the diagram, there would be no positron wave present. The photon wave would proceed undisturbed.

What about the magnitudes of each wave? Let us use classical mechanics. Let us assume that the imagined waves do exist.

The electron flux is typically very small compared to the positron flux. It cannot "produce" the entire positron flux which exists in the diagram.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Münchhausen_trilemma

Baron Münchhausen told the story where he pulls himself out of a swamp by his own pigtail.

The Baron Münchhausen type trick of creating an electron-positron loop from (almost) nothing cannot work in classical mechanics if the disturbance is small. The "feedback" of the loop should be strictly equal to one, to allow a Münchhausen type of a process.

We know that pairs are produced in high-energy collisions of electrons. In quantum mechanics, a disturbance seems to have the ability to "concentrate" its effect on a very small spatial area, such that the feedback of a loop becomes strictly 1.


The diverging of the Feynman integral over a loop


The diverging of the Feynman integral indicates that something is wrong with the assumption that quantum mechanics can conjure up Baron Münchhausen type loops without any restriction. Feynman's rules allow the loop to carry any 4-momentum around, without any restriction.

In previous blog posts we developed the particle model of a photon as a rotating electric dipole.

If we assume that all the particles, including photons, obey certain restrictions of classical mechanics, then it is impossible for a loop to carry an arbitrarily large 4-momentum. No diverging of integrals is possible.

But does that restrict Feynman diagrams too much, so that they would no longer agree with empirical data?

Why does Feynman use a Green's function to describe the electric field of an electron?

In the electron-electron collision diagram, one electron sends a virtual photon, carrying some 4-momentum. The other electron absorbs this photon and receives a push.

Feynman assumes that the distribution of various 4-momenta in the photon is the Green's function for the massless Klein-Gordon equation. Why?

Let us consider the drum skin analogy of the static electric field of the electron. If I press the drum skin with my finger, it creates a depression into the skin. That depression is analogous to the static electric field of a particle.

We may imagine that instead of pressing with a constant force F, I keep tapping the skin with my finger at a very rapid pace.

The tapping creates a depression. A single tap is equivalent to applying an "impulse source" to the wave equation of the drum skin. The Green's function for the skin wave equation, by definition, is the response of the skin to that impulse.

That is, we may imagine that the static electric field of a particle consists of a very rapid pace of Green's functions emanating from the particle. The electric field does not carry energy away. There has to be a total destructive interference for the "on-shell" waves in the decomposition of the Green's function.

On the other hand, waves carrying just linear momentum p, can progress. Those waves apparently are responsible for the static depression in the drum skin or the static electric field of a particle.

The decomposition for the various p obeys the decomposition of the Green's function.

If there is a planar wave describing another electron nearby, the photon waves for various p disturb the free Dirac equation of that other electron. That is, the equation no longer is equal to zero, but a (small) source term appears.

Each wave p creates a source term. If we perturb the planar wave solution to find a more accurate solution for the source term associated with p, then another wave appears. That wave is interpreted as the wave of an electron which absorbed the photon with a momentum p.


Relationship to the classical scattering from a static Coulomb potential


If we calculate the scattering distribution, assuming that the electrons are charged particles of classical mechanics, the result is the same, or almost the same as when we use the Feynman diagram formula.

Classically, the momentum p which the electrons exchange is roughly proportional to 1 / r, where r is the minimum distance between the electrons. The number of electrons receiving a push > |p| is proportional to

       1 / |p^2|,

which is derived from the fact that the area for passing at a distance < r is proportional to r^2.

There is probably some general mathematical theorem which shows that an 1 / r potential for an incoming flux of particles can be implemented through the absorption of quanta of the Green's function for the massless Klein-Gordon wave equation.

Sunday, November 3, 2019

If a photon is an orbiting virtual electron-positron pair, does that explain Compton scattering?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_scattering

Thomson scattering means that a low-energy photon is scattered by an electron at rest.

Compton scattering is the same phenomenon with a high-energy (> 511 keV) photon.


The cross section of Thomson scattering is of the order of the electron classical size. The classical electron radius is 3 * 10^-15 m. That is also the distance where the potential energy of two close electrons is equal to 511 keV, that is, the mass of the electron.

The cross section of Compton scattering is of the order of the electron classical size divided by the energy of the photon (given in units of 511 keV).

Let us assume that a "photon" moves in a medium of coupled electron-positron dipoles. Oscillation of such a dipole spreads to the neighbor dipole through the electric force. The photon is really a phonon of this medium. We do not assume the existence of any electromagnetic waves. The oscillation is strictly in the dipoles.

Suppose then that we have a free electron in the medium. What is the cross section of its collision with a phonon?

We may model a phonon as a moving oscillation of a single dipole. The oscillation of a single dipole jumps to the neighboring dipole at (almost) the speed of light. The phonon moves fast through the medium.

If the free electron happens to be within 3 * 10^-15 meters from the positron or the electron in the oscillating dipole of the phonon, then there is very strong interaction between the free electron and the phonon. This might explain why the cross section of a photon-electron collision is of the order of that length.

The free electron robs energy and momentum from the oscillation of the dipole.

We may assume that the dipole has before the collision assumed an equilibrium position in the electric field of the electron.

When the dipole starts to oscillate, what is the effect on the free electron? If the electron is not close to the ends of the dipole, the momentum transfer is inversely proportional to the distance to the ends of the dipole, and the periodically changing field probably cancels away most of the momentum transfer to the free electron.

Why is the cross section inversely proportional to the energy of the photon in Compton scattering?


The history of the Klein-Nishina formula



In 1928, Klein and Nishina were able to derive the correct differential cross section formula for Compton scattering, based on the brand-new Dirac equation. Yuji Yazaki in the link (2017) tells about the history of the discovery.

In 1926, Dirac treated scattering as a state transition of the system electron & an oscillating electromagnetic field. The apparent "collision of a photon" is a state transition which happens at a certain probability per second. Dirac derived the correct formula for a "spinless" electron. Klein and Nishina included the magnetic field of the electron in the formula.

We need to find out what is the relationship between the Feynman approach to scattering and the Klein-Nishina approach.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1501.06838

Waller and Tamm (1930), and in unpublished notes, Ettore Majorana, modified the Klein-Nishina semiclassical approach to a quantum field theoretical framework. It turned out that the electron goes through intermediate states. Thomson scattering is produced by negative-energy, that is, positron, intermediate states.

We need to compare the ideas of Waller, Tamm, Majorana, and Feynman.