I think I'm missing something quite basic here but consider the process:

$$ e^- + e^+ \rightarrow 2\gamma$$

Fermions have opposite parity to antifermions so the parity quantum number before the process is $P=-1 \times (-1)^L$ where $L$ is the relative orbital angular momentum, which should vanish in the zero momentum frame where the collision is head on. So we start with $P=-1$. The photons on the other hand have the same parity as each other so have parity $P=+1$ (after again noting that they must be heading in opposite directions to each other in the ZMF so have $L=0$).

I think my reasoning about the angular momentum must be wrong, but I don't see why. (Additionally, the same argument says that if this is $L:0\rightarrow 0$ then charge congugation $C$ is not a conserved quantity either.)

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Working in the ZMF does not imply L=0. The two momenta (incoming or outgoing) can be equal and opposite but with a transverse offset between them. $\endgroup$ – RogerJBarlow Jun 1 '19 at 15:17
  • $\begingroup$ @RogerJBarlow so am I right that this can't happen if the collision is perfectly head on, but that just doesn't happen in practice (no phase space volume)? $\endgroup$ – jacob1729 Jun 1 '19 at 15:24
  • $\begingroup$ @RogerJBarlow I think you're right, but I can't visualise this for the QM case where I have infinite extended plane waves impinging on each other from opposite directions. I feel like I shouldn't be needing to rely on specific wave packet shapes just to know if something is possible at all. $\endgroup$ – jacob1729 Jun 1 '19 at 15:26
  • $\begingroup$ Thinking of such a collision like two trucks colliding head on is not helpful because of Heisenberg: $\Delta y$ is zero so $\Delta p_y$ is infinite. Two extended plane waves moving in opposing directions and meeting is a much more valid way to think about it. Then you remember that a plane wave can be expressed as a sum of partial waves en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plane_wave_expansion. and so the plane wave collapses into a particular $L$ component. $\endgroup$ – RogerJBarlow Jun 1 '19 at 16:04
  • $\begingroup$ you are forgetting the polarization of the photons. similar argument to physics.stackexchange.com/questions/483588/… . see link imsc.res.in/~taushif/pdfs/… $\endgroup$ – anna v Jun 1 '19 at 17:34

The electron-positron collision state in question has the same quantum numbers as positronium, which may exist in two states. The first of these is the short-lived singlet state $^1S_0$, so $L=S=J=0$, hence $P=-$ and $C=(-)^{L+S}=+$, and this is your parapositronium two-photon mode (must have even number of photons, from C), with symmetric parity-odd wavefunction, $$ \propto (|\hat \epsilon _1\rangle |\hat \epsilon _2\rangle - |\hat \epsilon _2\rangle |\hat \epsilon _1\rangle)(e^{ik(\hat {\mathbf k} \cdot ({\mathbf r}_1- {\mathbf r}_2)-2t)}- e^{ik(\hat {\mathbf k} \cdot ({\mathbf r}_2- {\mathbf r}_1)-2t)} ) , $$ for respective photon polarizations $\hat \epsilon_1, \hat\epsilon_2$.

Should remind you of the neutral pion (a pseudoscalar), and decays just like it into an odd-parity couple of photons.

The other, not sought here, long-lived bound state is orthopositronium, triplet and longer lived, $^3S_1$, so $P=-, ~ C=-$. Hence, it must decay to 3γ, unless it were a virtual γ in production through collision of electron-positron.

(So, does this remind you of the ρ or the J/ψ ?)

  • $\begingroup$ In the $L=0$ state is the parity not $-1$? Because the electron has $P=1$, the positron $P=-1$ (which way around is irrelevant obviously) and so the product has $P=-1$. This differs from the 2-photon decay products. $\endgroup$ – jacob1729 Jun 1 '19 at 21:11
  • $\begingroup$ My question is not directly concerning $e^-e^+$ bound states but free particles that collide and annihilate. Perhaps if I understood the bound states that would answer my question though, although I think the issue might be my understanding of what $L$ means for incoming beams. $\endgroup$ – jacob1729 Jun 1 '19 at 21:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The odd-parity 2γ wavefunction is explicitly and simply given here. $\endgroup$ – Cosmas Zachos Jun 1 '19 at 21:58
  • $\begingroup$ Would you mind copying the odd-parity two photon wavefunction into the answer so I can accept it? My confusion was (at least in part) that I was assuming the two photon wavefunction needed to be even and so the process was parity violating. (The other issue was that I was forgetting partial wave expansions as noted in the comments to my OP.) $\endgroup$ – jacob1729 Jun 16 '19 at 20:33
  • $\begingroup$ Done. I have taught neutral pion decay too many times for any sticking points to still stick... $\endgroup$ – Cosmas Zachos Jun 16 '19 at 21:13

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.