The magical creation of the photon.

[Little Bang]

I see what you are saying I'm just not sure if it's viable given that the anti-proton is stable to 10^30 years if it does not come into contact with matter.

[HydrogenBond]

One thing that I always though odd was an electron-positron pair is not stable but will combine to form energy. While an electron and proton are a stable binary arrangement that will linger for billion years. If we only consider charge attraction, the proton is an easier target for negative charge since the proton is quite slow. They should be able to close the deal considering the higher level of uncertainty of positron-electron.

 

The other conceptual problem is, as the positron and electron move toward each other, to close their distance, their magnetic fields are repulsive. The faster they approach the more they should repel. The same is true of the electron-proton but in this case the total magnetic repulsion should be less due to the proton not able to generate the same velocity. They latter should be better able to close the deal using only EM considerations. This suggests other attributes or lack thereof, making the difference.

 

If positive charge prefers larger mass, and it becomes attached to a lower mass, such as the positron, this isn't its lowest potential state. It is starting at higher potential and needs to go to a lower state. It would prefer more mass to lower potential. Maybe it tries to get more mass by combining with the electron, i.e., poof. A better choice for longevity would be a larger mass in one shot, instead of piecemeal. Even with the positive charge or EM repulsion in a nucleus, the stability gained by the better mass association makes this a more favorable event, more likely to stick and last.

[CraigD]

One thing that I always though odd was an electron-positron pair is not stable but will combine to form energy. While an electron and proton are a stable binary arrangement that will linger for billion years.

Indeed, an “exotic atom” of positronium formed of a positron and an electron, while similar in ways to an ordinary hydrogen atom (eg: they absorb and emit photons according to hydrogen’s spectral series, of about half the frequency, and can form molecules of 2 pseudo-atoms), but have an observed mean lifetime of only about [math]1.24 \times 10^{-10} \,\mbox{s}[/math]. They can be pumped with photons, laser-fashion, in such a way that the mean lifetime is about 10,000 times longer, but are many orders of magnitude less stable than atoms, even unstable ones such as Ununhexium.

 

Protonium consists of a proton + antiproton pair, and are expected to have a mean lifetime of between [math]10^{-7}[/math] and [math]10^{-5} \,\mbox{s}[/math]. Interestingly, it’s predicted to be subject more to strong nuclear than charge-based forces. AFAIK, there’s not as much data about protonium as postronium, having been experimentally produced since only about 2002 (see Antimatter and matter combine in chemical reaction - fundamentals - 13 October 2006 - New Scientist). As best I can tell, it wouldn’t have anything like an atom's photon absorption/emission spectrum.

 

Intuitively, the “oddly” short lives of the various “oniums” makes sense if you consider their quantum wave function, interpreted as a distribution of probabilities of the particles being detected in a given volume ([math]\psi \psi^*[/math]) In an atom, the probability density of the nucleons is nearly zero outside of a small radius of their nominal center, with the probability density of the electrons forming a cloud-like shell around them. With oniums, the two identical-but-for-charge antiparticles both have cloud-like shell distributions that occupy nearly the same volume. Their rapid mutual annihilation is somewhat analogous to electron capture decay of a radioactive atom, but rather than resulting in the transformation of an electron-proton pair into a neutron, the two antiparticles are transformed into 2 or more photons having no atom-like association (ie: “exploding”).

[Moontanman]

Indeed, an “exotic atom” of positronium formed of a positron and an electron, while similar in ways to an ordinary hydrogen atom (eg: they absorb and emit photons according to hydrogen’s spectral series, of about half the frequency, and can form molecules of 2 pseudo-atoms), but have an observed mean lifetime of only about [math]1.24 times 10^{-10} ,mbox{s}[/math]. They can be pumped with photons, laser-fashion, in such a way that the mean lifetime is about 10,000 times longer, but are many orders of magnitude less stable than atoms, even unstable ones such as Ununhexium.

 

Protonium consists of a proton + antiproton pair, and are expected to have a mean lifetime of between [math]10^{-7}[/math] and [math]10^{-5} ,mbox{s}[/math]. Interestingly, it’s predicted to be subject more to strong nuclear than charge-based forces. AFAIK, there’s not as much data about protonium as postronium, having been experimentally produced since only about 2002 (see Antimatter and matter combine in chemical reaction - fundamentals - 13 October 2006 - New Scientist). As best I can tell, it wouldn’t have anything like an atom's photon absorption/emission spectrum.

 

Intuitively, the “oddly” short lives of the various “oniums” makes sense if you consider their quantum wave function, interpreted as a distribution of probabilities of the particles being detected in a given volume ([math]psi psi^*[/math]) In an atom, the probability density of the nucleons is nearly zero outside of a small radius of their nominal center, with the probability density of the electrons forming a cloud-like shell around them. With oniums, the two identical-but-for-charge antiparticles both have cloud-like shell distributions that occupy nearly the same volume. Their rapid mutual annihilation is somewhat analogous to electron capture decay of a radioactive atom, but rather than resulting in the transformation of an electron-proton pair into a neutron, the two antiparticles are transformed into 2 or more photons having no atom-like association (ie: “exploding”).

 

Is the instability of the various "oniums" due to an inherent factor or due to the fact you can't insulate them from coming to contact with their matter counter parts? I know they are usually stored in a vacume but as we know even the best vacuum we can make is full of atoms and virtual particals. I remember reading that in the far far far distant future the universe will consist of positronium with the electrons and positrons orbiting each other at a distance of light years and each "atom" being many light years from each other and nothing else. This would indicate that they are stable as long as they don't contact other atom of positronium or unattached electron or positrons. BTW while we are on the subject (caution: stupid question coming) What would happen if a positron was forced to collide with a proton?

[HydrogenBond]

There are many things we can create, which may also be created by nature under high energy conditions, but the bottom line is the most stable states at cool temperature, i.e., without adding energy, is the proton and electron, where the positive charge ends up with larger mass. We don't have to go out on the limb, it is all around us.

 

Here are some other observations, which may tell us something about these differences. Because the positive charge ends up with the larger mass, it becomes intimately connected to GR. Even if we start with hydrogen atoms the mass of the proton makes the system vulnerable to gravity to where GR can come into its own and dominate. This natural design suggest a connection deeper than a mere coincidence default situation. If we had only electrons in the universe, gravity would still be in affect, but there would be a smaller GR impact. The negative repulsion and light mass would make SR dominant. If we combine these affects in the hydrogen atom we get some ratio of GR to SR potential.

 

In terms of the proton and positive charge, its GR connection allows the formation of stars. This, in turn, makes it possible for protons to combine in nuclei, via fusion. One observation about fusion is it requires protons and neutrons. One will not get fusion with just protons or just neutrons. Relative to the positive charge and its affinity for the higher mass, this suggests positive charge may be able to accommodate more mass with the positive charge in nuclei sharing mass. This extra mass sharing may have a connection to the nuclear force, with positive charge sharing allowing mass association without gravity, to create an affect similar to high GR.

 

Based on fusion energetics, tritium and deuterium make better fusion fuel than the hydrogen proton. What this implies is tritium and deuterium have smaller activation energy hills or go into fusion with more potential. This implies the one mass ratio for the positive charge is the most stable. The reason it may share with more mass is the high neutral mass has an affinity for the positive charge. In other words, the charge-mass ratio of one may be ideal. Neutral mass also wants this ratio if it is possible, with the result half sharing by all mass is more stable than half the mass sharing full time and half left without positive charge.

 

Once we reach iron, the situation changes, with higher atoms requiring the input of energy to create stable atomic states. One way to explain this is to bring the electrons into the picture. The impact of negative charge and small mass to create a greater occupation of space. This is in conflict with the nature of positive charge, so its impact would be endothermic. However, the induced occupation of more space assists positive sharing. It helps the mass-charge prime directive, but requires a space boost that is made stable due to the space enhancing affects of negative charge.

 

These are all old school observations that were reworked to show that the even older school, 19th century assumption, of equal and opposite charge, may need to be modernized at least into the the 20th century.

[Tolouse]

the Dirac equation is pretty interesting stuff

 

though i have no personal experience to glean from

[CraigD]

Is the instability of the various "oniums" due to an inherent factor or due to the fact you can't insulate them from coming to contact with their matter counter parts?

Inherant, not due to interaction with other particles.

 

By definition “An onium (plural: onia) is the bound state of a particle and its antiparticle”. So, by definition, an onium has both mater and antimater, so doesn’t need any other particle to annihilate with.

 

It’s important not to confuse onia with anti-atomic matter. Since 1995, CERN, and I think other labs have successfully combined antiprotons ([ce]p^-[/ce]) and positrons ([ce]e^+[/ce]) to make stable atoms of antihydrogen ([ce]\overline{H}[/ce]). As far as I can tell, however, attempts to develop cooling techniques that could slow these neutrally charged particles enough that they could be stored for long periods have not yet succeeded. (If it had, it’s safe to assume folk would be bragging about it here). So, despite having a strong theoretical understanding of how antimatter should behave – indistinguishable from ordinary matter – it’s not yet been possible to keep it around long enough to experimentally confirm this. This is a bit frustrating, as storing antiprotons is a mature technology: since before 2000, Penning traps have been used to store millions of antiprotons for months without zero losses.

I know they are usually stored in a vacume but as we know even the best vacuum we can make is full of atoms and virtual particals.

Keep in mind that present-day antimatter storage systems are very low-temperature, within a few degrees of absolute zero. In a sense, any very cold gas has large volumes at absolute vacuum for long periods, because gasses are mostly empty space, and with their molecules moving slowly, the chance of one entering a given volume of space over a given period of time can be very low. Also, in collectors such those at CERN’s “antimatter factory”, the same techniques used to cool them, such as lasers, can be used to move individual molecules to produce tremendously pure vacuums.

I remember reading that in the far far far distant future the universe will consist of positronium with the electrons and positrons orbiting each other at a distance of light years and each "atom" being many light years from each other and nothing else.

This is a wild and interesting idea! :eek_big: MTM, do you recall where you read about this, or, better yet, do you have a link to it? :QuestionM

 

To have a positronium pseudo-atom, or a normal atom, larger than the usual atomic scale (about [math]10^{-10} \,\mbox{m}[/math]), space would have to be so empty that there were no nearby particles to interact with it. Even so, I can’t imagine a reason why even a light-year scale atom or pseudo-atom, which would be in an excited state, wouldn’t have its electron-like parts transition into lower-energy orbitals, releasing photons, until reaching ground state, and the usual atomic scale size. These factors offer an alternate way of looking at the usual explanation of why we see very large gravity-dominated structures, like planets, stellar systems, galaxies, and galaxy clusters, but only very small charge force-dominated structures, like atoms: gravity can work at long distances because it is only an attractive force, while charge forces are both attractive and repulsive, so over large distances involving many bodies, tend to result in effectively zero net forces.

[Little Bang]

I joined this form on 01/20/05. At the time I thought the standard model and quantum theory would one day answer all the remaining questions about the universe. The excellent threads and posts by members has made me realize that the dream of unification of the quantum world with the macro world is not going to happen using quantum theory and the standard model. There are four phenomena that neither have been able to explain. Those are gravity, charge, mass and inertia. I kept wondering why we could not answer these questions and I came to the conclusion that there was something inherently wrong with the basic premise of the standard model and that premise of course is that all the forces in the universe are mediated by a carrier particle. Through out the threads myself and a few others have suggested other ways that we might answer these question and in every case they have been met with, “ Well the standard model say’s this ……….., therefore you must be wrong “. I will put together a post combining all the ideas that I have suggested in the different threads and have opponents shoot the ideas down using logic and observation not the conclusions of the standard model.

 

I was born right handed. In 02 I had an accident. I now have to type with one finger of my left hand. This one post has taken me two hours and fifteen minutes to type, so it will be a couple of weeks before I post again.

[CHADS]

Hi Little Bang ,

 

Thought you may find this interesting towards a different model;

 

YouTube - Turning Gravity Inside Out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bd-QqKmVyfU

 

Enjoy Interesting!

[Little Bang]

You were right,it was rather interesting but I don't see how it answers any fundamental questions.

[CHADS]

Well the 4 Questions you wanted answering to understand ... Gravity Charge Mass and Inertia....

 

 

MASS.... is a maintanence of slowness ... it maintains slowness becuase all individual particles want to traval at the speed of light but when bound togeather they cannot traval at the speed of light ... E=Mc2.

 

INERTIA .... Dosnt like getting pushed becuase it always wants to traval towards the speed of light which is further down into Warped spacetime .. Basically its own centre ...... if a bigger object is closer to the speed of light (Bigger Mass its Spacetime warp is deeper) it will favour moving down the warp depression towards the Bigger mass' Centre.

 

GRAVITY is the speed of Light so all MASS wants to get There ... When two mass's see each other they feel that the other also wants to get to the speed of light so goes towards the other mass to help each other get to the speed of light quicker....! But IT only moves toward it at its own pace it still favours its own centre being closer to the speed of light and therefore INERTIA still plays a part in its MASS.

 

 

NOW CHARGE is A BUGGER!

I dont Know Much about CHARGE but what ive learned so far is it's how things Want to move in relation to the common medium ..

 

The photon, the mediator of the electromagnetic force, has a spin of 1, zero mass, and no electric charge. Photons make particles with the same electric charge repel each other and particles with opposite charges attract each other. They drive particles with the same electric charge (such as two electrons, tiny negatively charged fermions) apart, because photons carry momentum. In classical physics, momentum is the product of mass and velocity. Photons have no mass, but they move very fast (at the speed of light—3 × 10^8 m/sec, or 1 × 10^9 ft/sec). The speed of a photon gives it enough momentum to have an impact on an electron. When two electrons repel each other, one of the electrons emits a photon, and the other electron absorbs it. The exchange of the photon pushes the electrons apart, just as two people standing on a slick surface would slide apart if they tossed a heavy object back and forth.

 

Im now interested in Charge whats your take on CHARGE?

[Little Bang]

I have enlisted the aid of a PhD. He thinks we need more time. We shall return.

[Little Bang]

Chad I can put together a possible scenario for the creation of charge using the Stanford experiment. We have to picture an electromagnetic wave like a compression wave in a gas. Four green laser wave fronts collide with the much more powerful gamma ray front. The four laser fronts literally get turned inside out and are linked together to form the electron, the four troughs get turned inside out to form the positron. You ask how does four 10^14 Hz waves produce the electron positron pair which calculate to have 10^17Hz. The collision

also compresses the four wave forms to 10^17 Hz.

[CraigD]

Chad I can put together a possible scenario for the creation of charge using the Stanford experiment.

Bank in post #93 you offered to post an email referencing this experiment. Though a link would be better, if that’s all you have, please post it now. I’ve a suspicion you’re badly misunderstanding something involving it.

We have to picture an electromagnetic wave like a compression wave in a gas.

It’s a very bad idea, I think, to picture electromagnetic radiation like pressure (also known as longitudinal or sound) waves in a gas. The physics of these two are very dissimilar!

 

A sound wave in gas involves charged particles – primarily the valance electrons in the atoms of the gas – interacting via magnetic force (which is carried by virtual photons). Individual atoms move only a short distance, while the “wavefront” defined by this interaction travels at the speed of sound for the gas a fairly long distance, until dissipating due to loss of energy (mostly in the form of photons of infrared radiation emitted by the atoms’ electrons) from the slight inelasticity of the interactions.

 

Very differently, electromagnetic radiation – photons – simply don’t interact with one another. This can be easily experimentally confirmed by shining various beams of light through one another, and observing that neither beam is affected.

 

So conventional theory predicts that the experiment you propose

Four green laser wave fronts collide with the much more powerful gamma ray front. The four laser fronts literally get turned inside out and are linked together to form the electron, the four troughs get turned inside out to form the positron.

will have no effect on the laser or the gamma ray beams. :thumbs_do

 

Theory predicts, and experiments dating back to the 1930s confirm, that a pair production event, resulting in the creation of an electron and a positron, can occur when a photon of energy at least as great as the combined rest mass of electron + positron pair, about 1.03 MeV, which corresponds to a frequency of [math]\frac{1.03 \,\mbox{MeV}}{h} \dot= 2.491 \times 10^{20} \,\mbox{hz}[/math], far into the hard gamma band of EM radiation.

 

In short, photons can’t interact with other photons to produce leptons (electrons, positrons and more massive, unstable particles) or other fermion “matter particles” (protons, antiprotons, etc), because photons can’t interact with other photons. To produce a positron, photons must interact with fermions.

 

:Exclamati It concerns me that we’ve been having this same conversation – Little Bang claims that “colliding” photons can produce positrons, I reply that it can’t – since February. This post is essentially a shorter version of my post #86. LB, let’s look at your sources, and see if we can resolve this failure to communicate. :)

[Little Bang]

From: "Adrian Melissinos" <[email protected]>

To: "<[email protected]>

Subject: Re: Colliding Beams that created the electron positron pair

Date: Thursday, February 14, 2008 12:50 PM

 

No. 4 laser photons colliding with the high energy photon (gamma ray) are

sufficient to produce a pair.

It is a matter of relativistic kinematics

 

 

 

At 12:34 PM 2/14/2008, you wrote:

>Dr, Melissinos

> You said that the high energy photon beam had to absorb at least four

> photons from the green laser. Is it possibly that the number could have

> been as high as 4.2X10^7 photons?

>

 

 

Adrian

Melissinos

[email protected]

Department of Physics and Astronomy Phone 585-275-2707

University of Rochester,

Rochester NY FAX 585-276-0018

 

From: <[email protected]>

To: <[email protected]>

Cc: <[email protected]>

Subject: Re: Colliding Beams that created the electron positron pair

Date: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 5:06 PM

 

Dear Mr.

I imagine you refer to an experiment that was published in Physical

Review D Vol.60, 092004 in 1999.

The collision was between a high energy photon beam (of energy 27

Gev; in terms of frequency this is about 10^25 Hz). The other beam

was the green laser (6x10^14 Hz), but one needs to absorb at least

four photons from the laser beam. The high energy photon beam was

produced by backscattering the green laser from the SLAC high

energy electron (energy ~ 46 GeV) beam. Both processes happen

within the laser focal region.

 

A.C.Melissinos

 

 

 

 

> Dr. Melissinos, may I ask the frequency of each beam? It would be greatly

> appreciated if you could email this information to me.

>

 

BTW, Dr Melissinos is not who is helping me. At this point in time I'm sure he does not want his name mentioned.

 

 

Craig I fully understand your position. My interpretation of the experiment may be flawed, that is yet to be determined and I will discovery the truth of that shortly.

[CraigD]

…

Subject: Re: Colliding Beams that created the electron positron pair

…

I imagine you refer to an experiment that was published in Physical Review D Vol.60, 092004 in 1999.

The Physical Review D article “Studies of Nonlinear QED in Collisions of 46.6 GeV Electrons with Intense Laser Pulses” cost $25 for electronic purchase, but is available a SLAC’s website for free, here.

 

Here’s a summary of my interpretation of the experiment in which the “photons don’t interact” rule is preserved:

• An electron is accelerated to a very high speed
  
• Because of it’s high speed, it relativistic mass is many times its rest mass
  
• The electron passes through a laser beam of low energy (visible and infrared band, relative Earth’s inertial frame) photons. Relative to the electron, however, the photons are high energy
  
• The electron absorbs 5 photons
  
• It emits one very high energy photon
  
• The emitted photon, being of high enough energy, exists as a quantum coherent superposition of itself and an electron / positron pair. Such a superposition can be considered classically analogous to a photon that becomes a virtual electron and positron, then the electron and positron annihilate to become the original photon
  
• A virtual electron or positron interacts with a laser beam photon, changing momentum
  
• Due to the change in momentum, the virtual electron and positron don’t annihilate, but are observable as actual particles
  

In short, a photon of greater energy than 2 electron rest masses, about 1.03 MeV, can effectively interact with other photons, by virtue of it being a superposition of a pair of charged particles.

 

:) I’m confused about the need, or lack of need, for the electron in the experiment. Would an experiment in which the very high energy photon is produced not by the interaction of the electron and the 5 photons, but by some other source, also produce positrons and electrons? And, if so, why don’t all photons interact to produce positrons and electrons, since we can arbitrarily chose an inertial frame in which any photon is above 1.03 MeV energy?

 

It is as if, in relativistic quantum electrodynamics (QED), a photon “knows” the velocity of the electron that emitted it – which, per my limited grasp of GED and relativity, doesn’t seem right. ;)

[Little Bang]

And your interpretation is better than mine because it is so much more complicated and defends the standard model. How can I possibly disagree with such open mindedness.