The magical creation of the photon.

[Little Bang]

Because I think that gravity is the result of charge distance between the electron and proton. As the electron orbits the proton the atom is positive on one side and negative on the other.

[freeztar]

Because I think that gravity is the result of charge distance between the electron and proton.

 

Why do you think that?

 

As the electron orbits the proton the atom is positive on one side and negative on the other.

 

Well, I don't think that is correct. First of all, electrons don't "orbit" in the sense that planets do.

 

Classically, the electrons were thought to orbit the atomic nucleus, much like the planets around the Sun (or more accurately, a moth orbiting very quickly around a lamp). Explaining the behavior of the electrons that "orbit" an atom was one of the driving forces behind the development of quantum mechanics. In quantum mechanics, atomic orbitals are described as wave functions over space, indexed by the n, l, and m quantum numbers of the orbital or by the names as used in electron configurations, as shown on the right. As electrons cannot be described as solid particles (as a planet or a moth) in this way, a more accurate analogy would be that of a huge atmosphere, the spatially distributed electron, around a tiny planet which is the atomic nucleus. Hence the term "orbit" was substituted with something else: orbital.

Atomic orbital - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Also, there's this, though things might be different on the quantum level. I'm not sure.

 

A body has an electric charge when that body has more or fewer electrons than are required to balance the positive charge of the nuclei. When there is an excess of electrons, the object is said to be negatively charged. When there are fewer electrons than protons, the object is said to be positively charged. When the number of electrons and the number of protons are equal, their charges cancel each other and the object is said to be electrically neutral.

Electron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Little Bang]

What you post is true, but the position of that wave function varies with time. Which means that there would be a very very slight difference on the side of the atom opposite the position of the electrons waveform. This would produce an extremely small attraction for any electrons on that side but then again gravity is an extremely small force.

[CraigD]

The first question that pops to mind is why wouldn’t anti-protons and anti-electrons form and I think if they did why wouldn’t they have exactly the same number as protons and electrons and annihilate the entire universe.

This is a very famous question, about as old as Dirac’s first (1930s) predictions of the existence of antimatter. The latest, best accepted answer, from theory and experiments from the 1960s to the present, is known as CP symmetry violation. It’s pretty complicated, beyond my firm grasp, and only vaguely accurate, suggesting a couple of mechanisms, one that predicts far to much matter, another that predicts far to little.

 

In short, combined with empirical observation data, theory predicts that nearly exactly the same number of protons as anti-protons, electrons as positrons did form, and annihilated very early in the universe’s history. The “nearly” in this statement, however, is very significant - out of roughly every 10,000,000,000 ordinary matter/antimater pair formed, 1 extra ordinary matter particle formed, resulting in the universe currently observed.

Maybe the event that started our point started another point that became an anti-matter universe.

This is another old, well-considered idea. There are essentially two major reasons why this is not believed to have happened:

• Antiparticles have opposite charge, so strongly attract one another. In the high-density conditions of an early universe, strongly attracted to their antiparticles, how could antiprotons, and antineutrons could avoid anihilation long enough to cool and form atoms of antihydrogen, antihelium, and a smattering of antilithium and antiberyllium? Some “smart” process, similar to the steps taken when antiatoms are artificially manufactured in present-day particle smashers, appears to be necessary. It’s hard to even imagine what such a mechanism could be.
  
• If there were an antimatter universe – or antimatter portions of the visible universe – where it contacted the ordinary matter universe, there would be dramatic evidence in the form of huge numbers of gamma ray photons from the many annihilation events. Such events would be brighter than the most active galaxies, with nearly all of their output in narrow-spectrum (gamma band) radiation. Such events are not observed. Because even the most perfect vacuums in the universe still contain about 1 hydrogen atom per m^3, if there were large masses of antimatter in the visible universe, we would have to observe such events.
  

Little Bang’s questions are, I think, very good ones. They are, however, old ones, around which much of conventional cosmology was formed in the last 75 or so years. The answers these theories provide are pretty well thought-out, described in the popular and specialized literature, and compelling once studied.

[Little Bang]

Craig, what I mean is the point that started our universe must have come from another dimension and the point that starts the anti-matter universe would be a totally different universe but created at the same time as ours and probably linked like twin particles with opposite spin. Another thought just occurred to me about an implication of f=MC^2/h. It suggests that the universe will expand forever and that even the protons will dissipate. Since we have not detected any proton decay yet, it is possible that at some point in the future they will spontaneously decay all over the universe.

[Little Bang]

I want to be sure the reader understands that space and time does not exist outside the point. Space and time are being created inside the expanding pulse like the space inside a balloon. The wave length of the original pulse would be very near zero. The frequency inside the expanding space time would be a ring frequency of the original pulse. The wave length would keep getting longer as space expands. Can anyone think of a way to calculate the rate of change over time for the changing wave length? If so then a we could make a prediction of exactly when the protons formed.

[Little Bang]

I am wrong about the proton formation. There must have been a frequency that produced a waveform construct which became the electron proton combo.

[Little Bang]

I have one more question on this thread. Depending upon the response I will either drop the thread or revise my genesis theory.

What happens when two anti-particles collide with a particle at exactly the same instant?

[CraigD]

What happens when two anti-particles collide with a particle at exactly the same instant?

Given that collisions of such small particles are dominated by quantum effects such as uncertainty, “exactly the same instant” isn’t an entirely applicable idea, but I think it’s still possible to answer this question.

 

The answer depends on the particles involved. In the case of 2 positrons and 1 electron with fairly low (ie: less than .5 c) velocities you’d get either 1 positron with unchanged velocity and 1 photon with the same energy and momentum as the annihilated positron and electron, or the photon may interact with the surviving positron to accelerate it to a high velocity (about [math]\sqrt{1-3^{-2}} \dot= .95 \,\mbox{c}[/math]).

 

If the particles are baryons – eg: protons and/or neutrons and anti-protons and/or antineutrons (although I’m uncertain if any anti-neutrons actually exist) – only a single quark and antiquark of the 3 quarks and 6 antiquarks (all up and down) involved will annihilate, an up and down quark forming a pion and an up antiquark and down antiquark forming an antipion, the left-out anti baryon is (likely) unaffected. The pion and antipion quickly (in around [math]2^{-8}[/math] s) decay into a muon and antimuon, and the muons into electrons and positrons, emitting weakly interacting neutrinos and antineutrinos along the way. The surviving electron and positron (or at least the positrons) may later annihilate, producing photons.

 

Electrons, positrons, protons and antiprotons are created and annihilated in the presence of bubble chambers and other sensitive detectors pretty routinely, so this is all well experimentally documented.

[Little Bang]

Ok Craig, I'll rephrase the question. Suppose I have a free proton setting in space. I have two anti-protons, one on the left and one on the right of the proton. Each anti-proton is held (by a magnetic field) at exactly the the same distance from the center of the proton. I have a switch that turns the field off of both anti-protons. What happens when all three collide at the same instant?

[CraigD]

I have two anti-protons, one on the left and one on the right of the proton. Each anti-proton is held (by a magnetic field) at exactly the the same distance from the center of the proton. I have a switch that turns the field off of both anti-protons. What happens when all three collide at the same instant?

It’s important to understand that protons are not solid objects, like pool balls, so three of them colliding is not a pronounced event, like three pool balls colliding. A protons or an antiproton is a bundle of three quarks or antiquarks – two ups and a down – exchanging a tremendous swarm of gluons, and lesser swarms of photons with, usually, electrons, but in LB’s example, quarks in the other nucleons. About [math]10^{-8}[/math] s into interaction, an up and an anti-up quark will have annihilated, and the remaining quarks paired up into a pion (a up and an anti-down quark) and an antipion (an anti-up and a down quark), and an antiproton (two anti-ups and an anti-down quark).

 

This isn’t describing a different event than one of the ones described in post #60 – it’s just covers only the first of several interactions, over a shorter period of time, in more detail.

[Little Bang]

Craig, we know that quarks exist only in the make up of the proton. They can't and don't anywhere else except the neutron. I think the event I describe would be the annihilation of the three particles as EMR of all frequencies and the same would have to be true for the electrons. I suggest this as a possible explanation of why there was more matter than anti-matter. If I'm right it means that the universe could have only four possible states. One an expanding cloud of positive protons and anti-electrons. Two the opposite of that. Three an anti-matter universe and four the one in which we live.

 

That brings me back to proton electron formation in a single expanding vibrating point. If you shout in a very large enclosed structure you get these reverberations that we've all heard. I think that is good example of what the early universe was like. The protons would have formed at (for lack of a better word) the beat frequency, which would have occurred when the frequency of the universe was equal to f=MC^2/2h where M= the mass of the proton. The same logic would apply to the electron.

[CraigD]

Craig, we know that quarks exist only in the make up of the proton. They can't and don't anywhere else except the neutron.

These statements are not correct under conventional quantum theory, and are strongly contradicted by experiments. According to the Standard Model, we know of many other particles composed of quarks – but never a quark alone, outside of a particle containing at least one other quark.

 

Here’s a summary of the quark-composed particles of the Standard Model:

• Hadrons - composite particles composed of quarks and antiquarks
  
  • Baryons – hadrons composed of exactly 3 quarks, or exactly 3 antiquarks
    
    • Protons – stable baryons composed of 2 up and 1 down (uud) quarks
      
    • Neutrons – fairly long-lived (on average about 15 minutes) baryons, composition udd
      
    • Lots (at least 19, per this wikipedia list) of short-lived (between [math]2^{-24}[/math] and [math]2^{-9}[/math] seconds) baryons
      
    • Antiparticles of all of the above baryons - antiprotons, antineutrons, and lots of short-lived antiparticles
      

    [*]Mesons – hadrons composed of 1 quark and 1 antiquark

    • Pions and antipions – as discussed in my previous post, longer-lived-than-most (as long an average as [math]2.6 \times 10^{-8}[/math] seconds) mesons consisting of up and down quarks and antiquarks
      
    • Kaons – mesons composed of a strange and either an up or down quark or antiquark, some very long lived
      
    • Lots of shorter-lived particles
      
    • Antiparticles of the above mesons
      

Added to these named particles and families of particles are a nearly infinite collection of weird “seas” of quarks and gluons (“quagmas”) such as those thought to have existed shortly after the big bang, those suspected to exist in ultra-dense “quark stars”. One could also consider the transient quark-gluon interactions that occur when hadrons annihilate with their antiparticles to be distinct, very short-lived composite particles.

I think the event I describe would be the annihilation of the three particles as EMR of all frequencies and the same would have to be true for the electrons.

Thousands of particle detector readings, and the Standard Model that is supported by them, contradict the scenario you describe (for protons and neutrons and their antiparticles, not for electrons and their antiparticle, the positron, which do annihilate into a photon).

 

In short, 2 antiparticles + 1 particle = energy + 1 particle, not just energy. Though obscured in a “quantum weirdness haze” of unobservability, it appears you can’t cheat the bookkeeping of quantum mechanics.

[Little Bang]

In the event that I describe please name all stable particles(at least 24 hours) that remain after the collision.

 

Also Craig I don't remember you ever saying but do you think the universe had a beginning?

[CraigD]

In the event that I describe [the collision of 2 antiprotons and 1 proton] please name all stable particles(at least 24 hours) that remain after the collision.

OK :D Not including “virtual” particles such as gluons and photons of magnetic force,

Before:

2 antiprotons (each consisting of 2 anti-up and 1 anti-down quark)

1 proton (consisting of 2 up and 1 down quark)

 

After:

1 antiproton

2 muon neutrino

2 anti-muon neutrino

1 electron neutrino

1 anti-electron neutrino

1 electron

1 positron

1 photon (produced by the annihilation of one quark/antiquark pair)

 

This occurs about 99.9877% of the time. Much less often, the result is the same, but without any muon or anti-muon neutrinos.

 

The electron and positron have large opposite velocities, so they do not interact and annihilate. The velocity of the positron is too great to form an atom of anti-hydrogen with the antiproton.

Also Craig I don't remember you ever saying but do you think the universe had a beginning?

My response depends on your definition of “universe”.

 

I find the Big Bang theory convincing.

 

My personal belief, which I cannot prove, is that all particles are a representation of a fundamental, underlying information, and that this information existed before and after the Big Bang.

[Little Bang]

Tell me Craig, has anyone ever proposed an idea that explains how the universe evolved and also fits the standard model? I don't think so and as long as the standard model adherents keep believing that the universe is made of and controlled by particles they won't. The universe is made of and controlled by Electromagnetic Waves. There is even some evidence that the particles we see only coalesce when we look, implying some relationship between consciousness and matter. My little fantasy genesis theory, more than likely is not the way it happened, but it is a logical stab at some solution. I'm sorry but in my opinion the standard model does not do the job.

[CraigD]

Tell me Craig, has anyone ever proposed an idea that explains how the universe evolved and also fits the standard model?

The Big Bang theory is generally considered consistent with the Standard Model.

I don't think so and as long as the standard model adherents keep believing that the universe is made of and controlled by particles they won't.

I believe you misunderstand the Standard Model in particular, and quantum physics in general.

 

All particles in quantum physics must be considered both waves and particles. Although a useful visualization technique, none of the particles of the Standard Model should be imagined to be the same as a macroscopic particle, like a baseball. On the very small scale of all of the interactions we’ve been discussing, the particles must be considered to be “everywhere at once” in a wavelike way.

The universe is made of and controlled by Electromagnetic Waves.

Although very important, more kinds of interactions than electromagnetic ones are required by the Standard Model.

 

Like myself and, I suspect, all but a handful of the membership of hypography, I believe you, Little Bang, need to study quantum physics formally and in depth – a substantial undertaking, even in an advanced academic setting. My increased comprehension in the few years that I’ve been reading and posting at hypography, though, makes me optimistic that, through cooperative exchanges such as this thread, we can acquire enough of this education to have a deep appreciation of the discipline, including alternative theories.