The magical creation of the photon.

[CraigD]

I don't suppose anyone would hazard a guess as to how four photons whose wave fronts started at exactly the same time collides with the waveform of a gamma ray and produces an electron positron pair?

As described in this post and in the one that follows it, photons can’t really be said to collide, or, more formally, to interact. Also, gamma rays are photons, and photons have several kinds of associated waves, including an electromagnetic one, so I can’t see the sense in the sentence “… four photons whose wave fronts started at exactly the same time collides with the waveform of a gamma ray …”

 

If we rewrite LB’s question to read “…how four photons (of visible light? some other frequency?) exchange virtual fermions (ie: electrons and positrons) to produce an electron positron pair”, the question answers itself.

 

The basic idea here, pair production, is that a photon with energy of at least 2 times the rest mass of an electron can be considered equivalent to an electron and a positron with the same momentum. In empty space, these 2 fermions interact can be though of as equivalent to the photon, or, to create a virtual interaction for them, to have interacted via virtual (or would that be virtual-virtual? :)) photons of magnetic force as dictated by their opposite charges to have annihilated back into the photon before they can be observed. Only if some other interaction occurs, such as a virtual magnetic photon interaction with particles in the nucleus of a very close atomic nucleus, can either the electron or positron survive to be observed as a real particle.

 

Although, for simplicity, most examples of this use a single photon, multiple photons can also be considered equivalent to multiple antiparticle pairs, and other possible arrangements, including ones in which, as in Erassmus’s post, virtual electrons and positrons are exchanged by photons so that one photon generates an electron, another a positron. I’m shaky on the precise mechanics of this, but think that essentially this means that a large ensemble of photons can exhibit pair production in the same manner as a single photon, or produce multiple electron-positron pairs. In the absence of fermions such as those in a nearby nucleus, these pairs will annihilate before they can be observed.

 

I’m even shakier on the next part, but what I think Erassmus’s post hints at is that the momenta of the antiparticles in a many-photon pair production event may cause the pairs to survive to be real particles without interacting with other fermions. Something seems not right about this, though, because if so, beams of high-energy photons intersecting in a vacuum should result in the detection of real fermions in distant detectors. You can have bosons (like photons) in a volume of vacuum, but not fermions, because, by definition, vacuum is the absence of fermions. Detectors, like bubble chambers, have lots of fermions.

 

What's really interesting here is that the answer to charge lies in this puzzle.

This, I don’t follow.

 

Photons have zero charge. Fermion pairs produced from photons have zero net charge. So I don’t understand what the “answer to charge”, or even the question, is.

[Little Bang]

Craig I apologize, my question was stupid. I already knew the answer that you would give. Newton produced a theory that was 99.999% accurate at every prediction and it lasted for a very long time before a brash young guy proved it wrong. I can't get any other answer on this question because everyone knows that all actions are due to particles even though no matter how massive a particle, it has a related frequency. Is it possible that a person could spend six to eight years of his life learning the complexities of the standard model and that learning acts like a virus in that it fixes the way we think with no possibility of getting outside the path we are on? I think it's possible but I'm fighting a losing battle.

[Little Bang]

Does the standard model have any explanation for charge? Doesn't it seem rather strange that it explains the charge of the proton via the charge of quarks but no explanation about the charge of electron?

[CraigD]

Is it possible that a person could spend six to eight years of his life learning the complexities of the standard model and that learning acts like a virus in that it fixes the way we think with no possibility of getting outside the path we are on?

I think the answer to this depends on the person, but for myself, and, I think, most people, I believe not.

 

At various times in my life, I’ve developed a reasonable mastery of complex systems involving traditional western magic, silly science and fantasy based game, formalisms with no apparent physical analog, and intuitions I’m unable to describe in natural language. None of these, IMHO, has acted like a virus to fix the way I think in such a way that excludes my ability to learn new systems.

 

I’m simply am not afraid of ideas – I don’t believe any idea, in and of itself, can hurt me – although some can, in principle, indirectly hurt me (eg: “he’s a witch – get him!” ;)) I’m not very afraid, even, of ideas like these, as I’m pretty confident in the friendliness, or at least tolerance, of my fellow humans.

Does the standard model have any explanation for charge?

I suspect, LB, that you also know the answer to this question, but yes, of course it does. The standard model has several kinds of charge, not just electric, some predicted but never observed in the present-day universe. and some that are speculative, not accepted parts of the model due to lack of validated experimental predictions, but formally consistent with it. The underlying mathematical formalism are considered beautiful by many or most who know them well.

Doesn't it seem rather strange that it explains the charge of the proton via the charge of quarks but no explanation about the charge of electron?

Yes. The whole of the Standard Model, and more broadly, of nature, seems strange to me. I’d really be more comfortable with a much simpler model, and have spent a good bit of time working on such models, without finding one that has nearly the predictive value of the Standard Model. The Standard Model is complicated and ad-hock. It’s major virtue is that it correctly predicts nearly (darn that pesky little one, gravity :lol:) every phenomena observed in the universe.

 

I personally believe, but can’t prove, that the Standard Model is merely a good description of some more fundamental mechanics of nature. I don’t believe this nature can be well-defined by string theory. I suspect, due entirely to an intuitive personal hunch, that this nature is fundamentally discretely numeric.

 

I despair that I’ll not be able to make much progress in pursuing my hunches, because I’m simply not smart enough. However, I’m adamant in my conviction that I shouldn’t pursue simplicity for its own sake by developing models that don’t appear to hold the prospect of explaining observed reality. When faced with a choice between a complicated theory that closely matches reality, and a simple one that does not, I’m compelled to favor the complicated. I wish I didn’t have to make this choice, but I do – as, I think, do we all.

[Moontanman]

Does the standard model have any explanation for charge? Doesn't it seem rather strange that it explains the charge of the proton via the charge of quarks but no explanation about the charge of electron?

 

Burkhard Heim explained and predicted the mass of known particals, I'm not sure if he predicted charge but you can read this to find out Forschungskreis Heimsche Theorie - Research Group Heim's Theory

[Erasmus00]

I can't get any other answer on this question because everyone knows that all actions are due to particles even though no matter how massive a particle, it has a related frequency.

 

There are only two ways to answer this question -1. do an experiment. 2. Have a theory that predicts what should happen and trust that theory. Personally, I do not have the equipment or skill required to do such experiments (though they are done, the SLAC paper you referenced for example.).

 

As for 2, I know of two theories that predict what should happen. The first is classical electricity and magnetism. This predicts that when your E/M waves overlap, they'll interfere for a bit creating a complicated pattern at the intersection before each wave emerges after the intersection going its own way.

 

The other theory I know of is the standard model of high energy physics, which gives that the above (photons all go there own way) is the most likely thing to happen, but there are a bunch of other less likely things (electron/positron pair production, for instance).

 

Is it possible that a person could spend six to eight years of his life learning the complexities of the standard model and that learning acts like a virus in that it fixes the way we think with no possibility of getting outside the path we are on? I think it's possible but I'm fighting a losing battle.

 

Just because I've spent the time learning and becoming with modern physics doesn't mean I believe the standard model encompasses a FULL understanding of reality. Half of what I do involves building new models that try to go beyond the standard model. However, I'm constrained by data- and the data in this case puts very narrow ranges on any models I can build.

-Will

[Little Bang]

If the standard model has an explanation (the why, the nuts and bolts) of what makes charge I am unable to find it. I think it is some type of fractal combination of waveforms that produces not only charge but also the observed mass and volume of the electron and proton. High energy physics has produced decaying waveforms that we have given a name with particular functions to serve as an explanation of observations. Even Dr. Feynman once made the statement that it seemed strange how every time we need a particle to serve a particular function someone went into the lab and discovered it.

 

Moon, I can't get your site to work?

[Little Bang]

As described in this post and in the one that follows it, photons can’t really be said to collide, or, more formally, to interact. Also, gamma rays are photons, and photons have several kinds of associated waves, including an electromagnetic one, so I can’t see the sense in the sentence “… four photons whose wave fronts started at exactly the same time collides with the waveform of a gamma ray …”

 

 

They just accomplished this at Stanford. I didn't just make up the four photons, that come from the spokesman of the Stanford group. If you wish to see the email I'll be glad to post it, Also your right it's quite obvious that your not infected with the standard model virus.

[Qfwfq]

it's quite obvious that your not infected with the standard model virus.

Neither field theory nor the standard model deny interactions between photons, it's just that the cross section is exceedingly small. Craig's argument wasn't conclusive anyway; an exchange of virtual fermions is an interaction.

[Little Bang]

Interesting, take a look. Flipping particle could explain missing antimatter - fundamentals - 18 March 2008 - New Scientist

[johnfp]

When an electron 'jumps' between 'Shells' it releases an electromagnetic wave in other words a 'photon' given by the relationship E=hv.

 

 

I believe the electron absorbs energy when it jumps to a higher level and then releases it when it falls back down toward the nucleus. The priciple behind the laser.

[HydrogenBond]

Here is a basic observation about differences in positive and negative charge that often go ignored. The positive charge tends to end up with the higher mass, i.e., proton, while the negative charge tends to end up with the lower mass, i.e., electron. The opposite can also occur but it is not as stable. We can make a positron, but it will not stay that way but will try to annihilate itself. We can to make a negative proton. Take it out of its glass case and let it interact with nature and it won't last. It is more of an exception, with a short life, instead of long term steady state.

 

The net affect is positive charge has a thing for higher mass, while negative charge prefers lower mass. What this implies is that charge is not equal and opposite or else both masses would be equally likely all around us all the time. There is something fundamentally different in terms of which charge makes an association with high or low mass, with the result being the most long lived and stable state for each charge to exist.

 

Positive charge, by preferring the heavier mass, causes its natural ratio of charge to magnetism to remain lower compared to if it chose lighter mass. The heavier mass causes the positive charge to move slower so it can't generate as much magnetic affect as a light mass situation. We can force this to occur, by pumping in energy, but left of its own devices it will shed that energy and go back to the lower ratio. The proton and electron are so stable that one would expect that each charge-mass pair reinforces their native affects. If they were in conflict or just a coincidence they would not be as stable together. If we swap them, one sees the instability.

 

The association of negative charge with small mass allows a lower charge to magnetic ratio compared to the proton. The other affect is the ability to occupy more space over any given amount of time. Another affect is although the electron is both a particle and wave, it wave nature is more dominant. The proton is the opposite with its particle nature more of an affect, than its wave nature. We can accelerate a proton to make the wave nature more dominant, but once its sheds energy, it falls to floor. We can't get the electron to do that easily.

 

If we add it up, positive charge prefers heavier mass allowing the highest level of stability. It native affects are lower magnetic to charge, less occupation of space, and higher manifest particle to wave ratio. The negative charge prefers lighter mass, allowing the highest level of stability. It affects are higher magnetic to charge more occupation of space and more manifest wave to particle ratio. Again, this is based on the natural choice of each charge for mass, with the affects intrinsic to each charge.

 

To get the native mass state of positive charge to simulate all the affects of the native mass state of negative charge we need to add energy. In other words, we can alter the mag/charge ratio, the ability to occupy space and the manifest wave-particle ratio, but only by adding energy. Native positive charge by combining with large mass begins life with a lower potential in terms of a number of affects. This part of how it differs.

 

If we remove the positive charge of the proton, the neutral mass that results does not display the same type of activity. It will be a hotter particle. It is not as simple as adding heavy mass to positive charge to get the total affect, since the positive charge will do the same thing to hot mass, suggesting the positive's charges innate nature is really in control of the final affect.

[Moontanman]

Here is a basic observation about differences in positive and negative charge that often go ignored. The positive charge tends to end up with the higher mass, i.e., proton, while the negative charge tends to end up with the lower mass, i.e., electron. The opposite can also occur but it is not as stable. We can make a positron, but it will not stay that way but will try to annihilate itself. We can to make a negative proton. Take it out of its glass case and let it interact with nature and it won't last. It is more of an exception, with a short life, instead of long term steady state.

 

The net affect is positive charge has a thing for higher mass, while negative charge prefers lower mass. What this implies is that charge is not equal and opposite or else both masses would be equally likely all around us all the time. There is something fundamentally different in terms of which charge makes an association with high or low mass, with the result being the most long lived and stable state for each charge to exist.

 

Positive charge, by preferring the heavier mass, causes its natural ratio of charge to magnetism to remain lower compared to if it chose lighter mass. The heavier mass causes the positive charge to move slower so it can't generate as much magnetic affect as a light mass situation. We can force this to occur, by pumping in energy, but left of its own devices it will shed that energy and go back to the lower ratio. The proton and electron are so stable that one would expect that each charge-mass pair reinforces their native affects. If they were in conflict or just a coincidence they would not be as stable together. If we swap them, one sees the instability.

 

The association of negative charge with small mass allows a lower charge to magnetic ratio compared to the proton. The other affect is the ability to occupy more space over any given amount of time. Another affect is although the electron is both a particle and wave, it wave nature is more dominant. The proton is the opposite with its particle nature more of an affect, than its wave nature. We can accelerate a proton to make the wave nature more dominant, but once its sheds energy, it falls to floor. We can't get the electron to do that easily.

 

If we add it up, positive charge prefers heavier mass allowing the highest level of stability. It native affects are lower magnetic to charge, less occupation of space, and higher manifest particle to wave ratio. The negative charge prefers lighter mass, allowing the highest level of stability. It affects are higher magnetic to charge more occupation of space and more manifest wave to particle ratio. Again, this is based on the natural choice of each charge for mass, with the affects intrinsic to each charge.

 

To get the native mass state of positive charge to simulate all the affects of the native mass state of negative charge we need to add energy. In other words, we can alter the mag/charge ratio, the ability to occupy space and the manifest wave-particle ratio, but only by adding energy. Native positive charge by combining with large mass begins life with a lower potential in terms of a number of affects. This part of how it differs.

 

If we remove the positive charge of the proton, the neutral mass that results does not display the same type of activity. It will be a hotter particle. It is not as simple as adding heavy mass to positive charge to get the total affect, since the positive charge will do the same thing to hot mass, suggesting the positive's charges innate nature is really in charge.

 

I'm not sure I follow you, are you saying that antimatter is inherently less stable than matter? I thought that as long as antimatter was kept seperate from matter it was just as stable.

[Little Bang]

You are correct Moon, you could have an anti-matter universe just like ours except all the protons would have a negative charge and the electrons positive.

[CraigD]

If we remove the positive charge of the proton, the neutral mass that results does not display the same type of activity. It will be a hotter particle.

What do you mean by “hotter particle”, HBond?

 

The closest thing I can imagine to “removing the positive charge of the proton” is to electron capture by a proton, a radioactive decay mode most commonly resulting in a neutron and an emitted electron neutrino ([ce]p^+ + e^- \to n^0 + v_e[/ce]). The resulting neutron, however, is not in any way I can picture “hotter” – having a greater average kinetic energy - than its parent proton.

 

More fundamentally, your post appears to imply that charge is a fundamental particle that can be added or removed from a mass particle. I know of no accepted modern theory that proposes this. The most popular present day theory of particle physics, the Standard Model, describes the proton as consisting of 3 quarks (2 up and 1 down), of charge +2/3, +2/3, and -1/3, with the majority of the proton’s mass (about 98%) due to a “sea” of virtual gluons. Nowhere in this, or any other accepted model of which I’m aware, is charge a massless particle.

 

HBond, can you provide a reference to any published source supporting your claims?

[Little Bang]

Hydro, I can't see a relationship between charge and mass. I suspect that the charge of the proton is related to the positive magnetic component and positive electric component of electromagnetic energy. The electron would be the negative of those two. The Stanford experiment could be construed as evidence for such an idea which, understandably, doesn't set well with the standard model.

[HydrogenBond]

The contrast I was trying to make, is in our readily observable universe, the most stable arrangement for the positive charge involves the higher mass to make the proton. In that respect, this choice can not be just a coincidence. There has to be something about the positive charge that creates this affinity for higher mass, i.e., it complements its native affect. The current models work under the assumption this arrangement is a given, without selectivity, since we can create the opposites. Based on this assumption we keep the charge fixed thing and merely shift it about. This approach does not give any additional attributes to the charge for creating this stable arrangement. That attribute is what I was trying to address. The net affect of this unknown attribute is it limits natural expression in space, unless we add energy. It maintains positive charge in a situation where its magnetic component stays lower, and it gives the proton more particle than wave expression, relative to an electron.

 

The way I see it, physics are hard enough to integrate using the assumption of charge as a single thing. To add more attributes makes it harder. But simple observations seem to indicate it is not equal and opposite to the negative charge since they can not be switch via mass and achieve the same level of particle stability. They be opposite but not equal. Where thy different may be reflected in their choice of mass reinforcing the differences.