Yeah, the spin problem for his ideas is a big problem for him. 1st, it clearly is his idea, since Einstein doesn't say that everything is made of photons and the one guy who wrote a paper about electrons being photons doesn't use any of the language that Farsight does about vortices. That guy couldn't get the spin to work out (let alone anything else) and for all Farsight's talk about vortices and knots, he can't actually turn any of that talk into a description of spin, one of the most studied phenomena in the world.
do the particles ever collide in QED
- Thread starter Arlich Vomalites
- Start date
No I didn't. Care to link to that? No?
The electron is a spin ½ particle. So is the positron. The spin is a akin to tracing round a Moebius strip. See Dirac's belt. Photons are spin 1 particles. Methinks you need to take a look at pair production.
Arlich Vomalites
Registered Member
Do you think that the electron and the positron collide into each others?
The above diagram seems to suggest that they do collide into each others, but are you sure that in reality they
don't act on each others from distance? In other words, the above diagram is not accurate in this case.
Remember what I am asking: do the particles ever collide into each others in QED?
No. See what I said in post #3:
Collide is the wrong word, because the particles aren't little billiard balls. If you can, find a couple of magnets and play repulsion with them. Close your eyes and "feel" the magnetic field. The particles are like that magnetic field, but without the magnets. An electron is "a field excitation". It's just field. It's quantum field theory, not quantum billiard-ball theory or quantum point-particle theory.
They do act upon each other at a distance, but it isn't spooky.
That's popscience rubbish I'm afraid. Like exchemist said, the particles interact because they disturb each other's fields. This is modelled as virtual photons, but there aren't any real photons flying back and forth. Remember this: hydrogen atoms don't twinkle, magnets don't shine.
It's similar to what Frank Wilczek said above, thankyou tashja.
Yes, sorry, the above diagram is not accurate. It's an overly simplified representation of pair production wherein a >1022keV photon is split over a nucleus to create an electron and a positron.
Let's see the math that makes this correct?
Arlich Vomalites
Registered Member
Thank you tashja, thank you Prof. Wilczek.
My idea of an electron-electron collision is based on a finite size electron model. I gave an example of such an
model on my link, it is in G. Poeltz's article. I think that this model is a classical model based on classical
ideas, and the collision is a direct impact, and it happens when the distance between colliding electrons becomes zero. So there is nothing like that in QED according to Prof. Wilczek. I also thought the same way , that QED does not describe what happens when the distance of the colliding particles becomes zero. I think Feynman himself also said so in his book QED, The Strange Theory of Light and Matter.
Anyway, I became interested in thinking about the possibility if two electrons had enough kinetic energy
to collide, and cause a fusion reaction, and where would it lead to. If during the Big Bang the electrons
has enough kinetic energy to collide into each others, could it have led into a formation of an anti-matter
nucleus, an anti-proton?
An anti-matter nucleus is negative, as opposed to a normal matter nucleus, the proton, which is positive.
Where does the negativity of an anti-proton come from? My guess is that it comes from electrons.
Last edited:
Huh? Maths doesn't prove that something is correct. Experimental evidence does.
All: see Dirac's belt on mathspages where you can read this:
"In this sense a Mobius strip is reminiscent of spin-1/2 particles in quantum mechanics, since such particles must be rotated through two complete rotations in order to be restored to their original state. "
Sure. And there is loads of experimental observations about the way that quantum spin behaves. And no description from you about how your ideas should behave. So we have zero evidence about your fantasies.
That is the fact: until you produce a way to compare your ideas to the observations, you have no evidence.
Yeah, in one sense, there is an analogy. You are claiming that photons undergo some sort of complicated curve (for apparently no reason) that causes them to behave just like electrons. You produce no details, nothing that we can use to turn a vast collection of observations about electrons and spin into evidence.
So far, the evidence is that you are merely a fraud.
Arlich, you're looking at this the wrong way. See where Poelz says this?
"a quantum mechanic core whose size can be estimated by the power of the synchrotron radiation"
Think of this "core" as something like the eye of a hurricane. It can have some clearly defined size, but that size isn't the size of the hurricane.
No.
The positron is anti-matter. Not the electron. Have a look at this article. It's about positronium. That's an "exotic atom" formed from an electron and a positron. It doesn't last long. But get this: "To a first approximation it can be regarded as a sort of light hydrogen atom". And it's comprised of both matter and antimatter. Think about it. Now, what's wrong with this picture?
Arlich Vomalites
Registered Member
You do seem to know a lot about anti-matter. Do you know also where does the negativity of the anti-proton
come from?
From its chirality. It's got the opposite chirality to the proton. Have a google on that. See papers such as http://www.slac.stanford.edu/econf/C111215/papers/islam.pdf where you can read this: "The proton appears to have three regions: an outer region of quark-antiquark ( ̅) condensed ground state, an inner shell of baryonic charge – where the baryonic charge is geometrical or topological in nature (similar to the ‘Skyrmion Model’ of the nucleon)..." See the mention of topological charge? That's to do with topological quantum field theory, which is to do with knots. See this TQFT web page. See the blue trefoils at the top? You always see trefoils knocking around on TQFT web sites. Here's another one: http://camgsd.tecnico.ulisboa.pt/encontros/tqftmw/. Don't ask me why they're always blue. Google on topological quantum trefoil for more. Anyway, starting at the bottom left, trace round the trefoil anticlockwise calling out the crossing-over directions: up, down, up. Ring any bells?
Also see this thread where in post #5 rpenner said "a quantum bound state is a little like a high-dimensional knot of quantum field configurations".
Also see this thread where in post #5 rpenner said "a quantum bound state is a little like a high-dimensional knot of quantum field configurations".
Last edited:
Arlich Vomalites
Registered Member
No bells ringing here.
I think that my explanation for the negativity of an anti-proton is simpler, at least for
me. I think that you have sometimes said that a good theory of physics is such that you can explain it to your grand mother so that she understands it.
Do you expect that your grand mother understands how topological quantum field theory explains
where negativity of an anti-proton comes from?
That's because what Farsight wrote in his post about electrons not being anti-matter was more-or-less correct, the follow-up post was filled with the strange pseudo-science that Farsight has been peddling across the internet. Sometimes, Farsight is able to reporduce information faithfully, but most of the time he distorts it with his peculiar dogma that, I suspect, is the product of illness rather than simply a mistake, even though he clearly lies in many of his posts.
That is a mistake. Much of the world is very complicated and one shouldn't simply ignore information that one does not like.
The proton consists of two up quarks and a down quark.
No, but she'd understand my explanation. See this thread where I likened electrons and positrons to cyclones and anticyclones.
PS: please ignore PhysBang. He's dishonest and abusive. He seeks to trash discussions, not contribute to them.
re-read that response
re-read that response
so why did you attempt to imply it was ?
more backpedaling because you were caught pretending again ?
do you think this time, out of umteenth times of asking, can you show and explain what " chirality " is ?
Go and look it up. It's "handedness". Your two hands aren't the same. One is the "mirror image" of the other. You can tie your shoelaces left-over-right or right-over-left. Then you get "mirror-image" knots. But note that it isn't quite right to say the positron is the mirror-image of the electron. In QED the positron is said to be a "time reversed electron". But it isn't going back in time. It's like you reverse the gif:
ok, so what does " that is, it cannot be superposed onto it. " have to do with " Do you know also where does the negativity of the anti-proton
come from? " ?
edit-
are you seriously saying that, the anti-proton is negative because of no symmetry ?
if you are referring to parity inversion, then i suggest looking into this with weak interactions.
becuase it is hard to find/ identify/define in stronger reactions.
i'm also suggesting looking into point reflection
Last edited: