 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Particle Physics / July 2005Pair Productions Questions
1. Why do you need electric fields or the vicinity of nucleus for pair production to occur assuming your photons have enough energy to create the rest mass of electron-positron pairs? 2. When the photons zoom near the vicinity of nucleus. Where do the identities of the electrons and positrons come from?? (since they are not made up of photons) Can you give a rough account of the stages between the production? 3. How come the pair dissolves back into photons. What would it take to make permanent electrons out of it?? 4. Does this mean given enough energy. We can create a holodeck where any stuff can be precipitated at will?? 5. Suppose you supply a photon energy equivalent to the rest mass of dozens of W Bosons. What would dictate whether the output would results in hundreds of electron-positron pair or pions or muons or W Bosons?? What control their expressions?? Patti > 1. Why do you need electric fields or the vicinity of nucleus > for pair production to occur assuming your photons have enough > energy to create the rest mass of electron-positron pairs? Conservation of momentum. > 2. When the photons zoom near the vicinity of nucleus. Where > do the identities of the electrons and positrons come from?? > (since they are not made up of photons) Can you give a rough account of > the stages between the production? No in-between stages. Particles are simply excitation states of fields. The electromagnetic field gets de-excited (loses an excitation, a photon), and the "electron field" gets excited (gains two types of excitations, an electron and a positron). > 3. How come the pair dissolves back into photons. If you talk about a pair produced in the vicinity of an atom, where both energy and momentum is conserved in the creation process, then the pair usually does *not* "dissolve back into photons". The electron and the positron travel on (in the center-of-mass system, in opposite directions), until the positron hits another electron (which usually happens very fast) or the electron hits another positron (which happens only very rarely). Only in situations where the produced electron-positron pair is not "on the mass shell", a so-called "virtual pair" (i.e. there is a problem with energy and/or momentum), the pair vanishes rapidly again. The reason is simply that such a pair can not exist for a long time. > What would it take to make permanent electrons out of it?? Well, that's what usually happens. > 4. Does this mean given enough energy. We can create a holodeck > where any stuff can be precipitated at will?? The problem is not only having the energy available, but the structuring of the produced particles into the desired structures. > 5. Suppose you supply a photon energy equivalent to the rest > mass of dozens of W Bosons. What would dictate whether > the output would results in hundreds of electron-positron > pair or pions or muons or W Bosons?? What control their > expressions?? You can't say in advance what will be produced. You can only give the probabilities for each of the outcomes. Bye, Bjoern > > 1. Why do you need electric fields or the vicinity of nucleus > > for pair production to occur assuming your photons have enough [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > excitation, a photon), and the "electron field" gets excited (gains > two types of excitations, an electron and a positron). An electric field has virtual photons and small scale virtual electron-positron creation and annihilation. First. These are full size electron and positron even for just a trace of time, isn't it. Then could it be possible that the photons are simply making their production much longer giving the main electron positron pair produced?? Is it possible for pair production to occur in particle labs without any source of electric field.. or are these a requirement in *all* cases? > > 3. How come the pair dissolves back into photons. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > happens very fast) or the electron hits another positron (which > happens only very rarely). Can a setup be done such that the electron created is not made to annihilate and isolated to see how long the permanence last? > > > 5. Suppose you supply a photon energy equivalent to the rest > > mass of dozens of W Bosons. What would dictate whether [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You can't say in advance what will be produced. You can only give > the probabilities for each of the outcomes. If you give it enough energy. Proton-antiproton pair can be created. This means it is not just virtual stuff being amplified in the electric field because these can only produce virtual electron positron, right?? Or can virtual proton-antiproton also be produced by electric field? If they didn't come from the electric field. Then we can say that for all intent and purposes the quantum vacuum literally precipitate the proton-antiproton pair, right?? Patti >>>1. Why do you need electric fields or the vicinity of nucleus >>>for pair production to occur assuming your photons have enough [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > An electric field has virtual photons and small scale virtual > electron-positron creation and annihilation. Yes, although I'm not sure what exactly you mean with "small scale" here. > First. These are > full size electron and positron even for just a trace of time, > isn't it. Yes, although it's also not exactly clear what "full size" is supposed to mean (according to standard physics, electrons and positrons have no size). > Then could it be possible that the photons are simply > making their production much longer giving the main electron > positron pair produced?? Sorry, I don't understand the question. > Is it possible for pair production to occur in particle > labs without any source of electric field.. or are these > a requirement in *all* cases? No, these are not a requirement in all cases (theoretically). I don't know if this ever has been directly tested actually. >>>3. How come the pair dissolves back into photons. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Can a setup be done such that the electron created is not made > to annihilate and isolated to see how long the permanence last? Err, I just told you that the created electron usually does *not* annihilate. >>>>5. Suppose you supply a photon energy equivalent to the rest >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > If you give it enough energy. Proton-antiproton pair can be > created. Yes. > This means it is not just virtual stuff being amplified > in the electric field because these can only produce virtual > electron positron, right?? No, why do you think so? As I said: if momentum and energy are right, the produced pair is *real*. > Or can virtual proton-antiproton also > be produced by electric field? If by that you mean that such a pair can be produced by a photon interacting with an electric field, then yes. [snip] Bye, Bjoern >>>1. Why do you need electric fields or the vicinity of nucleus >>>for pair production to occur assuming your photons have enough >>>energy to create the rest mass of electron-positron pairs? >> >>Conservation of momentum. Wrong. The photon has spin in one plane. It is two-dimensional. You bring it in close in order to spin it in the second plane. This makes it three-dimensional. Momentum plus a healthy amount of spin is changed into an electron and positron. snip John Galaxy Model for the atom (Latest insight; quasars are photons.) > >>>1. Why do you need electric fields or the vicinity of nucleus > >>>for pair production to occur assuming your photons have enough [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Galaxy Model for the atom > (Latest insight; quasars are photons.) The Galaxy Model of the atom doesn't make much scientific sense. Scientific is when one tries to make mathematical relationships out of Harry Potter stuff :)this is because reality is made of quantumstuff where the objective reality is just projections of underlying vacuum substrates where ghostly particles appear and disappear... where the path of electrons is ruled by probability just like what QM said. You Galaxy model is just an attempt at justifying everything with logic. But reality is so bizzare and you don't need normal logic in dealing with it, but quantum logic. Embrace QM for it is one reliable guide to the unknown territory that is upon us. Patti bizarre >>>> 1. Why do you need electric fields or the vicinity of nucleus >>>> for pair production to occur assuming your photons have enough [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Momentum plus a healthy amount of > spin is changed into an electron and positron. Utter nonsense. Hint to "Patti": Sefton is one of our many resident cranks. Simply ignore him. Bye, Bjoern > 1. Why do you need electric fields or the vicinity of nucleus > for pair production to occur assuming your photons have enough > energy to create the rest mass of electron-positron pairs? If you just have one photon, the reason is conservation of momentum: there's no way to choose valid 4-momenta for an electron and a positron that add to a valid 4-momentum for a photon. This ceases to be a problem when there's a nucleus nearby to absorb the excess momentum. If you have more than one photon, you can get pair-production in a vacuum. > 2. When the photons zoom near the vicinity of nucleus. Where > do the identities of the electrons and positrons come from?? > (since they are not made up of photons) Can you give a rough account of > the stages between the production? An electron-positron pair arises spontaneously, absorbs the photon, and interacts (via a virtual photon) with the nucleus. I think that's the best explanation you're going to get from current theory. > 3. How come the pair dissolves back into photons. What would > it take to make permanent electrons out of it?? It doesn't necessarily, unless you're talking about a virtual electron-positron pair which couldn't become real without violating momentum conservation. > 4. Does this mean given enough energy. We can create a holodeck > where any stuff can be precipitated at will?? Sure, in principle, given enough energy you can produce all the matter you want, though there are some limitations (equal amounts of matter and antimatter). But it's easier (but still very difficult!) to just tear apart existing matter to get your raw material. > 5. Suppose you supply a photon energy equivalent to the rest > mass of dozens of W Bosons. What would dictate whether > the output would results in hundreds of electron-positron > pair or pions or muons or W Bosons?? What control their > expressions?? Quantum randomness. As for what determines the relative probabilities of each outcome, it's a bunch of weird numeric parameters in the Standard Model that nobody really understands. -- Ben The idiot parrots explain things they have no green idea about what they asre talking about just psrroting. in that case they should say simply: we have no green idea how it i sdone!! but No they keep on 'explaning' 2 the idiot parrots di dgot it untill now that ENERGY I SMASS IN MOTION!1 and even the photon has mass. that is solved all th e entanglement and the photon is just an exception to the rule that n o mass can reach the velocity of light just simple as that 3 only idiots physicists have momentum but no mass!!! 4 parrots and crook physicists are interests in making it as comlicated as possible in order that 'only they can understand it ...... no t much different from 500 years ago by the church. ATB Y.Porat ----------------------- > The idiot parrots explain things they have no green idea > about what they asre talking about just psrroting. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Y.Porat > ----------------------- Y. Photon has no mass. That is why it can travel at c. Anything with mass travel less than c. What is your arguments and proofs that photon has mass? Patti In sci.physics, Patti <particldude@yahoo.com> wrote on 14 Jul 2005 13:05:43 -0700 <1121371543.387238.272210@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>: >> The idiot parrots explain things they have no green idea >> about what they asre talking about just psrroting. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Anything with mass travel less than c. What is your arguments > and proofs that photon has mass? The theory is that the photon has no mass. AFAIK the measurements of photon rest mass have established an upper bound of about 2 * 10^-16 eV. (This is not to be confused with the *energy* of a photon, which for a 500 nm visibile light quanta is about 2.4814 eV. Naively dividing this by c^2 results in a "pseudo-mass" of 2.757 * 10^-17 eV s^2/m^2; the problem here is that the units are wrong.) http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0306245 cites this result but suggests it is destroyed by vortices; I can't say, but this is from the result of a Google search. > Patti  Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. there are too many arguments one general is tha t once you internalise it a lot of artificial 'problems' that he false assumption (of no mass..) created are magically solved!! you just have to understans that : THE PHOTON IS AN EXCEPTION TO THE ABOVE RULE!! that n omass can reach th evelocity of C btw was it Einsteins claim that th ephotn has no mass or was it of his folowers??) once you realse that energy i s mass in motion (exactly as in macrocosm!!!!!) anhyone who is chnging the macroscopic rules the burdain of prove are - on him !! you can expand macroscopic rules you cannot abort them i hope you realise the difference between expanding a rule and aborting it . so if you get it than all those enigmas of swiching betwen energy and mass are solves imediately !! and there are other argumements that if you accept my word untill now we can go on with it ATB Y.Porat ----------------------------- did get 3 is meaningless. interested > > 1. Why do you need electric fields or the vicinity of nucleus > > for pair production to occur assuming your photons have enough [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > interacts (via a virtual photon) with the nucleus. I think that's the best > explanation you're going to get from current theory. In a normal electric field. Only virtual electron-positron is produced. No virtual proton-antiproton pair is produced. How come? Is it because there is not enough energy to produced proton-antiproton pair in the normal electric field (from electron)?? Patti >>>1. Why do you need electric fields or the vicinity of nucleus >>>for pair production to occur assuming your photons have enough [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > In a normal electric field. Only virtual electron-positron is > produced. Reference, please. I'm not sure what exactly you are talking about. > No virtual proton-antiproton pair is produced. How come? > Is it because there is not enough energy to produced proton-antiproton > pair in the normal electric field (from electron)?? Probably. Bye, Bjoern >1. Why do you need electric fields or the vicinity of nucleus >for pair production to occur assuming your photons have enough [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >Patti I have developed a new theory that analyzes ep pairs in detail showing the "quantum vacuum" is all ep pairs. It turns out that permittivity of the vacuum is only possible if thisEspace has all ep pairs. It requires a field of 2.8e19V/m to pull a pair out of their cell. Only an electric field can do that. But our universe was created by just taking electrons from their cell which is impossible even to describe how to do in a laboratory. See paper #1"The World behind the Quantum Vacum" if you are really interested on the website below. John Polasek http://www.dualspace.net >>1. Why do you need electric fields or the vicinity of nucleus >>for pair production to occur assuming your photons have enough [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > I have developed a new theory Thanks for showing that you don't know what "theory" means in science. > that analyzes ep pairs in detail showing > the "quantum vacuum" is all ep pairs. Don't confuse "showing" with "asserting". [snip more wild fantasies] Bye, Bjoern >>>1. Why do you need electric fields or the vicinity of nucleus >>>for pair production to occur assuming your photons have enough [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >Bye, >Bjoern OK, let' say I get the part about "Particles are simply excitation states of fields. The electromagnetic field gets de-excited (loses an excitation, a photon), and the "electron field" gets excited (gains two types of excitations, an electron and a positron)", but why did you leave out the part about phlogiston? :>) Can't you see that this kind of talk sounds like Harry Potter stuff? It's voodoo and more voodoo. My paper proves how the vacuum can have real permittivity and how it is able to do so only by virtue of a matrix of ep cells of specific size. QED is still wondering what's behind the Green Door. John Polasek > >>>1. Why do you need electric fields or the vicinity of nucleus > >>>for pair production to occur assuming your photons have enough [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > John Polasek This is because reality is much like Harry Potter stuff and even stranger. Why can't you just accept it. What you are doing is fitting everything classically so that you can justify everything in logical manner. But the strangeness of reality is such that it is somewhat illogic because it stretches the logic. Don't be in denial. Electron-positron, proton-antiproton, etc. pop out from the vacuum because the vacuum is the stuff where dreams are made of. Your model is in conflict with HUP. It doesn't make logical sense. You are just trying to fit it classically. Embrace the Standard Model. It is reality best guide in the darkness and unknown territory of reality. Patti >>>>1. Why do you need electric fields or the vicinity of nucleus >>>>for pair production to occur assuming your photons have enough [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > John Polasek Which part makes which excitation? The voo or the doo? And are these 'point-like' excitations? What in the world is Bjoern talking about? I, too, have arrived at the negative field overlying the positive field and when they are spun together, they separate. But the question still stands, why are they of a specific size? Why is an electron always exactly an electron? John > >>>>1. Why do you need electric fields or the vicinity of nucleus > >>>>for pair production to occur assuming your photons have enough [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > > John The characteristic of the electron is so because it has been programmed to the quantum vacuum. And it's being pointlike is just so because it is just pixelized or being excitations of the field.. which is there the real action is. Particles are just illusions. Model reality with particles and you are lost. Patti >>>>> 1. Why do you need electric fields or the vicinity of nucleus >>>>> for pair production to occur assuming your photons have enough [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] >> > Which part makes which excitation? The voo or the doo? Ridiculing something simply because you don't understand it makes you only look childish. > And are these 'point-like' excitations? Yes. > What in the world is Bjoern talking about? About QED, the most successful and accurate theory which physics, even science as a whole, ever had. > I, too, have arrived at the negative field overlying the > positive field and when they are spun together, > they separate. *That* is voodoo talk. > But the question still stands, why are they of a specific > size? Why is an electron always exactly an electron? Because if it weren't an electron, it wouldn't be called an electron. Duh. Bye, Bjoern >>>>>> 1. Why do you need electric fields or the vicinity of nucleus >>>>>> for pair production to occur assuming your photons have enough [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > > Because if it weren't an electron, it wouldn't be called an electron. Duh. Bjoern, you miss a lot of deeper meanings. Maybe you're a wader. John [snip] > OK, let' say I get the part about Unfortunately, you did not get it. > "Particles are simply excitation states of > fields. The electromagnetic field gets de-excited (loses an > excitation, a photon), and the "electron field" gets excited (gains > two types of excitations, an electron and a positron)", > > but why did you leave out the part about phlogiston? :>) Because that is wholly irrelevant here? > Can't you see that this kind of talk sounds like Harry Potter stuff? > It's voodoo and more voodoo. To the ignorant and uninformed, maybe yes. Thanks for clearing up what you are. > My paper proves how the vacuum can have real permittivity and how it > is able to do so only by virtue of a matrix of ep cells of specific > size. Don't confuse "prove" with "assert". > QED is still wondering what's behind the Green Door. In no way. Bye, Bjoern > > > "Particles are simply excitation states of [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > is able to do so only by virtue of a matrix of ep cells of specific > size. ------------------- 'able to do so only by virtual of matrix of ep cells !! specific size !! ehhh!! dont you see that your suggestion is just another Hurry potter stuff?? dont you realise that a particle i ssomethng much more basic than a field? dont you realise that a field cannot exist without some particles that give it birth?? do you have evidence of the existance of a field without the existance of some particles somewhere nearby of further away?? ATB Y.Porat ----------------- >> > >> "Particles are simply excitation states of [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >Y.Porat >----------------- Porat your stuff is pretty hard to read anyway but on top of that you are mixed up. The quotation "Particle are..." is not mine, it's Bjoern's QED stuff to which I am objecting. Look at my paper on Permittivity where I derive how it is possible even to store energy in a vacuum. And there you will finally find the seeds of everything in the universe, each "seed" containing an ep pair in a shell 3.54x10^-14m. That pair is what responds to a vacuum electric field like a sqeezebox, each particle moving oppositely and elastically, storing the electric energy in the "spring". John Polasek http://www.dualspace.net don't, Harry, existence No forces without matter. Its the unified field. no forces without matter thats right it ios because th eforce agents are residuals of matter if you like methaphorically: splashes ' from the matter so if there is just vacum nothing can come out of it!! ATB Y.Porat ------------------------- |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.