Annihilation of positron and eletron particles

Dear Yousuf Khan:

On May 11, 9:19*am, Yousuf Khan wrote:
dlzc wrote:
On May 10, 1:43 am, jesko wrote:
...
Photon is supposed to have no REST MASS cause
no one can imagine a PHOTON at rest.

No, we can now that we have been able to slow them
to a snail's pace in a Bose-Einstein condensate.

These Bose-Einstein condensates are fascinating things.
In another thread, I mentioned that it looks like these
mixtures are going to be the next step up beyond
chemistry, for making complex particles once the
universe cools down to a few thousandths of a degree
above absolute zero.

I agree. We have the "major forces" that showed up as the Universe
cooled, so now we can expect more forces to "congeal" as things cool
further. Perhaps that is what Dark Energy is (as even without DM,
some DE is still required).

Can you do BE condensates out of dissimilar atoms?
So far, I've only seen them doing these things with
bunch of atoms of the same type (eg. hydrogen).

I believe so:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.3092
http://arxiv.org/abs/0811.1921
.... just glancing through the abstract, you understand.

How exactly does the BE condensates slow down
light? It takes millions of years for a photon to come
out of the core of the Sun, for example, but that's
because it gets emitted, absorbed, re-emitted, etc.
Is this how it works inside a BE condensate too?

I think so, and I am not sure. I would expect the interval between
each absorption and subsequent re-emission pair to be vastly
lengthened, rather than just substituting additional events (as with
the Sun). The condesate is delocalized, so it probably takes time for
the need to re-emit to come to a head.

David A. Smith

Dear jesko:

"jesko" wrote in message
...
On 11 Mag, 16:35, dlzc wrote:
On May 10, 1:43 am, jesko wrote:
...

Photon is supposed to have no REST MASS cause
no one can imagine a PHOTON at rest.

No, we can now that we have been able to slow them
to a snail's pace in a Bose-Einstein condensate.

"Them" stands for bosons and photons are bosons.
But new experiments demonstrate that massless-mass
particles interactions are not the case.

No one said they were. Photons interact with charges, not
masses.

Cause energy levels are not as expected.
I repeat that experiments overcome theory.

Repeat what you like.

....
But I'm sure that empirical results overcome theory!

Results are that a non-zero rest mass cannot be
proven, but that its rest mass is many orders of
magnitude less than its energy.

mass and energy are only different way to explain the
same phenomena. Sun is not only the disk but light
also!

A single photon has no mass. Period. Experimentally verified to
many sig figs. Your assertions are mumbo jumbo.

David A. Smith

On May 11, 5:31*pm, dlzc wrote:
Dear Yousuf Khan:

On May 11, 9:19*am, Yousuf Khan wrote:

dlzc wrote:
On May 10, 1:43 am, jesko wrote:
...
Photon is supposed to have no REST MASS cause
no one can imagine a PHOTON at rest.

No, we can now that we have been able to slow them
to a snail's pace in a Bose-Einstein condensate.

These Bose-Einstein condensates are fascinating things.
In another thread, I mentioned that it looks like these
mixtures are going to be the next step up beyond
chemistry, for making complex particles once the
universe cools down to a few thousandths of a degree
above absolute zero.

I agree. *We have the "major forces" that showed up as the Universe
cooled, so now we can expect more forces to "congeal" as things cool
further. *Perhaps that is what Dark Energy is (as even without DM,
some DE is still required).

Perhaps, it's even the Universe getting prepared for Dark Energy? If
the theory that DE will eventually expand the universe out to a stage
where all particles are ripped apart from each other, and that there
will be no more adjacent particles in the future of any other
particle, then BE condensates can remedy this, since they are
particles which have had their wave functions stretched out to touch
the next particle over. If a particle has its wave function stretched
out to the size of the current universe or even greater, then they
will still be able to touch the next particle over, despite Dark
Energy! Who knows, maybe we ourselves are in a universe that is the BE
condensate of a previous universe?

How exactly does the BE condensates slow down
light? It takes millions of years for a photon to come
out of the core of the Sun, for example, but that's
because it gets emitted, absorbed, re-emitted, etc.
Is this how it works inside a BE condensate too?

I think so, and I am not sure. *I would expect the interval between
each absorption and subsequent re-emission pair to be vastly
lengthened, rather than just substituting additional events (as with
the Sun). *The condesate is delocalized, so it probably takes time for
the need to re-emit to come to a head.

By the time that stage of the universe comes around, they're gonna
think living on Planet Earth is like living in a supernova. :-)

Yousuf Khan

On 12 Mag, 01:57, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" wrote:
Dear jesko:

"jesko" wrote in message

...
On 11 Mag, 16:35, dlzc wrote:

On May 10, 1:43 am, jesko wrote:
...

Photon is supposed to have no REST MASS cause
no one can imagine a PHOTON at rest.

No, we can now that we have been able to slow them
to a snail's pace in a Bose-Einstein condensate.

"Them" stands for bosons and photons are bosons.
But new experiments demonstrate that massless-mass
particles interactions are not the case.

No one said they were. *Photons interact with charges, not
masses.

Cause energy levels are not as expected.
I repeat that experiments overcome theory.

Repeat what you like.

...

But I'm sure that empirical results overcome theory!

Results are that a non-zero rest mass cannot be
proven, but that its rest mass is many orders of
magnitude less than its energy.

mass and energy are only different way to explain the
same phenomena. Sun is not only the disk but light
also!

A single photon has no mass. *Period. *Experimentally verified to
many sig figs. *Your assertions are mumbo jumbo.

David A. Smith

"The thing that "flows" in the current is the "charge", " from
Wiki. ??????
What is that?

If you really think that annihilation is the result of interaction of
positive and negative charges
I have to affirm that an ant have a better undestanding of reality!
I'm not impressive as you cause i'm not native speaker. Very nice
----- Mumbo Jumbo is slang.

On May 12, 2:28*am, jesko wrote:
"The thing that "flows" in the current is the "charge", " from
Wiki. *??????
What is that?

If you really think that annihilation is the result of interaction of
positive and negative charges
I have to affirm that an ant have a better undestanding of reality!
I'm not impressive as you cause i'm not native speaker. *Very nice
----- Mumbo Jumbo is slang.

The photon is the carrier of the electromagnetic charge. It's how
positive charges attract negative charges, and how negative charges
repel other negative charges, ditto for positive on positive. The
charges are transmitted across space by photons.

Flowing charges are another thing. Obviously, electricity can be
static, i.e. not flowing, but it would still have a charge. That
charge is still transmitted across space with photons, it doesn't
matter if the charge is static or flowing. How do you think charges
know there's another charge nearby, if there wasn't a force carrier?
The charges exchange photons with each other.

Yousuf Khan

On 12 Mag, 16:05, YKhan wrote:
On May 12, 2:28*am, jesko wrote:

"The thing that "flows" in the current is the "charge", " from
Wiki. *??????
What is that?

If you really think that annihilation is the result of interaction of
positive and negative charges
I have to affirm that an ant have a better undestanding of reality!
I'm not impressive as you cause i'm not native speaker. *Very nice
----- Mumbo Jumbo is slang.

The photon is the carrier of the electromagnetic charge. It's how
positive charges attract negative charges, and how negative charges
repel other negative charges, ditto for positive on positive. The
charges are transmitted across space by photons.

Flowing charges are another thing. Obviously, electricity can be
static, i.e. not flowing, but it would still have a charge. That
charge is still transmitted across space with photons, it doesn't
matter if the charge is static or flowing. How do you think charges
know there's another charge nearby, if there wasn't a force carrier?
The charges exchange photons with each other.

* Yousuf Khan

My notes are more general. I mean what about electron?
It is a real entity or just an idea arising to explain experiments?
If you prove that something in nature exists and this is the meaning
of the word electron
I can start to follow your explanation. But now no similar object has
been ever observed.
So the notion of charge!
Eventually the explanation of Volta was more precise than that based
on electrons.
Electron were not known by Volta.

Thanks

Dear jesko:

On May 12, 8:12*am, jesko wrote:

My notes are more general. I mean what
about electron? It is a real entity or just
an idea arising to explain experiments?

As with all of our knowledge, there is an underlying Reality, and we
"remember" the model. The electron behaves one way, every time.

If you prove that something in nature exists
and this is the meaning of the word electron
I can start to follow your explanation.

We can *prove* nothing in Science, only disprove.

But now no similar object has been ever observed.

Muons act like electrons, same charge, but with the mass of a proton.
Positrons act like electrons, same mass, but opposite charge. None of
them are composite particles. None of them have a "size".

So the notion of charge! Eventually the explanation
of Volta was more precise than that based on
electrons. Electron were not known by Volta.

Maxwell superseded Volta (in many things), and Maxwell didn't know
electrons either. The fundamentally discrete nature of Reality was
just staring to be discovered, starting with photons and Newton.

David A. Smith

On May 12, 11:12*am, jesko wrote:
My notes are more general. I mean what about electron?
It is a real entity or just an idea arising to explain experiments?
If you prove that something in nature exists and this is the meaning
of the word electron
I can start to follow your explanation. But now no similar object has
been ever observed.
So the notion of charge!
Eventually the explanation of Volta was more precise than that based
on electrons.
Electron were not known by Volta.

Is the electron real? The simple answer to that is yes, of course it's
real. Though it's tiny, it's got a mass, and it's got a charge. Those
are all that's necessary in our everyday world to be considered real.

The more complex answer is that reality itself is not real. When your
hand touches a wall, we call that reality. But at the lowest levels
what's actually happening is that the electrons of your hand are
repelling the electrons of the wall, due to their charges. The
electrons shoot out photons at each other and the closer you get, the
more force the electrons repel each other with. The whole concept of
the volume of an object (how much space it takes up), is made up of
how far out the electron cloud of an object extends into space. The
perceived edge of an object is photons bouncing off its electron
cloud.

Yousuf Khan

BradGuth wrote:
Max Keon wrote:
dlzc wrote:
Skeu wrote:
---
Anti-matter is by definition capable of real distruction

Funny, in an anti-matter Universe, they'd be saying the same
thing about *you*!
if it would be combined with matter. So how is it
possible from this combination the creation of something
as powerful as the Gamma ray.

Because it is symmetric. A powerful gamma ray can spawn the
creation of matter-antimatter pairs. Do a search for "pair
creation".

Many theories are based on idiotic assumptions that are falsified
immediately by the shear stupidity of the assumptions. Isn't it
blatantly obvious that a gamma ray has no mechanism with which
to make an electron or positron? How can it possibly know what
an electron or positron is? Does it carry some kind of code built
into the frequency that can be physically extracted in stages as
the pair slowly become aware of their existence? How can a dumb
ray be so amazingly clever? And why only electrons and positrons?
Why not the opposite sides of my jam sandwich? The gamma ray
would need to carry some kind of jam sandwich gene for that to
happen, of course.

And why does the creation process stop when the charge on each
has reached the required value even if the ray carries much more
energy than the combined value of the two? I can postulate you
a reason why that is so of course. The creation process is
entirely controlled by the emerging electron and positron as they
become self aware because they are, without doubt, fundamental
forces of nature and the parameters for their development are
set by the laws of nature. They will always end up being exactly
the same as any other electron or positron in the universe. But
I wouldn't be game to tell anyone that because I know I would be
laughed off the planet, even if I had a huge pile of math to
back it up.

The problem of modern physics is the gap between
experimental data and theory suitable to explain it.

No, the problem is, that newsgroups don't have any sort of
entrance examination. So that anybody that knows how to type can
make claims based on their own ignorance. And can never be
challenged / expected to learn.

You probably don't perceive that paragraph as I do.

How many Cooper pairs of electrons or positrons might coexist
within the IGM per cubic second (2.7e25 m3)?

I don't know where you will find so many free positrons, but you
don't seem to be phased at all by a blatant postulate which
claims that like charges can fall into some kind of bond that
elevates them to an astral plane far beyond anything to do with
physics. Your mind has been befuddled to the point where like
charges can bond together and their fields interact together in
such a way that they don't interact outside that association.

Do you have any idea where you really are?

Electrons don't interact in a superconductive environment because
there is virtually no thermal energy field to stop them falling
to the event horizons of the proton black holes around which they
are nested. The speed of light there is almost zero, as are
interaction rates.

-----

Max Keon

dlzc wrote:
Yousuf Khan wrote:
---
How exactly does the BE condensates slow down
light? It takes millions of years for a photon to come
out of the core of the Sun, for example, but that's
because it gets emitted, absorbed, re-emitted, etc.
Is this how it works inside a BE condensate too?

I think so, and I am not sure. I would expect the interval between
each absorption and subsequent re-emission pair to be vastly
lengthened, rather than just substituting additional events (as with
the Sun). The condesate is delocalized, so it probably takes time
for the need to re-emit to come to a head.

Perhaps the speed of light is almost zero because it's traveling
closer to the proton surface than it would be if the thermal
energy field around the proton had not been reduced to almost
zero. The light slowing is evidence that protons and neutrons
are tiny black holes.

This equation applies for gravitationally generated black holes,
c' = (1-(2*G*M/r/c^2))*c, as is demonstrated in my recent post
to sci.physics "Schwarzchild radius". But it doesn't apply here.
Dimension is enclosed by coulomb forces only because my guiding
light predicts that e- and e+ charges make up the entire contents
of protons and neutrons. The charge of a proton comes from an
imbalance of one internal component, normally an electron.

Do you ever ask yourself why the proton charge is *exactly* that
of a positron, and the *exact* opposite of the electron charge?

-----

Max Keon