String theory is what?

[Nautilidae]

lpetrich: the extra mass of that box is due to the photon's energy/momentum content, which is trapped in the box. The photon is still moving at c, but back and forth, so it isn't going anywhere, so on aggregate its motion is zero. That's why the momentum now appears as inertia. And it's the same after pair production. The 511keV electron has mass because it's like a photon trapped in a box. Only there is no box. It's a photon that's trapped by itself.

But I suppose we'll have to agree to differ because you can't see the obvious. And won't.

Guys: time exists like heat exists.

Yes, the concept that electrons are torus-shaped photons is obvious. I'll be sure to notify DK publishing

It's not that he won't see your side of the issue. You simply haven't provided any strong arguments. Why should we agree with you if you cannot provide strong arguments for your idea?

[lpetrich]

lpetrich: the extra mass of that box is due to the photon's energy/momentum content, which is trapped in the box. The photon is still moving at c, but back and forth, so it isn't going anywhere, so on aggregate its motion is zero. That's why the momentum now appears as inertia. And it's the same after pair production. The 511keV electron has mass because it's like a photon trapped in a box. Only there is no box. It's a photon that's trapped by itself.

How is an electron "a photon that's trapped by itself"?

Electrons annihilating do not release trapped photons. Instead, they create photons by way of their electron-photon interactions.

But I suppose we'll have to agree to differ because you can't see the obvious. And won't.

What is supposed to be so obvious?

Guys: time exists like heat exists.

Bull doo-doo. Time is like an extra space dimension. Its contribution to the space-time interval has its sign reversed compared to the contributions of the space dimensions proper, but that does not make any fundamental difference.

In fact, Lorentz transformations mix space and time dimensions, much like rotation mixing different space dimensions.

[Farsight]

It's not that he won't see your side of the issue. You simply haven't provided any strong arguments. Why should we agree with you if you cannot provide strong arguments for your idea?

Because the evidence is strong. In pair production we typically create an electron and a positron from a +1022keV photon. Then when we annihilate them we get two 511keV photons. In between these events the electron and the positron exhibit angular momentum and magnetic dipole moment. We started with light and we ended with light, so what's responsible for those electron properties? Tiny dancing strings? No. A self-trapped photon. The evidence for it is strong, and so is the argument. It all works out, like the way spinning the spin axis explains the Stern-Gerlach observations, and how the moebius configuration gives spin 1/2 and g=2. To be blunt it's bleeding obvious. The argument against it is flimsy, resorting to palliatives "spinorness" and "it isn't classical" along with handwaving denials to defend the indefensible: quantum magick.

[Nautilidae]

It's not that he won't see your side of the issue. You simply haven't provided any strong arguments. Why should we agree with you if you cannot provide strong arguments for your idea?

Because the evidence is strong. In pair production we typically create an electron and a positron from a +1022keV photon. Then when we annihilate them we get two 511keV photons. In between these events the electron and the positron exhibit angular momentum and magnetic dipole moment. We started with light and we ended with light, so what's responsible for those electron properties? Tiny dancing strings? No. A self-trapped photon. The evidence for it is strong, and so is the argument. It all works out, like the way spinning the spin axis explains the Stern-Gerlach observations, and how the moebius configuration gives spin 1/2 and g=2. To be blunt it's bleeding obvious. The argument against it is flimsy, resorting to palliatives "spinorness" and "it isn't classical" along with handwaving denials to defend the indefensible: quantum magick.

All of those electron properties are not evidence for the theory; they have already been explained time and time again with QED. There is nothing mysterious about them. By the way, I wasn't aware that you knew that electrons weren't vibrating string. Considering that that requires a very strong particle accelerator to detect, I ask you this: why haven't you revealed this technology to the world?

[Farsight]

If you think pair production has been explained by QED, repeat that explanation. You'll find you can't. Like I said previously QED is a strong theory, but it lacks a description of the underlying reality.

[Farsight]

How is an electron "a photon that's trapped by itself"?

The electromagnetic field is curved space. The photon is travelling through itself and follows a curved path.

Electrons annihilating do not release trapped photons. Instead, they create photons by way of their electron-photon interactions.

No, the interaction is between an electron and a positron, and the result is two photons. Virtual photons are just the evanescent wave.

What is supposed to be so obvious?

The fact that particles with mass are closed-loop dynamical stress-energy configurations.

Bull doo-doo. Time is like an extra space dimension. Its contribution to the space-time interval has its sign reversed compared to the contributions of the space dimensions proper, but that does not make any fundamental difference. In fact, Lorentz transformations mix space and time dimensions, much like rotation mixing different space dimensions.

It's fundamentally different. It's a dimension derived from motion through space. You can't move through time. I'm something of a Feynman fan, but the idea that a positron is an electron travelling backwards through time is wrong. Time travel is woo. The backward motion is through space. Reverse the arrowheads on the depiction below. This is Time Explained.

[Nautilidae]

If you think pair production has been explained by QED, repeat that explanation. You'll find you can't. Like I said previously QED is a strong theory, but it lacks a description of the underlying reality.

Pair production is merely the result of the decay of a photon. When a photon of the proper energy decays, an electron and positron are created. This conserves charge, mass, and momentum. It's also described by the equation that Ipetrich provided.

[lpetrich]

It's not that he won't see your side of the issue. You simply haven't provided any strong arguments. Why should we agree with you if you cannot provide strong arguments for your idea?

Because the evidence is strong. In pair production we typically create an electron and a positron from a +1022keV photon. Then when we annihilate them we get two 511keV photons. In between these events the electron and the positron exhibit angular momentum and magnetic dipole moment. We started with light and we ended with light, so what's responsible for those electron properties?

An electron is a separate quantum field, not some weird photon state.

Tiny dancing strings? No. A self-trapped photon. The evidence for it is strong, and so is the argument. It all works out, like the way spinning the spin axis explains the Stern-Gerlach observations, and how the moebius configuration gives spin 1/2 and g=2. To be blunt it's bleeding obvious. The argument against it is flimsy, resorting to palliatives "spinorness" and "it isn't classical" along with handwaving denials to defend the indefensible: quantum magick.

So because quantum mechanics is weird means that it cannot be true? Also, in the classical limit, one would not get the splitting of a beam of particles into discrete beams but a single broad, diverging beam. The Stern-Gerlach effect agrees with quantum-mechanical predictions.

If you think pair production has been explained by QED, repeat that explanation. You'll find you can't. Like I said previously QED is a strong theory, but it lacks a description of the underlying reality.

Just to name one example, consider this paper: Experimental determination of the ortho-positronium lifetime in vacuum - SpringerLink - Journal Article
The abstract:

Moderated positrons from a 22-Na source form positronium atoms at the surface of a channel plate multiplier in a weak magnetic field. They decay inside a finite volume and the decay quanta are registered by ten plastic scintillation detectors and counted in a fast data acquisition system with zero deadtime. After corrections for the escape of atoms from the observation volume and for prompt annihilation back-ground we obtain a lifetime of (142.22±0.14) ns. This is in fair agreement with the theoretical value of 142.07 ns but larger than previous experimental determinations. A possible correction from annihilation at the walls of the decay chamber would further increase the lifetime.

Farsight, can your theory predict the mean life of a positronium atom against annihilation? QED can, and it's a good example of how well it can explain pair production and annihilation.

[lpetrich]

If you think pair production has been explained by QED, repeat that explanation. You'll find you can't. Like I said previously QED is a strong theory, but it lacks a description of the underlying reality.

Pair production is merely the result of the decay of a photon. When a photon of the proper energy decays, an electron and positron are created. This conserves charge, mass, and momentum. It's also described by the equation that Ipetrich provided.

It would have to be a virtual photon, because a real one has zero rest mass or center-of-mass energy, and a pair of electrons has a nonzero center-of-mass energy. But photonlike particles can and do decay into other particles if they are sufficiently massive, like the W and Z particles. Also, two photons with different directions will have a nonzero center-of-mass energy.

It's possible to make very massive virtual photons with electron-positron colliders. In fact, it's possible to make them so massive that one also makes noticeable virtual Z's alongside of them. The former occupant of the LHC's tunnels, the LEP, went up to 110 GeV per electron and positron, yielding a center-of-mass energy of about 220 GeV.

[Nautilidae]

If you think pair production has been explained by QED, repeat that explanation. You'll find you can't. Like I said previously QED is a strong theory, but it lacks a description of the underlying reality.

Pair production is merely the result of the decay of a photon. When a photon of the proper energy decays, an electron and positron are created. This conserves charge, mass, and momentum. It's also described by the equation that Ipetrich provided.

It would have to be a virtual photon, because a real one has zero rest mass or center-of-mass energy, and a pair of electrons has a nonzero center-of-mass energy. But photonlike particles can and do decay into other particles if they are sufficiently massive, like the W and Z particles. Also, two photons with different directions will have a nonzero center-of-mass energy.

It's possible to make very massive virtual photons with electron-positron colliders. In fact, it's possible to make them so massive that one also makes noticeable virtual Z's alongside of them. The former occupant of the LHC's tunnels, the LEP, went up to 110 GeV per electron and positron, yielding a center-of-mass energy of about 220 GeV.

I always forget to make that distinction. Thank you.

[Farsight]

Pair production is merely the result of the decay of a photon. When a photon of the proper energy decays, an electron and positron are created. This conserves charge, mass, and momentum. It's also described by the equation that Ipetrich provided.

I'm afraid that's incorrect. Photons don't decay. Nor do electrons and positrons. When they annihilate the result is typically photons. Take a look at a table of mesons and check out the lifetimes and the decay products. The neutral pion decays into gamma photons. Pick another particle, look at the decay products, then throw in the right antiparticles, and you can render everything down to photons and neutrinos. They're the lowest common denominator, and no neutrinos are involved for electrons and positrons.

I note Ipetrich's comment re the virtual photon. Ever actually seen one? No. You can't understand all this by relying on pseudo-particles that are virtual as an explanation for what's really happening. They're the accounting units of QED, and it works, but they're virtual , not real. Check out google for the underlying reality behind them.

[Farsight]

An electron is a separate quantum field, not some weird photon state.

And yet it's created from a photon via pair production, and destroyed by annihilation, resulting in photons. And the electron exhibits spin and magnetic dipole moment. I'm sorry lpetrich, but the separate quantum field isn't getting to the bottom of it.

So because quantum mechanics is weird means that it cannot be true? Also, in the classical limit, one would not get the splitting of a beam of particles into discrete beams but a single broad, diverging beam. The Stern-Gerlach effect agrees with quantum-mechanical predictions.

Not at all, quantum mechanics gives the right answers, and in that respect it's true. But it isn't weird. That Stern-Gerlach classical limit applies to a naive "planetary" rotation, not to a double rotation where you spin the spin axis.

Just to name one example, consider this paper: Experimental determination of the ortho-positronium lifetime in vacuum - SpringerLink - Journal Article

I can't read the full paper. And positronium is a transient electron-positron bound state, so I can't see how calculating and verifying the lifetime supports your assertion that pair production is adequately described. How does your separate quantum field arise, and what is it?

Farsight, can your theory predict the mean life of a positronium atom against annihilation? QED can, and it's a good example of how well it can explain pair production and annihilation.

Let me reiterate that it isn't my theory. And all it's trying to describe is the reality that underlies QED etc. I've never looked at positronium, and I doubt if I could come up with a calculation. If I could, it would probably take me six months, and I'd probably just be regurgitating QED but talking of virtual photons as the evanescent wave, that sort of thing. And again, it wouldn't be explaining pair production. What it might do is bring out a difference between para-positronium and ortho-positronium concerning the rotational spin of the electron related to the rotational spin of the positron and their rotational motion around one another. It would tell you the spin is real, but I imagine referees would find reason to reject it.

[lpetrich]

... Pick another particle, look at the decay products, then throw in the right antiparticles, and you can render everything down to photons and neutrinos. They're the lowest common denominator, and no neutrinos are involved for electrons and positrons.

Farsight, you again make the mistake of supposing that "fundamental" = "cannot decay".

I note Ipetrich's comment re the virtual photon. Ever actually seen one? No. ...

What do you count as "seeing" one? If detecting quasi-static electric and magnetic fields counts, then we see virtual photons all the time.

An electron is a separate quantum field, not some weird photon state.

And yet it's created from a photon via pair production, and destroyed by annihilation, resulting in photons. And the electron exhibits spin and magnetic dipole moment. I'm sorry lpetrich, but the separate quantum field isn't getting to the bottom of it.

Here again, you suppose that making something means that the originals must still exist inside it.

That Stern-Gerlach classical limit applies to a naive "planetary" rotation, not to a double rotation where you spin the spin axis.

Here's what happens in the classical limit:
dS/dt = M x B

where S is the spin, M is the magnetic-dipole moment (= G*S), and B is the magnetic field. The spin axis thus precesses around the magnetic field. It's easy to show that
S.B = constant

The precession has constant obliquity e. The interaction energy is
U = - M.B = - G*|S|*|B|*cos(e)

The force on the particle is F = - grad(U) = G*|S|*cos(e) * grad(|B|)

The obliquity values in the classical limit are random, making a smearing out. In quantum mechanics, cos(e) effectively has evenly-distributed values between -1 and +1, thus making separate spots.

Just to name one example, consider this paper: Experimental determination of the ortho-positronium lifetime in vacuum - SpringerLink - Journal Article

I can't read the full paper. And positronium is a transient electron-positron bound state, so I can't see how calculating and verifying the lifetime supports your assertion that pair production is adequately described.

Pair production is annihilation run backwards. Check out
Positronium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[hep-ph/0310099] Precision Study of Positronium: Testing Bound State QED Theory
[hep-ph/0402151] Positronium as a probe for new physics beyond the standard model
Precision tests of QED - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How does your separate quantum field arise, and what is it?

Dirac equation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Farsight, can your theory predict the mean life of a positronium atom against annihilation? QED can, and it's a good example of how well it can explain pair production and annihilation.

Let me reiterate that it isn't my theory.

Irrelevant. You are advocating it, and I'm not whining that I did not invent the quantum field theory of the electron.

And all it's trying to describe is the reality that underlies QED etc. I've never looked at positronium, and I doubt if I could come up with a calculation. If I could, it would probably take me six months, and I'd probably just be regurgitating QED but talking of virtual photons as the evanescent wave, that sort of thing. ...

Why would you be regurgitating QED in the process? You realize that QED is built on the Dirac-equation quantum-field description of the electron, don't you?

[lpetrich]

A big problem with Farsight's theories is that they make no attempt to take into account existing successful theories. Farsight has made no attempt to get quantized Maxwell's equations from his description of photons as strings, and he has made no attempt to get the quantized Dirac equation from his description of electrons as photon loops or whatever.

It is not for nothing that relativity and quantum mechanics have Newtonian mechanics as a limiting case. For relativity, one takes c -> infinity, and for quantum mechanics, one takes h -> 0. It's rather easy to do that for special relativity and even for general relativity. It's more tricky for quantum mechanics, but one uses versions of the eikonal or geometrical-optics limit for both the particle and the wave cases:

Schroedinger's equation -> Hamilton-Jacobi equations
Heisenberg's matrix mechanics -> Hamilton equations
Path integrals -> Lagrange equations

For relativity, both special and general, the error of the Newtonian approximation is on the order of (v/c)2, for typical velocities v, while it's more difficult to get an error factor for quantum mechanics. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Princple may be a good guide, however. For variables x and p,

D(Q) * D(P) >= |{Q,P}| * (hbar/2)

where {Q,P} is the "Poisson bracket" of the two quantities. For Q = position and P = momentum in the same direction, {Q,P} = 1, giving the traditional uncertainty principle. For Q = time and P = energy, {Q,P} = 1, For angular momenta, {Lx, Ly} = Lz. Etc. Or

D(x) * D(p) >= (hbar/2)
D(t) * D(E) >= (hbar/2)
D(Lx) * D(Ly) >= |Lz| * (hbar/2)
etc.

[Farsight]

A big problem with Farsight's theories is that they make no attempt to take into account existing successful theories. Farsight has made no attempt to get quantized Maxwell's equations from his description of photons as strings, and he has made no attempt to get the quantized Dirac equation from his description of electrons as photon loops or whatever.{/quote]It's not a theory and it isn't mine, lpetrich. All I'm offering is an overview drawn from overlooked papers. And I'm not saying photons are strings, instead I'm saying they're pressure pulses, or spacewarp, or wavefunction if you prefer. Yes, I haven't attempted
quantized Maxwell's equations or the Dirac equation, it would take me forever. But I rather thought guys like you would like to show how what I've been saying relates to existing theories. Or make use of it somehow. I can't do it all. And even if I could, I can't, because where would that leave you and everybody else?

It is not for nothing that relativity and quantum mechanics have Newtonian mechanics as a limiting case. For relativity, one takes c -> infinity, and for quantum mechanics, one takes h -> 0.

But why, lpetrich? Why? You have to look beyond what you know for that. Mathematics is a vital tool, a fine tool. But it's like a scalpel. And sometimes you need a sledgehammer to crack the nut. I'm offering it to you. Go look up relativity+, then use it!

For relativity, both special and general, the error of the Newtonian approximation is on the order of (v/c)2, for typical velocities v,

The speed of light isn't infinite. You can never catch it up because time is a cumulative measure of motion, and because of what of what pair production is telling you. You are made of light. Neutrinos are a wrinkle, and it's better to say energy rather than light, but that's basically it. Newton knew it, Einstein knew it, Anderson knew it. The evidence is there. It really is.

..while it's more difficult to get an error factor for quantum mechanics. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Princple may be a good guide...

HUP is a good guide. But look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle and see where it says

"In quantum physics, a particle is described by a wave packet..."

Good stuff. But then look at what comes next:

"..Consider the measurement of the absolute position of a particle. It could be anywhere the particle's wave packet has non-zero amplitude, meaning the position is uncertain – it could be almost anywhere along the wave packet."

Aaargh! Something like a photon is just a wave in the bulk of space. It's an extended entity, a smeared out thing, there is no absolute position, and it has no surface. For ELF it can be a million metres long, and the action is so gentle it's almost zero. But there is no "particle" to be found inside the wavepacket. For gamma radiation it might be a picometre, and then we can make electrons and positrons out of it. The wavefunction is describing what it is, not a probability of finding something else. The Copenhagen Interpretation is wrong. Sorry, I've got to go, sorry to omit your previous post, I'll get back to it.