PHYSICS BITS AND BOBS

PART 41. The 1999 QUANTUM ERASER EXPERIMENT OF KIM ET AL

 Firstly it’s helpful to reiterate what is known from classical double slit interference experiments:

  • Light having access to the detecting plane from one slit only builds up the diffraction pattern due to that slit. With two slits there are two diffraction patterns.
  • Light having access to the detecting plane symmetrically via both slits builds up a high visibility interference pattern.
  • Deviations from symmetry result in a reduced visibility of interference and an increased visibility of diffraction.

From observations such as those above we can predict what sort of results should be obtained in the 1999 experiment:

 In the experiment laser light was split into two diffracting beams by a double slit which was in contact with a slice of nonlinear crystal. Entangled photons were the light sources for the experiment and these were generated when atoms within the two illuminated regions of the crystal got excited by the incident laser light.

The entangled photons emerging from the sources were divided into two sets by sending one of each pair in one direction and the other in a different direction. One set was called the signal photons and the second set called the idler photons. The signal photons, passed through a convex lens and continued building up a pattern in a similar way as is done in one photon at a time experiments. The developing pattern was sampled with a detector which was scanned along the image plane of the lens.

Predictions

1. The overall developing pattern should be a mixture of separate developing patterns as described in the bullet points.

2. Because the width of each illuminated region was comparable to the width of its illuminating slit we would expect that each single source pattern would have similarities to the diffraction pattern as would be obtained from the slit on its own.

2. Because the widths and separation of the illuminated regions were comparable to the widths and separation of the slits we would expect that any interference pattern due to photons emerging from both illuminated regions would have similarities to the interference pattern as would be produced by the two slits only.

3. The experimental arrangement lacked in symmetry when compared to a carefully set up double slit experiment two reasons being that:

a. The locations where the photons were generated were randomised within the illuminated regions.

b. The directions of most emitted photons were different to the directions of the photons that excited the parent atoms.

Because of the lack of symmetry the developing patterns should be of poor visibility

4. The mixture of interference and diffraction patterns should continue to develop regardless of what becomes of the idler photons.

But the idler photons weren’t being lazy. They were used as part of a pattern selector arrangement that could be used to observe different developing sub patterns in the mixture separately.

How the patterns were viewed and the results reported

Each idler photon was directed to one of four different detectors. Coincidence circuits connected the signal detector to each of the four idler detectors and with this arrangement the experimenters detected the signal patterns correlated with each set of idler photons separately.

One of the idler detectors detected photons which came from one of the sources only. As should be expected the pattern revealed by the corresponding signal photons resembled a single slit diffraction pattern.

A second idler detector detected photons from the second source only and a similar pattern should have been revealed with, perhaps, a slight lateral displacement from the first pattern. There was insufficient data made available to confirm this because only one of the two patterns was shown in the experimental report.

A third detector detected photons which came from both sources which were brought in line and superimposed by an interferometer arrangement. As should be expected an interference pattern was reported. The fringes were of very poor visibility revealing the high lack of symmetry in the experiment.

A fourth detector also detected light from both sources and a similar interference pattern was observed but this was out of phase with the first pattern. The difference was due to the photons from one of the slits undergoing a phase change of pi due to being reflected from the more optically dense surface of a beam splitter.

 Hooray, it’s time for a turnip followed by a scratch.

PART 42. IS A GROUND STATE HYDROGEN ATOM LESS MASSIVE THAN THE COMBINED MASS OF A PROTON AND AN ELECTRON?

It’s sometimes assumed that the mass of the ground state hydrogen atom is equal to the mass of the proton plus the mass of the electron minus the mass equivalent of the ionisation energy. This is expressed by the following equation.

                                 Mp + Me = Mg + MI

Mp = mass of proton, Me = mass of electron, Mg = total mass of ground state atom, including the potential energy and kinetic energy, MI =mass equivalent of ionisation energy 

We need to consider what type of system structure, as quantified by the left side of the equation is needed for there to be an event which reaches the outcome as quantified by the right side of the equation. An obvious structure is the one produced when the ground state atom receives an input of energy equal to the ionisation energy. For a real atom in a very low pressure environment the structure so formed can be described as a nearly perfectly ionised structure.

It can now be seen that the equation can be described as representing two extreme energy structures of the atom, the high energy nearly ionised atom on the left and the low energy ground state atom on the right. The ionisation energy which features in the equation represents the difference in energy between the two atoms. We can rephrase the question as follows:

Is the ground state hydrogen atom less massive than the nearly ionised hydrogen atom?

The answer is yes. In general the greater the energy state of the atom the more massive it is.

We shall assume that the equation is correct in that, knowing the values of Mp, Me and Mi, a true value, and not just a relative value, of Mg can be calculated. If correct the equation should account for the potential energy of the ionised atom.  For a nearly ionised atom the kinetic energy can be ignored as being zero or negligible but the potential energy has its maximum value and can’t be ignored. But there is no additional term in the equation that expresses the potential energy so we can tentatively conclude that if the equation is correct the potential energy must be contained within the mass contents of the two particles.

Notes

1. To test whether the equation is true or not would require measurements of Mg to the necessary level of precision but by methods that don’t require the use of the equation.

2. The true potential energy at an infinite separation has the maximum possible value. It is not zero which is the arbitrary yet useful value assigned to it by the widely adopted convention of assigning a zero value for an infinite separation. Conventions such as this enable us to calculate differences in potential energy, not absolute values.

3. When the particles move from an infinite separation to a separation equal to the Bohr radius the reduction of potential energy is equal to 2MI and the gain in kinetic energy is equal to MI. Transition to the ground state completes with the emission of the ionisation energy MI to the surroundings this resulting in the remaining kinetic energy being equal to MI.

Both particles undergo the same fractional reduction in mass which is approximately equal to 1.4 parts in 108.

What are you talking about I said to me?

 PART 43.     IS QUANTUM WEIRDNESS REALLY WEIRD?

Should we accept certain reported quantum superposition states as being weird and something we need to get used to, or should we try to make sense of them?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

Consider the superposition state where it has been stated that a particle can be in a superposition state of moving to the right whilst it’s moving to the left.

To get clarification about this we could ask suitable questions such as those below:

  • Does moving to the right mean the particle is moving to the right only and in no other direction?
  • Does moving to the left mean the particle is moving to the left only and in no other direction?                                                                                                                                             

If the questions are answered with a yes it confirms that the statement is a description of an impossible situation. If the questions are answered with a no then further clarification is needed to explain what exactly is meant by moving to the right and moving to the left. Whatever answers are given, questions of the type above and if necessary more probing questions, reveal that descriptions of certain quantum superposition states as given in certain publications, particularly popular science publications, are often descriptions of concurrent different states which are mutually exclusive and impossible to exist.

I wonder how many experts secretly use popular science publications to try and get a better intuitive understanding of their field of knowledge.

PART 44.        THE COPENHAGEN INTERPRETATION

Consider an electron event where use of the Born Rule predicts that if an observation is made there is a 50% chance of the electron being found at one place and a 50% chance it being found at a completely different place. If correct there’s nothing strange about the prediction. Also, it’s not strange if when the observation is made the electron is found to be at one of the two places. What is strange is the assumption that before the observation is made the electron can be in a superposition state of being at both places at the same time. How can that possibly be?

Roughly speaking it’s often assumed that a quantum object in an event that’s not being observed is an object in a superposition state of all the possible outcomes that can be observed.  It’s assumed that it’s the wave function of the Schrodinger equation that changes with time and that the act of making an observation collapses the wave function and knocks the system out of superposition revealing just one of the possible outcomes. In other words the imagined assumed strange quantum behaviour of the superposition state splits apart leaving behind a non strange observation which can be described as being classical in nature.

But in the context of quantum mechanics what is meant by making an observation or making a measurement, as it’s often called? And if we were able to define it how, if at all, could we quantify it? My preference at this time would be to describe an observation as being a disturbance that results in the emergence of a classical outcome from the mixture of probabilistic outcomes. I would add that the disturbance could be of our making, for example triggered as a result of an interaction at a suitably positioned detector. Or it could also be the result of disturbances from the surroundings for example the vibrations caused by a passing train. I would further add that the disturbance and the effect it causes is not instantaneous and is dependent on the nature of the disturbance and the superposition state being disturbed. Consequently it may be a challenging task to try and quantify it in general terms.

But should we even bother?

PART 45.   WHAT IS A QUANTUM SUPERPOSITION STATE REALLY? PART 1

Consider again the cat experiment. To make a prediction about the experiment we can say with a bit of confidence that in a given time the atom would have either decayed or not decayed, it doesn’t make sense to imagine it as being in a quantum superposition state of being decayed and not decayed at the same time. It could, however, be in a middle state, a sort of unstable equilibrium where it is finely balanced between the states of being decayed and being not decayed. Whilst in this middle state a slight disturbance might knock it out of balance for example it might be pushed to a slightly more unstable state where it starts to decay more rapidly. There’s even a possibility that a slight disturbance can tip the atom in the opposite direction to a slightly more stable state. Whether these changes can happen or not can depend, amongst other things, on the nature of the decay process and the nature of the disturbance.

The assumptions that the killing device and the cat can somehow get triggered into superposition states are very silly and should not be taken at all seriously, but let’s go along with it anyway. Consider the cat. In most accounts it’s written that an observation reveals either a live cat or a dead cat.  But there’s a sort of middle state, namely a dying cat or a cat that was dying but starting to revive.

In a nutshell it’s being speculated that for quantum events that are taken seriously, systems may not exist in different states simultaneously but may exist in unstable equilibrium between different states. A well known simple classical analogy that comes to mind is a system where a pencil is in unstable equilibrium balancing on its point, wobbling a bit and with the potential of falling in one of several different directions if disturbed enough.

 What would happen if it was a green Rexel Cumberland HB pencil said the old geezer?

PART 46.          DOES LIGHT HAVE PROPERTIES?

We start this section by considering the following statements:

  1. A property of light is it can be reflected from a mirror.
  2. A property of a mirror is that it can reflect light.

Some observations may be interpreted as light having certain properties which seem to be independent of the system within which the observations are made. A couple of possible examples, common to all models of light, are that light can travel through space and the speed of light is a constant.

Other observations can be better interpreted as displaying properties of the system within which observations are made. For example, experiments using a light and a mirror do not reveal properties of light on its own or the mirror on its own but reveal properties of the system within which light and the mirror are both parts. Observations of other interactions involving light, including those involving refraction, diffraction, interference and polarisation can also be best described as displaying properties of the system. The fact that light doesn’t necessarily have certain properties independent of the system should be obvious but it seems that sometimes it isn’t given the attention it deserves.

An assumption sometimes made is that some properties are not revealed until the moment of detection. To assume that those properties existed before that moment, for example to assume that light has certain properties whilst in transit, is an assumption which cannot yet be justified by observations. In some of our models of light, however, it’s envisaged that light does have properties whilst in transit.

 Some models can be very useful but they are not necessarily good enough descriptions for certain types of theoretical work. And they have other limitations. Consider now the seemingly perennial discussion topic known as wave particle duality. When reading reports on duality we are likely to read statements similar to the one below:

There are systems within which light displays the properties of waves and        systems within which light displays the properties of particles.

Such statements can lead to conceptual difficulties because of the implication that it is light exclusively that has those properties whereas what is observed is due to properties of the system of which light is a part. The statement could be better expressed as follows:

There are systems within which light can be usefully modelled as having the properties of waves and systems within which light can usefully be modelled as having the properties of particles.

This statement expresses a duality, not necessarily in any exclusive properties of light but a duality in two of our models of light. In summary the properties referred to in duality are best described as properties of the system and there is no duality of any independent properties of light.

It should be of no surprise that different types of observations can be made in different types of systems.

PART 47.     QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT

The assumption that there can be entangled photons that travel through space with definite properties can be described as being a type of hidden variables theory. Moreover, it’s a type of theory that seems to have been disproved by a string of experiments that have been carried out to test Bells inequality.

A problem with these types of hidden variable theories is that they are based on the assumption that photons and other quantum objects have properties which are exclusive to themselves. It’s an assumption which is difficult to justify since the observations made may best be described as revealing properties of the system of which the objects are a part and not necessarily properties which are exclusive to the objects only. So, if there really are hidden variables anyone wishing to find them might benefit by considering the properties of the experimental systems used and not just the assumed properties of the objects only. Maybe it’s worth thinking about.

Don’t tell anyone but last night Bob and Alice had a cuddle behind the fridge.

PART 48.                                   ELECTRON TUBES

Many teaching laboratories regularly carry out demonstrations using different types of electron tubes such as fine beam tubes and Maltese cross tubes. Amongst other things the tubes show that electrons can move in classical paths. Here we shall consider a basic X–Ray tube having a thermionic cathode and a positively charged anode.

If a single electron is released from the cathode the resulting system would be analogous to the mixed system described earlier, the electron would be the quantum part and the structure containing the anode would be the classical part. Because of the attraction between the two parts they will move towards each other with increasing accelerations and collide.

(The reason for considering the motion of the anode, even though it would normally be considered as negligible, will be made clear later in this work)

There are different possible outcomes of the collision one being that there can be a single interaction where all of the energy of collision is converted to a single photon which is radiated to the surroundings.

When this happens the whole event can be described in terms of potential energy being converted to kinetic energy which is then converted to the energy of the photon. There is data to show that for this particular event the potential energy lost (eV) is equal to the photon energy gained (hf).

(We can ignore the intermediate energy change.)

 e = electron charge,     V = potential difference between cathode and anode

h = Planck’s constant,   f = frequency of photon

This observation gives some evidence that no energy is radiated to the surroundings during that part of the event when the charges accelerate towards each other because if energy was lost hf would be smaller than eV.

In normal operation an X-Ray tube would radiate Bremmstrahlung photons along with any characteristic photons. The energy of the photon referred to above would be equivalent to the highest energy photon in the Bremmstrahlung mix. This can be read off from a suitable graph for example of photon frequency against photon count.

PART 49.            CLASSICAL AND QUANTUM DOMAINS

Roughly speaking we can say that approach and separation events of the type described in this work are quantum in nature within microscopic separations and classical in nature within macroscopic separations. We could add that interactions, including those involving photon emissions and photon absorptions play out within microscopic separations.

The transition between the classical and quantum domains is not necessarily abrupt but may be gradual and ill defined. As separations increase classical features such as smoothly continuous trajectories become more dominant and quantum features such as probabilistic trajectories become less dominant. As separations decrease it’s the other way round.

If pushed to give a numerical values for the quantum and classical range of separations I would reply that in recent years Ryberg atoms of diameter approximately equal to 0.1 mm have displayed some classical as well as some quantum behaviours. It seems that 0.1mm is in the border region between the classical and quantum domains of the hydrogen atom.

It’s the correspondence principle at work.

PART 50.                          THE GIANT RYDBERG ATOM

(see part 29)

Here we consider again the approach event of a bound electron and proton but this time starting with a giant isolated Rydberg hydrogen atom. There’s no theoretical maximum size of the atom so we are free to choose an initial separation of the particles, let this be huge so that in accordance with the correspondence principle we can describe most of the initial part of the event using classical physics. For the sake of brevity we shall consider a single transition to the ground state.

The Event

In the classical domain the approaching particles move with increasing accelerations as potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. At some stage a separation is reached where the separation enters the quantum realm where there is an energy conversion resulting in the creation of a photon of energy equal to the ionisation energy which gets radiated to the surroundings. This results in a transition to the ground state.

If now a photon from the surroundings enters the ground state atom its energy could be transferred to the kinetic energy of the particles. This would trigger a separation event where kinetic energy is converted to potential energy and the particles move with reducing decelerations.

PART 51.           THE RADIATION EXCHANGE MODEL

In the event described in part 50, radiant energy is transferred between the atom and the surroundings but only when the atom is in the quantum domain of microscopically small separations. To reiterate we can say the following:

  • An approach event transitions to the ground state as a result of a photon being radiated out of the atom.
  • A separation event transitions from the ground state as a result of a photon being radiated into the atom.

A photon leaving the atom reaches an absorber (detector) in the surroundings where an interaction results in its destruction and a photon entering the atom originates from a source in the surroundings where an interaction results in its emission (See part 19)

No energy is transferred between the atom and surroundings when the atom is in the classical domain of very large separations and this leads to a contradiction:

  • We wouldn’t expect energy to be radiated away because energy is conserved due to the conversions between kinetic and potential energy.
  • We would expect energy to be radiated away because according to current knowledge radiation is emitted by charged objects moving with changing accelerations.

So is energy radiated or not? The answer is a most probable yes but the energy is not radiated to the surroundings.

A few things need to be reiterated:

  • It’s widely accepted that charged objects moving classically with changing accelerations radiate energy. (déjà vu)
  • Radiation can be modelled as starting from somewhere, for example from photon emitters and going to somewhere, for example to photon absorbers. There are no interactions at empty places.
  • The electron and proton can be photon absorbers as well as photon emitters.
  • The effects of fields are felt at the occupied interacting parts of the field all of which contribute to the resultant field. In the case of the isolated hydrogen atom the interacting parts are the proton and the electron. There are no field interactions at empty places.
  • The radiation we might expect is not detectible in the surroundings so it must remain within the system of the atom, the system being the proton and the electron.

By considering the conservation of energy and the points raised above we can reach a conclusion which is that the particles do radiate, not to the surroundings but to each other. In fact the radiation exchange, which can possibly be expressed in terms of field changes, can be considered as a mechanism that brings about the conversions between potential and kinetic energy.

We can now present a radiation exchange model to describe the events in more detail:

  • During the approach part of the event each particle gains its increasing kinetic energy mass as a result of receiving energy from the reducing rest mass of the opposite particle.
  • During the separation part of the event each particle gains its increasing rest mass as a result of receiving energy from the reducing kinetic energy mass of the opposite particle.

We can now tentatively conclude that the total mass content of the system, potential energy mass plus kinetic energy mass is contained within the mass content of the particles and any radiation that may be transient between the particles.

Perhaps we could use the term potential energy mass instead of rest mass or invariant mass.

PART 52. WHEN ACCELERATING CHARGES RADIATE TO THE SURROUNDINGS

(see part 30)

There are circumstances when accelerating charged particles do seem to radiate to the surroundings for example there is synchrotron radiation, cyclotron radiation and our old favourite, Bremmstrahlung radiation. At first sight it might seem that to radiate the accelerating particles must be in unbound systems. However, every radiated photon moves from its emitter and to an absorber so could it be that every emitter absorber system through which a photon moves is a bound system? If so it could be that emitters radiate in relation to the surroundings and not independently of them.

Crumbs does that mean that my eyes are bound systems with the emitters of every photon that enters them? Definitely need to think this through more thoroughly.

Part 53.                      PARTICLE FIELD SYSTEMS

Particles and fields go together like pies go with mash. In the words of the old song, “you can’t have one without the other”. But what is the relationship between particles and fields? There are two main schemes each one based on a premise which is opposite to the premise of the other one.

  1. Particles are more fundamental than fields.

With this scheme we assume that each charged particle is the source of an electric field which exists everywhere in the surroundings. The fields interact at various occupied places but weaken with distance. It’s a classical scheme and from a practical point of view it’s a very useful scheme, one reason being that calculations are relatively quick and easy to carry out.

  • Fields are more fundamental than particles.

With this scheme fields are expressed in terms of quantum field theory which takes relativity into account. It’s assumed that there is a unique field for every type of particle and that every field exists everywhere. Every particle is assumed to be a component part of its unique field and roughly speaking can be described as a little lump of concentrated field energy. A big problem with this scheme is that calculations are difficult.

A third scheme which was suggested in this work is that the potential energy of any system of particles is shared amongst the mass contents of the interacting particles, the remaining mass of each particle being equal its kinetic energy. The total energy of a system should include the energy of the exchange photons

I’m off to Chrisp Street now to have pie and mash at Maureen’s

PART 54.                      ANNIHILATION EVENTS

See part 39

Here we shall use the radiation exchange model to consider the approach event in the pure quantum system of an electron and its anti particle the positron. Since the masses of the two particles are equal M for each one would remain constant but m would reduce with speed.

 Let the particles start from a state of rest at a very large separation such that most of the approach event can be described with classical physics. We could describe that each particle gains its increasing kinetic energy mass from the radiated reducing potential energy mass (rest mass) of the opposite particle. We can tentatively add that as the speeds increase both particles become less particle like and more photon like. If this trend continues a separation will be reached where the potential energy mass of each particle reduces to zero this resulting in the annihilation of the particles and the emergence of two gamma ray photons.

The normal interpretation of a constant M would have it that the approaching electrons gain their increasing kinetic energy masses from an external field. If so where is the source of the energy inputs?

The above description of annihilation is lacking in many ways and needs developing but as it stands at present it may be possible to advantageously incorporate it into the quantum electrodynamical description.

I’m still thinking about quantum field theory. It’s doing my head in.

PART 55.         RADIATION EXCHANGE MODEL AND MASS CHANGES

When the ground state hydrogen atom is ionised the ionisation energy along with the original kinetic energy is converted to potential energy. The total mass increase is equal to the ionisation energy which in mass units is approximately equal to 2.4 × 10– 35 kg.

During the separation both particles radiate kinetic energy mass to the potential energy mass (rest mass) of the opposite particle the result being that the potential energy mass approaches a maximum value as the speed of the separating particles approaches zero, this equates to a potential energy mass increase which is approximately equal to 2.8 parts in 108. A quick calculation seems to show that both particles undergo the same percentage increase. If the particles return to the ground state at the Bohr separation half of the increase is retained by the particles as kinetic energy and the other half, the ionisation energy, is radiated to the surroundings. It may be worth investigating these changes experimentally but how can the extremely small mass changes be measured?

Doris who lives at number 37 down the road told me to use a spring balance.

PART 56.  THE RADIATION EXCHANGE MODEL AND THE RELATIVISTIC MASS VARIATION EQUATION (see part 27)

In the relativistic mass variation equation, M/m = γ, it’s usually assumed that m is constant and M increases with speed. For many situations it works out to be a good assumption but it’s a special case and works well only for systems where the simplifying assumptions used in the derivation of the equation apply.

In a nutshell the derivation considers an electron moving in an electric field and ignores the fact that for the electron to move as described it must be part of a system which  contains at least one other part that moves, in order to conserve momentum. Also, the second part must have a charge which, along with the charge of the electron is a component part of the field in which the two parts move. The derivation also ignores the energy radiated by the electron and in the mathematical part of the work assumes that m is a constant.

Had the derivation been carried out in the more general terms of a two part system the normal interpretation would apply but only if the second part has an infinite mass. All is not silly though because in any real mixed systems the second part can be considered as being infinite, as can be proved with a little bit of general knowledge and a simple calculation. No wonder the equation and the normal interpretation of it has stood the test of time. But, the full predictive power of the equation has been overlooked.

Awkward infinities and zeroes often crop up in imaginary systems.

PART 57.                                       THE BOHR ATOM

One alleged fault with the Bohr Sommerfield model of the hydrogen atom is that it can be interpreted as predicting that because the orbiting electron accelerates it would lose energy by radiating it to the surroundings and as a result the atom would collapse.

A new model which does not use the reduced mass concept as a simplifying assumption would come up with a different prediction.

The model may be more complicated but the motions predicted shouldn’t be too different as those predicted with the old model. An advantage is that it will allow us to consider the radiation emitted by the proton as well as the radiation emitted by the electron and by applying the radiation exchange model both particles would be absorbers as well as radiators. There would be no energy lost to the surroundings because the particles would radiate to each other.

PART 58.                    SYSTEM STRUCTURES AND ANTI MATTER

Here we consider some events in systems of two objects only, one being an electron. The nature of the events depends upon the structure of the system, or to be more precise on the following ratio:

                                                    R = Ms/Me

Ms = Mass of second object             Me = Mass of electron 

There are two extreme types of structure and a range of intermediate structures.

  • At one extreme there is a perfectly symmetrical structure where:

                                                     Ms/Me = 1

With this structure the second object would be a positron.

  • At the opposite extreme there is a perfectly asymmetrical structure where:                                      Ms/ME = ∞

This structure can’t be achieved exactly but it can be approached. Any macroscopic object, even something as small as a teeny-weeny iron filing will have a mass so large compared to the mass of the electron that the ratio Ms/Me can be taken as infinite. For this work we will use an object from which photo electrons can be released. Let’s make it a lump of metal.

Between the extremes there is a range of intermediate structures. Because of the extremely large relative mass of macroscopic objects it could be that all intermediate structures will be atoms or molecules.We will consider the hydrogen atom in its ground state being excited or ionised.

I’m trying to think of other little things that could be parts of intermediate structures. So far, bacteria, diatoms and viruses have come to mind.

For each of the three systems we will consider a separation event which is triggered as a result of an incoming photon.

The perfectly symmetrical system

Under some circumstances a gamma ray photon of high enough energy can be destroyed and its energy converted to a system of a separated positron and electron. This is an event described as pair production.

The resulting system is unstable but can exist momentarily.

The event can continue with the positron meeting with its partner electron, or any other electron the result being that both particles get annihilated with the creation of gamma ray photons which are radiated to the surroundings

The intermediate structure

With the hydrogen atom the separation of the proton and electron can be increased by absorbing a photon from the surroundings that excites it to a higher energy level. As pointed out previously the potential energy increase moves into the rest masses of the particles.

The excited atom is also unstable but can exist momentarily.

The event can continue with the atom de exciting by emitting one or more photons, the number depending on the excited state reached.

The asymmetrical structure

 With this structure an electron can be removed and separated from a metal as a result of absorbing an incident photon and converting its energy. This is another system where the potential energy increases move into the rest masses of the objects.

Whatever the initial charge on the metal it becomes more positive when the electron leaves. If initially neutral it becomes positive, if initially positive it becomes more positive and if initially negative it becomes less negative which is the same as becoming more positive. I’ve chucked this in as an extra thing to mull over.

As with the other systems this system is also unstable but may exist momentarily.

One possible way this event can continue is that the electron gets attracted back to the metal from which it was emitted this resulting in a Bremmstrahlung type photon which is radiated to the surroundings.

Comparing the similarities of the three events

  • In all three cases a separation event can be triggered by an incoming photon.
  • In every resulting structure there will be a creation of negatively charged rest mass separated from positively charged rest mass. The rest mass changes in asymmetrical and intermediate structured systems are tiny.
  • The increased rest mass systems are unstable and most of them quickly revert to more stable systems in events where photons are emitted.

In the symmetrical structure it has been normal to refer to the temporary creation of matter, the electron and anti matter, the positron. Now, because of the similarities revealed we can use the same terminology to describe the event in all structures. As an example we can describe that the creation of positive and negative mass in the excited or ionised hydrogen atom is equivalent to the creation of a little bit of matter and anti matter. We can use this to define anti matter in such a way that anti matter should not be considered as being rare. It’s true that positrons are rare but the partner electrons that are created in pair production events are just as rare.

Perhaps we should ask why positrons and other particles generally regarded as being anti matter particles are rare. One answer could be that photons of minimum energy, 1.022 MeV, needed to trigger pair production events are rare. So that leads to another question, perhaps one that is best left to the astrophysicists.

Then and all of a sudden I tell you, the whole topic was engulfed by a mountainous bubble of perplexity.

PART 59.                 SYSTEM STRUCTURES AND MASS CHANGES

This topic has been gone over a couple of times but now some final conclusions will be reached.

Consider again the relativistic mass equation as described earlier in this work:  

                                                        M/m = γ

It was pointed out that the equation can be interpreted in different ways and there are two extreme cases:

  1. m remains constant and M changes
  2. M remains constant and m changes

In between these extremes both M and m change.

If events are analysed as two part systems using the radiation exchange model and referring to the system structures defined in part 58 it’s easy to work out which if any, of the interpretations is correct.

For intermediate systems M and m both change. As the system approaches perfect symmetry interpretation one is approached and as the system approaches perfect asymmetry interpretation two is approached. It’s easy to prove so it will not be done here.

It might seem ironic that during the approach part of an event in an intermediate system structure the small mass part undergoes a mass increase whereas the larger mass part undergoes a mass decrease. During the separation part of an event it’s the other way round

PART 60.                               ELECTRON CHARGE

For an electron and other charged objects the specific charges in other words the charge to mass ratios (e/m) are constants so this implies that charge and mass  can be variables which are directly proportional to each other.

This is not as daft as it might, at first sight, seem to be because there is no data available as yet to confirm or otherwise a direct proportionality.

To be continued need a break from physics and some brain recovery time

Comments,Discussion and criticism