The magical creation of the photon.

[Little Bang]

Hydro, I can't see a relationship between charge and mass. I suspect that the charge of the proton is related to the positive magnetic component and positive electric component of electromagnetic energy. The electron would be the negative of those two. The Stanford experiment could be construed as evidence for such an idea which, understandably, doesn't set well with the standard model.

[HydrogenBond]

The contrast I was trying to make, is in our readily observable universe, the most stable arrangement for the positive charge involves the higher mass to make the proton. In that respect, this choice can not be just a coincidence. There has to be something about the positive charge that creates this affinity for higher mass, i.e., it complements its native affect. The current models work under the assumption this arrangement is a given, without selectivity, since we can create the opposites. Based on this assumption we keep the charge fixed thing and merely shift it about. This approach does not give any additional attributes to the charge for creating this stable arrangement. That attribute is what I was trying to address. The net affect of this unknown attribute is it limits natural expression in space, unless we add energy. It maintains positive charge in a situation where its magnetic component stays lower, and it gives the proton more particle than wave expression, relative to an electron.

The way I see it, physics are hard enough to integrate using the assumption of charge as a single thing. To add more attributes makes it harder. But simple observations seem to indicate it is not equal and opposite to the negative charge since they can not be switch via mass and achieve the same level of particle stability. They be opposite but not equal. Where thy different may be reflected in their choice of mass reinforcing the differences.

[Little Bang]

I see what you are saying I'm just not sure if it's viable given that the anti-proton is stable to 10^30 years if it does not come into contact with matter.

[HydrogenBond]

One thing that I always though odd was an electron-positron pair is not stable but will combine to form energy. While an electron and proton are a stable binary arrangement that will linger for billion years. If we only consider charge attraction, the proton is an easier target for negative charge since the proton is quite slow. They should be able to close the deal considering the higher level of uncertainty of positron-electron.

The other conceptual problem is, as the positron and electron move toward each other, to close their distance, their magnetic fields are repulsive. The faster they approach the more they should repel. The same is true of the electron-proton but in this case the total magnetic repulsion should be less due to the proton not able to generate the same velocity. They latter should be better able to close the deal using only EM considerations. This suggests other attributes or lack thereof, making the difference.

If positive charge prefers larger mass, and it becomes attached to a lower mass, such as the positron, this isn't its lowest potential state. It is starting at higher potential and needs to go to a lower state. It would prefer more mass to lower potential. Maybe it tries to get more mass by combining with the electron, i.e., poof. A better choice for longevity would be a larger mass in one shot, instead of piecemeal. Even with the positive charge or EM repulsion in a nucleus, the stability gained by the better mass association makes this a more favorable event, more likely to stick and last.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

One thing that I always though odd was an electron-positron pair is not stable but will combine to form energy. While an electron and proton are a stable binary arrangement that will linger for billion years.

Indeed, an “exotic atom” of positronium formed of a positron and an electron, while similar in ways to an ordinary hydrogen atom (eg: they absorb and emit photons according to hydrogen’s spectral series, of about half the frequency, and can form molecules of 2 pseudo-atoms), but have an observed mean lifetime of only about . They can be pumped with photons, laser-fashion, in such a way that the mean lifetime is about 10,000 times longer, but are many orders of magnitude less stable than atoms, even unstable ones such as Ununhexium.

Protonium consists of a proton + antiproton pair, and are expected to have a mean lifetime of between and . Interestingly, it’s predicted to be subject more to strong nuclear than charge-based forces. AFAIK, there’s not as much data about protonium as postronium, having been experimentally produced since only about 2002 (see Antimatter and matter combine in chemical reaction - fundamentals - 13 October 2006 - New Scientist). As best I can tell, it wouldn’t have anything like an atom's photon absorption/emission spectrum.

Intuitively, the “oddly” short lives of the various “oniums” makes sense if you consider their quantum wave function, interpreted as a distribution of probabilities of the particles being detected in a given volume () In an atom, the probability density of the nucleons is nearly zero outside of a small radius of their nominal center, with the probability density of the electrons forming a cloud-like shell around them. With oniums, the two identical-but-for-charge antiparticles both have cloud-like shell distributions that occupy nearly the same volume. Their rapid mutual annihilation is somewhat analogous to electron capture decay of a radioactive atom, but rather than resulting in the transformation of an electron-proton pair into a neutron, the two antiparticles are transformed into 2 or more photons having no atom-like association (ie: “exploding”).

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by CraigD

Indeed, an “exotic atom” of positronium formed of a positron and an electron, while similar in ways to an ordinary hydrogen atom (eg: they absorb and emit photons according to hydrogen’s spectral series, of about half the frequency, and can form molecules of 2 pseudo-atoms), but have an observed mean lifetime of only about . They can be pumped with photons, laser-fashion, in such a way that the mean lifetime is about 10,000 times longer, but are many orders of magnitude less stable than atoms, even unstable ones such as Ununhexium.

Protonium consists of a proton + antiproton pair, and are expected to have a mean lifetime of between and . Interestingly, it’s predicted to be subject more to strong nuclear than charge-based forces. AFAIK, there’s not as much data about protonium as postronium, having been experimentally produced since only about 2002 (see Antimatter and matter combine in chemical reaction - fundamentals - 13 October 2006 - New Scientist). As best I can tell, it wouldn’t have anything like an atom's photon absorption/emission spectrum.

Intuitively, the “oddly” short lives of the various “oniums” makes sense if you consider their quantum wave function, interpreted as a distribution of probabilities of the particles being detected in a given volume () In an atom, the probability density of the nucleons is nearly zero outside of a small radius of their nominal center, with the probability density of the electrons forming a cloud-like shell around them. With oniums, the two identical-but-for-charge antiparticles both have cloud-like shell distributions that occupy nearly the same volume. Their rapid mutual annihilation is somewhat analogous to electron capture decay of a radioactive atom, but rather than resulting in the transformation of an electron-proton pair into a neutron, the two antiparticles are transformed into 2 or more photons having no atom-like association (ie: “exploding”).

Is the instability of the various "oniums" due to an inherent factor or due to the fact you can't insulate them from coming to contact with their matter counter parts? I know they are usually stored in a vacume but as we know even the best vacuum we can make is full of atoms and virtual particals. I remember reading that in the far far far distant future the universe will consist of positronium with the electrons and positrons orbiting each other at a distance of light years and each "atom" being many light years from each other and nothing else. This would indicate that they are stable as long as they don't contact other atom of positronium or unattached electron or positrons. BTW while we are on the subject (caution: stupid question coming) What would happen if a positron was forced to collide with a proton?

[HydrogenBond]

There are many things we can create, which may also be created by nature under high energy conditions, but the bottom line is the most stable states at cool temperature, i.e., without adding energy, is the proton and electron, where the positive charge ends up with larger mass. We don't have to go out on the limb, it is all around us.

Here are some other observations, which may tell us something about these differences. Because the positive charge ends up with the larger mass, it becomes intimately connected to GR. Even if we start with hydrogen atoms the mass of the proton makes the system vulnerable to gravity to where GR can come into its own and dominate. This natural design suggest a connection deeper than a mere coincidence default situation. If we had only electrons in the universe, gravity would still be in affect, but there would be a smaller GR impact. The negative repulsion and light mass would make SR dominant. If we combine these affects in the hydrogen atom we get some ratio of GR to SR potential.

In terms of the proton and positive charge, its GR connection allows the formation of stars. This, in turn, makes it possible for protons to combine in nuclei, via fusion. One observation about fusion is it requires protons and neutrons. One will not get fusion with just protons or just neutrons. Relative to the positive charge and its affinity for the higher mass, this suggests positive charge may be able to accommodate more mass with the positive charge in nuclei sharing mass. This extra mass sharing may have a connection to the nuclear force, with positive charge sharing allowing mass association without gravity, to create an affect similar to high GR.

Based on fusion energetics, tritium and deuterium make better fusion fuel than the hydrogen proton. What this implies is tritium and deuterium have smaller activation energy hills or go into fusion with more potential. This implies the one mass ratio for the positive charge is the most stable. The reason it may share with more mass is the high neutral mass has an affinity for the positive charge. In other words, the charge-mass ratio of one may be ideal. Neutral mass also wants this ratio if it is possible, with the result half sharing by all mass is more stable than half the mass sharing full time and half left without positive charge.

Once we reach iron, the situation changes, with higher atoms requiring the input of energy to create stable atomic states. One way to explain this is to bring the electrons into the picture. The impact of negative charge and small mass to create a greater occupation of space. This is in conflict with the nature of positive charge, so its impact would be endothermic. However, the induced occupation of more space assists positive sharing. It helps the mass-charge prime directive, but requires a space boost that is made stable due to the space enhancing affects of negative charge.

These are all old school observations that were reworked to show that the even older school, 19th century assumption, of equal and opposite charge, may need to be modernized at least into the the 20th century.

[Tolouse]

the Dirac equation is pretty interesting stuff

though i have no personal experience to glean from

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

Is the instability of the various "oniums" due to an inherent factor or due to the fact you can't insulate them from coming to contact with their matter counter parts?

Inherant, not due to interaction with other particles.

By definition “An onium (plural: onia) is the bound state of a particle and its antiparticle”. So, by definition, an onium has both mater and antimater, so doesn’t need any other particle to annihilate with.

It’s important not to confuse onia with anti-atomic matter. Since 1995, CERN, and I think other labs have successfully combined antiprotons () and positrons () to make stable atoms of antihydrogen (). As far as I can tell, however, attempts to develop cooling techniques that could slow these neutrally charged particles enough that they could be stored for long periods have not yet succeeded. (If it had, it’s safe to assume folk would be bragging about it here). So, despite having a strong theoretical understanding of how antimatter should behave – indistinguishable from ordinary matter – it’s not yet been possible to keep it around long enough to experimentally confirm this. This is a bit frustrating, as storing antiprotons is a mature technology: since before 2000, Penning traps have been used to store millions of antiprotons for months without zero losses.

Originally Posted by Moontanman

I know they are usually stored in a vacume but as we know even the best vacuum we can make is full of atoms and virtual particals.

Keep in mind that present-day antimatter storage systems are very low-temperature, within a few degrees of absolute zero. In a sense, any very cold gas has large volumes at absolute vacuum for long periods, because gasses are mostly empty space, and with their molecules moving slowly, the chance of one entering a given volume of space over a given period of time can be very low. Also, in collectors such those at CERN’s “antimatter factory”, the same techniques used to cool them, such as lasers, can be used to move individual molecules to produce tremendously pure vacuums.

Originally Posted by Moontanman

I remember reading that in the far far far distant future the universe will consist of positronium with the electrons and positrons orbiting each other at a distance of light years and each "atom" being many light years from each other and nothing else.

This is a wild and interesting idea! MTM, do you recall where you read about this, or, better yet, do you have a link to it?

To have a positronium pseudo-atom, or a normal atom, larger than the usual atomic scale (about ), space would have to be so empty that there were no nearby particles to interact with it. Even so, I can’t imagine a reason why even a light-year scale atom or pseudo-atom, which would be in an excited state, wouldn’t have its electron-like parts transition into lower-energy orbitals, releasing photons, until reaching ground state, and the usual atomic scale size. These factors offer an alternate way of looking at the usual explanation of why we see very large gravity-dominated structures, like planets, stellar systems, galaxies, and galaxy clusters, but only very small charge force-dominated structures, like atoms: gravity can work at long distances because it is only an attractive force, while charge forces are both attractive and repulsive, so over large distances involving many bodies, tend to result in effectively zero net forces.

[Little Bang]

I joined this form on 01/20/05. At the time I thought the standard model and quantum theory would one day answer all the remaining questions about the universe. The excellent threads and posts by members has made me realize that the dream of unification of the quantum world with the macro world is not going to happen using quantum theory and the standard model. There are four phenomena that neither have been able to explain. Those are gravity, charge, mass and inertia. I kept wondering why we could not answer these questions and I came to the conclusion that there was something inherently wrong with the basic premise of the standard model and that premise of course is that all the forces in the universe are mediated by a carrier particle. Through out the threads myself and a few others have suggested other ways that we might answer these question and in every case they have been met with, “ Well the standard model say’s this ……….., therefore you must be wrong “. I will put together a post combining all the ideas that I have suggested in the different threads and have opponents shoot the ideas down using logic and observation not the conclusions of the standard model.

I was born right handed. In 02 I had an accident. I now have to type with one finger of my left hand. This one post has taken me two hours and fifteen minutes to type, so it will be a couple of weeks before I post again.