Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #587792 > unrolled thread

e e- pair production could be due to a 'neutral magnetic particle'

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  e e- pair production could be due to a 'neutral magnetic particle' 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-07-03 11:02 +0000
    e e- pair production could be due to a 'neutral magnetic particle' john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-03 06:35 -0700
    Re: e e- pair production could be due to a 'neutral magnetic particle' Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-07-05 22:46 -0400
      Re: e e- pair production could be due to a 'neutral magnetic particle' john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-06 06:14 -0700
        Re: e e- pair production could be due to a 'neutral magnetic particle' moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-06 14:47 +0000
          Re: e e- pair production could be due to a 'neutral magnetic particle' noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-06 11:07 -0700
      Re: e e- pair production could be due to a 'neutral magnetic particle' 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-07-07 06:00 +0000
        waves of that noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-08 10:57 -0700

#587792 — e e- pair production could be due to a 'neutral magnetic particle'

e e- pair production could be due to a 'neutral magnetic particle'
------------------------------------------------------------------

Strange ways to think about it but an e e- pair popping up in empty
space and annihilating rapidly could be viewed as a NS SN pair
of magnets superimposed on each other - or a 'neutral magnetic particle'
moving through space.

When they collide, a pair of e and e- are exchanged to transfer momentum.

That is when we see them :)

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#587801

I like it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#588096

On Sun, 03 Jul 2016 11:02:51 +0000, 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> wrote:

>e e- pair production could be due to a 'neutral magnetic particle'
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Strange ways to think about it but an e e- pair popping up in empty
>space and annihilating rapidly could be viewed as a NS SN pair
>of magnets superimposed on each other - or a 'neutral magnetic particle'
>moving through space.
>
>When they collide, a pair of e and e- are exchanged to transfer momentum.
>
>That is when we see them :)

Has electron/positron pair production been confirmed in a total
vacuum?

Couldn't it also be a photon (EM field pulse) impacting a nucleus with
the electric field force "shearing off" a positive mass (positron) in
one direction and a negative mass (electron) in the opposite
direction?

Please don't cite the tired old "no electrons or positrons in the
nucleus" argument without "recanting" the observed positive (positron)
and negative (electron) beta emissions. Please also do not resort to
the multi-step electron producing reactions (from quarks) that
"magically" create electrons/positrons where none existed before so
they can be said to not reside in a nucleon (proton or neutron).

This also avoids current theory's requirement to explain away the
currently observed matter/antimatter imbalance in the universe. There
is no such imbalance. There are equal amounts of matter and antimatter
residing in each atom. Nuclear energy is obtained from de-excitation
(compacting) of the nucleus after fissioning or fusing. As the
positive and negative portions of the nucleus move closer together,
their potential energy drops (increases in the negative direction) as
their kinetic energy increases (in the positive direction) to maintain
total energy of zero (since no outside force is acting on the nuclear
system).

Furthermore, the reverse process (electron/positron annihilation) does
not have to occur. As an electron and positron approach from infinity
(or even a minimal distance), their annihilation energy (combined rest
energy of 2mc^2) is released as kinetic energy (2mc^2) by the time
they close to within the proton radius (~0.75 e-15m). 

With the annihilation theory, this kinetic energy isn't accounted for
in the resultant single photon's energy (2mc^2) not to mention the
bidirectional EM field pulse which must be measured (a photon does not
move in two directions at once - lol). 

Mike
---------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Strickland			Reston, VA
---------------------------------------------------

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#588123

Mike s said:
"There is no such imbalance. 
There are equal amounts of 
matter and antimatter 
residing in each atom. "
Yes.
And in each Galaxy.
Opposite galactic arms are a
matter-antimatter pair. At the atomic
level, a "down" electron is like
antimatter to an "up" electron. This
is the balance always being sought.
(Not "sot", HVAC- that's you.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#588128

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> babbles:

>Yes.
>And in each Galaxy.
>Opposite galactic arms are a
>matter-antimatter pair.

And your explanation of a lack of 511 keV radiation as matter stars,
in their orbit around the center, move out of a matter arm into
inter-arm space, and into an anti-matter arm (or vice versa)
as the star encounters anti-matter interstellar gas, is what?

What about galaxies with 3 arms?

Why don't you ever think your kookiness through to see whether
(actually, where) it all falls apart?

> At the atomic
>level, a "down" electron is like
>antimatter to an "up" electron. This
>is the balance always being sought.

An anti-matter electron is a positron, with a positive charge.
A positron can be "up" or "down" just like an electron, if it
is in a state where these states apply.

Oh wait, I forgot. You hijack terms used by scientists (such as
"black hole", "neutrino" and now "antimatter", and apply them to
figments of your own imagination which has nothing to do with what
everyone else uses these terms for.  Who knows what it is you call
"antimatter". So, "never mind".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#588155

that's new, even if john didn't say ****, per usualatum

> And your explanation of a lack of 511 keV radiation as matter stars,
> in their orbit around the center, move out of a matter arm into
> inter-arm space, and into an anti-matter arm (or vice versa)
> as the star encounters anti-matter interstellar gas, is what?
> 
> What about galaxies with 3 arms?
> 
> Why don't you ever think your kookiness through to see whether
> (actually, where) it all falls apart?
> 
> > At the atomic
> >level, a "down" electron is like
> >antimatter to an "up" electron. This
> >is the balance always being sought.
> 
> An anti-matter electron is a positron, with a positive charge.
> A positron can be "up" or "down" just like an electron, if it
> is in a state where these states apply.
> 
> Oh wait, I forgot. You hijack terms used by scientists (such as
> "black hole", "neutrino" and now "antimatter", and apply them to
> figments of your own imagination which has nothing to do with what
> everyone else uses these terms for.  Who knows what it is you call
> "antimatter". So, "never mind".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#588237

Michael J.  Strickland wrote:

>>e e- pair production could be due to a 'neutral magnetic particle'
>>------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>Strange ways to think about it but an e e- pair popping up in empty
>>space and annihilating rapidly could be viewed as a NS SN pair
>>of magnets superimposed on each other - or a 'neutral magnetic particle'
>>moving through space.
>>
>>When they collide, a pair of e and e- are exchanged to transfer momentum.
>>
>>That is when we see them :)
> 
> Has electron/positron pair production been confirmed in a total
> vacuum?

Supposedly yes.
 
> Couldn't it also be a photon (EM field pulse) impacting a nucleus with
> the electric field force "shearing off" a positive mass (positron) in
> one direction and a negative mass (electron) in the opposite
> direction?

Then the effect of that nucleus would also be present in the
in the measurements.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#588374 — waves of that

one often confuses the ideal of l.a.s.e.r
with zero-D newtonion rocks of light, but
newton had no appreciable theory ... let ther b *

> > Couldn't it also be a photon (EM field pulse) impacting a nucleus with
> > the electric field force "shearing off" a positive mass (positron) in
> > one direction and a negative mass (electron) in the opposite
> > direction?
> 
> Then the effect of that nucleus would also be present in the
> in the measurements.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web