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


Groups > sci.physics > #612684 > unrolled thread

Electron-positron annihilation

Started byjohn <johnsefton288@gmail.com>
First post2017-01-12 04:21 -0800
Last post2017-01-19 09:52 -0800
Articles 20 on this page of 73 — 9 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics


Contents

  Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-12 04:21 -0800
    Re: Electron-positron annihilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-12 16:00 +0000
      Re: Electron-positron annihilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-12 10:03 -0600
        Re: Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-12 08:09 -0800
          Re: Electron-positron annihilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-12 10:15 -0600
            Re: Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-12 08:19 -0800
              Re: Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-12 08:58 -0800
                Re: Electron-positron annihilation HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-01-19 17:50 -0800
                  Re: Electron-positron annihilation benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-01-19 21:15 -0500
                    re: er noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-01-19 21:28 -0800
              Re: Electron-positron annihilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-13 14:06 -0600
                Re: Electron-positron annihilation benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-01-13 17:36 -0500
                re-diation has nothing to do with geometrical rays per se, but thugstyle103@gmail.com - 2017-01-13 17:46 -0800
            Re: Electron-positron annihilation benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-01-12 17:36 -0500
              bosons are bosonically thugstyle103@gmail.com - 2017-01-13 01:46 -0800
              Re: Electron-positron annihilation Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-01-13 12:33 +0100
                Re: Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-13 03:40 -0800
                  Re: Electron-positron annihilation edprochak@gmail.com - 2017-01-13 12:53 -0800
                    Re: Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-17 14:40 -0800
                      Re: Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-17 15:11 -0800
                      Re: Electron-positron annihilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-18 02:44 +0000
                        Re: Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-17 19:33 -0800
                          Re: Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-17 19:44 -0800
                            Re: Electron-positron annihilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-18 17:32 +0000
                              Re: Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 09:42 -0800
                                Re: Electron-positron annihilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 11:59 -0600
                                  Re: Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 10:19 -0800
                                    Re: Electron-positron annihilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 12:28 -0600
                                      Re: Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 10:48 -0800
                                        Re: Electron-positron annihilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 14:20 -0600
                                          Re: Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 12:35 -0800
                                            Re: Electron-positron annihilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 14:50 -0600
                                            Re: Electron-positron annihilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 14:54 -0600
                                              Re: Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 13:05 -0800
                                                Re: Electron-positron annihilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 15:22 -0600
                                                  Re: Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 13:33 -0800
                                                    Re: Electron-positron annihilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 15:47 -0600
                                                      Re: Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 13:50 -0800
                                                        Re: Electron-positron annihilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 16:14 -0600
                                                          Re: Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 14:23 -0800
                                                            Re: Electron-positron annihilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 16:35 -0600
                                                              Re: Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 14:56 -0800
                                                                Re: Electron-positron annihilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-19 08:28 -0600
                                                        Re: Electron-positron annihilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-20 04:37 +0000
                                                Re: Electron-positron annihilation edprochak@gmail.com - 2017-01-18 21:58 -0800
                                                  Re: Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-19 05:55 -0800
                                                    Re: Electron-positron annihilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-19 08:30 -0600
                                                      Re: Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-19 06:55 -0800
                                                        Re: Electron-positron annihilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-19 10:21 -0600
                                                    Re: Electron-positron annihilation edprochak@gmail.com - 2017-01-19 10:28 -0800
                                            Re: Electron-positron annihilation edprochak@gmail.com - 2017-01-18 21:56 -0800
                                    Re: Electron-positron annihilation edprochak@gmail.com - 2017-01-18 10:37 -0800
                                      Re: Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 10:41 -0800
                                        Re: Electron-positron annihilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 14:27 -0600
                                          Re: Electron-positron annihilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 14:30 -0600
                                          kappa = 1/diameter noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 13:35 -0800
                                Re: Electron-positron annihilation edprochak@gmail.com - 2017-01-18 10:34 -0800
                                Re: Electron-positron annihilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-18 18:43 +0000
                            Re: Electron-positron annihilation edprochak@gmail.com - 2017-01-18 10:27 -0800
                        Re: Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-17 19:36 -0800
                          Re: Electron-positron annihilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-18 17:16 +0000
                            Re: Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 09:31 -0800
                              Re: Electron-positron annihilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-18 18:36 +0000
                      Re: Electron-positron annihilation edprochak@gmail.com - 2017-01-18 10:13 -0800
              Re: Electron-positron annihilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-13 15:37 -0600
                Re: Electron-positron annihilation benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-01-13 17:35 -0500
          Re: Electron-positron annihilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-12 17:03 +0000
            1/3 = 1/pi noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-01-12 10:41 -0800
              pith is at most a third thugstyle103@gmail.com - 2017-01-13 01:50 -0800
                'rithmeticallyte noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-01-15 17:50 -0800
          Re: Electron-positron annihilation edprochak@gmail.com - 2017-01-12 09:57 -0800
            what ever (que sera noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 13:41 -0800
              sera que) ever what noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-01-19 09:52 -0800

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →


#612684 — Electron-positron annihilation

Fromjohn <johnsefton288@gmail.com>
Date2017-01-12 04:21 -0800
SubjectElectron-positron annihilation
Message-ID<823e0ac3-7e78-4137-bae9-a5c523d086df@googlegroups.com>
When an electron and a positron
annihilate to form two gamma photons,
they don't 'become' photons- they already
were.
But instead of travelling in a straight line,
they were travelling in a complete circle
every cycle.
The length of the wave has everything 
to do with being an electron

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]


#612696

Frommoroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Date2017-01-12 16:00 +0000
Message-ID<o5897o$f1a$3@pcls7.std.com>
In reply to#612684
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>When an electron and a positron
>annihilate to form two gamma photons,
>they don't 'become' photons- they already
>were.

Depending on the spin state, there may be 3 gammas. Antiparallel spin produces
2 gammas, parallel spin produces 3 gammas.  Higher decay modes are possible
(but relatively unlikely), antiparallel spin produces an even number, parallel
spin produces an odd number.

And photons don't have charge.

>But instead of travelling in a straight line,
>they were travelling in a complete circle
>every cycle.
>The length of the wave has everything 
>to do with being an electron

I don't understand this babble.

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


#612697

FromOdd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date2017-01-12 10:03 -0600
Message-ID<o589d4$4hn$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#612696
On 1/12/2017 10:00 AM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> When an electron and a positron
>> annihilate to form two gamma photons,
>> they don't 'become' photons- they already
>> were.
>
> Depending on the spin state, there may be 3 gammas. Antiparallel spin produces
> 2 gammas, parallel spin produces 3 gammas.  Higher decay modes are possible
> (but relatively unlikely), antiparallel spin produces an even number, parallel
> spin produces an odd number.
>
> And photons don't have charge.
>
>> But instead of travelling in a straight line,
>> they were travelling in a complete circle
>> every cycle.
>> The length of the wave has everything
>> to do with being an electron
>
> I don't understand this babble.
>

For John, his postings fit into the category of "Far out, man. Wouldn't 
it be cool if...."
Facts are irrelevant. Stuff that even third-graders know is irrelevant.
These things suck the joy out of bullshit speculation.

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


#612699

Fromjohn <johnsefton288@gmail.com>
Date2017-01-12 08:09 -0800
Message-ID<9700695d-f881-4f87-b7a2-110c19d252d5@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#612697
I know you guys spend zero effort
actually trying to understand what's
happening down there.
I blame QM for telling you you can't 

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


#612701

FromOdd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date2017-01-12 10:15 -0600
Message-ID<o58a2b$61e$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#612699
On 1/12/2017 10:09 AM, john wrote:
> I know you guys spend zero effort
> actually trying to understand what's
> happening down there.
> I blame QM for telling you you can't
>

John, somewhere sometime you read something in a comic book that quantum 
mechanics says that nothing is known at that scale, and that everything 
is random and nothing makes any sense. Since that fit in with your 
confusion, then this comic book blurb has fixed in your head.

Never mind that it's nonsense bullshit. It's still fixed in your head, 
and so you can't shake it.

What actually happens down there is actually pretty well understood. Not 
completely finished, but a whole lot better than just blank slate. Of 
course, you can't seem to get that understanding because it can't be 
presented to you on a single page using everyday words, which you think 
is a crime.

But that's no reason to just lie about it, is it, John?

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


#612702

Fromjohn <johnsefton288@gmail.com>
Date2017-01-12 08:19 -0800
Message-ID<a120efcf-4cf9-4c94-9eb0-5cdb6bb2b5c2@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#612701
Odd
"
is a crime. 

But that's no reason to just lie about it, is it, John? "

Oh, Ok Odd.
Tell me, then, about how QM views
the photons  structure and how
that structure predicts a circular polarity?
That must have been in a different comic book

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


#612709

Fromjohn <johnsefton288@gmail.com>
Date2017-01-12 08:58 -0800
Message-ID<324b63b2-071b-4fe4-a05c-34148cb81d35@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#612702
Odd
"" 
is a crime. 

But that's no reason to just lie about it, is it, John? " 

Oh, Ok Odd. 
Tell me, then, about how QM views 
the photons  structure and how 
that structure predicts a circular polarity? 
That must have been in a different comic book "

Please speak to me, Odd!
Do you think a photon actually
has a structure?
If not, please explain how different
things can be different without having
internal structure?

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


#614211

FromHVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com>
Date2017-01-19 17:50 -0800
Message-ID<7ab41715-8e2b-4cbb-9eba-7d29d644feaf@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#612709
Poor John says
Do you think a photon actually 
has a structure? 
If not, please explain how different 
things can be different without having 
internal structure? 
--------------

Many many ways. Different frequency is just one. 

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


#614217

Frombenj <benj@nobody.net>
Date2017-01-19 21:15 -0500
Message-ID<588172d5$0$43863$c3e8da3$5e5e430d@news.astraweb.com>
In reply to#614211
On 1/19/2017 8:50 PM, HVAC wrote:
> Poor John says
> Do you think a photon actually
> has a structure?
> If not, please explain how different
> things can be different without having
> internal structure?
> --------------
>
> Many many ways. Different frequency is just one.
>
Good one. Now tell us how behavior doesn't need anything to do the 
behaving.

OF course I remind everyone that HVAC already demonstrated that John 
knows WAY more science than HVAC. HardBlow can't even solve the simplest 
high school science problem. He's like
Bert in that he knows nothing but thinks he deserves TWO Nobel prizes. 
Only HVAC is DUMBER than BERT! PROVED!

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


#614244 — re: er

FromnoTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com>
Date2017-01-19 21:28 -0800
Subjectre: er
Message-ID<ae7e6444-a0c0-4158-9ad3-01ff7bd1916a@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#614217
the secondpower of the speed of light,
is the rate of growth of the wavefront, mod pi;
big secret ... I only want three prizes!

> > If not, please explain how different
> > things can be different without having
> > internal structure?
> > --------------
> >
> > Many many ways. Different frequency is just one.
> Bert in that he knows nothing but thinks he deserves TWO Nobel prizes. 
> Only HVAC is DUMBER than BERT! PROVED!

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


#612950

FromOdd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date2017-01-13 14:06 -0600
Message-ID<o5bc0m$13hq$3@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#612702
On 1/12/2017 10:19 AM, john wrote:
> Odd
> "
> is a crime.
>
> But that's no reason to just lie about it, is it, John? "
>
> Oh, Ok Odd.
> Tell me, then, about how QM views
> the photons  structure and how
> that structure predicts a circular polarity?
> That must have been in a different comic book
>

Sure, John. Now, as you know, stuff like this can't be explained on one 
page in plain conversational English, so I'll be referring you to 
something to read that explains in the course of dozens of pages.

Relativistic Quantum Mechanics and Field Theory, Franz Gross, starting 
around section 8.4 and onward.

Now, tell me again how quantum mechanics has no explanation of what's 
going on down there and tells people to not even try.

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


#612981

Frombenj <benj@nobody.net>
Date2017-01-13 17:36 -0500
Message-ID<58795686$0$10589$c3e8da3$5d8fb80f@news.astraweb.com>
In reply to#612950
On 1/13/2017 3:06 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 1/12/2017 10:19 AM, john wrote:
>> Odd
>> "
>> is a crime.
>>
>> But that's no reason to just lie about it, is it, John? "
>>
>> Oh, Ok Odd.
>> Tell me, then, about how QM views
>> the photons  structure and how
>> that structure predicts a circular polarity?
>> That must have been in a different comic book
>>
>
> Sure, John. Now, as you know, stuff like this can't be explained on one
> page in plain conversational English, so I'll be referring you to
> something to read that explains in the course of dozens of pages.
>
> Relativistic Quantum Mechanics and Field Theory, Franz Gross, starting
> around section 8.4 and onward.
>
> Now, tell me again how quantum mechanics has no explanation of what's
> going on down there and tells people to not even try.

Odd have you been looking at the moon again? I noticed it's still out 
there.

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


#613008 — re-diation has nothing to do with geometrical rays per se, but

Fromthugstyle103@gmail.com
Date2017-01-13 17:46 -0800
Subjectre-diation has nothing to do with geometrical rays per se, but
Message-ID<d9a68b7c-ed95-42ad-af37-130388054a04@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#612950
KA-blammo

> Relativistic Quantum Mechanics and Field Theory, Franz Gross, starting 
> around section 8.4 and onward.
> 
> Now, tell me again how quantum mechanics has no explanation of what's 
> going on down there and tells people to not even try.

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


#612794

Frombenj <benj@nobody.net>
Date2017-01-12 17:36 -0500
Message-ID<587804f5$0$10680$c3e8da3$5d8fb80f@news.astraweb.com>
In reply to#612701
On 1/12/2017 11:15 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 1/12/2017 10:09 AM, john wrote:
>> I know you guys spend zero effort
>> actually trying to understand what's
>> happening down there.
>> I blame QM for telling you you can't
>>
>
> John, somewhere sometime you read something in a comic book that quantum
> mechanics says that nothing is known at that scale, and that everything
> is random and nothing makes any sense. Since that fit in with your
> confusion, then this comic book blurb has fixed in your head.
>
> Never mind that it's nonsense bullshit. It's still fixed in your head,
> and so you can't shake it.
>
> What actually happens down there is actually pretty well understood. Not
> completely finished, but a whole lot better than just blank slate. Of
> course, you can't seem to get that understanding because it can't be
> presented to you on a single page using everyday words, which you think
> is a crime.
>
> But that's no reason to just lie about it, is it, John?

You are as usual just spewing a bunch of drooling blather. The comic 
books are Correct. Nothing is known on that scale. Bell says there are 
no "hidden variables". There is nothing knowable on that level. 
Furthermore Bell says that Einstein is wrong. Relativity is wrong. The 
moon is not there if nobody looks at it. That is the FACT of your text 
books.

As for electron-positron interactions John has it right. An electron is 
a vortex in the aether in one direction, a positron is one in the 
opposite direction. When they interact the total motion cancels. But the 
energy stored in each vortex does NOT cancel and is released as 
vibrations (waves) being transmitted away in the medium known as the 
luminiferous aether.

Yes, it's really that simple which is why you can't understand it.

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


#612876 — bosons are bosonically

Fromthugstyle103@gmail.com
Date2017-01-13 01:46 -0800
Subjectbosons are bosonically
Message-ID<0ead7dc3-50f5-405f-84e6-0a1a1d28ae45@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#612794
the waves are bosonically mod pi: a)
circumferentially, b)
areally

> vibrations (waves) being transmitted away in the medium known as the 
> luminiferous aether.
> 
> Yes, it's really that simple which is why you can't understand it.

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


#612894

FromPoutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com>
Date2017-01-13 12:33 +0100
Message-ID<o5adrf$vig$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#612794
On 01/12/2017 11:36 PM, benj wrote:

> As for electron-positron interactions John has it right. An electron is
> a vortex in the aether in one direction, a positron is one in the
> opposite direction. When they interact the total motion cancels. But the
> energy stored in each vortex does NOT cancel and is released as
> vibrations (waves) being transmitted away in the medium known as the
> luminiferous aether.

In the Alice wonderland


-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

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


#612895

Fromjohn <johnsefton288@gmail.com>
Date2017-01-13 03:40 -0800
Message-ID<47072855-1df8-471a-80c0-df6a0544bdc4@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#612894
Pout 
"In the Alice wonderland "
So- when electron-positron
annihilate, the energy DOESNT
travel away as radiation?
It that what ur pouting?

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


#612955

Fromedprochak@gmail.com
Date2017-01-13 12:53 -0800
Message-ID<29805088-9157-4e20-855e-1620d9ca8eb4@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#612895
On Friday, January 13, 2017 at 6:41:03 AM UTC-5, john wrote:
> Pout 
> "In the Alice wonderland "
> So- when electron-positron
> annihilate, the energy DOESNT
> travel away as radiation?
> It that what ur pouting?

he is saying your spinning vortex model of electrons is 
something from a dream land.

So just go back to sleep John.

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


#613670

Fromjohn <johnsefton288@gmail.com>
Date2017-01-17 14:40 -0800
Message-ID<b6192455-e393-4911-a934-01a7856788bc@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#612955
ed 
"he is saying your spinning vortex model of electrons is 
something from a dream land. "

This is how electrons move
  http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/2electronorbital.GIF

 I use the same path for my Benzene model

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


#613691

Fromjohn <johnsefton288@gmail.com>
Date2017-01-17 15:11 -0800
Message-ID<606db63a-92d2-4809-bd2b-30a17832ac8a@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#613670
This is the same orbital from 4 different 
angles- the top left being the one
shown by the animation 
 http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/1-2orbit.jpg

(Sorry it's so dark- should have used yellow)

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


Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics


csiph-web