Do you have any references or links that explain the special decay process or conservation of charge further?
Sure, I'll find you some, it's not too difficult. The special decay process involves a charge conservation involving the decay \(\gamma \gamma \rightarrow e^{+}e^{-}\) Equally, the the RHS of an electron \(e^{-}\) meets an antielectron \(e^{+}\) reduce back to \(\gamma \gamma\) because of the charge conservation in the electron and positron.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_ray Note that this ''special decay'' actually applies to all particles as far as we are aware which adds to the evidence that particles with matter are actually trapped forms of light.
Yeah. There is a large growing number of scientists who have caught onto this idea for while, stemming right back to Dirac who believed the electron was really photon travelling through space in zitter motion, this was even extrapolated by Schrodinger. Since the decay process of any particle with its antiparticle results in gamma gamma decay is an indication that all forms of matter are but different forms of trapped light.
This is what we think. In the early stages of the universe, there was either plasma, or a gas of light which came from the big bang, roughly a few years, anything up to 300,000 years if memory serves me well for certain theories. Light was probably the fundamental particle of the universe... during inflation, the light turned into particles with mass, creating what current theory suggests as a symmetry breaking in the electroweak field. Before this, there was no matter, the universe was likely just a hot expanding bubble of photon gas.
This is known as the radiation epoch, then came the electrostrong and then electroweak, giving mass to the universe via the Higgs Mechanism, many scientists believe.
There is an alternative I explored, and that was the universe arose in a bubble of primordial black holes which evaporated very quickly which could provide the source of the photons due to Hawking-Unruh radiation.
Ask him to show you his Trapped_light equation. The one given dimension by his alter ego (sock puppet) Trapped.
I have three different approaches which uses different trapping models. Some semi-classical, others completely classical to some existing as black hole particles, also known as primordial Planck Particles which gives up a radiation bath background and was homogeneously distributed to 10,000th degree during inflation in each direction.
Oh yes definitely... through symmetries I found using the Dirac Basis, Chirality was based on a simple sign change in a symmetric entry positions. The dictation of spin came from what I called pilot matrices, something which could determine the spin of a system before it was even observed. These little symmetries provided a full basis for both positive and negative eigenvalues.
I can recite the equation I found for you... \(\int c^2 \ dr_s = \lambda \int [2m(\frac{c^2}{\hbar})v \cdot q]\) The right hand side describes a zitter motion connected to mass, the left hand side says it's nothing but a circulating flux equal to the velocity \(\int c\ dr_s = \lambda \sqrt{ \int [2m(\frac{c^2}{\hbar})v \cdot q]}\) You obtain the master equation from a series of quantization methods, notibly, the Schwinger quantization method and Eulers equation of timeless action.
For a full derivation of the formulas, you can follow this link http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...hese-equations-show-how&p=3225066#post3225066
Greetings Spellbound, I am a new member but need to state a firm position on the symmetry of physical reality. That the physical world is not symmetrical is easily demonstrated by electromagnetism, but it is asymmetrical even for mechanics, as demonstrated by a gyroscope. A gyroscope whose axis is horizontal and spinning clockwise may be seen to precess anticlockwise when seen from above. If it spins anticlockwise it will precess clockwise. Hence it is possible to conceive of "another kind of matter" in which when a gyroscope made from it spins clockwise as in the above example, it will precess clockwise when seen from above rather than anticlockwise. I am not saying that antimatter will work in this manner, though it might. Rather I am saying that matter is asymmetrical all the way down, subatomic particles being asymmetrical because they are vortices spinning around magnetic poles. FOLZONI
Spellbound would be better served deleting this thread than listening to the likes of Manifold's claim that everything is made of light or folzoni's failure to understand that it he is describing a symmetry in Newtonian mechanics, not an asymmetry. The pair-production observation is better explained in: 1) Excitations of the photon and fermion fields carry momentum, intrinsic angular momentum and energy. 2) Electrically charged fermion fields are coupled to the photon field by a quantity called the electric charge. 3) Therefore it is conceivable that electromagnetic disturbances where the relationship between total energy and total momentum is not light-like could give rise to an electrically neutral excitation in the fermion fields, provided that didn't violate any of the conservation laws. 4) Detailed comparison of experiment with theory shows that this is not a fundamentally new area of physics, but part-and-parcel of the same physical theory (Quantum Electrodynamics) which also correctly explains how much magnetic moment electrons have, how long it takes positronium to decay, and how electromagnetism's behavior changes from the predictions of Maxwell's Equations at high energies and short distances. Thus, the simplest quantum field theory -- Quantum Electrodynamics -- a topic in graduate school for physicists describes all the behaviors of electric and magnetic phenomena and how pair production works without the need to hypothesize that (in some imprecise way that leads to no useful descriptions of behavior) that spin-1/2 electrically charged particles are somehow made from spin-1 electrically neutral phenomena. The precession of a gyroscope is a predication predicated on the conservation of angular momentum in Newtonian mechanics which is a consequence of invariance with respect to rotation. This is handled in undergraduate classes in rigid body mechanics.
That electromagnetic interactions could be described as 'symmetrical'... ...relies on the 'reasoning' that north (N) & south (S) in magnets are not 'really' different e.g. in chapter 19 of Martin Gardiner's The Ambidextrous Universe, allowing electromagnetic illustrations to be 'identical' to their mirror-image situations. Gyroscopic interactions are Newtonian yet remain asymmetrical in their effects. A gyroscope spinning one way precesses one way - spinning the other way causes the precession to reverse. This however does not demonstrate symmetry but rather shows that even electrically neutral matter has a 'build-in' handedness (perhaps a better term than 'asymmetry') - it precesses only one way when it spins a particular way. A true symmetry, albeit comic, would be that half the time the gyroscope would precess one way, the other half the time it would precess the other way for no reason at all other than 'comic symmetry' (the comic gyroscope's variant behaviour thus denying invariance - but with this example we see how the word 'invariance' masks the underlying handedness of the actual gyroscope situation)!!!!! Hence the 'rigidity' of rigid body mechanics is underpinned by phenomena that are handed, that are not symmetrical in the ordinary sense - though one can I suppose redefine 'symmetry' to cover clearly asymmetric situations - as Gardiner very clearly does (and clearly I do not mean chemical chirality here). Our task is to be aware of this redefinition of 'symmetry', essentially due to the mathematicization of physics! FOLZONI
