The universe makes anti-matter casually and regularly!

[Atlan0001]

I once long ago, elsewhere on the net, said the universe produces anti-matter to keep itself in balance. That it is always around and plenty of it, possibly, altogether, in equal amounts to the matter, itself, in constant production by the universe.

This article I point to here is very similar to that I've seen and described from my own mind's eye so long ago:

How does the universe make antimatter?

Although our universe is mostly normal matter, antimatter isn’t so hard to create — supernovae, black holes, and even bananas can make it.

www.astronomy.com

Enjoy.

 

[TheVat]

That it is always around and plenty of it, possibly, altogether, in equal amounts to the matter, itself,

It may be helpful to read down to the paragraphs on baryon asymmetry.

 

[Dave Lush]

There are theories proposed by various authors, probably the most well-known being proposed independently by Harari and Shupe in 1979, where quarks and leptons are not fundamental but rather composed of more-elementary particles. There have been articles about them in the popular press such as one by Don Lincoln in Scientific American called The Inner Life of Quarks. In the Shupe version, quarks and leptons and even bosons are all composed of a charged and an uncharged preon and their antiparticles. So only two particles and their two antiparticles compose all matter, according to the Shupe version. An electron is three charged matter preons, but a quark is a mixture of preons and antipreons (always three in total), and so ordinary matter is actually composed fairly substantially of antimatter according to these models.

One of the things I find compelling about the Harari-Shupe model is that one can suppose that a composite electron made of preons can have orbital angular momentum that explains the intrinsic spin.

Also, in the Harari-Shupe model, the charged preon is negatively charged, with 1/3 the electron charge, so three charged preons make up an electron, but all positive charges are traceable to the anti-preon. So, if the Harari-Shupe preon model is correct (which is admittedly not currently believed by many people due to the lack of experimental support for preons, despite long-standing efforts to find quark and lepton substructure) it is necessary that electrically-neutral matter has an equal number of the charged preon and its antipreon.

It's possible to roughly estimate the matter-antimatter mass ratio of ordinary matter according to the Shupe-Harari model, just using the preon tables for quarks and leptons in the Don Lincoln article, and if one takes the ratio of the unbalanced mass to the balanced matter-antimatter mass, you get something close to the estimated ratio of dark to visible mass ratio inferred based on the galactic rotational velocity anomaly. Standard relativity has no expectation of this, but there is an alternative form of (special) relativity that predicts the inertial mass of matter-antimatter composites is less than its gravitational mass. Zbigniew Osiak proposed this alternative relativity in 2019 without mention of this fact. He argues simply it is more true to the relativity principle of Lorentz invariance of physical law than traditional relativity. I spent a lot of time investigating it for other reasons, and I think Osiak's form of relativity was probably Einstein's first choice, but was rejected on account of it being inconsistent with energy conservation. I expected it would not conserve energy, because it has an alternative form of relativistic energy, and I already knew from J. D. Jackson's electrodynamics textbook that the energy formula of traditional relativity is the unique form that does conserve energy. But I didn't let that bother me because I supposed that maybe energy nonconservation in relativistic particle collisions could account for dark energy. I found there are quantum gravity guys proposing the same idea. Also, I decided energy conservation is not needed really because in both Einstein and Osiak relativity, the temporal component of four-momentum is a conserved quantity. Since it's E/c in Einstein relativity, energy conservation is equivalent to temporal momentum conservation in Einstein relativity. Osiak relativity differs only in the energy form, so it preserves temporal momentum conservation in exactly the same form as Einstein relativity, which is enough to provide, for example, matter-antimatter pair creation thresholds.

I present the whole argument in a paper I've posted various places online (researchgate, academia, IJQF). I couldn't get it reviewed at Foundations of Physics (which published a paper I wrote in 2016) or by Nature. I didn't send it to places that charge $2K publication fees because I don't think I should have to pay when I don't have a sponsor.

Most importantly, I show also that there is a straightforward and relatively inexpensive experiment that can indicate which of Einstein or Osiak relativity is correct. It's do-able with a betatron. Osiak relativity predicts that positrons should be detectable prior to their creation event. (It is an idea of Richard Feynman, who cites Steuckelberg, that positrons are time-reversed electrons. Feynman diagrams have this implicitly through the opposite direction of antiparticle propagator arrows compared to particles.) In Einstein relativity, to be consistent with cloud chamber photographs of pair creation, it has to be that the positron if it is a time-reversed electron is observed after the creation event. In the Feynman model (see his paper Theory of Positrons) the positron is coming from the future then is reversed in time by hitting the gamma-ray photon. In the Osiak relativity model, on the other hand, the positron is created at the creation event and moves backwards in time from then, and so can be observed to annihilate prior to its creation.

 

[exchemist]

There are theories proposed by various authors, probably the most well-known being proposed independently by Harari and Shupe in 1979, where quarks and leptons are not fundamental but rather composed of more-elementary particles. There have been articles about them in the popular press such as one by Don Lincoln in Scientific American called The Inner Life of Quarks. In the Shupe version, quarks and leptons and even bosons are all composed of a charged and an uncharged preon and their antiparticles. So only two particles and their two antiparticles compose all matter, according to the Shupe version. An electron is three charged matter preons, but a quark is a mixture of preons and antipreons (always three in total), and so ordinary matter is actually composed fairly substantially of antimatter according to these models.

One of the things I find compelling about the Harari-Shupe model is that one can suppose that a composite electron made of preons can have orbital angular momentum that explains the intrinsic spin.

Also, in the Harari-Shupe model, the charged preon is negatively charged, with 1/3 the electron charge, so three charged preons make up an electron, but all positive charges are traceable to the anti-preon. So, if the Harari-Shupe preon model is correct (which is admittedly not currently believed by many people due to the lack of experimental support for preons, despite long-standing efforts to find quark and lepton substructure) it is necessary that electrically-neutral matter has an equal number of the charged preon and its antipreon.

It's possible to roughly estimate the matter-antimatter mass ratio of ordinary matter according to the Shupe-Harari model, just using the preon tables for quarks and leptons in the Don Lincoln article, and if one takes the ratio of the unbalanced mass to the balanced matter-antimatter mass, you get something close to the estimated ratio of dark to visible mass ratio inferred based on the galactic rotational velocity anomaly. Standard relativity has no expectation of this, but there is an alternative form of (special) relativity that predicts the inertial mass of matter-antimatter composites is less than its gravitational mass. Zbigniew Osiak proposed this alternative relativity in 2019 without mention of this fact. He argues simply it is more true to the relativity principle of Lorentz invariance of physical law than traditional relativity. I spent a lot of time investigating it for other reasons, and I think Osiak's form of relativity was probably Einstein's first choice, but was rejected on account of it being inconsistent with energy conservation. I expected it would not conserve energy, because it has an alternative form of relativistic energy, and I already knew from J. D. Jackson's electrodynamics textbook that the energy formula of traditional relativity is the unique form that does conserve energy. But I didn't let that bother me because I supposed that maybe energy nonconservation in relativistic particle collisions could account for dark energy. I found there are quantum gravity guys proposing the same idea. Also, I decided energy conservation is not needed really because in both Einstein and Osiak relativity, the temporal component of four-momentum is a conserved quantity. Since it's E/c in Einstein relativity, energy conservation is equivalent to temporal momentum conservation in Einstein relativity. Osiak relativity differs only in the energy form, so it preserves temporal momentum conservation in exactly the same form as Einstein relativity, which is enough to provide, for example, matter-antimatter pair creation thresholds.

I present the whole argument in a paper I've posted various places online (researchgate, academia, IJQF). I couldn't get it reviewed at Foundations of Physics (which published a paper I wrote in 2016) or by Nature. I didn't send it to places that charge $2K publication fees because I don't think I should have to pay when I don't have a sponsor.

Most importantly, I show also that there is a straightforward and relatively inexpensive experiment that can indicate which of Einstein or Osiak relativity is correct. It's do-able with a betatron. Osiak relativity predicts that positrons should be detectable prior to their creation event. (It is an idea of Richard Feynman, who cites Steuckelberg, that positrons are time-reversed electrons. Feynman diagrams have this implicitly through the opposite direction of antiparticle propagator arrows compared to particles.) In Einstein relativity, to be consistent with cloud chamber photographs of pair creation, it has to be that the positron if it is a time-reversed electron is observed after the creation event. In the Feynman model (see his paper Theory of Positrons) the positron is coming from the future then is reversed in time by hitting the gamma-ray photon. In the Osiak relativity model, on the other hand, the positron is created at the creation event and moves backwards in time from then, and so can be observed to annihilate prior to its creation.

How does detection before their creation event work, experimentally?

 

[QuarkHead]

How does detection before their creation event work, experimentally?

Looks nuts, but I wonder if the paper isn't using the terms "creation" and "annihalation"in the specialized way they sometimes are in QM? Namely the aplication of the operators bearing these names that can be used to determine the "ladder" of allowable eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the energy Hamilitonian. of a quatum system.

Possibly the OP can clarify?

 

[exchemist]

Looks nuts, but I wonder if the paper isn't using the terms "creation" and "annihalation"in the specialized way they sometimes are in QM? Namely the aplication of the operators bearing these names that can be used to determine the "ladder" of allowable eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the energy Hamilitonian. of a quatum system.

Possibly the OP can clarify?

Hmm, possibly. Let's see.

 

[Dave Lush]

How does detection before their creation event work, experimentally?

Good question, exchemist. I plan to work on a detailed description as best I can and post it as a paper or presentation later. Roughly speaking, though it's fairly simple.

Electron-positron pair creation occurs if a gamma-ray photon above the threshold energy of about 1 MeV is scattered by an atomic nucleus (typically in a thin metal foil target), whereupon the photon disappears and is replaced by the pair. In experimental pair-production setups this is in a vacuum chamber or cloud chamber, and possibly in an applied magnetic field. Cloud chamber or emulsion photographs can capture a pair creation event and in a static magnetic field we see the electron and positron being deflected oppositely by the field, from which it was originally inferred that the positron has an equal mass but opposite charge to the electron.

It's important to note that these photographs are essentially time exposures and so don't show the actual time evolution of the event. The most natural interpretation is that the positron has a positive mass and moves forward in time after the photon-nucleus (near-)collision event that created it, and coexists with the electron after the event. However, Feynman proposed (in a paper, The Theory of Positrons from 1949) that positrons are just electrons moving backward in time, with the positron according to its point of view coming from the future and getting time-reversed by colliding with the photon, and then continuing forward in time as an electron after the collision. If we could watch this as a movie in slow motion, it would look just like the interpretation of the positron as moving forward in time, and we would see the positron and electron simultaneously existing only after the event. However from the positron's point of view it's just an electron going backwards in time initially then getting time-reversed by the photon and returning back toward the future. Also, what was regarded as a creation event didn't actually create the positron as it was already there from its point of view and simply got time reversed. (I talk about how this is philosophically problematic my paper.)

An alternative interpretation exists for the time-exposure photograph however that would look distinct from the other two cases, that the positron is a time-reversed electron but is actually created at the collision event, so that it proceeds toward the past from the event. I think on its face this is actually less problematic than the Feynman interpretation, and while in traditional relativity the Feynman interpretation is the only one consistent with electrodynamics, if Osiak relativity is assumed, only the alternative interpretation is consistent electrodynamically. (I give the math details in my paper.) So the experiment is to determine if the third interpretation is true. The first two are not obviously indistinguishable from one another in principle, but the third is certainly different in the movie version because the positron doesn't exist in the lab frame after the collision event, only before.

Sorry for the long preamble, but now to answer your question. Positrons are known to annihilate when they strike matter because matter is rich in electrons. So the signature of the positron annihilating is emission of another gamma ray photon of about 1 MeV energy. I'm not sure (yet) how these are detected in accelerators but I'm assuming they can be detected. The electron on the other hand can be detected if it strikes phosphor as in a cathode ray tube tv. If we know the time measurement resolution and accuracy for both types of detection, then we can let the two created particles run out in a vacuum pipe far enough so we can discriminate between them hitting detection plates simultaneously or differing by twice the travel time from the event. (We don't need to know the time of creation, just the time difference of the detections after. Also we don't need the strong applied field. With no applied field, the created particles will fly straight along the original photon direction, and the photon will have been collimated prior to hitting the foil. The created particles for practical purposes can be assumed traveling at the speed of light, but the length of the pipe can be adjusted as needed. A magnetic field can be applied at the end of the apparatus to steer the electron and positron to different detectors, if needed.)

(Another way to do it, if detecting the annihilation photon is too difficult or impossible, is to use a cloud chamber or emulsion to detect the positron, just like originally done, and use fancy time gating. The incident gamma ray can be time gated to a short interval, and photos taken at the positron detector prior to and after the collision time by the travel time through the pipe. Seeing the high-energy electron gives another time hack and confirmation that a pair was created. It can be used as a trigger if desired and the pipe lengths don't have to be the same )

 

[exchemist]

Good question, exchemist. I plan to work on a detailed description as best I can and post it as a paper or presentation later. Roughly speaking, though it's fairly simple.

Electron-positron pair creation occurs if a gamma-ray photon above the threshold energy of about 1 MeV is scattered by an atomic nucleus (typically in a thin metal foil target), whereupon the photon disappears and is replaced by the pair. In experimental pair-production setups this is in a vacuum chamber or cloud chamber, and possibly in an applied magnetic field. Cloud chamber or emulsion photographs can capture a pair creation event and in a static magnetic field we see the electron and positron being deflected oppositely by the field, from which it was originally inferred that the positron has an equal mass but opposite charge to the electron.

It's important to note that these photographs are essentially time exposures and so don't show the actual time evolution of the event. The most natural interpretation is that the positron has a positive mass and moves forward in time after the photon-nucleus (near-)collision event that created it, and coexists with the electron after the event. However, Feynman proposed (in a paper, The Theory of Positrons from 1949) that positrons are just electrons moving backward in time, with the positron according to its point of view coming from the future and getting time-reversed by colliding with the photon, and then continuing forward in time as an electron after the collision. If we could watch this as a movie in slow motion, it would look just like the interpretation of the positron as moving forward in time, and we would see the positron and electron simultaneously existing only after the event. However from the positron's point of view it's just an electron going backwards in time initially then getting time-reversed by the photon and returning back toward the future. Also, what was regarded as a creation event didn't actually create the positron as it was already there from its point of view and simply got time reversed. (I talk about how this is philosophically problematic my paper.)

An alternative interpretation exists for the time-exposure photograph however that would look distinct from the other two cases, that the positron is a time-reversed electron but is actually created at the collision event, so that it proceeds toward the past from the event. I think on its face this is actually less problematic than the Feynman interpretation, and while in traditional relativity the Feynman interpretation is the only one consistent with electrodynamics, if Osiak relativity is assumed, only the alternative interpretation is consistent electrodynamically. (I give the math details in my paper.) So the experiment is to determine if the third interpretation is true. The first two are not obviously indistinguishable from one another in principle, but the third is certainly different in the movie version because the positron doesn't exist in the lab frame after the collision event, only before.

Sorry for the long preamble, but now to answer your question. Positrons are known to annihilate when they strike matter because matter is rich in electrons. So the signature of the positron annihilating is emission of another gamma ray photon of about 1 MeV energy. I'm not sure (yet) how these are detected in accelerators but I'm assuming they can be detected. The electron on the other hand can be detected if it strikes phosphor as in a cathode ray tube tv. If we know the time measurement resolution and accuracy for both types of detection, then we can let the two created particles run out in a vacuum pipe far enough so we can discriminate between them hitting detection plates simultaneously or differing by twice the travel time from the event. (We don't need to know the time of creation, just the time difference of the detections after. Also we don't need the strong applied field. With no applied field, the created particles will fly straight along the original photon direction, and the photon will have been collimated prior to hitting the foil. The created particles for practical purposes can be assumed traveling at the speed of light, but the length of the pipe can be adjusted as needed. A magnetic field can be applied at the end of the apparatus to steer the electron and positron to different detectors, if needed.)

(Another way to do it, if detecting the annihilation photon is too difficult or impossible, is to use a cloud chamber or emulsion to detect the positron, just like originally done, and use fancy time gating. The incident gamma ray can be time gated to a short interval, and photos taken at the positron detector prior to and after the collision time by the travel time through the pipe. Seeing the high-energy electron gives another time hack and confirmation that a pair was created. It can be used as a trigger if desired and the pipe lengths don't have to be the same )

OK, so if I understand you correctly, the positron and the electron will be detected at the same instant if the positron goes forward in time like anything else, but if it goes backward there should be a time difference between detecting the two, equivalent to twice the time of flight from the creation event, because in that case the γ-ray should be emitted before the creation event, correct?

Er.....pass the bong!

 

[DaveC426913]

OK, so if I understand you correctly, the positron and the electron will be detected at the same instant if the positron goes forward in time like anything else, but if it goes backward there should be a time difference between detecting the two, equivalent to twice the time of flight from the creation event, because in that case the γ-ray should be emitted before the creation event, correct?

Er.....pass the bong!

Well that's gonna be fun.

Consider what could happen if we get our experiments fine tuned enough that we can stop the interaction after we detect the positron but before we detect the electron. That's a time paradox.

Note, by the way, that unlike most other experiments, this one doesn't require ever-finer control over time and distance of events. In fact, the longer the accelerator, the easier the discrepancy would be to detect.

In fact, why aren't we seeing a shower of random positrons coming at us from the past? They could be coming from light years away or more. There's going to be electron-positron pair creation out there in the universe. Much of it will be happening (on average) millions or even billions of light years distant. Which means the initial creation events will be lost in the deep past, and all we will experience is a shower of uninvited positrons from everywhere in the sky (as well as electrons, but we're used to them floating around).

 

[Dave Lush]

OK, so if I understand you correctly, the positron and the electron will be detected at the same instant if the positron goes forward in time like anything else, but if it goes backward there should be a time difference between detecting the two, equivalent to twice the time of flight from the creation event, because in that case the γ-ray should be emitted before the creation event, correct?

Er.....pass the bong!

Totally, dude

 

[Dave Lush]

Well that's gonna be fun.

Consider what could happen if we get our experiments fine tuned enough that we can stop the interaction after we detect the positron but before we detect the electron. That's a time paradox.

Note, by the way, that unlike most other experiments, this one doesn't require ever-finer control over time and distance of events. In fact, the longer the accelerator, the easier the discrepancy would be to detect.

In fact, why aren't we seeing a shower of random positrons coming at us from the past? They could be coming from light years away or more. There's going to be electron-positron pair creation out there in the universe. Much of it will be happening (on average) millions or even billions of light years distant. Which means the initial creation events will be lost in the deep past, and all we will experience is a shower of uninvited positrons from everywhere in the sky (as well as electrons, but we're used to them floating around).

I think you meant to say, positrons coming from the future, in which case, yes. All positrons come from the future, because a positron coming from the past is just an electron, if Osiak relativity is correct.

Osiak relativity is at least seemingly paradoxical.

I thought about whether I can build a transmitter to send myself the stock market prices from tomorrow. Let me give a little more background. Osiak relativity preserves existing Maxwell-Lorentz electrodynamics but adds a whole new imaginary solution that describes waves with negative temporal component of four-momentum. (The newest version of the explanation of this is in my dark matter paper, here: https://www.researchgate.net/public...Difference_of_Inertial_and_Gravitational_Mass , see sections 4 and 5.) So, assuming Osiak relativity is true, symmetry considerations and observations lead one to believe that positrons are only affected by what I call time-reversed-wave solutions, i.e., ones carrying negative temporal momentum (equivalent to energy in Einstein relativity but allowed to be negative in Osiak relativity, while energy is a different, positive-definite quantity in OR). However, electron currents apparently create time-reversed waves (in addition to the usual forward-time waves), because electron currents in electromagnets deflect positrons as observable in the earliest cloud chamber photographs. So, to receive a signal from the future, you can use an ordinary transmitter in the future, but you need to build a positronic receiver. Also, if you want to receive a signal today from tomorrow, the transmitter has to be a light-day away in space. Building a positronic receiver is not easy but I think feasible (can explain later), but that transmitter that's a light-day away is no real use because it takes a day for the stock market closing price I want to send back to yesterday to get there. So maybe not paradoxical after all.

I strongly suspect that Osiak's form of relativity was well known to Einstein and probably also to a lot of his contemporaries. For example, wouldn't Minkowski have argued, as Osiak does, that the only Lorentz-covariant way to calculate energy is to integrate his equation of motion we now call the Minkowski equation (but never use)? Jackson explicitly argues that the Einstein energy formula is the correct one because it's the unique formula that conserves energy (he's right about that part). All that was before dark matter or dark energy or cosmic inflation were things, though, and that's why the whole subject of what is the right energy expression is worth re-examining, and why it's fabulous there's apparently a pretty easy way to test it.

On the other hand, I just realized, we can put the positronic radio receiver in the Kuiper belt, so when I transmit today's stock market closing price it will be received there yesterday instead of tomorrow. Then it can retransmit it, and I will pick it up day before yesterday with my positronic receiver. Paradox recovered!

 

[QuarkHead]

I thought about whether I can build a transmitter to send myself the stock market prices from tomorrow

Surely a true time lord deserves a more exotic name than Dave.

 

[Dave Lush]

Surely a true time lord deserves a more exotic name than Dave.

Thanks, QuarkHead. Maybe they will give me a proper timelord name when they recognize my contributions on Galifrey. Maybe something like, Tim.

I'm still thinking about whether Osiak relativity predicts a backwards-time transmitter can be built. I think I have a way to approach the issue, at least, and tentatively, it seems like there's not a good reason to think an antenna that focuses waves at a distant point at a future time would also focus waves at a point in the past. Also, I believe it's an engineering problem that current antenna design techniques can be applied to, to possibly prove that Osiak relativity isn't actually paradoxical. I will try to explain how these techniques can be modified to incorporate Osiak relativity, and so definitively answer the question.

At the same time, a benefit of there being a simple experimental test of whether Osiak relativity is true, or not, is that it becomes rather beside the point whether it's paradoxical or not (unless the objective is to get paid to debate the issue ad infinitum). Even if it can be proven one way or the other whether Osiak relativity is paradoxical, it's arguably better for both the yay and nay sayers that the test should be done before spending a lot of effort trying to settle the paradoxy issue.

It's notable that when we see positrons being influenced in an understandable way by an electron current in a cloud chamber, we are seeing the influence of a constant magnetic field set up by steady-state currents in the electromagnet windings. So, not a transmitter antenna and also a process that behaves very predictably under time inversion. It's basic electrodynamics that magnetic fields sign-invert under time inversion. That's the only difference for a steady current.

More generally, in electrodynamics there are closed-form solutions to the inhomogenous electromagnetic wave equation for arbitrary motion of a point charge. These are so-called Green's functions and make it possible to determine the field distributions for an arbitrary time-dependent current, which could represent (say) the current distribution in a wire antenna, by linear superposition of these solutions. Engineers will pretty invariably represent such a time-dependent current distribution based on its Fourier transform representation, which is representing it in terms of its sinusoidal components at all frequencies and including relative phases between them.

It turns out there are two Green's function solutions to the EM wave equation, in traditional (i.e. non-Osiak) electrodynamics for a point charge undergoing oscillatory motion at a fixed frequency, that are called the retarded, and the advanced wave solutions. The retarded waves are representing radiation of energy away from the field-source charge, and make construction of a radio transmitter possible. The term "retarded" is describing the propagation delay that occurs in radio transmission, where a charge oscillating in the transmitter antenna causes a field disturbance that propagates toward the receiver and arrives at a time later in accordance with the speed of radio transmission, which is equal the speed of light. On the other hand, the advanced wave solutions describe what is happening at the receiver where the retarded wave causes motion of the charges in a receiving antenna. They describe spherical waves converging on a point charge in the receiving antenna. So, the retarded and advanced wave solutions together are needed to describe radio communication.

There is a famous physics paper by Wheeler and Feynman from 1945, "Absorption as the mechanism of radiation," that argues the process of absorption of an EM wave by an absorbing medium involves a back reaction on the field-source charge by advanced waves reradiated by the absorber charges. They were able to derive the formula for radiation damping from this assumption. What's interesting about radiation damping is that it's needed to explain the back force on a charge when it's accelerated, that accounts for the work that the field may do on other charges, but isn't obviously inherent in Maxwell-Lorentz electrodynamics. They showed that the advanced waves, arriving simultaneously with the accelerating force but phase-delayed by pi/2 radians, could account for the radiation reaction force which is not otherwise explainable in classical electrodynamics. (It can also be derived from energy conservation expectations, but this arguably constitutes putting it in "by hand.") The philosopher Huw Price wrote a book (in the aughts, I think), Times Arrow and Archimedes Point, that related a lot of this stuff, including Wheeler-Feynman Absorber theory and quantum nonlocality, to the direction of time. I think he was really on to something, but that it takes Osiak relativity to make it all work.

As I have already mentioned, Osiak relativity allows that an EM field may carry temporal momentum (which is identifiable with energy in Einstein relativity, as ensconced in the energy-momentum four-vector in Einstein relativity, but not so in Osiak relativity) from the present to the past. Letting the temporal momentum become negative implies the existence of imaginary EM fields and charges. However, the inhomgenous EM wave equation solutions for the imaginary fields are the same as for the real fields, except for the imaginary constant. So there are advanced and retarded imaginary EM fields just like there are advanced and retarded real EM fields, and from symmetry considerations it's clear that a time-forward advanced wave has to appear to a time-reversed observer as a retarded wave, and vice versa for time-forward retarded waves. So, this provides the procedure to determine if a time-reversed field from a transmitting antenna can focus coherently on a receiving antenna in the past. I guess probably it can't, but the process of doing the calculation might have some surprises.

Sorry if this is vague and unclear, I just didn't want people to think I really believe time-reversed communication is likely or trivial. It's a rabbit hole to pursue it seriously right now, though. We should just do the test, and let the chips fall where they may.

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

In pair production the energy(mass) comes from the photon. Where do the charges come from?

 

[DaveC426913]

In pair production the energy(mass) comes from the photon. Where do the charges come from?

Pair production generally occurs in the presence of a nucleus - neutrons and protons - which are composite particles, made of quarks and gluons. Quarks have charges.
A proton is made of two up quarks (2 x +2/3) and one down quark (-1/3) = +1.
A neutron is made of two down quarks (2 x -1/3) and one up quark (+2/3) = 0.

In pair production, charge is conserved.
No elementary particles = neutral charge;
Two elementary particles of opposite charge = neutral charge.

 

[DaveC426913]

BTW, I deserve no credit for this. Poster could have found the same thing with a 10 second Google.

"Where do the charges come from in pair production?" probably would have done it.

 

[Dave Lush]

The website Academia.org, of their own volition, created a podcast version of my dark matter paper. It's AI generated in the voice of their CEO. It does a pretty good overview in 5 minutes.

Dark Matter as the Difference of Inertial and Gravitational Mass

It is shown how two tentative theories, one of Osiak proposing necessary corrections to Einstein's relativistic energy expressions, and another of Harari and Shupe supposing leptons and quarks have internal structure, when combined might explain

www.academia.edu

 

[Dave Lush]

The website Academia.org, of their own volition, created a podcast version of my dark matter paper. It's AI generated in the voice of their CEO. It does a pretty good overview in 5 minutes.

Dark Matter as the Difference of Inertial and Gravitational Mass

It is shown how two tentative theories, one of Osiak proposing necessary corrections to Einstein's relativistic energy expressions, and another of Harari and Shupe supposing leptons and quarks have internal structure, when combined might explain

www.academia.edu

It seems that the link to the AI podcast overview of my dark matter paper I provided above is only available to logged-in academia.edu members. Anyone can join for free I think and hopefully view it then. Maybe I can find a way to make it more public later. It's probably pretty easy to generate a transcript, but that would seem to defeat the purpose of it.

 

[Dave Lush]

I was able to overlay the AI podcast audio on a video of me scrolling the pdf if my paper, and post it to youtube

 

[exchemist]

The website Academia.org, of their own volition, created a podcast version of my dark matter paper. It's AI generated in the voice of their CEO. It does a pretty good overview in 5 minutes.

Dark Matter as the Difference of Inertial and Gravitational Mass

It is shown how two tentative theories, one of Osiak proposing necessary corrections to Einstein's relativistic energy expressions, and another of Harari and Shupe supposing leptons and quarks have internal structure, when combined might explain

www.academia.edu

Really? academia.org is the website of a right wing political organisation devoted to countering what they see as left wing bias in American higher education.

Or do you mean academia.edu, which is a business, thought by some to be predatory, that publishes papers with no peer review on the web for money? (It's where cranks like Reiku (Gareth Meredith), well known to many of us on this forum, publishes his stuff.)

Why would they create an AI podcast of a paper of yours? Or is this an add-on service authors can now pay for, to increase the attractiveness of their offering? Did you pay to have this done?