Yes, matter can be created out of light. This is possible because of Einstein's famous equation E=mc^2, which states that energy and mass are equivalent. This means that light, which is a form of energy, can be converted into mass.

Some examples of how matter has been created out of light in the laboratory:

• In 1997, physicists at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory created a pair of electrons and positrons by colliding two photons together.
• In 2010, physicists at the University of Strathclyde created a vacuum breakdown and produced a pair of electrons and positrons using a powerful laser.
• In 2018, physicists at the University of California, Berkeley created a vacuum breakdown and produced a proton and an antiproton using a powerful laser.

Gaurav H Tandon : My question is more about the mechanics (its theoretical explanation) than about the experiments (as I show in my paper on the 1997 experiment, its results are open to 'interpretation', and that's a bit of an understatement). How exactly does charge emerge from photons and/or dynamic electromagnetic fields? I think the theoretical explanation of the Breit-Wheeler process is currently based on a rather simplistic interpretation of Einstein's mass-energy equivalence relation.

Interestingly, Dr. David Hestenes - who almost single-handedly revived the Zitterbeweging interpretation of matter-particles - emailed me a reference to a rather eminent but now retired academic: Dr. Vivian Robinson (see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZKSUlUJDho and https://quicycle.com/, there is also a book. I want to study it more, but so that seems to be a more sensible 'photonic' or 'charge-without-charge' interpretation of both the Dirac as well as the Breit-Wheeler process.

I am not convinced but, because Dr. Hestenes' model - which he worked on all of his life - is not a 'photonic' or 'charge-without-charge' model of matter-particles, the research of people like Dr. Robinson (and the Quantum Bicycle Society in general) suddenly becomes more credible: if their theory or theories can convince 'realists' such as Dr. Hestenes, there must be something in it. However, I am still not holding my breath. :-)

Emmanouil Markoulakis : I think Dr. Robinson is talking about 'twists': superimposed or double helical motion, but what moves inside of these photons? Do these 'twists' in photons really hide or explain electric charge? I am not convinced, and that is why this discussion is good. :-)

Emmanouil Markoulakis That seems to imply a graviton with a lot of 'properties'... :-)

Emmanouil Markoulakis : I recommended your reply because I think it is a truly valient attempt at some kind of great unification. As you know, I also greatly admire your 'hands-on' work with ferrolenses (you sent me so much material I have to get through, including https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304885318311090), and... Well... I think of you - quite simply - as being much smarter than me. At the same time, my 'instinct' from having survived complicated situations (I've been in war theaters - both Afghanistan and Ukraine - and I guess that's why I cannot always think clearly) tells me gravity is just what Einstein thought it is/was: the (non-Cartesian) geometry of our Universe. And I still think the vacuum is the vacuum: a space that is non-Cartesian because there is no vacuum: it's full of matter and energy. :-)

I am and remain skeptical of 'photonic' explanations of charge. For the time being, I am even more skeptical of 'photonic' (Breit-Wheeler charge-without-charge processes) explanations being further 'reduced' to explanations based on gravitons. The quality of Wikipedia articles on quantum physics varies greatly (many topics have been 'cornered', unfortunately), but I think it offers a good overview of 'graviton theory' - if I may call it that way. Is it any use to base a theory on a hypothetical 'particle' if it is already obvious now that experiments will never be able to detect it?

PS: This is meant as a friendly question/criticism. I do not have your academic and experimental credentials, so I largely defer to your 'guesstimates' when trying to make sense of it all. By the way, did you dig into Dr. Burinskii's model (Kerr-Newman geometries and modeling of an electron)? I saw he added a paper on a 'bare and gravitationally dressed electron' (Article The bare and gravitationally dressed electron formed from ra...

Emmanouil Markoulakis: yes. In order to add credibility to both your and Dr. Burinskii's model of 'matter-particles', you both should find a way to connect these two extremes. I cannot help with that because I am more 'classical' than both of you: no pre-eminence of a 'matter' versus a 'fields' approach to a GUT. :-) Keep up the good work ! JL

Dear Jean Louis Van Belle

You ask: "How exactly does charge emerge from photons and/or dynamic electromagnetic fields?"

A possible mechanical explanation to the emergence of charge is offered in Section 3 of this article:

Article Introduction to Synchronized Kinematic and Electromagnetic Mechanics

"Ex nihilo nihil fit“? Are You Certain Mr. Einstein and Mr. Heisenberg?"

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Ex_nihilo_nihil_fit_Are_You_Certain_Mr_Einstein_and_Mr_Heisenberg2

The law of the conservation of mass/energy of thermodynamics and physics breaks down at quantum level and creation “ex nihilo” is practically feasible!

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/something-from-nothing-vacuum-can-yield-flashes-of-light/

https://www.accessscience.com/content/electron-positron-pair-production-and-annihilation/224710

I replied in your discussion thread. It is funny how these 'threads' work. I am not very good at it. :-)

I think the gist of this discussion boils down to physical dimensions. I enclosed how all revolves around the idea of a force. A force has to act on a charge, and it does so against the backdrop of (relativistic) space and time. So, how exactly do two opposite fields acquire the physical dimension of charge (not depicted in the triangle here, which is because I only jotted it down to explain what fields might be)? :-/ The revision of SI units in 2018-2019 is most fundamental. I think the 'Committee' pretty much 'nailed it':

The second (s) is defined as the hyperfine transition frequency of a caesium 133 atom in its unperturbed ground state (ΔνCs): Revised 1967.

The metre is defined by the speed of light in a vacuum (c): Revised (1975) 1983

The candela is defined by the luminous efficacy of a defined visible radiation (Kcd): Revised 1979.

The kilogram is defined in terms of the Planck constant (h): Revised 2019

The ampere is defined in terms of the elementary charge (e): Revised 2019

The Kelvin is defined in terms of the Boltzmann constant (k): Revised 2019

The mole is defined in terms of the Avogadro constant (NA): Revised 2019

The line on the ampere is equivalent to stating that the elementary charge is... Well... Elementary. So why is it that we are trying to reduce the concept of charge to some kind of property of photons or gravitons? :-/ Just asking... :-)

Quote: "The second (s) is defined as the hyperfine transition frequency of a caesium 133 atom in its unperturbed ground state (ΔνCs): Revised 1967."

Given that this frequency varies with the depth in the gravitational gradient that the related atom happens to be at and with the distance separating each atom from the surrounding atoms, this cannot be a universally fixed reference, and it consequently provides a second duration that varies with the depth in the gravitational field in which matter happens to locally be and with the distance separating each atom depending on this depth.

My view is that this NIST decision is consequently ill advised and worthless.

André Michaud : Wow ! That is a strong reply ! It is an interesting topic because, yes, if matter can be created out of real photons (rather than out of photons that, somehow, already have charge in them - photons with intrinsic mass as they are referred to in the interesting recent overview article on ScienceNews: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/colliding-photons-matter-particle-physics), then the 'elevation' of charge to one of Nature's constants does not make sense, because this constant would, then, not be irreducible.

Interesting twist in this story or question of mine is this: I actually wrote to the rather eminent Dr. Richard Wigmans (now retired) and asked him how a calorimeter can unambiguously detect positrons - assuming calorimeters can only register energy/momentum (no direct measurement of charge). To my surprise (very pleasant), he did write back almost immediately, stating very clearly that positrons do have a very different 'signature' (different than electrons) in terms of energy/momentum when being detected in a calorimeter. I integrated his answer in my paper - almost admitting defeat here. Almost. See the revised version of the paper on which I invite comments here: Preprint Lectures on Physics Chapter XI : Can matter be made out of light?

I am also looking at Dr. Vivian Robinson's video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZKSUlUJDho) - recommended by Dr. Hestenes - but his photon wavefunction is (also) a rather unusual: it does not look like a 'real' photon, which is nothing but a simple linear or circularly polarized electromagnetic point oscillation, right? His photon (also) has this weird interpretation of spin, resulting in a 'ring' structure which I feel is not quite consistent with the classical interpretation of what a real photon actually is. This makes me think that the scientists saying pair creation/annihilation works through rather 'special' (already mass- or charge-carrying) photons, might make sense, and that charge can, effectively, not be reduced. I think of real photons as being effectively pointlike: they have no radius - nothing like a sort of zbw rotation of 'something' inside (see my Preprint Lectures on Physics Chapter I : Quantum Behavior

In any case, thanks for the input (and - quite a while ago - your recommendation to look at that SLAC E144 experiment). If there's a mystery left in QM, then this is it for me. :-) Kindest regards - Jean Louis

Jean Louis Van Belle

Bonjour Jean-Louis,

I also recommend that you look at the FERMILAB experiment #632 bubble chamber recording of a 1.022+ MeV single photon being created from the direct head on collision of an incoming positron with an electron from one of the water vapour molecules (at point A) that then decouples into an electron-positron pair at point B, than then proceed in opposite directions in the ambient magnetic field splitting half and half among themselves the total energy that the incoming positron had at the moment it collided with the electron at point A.

See Figure 2 in this article:

Article The Mechanics of Neutron and Proton Creation in the 3- Spaces Model

This confirms the total identity in all respects of both electron and positron, except for their opposite charges.

Best Regards, André

André Michaud : Txs for the reference. I will look at it. Agreed positron and electron are the same. The only thing that distinguishes the 'positron candidates' - and leads to the conclusion that they should, effectively, be positrons is the significant difference in the energy/momentum of the particles ending up in the PCAL calorimeter versus the ECAL calorimeter. The conclusion seems to be that this must 'prove' their annihilation with an electron in the PCAL detector. These are eminent scientists - and so I should not doubt them - but, still, we must keep checking and rechecking, right? :-)

Dear Jean Louis Van Belle

Note that I do not doubt the eminence and knowledge of these experimentalists.

About the significant difference in the energy/momentum of the positrons with respect to the electrons, note that in nature fleetingly existing free moving positrons (due to their quick reverting to photon state when interacting to merge with any electron in the vicinity) are hugely outnumbered with respect to the almost plenum presence of the electrons otherwise permanently populating the environment by establishing the electronic escorts of all surrounding atoms.

Given that calorimeters experiments deal with measurement of crowds of these particles, it is no surprise to me that their energy/momentum ratio would hugely favor the electrons.

Best Regards, André

All particles are spherical Electromagnetic standing waves.

The existence of charge depends on the phase flow in the waves of these standing waves. In electrons there is a continual phase flow outwards (but not an energy flow outward - the energy flows in loops around the spin axis).

For positrons, the phase flow is inwards (the same applies for Protons).

Neutral particles have neither inward nor outward phase flow.

You can see animations of the wave-functions of electrons, positrons, protons, neutrons, neutrinos and quarks on my website here (see the animations at the top of the page, and look at the various tabs at the top):

https://www.energyfieldtheory.com/

André Michaud : I looked at the paper you wrote on the bubble chamber experiment (Article The Mechanics of Neutron and Proton Creation in the 3- Spaces Model

Dear Jean Louis Van Belle

There is no such thing as "slow moving" photons. They all move at c.

The FERMILAB bubble chamber is a 7 meters wide bubble chamber, and the trajectories are due to ionization of water molecules due to the passage of the charged electrons and positrons creating local gas bubble along their trajectories. This is what is being photographed in bubble chambers.

I suggest that you study the working of bubble chambers. The photographs are not instantaneous captures.

Best Regards, André

They are non instantaneous but the tracks of the massive particles do start and stop over a fairly short time interval. That 'photon' covers the distance that it covers in the same time interval and, therefore, I would think it is equally massive (a true photon would cover a lot more than 7 m - a whole lot more, I'd think). Any case, I'll do what you recommend, and that is to study it a bit more... Kind regards - JL

Quote: "I would think it is equally massive (a true photon would cover a lot more than 7 m"

The distance covered by the photon captured in the photograph is not theoretical. This is a photographic capture of the event that physically occurred. So it obviously covered less than 7 meters between points A and B.

André Michaud : Yes. Of course, the distance from A to B is much less than 7 meters. I was a bit rough here. What I wanted to say is that the size of the bubble chamber does give the order of magnitude here: a meter or so. Let us say it is half a meter or only a few cm even. My interpretation remains the same, and that is that - during the longer or shorter time interval that sees all these processes happen - this 'photon' also created this invisible track (invisible because it does not leave a track of ionized particles). I do not see how it could have created such short or longer (all is relative track) when it was traveling at the speed of light. The speed of light is many orders of magnitude greater than the velocities of all other (charged) stable or unstable particles in this picture. [In fact, you saying the distance was much shorter than 7 m actually reinforces my point: this 'invisible' photon traveled very slowly as compared to the speed of light.]

So, let me summarize the point I wanted to make once again: I think this picture (again, not instantaneous but, yes, but some interval) suggest this 'photon' is massive and, therefore, not a real photon. For clarity, I define a real vs. a virtual photon in the same sense that equally skeptical scientists in this ScienceNews article define it: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/colliding-photons-matter-particle-physics.

In any case, you are correct in stating that I should do more homework and get back to reading more. In particular on this: doing more research into how bubble chambers work, and also how calorimeters work (cf. my doubt if they can unambiguously distinguish between 'positron candidates' and actual positrons based on a measured energy/momentum difference only.

In short, I am 80% convinced that you and all believers in Breit-Wheeler processes are right (based on these experiments), but the 20% in me that is not convinced (I guess because of ontological/metaphysical reasons, I guess: how does charge appear/disappear - not approximately but exactly?) still needs to be pushed in either of the two ways. :-) JL

Dear André - So other people can keep track of what we are talking about, I think it is good to add the image and - probably - the reference to your paper analyzing this as part of your model (Article The Mechanics of Neutron and Proton Creation in the 3- Spaces Model

Preprint Lectures on Physics Chapter XI : Can matter be made out of light?

As for the hypothesis of 'sloppy accounting' for charge in more common experiments involving positron-electron pair creation and annihilation, I am happy to see this nice paper: Article The Proton and Occam's Razor

I enclose the bubble chamber picture they provide in this regard. Please do not 'fire from the hip' but read the referenced paper (The Proton and Occam's Razor) and have a look at the arguments there.

PS: As for the rather important claim that neutrons are neutronic combinations of positive and negative charge, there is an interesting reference (in the article of Vassallo and Kovacs) to a recent article by Kovacs et. al. on experiments showing that: A. Kovacs, V. Zatelepin, and D. Baranov, Signatures of 1.5 MeV leptons in nuclear reactions, Journal of Physics - Conference Series, (2023). I need to read that too, although for me it is rather obvious a neutron must be a 'neutral current' (what else explains it magnetic moment?), and neutral currents are neutral but consist of positive and negative charge canceling each other's charge. I am surprised many mainstream physicists do not see that as being rather obvious. In any case, that is a rather lenghty discussion which I try to sum up in the other paper I reference in my question here (Preprint Lectures on Physics Chapter VIII : Pair production as a nucl...

Dear Jean Louis Van Belle

You wrote: " What I wanted to say is that the size of the bubble chamber does give the order of magnitude here: a meter or so. Let us say it is half a meter or only a few cm even. My interpretation remains the same, and that is that - during the longer or shorter time interval that sees all these processes happen - this 'photon' also created this invisible track (invisible because it does not leave a track of ionized particles). I do not see how it could have created such short or longer (all is relative track) when it was travelling at the speed of light."

Strange to me that you would draw such a conclusion. I easily calculate how much time it would take a photon to travel such a short distance.

Let's say that it travelled 1 meter, I can tell you right off the bat that it took it 3.335640952E-9 second to travel this distance.

If you choose half a meter, then it would have taken 1.667820476E-09 second, and if you choose a few cm – let's say 2 – then it would have taken 6.671281904E-11 second.

What the experiment #632 proves, is electron-positron pair creation from a single 1.022+ MeV photon, which is the only point I was raising and making. I was not alluding in context to any other issue.

Best Regards, André

André Michaud : That is exactly why I am skeptical. I quote from one of CERN's 'how-bubble-chambers-work' articles: "The bubbles formed are allowed to grow for a few milliseconds, and when they have reached a diameter of about 1 mm, a flash photograph is taken (on several views so as to enable the interactions to be reconstructed in 3-dimensions)." So the time interval is a few milliseconds. If this 'photon' was a real photon - which emerged from matter/antimatter annihilation and then disintegrated into a matter/antimatter pair again - then it would have travelled a few hundred or even thousands of kilometers, rather than something we'd measure on a scale of a meter ! Lightspeed implies a velocity of 300000 meter per millisecond. So, I still think you are looking at a very 'massive' 'photon' here and, therefore, not a real photon. [...] In any case, I think I did not manage - for once - to get my point across here, so I apologize. Kindest regards - Jean Louis

Dear Jean Louis Van Belle

You wrote: "If this 'photon' was a real photon - which emerged from matter/antimatter annihilation and then disintegrated into a matter/antimatter pair again - then it would have travelled a few hundred or even thousands of kilometers, rather than something we'd measure on a scale of a meter ! Lightspeed implies a velocity of 300000 meter per millisecond."

I don't follow you there. Light is known to travel at exactly 299792458 meters per second.

It takes it exactly 3.335640952E-9 second to travel 1 meter, exactly 1.667820476E-09 second to travel .5 meter, and exactly 6.671281904E-11 second to travel 2 cm.

It cannot instantly travel thousands of kilometers.

I have no argument other than the FERMILAB #632 experiment photograph, that I interpret as previously described due to consistency with all else that I have learned and verified. I leave you to your own interpretation.

It takes a few milliseconds for the bubbles to form, but once the bubble sequence has formed, it can then be repeatedly photographed for at least a few seconds before the trajectories becomes diffused again.

Best Regards, André

André Michaud : I finally see what you want to say. Thanks for persevering and sorry from my side: I am not in great shape, apparently. [Suffering from acute back pain, currently, and it's not fun.] Whatever travelled between those two points - a real photon or some kind of neutral particle - could have travelled at lightspeed (photon assumption) or at much lower speed (massive neutral particle). Because it is just one part of a a series of events, there is nothing we can say about its velocity.

So, your assumption is: it did not interact with the hydrogen (it left no bubble trail), so it must or could have been a (pointlike) 'real' photon. My assumption is: it may have been pointlike (just in the sense of: "very small") but also massive (like a 'neutral current' or 'something') and that there was no collision with hydrogen atoms/nuclei because of its small size. With all due respect, the assumption of it having traveled at lightspeed still sounds like a chance into a million to me, but I immediaty add that is because I do not believe in 'creatio ex nihilo' of matter/antimatter charge(s) - a 'minority' interpretation, apparently, I admit - and so I think this 'particle' must have, somehow, carried both the positive and negative charge that we see disappear together at point 1, and then re-emerge at point 2.

I note one more point now looking: track back to where the event at point A (your 'positron') ! It looks like it emerged at an earlier point (bottom right of the image) from which at least four 'particles' emerged: aren't these pions (two positively and two negatively charged pions rather than elementary particles)? Kindest regards - and continued respect for your fine work (honestly) - Jean Louis

Dear Jean Louis Van Belle

Sorry to hear about your continuing health issues.

You wrote: "Because it is just one part of a a series of events, there is nothing we can say about its velocity."

We can for electromagnetic energy. The velocity is exactly c=299792458 meters per second.

You wrote: "So, your assumption is: it did not interact with the hydrogen (it left no bubble trail), so it must or could have been a (pointlike) 'real' photon"

No, not because they did not interact, although this is a characteristic of photons, not to ionize atoms along their trajectories, which makes them leave no trace in bubble chambers.

I conclude that it is an electromagnetic photon because whenever a positron interacts directly with an electron, such as at point A, it is well established that they convert to electromagnetic photon states. I do not speculate about any other possibility, given that this is well established. I do not speculate about their velocity either since it is also well established that electromagnetic photons travel only at c. But if you doubt that they are electromagnetic photons, of course, you can speculate otherwise.

Localized photons do not interact with the water molecules because photons do not ionize atoms unless they directly collide with one of the electrons, communicating its energy to it in the process, causing it to be ejected if energetic enough, otherwise, it only causes an electron to jump to a further away orbital in the same atom, from which the electron instantly jumps back to its initial rest orbital, releasing a photon in the process that carries out the excess energy. Each photon can cause only one hit that can eject only one electron. That's the photoelectric effect.

The photon that ran from A to B obviously did not hit any electron along its way before being destabilized at point B, reconverting into a pair.

Contrariwise, free moving electrons and positrons are known to ionize water molecules along their trajectories because they are charged particles, which is the principle of operation of bubble chambers. Due to their opposite charges, their trajectories are deflected in opposite directions in the magnetic field that was made ambient in the bubble chamber.

You wrote: "I admit - and so I think this 'particle' must have, somehow, carried both the positive and negative charge that we see disappear together at point 1, and then re-emerge at point 2."

That's what the photograph illustrates.

You ask: "I note one more point now looking: track back to where the event at point A (your 'positron') ! It looks like it emerged at an earlier point (bottom right of the image) from which at least four 'particles' emerged: aren't these pions (two positively and two negatively charged pions rather than elementary particles)?"

From the looks of it, all those trajectories deflected toward the left seem to be part of the main positron beam of the experiment entering from the bottom of the bubble chamber, those that suddenly appear and are deflected to the right must be electrons ionized out of their atoms by stray radiation (stray photons). The straighter lines must be as you say stray pions or other stray heavier charged particles. I also note a few other occurrences of pair decoupling besides the very clear B case, for which we have the actual A coupling source at A.

Best Regards, André

Thanks André Michaud . I still have a conceptual difficulty with photons or neutral photon-like particles carrying charge somehow (or not carrying charge and disintegrating into charged pairs) but I must assume your explanation (which is a lot of 'interpretation' of these tracks in the bubble chamber experiment, I feel) is solid and backed up by other considerations and research. Do not worry about my health: it is a 'mechanical' problem this time (not like the cancer I survived a few years ago), so it will be alright. I guess I should do more physical exercise and think somewhat less. :-) Kindest regards - Jean Louis

Dear Jean Louis Van Belle

You wrote: "I must assume your explanation (which is a lot of 'interpretation' of these tracks in the bubble chamber experiment, I feel) is solid and backed up by other considerations and research."

It is totally grounded on the study of the whole sequence of confirmed historical past experiments, going back to the first Coulomb experiments that we used to do in physics labs as I was studying, to the Faraday experiments that I also studied closely, to the Wien experiments with the black body, the Kaufmann experiments with electromagnetic control of electrons' trajectories, the Milliken experiments with electron mass, the Anderson experiments with electron-positron pair experiments, McDonald et al. Experiments with pair production experiments, and the experiment that I made in 1998, published in 2013 that underpins all my developments, and others that I don't have in mind just now.

Direct references to the original historical formal articles that describe them are all provided in my articles.

You write: "I still have a conceptual difficulty with photons or neutral photon-like particles carrying charge somehow (or not carrying charge and disintegrating into charged pairs)"

If interested in seeing how photons can appear neutral despite dealing with charges and how they can be involved with obviously charge carrying elementry particles, I can refer you to Section 3 of my last article (version française disponible). Remember that despite being made of charged particles, ordinary atoms appear neutral when not ionized. Simple symmetry between simultaneously varying equal charges also involves that a double charge particle, such as de Broglie conceived, will appear neutral.

Article Introduction to Synchronized Kinematic and Electromagnetic Mechanics

Reference to the other articles that provide detailed analyses for each case covered are provided.

Within a few weeks, an expanded version of this article will be published as a chapter by invitation of the editors of the book collection, with title "Electromagnetic and Kinematic Mechanics Synchronized in their Common Vector Field: A Mathematical Relation " that will have a Section 10 added that will explain spin from the electromagnetic perspective.

Best Regards, André

André Michaud : Thanks for the references. Needless to say, I have no difficulty with the idea that neutral particles are composed of both positive and negative charges cancelling each other and, therefore, leaving no trace in a bubble chamber. However, the idea that real photons (so these aren't 'massive' or 'virtual' photons) can, somehow, carry charge is a 'no-no' to me. However, that's entirely subjective and probably due to lack of understanding from my part. Both of us are repeating ourselves over and over again in this exchange and so I get the message: do more homework! :-) I will.

Thanks for the many references. I just found this one rather nice publication on the decommissioning of Fermilab's old bubble chamber: https://lss.fnal.gov/archive/misc/fermilab-misc-1988-01.pdf. Apparently, E632 was the last (significant) experiment that was done with it (with a proton beam, indeed, creating the chain of reactions show in the photo). The authors do not mention this experiment as proof of a pure Breit-Wheeler process, however. I will do some more digging on all of the references here. The nice thing about this study of the bubble chamber as a detector is that it also shows how it compares to other types of detectors, like counters. Very useful. :-) Many thanks ! JL

Dear Jean Louis Van Belle

You wrote: "However, the idea that real photons (so these aren't 'massive' or 'virtual' photons) can, somehow, carry charge is a 'no-no' to me."

Your option entirely. I gave you all my references already, and can add nothing more to the discussion.

Best Regards, André

Many thanks to all contributors here ! It made me think even harder on the kind of 'realist' interpretation Zitterbewegung theory brings to quantum mechanics. For example, I finally got to look at the Weinberg theory on 'neutral currents' (intermediate vector bosons are like virtual photons, I believe: virtual only). See: Preprint Mystery 101: Intermediate vector bosons

Preprint Mystery 102: The proton yarn ball puzzle

Why is this even a question? Pair production of an electron/positron pair from a Gamma ray in a strong electric field (such as in the space around a Lead nucleus) is well established and accepted.