My curiosity is intrigued. My concern is, however, the energy requirements of this project, as well as the small time frame of spontaneous production. 

Conversion of electron to positron would require destruction of negative charge and creation of positive charge. Such process is not observed so far in any lab. Conservation of charge (like conservation of energy-momentum) is considered to be fundamental. No model/theory will be accepted unless charge is conserved.

It's well known how to produce positron beams for all sorts of applications. Cf. for instance: http://physics.aalto.fi/groups/positron/facilities/pulsed-slow-positron-beam/

or http://www.positron.ucr.edu/publications/2002positronbeamproductionwithadeuteronaccelerator.pdf

It's remarkable how some words (like ``positrons'') still seem to surprise. 

Dear commentators, first of all, I apologize for the delay.

Please allow me to present my reply in form of an overall discourse.

Wanting to call attention to important aspects of my work, in a first step, I posed the question in the main affecting ``particle to antiparticle conversion''.  In the work just like in the question I focus on the basic example ``electron to positron conversion''. However, the theoretical treatment and the technological suggestion that follows as direct consequence of the theoretical treatment also applies to other charged particles such as protons and ions.

1. Dear commentators, you do think that ``electron to positron conversion'' cannot be realized at the moment?

The technological surrounding is known! For example, the DESY and CERN~groups know a lot about guiding rings and storage rings. For example, the ITER group knows a lot about fusion vessels. For example, gamma-ray and x-ray devices, which are needed here as excitation devices, are applied in medicine as a matter of course. For example, each museum exhibits ribbon generators and Braun tubes supplying us with electrons.

2. Dear commentators, you do think that energies are too high and time windows are too small aiming at ``electron to positron conversion''?

The technical realization of positron generation based upon neutron beams focused on target materials leading to electron--positron pairs including the subsequent separation of electrons and positrons do not cause problems regarding energy and time windows. First estimations done by myself do show me that positron generation is also within the realm of possibility focusing on conversion by radiation.

3. Dear commentators, you do think that nuclear technologies are a good choice aiming at antimatter technologies?

The technological surrounding is really expensive! The nucear fuel is really expensive! The waste disposal is really expensive! Nobody on this planet wants to live near by radioactive waste! Disposal zones such as Gorleben provoke more than one protest each year! Nuclear technologies may be acceptable within the laboratory frames of the future, but not within the industrial frames of the future.

What I am looking for are antimatter technologies that are economically and ecologically acceptable allowing us to begin with the design of ``consumer products''. Certainly, I am a little bit ``green''. However, knowing that millions and billions of people cannot be supplied with energy and raw ore falling back on green technologies -- powerfull energy plants based upon antimatter~technologies were a good completion of green technologies and spaceships based upon antimatter technologies would allow the digging of raw ore on far planets --,

I am a little bit ``black'', too. Consequently, I am developing theoretical models leading into environmentally compatible antimatter technologies.

4. Dear commentators, you do think that the law of conservation of charge is not fulfilled aiming at ``electron to positron conversion''?

Indeed, this is the central point.

We all have learned that electrons and positrons must be destroyed as a pair and must be generated as a pair fulfilling the law of conservation of charge. However, this is not the full truth. The mass does not go to the happy hunting ground during the process of electron/positron destruction, it changes its entity becoming part of the radiation. The mass does not come back from the happy hunting ground during the process of electron/positron generation, the ``radiative mass reflection'' changes its entity, as mass becoming part of the electron and the positron.

The charge is part of the mass so that similar statements apply considering the charge. In particular, the charge may change its entity becoming part of the radiation. In particular, the ``radiative charge reflection'' may change its entity, as charge becoming part of the electron and the positron. And all models I have developed so far are telling me that also a single positive charge or a single negative charge can be carried away by radiation or can be returned by radiation.

Note that ``electron to positron conversion'', on the one hand, then implies the loss of negative charges of the fuel material, and on the other hand, then implies the shift of negative charges into the radiation. Note that the energy balance then only can be positive if the negative charges that finally have to be shifted from the radiation into the fuel material are related to lower masses than the electron mass or positron mass, leading to the damage of the fuel material.

Much more details are presented in DOI:10.13140/RG.2.1.3522.7684.

A pdf-file that contains these and other questions and answers embedded into the basic surrounding of the workcopy to be considered here in its current stage is attached.

Hi Volker

I had a look at your quite impressive  document (answers1.pdf). I did not read it through due to the size but parsed enough of it to see that you have a very methodical approach grounded as much as possible on experimental data.

I have no comment on the theory, but I thought I could contribute info on some experiments that may (or may not) have escaped your attention, and give you my opinion on some issues you raise in you message of Apr 27, 2015.

Note first that electron-positron pair production from photons of energy 1.022 MeV or more typically does not involve any particular focusing to a point location (more on this futher on). This was experimentally discovered at the beginning of the 1930’s by Blackett and Oc­chialini from analyzing recorded cosmic radiation scattering impact traces in a bubble cham­ber in the early 1930’s.

The reverse process of electron-positron pairs re-uniting to entirely convert back to various photon states has also been first observed and experimentally confirmed by the same scientists.

You can look up their names to get the whole story.

You can look up “positronium decay” for the particulars of pair re-conversion to photons state.

You will see that the outcome can be two 0.511 MeV photons, or three 0.34 MeV photons, or even five 0.2044 MeV photons, or other numbers of photons. But the sum of their energy is always equal or exceed the total of 1.022 MeV that makes up the rest masses of the decaying pair.

Note that positronium decay involves both particles spiralling in towards the point where they will meet and convert, which involves various amounts of angular momentum depending on local circumstances, which, when combined with whether or not both particles are in parallel or anti-parallel magnetic spin alignment,  no doubt determines the number of photons that will be produced.

You will not however find any information on the case of both particles converting to a single 1.022 MeV photon, because this case is not covered by currently popular theories. We nevertheless have experimental proof of such occurrences.

Conversion of pairs of electron-positron to a single photon was reported  by Irène Curie, Frédéric Joliot and J. Thibaud way back already in 1933, a case which, to my knowledge, has not been referred to in scientific literature until experiment E632 at the FERMILAB 4,6 meters bubble chamber because it apparently runs contrary to currently popular theory, which the community does not seem to feel the need to modify accordingly.

Indeed, on a very clear bubble chamber photograph of experiment E632 (see picture attached), a high energy positron is observed as dematerializing as it encounters an electron (captive in an atom at point A), and a little further on, in direct line with the trajectory that the positron had been follow­ing, a new electron-positron pair appears (at point B), which means that the posi­tron-electron annihilation at point A resulted in a single photon having the minimal energy required to produce a new pair, that is 1.022 MeV, and what is more, a photon energetic enough to apparently transfer to the created pair all of the kinetic energy of the initial positron.

Note that since photons are not charged negatively nor positively, the path of the photon between positions A and B is not visible since the photon does not cause any ionization, which is the cause of the tracks being recorded for electrons and positrons.

My opinion is that the reason for only one photon being produced in this case is that the “collision” occurred head on, instead of the typical positronium spiralling in and that no related angular momentum was involved.

Concerning the process of a photon of sufficient energy (1.022 MeV or more) to convert to such a pair, the only requirement is for it to fly very close by a heavy particle, such as a hydrogen nucleus (a proton) or any other heavy particle. Any energy of the incoming photon in excess of the two amounts of 0.511 MeV that convert to the mass of both particles can be related to the translational energy that both particles display as they fly away from each other.

Similarly, pair creation can occur during close flyby of two photons, at least one of which ex­ceeding the 1.022 MeV minimum energy threshold without any atomic nuclei being close by, such as was first experimentally confirmed by Kirk McDonald et al. at the Stanford Lin­ear Accelerator in 1997 with experiment #144:

http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.79.1626

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/exp/e144/

In this case, the energy needs to be focused to the smallest point possible in space as you surmised.

So the Principle of conservation of energy is fully respected during these processes. The same is true for the reverse operation. The sum of the energies going into the photons resulting from positronium decay always is equal to the energy that made up the rest masses of both particles, which is 1.022 MeV plus possibly the translational energy that they gather as they accelerate while spiralling in towards each other.

This means that even if it were possible to convert an electron into a positron or the reverse by whatever means as you conclude may be possible, no gain in energy would be possible. You would start with the 0.511 MeV of energy contained in one particle and end up with 0.511 MeV of energy converted to the opposite sign particle.

I noted also as I browsed your document that you address the fact that in some circumstances, “something” can overcome the electrostatic repulsion between two electrons and allow them to come very close to each other despite this repulsion.

I can tell you that in 2014, an experiment that was carried out with 2 electrons sheds considerable light on such a process, because contrary to the electrostatic inverse square with distance mutual repulsion of 2 electrons, it was proven that the magnetic repulsion between two electrons captive in parallel spin alignment, belonging to two different atoms, obey the inverse cube interaction law with distance.

This means that when two electrons are forced by local electromagnetic equilibrium to get close enough while in anti-parallel alignment, the magnetic inverse cube attraction will overcome the electrostatic inverse square repulsion.

Here is the Nature article describing the experiment:

http://www.nature.com/articles/nature13403.epdf?referrer_access_token=yoC6RXrPyxwvQviChYrG0tRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PdPJ4geER1fKVR1YXH8GThqECstdb6e48mZm0qQo2OMX_XYURkzBSUZCrxM8VipvnG8FofxB39P4lc-1UIKEO1

 Now, about issues you raised in your answer of Apr. 27 of 2015.

 To your questions 1, 2 and 3, considering that a beneficial gain needs to involve an energy gain, my comment is that such conversion would lead nowhere, because the rest mass of both particle are made up of exactly the same amount of kinetic energy (0.511 MeV/c^2), so no energy gain can be had by such conversion even if such conversion was possible.

To your question 4, my comment is that the sign of charges may well be an extrinsic property of charges, that would be symmetrically acquired in opposite “directions” as a pair is created from a decoupling photon. In other words, the sign could be a vectorial property of charges, that could possibly be fundamentally neutral, which could explain why photons have charge sign zero. Theoretical conclusion of course, resting on the possibility that photons could be permanently localized as they move as de Broglie hypothesized. Thus the law of conservation would not apply, since the law of conservation applies to energy conservation, not to sign or charge conservation.

Hope this helps.