Dear Joerg,

You wrote: "The transformation of two "colliding" photons into a pair of particle / anti-particle was experimentally observed already. But the observed particles are always electrically charged."

Actually, this is not what has been experimentally observed. What was observed by Anderson and a few others with bubble chambers as far back as the 1930's, was that "a single" electromagnetic photon of energy higher than 1.022 MeV from cosmic radiation "decoupled" into a pair of electron-positron as they grazed atomic nuclei.

Since both electron and positron are "electromagnetic" in nature, then they have both a charge and a magnetic field already. So the pair is both electric and magnetic in nature. Very familiar in high energy accelerator circles.

To your point 1, a pair such generated does not so obviously recombine back to electromagnetic photon state because the energy of the incoming photon that exceeds the 1.022 MeV required to make up the masses of the two particles remains as momentum energy causing both particles to move in opposite directions at the velocity defined by this momentum.

To your point 2, many experiments have been carried out that seem to confirm that the magnetic field of the electron constantly oscillates at the frequency defined by the energy of its mass, which makes it a timewise magnetic dipole and thus a spacewise magnetic monopole at any given instant.

Best Regards, André

Dear Joerg,

You wrote: "The transformation of two "colliding" photons into a pair of particle / anti-particle was experimentally observed already. But the observed particles are always electrically charged."

Actually, this is not what has been experimentally observed. What was observed by Anderson and a few others with bubble chambers as far back as the 1930's, was that "a single" electromagnetic photon of energy higher than 1.022 MeV from cosmic radiation "decoupled" into a pair of electron-positron as they grazed atomic nuclei.

Since both electron and positron are "electromagnetic" in nature, then they have both a charge and a magnetic field already. So the pair is both electric and magnetic in nature. Very familiar in high energy accelerator circles.

To your point 1, a pair such generated does not so obviously recombine back to electromagnetic photon state because the energy of the incoming photon that exceeds the 1.022 MeV required to make up the masses of the two particles remains as momentum energy causing both particles to move in opposite directions at the velocity defined by this momentum.

To your point 2, many experiments have been carried out that seem to confirm that the magnetic field of the electron constantly oscillates at the frequency defined by the energy of its mass, which makes it a timewise magnetic dipole and thus a spacewise magnetic monopole at any given instant.

Best Regards, André

For a dialectical perspective, any physical/material existence at all, is a contradiction of “the unity of the opposite”. In other words nothing can exist without its opposite also existing in the same unit. From this point of view the so-called magnetic monopole (a possibility from the point of view of causality and idealized mathematics) is an absolute impossibility. The theoretical and practical hunting for such an entity by modern official physics is like chasing the “golden deer” of the Bengali poet Tagore!

The recent confirmation of the existence of Majorana particles is the strongest ever imperative for a dialectical perspective for physics; and may have implications for epistemology from the sub-nuclear to the cosmic scale. As the Majorana particle suggests matter at its most fundamental level must be viewed as a composite of "the unity of the opposites” — a contradiction, the resolution of which imparts “motion” (change, evolution, development etc.) to matter and hence the dialectical assertion that “there can be no matter without motion and no motion without matter”.

The existence of Majorana particles show that the anti- dialectical conception of matter as composed of distinctive and unitary particles like the fermions and the bosons at the most fundamental level, is faulty and is untenable. These types of sharp distinctions and categories of matter are indeed to be found in nature, but only with relative and conditional validity.

Article Majorana Particle: A Dialectical Necessity and not a Quantum Oddity

Dear Abdul,

You wrote: "For a dialectical perspective, any physical/material existence at all, is a contradiction of “the unity of the opposite”. In other words nothing can exist without its opposite also existing in the same unit. From this point of view the so-called magnetic monopole (a possibility from the point of view of causality and idealized mathematics) is an absolute impossibility."

It is just a matter of orthogonal symmetry.

The electron-positron pair is a space wise electric dipole, but each of them is a timewise electric monopole, while the magnetic field of each of them is a timewise magnetic dipole, but a spacewise magnetic monopole at any given moment, because during the magnetic field oscillation, its increasing phase cannot possibly occur at the same time as its decreasing phase. They occur in a timewise sequence.

An electric timewise dipole is an absolute impossibility as you say, and an elementary particle spacewise magnetic dipole is also a physical impossibility.

But a spacewise electric dipole is the only possibility and a timewise magnetic dipole for an an elementary particle is the only possibility.

Best Regards, André

Dear André,

thank you very much for your answer! Please let me explain shortly the background of my question:

As far as I can see there are three possibilities regarding magnetic monopoles: There are none, there are Dirac-like ones, and there are "true" ones, with the consequences div B != 0, B != curl A, and E and B are truly dual. For the moment, I assume the third case. Starting from the experiment you described I wondered why a photon whose energy is equally carried by the E and the B component of its EM field always transforms into two particles whose rest mass is mainly represented by the E field.

This brought me to Schwinger pair generation, and from there to pair generation in strong magnetic fields:

Preprint Monopole-antimonopole pair production by magnetic fields

which is certainly still speculative but points so well in the direction I was heading that I couldn't ignore it. ;-) Unfortunately, I'm not in possesion of the whole article yet. I concluded:

Photon grazes nucleus consisting of electric monopoles => pair of electric monopoles is generated.

Photon grazes nucleus consisting of magnetic monopoles => pair of magnetic monopoles is generated

Photon grazes photon => both outcomes possible (with equal probability?)

Since the second case is not feasible, the only chance to get magnetic monopoles is photon/photon collision, described in a nutshell here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_physics

My first question aimed at the probability of magnetic pairs. If (isolated from other matter) magnetic monopoles with the mass of electrons were possible, the probability might be 0.5. If the theoretical lower limit is some orders of magnitude larger, then the probability of the generation of magnetic monopoles is virtually zero; to become possible at all, it would require accordingly higher energy of the photons.

Of course I agree with you that the generated particles are necessarily moving, and therefore have a magnetic field in any case, but I was aiming at a magnetic field with divergence. As to the distinction between timewise and spacewise monopoles and dipoles, could you please point me to an article or a book with a detailed explanation? I have to admit that I'm on thin ice, momentarily.

The same goes for the oscillating magnetic field of a moving electron: Could you please point me to a source?

Many thanks in advance!

Best regards, Joerg

Dear Abdul,

thank you for your answer! I have to admit that I wasn't aware of Majorana particles up till now.

If I understand correctly, the anti-particle of the Majorana particle is identical to the Majorana particle. Here I'm running into a verbal problem (and I think most of the old (Greek) paradoxes turn out to be just communication problems): In this case, is it not equally true to state that for the Majorana particle, an anti-particle doesn't exist? (Because everytime you catch a particle, it's a Majorana particle or a totally different one.) If so, the Majorana particle is not the paradoxical unity of the opposites but just a unit. Or, to put it another way, in the two terms - Majorana particle and Majorana anti-particle - that we could assign to the same entity, the syllable "anti" has lost its usual meaning.

From a physical point of view, I understand that the existence of the Majorana particle does not annihilate the existence of other elementary particles; so, we still have electrons, positrons, etc. But if electric monopoles still exist, how do you conclude that magnetic monopoles are impossible? (You might be correct but I cannot follow your line of reasoning.)

Best regards, Joerg

Dear Joerg,

You wrote: " As far as I can see there are three possibilities regarding magnetic monopoles: There are none, there are Dirac-like ones, and there are "true" ones, with the consequences div B != 0, B != curl A, and E and B are truly dual. For the moment, I assume the third case. Starting from the experiment you described I wondered why a photon whose energy is equally carried by the E and the B component of its EM field always transforms into two particles whose rest mass is mainly represented by the E field."

I read your whole answer, but I will stop right here, because this general perception in the community that the rest mass of an electron is mainly represented by the E field is the actual cause of the logjam in fundamental physics.

From my analysis, there are 2 reasons for this. There is a habit since Maxwell to think of the familiar three-way orthogonal relationship of electromagnetic energy as involving electric and magnetic E and B "fields" perpendicular to each other, that would be at the same time perpendicular to the direction of motion of the energy.

I observed with regards to the concept of the "electric E field", that it is a fact seldom mentioned in reference works that it was introduced by Gauss to "represent" geometrically and mathematically the Coulomb force varying omnidirectionally according to the inverse of the square of the distance, from a maximum value located at the point where the test charge that remains in the Coulomb equation remains in space, diminishing towards zero at infinity, when the second charge is removed from the equation, as highlighted in a recent article

If interested in this specific aspect of the problem, see analysis of "Section 27. The Mathematical Thinking Mode" in this recent paper, where this is given as an example:

http://www.scirp.org/pdf/CE_2019022016190620.pdf

F=e2/4πεor2

E= e/4πεor2

This idealized concept was then also conceptualized geometrically and mathematically to represent in the form of a "magnetic B field" the magnetic aspect of electromagnetic energy

I then found that to be able to really analyze the behavior of the fundamental energy, it is important to keep in mind Gauss's original intention that these "fields" should be considered only as idealized geometric and mathematical tools intended to represent the real energy which is deemed to physically exist, and that it is the electromagnetic energy itself, which is described by means of these fields that physically self-structures, so to speak, its electrical and magnetic aspects perpendicularly to each other, these two "electromagnetic" aspects of the energy orienting their motion perpendicularly to the energy supporting its motion in space, which is an energy that traditionally was represented by the concept of momentum.

Now came Maxwell, who understood something about electromagnetic energy that was also lost sight of by most in the community at the time, that to physically exist, its two aspects, electric and magnetic, have to mutually induced each other in a transverse manner with respect to its direction of propagation, which means that it has to transversely oscillate between these two states as it propagates.

Lorenz almost immediately disputed this conclusion and felt that it was a better explanation if both "fields" reach maximum at the same time at the wavefront to explain its propagation, which is the view that was generally accepted and that still underlies current Electrodynamics that led to the perception in the community that the rest mass of an electron is mainly represented by the E field.

This is the logjam.

Louis de Broglie, in the 1930's came to the conclusion that localized electromagnetic photons can be explained only if their magnetic and electric aspects oscillate transversely by mutually inducing each other in conformity with Maxwell, but that the 4D space geometry was too restrictive to completely describe its structure, and was hoping that in the future such a more expanded space geometry may allow it.

One was defined end of the 1990's which was a simple vectorial expansion of the three-way orthogonal vectorial relationship of electromagnetic energy, expanding each orthogonal vector into a full fledged 3D vectorial space of its own, presented in 2000 at Congress-2000 in St Petersburg State University, that allowed defining the LC equation for de Broglie's photon. If interested, its elaboration was published in 2016:

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/on-de-broglies-doubleparticle-photon-hypothesis-2090-0902-1000153.pdf

In 2003, Paul Marmet derived an equation that allowed clearly identifying the B field of the electron rest mass. This was done in this article published shortly after, in 2007 in the same Kazan State University engineering journal, titled "Field Equations for Localized Photonsand Relativistic Field Equations for Localized Moving Massive Particles". If interested, here is a link:

https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/2257

So we know now that the rest mass of an electron can be completely represented only by an E field and a B field, each of them accounting for exactly half the rest mass of the electron.

Moreover, Marmet's discovery allowed understanding that all elementary electromagnetic particles have the same internal LC structure. It also allows reconciling classical/relativistic mechanics with electromagnetism, and as a bonus, also allows reconciling Quantum Mechanics with electromagnetism, as analyzed in this last paper, titled "The Hydrogen Atom Fundamental Resonance States":

If interested, here is a link:

http://www.scirp.org/pdf/JMP_2018042716061246.pdf

Best Regards, André

Dear André and Joerg,

The problem I have with you, modern theoretical physics since Einstein is that with "thought experiments”, "the consistency of mathematics" and model making etc., you indulge in abstract scholastic discourse about natural objects and phenomena and then try to “prove” those to make your mathematical thought derived entities, to make them Kosher. This approach allows interest groups (like monopoly capitalism and theology) and unscrupulous scientists lured by fame, fortune and funds to bring out expected and acceptable results.

The monopole is an example; where many claims of its existence were reported of this fictitious entity by individuals or small groups in physics. But if this “discovery” is claimed in a billion dollar mega project involving hundreds of scientists like the “discovery” of the fantastic Higgs boson, black holes etc.; then magnetic monopole will become a reality. I suspect that like Higgs boson, GWs, black holes it would be done in near future, because official physics is in a hurry to finish the few remaining “loose ends” to complete the “theory of everything”!

But my question is: Is it positive knowledge. I see physicists giving second by second “eye-witness” and confident description of how the universe evolved “after the Big Bang” or how a “black hole” is formed etc. in the realm of macrocosm. And in the microcosm; how a mass-less swirling photon (being discussed in another RG forum) displays its properties we see at human scale and how as André confidently says, “the electron constantly oscillates at the frequency defined by the energy of its mass, which makes it a timewise magnetic dipole and thus a spacewise magnetic monopole at any given instant”. But how do we know that all our mathematics based scholastic arguments and speculation have any basis in reality.

What level of confidence can we have when a physicist extends his tangible (at human scale) concepts of mass, charge, spin, dimension, time etc., to the scale of a quark or electron, for example? Is there no qualitative difference in these entities at scales much higher or lower? A physicist is satisfied as long as his mathematics works like charm and is “consistent”. But is this knowledge in the usual sense of the term or mere mysticism and delusion to appease our inquisitive mind?

If as André says an electron constantly oscillate, which makes “it a timewise magnetic dipole and thus a spacewise magnetic monopole at any given instant”. But can we have any intuition about the scale of time, space or frequency at which all these events take place to distinguish between “timewise magnetic dipole and thus a spacewise magnetic monopole”? Is there any meaning of talking about such dipoles or monopoles? And André, how would you explain for examples, the electric and the magnetic properties of a Majorana particle or a solvated electrons produced when metallic sodium is dissolved in liquid ammonia?

For dialectics matter (mass) and motion is fundamental and “fields” (electric , magnetic etc.), charge, spin, parity etc., are its properties. So Higgs field, mass-less or independent electric charge or magnetic poles etc., are only man made fictions. When dialectics talks about the contradiction of the “unity of the opposites”; it developed this intuition from innumerable examples in Nature, Life, Society and Thought. Since this idea was conceived by Heraclitus through intuition, no exception has been found so far in any area of human knowledge and is considered to be a universal truth.

My dialectical view about “monopole” comes from the totality of human experience so far and not based on a single experiment or the “consistency of mathematics” alone!

Best regards, Abdul

Dear Abdul,

You wrote: "The problem I have with you, modern theoretical physics since Einstein is that with "thought experiments”, "the consistency of mathematics" and model making etc., you indulge in abstract scholastic discourse..."

Which "thought experiment" exactly to you refer to that I use?

You ask: " And André, how would you explain for examples, the electric and the magnetic properties of a Majorana particle or a solvated electrons produced when metallic sodium is dissolved in liquid ammonia?"

Show me which majorana particle is a component of atoms, and I will explain in which of my published papers it is described from the trispatial perspective. If it is nowhere to be found in any atoms, then I think it is not important to understand how electromagnetic energy stabilizes as massive electromagnetic particles.

As for how "solvate electrons" are produced when metallic sodium is dissolved in liquid amonia, I suggest you ask a specialist of this question. This is something that I have not studied.

Best Regards, André

Dear Abdul,

You wrote: "André confidently says, “the electron constantly oscillates at the frequency defined by the energy of its mass, which makes it a timewise magnetic dipole and thus a spacewise magnetic monopole at any given instant”. But how do we know that all our mathematics based scholastic arguments and speculation have any basis in reality"

That's absolutely not what I said.

I said that from the trispatial perspective, "the energy" of the magnetic field of the electron oscillates at the frequency defined by the energy of its mass, which makes it a timewise magnetic dipole and thus a spacewise magnetic monopole at any given instant.

This has nothing to do with mathematics, but with the only behavior that can mechanically explain why it was experimentally measured by Kotler et al that two electrons from two separate atoms that are forced into parallel magnetic spin alignment repel as a function of the inverse cube of the distance:

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

Best Regards, André

Dear Abdul,

Again here, you write: " If as André says an electron constantly oscillate, which makes “it a timewise magnetic dipole and thus a spacewise magnetic monopole at any given instant"

Again, you completely misrepresent what I wrote. How can any constructive exchange of information be made with you when I spend all my time only on rectifying what you misquote?

Best Regards, André

Dear André,

Your idea of trispacial model of photons, “the electron constantly oscillates at the frequency defined by the energy of its mass, which makes it a timewise magnetic dipole and thus a spacewise magnetic monopole at any given instant” and matter- less “aether”, electromagnetic waves etc. arise from thought and are mathematics driven thought experiments; extending these concepts (without any qualitative change) to unthinkable scales of human experience. Please see my last comment in the forum : https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_the_electron_mass_strictly_of_electromagnetic_origin

I have argued from materialist dialectical perspective that “spacetime”, aether, matter-less “fields” (on which most of new physics is based) is a myth. Photons are particles at ALL energy levels and are composed of matter-antimatter particle pair (in a dialectical contradiction). Most of the matter particles (except the electron-positron combination) making the photons are unstable and only exist in free state as virtual particles, this includes neutrinos, mesons etc, including quasi-particles such as Majorana type particles that was discovered recently, please see my article linked above.

Proton-antiproton also exists as virtual pairs in the quantum vacuum. Rest of the quantum particles and atoms come from the evolutionary processes and cooked up in the stars. The wave behavior of the quantum particles can be easily explained without Feynman's silly and mystical infinite trajectories to do its "transactions" and the Nobel winning mathematical tricks of “renormalisation” where one set of infinities is cancelled by invoking another set of infinities to get the result that was pre-selected and known in the first place! Paul Dirac likened this practice to "sweeping the dirt under the rug"!

Article Real/Virtual Exchange of Quantum Particles as a Basis for th...

Article The Philosophy of Space-Time: Whence Cometh "Matter" and "Motion"?

Dear Abdul,

Again, you misquote what I wrote: " Your idea of trispacial model of photons, “the electron constantly oscillates at the frequency defined by the energy of its mass, which makes it a timewise magnetic dipole and thus a spacewise magnetic monopole at any given instant "

This is not what I wrote. I have no comment to offer other than that this is not what I wrote. So all conclusions that you drew from this misquote lead nowhere that I can relate to.

You need to first quote me correctly for me to relate to the conclusions that you draw from it.

Best Regards, André

Dear André,

The italicized part of the qoute I cited comes from one of the your comments above. I am sure I just copied and pasted it from part of your comment above, without any change or my input (unless meanwhile you edited your comment). Please go through your comments again to find it.

Best regards, Abdul

Dear Abdul,

You did misquote me.

Everyone is free to go back and check what I wrote. Despite your certainty, you misquoted me. I spoke of the electron magnetic field oscillating, not of electrons oscillating.

This conversation is simply leading nowhere, because "electrons oscillating" cannot make the electron magnetic dipole being timewise. This makes no sense. The magnetic field of the electron oscillating makes it a timewise magnetic dipole. This is what makes sense.

If you do not perceive the difference, I unfortunately cannot explain further.

This is something that I have repeated countless times in tens of conversations, and is completely explained numerous times in my published papers.

Best Regards, André

Dear André,

I cannot believe that I did not take this quote from anywhere other than this forum, since I did not compose it myself!

In any case, I see no point in arguing about it and lose the peace of our minds. The point I like to make here and through my article on the Majorana particle is that, for me the more generalised and the universal approach of materialist dialectics to even specific problems of physics is far more powerful and clear-headed an epistemology than narrow, localized and idealist mathematics based approach of modern theoretical physics.

Best regards, Abdul

Dear Abdul,

You wrote: " I cannot believe that I did not take this quote from anywhere other than this forum, since I did not compose it myself!"

I have no opinion about this.

I have opinions about what I analyzed and explained in the whole series of papers that I had formally published over the course of the past 20 years, and it is about this analysis that I contribute comments on RG. One thing is certain, I am not trying to explain here the contrary of what I spent 20 years explaining in formally published papers, that cannot be edited after publication, and that I have contributed in context here on RG when appropriate.

Yes. There is no point in arguing about anything in fact, and I never do. I simply contribute my conclusions in context for whoever is interested. Nobody is forced to even read my comments.

I tend to correct misquotes of what I really wrote however when I notice it, because this misleads readers as to what I really wrote, which can always be double checked any time in my formally published papers, which on their side cannot be edited to fit circumstances.

Best Regards, André

Dear André,

thank you very much for your interesting and detailed answer! I guess it will take me some days at least to read your publications. Probably I will come back with some further questions (if I did not get lost in the 10+ dimensions which I see lurking in your answer. ;-) Anyway, I'm already glad I asked this question!

Best regards, Joerg