Can matter be made out of light?

I wanted to update my thoughts on this obvious but intriguing and – you may be surprised to hear this – basically unanswered question in phyics: can matter be created out of light? If so, where does the charge come from? Or the reverse: in matter-antimatter pair annihilation, where does the charge go?

So, I revisited and updated Lecture XIII and Lecture XI on that: two papers in what I, with a wink to the title of Richard Feynman’s rather famous Lectures on Physics (which inspired this blog many years ago – not anymore) , wrote as part of a series in which I try to make things that are not so obvious – because couched in guru-speak – somewhat more obvious: what are the actual experiments and what are the possible interpretations? I also opened a discussion thread on the question on ResearchGate. That was useful and not-so-useful at the same time. Let me elaborate:

1. It was useful because:

It forced me to ask a very precise question so as to get input from other researchers: no philosophy. Only tough and precise discussion.
I did get references to other experiments than the ones I had looked at.

2. It was not-so-useful because:

I found myself re-explaining very basic physics while ‘talking’ to people with very different backgrounds. One of those questions was a weird discussion on what a real photon actually is: something with no rest mass whatsoever. To my surprise, one of the researchers does support the thesis slow-moving or massive neutral particles might be photons (or whatever other field you might think of).
The format of these discussions is – in no way whatsoever – a substitute to good, detailed and precise email exchanges with colleagues whom you know and who are at your level of understanding. I guess such email exchanges are the only true equivalent of the long letters physicists used to write to each other about hundred years ago.

It made me realize why thinking and writing about physics and the metaphysics that come with it is a rather lonely and somewhat depressing intellectual pursuit. You think about very difficult issues for which there may or may not a solution. That is stressful enough already. It becomes even more stressful when you think you found an answer or a solution to a problem but that, apparently, you are not able to communicate it clearly or – much more likely – no one is interested in your views. 🙂 Another possibility is that – all of a sudden – you realize that you missed some obvious fact, or that an entirely different interpretation of what might be the case is also possible. So, then, you have to start from scratch again. That is very tiring. Mental.

I think I am fortunate because I am an amateur physicist only and – on top of that – I do not take myself very seriously any more. Not on these questions, at least. 🙂

The Breit-Wheeler process: can matter be created out of light?

Post- or pre-scriptum (added on 22 October 2023): I did what I promised to do below, and that is to analyze SLAC’s E144 experiment in detail. We do so in a recently added new chapter in this series of Lectures: Lecture XI – Can Matter Be Made Out of Light? We warmly recommend reading the paper, because it is extremely relevant when it comes to understanding the basic hypotheses of modern quantum physics. 🙂

I am rather surprised – and not, at the same time – that my paper on matter-antimatter pair production is getting a fair number of downloads (about 4500 downloads now) – despite my rather free-wheeling (scathing?) language. It basically argues the experiments ‘proving’ the 1934 Breit-Wheeler hypothesis, do not prove much at all! Worse, I actually claim they are not proving anything at all, and that the charge that comes out of these experiments can be explained by looking at the reactions as a nuclear process (there is always a nucleus nearby, with neutrons that can provide the charged particle pairs that come out of the reaction).

I disengaged from further research because of a lack of time, but it is probably the one and only aspect of the new physics that I want to examine further. Why? Because it will either prove or disprove my rather classical interpretation of quantum physics. Indeed, with all due respect to Gregory Breit and John Archibald Wheeler – neither of which got a Nobel Prize in Physics – I think the Breit-Wheeler hypothesis (matter formation – pair production – can be formed out of interacting light particles) remains unproven. In my not-so-humble view, it is based on an erroneous interpretation of Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence relation. Mass is energy, of course, but this equivalence must be rooted in an interpretation of mass as charge in motion, and dig back into de Broglie’s original hypothesis:

“We may, thus, conceive that, because of some grand law of Nature, a periodic phenomenon of frequency ν₀ would be associated with each energy packet with rest mass m₀, such that hν₀ = m₀c². The frequency ν₀ is, of course, to be measured, in the rest frame of the energy packet. This hypothesis is the basis of our theory: it is, just like all hypotheses, worth only as much as the consequences that can be deduced from it.”[1]

As we explain in our most downloaded paper, the de Broglie frequency is the orbital frequency of the positive or negative charge inside a proton or an electron, respectively (or, in the neutron, the neutral combination of both):

Photons are photons: traveling fields (think of them as a force without a charge to act upon).
Matter-particles are matter-particles: charge in motion. Fields do not convert into charge, or vice versa: the charge must already be there.

We will do our best to rewrite this paper in a more academic version by studying the E-144 articles and papers when we have time. We could not access them because they are – mostly – in a PS format. This may sound like a poor excuse.[2] It is. However, we also noted this:

Wikipedia authors cornering interesting topics (including the Zitterbewegung interpretation of quantum mechanics) are usually biased towards presenting hypotheses as facts. On the Breit-Wheeler process, the article is remarkably nuanced. It dryly quotes from a 2016 article in Physics Review E [3] that, although “direct production of electron–positron pairs in two-photon collisions, the Breit–Wheeler process, is one of the basic processes in the universe” – we very much doubt this, as should be clear from this paper – “it has never been directly observed in the laboratory.”
While the referenced Physics Review E article says this is “because of the absence of intense enough γ-ray sources”, we stick to our intuition and think there is more at play: we effectively concur with the more skeptical voices in this more recent (2021) ScienceNews appraisal [4]: as long as this experiment cannot be performed with “indisputably real photons”, we think of matter-light conversions not only as not being real, but as being logically (or, should we say, ontologically?) impossible.

The fact that the Particle Data Group has close to zero information on Breit-Wheeler processes confirms all of the above – in our not-so-humble view again, at least. We believe in Wheeler’s mass-without-mass vision, but not in his mass-without-charge (or charge-without-charge) ideas!

[1] Translated from the de Broglie’s Recherches sur la Théorie des Quanta (Ann. de Phys., 10^e série, t. III (Janvier-Février 1925: « On peut donc concevoir que par suite d’une grande loi de la Nature, à chaque morceau d’énergie de masse propre m₀, soit lié un phénomène périodique de fréquence ν₀ telle que l’on ait : hν₀ = m₀c², ν₀ étant mesurée, bien entendu, dans le système lié au morceau d’énergie. Cette hypothèse est la base de notre système : elle vaut, comme toutes les hypothèses, ce que valent les conséquences qu’on en peut déduire. »

[2] A professional Adobe Acrobat subscription – which I do not have right now – should make them readable, right? However, we note the site has not been updated since 1998, so this does not inspire much confidence: have there been no replications of these experiments since then? Apparently not.

[3] Admittedly, Physics Review E is, apparently, not a prime journal in particle physics. The Wikipedia entry on it notes that its focus is on many-body phenomena, although its “broad scope” also includes “quantum chaos, soft matter physics, classical chaos, biological physics and granular materials.”

[4] The overview is – admittedly – ‘journalistic’ only (that is the nature of ScienceReview), but we think it offers a more objective assessment of the current state of play in regard to this line of research.

An antiforce to explain dark matter?

If you are interested in physics and cosmological theories, then you will know all research has been shaken up by the discovery of dark matter and dark energy. The fact of the matter is this: in 2011, a Nobel Prize was awarded to different teams of astronomers who, independently, discovered a whole lot of matter in our Universe – most matter in the Universe, actually – and that mainstream physicists have no idea about how to go about it in terms of modeling its structure and true nature: it seems quantum field theory and confined quarks and gluons and color charges are pretty useless in this regard.

The discovery goes back to 1998 (so it took the Nobel Prize committee more than ten years to verify it or to see its enormous value as a discovery), and is duly reported in the Wikipedia article on the cosmological constant because of its implications, although I have issues with the contributor to that article talking about ‘a repulsive force’ that would counterbalance the gravitational braking produced by the matter contained in the universe’: that sounds whacky to me. 🙂

The bottom line is this: according to research quoted by NASA, roughly 68% of the Universe would be dark energy, while dark matter makes up another 27%. Hence, all normal matter – including our Earth and all we observe as normal matter outside of it – would add up to less than 5% of it. Hence, NASA rightly notes we should, perhaps, not refer to ‘normal’ matter as ‘normal’ matter at all, since it is such a small fraction of the universe!

Now, as mentioned above: theoretical physicists have no clue about the nature of this dark matter. As our modeling of electrons and protons as two- and three-dimensional electromagnetic oscillations has provided easy answers to difficult questions, we thought we might, perhaps, explore one particularity of the electromagnetic force. Indeed, the electromagnetic force introduces this weird asymmetry in Nature: we know that, in our world, the magnetic field lags the electric field. The phase difference is 90 degrees, and you probably have a good mental image of that electric and magnetic field vector oscillating up and down and also moving together along a line in space. [If not, have a look at this GIF animation in the Wikipedia article on Maxwell’s equations. It shows a linearly polarized wave: both the electric and magnetic field vector oscillate along a straight line rather than rotating around (as they would do in a circularly or elliptically polarized wave).]

Of course, you may not think of this as a necessary asymmetry: if the magnetic field vector were to be 180 degrees out of phase with the electric field vector, then that would make no sense because the magnetic and electric field vectors would be working against each other. Also, we would have no propagation mechanism and all that. In fact, we would have no electromagnetic force theory and we would, quite simply, not be here to write this.

However, that is not what I mean by an asymmetry: what I am saying is that we can imagine another alternative. We can imagine the magnetic field vector to lead instead of to lag in regard to the electric field vector. Hence, Occam’s Razor tells us we should seriously consider such force actually exists! The situation is not unlike how the positron was discovered: people start looking for it because, in the math of his wave equation, Dirac saw positrons could possibly exist. Once people started seriously considering it, they actually found it (Anderson, 1932).

Exceptional measurements require exceptional explanations and so, yes, we thought: why not apply Occam’s Razor once more? Our idea of an antiforce is or was the one degree of freedom in our mathematical representation of matter-particles that we had not exploited yet[1], so our intuition tells us it might be worth considering.

Have a look at it (click the link to our RG paper here). It is a very short and crisp paper, and we think of it as fun to read but that is, of course, for you to judge. 🙂

[1] Truth be told, we were not aware or intrigued by the idea of dark matter or energy about a year ago. We can, however, now see we are actually closing and exploiting an aspect of our modeling of the electromagnetic force which we had not seen before. The history of science shows Occam’s Razor is a good guide for getting at the right model, and so we feel our rather radical use of this principle – in the tradition of P.A.M. Dirac and others, indeed! – may yield interesting results once more.