Cosmic Particle/Antiparticle Asymmetry: Possible Causation based on Photonic Structure of Matter
(plus a few other things along the way)
The following paper was submitted to 'Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie' in August 2009. It was returned in April 2010 with the observation that it doesn't offer precise mathematical analyses in support of its hypotheses. For this reason the reviewer very reasonably suggests that the paper is more suited to publication in the field of 'Philosophy of Science'. [Note that these hypotheses are not reliant on detailed mathematical analysis, but are derived rather from logical consideration of pre-existing scientific findings.]
As Transfinite Mind Ltd is very much concerned with the philosophy of science and fundamental underlying causation of scientific phenomena, this paper is now [14th April 2010] presented here exactly as submitted to AFLB apart from (a) removal of the French translation of the abstract, and (b) addition in blue of email and website links plus the header statement below and two sentences clarifying the central tenet of the paper for those unfamiliar with the phase relationship of electrical and magnetic field components of a photon (both of which are, of course, transverse to the direction of motion of the photon).
A PDF download of this paper (4 sides, 123 KB) is available here.
Cosmic asymmetry: a possible causal explanation
based on L. de Broglie’s Particle Wave Model.
Grahame K. Blackwell (grahame@transfinitemind.com)
Transfinite Mind Ltd (www.transfinitemind.com)
The author asserts the moral right to be named in any reference to the original concepts presented in this paper: possible causation of asymmetry in particle/antiparticle abundance in the observable universe; possible role of opposing circular polarisation states in formation of particles and their antiparticles; electromagnetically induced curvature of photon path leading to closed-loop photonic structure of elementary particles; proposed reason for particle-antiparticle mutual annihilation; the likely existence of an opposing pole inside a so-called electric monopole; intrinsic asymmetry of the photon as an electromagnetic field phenomenon; statistical proof of the non-random origins of particle-antiparticle asymmetry (as supported by findings on CP violation in some particles).
ABSTRACT. Asymmetry in relative abundance of elementary particles and their antiparticles has for some time been a focus of scientific investigation. The likelihood of this having occurred by chance is vanishingly small. Evidence of functional asymmetry in certain particle-antiparticle pairs and a mechanism for that broken symmetry are both now well accepted.
This paper offers a possible causal explanation for that asymmetry arising directly from the L. de Broglie wave model of particle behaviour. It points to a known ‘handedness’ in the energetic structure of photons that may well explain differences in stability of particles and their antiparticles.
1 Introduction
Ever since antimatter was theorised by Dirac in 1928 and first observed by Anderson in 1932 the disparity in relative abundance of conventional matter particles – electrons, protons, neutrons – and their antimatter counterparts – positrons, antiprotons, antineutrons – has been readily apparent. Existence of any significant quantity of antiparticles in the observable universe would be marked by regular clearly-observable matter-antimatter annihilation events.
Such events would of course have cleared the heavens billions of years ago of all but the dominant type of matter produced by the Big Bang. This has led to the conjecture that particles and antiparticles were produced in almost equal numbers at that time but that normal matter particle production exceeded that of antiparticles by just one per billion or so of each. It is this excess, following mutual destruction of equal numbers of antiparticles and normal particles (all of the former and almost all of the latter) that leaves us with the matter that forms the universe as it is today. [That universe includes ongoing production and destruction of particle-antiparticle pairs.]
Statistically the likelihood of such an imbalance being produced by chance is vanishingly small, even to the extent of one in every two billion. Given an estimate of 1072 particles in the observable universe, this would point to an original population in the order of 1081 particles and antiparticles [note: these figures could be varied by over 50 orders of magnitude either way without significantly affecting the statistical reasoning]. For such vast numbers the binomial distribution of particles and antiparticles, with equal probabilities, would follow a near-perfect normal distribution curve with variance of order 1080, i.e. standard deviation of order 1040. Hence a deviation from the mean of order 1072 has a probability of zero for all practical purposes.
CP violation has been practically demonstrated, and a mechanism identified, in respect of certain types of particles [1, 2, 3], showing a clear functional asymmetry between those particles and their antiparticles. This provides firm phenomenological support for the view that antimatter is not simply an ‘equal but opposite’ version of matter. This in turn leads to the premise, strongly supported by statistical considerations as outlined above, that there is in all probability a structural difference between a particle and its antiparticle that could account for the difference in relative abundance.
2 Particle structure
The proposal by L. de Broglie of a definitive wave function for an elementary particle [4] is the basis of Schrödinger’s wave equation, central to Quantum Mechanics [QM].
QM interprets that equation as a measure of probability but makes no attempt to define what it is about a particle’s structure that gives rise to such probabilities. Einstein saw this statistical interpretation as a manifestation of a deeper truth [5]; de Broglie was in no doubt that it was but a way-station on the path to a fully “undulatory” definition of the structure of matter [6].
The phenomenon of zitterbewegung, first identified by Schrödinger [7], is indicative of a cyclic component in the substructure of an electron [8, 9, 10], a perspective supported by recent practical experiment [11, 12]. Theoretical analysis has shown that a closed-loop light-like waveform energy flow structure could be responsible for the specific QM qualities of charge, spin and magnetic moment associated with an electron [13].
Strong evidence in support of this model is provided by the evident close relationship between electromagnetic radiation and matter. Photons are constantly transitioning between forming part of the energetic composition of an atom and existing as free energy, in being emitted from and absorbed by particles of matter; in their mutual annihilation particle-antiparticle pairs are transformed into high-energy photons [14, 15, 16, 17, 18]; the reverse process is also well established [19, 20, 21, 22, 23].
In the context of particle-antiparticle asymmetry the generation of static charge within a particle merits particular attention. Over eighty years ago it was demonstrated that the physical behaviour of an electron scattered off a crystal lattice is in accordance with a wavefunction describing that particle in quantum mechanical terms [24]. Since that includes behaviour of the charge carried by the electron, it follows that charge must be an intrinsic feature of that waveform, not simply some little ‘nugget’ carried around in the particle. I.e. static charge is the macroscopic net external effect of the time-varying electromagnetic fields that comprise the waveform nature of the electron, as proposed in [13].
This offers a significant clue as to the distinction between particles and their antiparticles – and, less obviously but equally significantly, a clue to a possible reason for the asymmetry between matter and antimatter particles.
A photon may have any one of an infinite number of polarisation modes, with any degree of ellipticity and at any orientation to a nominal baseline. However every one of those modes may be defined as a linear combination of just two modes: left and right circular polarisation.
It follows that a particle formed from a closed-loop photon (or photons) in one of those two modes, or from one or more photons in a combination of those modes, will almost certainly have a matching counterpart comprised of a corresponding configuration involving the opposite mode(s). The opposing pattern of field rotation is likely to lead to an opposite residual external charge, making the latter the antiparticle of the former.
It is implicit in the hypothesis of closed-loop photonic formation of elementary particles that something holds the electromagnetic wave in that track. This must be the electromagnetic field effects across the interior of that particle – there is nothing else. Field effects from every part of the cyclic photon will act on every other part creating an imbalance in the wavefunction of that electromagnetic wave which would inevitably lead to curvature. Once such an effect leads to closure of a photon path it will be self-perpetuating.
In this respect any particle carrying an electrical charge may be seen as a dipole rather than a monopole: the opposing charge is actually inside the particle. It there manifests as a field effect ensuring particle coherence.
This hypothesis is supported by the fact of mutual annihilation of an electron and a positron, leading to generation of two high-frequency photons. The charged particles are attracted to each other by their opposing external charges. Once coincident in the same space their two internal charges cancel each other out, leaving nothing to hold the photons in their cyclic paths – the charged particles are annihilated to release two linear photons.
However it should now be observed that, although left and right circular photons are symmetric in terms of direction of field rotation – one clockwise, the other anticlockwise – they are not symmetric in terms of orientation of electrical and magnetic field components. Whilst rotation of electrical and magnetic field components is in the opposite sense in one case compared to the other, orientation of magnetic field component relative to electrical field component is the same in both cases – they are not true enantiomorphs. [For clarification: since direction of propagation is given by the cross product of electrical and magnetic field components, the phase relationship between those mutually perpendicular components must be in the same sense in both cases if propagation is in the same direction, whereas rotation of those field components is in the opposite sense in one of those two polarisation states compared with the other. Thus in one case the magnetic field leads the electrical field, in the other it trails it; these are clearly not equivalent (i.e. symmetric) situations.]
By extension, no fully reflected counterpart exists for any photon in any polarisation mode, as electrical-magnetic field orientation is the same for all. This universal ‘handedness’ offers a possible reason for particle asymmetry.
Since the structural integrity of a cyclic-photon particle is dependent on the self-interaction of electrical and magnetic fields of its formative photon(s) this chiral bias introduces the real possibility that one of the two mirror-image configurations described above will be more stable than the other. As a simple illustrative example, an electron formed from a photon circularly polarised in one direction may well be more stable than a positron formed from a photon of the same frequency but polarised in the opposite direction.
As structural stability would have been a prerequisite for any newly-formed particles in the intensely high-energy environment in the immediate aftermath of the Big Bang, it is very likely that this consideration would have favoured the longevity of one of those mirrored structures over the other in each case. The dual fact of these asymmetries provides significant empirical support for the two propositions being put forward in this paper:
(1) It adds to the already substantial evidence that material particles are formed from quanta of waveform electromagnetic energy, i.e. photons, travelling in cyclic patterns rather than linearly, as it demonstrates a plausible link between (a) phenomenologically proven asymmetry between particles and their antiparticles and (b) a known structural asymmetry in the fundamental electromagnetic energy patterns that arguably constitute the basic building blocks of those material particles;
(2) It offers a possible causal explanation for an observed asymmetry in material particles, based on a known asymmetry in those energetic constructs that are known to bear a close relationship to matter and indeed may well be the very elements from which matter is formed.
Conclusion
The primary issue addressed in this paper is well summarised by the final observation of Makoto Kobayashi on this subject in his Nobel awards presentation, 2008:
“Matter dominance of the Universe seems requiring new source of CP violation.” [1, Slide #28, sic].
A model of the structure of elementary particles has been presented that conforms to substantial empirical and analytical evidence. That structure rests on the concept of photons moving in cyclic closed-loop configurations, held in such patterns of motion by self-interference of their electromagnetic waveforms leading inevitably to curvature of the path of wave motion. This model agrees well with similar proposals from other sources as well as with the particle wave model, first advanced by L. de Broglie, that now forms the basis of Quantum Mechanics.
This model of material particles innately embodies a known asymmetry in its formative elements: left and right circularly polarised photons, from which all other polarisation states (and so all photons) may be derived, are not exact mirror images of each other. Since it is quite likely that any particle and its corresponding antiparticle are formed from matching, but opposite-handed, configurations of photons this asymmetry is likely to result in a difference in stability between particles and their respective antiparticles.
This juxtaposition of two cosmic asymmetries – the structural asymmetry of photons and the phenomenological asymmetry of material particles and their antiparticles that are arguably formed from such photons – is unlikely to be coincidental. Rather, it both strengthens the case for the cyclic-photon model of particle structure and offers a possible causal explanation for the observed difference in abundance of matter and antimatter in our universe.
References
[1] Kobayashi M., “CP Violation and Flavour Mixing”, (Nobel lecture), The Nobel Foundation (2008).
[2] Maskawa T., “What Does CP Violation Tell Us?” (Nobel lecture), The Nobel Foundation (2008).
[3] Nambu ,Y., “Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking in Particle Physics: a Case of Cross Fertilization” (Nobel lecture), The Nobel Foundation (2008).
[4] de Broglie L., « Recherches sur la théorie des quanta », Thèse de doctorat, (1924) [Annales de Physique, l0-ème série, t. III, 22-128 (1925)].
[5] Einstein A., Letter to Max Born (4 December 1926). in “The Born-Einstein Letters” (translated by Irene Born), Walker and Company, New York (1971).
[6] de Broglie L., Preface to German translation of PhD thesis: „Untersuchungen zur Quantentheorie“, [Becker, W. (trans.)], Aka. Verlag., Leipzig (1927).
[7] Schrödinger E., „Über die Kraftfreie Bewegung in der Relativistischen Quantenmechanik“, Sitzungb. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Phys.-Math. Kl., 24, 418-428 (1930).
[8] Huang K., “On the zitterbewegung of the Dirac electron”, Am. J. Phys. 20(8), 479-484 (1952).
[9] Barut A. O. & Bracken A. J., “Zitterbewegung and the internal geometry of the electron”, Phys. Rev. D, 23(10), 2454-2463 (1981).
[10] Hestenes D., “The Zitterbewegung Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics”, Found. Phys. 20(10), 1213-1232 (1990).
[11] Gouanère M. et al., “Experimental observation compatible with the particle internal clock ”, Ann. Fond. L. de Broglie, 30(1), 109-114 (2005).
[12] Cattilon P. et al., “A Search for the de Broglie Particle Internal Clock by Means of Electron Channeling”, Found. Phys., 38(7), 659-664 (2008).
[13] Williamson J.G. & van der Mark M.B., “Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?” Ann. Fond. L. de Broglie, 22(2), 133-160 (1997).
[14] Cabibbo N. & Gatto R., “Electron Positron Colliding Beam Experiments”, Phys. Rev., 124, 1577-1595 (1961).
[15] Cabibbo N. et al., “New method for producing and analyzing linearly polarized gamma-ray beams”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 9(6), 270-272 (1962).
[16] Di Vecchia P. & Greco M., “Double Photon Emission in e+e– Collisions”, Nuovo Cimento A, 50(2), 319-332 (1967).
[17] Schwitters R.F. & Strauch K., “The Physics of e+e– Collisions”, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Sci., 26, 89-149 (1976).
[18] Bernardini C., “AdA:The First Electron-Positron Collider”, Physics in Perspective, 6(2), 156-183 (2004).
[19] Landau L.D. & Lifshits E.M., "On the production of electrons and positrons by a collision of two particles", Sov. Phys., 6, 244 (1934).
[20] Barbiellini G. et al., “Muon Pair Production by Photon-Photon Interactions in e+e– Storage Rings”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 32(7), 385-388 (1974).
[21] Baldini C.R. et al., “Experimental results on photon-photon interactions at ADONE”, Phys. Lett. B, 86(2), 239-242 (1979).
[22] Cooper S., “Meson Production in Two-Photon Collisions”, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci., 38, 705-749 (1988).
[23] Ginzburg I.F., “About earlier history of two-photon physics”, Acta Phys. Pol. B, 37(3), 657-662 (2006).
[24] Davisson C. J. & Germer L. H., “Diffraction of Electrons by a Crystal of Nickel”, Phys. Rev., 30, 705-740 (1927).