Is Quantum Mechanics A Must Have?

[robinpike]

I would like to hear opinions on an idea that attempts to model the atom without using quantum mechanics.

 

The model is different to the standard model, but rather than just reject it out of hand, I would like to know if the model’s logic is self-consistent, or if not, where it fails.

 

As far as I am aware the model has not been documented previously, so it needs a fair amount of detail up front [apologies if it seems a lot to go through]. Mathematically the model would be classed as a system of shapes that stretch and move, although I have no maths for the model.

 

Summary…

 

The model contains photon-like, electron-like and proton-like particles. These are compound particles built up from a much smaller fundamental particle. The model does not include quarks but instead constructs the proton as a positron sandwiched between two neutral particles [referred to as neutral rings in the model]. These neutral particles are essential to the model if the electron and proton are to form the atom.

 

Firstly, the attraction between the electron and positron follows the standard inverse square law. So in the model, electrons and positrons do not form atoms because there is nothing to stop them getting closer and closer until they eventually collide and change into gamma rays.

 

However this is not the case for the electron and proton. The proton has the neutral rings and these introduce a second force on the electron, a strong short range repulsive force.

 

So the electron feels an attractive force towards the proton, but on nearing the proton it is pushed away. This creates a potential well around the proton, the conditions for a rudimentary atom.

 

1. The model in detail…

 

This part details how there are three forms of stuff: photons, electrons and protons

 

The easiest way to describe the photon, electron and proton in the model is that they are like a flexible coil, like the Slinky toy.

 

A coil has 3 forms [each with two variants, because a coil can be either left-handed or right-handed].

 

Form one: an open ended coil – like a normal Slinky.

Form two: a simple torus – like a Slinky bent into a ring.

Form three: a composite torus, where a left-handed coil is inside a right-handed coil (or vice-versa) – like a Slinky squeezed inside another Slinky, bent into a ring.

 

Form one: in the model an open ended form on its own is equivalent to the neutrino, in that it cannot easily interact with matter. Neutrinos of the same handiness can join together head to tail, one in front of the other, to form a spectrum of neutrinos of different physical lengths. A photon is an identical pair of left and right-handed neutrinos joined side by side. [Remember, the model is not a copy of the standard model per se.]

 

Form two: the simple torus leads to the electron and positron and in the model these have a fixed amount of mass, charge and spin. When matter and antimatter particles combine, their rings break open, creating a gamma ray photon from the matching pair of neutrinos.

 

Form three: the composite torus leads to the neutral ring, which also has a fixed amount of mass, charge and spin, although the charge is hidden as the positive and negative amounts are equal. In the model, the proton is a positron sandwiched between two neutral rings.

 

To make it more readable, I'm going to put the rest into parts following this post. Here are some pictures to give an idea of the different forms.

 

2. The electron and its electric field

 

This part details how the electron has a fixed amount of charge and how an electric field makes the electron move.

 

In the model, charge originates from whether the fundamental particle is coiled to the left or to the right. [Part 5 Photons details how photons interact with electric fields.]

 

Imagine taking a Slinky toy and cutting it into say 10 equal parts and straightening out those parts – what you would end up with would be 10 identical straight pieces. It would not matter whether you started with a left-handed or a right-handed Slinky, you would end up with a set of identical straight strands. The model’s fundamental particle starts with that shape.

 

The model’s fundamental particle is a strand of movement and it moves at a fixed speed against a single, fixed frame of reference. [Remember, the model is not a copy of the standard model per se.]

 

The head and tail of the strand are the parts that move at the fixed speeds, with the strand’s head moving faster than its tail and the body of the strand being able to stretch and compress. The strand grows until a point is reached where the head breaks free and becomes a particle in its own right. This is the base form of the electric field particle. With a new head, the original strand grows again and repeats the process.

 

A basic property of the strands is that they are ’sticky’ and remain in contact while together.

 

When the base form of an electric field particle runs along the body of a strand, the different speeds of their surfaces causes the strand to curl. If the strand curls onto itself and the strand’s own electric field particle doubles back inside the coil, compressing the inside of the strand, then the strand will stay in that shape.

 

In this state, the strand is like a short Slinky toy, and the strand’s own electric field particles exit from the rear of the particle, in a coiled state too.

 

This is the neutrino and it can be either a left-handed neutrino or a right-handed neutrino. In the model a neutrino, despite its name, is a fragment of charge.

 

When neutrinos of the same handiness join together, very long neutrinos can be produced. Neutrinos of very long lengths produce intense electric fields and these can interact with the surface of another long neutrino and bend the neutrino into a simple torus. Once in this form, the electric field no longer has an exit to escape from the particle.

 

The electric field builds up inside the torus, compressing its internal surface and shrinking the radius of the torus until it can reduce no further. At this point, the increasing electric field produces gaps on the torus’s surface and the electric field particles escape. The gaps then close and the field builds up again, and so the process repeats.

 

Only very long neutrinos are able to flex into a torus. When first formed, the escaping electric field is dense enough to drag strands from the torus. This continues until a balance is reached between the number of strands in the torus and the density of the electric field.

 

In this way, all simple tori end up with the same number of strands of movement, even though they may have started from neutrinos with different lengths.

 

This simple torus is the electron / positron, the two differentiated by the handiness of the coils in the torus.

 

When an electron is in a positive field, contact with the positive field particles causes the side of the torus that is moving towards the source of the field to bunch up, and stretch out on the side that is moving away.

 

This bias of its internal movement causes the electron to move towards the source of a positive field.

 

The opposite happens when an electron is in a negative field and the electron moves away from the source of a negative field.

 

For a positron with its opposite handiness to the electron, the opposite happens, it moves away from a positive field and towards a negative field.

 

3. The neutral ring and its electric field

 

This part details how a neutral ring has a fixed amount of positive and negative charge and how the neutral ring’s electric field particle has a longer length than the electron’s electric field particle.

 

A composite torus is formed when a long left-handed neutrino and a long right-handed neutrino meet head on and one passes through the other while the pair are bent into a torus by an intense electric field particle. Once the torus is formed, the escaping electric field strips out strands from the longer of the two original neutrinos, until the two are reduced to the same length. After that, both have their strands stripped out in equal amounts until a balance is reached and no more strands are lost from the torus.

 

In this way all neutral rings end up with the same number of strands of movement as each other, with the number of left-handed strands always equal to the number of right-handed strands.

 

Because overlapping neutrinos are less flexible than a single neutrino, longer neutrinos are required when forming a composite torus than for a simple torus. And because the two neutrinos overlap inside the torus, the balance point when no more strands are pulled from the torus is reached sooner.

 

In this way the mass of a neutral ring is greater than the mass of an electron.

 

In addition, the electric field particles from a neutral ring are physically longer and are produced more frequently than those from an electron.

 

When the electric field escapes from a neutral ring, the positive part and the negative part escape in different directions. So although neutral, when an electron is near a neutral ring it encounters positive and negative fields.

 

4. Mass

 

This part details how particles of matter have inertia and why this enforces the photon’s involvement in the motion of matter.

 

Left on its own, a particle of matter is a perfectly round torus of movement. For the particle as a whole to move a force has to distort its shape and cause its internal movement to bunch up on one side of the torus. Distortion is required because the strands in the torus move at a single speed against a fixed frame of reference. Once that distortion is removed, the torus will return to its perfectly round shape and the particle will stop moving forward.

 

So the electron, positron and neutral rings have mass in the sense that they have inertia – but they do not have momentum. (Remember, the model is not a copy of the standard model per se.) In the model it is only the photon and neutrino that have momentum.

 

Particles with mass obtain momentum by absorbing a photon (not a neutrino as neutrinos cannot latch onto particles). When an electron absorbs a photon, the photon stays in existence, it does not disappear. Although to be clear, a better description would be that the photon absorbs the particle of matter, since it is the particle of matter that is wedged in the head of the photon. Once the particle is attached to the photon, the photon pushes the particle along while still being a photon in its own right.

 

5. Photons

 

This part details how photons are initially produced and how photons are influenced by the neutral ring’s electric field but not by the electron’s electric field.

 

Inside a long neutrino, the electric field particles increase in number as they pass down the neutrino. Fluctuations in the stream of particles produce pulses along the neutrino’s body, the highest frequency occurring at the tail end of the neutrino, and the longest neutrinos having the highest frequencies.

 

This pulsation makes it difficult for neutrinos of opposite spin but with different lengths to stick to each other. And even when a neutrino is paired with one of the same length, they have to combine with their heads exactly in line with each other in order to stick together. This makes it difficult for neutrinos to pair up and change into photons (except perhaps for neutrinos that have a short length).

 

Instead, in the model photons are initially formed by the route of matter and antimatter particles changing into light. Electrons and positrons are exact mirror copies of each other and when they touch their rings can split open, allowing the perfectly aligned neutrino pair to form a gamma ray photon.

 

The electric field particle from a neutral ring is long enough to wrap around a photon, something that the electron’s shorter electric field particle cannot do.

 

When a photon is near a neutral ring, the separate positive and negative fields are able to influence the path of the photon, the positive field altering the path of the photon in the opposite direction to the negative field.

 

The electric field particle wraps itself around the photon, spiraling around and down the length of the photon. This bunches up one side of the photon while stretching out the other side (because the sides have opposite spin), causing the photon to bend and change direction.

 

If the angle of the electric field particle to the photon approaches the perpendicular (like a T), then the electric field particle is no longer able to wrap itself around the photon and the electric field particle loses its ability to effect the photon.

 

At macro distances, the individual positive and negative field particles tend to pair together and this causes them to lose their ability to alter the path of light, so this is a short range effect that occurs near atoms.

 

When a photon is in the electric field of an electron or a positron (i.e. the positron inside a proton), the electric field particles are too short to wrap around the photon. The path of a photon is not altered by these fields, even when the field is a powerful macro field.

 

When a long electric field particle wraps around a neutrino, it affects all sides of the neutrino by the same amount (the sides have the same direction of spin) and so has no effect on the path of the neutrino. Neutrinos are not affected by any kind of electric field.

 

6. Summary of the particles, mass, charge and electric fields

 

Summary of the model [this takes a bit of getting used to since it is different to the standard model].

 

Strand of movement: this is the model’s fundamental particle, everything that happens in the model is a consequence of this particle and the shapes that it forms.

 

Neutrino: has no mass but has momentum, forms a spectrum of particles that are fragments of charge, not affected by any kind of electric field.

 

Photon: has no mass but has momentum, forms a spectrum of neutral particles, is affected by the neutral ring’s electric field but not by the electron / positron’s electric field.

 

Electron / positron: has a fixed amount of mass but no momentum, absorbs photons to gain momentum, has a fixed amount of charge, is affected by any kind of electric field.

 

Neutral ring: has a fixed amount of mass but no momentum, absorbs photons to gain momentum, has a fixed amount of equal positive and negative charge, is not affected by any kind of electric field.

 

Electric field: causes electrons and positrons to move by interacting with their internal movement, compressing / stretching the bodies of their internal strands.

 

There is the question as to how particles accelerated by an electric or gravitational field are able to gain photons to give them their increase in momentum, and perhaps easier to explain, when de-accelerated are able to lose photons.

 

For example, if a Frisbee is thrown it doesn’t just stop in mid-air after the point of leaving the thrower’s hand; the thrower overcomes the Frisbee’s inertia / momentum and the Frisbee gains / loses momentum. It is taken for granted that inertia and momentum are the same thing but that is not so obvious when trying to provide the mechanism. One possible method could be via the absorption / emission of background heat or perhaps background neutrinos in some way.

 

But anyway, from a practical point of view if nothing else, always present is the background movement from orbiting the galaxy at approximately 200 kilometres per second. So a typical particle under consideration will have a photon attached by whatever the mechanism turns out to be. I’ll leave it there as a part of the model not yet resolved.

 

7. The atom

 

Using the information from the previous sections, here is how the model forms the atom without using quantum mechanics.

 

First of all, a photon is attached to the electron.

 

When the electron is in the vicinity of the proton, the proton’s overall positive charge causes the electron to move towards the proton.

 

The proton also has the positive and negative fields from its two neutral rings, of which each are in the order of 900 times greater than the proton’s overall positive field. [This is based on the comparison of the positron and proton masses. In the model, mass in a particle relates to charge in the particle.]

 

These positive and negative fields affect the electron and add a zigzag element to the electron’s progress, but overall they neither hinder nor help the electron towards the proton.

 

However those fields also affect the photon that is attached to the electron, and that causes a different behaviour. Basically, whatever the photon’s current path is, the electric fields from the neutral rings bend the photon and take the photon (and the electron) off that path.

 

So, if the electron is moving head-on or in a near head-on approach to the proton, then the fields from the neutral rings will always turn the photon (and the electron) away from the proton. This is regardless as to whether the positive or the negative fields from the neutral rings interact with the photon.

 

Even when the approach is not head on, because the fields bend the photon in its vertical plane, there is only a small chance that the photon and the electron will end up being directed towards the proton. And if that were to happen, then the next interaction with the fields will always turn the photon (and the electron) away from the proton.

 

This results in the electron being kept in an orbit that is at a distance from the proton.

 

When the electron is moving perpendicular to the proton (like a T), then the electron has missed the proton and the electron will be on a trajectory away from the proton. Now the opposite happens, the fields from the neutral rings pull the photon (and the electron) back into an orbit around the proton.

 

Initially this will be in a sweeping arc as the electron is not like a bob on a pendulum, it cannot slow, stop and swing back along its previous path since the electron has constant momentum due to its photon.

 

Note that when the electron is in the perpendicular phase of its orbit, the electric fields do not interact with the photon (although they will continue to interact with the electron itself).

 

Overall the electron ends up in an orbit around the proton and when the electron strays into an orbit that would collide with the proton, the electron is pushed into a non-colliding orbit, thus producing an atom-like system. What is more, the mechanism is not simply a passive electron ‘orbiting’ the proton; it is an active force that provides the atom with a resistance to being crushed.

 

This mechanism also suggests that, when a moving free electron is altered by a macro electric field, the electron might radiate photons because the field alters the path of the electron but not the path of the photon that is pushing the electron along, and so part of the photon might slip off the electron.

 

Whereas in this model of the atom, it is the path of the photon that is altered, providing a reason as to why electrons in atoms do not likewise continually radiate photons.

Edited September 1, 2015 by robinpike

[Mordred]

First off we have plenty of evidence Quarks do exist. They are detectable in particle accelerators. Via inelastic scattering. The Quark model was first proposed by Gell Mann and Zweig in 1964. Between 1970 and 1977 various tests showed the possibility of their existing. This became widely accepted in 1977. Today there it's become essentially conclusive that the quark model is accurate to the point that we have refined the mass of all the individual quarks.

 

So your model which doesn't include quarks does not match experimental evidence of nearly 40 years worth of datasets.

 

Without math, and proving the that evidence wrong.....

Well lets just say good luck.

[Klaynos]

A model in modern physics means a mathematical model of part of the universe. This isn't a model it's a story. Without maths there is no way to accurately composers against the universe. So other than broad statements like Mordred had made it's impossible to critique further other than to say this.

[swansont]

It's not a model. How do you get the energy level structure of hydrogen from all of this?

[robinpike]

First off we have plenty of evidence Quarks do exist. They are detectable in particle accelerators. Via inelastic scattering. The Quark model was first proposed by Gell Mann and Zweig in 1964. Between 1970 and 1977 various tests showed the possibility of their existing. This became widely accepted in 1977. Today there it's become essentially conclusive that the quark model is accurate to the point that we have refined the mass of all the individual quarks.

 

So your model which doesn't include quarks does not match experimental evidence of nearly 40 years worth of datasets.

 

Without math, and proving the that evidence wrong.....

Well lets just say good luck.

 

Hi Mordred,

 

When I stated that the model does not include quarks, I was being honest upfront about that difference to the standard model.

 

The difficulty I found with putting quarks into the model was finding a way to get fractional electric charge onto the quarks – as everybody knows it is ¹⁄₃ or ²⁄₃ the ratio of the charge on the electron.

 

If I could figure out a way of introducing quarks with fractional charge into the model - I would - and then use them with the electron and the electric force to see if the model could explain quantum mechanics.

 

Because that is the purpose of the model: to see if quantum mechanics can be explained as the result of something lower level.

 

I couldn't get quarks in, so all I had was the electron and the positron - and so a neutral particle was needed to get the extra mass for the proton. The model did not have to be forced to get that neutral particle in, so in it stayed.

 

So if I am reading your concern correctly, it is not even worth considering if the conjecture can challenge quantum mechanics whille quarks are not in there.

 

I respect that feedback, so I have a question for you to help me with your comment...

 

"The model which doesn't include quarks does not match experimental evidence of nearly 40 years worth of data sets"

 

How is it that it is so easy to tell that the model does not match those data sets?

 

Obviously it does not match the concept of quarks - but what is it about the data that the model cannot match?

 

An example would help me here.

 

Thanks

It's not a model. How do you get the energy level structure of hydrogen from all of this?

 

Hi Swansont,

 

'Model' seems to mean so many things - perhaps if I had used the word conjecture it would have been better.

 

As I mentioned with my reply to Mordred, the purpose of the conjecture is to see if there could be an alternative mechanism to quantum mechanics.

 

It is an epic challenge - as you must appreciate, it is not something that is completed with just a cursory set of thoughts.

 

First task is to see if the atom structure could exist at all without quantum mechanics.

 

But your question is one step further: how does the conjecture get to the energy level structure in hydrogen?

 

The only method I can see of getting to that point, would to have the conjecture modeled on a computer using a 3D simulation of the fundamental particle - the strand of movement. The electron, proton and photon are all compound particles, what other way could there be to see if those energy levels are in there or not?

 

I appreciate your input.

A model in modern physics means a mathematical model of part of the universe. This isn't a model it's a story. Without maths there is no way to accurately composers against the universe. So other than broad statements like Mordred had made it's impossible to critique further other than to say this.

 

Hi Klaynos,

 

As everyone so far has mentioned, I agree it is not a model.

 

Okay, so its not even a conjecture - it is a story, but even so, a story can have logic in it, a story can be checked to see if it is self-consistent or not?

 

As mentioned in my reply to Swansont, the maths would be driven from modeling on a computer with a 3D simulation of the fundamental particle.

 

I appreciate your input, your comment shows just how difficult it is to discuss a challenge to quantum mechanics.

Edited September 2, 2015 by robinpike

[Bignose]

Obviously it does not match the concept of quarks - but what is it about the data that the model cannot match?

 

An example would help me here.

 

Thanks

Start with Breidenback et al. Observed Behavior of Highly Inelastic Electron-Proton Scattering, Phys. Rev. Lett. 23, 935 – Published 20 October 1969

 

In short, they shot a proton with electrons, and the electrons scattered in exactly as if there were three bodies inside the proton. Direct physical evidence for quarks.

 

Then, use Web of Science or some similar tool to find all the subsequent papers citing Breidenbach et al. presenting more evidence for quarks.

 

Your model doesn't get to just dismiss quarks. As Modred said, there is more than 40 years of data out there supporting that there is something inside the neutron and proton that acts in very specific ways. If your model cannot directly predict agreement with the known data, then it is significantly less useful than the Standard Model we are using today, which makes pretty excellent predictions.

[Klaynos]

Whilst you are right it is possible to tell if the story is self consistent it is difficult if not impossible to accurately compare with experimental results.

 

You said the maths would come in 3d models on a computer. This computer would need the maths built into it though. If I were you I'd at least look up what Bignose has suggested. Thus far you seen significantly better than a lot of people who come here with similar posts. I will say that maths is the foundation rock of modern science it's impossible to do it without that rock.

[Strange]

As mentioned in my reply to Swansont, the maths would be driven from modeling on a computer with a 3D simulation of the fundamental particle..

 

So perhaps the first thing to model is the effect of these particles bouncing off each other. It looks as though this toroidal structure would cause a very different pattern than either spherical objects or bags of quarks.

[robinpike]

Thanks for your points raised.

 

I now realise that the post is not so much a story as an epic - and there is too much in it for specific discussions.

 

I am going to take a different approach. I will make specific arguments one at a time and describe them as best I can to allow them to be assessed challenged / corrected / dismissed etc.

 

If nothing else, the initial post can be a point of reference for each point being discussed.

 

I'm at work at the moment, and need time to prepare - I will start with what has been the main driver of this challenge to quantum mechanics. I need to keep it to specific statements that can be judged and challenged.

[Strange]

I am going to take a different approach. I will make specific arguments one at a time and describe them as best I can to allow them to be assessed challenged / corrected / dismissed etc.

 

Why not address the challenges to what you have presented so far, first?

 

I now realise that the post is not so much a story as an epic - and there is too much in it for specific discussions.

 

If the rest of your "epic" is equally non-mathematical (i.e. not able to make specific testable predications) then I'm not sure how much value there is in presenting more of it.

Edited September 2, 2015 by Strange

[robinpike]

 

So perhaps the first thing to model is the effect of these particles bouncing off each other. It looks as though this toroidal structure would cause a very different pattern than either spherical objects or bags of quarks.

 

Yes, the toroidal particles would have a very distinctive way of bouncing off each other. Let me have a think about this to see if anything can be predicted without first having the simulation. I can see why you have asked about bouncing off each other - for that is one method of experimental investigation. It is not particularly relevant though for normal behaviour of the particles and so I have not thought about it.

Edited September 2, 2015 by robinpike

[Strange]

 

Yes, the toroidal particles would have a very distinctive way of bouncing off each other.

 

Then your model is DOA.

[robinpike]

 

Why not address the challenges to what you have presented so far, first?

 

 

Yes I will try to do that - I will see if I can respond and describe how the particles would behave for electrons fired at the proton.

 

Then your model is DOA.

 

Why?

[Strange]

Why?

 

Because, as others have noted, there has been a huge amount of work on how electrons are scattered by hadrons:

 

Analysis of the results led to the following conclusions:

• The hadrons do have internal structure.
• In baryons, there are three points of deflection (i.e. baryons consist of three quarks).
• In mesons, there are two points of deflection (i.e. mesons consist of a quark and an anti-quark).
• Quarks appear to be point charges, as electrons appear to be, with the fractional charges suggested by the Standard Model.

The experiments were important because, not only did they confirm the physical reality of quarks but also proved again that the Standard Model was the correct avenue of research for particle physicists to pursue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_inelastic_scattering

 

I doubt very much that bouncing toroids off one another will reproduce the same results.

 

That is before we get into all the other issues that require quantum mechanics such as electron orbitals, quantized energy levels, entanglement, superposition of states, non-locality, ...

[swansont]

 

Hi Swansont,

 

'Model' seems to mean so many things - perhaps if I had used the word conjecture it would have been better.

 

As I mentioned with my reply to Mordred, the purpose of the conjecture is to see if there could be an alternative mechanism to quantum mechanics.

 

 

QM is not a mechanism, per se. The interaction in a hydrogen atom is electromagnetic, not "quantum mechanics". It's that the analysis of the mechanics (i.e. the energy and angular momentum, etc.) are from a solution to the Schrödinger equation.

[robinpike]

For Strange’s suggestion: the first thing to model is the effect of these particles bouncing off each other.

 

First, general properties of the particles due to their internal movement…

 

If the torus of a particle is in the horizontal position, then for the particle to move in any horizontal direction, it has to bunch its internal movement up on one side of the ring and stretch it out on the other side, and it will stay in that horizontal orientation while it is moving horizontally.

 

Whereas for a horizontal torus to move vertically, the surface on the outside edge of the torus has to stretch and the surface on the inner edge of the hole has to compress (or vice versa). This is unlikely to occur equally around the ring, so the ring will tilt while it rises. When the tilt of the torus reaches the vertical plane, then the torus will move vertically by stretching and compressing opposite sides of the ring, and it will stay in the vertical orientation while it is moving vertically.

 

This means that when a particle is in a particle accelerator, its shape will be elongated in the direction that the particle is moving. In addition, the particle’s electric field will not be emitted equally in all directions, but will escape more from the front and back of the particle than the sides.

 

As described in the first post, the electron, positron and proton have inertia but no momentum, and so require an attached photon to push them along.

 

Here is an extract on particle accelerators from CERN… link http://home.web.cern.ch/about/how-accelerator-works

 

Radiofrequency (RF) cavities – specially designed metallic chambers spaced at intervals along the accelerator – are shaped to resonate at specific frequencies, allowing radio waves to interact with passing particle bunches. Each time a beam passes the electric field in an RF cavity, some of the energy from the radio waves is transferred to the particles, nudging them forwards.

 

 

Also described in the first post, the electric field from the neutral rings interacts with the photons that are pushing the particles along, and so interactions using protons will need to take this into account in any collision.

 

As electrons and positrons do not have neutral rings in their makeup, their collision scenarios are simpler…

 

Electrons and positrons collide in a direct manner. When they collide, being particle and antiparticle, they can convert into gamma rays. Because the two particles are elongated, their rings are most likely to break open at the front and back of the two rings, creating two gamma rays, each exactly equal to the rest mass of the electron and positron, leaving the collision site in opposite directions. In addition, the photons that were pushing the electron and positron are also released.

 

If the collision does not result in the two changing into gamma rays, then the direction of the ‘bounce’ is complex and would need the particles to be watched in a 3D simulation. Each outcome would depend on the exact contact scenario between the two particles.

 

When electrons and protons are used for the collisions…

 

The electric field from the neutral rings in the proton can interact with the photon that is pushing the electron along, in which case the electron will be deflected from the proton without the electron touching the proton and the electron would keep all of its momentum.

 

For the scenarios where the electron and proton collide, I am trying to analyse and will post something.

 

Please bear in mind that before today I had never thought about outcomes of collisions between the particles, so this is not straightforward for me to analyse with care.

Edited September 3, 2015 by robinpike