In my last post I corrected the Möbius donut model of an electron and noted that I still need to see how it fits with everything else before I can be certain. So here is the Möbius donut, as a reminder.
So, today I’m revisiting the concept of turning a photon into an electron. This time I realized that I can also use blender to describe a gamma photon before it has turned into an electron. And the best thing is that unlike with excel, I can actually visualize dots, i.e. the elementary particles that the gamma photon is made of. The only concession I had to make for clarity was that the size of the dots had to be exaggerated. You see, the dots have a diameter of Planck length or roughly ten to the power of -35 meters, whereas a gamma photon has a diameter of roughly ten to the power of -12 meters, or 23 orders of magnitude larger. As a visualization, this is roughly 100000000000000000000000 times larger than a single dot. So to be truthful to the size ratio of the dots to photons, the photon would just look like an infinitely thin line. This then again means, that I can exaggerate a lot, because this is just a means to visualize the concept.
Again, the first step was to go through a lot of trial and error to figure out how to do it. I tried several different tutorials, before I found something that was really simple. This tutorial shows a way to form an array of cubes along a curve: exactly what I needed, if I just tweaked it a bit.
To cut a long story short, the curve that I made was an Archimedean spiral, at least by the Blender name. Really it was exactly the kind of helix I had previously drawn for a refracted supraphoton, just with extreme refraction. The radius of the spiral was the same as the diameter of a sphere that I drew to illustrate a single dot.
Then I bent the spiral by 720 degrees, so I got a string equivalent of the Möbius donut. Then I went back to the sphere and used an array modifier to it to make line of 101 spheres out of the single on. The I added a curve modifier so that the array of spheres would follow along the double loop. And it worked!
So, is this what a gamma photon always looks like? Not when it’s moving in a medium. This is what a normally refracted gamma photon looks like.
So, when do we see the looped necklace structure, then? Probably not in standard absorption of gamma photons. Most probably, the gamma photon will just be absorbed by matter, usually wreaking havoc due to the very localized packet of energy being absorbed.
When this looping does take place is in the nonlinear Breit–Wheeler process, where a gamma photon is split into an electron-positron pair. In this highly unlikely (but still possible) case, a gamma photon is split in half, forming mirror loops of dots. One of them coils into an electron and the other into a positron.
Do I know how this coiling takes place? Not very precisely, but I have a rough idea. As the dots are no longer present as a plane, they can no longer move toward the normal (i.e. a line draw straight up) of the plane. In a supraphoton, consisting of a multiple of photons, the photons would be still linked to each other and their helical movement will contract the supraphoton, either leading to the absorption of the supraphoton, or possibly the formation of smaller loops, as seen in the hydrogen spectral series, and something I’m trying to figure out in the counterevidence paper.
But now we need to figure out that the dots no longer have a free helical trajectory, but they have to ‘compete’ with the dots of the neighboring loop. There probably is an extremely short period of time when the dots in the neighboring loops begin to bounce off each other, creating a semi-circular trajectory, where the dots don’t compactify into cylinders, as the quantum field theory claims, but rather into half-cylinders.
And, as they say in the UK, Bob’s your uncle! Now I have an urge to try to figure out whether I could figure out the mathematics for this compactification. I really don’t have enough trust in my skills in handling equations. I can only hope that there is a straightforward geometrical solution to the process. That’s something that I could handle. Also, geometrical proofs can always be visualized. And visualized proofs are always much more convincing.
Comments