White - Dirac Current Positron Generator (2003).pdf - Energy from the Vacuum - andreas50_54

"Dirac Current Positron Generator" (c) Douglass A. White, Aug., 2003. Page 1

How to Build a Dirac Current Positron Generator

Douglass A. White

NB: You can read this essay as science fiction or science fact. It's up to you.

First Some Theory

One of the most elegant forms of ZPE devices is the Dirac Current Positron Generator.

Once you can finesse the low energy generation of positrons from the quantum

vacuum, letting nature supply the bulk of the energy requirement for the task, you

then can release large amounts of usable "free energy" by simply letting the positrons

annihilate with electrons under controlled conditions. So here are some suggestions

that may contribute to the building of a Dirac Current Positron Generator, and its

companion antimatter drive -- one of the major engines of the future and a marvelous

source of clean energy.

First we'll consider the fundamental principles, the theory, and then we'll look at

technology available to actualize the goal of a positron generator.

The positron is a positive electron. Some people call it antimatter, and some people

like to think of it as an electron going backwards in time. Both viewpoints are

correct. But there is more to the story.

Back in 1928 Paul Dirac, one of the developers of quantum mechanics, proposed that

the equations of QM suggested the possibility of the existence of antimatter. Matter

and antimatter would be separated by a gap of 2 Mo c^2, where Mo is the rest mass of

one particle. Shortly thereafter the positron, or antielectron, was discovered. This

was one of the great predictions of modern science that became a reality.

A puzzling feature of the positron was that, according to the theory, there should be as

many positrons as electrons. But no one knew where the other positrons were.

They learned to create a few positron-electron pairs in the laboratory by using photon

energy > 2 Me c^2 or >1.02 M eV (where Me is the mass of an electron), but these

positrons would quickly annihilate with electrons and disappear, releasing their 2 Me

c^2 or 1.02 M eV.

Dirac proposed a model -- the Dirac Sea -- to explain his theory of antimatter, but this

"Dirac Current Positron Generator" (c) Douglass A. White, Aug., 2003. Page 2

model still did not really explain what happened to the positrons that should balance

the electrons we experience all around us. I remember reading about the Dirac

model many years ago and envisioning it as a Chinese checkerboard in which the

electrons were marbles and the positrons were holes in the board.

When electrons are in their true vacuum n = 0 ground state (below the lowest n = 1

orbital), they enter the Dirac Sea and are invisible to us. When an electron is excited,

it pops out of its hole in the Checkerboard Sea and rolls around. Due to relativity the

hole where it was tucked away also appears to move around as if it were a "particle".

In the period right after the Big Bang there were lots of electrons and positrons

zipping around in the high energy cosmic soup, but after the Big Ball expanded and

cooled below the energy threshold for popping out of the checkerboard, almost all of

the electrons dropped into their holes and annihilated with their partner positrons,

releasing lots and lots of photons in a great flash that we still detect as the cosmic

background radiation in the Great Dirac Energy Sea.

Unfortunately that story still doesn't explain why some electrons unaccountably hung

around to participate in the physical universe or where the other positron holes went.

Why didn't they all find partners and annihilate? Are they hiding in some far-off

corner of the universe? If so, how did they get there?

In my book, Observer Physics: A New Paradigm, I explain what happened in detail,

but for our present discussion we can just go back and look closely at Dirac's clever

model to see the basic answer hiding right there.

Electrons occur in two states, free and bound. The bound electrons move in orbitals

around atoms. Because the electrons are wiggling all the time (why they wiggle is

an interesting discussion), the bound electrons have to follow strictly quantized

orbitals or quickly decay, which they obviously don't do. SoDirac showed a kind of

quantum ladder on which the electrons could climb a rung at a time out of the Sea.

These rungs correspond to orbitals. Each higher rung represents a higher state of

excitation. We find that if an electron gets excited beyond a certain level, it seems to

leave the orbital state, and it becomes a free electron. When this happens we say that

the atom has ionized because the part left over ends up with a positive charge once the

negatively charged electron leaves. Actually the electron is never really free. It

just reaches an orbital that becomes non-local. The non-local orbital is shared by all

the atoms, so a "free" electron can be captured by any ionized atom that it encounters.

"Dirac Current Positron Generator" (c) Douglass A. White, Aug., 2003. Page 3

To go to higher orbitals requires absorbing energy in the form of photons, and

dropping to a lower orbital involves emitting photons. The photons are therefore

like an accounting device to keep track of which orbital an electron is at. You don't

have electrons without photons or vice versa. They are a single package.

Now, coming back to the Dirac model, we can see very clearly where all the missing

positrons are. As the electron releases photons and drops to lower and lower orbitals,

it draws closer and closer to the nucleus of an atom. Why? Well, the nucleus has a

positive charge. Why? Because the nucleus has at least one proton (hydrogen) and

protons are positively charged. Nobody bothers to explain why protons are

positively charged.

If there's smoke, there's probably fire. What this situation tells me is that there is at

least one positron inside a proton. That sounds crazy. Why doesn't the proton

annihilate like an unstable particle? For example, look at positronium -- a quasi

atom formed by the momentary conjunction of an electron and a positron whirling

around like a tiny binary star system. Positronium is unstable and quickly poofs

back into photons. Well, one thing this tells us is that electrons and positrons are

made of nothing but photons somehow in a stable spinning mode. (We won't pursue

that interesting topic in this discussion. Observer Physics covers it.)

Somehow the proton has achieved a stable configuration. And so has the electron.

They both have lasted for billions of years. They are as close as you can get to

perpetual motion machines. Why don't they wear out or decay?

The electron is a "point" particle, but the proton is an "ensemble" particle. Current

theory says a proton is made of three quarks. But that ain't all, folks. We get a clue

when we look at the proton's alter ego, the neutron. In a nucleus the protons and

neutrons oscillate with each other all the time, swapping identities. Furthermore, the

neutron by itself is unstable and decays, emitting an electron and an antineutrino.

This tells us that the electron orbiting a monatomic hydrogen atom is not really in its

lowest state. It has a lower state, a kind of n = 0 orbital and energy state inside the

neutron. The neutron releases the electron to pop out when it lacks the extra charge

of a second proton nearby to help hold it in. The internal electron actually orbits

between the proton and the neutron in a much closer orbit than the 1-s orbital. When

a neutron leaves an atomic nucleus, its positive core doesn't have enough charge. So

an internal orbiting electron flies away (plus an ANTIneutrino -- a tattletale clue to

nucleonic antimatter), and the "ionized" neutron (now decayed into a proton) then

"Dirac Current Positron Generator" (c) Douglass A. White, Aug., 2003. Page 4

captures a low-energy electron into its "ground state" 1-s orbital and becomes

hydrogen. Then it joins another hydrogen atom to make a relatively stable diatomic

hydrogen molecule. The whole nucleus system does not really reach its most

balanced "ground state" until we get to the naturally monatomic inert gas, helium.

It turns out there are actually TWO positrons inside a proton, plus an internal electron

and some neutrinos in addition to the three quarks. Since electrons are magnetic

tops (spin 1/2), they feel more magnetically balanced when they are in pairs (1/2 plus

1/2 = 1), so the two suborbital electrons inside a neutron must form a Cooper pair,

which also means there must be two positrons in there to balance the charges. The

quarks (and some neutrinos) act as buffers to keep the positron-electron pairs from

annihilating as they do in positronium. Thus we could say the positronium quasi-

atoms are "skinny" protons that have lost their quarks and become unstable. (The

details of these structures and the amazing explanation of why the proton is so stable

are covered in Observer Physics.)

Take a look at a chart of the hadrons. They are all unstable except for the proton,

and the light baryons are more unstable than the light mesons are. Why are mesons

made of particle-antiparticle pairs, but the baryons have no antiparticle components in

the standard theory? Nobody asks that obvious question. Probably they figure:

well, if there were an antiparticle in the proton, it would be unstable. Then why are

the other baryons unstable but the heavier atoms are stable all the way up to the

radioactive series? I think the heavier baryons are unstable because, like mesons,

they have antiparticle components. The main difference between baryons and

mesons is that baryons have three quarks plus a following of leptons and the mesons

only have two quarks. So the real issue is how the proton gets to be so stable in spite

of having positrons in its core.

According to Observer Physics (and modern QM) the subatomic particles are not

solid objects like billiard balls. They are all incredibly dynamic energy systems.

To give a feel for the proton's basic dynamics, I suggest you go to the bathroom.

Run water into the washbasin until some accumulates, and then adjust the tap so that

the inflow just balances the outflow. If your drain is not too sluggish or the wrong

size and placement relative to the tap (it works better if the taps are off-center from

the drain), you should notice that a vortex forms over the drain. Observe closely, and

you will see the vortex is a standing wave that generates a hole in the water. You

will usually see a large bubble form over the hole. In our analogy the water in the

basin represents the quark mass-energy. The hole in the center represents a positron.

"Dirac Current Positron Generator" (c) Douglass A. White, Aug., 2003. Page 5

We have to imagine that the water that goes down the drain gets pumped back into the

basin via the tap. The pump to the tap represents an electron. Nobody ever

explains where the energy that pours out of an electron comes from. How can an

electron exhibit charge and not decay? Well, now you know. The energy cycles

around from the positron in the center of the proton. The electron energy tap moves

energy primarily through ordinary space and secondarily through time, and the

positron drain moves energy backward through a space/time tunnel to the birth of an

electron-positron pair from the vacuum.

In Observer Physics I give a precise description of how the photonic energy moves

through the electron and positron vortexes. Although these leptons are for most

purposes "point" particles, the energy does have a finite distance to travel from the

singularity to the radiation point event horizon and follows an exact space/time

trajectory. The dynamics of these leptons involves the physics of black holes, white

holes, Hawking radiation, and more. There's a lot to explore here.

We can produce electron and positron pairs from the vacuum in a variety of ways that

all require mass-energy equivalent to the mass-energy of the pair of particles in order

to ensure conservation. Virtual pair production and annihilation goes on

spontaneously all the time everywhere in the vacuum generating virtual quantum

bubbles. If we zap a pair out of the vacuum with a burst of energy, the partners

usually quickly recombine, annihilate, and release their mass-energy again as photons.

Such interactions are real quantum bubbles. Conservation always is maintained as

the energy of particles loops around in space/time. However, since all electrons look

alike, a positron might choose to annihilate with a different electron than her original

creation partner. In this case the overall space/time trajectory looks like an electron

zig-zagging in time. But sooner or later every electron finds a partner positron and

together they wink out with a flash.

We can represent all this simply in a Feynman space/time diagram that has a

horizontal axis representing one dimension of space, and a vertical axis showing the

dimension of time. A pair production bubble looks like a vesica pisces (football

shape) standing on one pointy end. The two particles emerge from the vacuum,

spread apart, and then merge together again, disappearing back into the vacuum.

The vesica outline is made of two warped vectors that link head to tail at each end.

The electron half of the loop moves upward along the time axis, and the positron half

moves downward.

White - Dirac Current Positron Generator (2003).pdf

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: