Does a photon contain a pair of spinning charges?

[FX_physics]

TL;DR

Photon has spin equal to 1, should photo need some structure to full fill its spin equal to one?

A photon with enough energy can create a pair of electron and positron and we call it pair production. And a position and electron meet can create a photon , we call it annihilation of electron and positron. And we know a photon has a spin of 1, when pair production happen , require positron and electron has spin in same direction. Or we say electron and position are entangled with its spin. We can say a photon with enough energy contain all the ingredient to make a pair of electron and positron. The ingredient of an electron is its mass and an electrical charge with spin, so does a positron. When a photon with high enough energy, the energy of photon can be the ingredient of mass of electron and positron. But how about the spinning charge? Are they out of nothing or inside the photon actually have a pair of spinning massless charge? And in the process of pair production, the spining charge pair in the photon split and attached onto the mass create using the energy conversion. Here we are adding another conservation, spinning charge conservation, instead allow a pair of electric charge come from nothing. It seem by adding this conservation,some of the mystery in quantum physics seems easier to explain. which I think should talk about them separately. In conclusion , a photon actually containg a pair of spinning charge to make up its spin (magnetic moment).

 

[Drakkith]

But how about the spinning charge? Are they out of nothing or inside the photon actually have a pair of spinning massless charge?

There is no spinning charge in a photon. The photon is simply electrically neutral and has 'intrinsic' angular momentum just like an electron or positron does. This intrinsic angular momentum is a unique quantum property of particles that does not translate well to classical physics and the everyday world on our scale. It does not represent the rotation of a particle around an axis, and indeed cannot represent such a thing as particles with spin 1/2 would have to spin around twice to get back to where they started (and let's not get into spin 0 or spin 2+ particles).

And in the process of pair production, the spining charge pair in the photon split and attached onto the mass create using the energy conversion. Here we are adding another conservation, spinning charge conservation, instead allow a pair of electric charge come from nothing. It seem by adding this conservation,some of the mystery in quantum physics seems easier to explain.

There's no need for such a thing when charge conservation already covers this. You'd just be adding another complication to the theory without adding any predictive power. Note that charge conservation says that total charge is conserved during an interaction or decay event. So a photon producing an electron and a positron still obeys charge conservation because the total charge is still zero.

 

[FX_physics]

The predicting power is photon able sacrify its own and make a pair of electrons ,while an electron can not just lost its kinetic energy to make extra pair of position and electron because one electron does nor contain more spinning charge.

 

[Drakkith]

The predicting power is photon able sacrify its own and make a pair of electrons

This is not possible under our current theory and has never been observed. It would violate charge conservation, an extremely well supported conservation law.

 

[FX_physics]

that is exacly the pair production process.

 

[FX_physics]

a pair of electron mean to be electron and positron

 

[FX_physics]

here we have another problem , an electron transition to a lower energy level, will release energy and the energy is in the form a photon. usually here not to talking about in this process, the photon has spin equal to 1, and the electron has to flip its spin after the transition to full fill the angular moment conservation. But this whole process is such a magic. How the electron flip spin instantly? should have better explanation than this?

 

[Drakkith]

How the electron flip spin instantly? should have better explanation than this?

Nope. We don't observe transitions taking some non-zero time, otherwise we would see the electron in two different states at the same time or some intermediate state in between the two energy levels.

You can say that we 'should' see something else, but the reality is that we simply don't. And that's what matters in science. We shape our theories to describe observable phenomena and nothing else.

 

[FX_physics]

this was bring up because this is another example of particle is generated. Photon is released in the name of energy , but photon is more than just energy , it is a particle while is moving at speed of light, the space along its pass will experience a alternating electro/ magnetic field. two electric charge counter spinning and moving at speed at light will generate exact such effect to the space it pass through. therefore photon actually containing a pair of counter spinning charge make sense. giving massless spinning charge could make a photon if the total spin equal to 1, than how about the case two massless charge pair spin in same direction. This would lead into an invisible particle, Unless it may function in gravity. We may call these 0 spin charge pair as a quantum loop. ther are rwo charges loop in same direction so no magnetic moment. If such quantum loop exist, the electron could exchange the negatuve spinnig charge with one of the quantum loop next to it while the negative spinning charge was in opposite direction as the spin of the electron. as the results of exchange, the electron flip its spin and transfer extra energy to the quantum loop, The quantum loop obtain extra energy and as result of the new negative spinning charge spin oppoiste, the total spin change from 0 to 1 and it became a photon. In such way we can avoid creating particle too liberal.

 

[PeterDonis]

@FX_physics please read the PF rules regarding personal speculation. You started this thread with a simple question (the one in the Summary part of your OP), which has a simple answer: no. But pretty much everything else you've said in this thread is personal speculation which is off limits per the PF rules.

Thread closed.