Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Electron-positron lattice model

  1. Aug 30, 2005 #1
    Does anyone have any comments (pro-con) on the "electron-positron lattice model of vacuum space" by nuclear physicist Dr. Menahem Simhony ? An overview of the model is found at this web page:


    From what I can gather, the model predicts that the vacuum space is a lattice of bound electrons and positrons in the form of positronium.
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 31, 2005 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    There is a lot to read on his site, and it will take some time to fully digest his ideas. However, I would have to say that I am skeptical about this model.

    How do the positrons and electrons stay bound? My experience is the coulomb forces pretty much ensure annihilation in short order.

    And if annhiliation is more or less continuous, then we should be detecting a lot of 0.511 MeV background radiation.

    In interstellar space, there are few particles per cc. I just don't see how positrons and electrons would be created and then exist in a bound state (and is it a perpertual or long-term bound state).
  4. Aug 31, 2005 #3
    This is a pretty far out notion. The electron-proton production cross section for pions in the energy range of the peak of the GCR (1-10 GeV) is non-zero (on the order of 1 microbarn). These pions would rescatter or decay and we would have a very different background of space radiation than that which is observed. This is again if this background of positronium could somehow overcome its lifetime of 142 ns (see https://www.physicsforums.com/archive/t-42926_Positronium_Questions.html for more information on positronium)
  5. May 1, 2006 #4


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    The website and the pdf article show very little rigor. This is definitely not mainstream, and I would not spend too much time on them.
  6. May 1, 2006 #5


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    electron and positron may form bound states, that's the positronium atom. But these are not perfectly stable! They decay in a fraction of a second (the exact time depends on several factors but mostly on whether it is in a singlet or a triplet state) because there is a nonzero probability of the electron "meeting" the positron.
  7. May 1, 2006 #6


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    I was thinking about the solution to the Schrödinger's equation for positronium this morning but I wanted to go back and revisit it before making a comment, but the gist is stated by nrqed. And every other reputable source mentions a half-life of 100 nano-seconds. Not exactly stable.
  8. May 2, 2006 #7
    There have been some misunderstandings about the epola model from the early posts to this thread.
    Prof M Simhony claims that the electrons and positrons are bound in vacuum space in a face centred cubic (fcc) lattice structure - not as positronium orbital type pseudo atoms.
    By analogy with ionic crystals, comparing the 1.02MeV required to free an electron-positron pair from the vacuum with the 8eV required to free sodium and chlorine ion pairs from their crystal structure and using the same calculation and constants as for the velocity of bulk deformation waves in the salt crystal, he derives the velocity of light in vacuum and a fcc lattice constant of 4.4 fm. Sodium and chlorine ions are absorbed back into the crystal with release of separate UV photons, just as e- and e+ are absorbed back into the 'e-po-la'-ttice with release of separate 511keV gamma photons.
    If it helps understanding, the bound e-po particles can be regarded as negative energy store - as described by Dr D Rothe. Electrons and positrons sink back into the lattice with release of energy. Because of the surplus of electrons (matching numbers with protons and as free conduction electrons making the vacuum an n-type semiconductor) the half life of the free positron and of positronium is very short.

    Details of the epola model are available on the website, www.epola.co.uk, that I maintain as 'archivist' to Prof M Simhony's epola model. There are links from the site to supporting evidence and arguments (Rothe included), APS abstracts and to archives of Simhony's original website, which is no longer online.

    The epola model is not mainstream but does resolve problems in Relativity and Quantum Theory and provides an explanation for inertia and gravity and all the arbitrary 'laws' that photon waves and particles outside the nucleus obey.

    The key to the epola model is that the e-po's are elastically bound. David Tombe, to whom I am grateful for reopening this debate, suggests that they are linked in a helical structure. The finer details of the epola model would require expensive investigation and Prof Simhony suggests several experiments in his book (ISBN 981-02-1649-1).

    I shall be very pleased to respond to questions about the epola and tests of its validity.

    Guy Grantham, rgg@epola.co.uk
  9. May 3, 2006 #8
    Dear Rade,
    I am writing to you to give you my opinions on Dr. Simhony's epola. I am well acquainted with this theory and I have corresponded extensively over the last two years, on this matter, with Dr. Simhony's archivist, Guy Grantham.
    I have a very high opinion of this theory. As you can see, Dr. Simhony has revealed the relationship between E=mc² and wave mechanics, by comparing the 1932 Carl Anderson experiment on electron pair production, with similar experiments with the salt crystal.
    I ought to point out that you are mistaken in suggesting that Dr. Simhony's theory has got anything to do with positronium.
    Despite my favourable disposition to Dr. Simhony's epola theory, I do also have two reservations.
    (1) I am not convinced that the epola is adequate to explain electromagnetic induction.
    (2) As Dr. Simhony admits, a short range repulsive force is required to stabilize the lattice. I feel that this may actually interfere with classical electromagnetic theory.
    As such I'm inclined to believe that the structure needs to be somewhat amended.
    That is my answer to your question. I have given you my opinion. I also have very definite ideas about how the structure ought to be amended.
    If you are interested in the concept of a dielectric medium to act as the medium of propagation for EM radiation, I suggest that you read this very interesting archive paper. It is Maxwell's 1861 paper 'On Physical Lines of Force'. This paper may give you some very interesting ideas.
    It would be a very interesting excercise for you to see if you could think of an alternative arrangement for Dr. Simhony's epola which is stable, only involves the Coulomb force, is a solid which supports transvserse waves, explains electromagnetic induction, and which can be reconciled with the vortex cells of Maxwell's 1861 paper. If you can think of any ideas, please let me know and we can compare notes.
    I look forward to hearing from you.
    Yours sincerely
    David Tombe
    Last edited: May 3, 2006
  10. May 3, 2006 #9


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2018 Award

    I am going to end this thread because I am still waiting for some valid citations to peer-reviewed journals. I will tell you why all the warning bells are going off right now.

    In the webpage that was given, I went through the so-called "citations". NONE of them are from peer-reviewed journals. This, dispite ALL the number of contributed talks given at APS Meetings that anyone can submit. So, considering that all those talks, but not a SINGLE citation to a peer-reviewed journal, and all the warning bells are going off like crazy.

    If I am mistaken and there ARE journal citations where such an idea has been published, please PM me with them and I will reopen this thread. If not, I consider this subject matter closed, and if anyone wishes to continue with this, to submit a post to the IR forum, per PF Guidelines.

Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook