Merged Relativity+ / Farsight

[ctamblyn]

I really think you're reading too much into that. The twisted strip marked a)

[qimg]http://members.optushome.com.au/walshjj/toroid1.jpg[/qimg]

..is just a re-presentation of the typical depiction of a circularly polarised light wave:

[qimg]http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/imgpho/polcir.gif[/qimg]
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/polclas.html

OK, but pictures can be dangerous. Look at the E-field in (a) - an impression is created that a line of E begins at the strip, and then extends outwards normal to the strip. Of course, we both know (and I'm sure that Williamson and van der Mark know this too) that the line of E does no such thing. Rather, we should perhaps picture it as passing through the strip, extending infinitely far in a straight line in both directions.

The reason for pointing this rather obvious fact out, is that in the closed path picture (b), Williamson and van der Mark are, I contend, incorrect in asserting that the E-field vector is "radial and directed inwards", at least on the basis of the topology they're considering. Actually there's a very general argument that covers a wide range of spatial topologies, and in outline it's like this:

Consider a self-trapped photon, and picture in your mind a closed surface which contains it. Now suppose that there is a non-zero flux of E through that surface (let's imagine the flux is negative, so we have a negative apparent charge). If this is the case, then select a line of E and follow it in through the surface, and into the heart of the self-trapped photon system. Where does it go? I think we'd agree that photons cannot be a field-line terminus (correct me if I'm wrong), so the line of E must do one of two things:

1. Disappear down a hole. If you could arrange for a funnel to connect two distant points in space, then lines of E could disappear down one end of the funnel and emerge from the other end. You'd appear to have two equal, yet opposite charges.
   This may seem attractive (ETA: no pun intended), but the problem is that the spatial topology here would be just as capable of generating magnetic monopoles as electric ones (it's that old problem again). Depending on the radius of the funnel opening, maybe you could also observe things seeming to "vanish" as they fall in - not, I imagine, what you're after.
2. Re-emerge. The situation then is that there is actually zero net flux through our surface, and so the contained system is electrically neutral.

The figure-of-eight at b) is just a stepping stone to the torus with the dark line, see http://members.optushome.com.au/walshjj/toroid2.jpg.

Hopefully my comment above has addressed this.

OK. I'd say there's a topology to the electron, and a curvature to the photon, but let's not get bogged down with the distinction.

I prefer to reserve the term "curvature" for the geometric concept - the stuff that makes parallel transport around closed curves non-trivial and, therefore, interesting.
The distinction mainly mattered if you were claiming that the stress-energy-momentum of the photon field corresponds to the spacetime geometry which causes the confinement - at least, if this is happening in a manner consistent with GR. I don't think this is what you're claiming at this stage, however.

Commiserations. The wife and I have a two-year-old, and he's a little unwell at the moment. Nothing serious, just a coughy cold. But said wife has been out this afternoon, shopping, and young sir has been having a bad day.

Ah, I remember the joy of having a two-year-old. I hope he's all better now.

 

[Reality Check]

The electron has angular momentum, and magnetic dipole moment. So that intrinsic spin is a real rotation. So what's rotating? And when you annihilate the electron with a positron, what do you get? Two photons.

That is an example of your lack of knowledge of physics.
Nothing is rotating.

The electron has angular momentum that is quantized and nothing to do with classical angular momentum (which can take any value). So that intrinsic spin is not a real rotation. One way to look at electron spin is as a label for a quantrum mechanical state of the electron.

 

[Dancing David]

Duh. it doesn't. It comes from the photon energy/momentum. Let's see if anybody backs me up on that huh? How about...

Oh whoops, I was wrong. I am more awake today.

Look at that, I said I was wrong, I do it quite frequently.

So now you have to have a high energy photon with at least a momentum to create an electron and a positron.

BTW where is that positron in your mobius knot?

 

[sol invictus]

So, in this post I defined what is meant by "electric" and "magnetic" monopoles. Mostly my motivation here was as follows: it's important to understand what the two types of field look like in order to follow my earlier argument. The term "electromagnetic monopole" is unfortunately ambiguous in the current context, despite the fact that you might get away with it in real life (because there are no magnetic monopoles) - in this area of the discussion the distinction between electric and magnetic monopoles is crucial.

Hopefully that context makes the reason for the definitions clearer. Even if we don't observe magnetic monopoles, it's still important to define exactly what it is that you're not seeing.

Here's a less tex-heavy definition. All four Maxwell's equations can be written in the compact form

*dF = J_m
*d*F = J_e

F is the electromagnetic field strength 2-form, d the exterior derivative, * is Poincare duality, J_e is the electric charge-current 1-form, and J_m is the magnetic charge-current 1-form. Experiment so far has shown that J_m=0, but if it's not, its time component is the magnetic monopole density.

Note that if J_m≠0, F≠dA (since otherwise dF=0 automatically). That gives rise to all sorts of interesting results, like Dirac quantization of electric charge in units of the magnetic monopole charge.

I'm sure all of this is incomprehensible to Farsight, but maybe someone else will find it informative.

 

[Matthew Cline]

Intrinsic explains nothing. It totally fails to address pair production and magnetic dipole moment. How can any rational person be satisfied with intrinsic ? It is exactly equivalent to surpasseth all human understanding.

There has to be something that "just is", or else you'll have an infinite regression of one thing explaining another.

 

[Farsight]

I'd say space "just is", Matthew. You can't define it in terms of anything else. Incidentally, at the fundamental level, I cannot distinguish space and energy.

 

[Farsight]

I know about all of these things. Why are you posting these links to google?

Because you don't know about those things. You think you do, but you don't. If you did, you could explain how pair production works.

 

[Farsight]

You have just lied to us in a gross and obvious manner.

No I haven't. Really, can you do nothing better than spit out ad-hominems and demand mathematics to distract from the scientific evidence and trash the discussion?

When someone asked you to defend your claim that EM worked "spirally", you claimed that this was supported by Minkowski. Now you have to defend this claim of the spiral action of EM with your own equations and evidence and show specifically where Minkoswki uses this screw mechanism.

No I don't, I just draw your attention yet again to Minkowski's wrench and Maxwell's screw.

Again, show this using the appropriate equations and show this specifically in Minkowski's work.

Again, you keep ignoring the passage, and again the rest of Space and Time suffers from Minkowski's lack of understanding of time. He didn't know that time is an emergent property of motion, so he employs time instead of relative motion, and fails to depict the three-dimensional electromagnetic field.

Show where, in the equations governing dynamos, where this specific spiral pattern shows up.

No. You have to look to the real world, and experiment, not mathematics. Stop using mathemtics as a smokescreen to dismiss scientific evidence.

Show the actual equations governing the one field. You can't have the "actual physics" without the actual mathematics that governs the physics as described in every textbook and every application.

Here they are: Jefimenko's equations. Note this paragraph:

There is a widespread interpretation of Maxwell's equations indicating that time variable electric and magnetic fields can cause each other. This is often used as part of an explanation of the formation of electromagnetic waves. However, Jefimenko's equations show otherwise. [3] Jefimenko says, "...neither Maxwell's equations nor their solutions indicate an existence of causal links between electric and magnetic fields. Therefore, we must conclude that an electromagnetic field is a dual entity always having an electric and a magnetic component simultaneously created by their common sources: time-variable electric charges and currents."

I noticed that you have still dodged the most substantive questions and you have failed to directly address the questions of others.

Baloney.

 

[Farsight]

Farsight keeps citing "the right hand rule", but he is unable to produce any example of any right-hand-rule in an actual EM field equation which generates that spiral.

It isn't an equation that generates that spiral, but instead the experimental evidence. When electrons in the wire move upwards, it's the same as the test subject moving downwards past stationary electrons, whereupon we observe rotation as per the illustration of Faraday magnetic rotation above, see http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Michael_Faraday for a description. Another example is the home-made homopolar motor:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homopolar_motor

C'mon, Farsight---if your spiral is supposed to be the reality underlying E and B fields, show us the equations that make it work. If I'm an observer sitting 1cm to the left of the "electron" in your spiral-drawing, how does the local spiral-field-thing lead to a force?

I can't show you the equations, but I can show you a demonstration in the Falaco soliton. See post #13. You're not an observer, you're another electron, and one left-handed whirlpool moves away from another. Like I said, you have to just try it.

If your spiral is a vector field G(r), what's the equation for the force F(q,v,G) on a charge q moving at speed v in this field? Can you show how your "real" force got "mistaken" (as you seem to believe it did) for a force like F = qE + qvxB due to two fields?

It isn't a vector field. A vector field describes what it does, not what it is. The radial electric vector field is just telling you that the two similoar spirals/whirlpools/vortons move apart.

Type in the proof---heck, type in a vector equation for G instead of a jpg---don't just cite Maxwell saying something about wrenches and expect that to convince us. Maxwell isn't remembered as a genius because of his vague analogies, nor because of his (failed) quaternion program, nor because of his keen insight into the theory of the luminiferous ether. He's remembered because he put together an intelligible set of vector equations and solved them.

But Faraday isn't! See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_dynamical_theory_of_the_electromagnetic_field
for some history:

"Heaviside's versions of Maxwell's equations are distinct by virtue of the fact that they are written in modern vector notation. They actually only contain one of the original eight—equation "G" (Gauss's Law). Another of Heaviside's four equations is an amalgamation of Maxwell's Law of Total Currents (equation "A") with Ampère's Circuital Law (equation "C"). This amalgamation, which Maxwell himself had actually originally made at equation (112) in "On physical lines of force", is the one that modifies Ampère's Circuital Law to include Maxwell's Displacement current. [2] All eight (which are actually twenty) of the original Maxwell's equations are listed below in modern vector notation".

 

[edd]

No I haven't. Really, can you do nothing better than spit out ad-hominems and demand mathematics to distract from the scientific evidence and trash the discussion?

Farsight, science isn't just about evidence. It's about comparing a model to evidence, and about seeing which models work best. The best way to compare models to evidence is to do so mathematically, and the models that work best are generally also mathematical, as it allows them to make the most precise predictions, which allows you to put them through the most stringent tests.

So we will demand mathematics, as without it your model cannot make any sufficiently powerful prediction for us to even bother looking at.

Essentially the only exception to this demand for quantifiable tests are models that make so grossly different predictions from the status quo that there's almost no point quantifying them, and generally given the status quo in modern science if you make a grossly different prediction about a commonly observed type of event you're probably making a grossly wrong prediction, so again we might as well not even bother.

 

[Farsight]

No you have not, that a photon can result in pair production does not infer that an electron can be a ‘self bound state of a photon’. Pair production produces, well, a pair. You are claiming that a single electron is some kind of self bound state of a photon (that is not an electron positron pair). Pair production does not support such a claim, because your claim is not about pair production, much that you might like to imagine it does.

What? You make an electron and a positron out of a photon, they've got angular momentum and magnetic dipole moment et cetera, then you can annihilate them and get photons again. This does support the view of the electron being a self-bound photon. How can you dismiss scientific evidence so readily?

The standard model makes quantitative predictions that have been tested and verified. It never ceases to amuse me that people who think they have found some “Trouble with Physics” often think of math as a ‘burden’ to physics and that requiring they make some testable quantitative assertion for their idea du jour is somehow “no regard for the scientific method”.

It doesn't amuse me to see people dismissing scientific evidence that doesn't fit with what they believe they know.

...Pair production actually refutes your claim as it shows that a photon does not result in just the charge of an electron as would be required for the electron to be some kind of self bound state of a photon.

Huh?

No it is not, the standard model does not have an electron as some self bound state of a photon or such a state resulting in the charge of an electron.

It will.

So here we go again, you are ignorant of string theories. Some of those predictions like extra dimensions were explained to you before. Others are certain particles that might be discovered in higher energy collisions. So your “no” before has been shown by you to be actually yes.

Please, spare me the string theory psuedoscience.

The evidence is that a photon can not result in just the charge of an electron so the current evidence directly contradicts your claim that an electron is some self bound state of a photon.

The current evidence is pair production. The photon is split and converted into an electron and a positron. The further evidence is annihilation. The electron and the positron become two photons. How you magic up "directly contradicts" out of this beats me. There's no contradiction whatsoever.

 

[sol invictus]

Here they are: Jefimenko's equations. Note this paragraph:

How extremely embarrassing for you.

You've linked to a set of equations that explicitly separate E and B, writing each as an integral that depends only the charges and currents. That makes the fact that they are interrelated far less apparent.

More conventional forms of Maxwell's equations (which are more general, but equivalent to Jefimenko's given the right boundary conditions) include E as a source for B and B as a source for E, making the fact that they are in fact components of the same second rank tensor much more evident.

For future reference, Farsight, the form of Maxwell I posted above would do much better for you. It's relatively obscure and involves math that goes beyond what most physics undergrads learn. That's good for you because you might be arguing with someone unfamiliar with differential forms, so they'll have a harder time debunking your nonsense. It also expresses everything using one object - the electromagnetic field strength - without mentioning E and B.

Successful quacks need lots of techniques to obfuscate and confuse, so that might help you.

It must be really awful being a crank. You argue endlessly over something you haven't a clue about, with people that understand it extremely well. The result is continual embarrassment for you, and mild amusement for the rest.

One word of advice. It's fine to play in your own cranky threads, everyone knows what they're for. But stay out of the threads here that discuss actual physics. The gloves will be off there, because this forum is supposed to be educational and some readers might be confused.

 

[edd]

Farsight, I might concede that pair production is evidence for the electron actually being a photon doing something like that, but the problem is that there's a much better explanation for pair production which involves the electron not being a photon. Just because evidence happens to support one idea does not mean that it does not also support a completely different idea.

If I hear a lion roar coming from the next office, that's evidence that there is a lion in the next office. But it's also evidence for the much better idea that someone in the next office is watching lions on YouTube.

 

[Farsight]

I had to trace back through the posts to remember the context here (my memory is not so good these days). Way back in this post, I was arguing that the model you are presenting (or "your" model, for brevity) would predict the existence of magnetic monopoles. I pointed out that given any solution (E, B) of Maxwell's equations in the absence of charges, you can always construct an equally physical, equally valid solution (E', B') given by E' = B, B' = -E (this being in natural units).

OK, noted. Good to have you back ct.

At this stage I should be careful, given the thread topic, to point out that I am talking about explicitly charged objects. In the language of E and B, we're talking about non-zero divergences - or pictorially speaking, field lines beginning and/or ending somewhere. A photon, being neutral, does not act as a terminus for field lines.

OK.

I then carried on to say that if an "electric monopole" - i.e. a field (E, B) proportional to (1/r², 0) - were a possible solution of Maxwell's vacuum equations (which it would need to be if charge arises from photons), it would also be possible to find vacuum solutions that look like a "magnetic monopole" - having (E, B) proportional to (0, -1/r²).

Noted.

You then replied: "I dispute this. The E and the B are two aspects of the same field, you cannot have an electric monopole, it's an electromagnetic monopole. That's what an electron is". So, in this post I defined what is meant by "electric" and "magnetic" monopoles. Mostly my motivation here was as follows: it's important to understand what the two types of field look like in order to follow my earlier argument.

Again it comes back to the dualism of the single field. There aren't two fields, just two ways of seeing one.

The term "electromagnetic monopole" is unfortunately ambiguous in the current context, despite the fact that you might get away with it in real life (because there are no magnetic monopoles) - in this area of the discussion the distinction between electric and magnetic monopoles is crucial. Hopefully that context makes the reason for the definitions clearer. Even if we don't observe magnetic monopoles, it's still important to define exactly what it is that you're not seeing.

Agreed. Apologies if I've said this before, but I've mentioned that the thing we call the electric field is a "twist field", and that the thing we call the magnetic field is a "turn field" view of this when in relative motion through it. It's space here that's twisted. Stress-energy moves through space, affecting the surrounding space, and when the path is rotational in two orientations it exerts a frame-dragging effect on that surrounding space. For a magnetic monopole to exist you'd have to have a region of space rotating bodily, somehow disconnected from the surrounding space. Space just isn't like that. Have a look at Einstein Cartan theory and see where it says "For ordinary fermions (particles with half-integer spin such as protons, neutrons and electrons), these are screw dislocations (parking garage ramps)" but please disregard "translates you into the past or the future by a small amount." Time isn't something you can move in. Google on Farsight and Time Explained for more on that.

 

[Farsight]

OK, but pictures can be dangerous. Look at the E-field in (a) - an impression is created that a line of E begins at the strip, and then extends outwards normal to the strip. Of course, we both know (and I'm sure that Williamson and van der Mark know this too) that the line of E does no such thing. Rather, we should perhaps picture it as passing through the strip, extending infinitely far in a straight line in both directions.

Maybe it's something as simple as the omission of the word vector. I only ever saw those arrows as akin to the arrows in this plane-polarized depiction:

I don't know if you recall me talking about the photon as a lemon-like pulse in a lattice. It's the same shape as the outline of a wave-packet. Where this "spacewarp" is, is where the lattice lines are twisted. Plot the slope of the upper portion of the lemon to get the sinusoisal electric field vectors.

The reason for pointing this rather obvious fact out, is that in the closed path picture (b), Williamson and van der Mark are, I contend, incorrect in asserting that the E-field vector is "radial and directed inwards", at least on the basis of the topology they're considering.

Noted.

Actually there's a very general argument that covers a wide range of spatial topologies, and in outline it's like this:

Consider a self-trapped photon, and picture in your mind a closed surface which contains it. Now suppose that there is a non-zero flux of E through that surface (let's imagine the flux is negative, so we have a negative apparent charge). If this is the case, then select a line of E and follow it in through the surface, and into the heart of the self-trapped photon system. Where does it go? I think we'd agree that photons cannot be a field-line terminus (correct me if I'm wrong), so the line of E must do one of two things:

1. Disappear down a hole. If you could arrange for a funnel to connect two distant points in space, then lines of E could disappear down one end of the funnel and emerge from the other end. You'd appear to have two equal, yet opposite charges.
   This may seem attractive (ETA: no pun intended), but the problem is that the spatial topology here would be just as capable of generating magnetic monopoles as electric ones (it's that old problem again). Depending on the radius of the funnel opening, maybe you could also observe things seeming to "vanish" as they fall in - not, I imagine, what you're after.
2. Re-emerge. The situation then is that there is actually zero net flux through our surface, and so the contained system is electrically neutral.

Hopefully my comment above has addressed this.

I'd say "the line of E" turns over and re-emerges. So now it looks like another line of E going in. I think you're missing something important here, re the electric field being a twist field. The electron's electromagnetic field is the result of the photon topology. Think of a stretched rubber sheet painted like a Japanese rising sun flag:

The radial red lines go straight through it. There's no "twist" or "curl" to them, these aren't field lines, just something to delineate space. Now grab the sun in the middle, and twist. Now replace your hand with an orbital sander. Now the red lines are curved. Employ another orthogonal orbital sander in a bulk rather than on a sheet, and maybe you can grasp the way the red lines are "curled" by the central vorton which is spacewarp moving through spacewarp. The photon is "spacewarp". Where the spacewarp is, is where space is twisted. When the spacewarp travels round and round through itself, all the surrounding space is twisted.

I prefer to reserve the term "curvature" for the geometric concept - the stuff that makes parallel transport around closed curves non-trivial and, therefore, interesting. The distinction mainly mattered if you were claiming that the stress-energy-momentum of the photon field corresponds to the spacetime geometry which causes the confinement - at least, if this is happening in a manner consistent with GR. I don't think this is what you're claiming at this stage, however.

It's different because it's spatial curvature, but it really is geometric. Yes, I'm claiming that the stress-energy-momentum of a the photon is a curvature. The space-time curvature of GR is something much weaker.

Ah, I remember the joy of having a two-year-old. I hope he's all better now.

Yes, he's fine thanks. Me too - we also have a 21-year-old and a 19-year-old.

 

[Farsight]

That is an example of your lack of knowledge of physics. Nothing is rotating.

No, it's an example of yours. See http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/42232

The electron has angular momentum that is quantized and nothing to do with classical angular momentum (which can take any value). So that intrinsic spin is not a real rotation. One way to look at electron spin is as a label for a quantrum mechanical state of the electron.

It's a real rotation. The evidence says so. Now stop spouting your textbook at me.

 

[Farsight]

...All four Maxwell's equations can be written in the compact form...

Sigh:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Dynamical_Theory_of_the_Electromagnetic_Field

In part III of "A dynamical theory of the electromagnetic field", which is entitled "General equations of the electromagnetic field", Maxwell formulated twenty equations[1], eight of which were to become known as Maxwell's equations, until this term became applied instead to a set of four simplified equations selected in 1884 by Oliver Heaviside, which had all appeared in "On physical lines of force". These four last equations do not deal with negative energy as some of the other equations of Maxwell appearing in this book.[2]

Heaviside's versions of Maxwell's equations are distinct by virtue of the fact that they are written in modern vector notation. They actually only contain one of the original eight—equation "G" (Gauss's Law). Another of Heaviside's four equations is an amalgamation of Maxwell's Law of Total Currents (equation "A") with Ampère's Circuital Law (equation "C"). This amalgamation, which Maxwell himself had actually originally made at equation (112) in "On physical lines of force", is the one that modifies Ampère's Circuital Law to include Maxwell's Displacement current. [2]

 

[Kwalish Kid]

No I haven't. Really, can you do nothing better than spit out ad-hominems and demand mathematics to distract from the scientific evidence and trash the discussion?

This thread has little to do with the good use of one's time. In this case, pointing out that you lied is not an ad hominem, it is simply a fact and it is directly relevant to your point. You were asked about the spiral nature of the field, you responded that Minkoswki demonstrated this. You also claim that Minkowski was totally wrong about the electromagnetic field. While I agree that Minkowski would have to be totally wrong in order to support your position, it continues to be clear that you simply understand neither Minkowski's work nor electromagnetism.

No I don't, I just draw your attention yet again to Minkowski's wrench and Maxwell's screw.

But you were asked to explain what Minkowski meant by "wrench", not simply repeat the word over and over again. It appears that you cannot understand what Minkowski actually meant, so you are simply fabricating the meaning of the passage in question.

No. You have to look to the real world, and experiment, not mathematics. Stop using mathemtics as a smokescreen to dismiss scientific evidence.

All evidence in physics has been mathematical for centuries. All the evidence Einstein ever offered in support of his theory is in the form of measurements that relate to his predictions made from the basis of his mathematical theory. You have offered less evidence than a physics lab performed by a teenager.

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/05/Faraday_magnetic_rotation.jpg/118px-Faraday_magnetic_rotation.jpg[/qimg]

That is not evidence.

Here they are: Jefimenko's equations. Note this paragraph:

There is a widespread interpretation of Maxwell's equations indicating that time variable electric and magnetic fields can cause each other. This is often used as part of an explanation of the formation of electromagnetic waves. However, Jefimenko's equations show otherwise. [3] Jefimenko says, "...neither Maxwell's equations nor their solutions indicate an existence of causal links between electric and magnetic fields. Therefore, we must conclude that an electromagnetic field is a dual entity always having an electric and a magnetic component simultaneously created by their common sources: time-variable electric charges and currents."

But the equations you have provided govern two separate fields, as sol has aptly pointed out. Where are your single-field equations?

 

[ben m]

It isn't an equation that generates that spiral, but instead the experimental evidence. When electrons in the wire move upwards, it's the same as the test subject moving downwards past stationary electrons, whereupon we observe rotation as per the illustration of Faraday magnetic rotation above,

First of all, you're still using a vague intuition for what the electron will do. In fact the electron will feel a force whose direction is very, very easy to state in vector notation---F = qE + qv x B---and which DOES NOT point in the directions indicated by your spiral; there is *never* a force in the "azimuthal" direction (orbiting the source, the direction indicated by your spiral) no matter what combination of velocities you throw in.

It's pretty obvious that you're doing something wrong in your E&M physics. Again, I can't tell if you have the electron motion wrong or if you have the motion right but are attributing it to nonsensical new fields.

I can't show you the equations, but I can show you a demonstration in the Falaco soliton. See post #13. You're not an observer, you're another electron, and one left-handed whirlpool moves away from another. Like I said, you have to just try it.

You seem to think that this nonlinear fluid-dynamics phenomenon has similar physics to E&M. I have no idea why.

But Faraday isn't! See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_dynamical_theory_of_the_electromagnetic_field
for some history:

"Heaviside's versions of Maxwell's equations are distinct by virtue of the fact that they are written in modern vector notation.

Maxwell's Equations are unambiguously vector equations; they're just written in old-fashioned vector notation, with all of the components and derivatives written out one by one.

 

[Tubbythin]

Because you don't know about those things. You think you do, but you don't. If you did, you could explain how pair production works.

I'll repeat, why are you posting links to search results from google? Are you expecting me to read all 753,000 results for "electron angular momentum" and then get back to you?