## About Bosons and RF Antennas

Particles in Physics are essentially of two types:

• Bosons
• Fermions

Fermions are thought to be particles, that best approximate the intuitive understanding of ‘matter’.

Bosons are harder to understand, because they’re thought to be particles that actually translate a force.

Hence, an Electron is both a Fermion and a Lepton, while a Photon is clearly a Boson.

One of the facts which we know about Electromagnetic Radiation, is that at its longest wavelengths, and thus at its lowest frequencies, it resembles waves the most, while at its shortest wavelengths it strongly resembles particles, and its frequencies are even disregarded.

And so an idle question which some people might ponder, is when given the longest-wavelength form of EM Radiation: Radio-Frequency Waves, how could wave / particle duality still hold? The short answer which I’d have to that question would be, ‘In the photons having a ridiculously high number.’ The energy of one photon is inversely proportional to its wavelength. The wavelengths of visible light range from 400 to 700 nanometers. At the same time, its photon energy is close to 1.2 eV.

I leave it to the reader to compute, if he is operating a shortwave transmitter with a wavelength of 10 meters, what the corresponding photon energy would be ! In any case, practical RF transmitters radiate anywhere from 5 to 5000 Watts. If the effective number of resulting photons is to be computed, then the fact must also be accounted for, that an Ampere-Second is a Coulomb of charge. This will tell us, how many Joules of energy, 1 eV is.

1 J = 1 C ⋅ V = 1 W ⋅ S .

Further, if Electromagnetic Phenomena become very low-frequency, or even D.C. Phenomena, then their photons are thought to take the form of virtual particles.

Dirk

## How Magnetic Fields Can Bend Space

According to classical concepts in Physics, Gravitational Fields can bend space, while Magnetic Fields are orthogonal to them, and as long as that model does not break, no intensity of Magnetic Field, will do what a Gravitation Field does.

But there are many ways in which the classical theories of Physics have been replaced by more-controversial ones, based on Quantum Mechanics.

(Revised 10/19/2016)

One subject which Quantum-Mechanics describes, is that of Virtual Particles. And this is my best stab at explaining ‘how they work':

The ‘normal state’ of matter, is to have positive energy, which is really just a confusing way to say that matter has positive mass, since mass and energy are equivalent, and since photons, that are generally perceived as only consisting of energy, can collide with nuclei, and cause matter-antimatter particle-pairs to be created, the combined mass of which must not exceed the energy of the incident gamma-ray photon.

This concept of matter possibly having positive energy can be misread, because the particle in question could be an electron, the electrical charge of which is defined as negative. This negative electrical charge does not prevent the electron from being positive matter, in the sense that its electrical properties are orthogonal to its mass, as a property.

But there was a famous Physicist named Dirac, who discovered quite by accident, that in correspondence with the positive-energy / mass -state of a particle, a negative-energy state is also ‘possible’, because that negative state by itself does not lead to contradictions.

The ‘inverse electron’ is positively charged, and opposite the regular electron in every way, including that the inverse one has positive charge, (and negative mass and energy). If the electron was left-handed, the positron will be right-handed.

Quite by accident, Dirac had discovered antimatter.

(Edit 05/25/2017 : It should be pointed out that this initial theory of Antimatter stands in contradiction with the modern, observed fact, that antimatter has positive mass, even though in some ways, it’s supposed to exist in opposition to ‘regular matter’. Hence, the paradox has already been commented on in depth, that while in the laboratory, Scientists are only able to convert energy into matter and antimatter simultaneously, the observed Universe consists almost entirely of matter.

Scientists cannot explain why this inconsistency takes place; they can only measure that it does.

It’s assumed that the reader is already familiar with this, and this posting is designed to have a liberal look at the subject, which could open up ways to rethink it. Trying to rethink a subject, while clinging to every assumption we may make about it, will usually not lead to any new insights. )

But under normal circumstances, the properties of empty space are defined such, that the energy-state of the electrons equals zero, which simply means that they do not exist. Yet, there is some small probability, that both a negative a positive-energy electron exist simultaneously, yet temporarily. Over slightly longer distances, relative to their distances of uncertainty, their properties cancel out. “Virtual Particle Phenomena” arise, when these particle-properties fail to cancel out completely. This usually requires some catalyst to happen, that catalyst having to consist of positive energy.

An extremely strong magnetic field – which would have to be stronger, even, than the magnetic field of a regular neutron star – is capable of evoking an asymmetry, in the paired, virtual particles of empty space. And then, if the magnetic field becomes as strong as that observed belonging to a type of start called a ‘magnetar’, a gamma-ray photon that crosses it, can cause a particle-antiparticle pair to be formed, which consume the photon, and which promptly annihilate, thus leaving behind two or more photons, that are less-energetic than the original photon was.

And so by distorting the relationship between a particle and its inverse, as belonging to a virtual-particle pair, a magnetic field can in fact have an effect on empty space. I do not know whether this meets the criteria of distorting space adequately.

Dirk

I have a piece of personal speculation to add. It might be that Dirac had an incorrect way of working with this subject.