Positronium

.
Miles Mathis has redefined Physics according to the Charge Field (among other accomplishments - such as creating the charge based nuclear model used below or showing pi=4 for curved motion). All matter consists of moving, spinning and colliding photons. Miles has provided thousands of clear and concise descriptions great and small - including the math(!). No one explains things better. While he hasn't addressed each and every type of object in the universe, he's explained the main mechanisms involved.

I poorly understand most any subject Miles talks about, nevertheless I can see how the charge field makes complete sense and greatly simplifies things. On the other hand, as Miles has explained, mainstream theories have grow more and more complex (and absurd) in order to keep up with the latest data. Current mainstream theories have failed to identify the charge field nature of matter, where charge particles such as electrons, neutrons and protons recycle charge photons. I must say, I'm a believer, I've seen the light – energetic charge emissions that is. I’m not trying to imitate Miles, I’m trying to apply charge field reasoning Miles has shown us in order to continue learning as well as promote and support charge field awareness in others. Unfortunately, as you’ve probably noticed, I’m a slow learner with limited retention, please pardon my errors or better yet, point them out. Discussions are welcome. Here's a relatively simple topic I don't recall Miles talking about.
 
Positronium (Ps)
From Wikipedia,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positronium

Positronium (Ps) is a system consisting of an electron and its anti-particle, a positron, bound together into an exotic atom, specifically an onium. The system is unstable: the two particles annihilate each other to predominantly produce two or three gamma-rays, depending on the relative spin states. The energy levels of the two particles are similar to that of the hydrogen atom (which is a bound state of a proton and an electron). However, because of the reduced mass, the frequencies of the spectral lines are less than half of those for the corresponding hydrogen lines.

Airman. Miles sure makes it look easy. Focusing on a single subject from across a wide variety of topics involve many mainstream theories, usually with their own “fact base”, operating theory and required jargon. All that info is a bit overwhelming. Starting the first sentence.
 

Positronium (Ps) is a system consisting of an electron and its anti-particle, a positron, bound together into an exotic atom, specifically an onium.

Wiki includes the mainstream’s orbital diagram of Ps, showing an electron, E (blue) and positron, P (red). I measure both radii=0.25, orbiting clockwise on opposite sides of a circle of with radius=2 around their combined center of gravity. I assume -z is ‘down’ and into the page. I’m including my measured relative radius values for additional info. Individual P and E spins weren't indicated.

For starters, in my opinion, this mainstream model cannot be correct. In what sense are P and E “bound” together? There are no forces that can create the electron/positron orbit depicted, unstable or quantum or not. Gravity certainly cannot. The diagram doesn’t include any forces, I think we can safely ignore it.

According to the charge field, charge particles with charge emissions generally repel all other charge particles. There is no such thing as a force of attraction, there is only an apparent attraction due to a lack of repulsion.


The image above shoes my first guess charge field model of Positronium, including charge intakes at the particles’ poles and emissions from the particles’ equators as indicated indicated by the orange arrows, comparable to Miles nuclear diagram of Helium shown below. Miles calls it an alpha – two protons (P, black), two neutrons (N, green) and two electrons (script e, light blue), as the most simple stable atomic structure. The alpha unit is repeated many times in larger elements. Note that the much smaller electrons are found at the top and bottom of the alpha, along the main charge vertical channel into Ps upwards or downwards. I may have it backwards, but I believe the bottom e is actually a positron; its a question of the spinning particles’ up or down direction toward or away from Ps in earth’s vertical emission field. Charged particles emit charge outward in all directions, although primarily from the spinning particle’s equator, in the z plane. The positron and electron z-plane spins are in opposite the same directions, cw or ccw when viewed from +z. The particles’ (P and E) charge emissions prevent P and E from approaching each other from any direction except up or down along the vertically aligned pole to pole orientation shown.    

The system is unstable: the two particles annihilate each other to predominantly produce two or three gamma-rays, depending on the relative spin states

Here on the northern hemisphere, charge enters Ps from below, anti-charge enters from above, but there’s nothing between P and E (?!), except a slightly sheltered - reduced charge zone. Unlike the central neutrons in the atomically stable alpha unit, there’s nothing preventing the electron and positron poles from soon drifting then colliding together. That may be the main cause of Ps instability.

Mutual, matter/anti-matter annihilation is a fantasy. P and E spin in opposite directions, I would expect P and E pole collisions can strip P and E outermost spins to become two – and Not three, gamma rays, if I recall correctly. I would need to look into it further. Where does this third gamma ray come from? Maybe there is something between the electron and the positron allowing longer lasting lifetimes? Maybe there’s a neutral particle slightly larger than the electron or positron which allows the creation of a tiny alpha structures? Strip the outermost spins of all the outer spins of such a mini alpha and you might see three or four gamma rays. Miles has probably discussed a neutral-electron somewhere but I don’t recall where.

Of course I might have the Ps structure completely wrong, perhaps P and E emission fields are somehow bound together at a very close distance pole to equator?

Another problem which must decrease Ps stability is its small size, thousands of times smaller than the alpha. Ps suffers from the correspondingly greater energy impacts delivered by random photon collisions. These collisions might greatly increase the probability of fatally misbalancing the P E pair.

The energy levels of the two particles are similar to that of the hydrogen atom (which is a bound state of a proton and an electron). However, because of the reduced mass, the frequencies of the spectral lines are less than half of those for the corresponding hydrogen lines.

As far as I known, according to mainstream science, the proton and electron carry equal and opposite charge. Is the positron’s charge the same as the proton’s? Apparently not, because of a “reduced mass” and the "frequencies of the spectral lines are less than half of those for the corresponding hydrogen lines”.

My charge field interpretations and descriptions would probably go downhill from there. I think I’ll quit here.

P.S. Corrected Ps spins.
.

.
I’ve been reviewing my thinking and, as usual, need to make corrections.
 

I wrote. The positron and electron z-plane spins are in opposite directions, cw or ccw when viewed from +z.

Wrong. When looking at vertically aligned ‘electrons/positrons’ within the earth emission field northern hemisphere from the +z direction, both particles spin ccw. The only difference between them is the fact that the electron travels in the +z direction while the positron travels -z. From the negative z direction over the southern hemisphere, both spins appears cw. Electrons rise over the northern hemisphere, positrons rise over the southern hemisphere. The earth's emission field orders the spins. This is important in understanding the effects of polar collisions, such as,  

I wrote. P and E spin in opposite directions, I would expect P and E pole collisions can strip P and E outermost spins.

Wrong. Within Earth’s ordered emission field, positron P and electron E spin in the same direction. The upward traveling electron E ‘collides’ with the downward moving P without any relative difference in their outermost z spin velocities. No spins are stripped when bumping pole to pole.  

I still need to complete Wiki’s short first paragraph on Positronium (PS).

Wiki wrote. The energy levels of the two particles are similar to that of the hydrogen atom (which is a bound state of a proton and an electron).

That sounds wrong, or I’m missing something. Are they saying that the energy level of the positron in Ps is similar to a Proton in a Hydrogen atom? What is meant by similar? How does the energy level relate to charge?

Science is just beginning to create atomic images, electrons are just too small to see. I believe scientists measure the ‘combined energy’ of a nucleus (proton and neutron) and an electron by focusing on Hydrogen atoms using Penning traps. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penning_trap

Mainstream believes that the positive charge of the proton within the Hydrogen atom is equal and opposite to the negative charge of Hydrogen’s electron. Mainstream’s assumed equal and opposite charges is simply wrong.

The alpha is thousands of times larger than Ps, or the proton is thousands of times larger than the electron. Not the radial length which is about 10 times as large, but as the radius-cubed, total mass volume m. By the energy equation E=mc^2, the proton has thousands of times more energy than the electron.

All charge is repulsive, attraction is only apparent at the poles, where the charge particle’s emission field is weakest. Approaching each other roughly equator to equator, due to its 10 times smaller diameter, electrons can get a lot closer to a proton before being bombarded by the proton emissions than other protons can.

Energy level. There’s always a charge field present, be it the earth’s or the galaxy’s. The Penning trap creates a local dominant charge field much stronger than the earth’s. The matter held within the Penning trap will primarily be aligned with and will be recycling charge created by the trap. The earth’s emission field is of course  also present.  

I currently believe Ps - electron (E)/positron (P) pairs are stable. They share a single charge channel and might exist indefinitely. I believe the instability arises when a second P or E attaches itself to the PE pair such as PPE or PEE at which time random photon collisions can easily unbalance or turn the PPE chain. That might allow the outermost opposite z spins  to collide with the maximum differential velocities. That idea does a better job accounting for the third gamma ray observed during a Ps breakup.

P.S. Made blue clarifications, corrections and additions, to the first paragraph and changed proton to electron.
.

.
Understanding Positronium appears to involve spin directions and keeping track of charge and anti-charge flows. I believe there are four possible charge flow combinations into Ps: 1. charge channeling up; 2. charge channeling down; 3. anti-charge channeling up; and 4. anti-charge channeling down. I had to break out a pocket fidget spinner to help. Please pardon my errors, feel free to point any out.

Possible Positronium, Ps e-e+, is shown here. The positron e- at the top channels anti-charge down into Ps, while the electron e+ at the bottom channels charge up into Ps. I believe this particular Ps configuration agrees with the charge flow of the northern hemisphere, as suggested by the upward charge flow arrow at the bottom being roughly twice the length of the anti-charge arrow pointing down at the top. When viewed from the +z direction, both electron types, e- and e+, rotate ccw, a single spin direction Ps. The other single spin direction Positronium is type e+e-. Ps e+e- is configured to channel charge exactly opposite to Ps e-e+; charge channels down into Ps and anti-charge is channeled up into Ps, which matches charge flow in the southern hemisphere; where both e+e- electron types spin cw when viewed from the -z direction. When electron types spin in the same direction we might expect that the two e-particles can vertically collide or bumping together without any spin striping. The Ps e+e- configuration cannot last long in the northern hemisphere, and Ps e-e+ cannot last long in the southern, the earth emission field will spin-down any Ps spins spinning the wrong way.

Given the two previous Wiki warm-up posts, here’s another Positronium definition, this time from from Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/science/positronium.

Positronium, short-lived hydrogen-like atom composed of an electron and a positron (rather than an electron and a proton) arising as a positron is slowed down in matter and captured by an electron. Two forms are known. Parapositronium, in which the spins of the positron and electron are oppositely directed, decays by annihilation into two photons, with a mean life of about one-tenth of a nanosecond (or 10-10 second; a nanosecond is 10−9 second); and orthopositronium, in which the spins are in the same direction, annihilates into three photons with a mean life of about 100 nanoseconds (10-7 second). The properties of positronium corroborate the quantum theory of electrodynamics for a two-particle system.

I believe they are firing a positron beam at a wafer of molecular matter that includes plenty of electrons. That seems elaborate from the charge field perspective, since electrons and positrons are just electrons with opposite outside z-spin directions. There are plenty of positrons present and available at the charge channel intakes of the molecular proton matter.  
But yes, the single direction spinning Ps electron and positron particles, e+ and e- need to approach each other with a small +/- z velocity while aligned pole-to-pole so they become ‘bound’ by the relative charge field minimum between them. If they come together too quickly they’d likely just bounce away from each other.  

Repeating Britannica’s quote about the two types of Positronium from above:

Two forms are known. Parapositronium, in which the spins of the positron and electron are oppositely directed, decays by annihilation into two photons, with a mean life of about one-tenth of a nanosecond (or 10-10 second; a nanosecond is 10−9 second);
Orthopositronium, in which the spins are in the same direction, annihilates into three photons with a mean life of about 100 nanoseconds (10-7 second).

Reading that, I see that when I wrote. “ I currently believe Ps - electron (E)/positron (P) pairs are stable.” I was wrong, Ps is not very stable at all, annihilating after a very brief lifetime. During Ps annihilation, z-spin stripping plainly occurs. Each e+ or e- would lose its top z-spin, halving its radius in the process, no longer large enough to be called an electron. The earth emission field itself will spin down electrons or positrons not spinning in agreement with the emission field, effectively striping the e's outer z-spin. Those spins will not be replaced. Is a gamma ray photon, the same as an x-ray photon? Are they shy just one spin away from becoming a electron/positron?  

In Ps e-e+ or Ps e+e-, as I described above, both electron types spin in the same direction, that sounds like Orthopositronium. Or rather, Orthopositronium is likely to be one of either Ps e+e- or Ps e-e+, but not both, earth emissions will cause spin downs, effectively removing incorrect Ps component spins, that may explain most of the annihilations. Although Orthopositronium far outlasts the other Ps types, I wonder why this most stable form of Ps annihilates so quickly – about a hundred nanoseconds. And why is a third gamma ray(?) photon produced by the annihilation. I speculated that a third electron might have joined Ps pair but that idea doesn’t make sense to me now. In any case, its good to see that photons as Positronium annihilation products are acknowledged by the Britannica writer/editor.

What about these opposite direction Ps spinners, Parapositronium? It seems safe to say that during Ps creation, the positron beam (positrons and photons) is energetically bombarding the proton matter. The area is filled with electrons e+ and positrons e- going in any direction. The e+ and e- particles begin to be ordered by the earth emissions aligning their spin axis poles to those charge emissions. That must take a relatively short amount of time, during which some number of pairs of e-particles will come together to be ‘bound’ by the relative charge field minimum between them. I believe four possible Ps types can be created: e+e-, e-e+, e+e+ or e-e-.

Ps e+e- and Ps e-e+, are the single direction spinners I described earlier.

In Ps e+e+, the top electron is channeling charge down into Ps. When viewed from a +z direction the top electron is spinning cw. The bottom electron is channeling charge up into Ps. When viewed from +z direction, the bottom electron spins ccw. The top and bottom electrons spin in opposite directions. In Ps e-e- the top and bottom positrons channel anti-charge into Ps. When viewed from +z, both positrons also spin in opposite directions. The two vertically aligned electron or positron pairs of the two direction spinners cannot gently bump together without stripping both their particles’ top z-spins. These two Ps configurations do not match the charge flows of either the northern or the southern hemisphere, or any other normal charge/anti-charge channel location. This accounts for Parapositronium. It has the shortest average lifetime, a tenth of a nanosecond.

Back to Ps e-e+, the single direction spinner which channels charge like the northern hemisphere. I believe earth emissions at that location will spin down electrons or positrons within each of the other Ps types to match the preferred e-e+ configuration. So Ps e+e+ or Ps e-e- would each require one spin-down followed by an opposite polarity spin up, but any such spin-up will not occur. Ps e+e- is in the opposite charge channeling order, suitable for the southern hemisphere but not the northern, the earth emission field would tend to spin down both the electron and the positron. On the southern hemisphere, e+e-, is well ordered. Ps e-e+ is now of opposite order and both Ps e-particles will be spun down. Ps cannot exist if either or both of its electron types are spun down or striped, the sheltered low charge zone would be gone. Ps with only a single spinning electron particle is not Ps, the spun down e-particle would not be able to be spun up to match the earth emission field polarity.

So, “the properties of positronium corroborate the quantum theory of electrodynamics for a two-particle system”, eh? I guess I’ll take Encyclopedia Britannica’s word for that. Maybe they follow charge field rules as well.

P.S.

1. Changed a Ps e-e+ into Ps e+e- (blue) in the "Back to Ps e-e+ paragraph ... ".

2. Ps type notation, Ps (top e-particle, bottom e-particle). The first position Ps e-particle is at the top and the second e-particle is on the bottom. Charge being channeled down by an electron at the top means the electron is upside-down compared to its northern hemisphere orientation. Anti-charge channeled up into Ps means the positron is upside down to its northern hemisphere positron orientation.
.

Ace investigation LTAM. Britannica mentions "annihilation" but is it a ricochet? Like directions cohere or de-cohere due to spin and orbital flows? Like their measure of the photons disappears but the photon does not?

.
Thanks Cr6. You're too kind. As far as 'Annihilation' goes, I’d bet most people can define it as some form of complete destruction, say after nuclear Armageddon or collision with an Earth-shaking asteroid. The mainstream physics definition is also well-known; when matter and anti-matter come together, both are immediately converted to energy through mutual annihilation; i.e. don’t shake hands with your anti-matter self. Annihilation is a fine word, sensational and accurate, Britannica is using it correctly as I understand it.

However, the word does needs a proper charge field definition. There’s no reason annihilation shouldn’t refer to the ‘complete loss’ of a particle’s top-level z-spin. Either through being spun down by the local emission field, or by a head-to-head collision involving the maximum differential tangential spin velocities with another charge particle, striping both particles’ top-level z-spins. Such charge field annihilations are common occurrences, smaller, and more limited than the mainstream’s misunderstanding.

If I understand you correctly, I think you’re right, spinning down a single electron or positron within Ps can cause Ps to become an e-particle and large photon, and blink out of existence as far as our test equipment goes. Or the de-spun e-particle might become a ricocheting loose cannon causing the other e-particle to also lose a spin and so become a photon as well. I believe the scientists are looking for tell-tale energy bursts of specific energy levels related to the Positronium's so-called hyperfine structure.

This topic is a good charge field thinking exercise. I should carry on with a few more details or two, but I’m afraid it’s beyond my ability to give Positronium its full charge field due. For one thing, I must re-read a few of Miles’ papers but I’m not sure which. I think I’ll start with Diatomic Hydrogen *, with parahydrogen and orthohydrogen and spin isomers(!) that sounds related to Positronium. I hope its not too humbling.

*
http://milesmathis.com/index.html
332. Diatomic Hydrogen. http://milesmathis.com/diatom.pdf My new charge bonding explains this much better than electron sharing. Plus an analysis of spin isomers. 9pp
.

.
Diatomic Hydrogen *. A most excellent re-read, I learn something new each time. I’ll summarize, paraphrase and comment a bit, figure 1 from the paper is below. Diatomic Hydrogen is built from two protons, vertically aligned pole-to-pole. Each proton has either a left or right (L,R) spin. I believe that’s the direction of the proton’s tangential equatorial spinning edge closest to the viewer in the image. Miles thereby avoids the cw/ccw spin directions or charge/anti-charge current flows that I tend to confuse myself with.
Back to the paper, each proton has an electron orbiting either the top or bottom (T,B) proton pole. The electron is too big to enter the proton, instead, the electron is “circling-the-drain”, caught in the vortex of charge spiraling into the proton pole. Recall that charge out masses charge particle matter 19 to 1. The electron’s presence is a “clear signal” indicating which proton pole has the higher charge pressure - vorticular charge flow is flowing into.
By closely orbiting the proton pole, the electron redirects or blocks some of the charge that would otherwise have entered that pole. There’s a minimum charge zone outside the proton’s opposite pole, which is somewhat increased by the electron charge blocking on the other side.
The spiral thread of the proton’s vortice at the bottom end of the top proton/electron must match the thread of the spiral vortice at the top of the proton/electron below, left or right. If so, the bottom proton/electron can drift in close and fit together with the proton/electron above. It would not be possible to drift together or join the two proton/electron pairs if the proton spiral charge flow threads were opposed, there would be too much charge resistance to prevent it.
Another case where atomic bonds cannot form is when two electrons meet between the protons, the electrons would create to much charge flow interference.  
As Miles describes, there are plenty of combinations involving Left or Right proton spin, and electron at the Top or Bottom of the proton, “But only 4 of these combinations create an attraction and therefore a bond”: (TL,BL), (TR,TR), (BR,BR), and (TR,BL).


figure 1 from Diatomic Hydrogen.

With respect to the bond within diatomic hydrogen
Miles wrote.

The bond is created by the external charge field. Between the two atoms exists a charge minimum, which creates a low pressure. Since we have higher pressure above and below, the atoms are forced together.

Airman. Electrons are smaller than protons and the diatomic hydrogen atom is more complicated than positronium (Ps), yet electrons recycle charge exactly the same way as protons do. The charge present is 19 times greater than the electron’s mass, so higher pressure vorticular charge flows into the electron pole just as it does in the proton. I’m reassured I’m not wrong in my slightly different approach, considering charge and anti-charge entering Positronium from the topmost and bottom most electron poles causing a minimum charge zone between the two electrons.

Cr6 wrote.

Britannica mentions "annihilation" but is it a ricochet? Like directions cohere or de-cohere due to spin and orbital flows?  

Airman. There are the various combinations of spins and charge to consider. I see I understood cohere and de-cohere backwards, in Diatomic Hydrogen Miles wrote.

Although we find the protons parallel after they have decohered*, they could have been anti-parallel.
…
*For those not familiar with quantum mechanics, “decohered” means that a probability became a reality, or that a set of possibilities became one actuality, in the form of a measurable datum. The noun is decoherence, and it comes from cohere, meaning to stick together. A variant of adhere.

Airman. Another timely excellent re-read is The Nature of Light, ** Miles compares the major errors of mainstream theories together with their charge field explanations. One problem I’ve mentioned more than once in my Ps posts above concern electrons and x-rays.

Miles wrote.

Error 20: All photons are the same size. If photons were point particles, they would have to be, wouldn't they? But they aren't. Visible photons have different radii, and more energetic photons like X and gamma actually have extra spins. They are MUCH larger, which is why they are so powerful. If you stack on another spin above that, the photon becomes too large to go c, and is no longer a photon, by definition. It then becomes an electron.

Error 21: In some events, electrons emit photons. No, in those events, the electron is being hit, is losing an outer spin, and is becoming a photon. That is why in these events the “emitted” photon is often an X-ray. An X-ray is a spin-stripped electron.

Airman. Spin stacking, (as I understand it), start with an axially spinning A type photon. Spins are stacked by radius doubling, end-over-end X, Y and Z spins, (each orthogonal to the others). The next radius doubling spin stacked is the A spin electron. After another set of stacked X, Y and Z spins comes the next larger A spin charged particle, the proton.
O.k, the electron can become an x-ray photon by “losing a spin” or “losing an outer spin” as might happen in a head-on collision, or by spin stripping such as I believe happens to any Ps electron spins spinning in opposition to Earth emissions.

What about those three emitted x-ray photons?

Britannica wrote.

… orthopositronium, in which the spins are in the same direction, annihilates into three photons with a mean life of about 100 nanoseconds (10-7 second).

Airman. An electron can annihilate lose its outermost spin to become a single x-ray photon. How can Orthopositronium, the longest lived and most stable form of Positronium, annihilate into three x-ray photons? Logically, Orthopositronium must consist of three vertically stacked electron particles. That may make sense when you consider the Earth is two parts matter and one part antimatter.
Ps e-e+, positron on top, electron at the bottom is the single direction spinner which channels charge like the northern hemisphere. A second positron with the same thread downward anticharge flow can fit into the top position to become Ps e-e-e+, balancing the twice as strong charge up with the half as strong anti-charge flows down. If true, in the southern hemisphere we’d find the Orthopositronium configuration Ps e+e-e-.



*
http://milesmathis.com/index.html
332. Diatomic Hydrogen. My new charge bonding explains this much better than electron sharing. Plus an analysis of spin isomers. 9pp
http://milesmathis.com/diatom.pdf

**
http://milesmathis.com/index.html
265a. The Nature of Light. An overview of my light papers. 14pp.
http://milesmathis.com/lighterrors.pdf

Note. The Nature of Light page count should be changed to 5pp. 
.

.

I’ve studied this diagram (figure 1 from Miles’ Diatomic Hydrogen paper) several times, making sure I memorized and understand why the H2 configurations shown bond or not. I believe I understand those examples. Repeating the following for my own good.

If we have Top and Bottom electrons (pair 1 and 6), then bonds will form whether the protons spin in 1. different directions (parahydrogen, pair 6); or 2. the same direction (orthohydrogen, pair 1). If we have Top Top or Bottom Bottom electron configurations (pair 2, 3, 4 and 5), then bonds will form only when the protons spin in the same spiral thread direction (orthohydrogen), as is true in pairs 2 and 4; opposite spinning protons create opposite spiral threads which cannot bond (pairs 3 and 5). Miles explains how the bonds formed by pairs 2 and 4 are weaker than 1 and 6. Pair 6, TR,BL forms the most stable bond of the H2 configurations since the outward opposite vortices in the middle cause the lowest low charge zone. Bottom Top electrons (pairs 7 and create competing vortices that prevent any bond from forming.

I have figure 1 questions, starting with: Why is there only one TL spin shown as well as other missing configurations? I think I can safely assume the TL spins will follow the same rules as the TR spin configurations shown. For example, TL,BR would also seem to make “the best bond” but it is not included since it is essentially the same (the reverse) as TR,BL, pair 6(?). TR,BR, may be absent because it follows the same logic as pair 1, TL,BL.

/\\///\\\\/////\\\\\\/////\\\\///\\/

One question I keep asking myself is, why are Positronium lifetimes so short? If electrons recycle and channel charge the same as protons do, I’d expect electron/positrons might form stable structures, but apparently that cannot be true since electrons cannot form any stable pairs lasting much longer than 10^-7 seconds – the quantum world excluded. Up to now I reasoned the earth’s emission field must immediately begin to spin down electrons spinning in opposition to the emission field. While that may be true to some extent, over the long term, a better explanation occurred to me.

Miles may have mentioned something similar but I don’t recall, proton matter is stable due to the presence of the electrons circling the charge channel intake “drains” of the proton matter. Those electrons prevent well aligned passing protons from colliding with the proton matter charge channel inputs. On the electron level, there’s nothing similar, given a low charge zone bond, no smaller A type photons circling and blocking the electron poles. In which case, there’s nothing stopping electrons from coming into direct pole to pole contact, through single or repeated bumps, or in direct contact bleeding away energy, or meeting in head to head spin stripping collisions. Now, the shorter positronium lifetimes make sense.

\//\\\////\\\\\//////\\\\\////\\\//\

In my last post I wrote. An electron can annihilate lose its outermost spin to become a single x-ray photon. How can Orthopositronium, the longest lived and most stable form of Positronium, annihilate into three x-ray photons? That may make sense when you consider the Earth is two parts matter and one part antimatter.



The figure shows all possible electron spin configurations, for 1, 2 and 3, pole aligned electrons (e+) right, red, and positrons (e-) left, blue, aligned to Earth's vertical emission field. Parapositronium triplets I and L are eliminated because the upward traveling charge flow would meet two spin direction changes which I don’t believe is possible.  

I still agree with the quote. The rest of the paragraph, “Ps e-e-e+, balancing the twice as strong charge up with the half as strong anti-charge flows down.”, now seems wrong.
If the earth is emitting twice as many photons as antiphotons (from the northern hemisphere), it may follow there are likely twice as many electrons (e+) as there are positrons (e-). The northern hemisphere Orthopositronium electron configuration that best channels and dissipates the emitted available charge may be Ps e-e+e+, one positron on top and two electrons below, the electron triplet shown in column j.  

/\\///\\\\/////\\\\\\/////\\\\///\\/

For your consideration, the Positronium ion.

What is the lifetime of positronium ions?
FEBRUARY 22, 2006
https://phys.org/news/2006-02-lifetime-positronium-ions.html

The positronium ion is the most simply built negative ion imaginable, made of just two electrons and a positron. This exotic combination is unstable: after just a few fractions of a billionth of a second it decays into gamma rays. Scientists from the Max Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics in Heidelberg have now begun closely examining this short-lived three-particle system. With an unprecedented accuracy, they measured the lifetime of positronium ions.

.

Hi Airman. I haven't read past your first post. You said: "Mainstream believes that the positive charge of the proton within the Hydrogen atom is equal and opposite to the negative charge of Hydrogen’s electron. Mainstream’s assumed equal and opposite charges is simply wrong."

Miles has said that neutral atoms emit very little charge, which is why they're neutral, whereas ions emit considerable charge. Neutral atoms recycle their own charge, but very little leaves or enters to or from outside. He said electrons block emission and I guess they block reception as well. Right?

I like the idea of pressure to explain attraction and repulsion. High pressure is attracted to low pressure, but repelled from other high pressure. I imagine protons to be high pressure and electrons to be low pressure. That's about as far as my thinking gets before it stops.

I'd like to know where the mainstream went wrong, if they did, in assuming that there are equal numbers of protons and electrons in existence. Within neutral atoms the numbers are equal. Aren't they?

.
Lloyd wrote.

Hi Airman. I haven't read past your first post. You said: "Mainstream believes that the positive charge of the proton within the Hydrogen atom is equal and opposite to the negative charge of Hydrogen’s electron. Mainstream’s assumed equal and opposite charges is simply wrong."

Airman. Hi Lloyd, I don’t know if you're making an objection or not. Please pardon my repetitions. Here’s a good mainstream source for starters.
https://www.britannica.com/science/proton-subatomic-particle

Britannica wrote.
Proton, stable subatomic particle that has a positive charge equal in magnitude to a unit of electron charge and a rest mass of 1.67262 × 10−27 kg, which is 1,836 times the mass of an electron.

Airman. The proton is about 1,836 times the electron mass yet their charges are equal and opposite. According to the charge field, the proton must be recycling about 1,836 times as much charge as the electron.  

The Britannica quote continued.  
Protons, together with electrically neutral particles called neutrons, make up all atomic nuclei except for the hydrogen nucleus (which consists of a single proton). Every nucleus of a given chemical element has the same number of protons. This number defines the atomic number of an element and determines the position of the element in the periodic table. When the number of protons in a nucleus equals the number of electrons orbiting the nucleus, the atom is electrically neutral.

Lloyd wrote.

Miles has said that neutral atoms emit very little charge, which is why they're neutral, whereas ions emit considerable charge.

Airman. I disagree. The number of electrons present at say the charge intakes or interior locations within the molecule or proton matter is an indication of the energy level of the proton matter, not it’s neutrality. The greater the energy level, the more electrons are blown away from the charge channels, increasing the charge flow, emission energy and a measured increase in ionization levels.

Lloyd wrote.

The atomic number equals the number of protons (or neutrons) and if the number of electrons is the same the atom is neutral?

Airman. According to Britannica, yes, the mainstream believes that the pluses and minuses should be equal but that is not true according to the charge field, the atom is simply recycling charge at a lower energy level.

Lloyd wrote.

Neutral atoms recycle their own charge, but very little leaves or enters to or from outside. He said electrons block emission and I guess they block reception as well. Right?

Airman. I disagree. ‘Neutral’ is a mainstream idea indicating balanced charges that doesn’t equate with the notion of charge channeling and recycling. Charge is emitted by atoms mainly at the proton equators, at an energy level commensurate with the ionization level. Neutrons have the special ability to recapture much of their emitted photons, reducing their charge emissions to something like 60 percent compared to protons, making them appear neutral.

Lloyd wrote.

I like the idea of pressure to explain attraction and repulsion. High pressure is attracted to low pressure, but repelled from other high pressure. I imagine protons to be high pressure and electrons to be low pressure. That's about as far as my thinking gets before it stops.

Airman. A high pressure charge zone is caused by the photon charge vorticies that form over the protons’ pole as the charge enters the pole, pushing electrons to closely orbit the pole. Above the proton’s other pole there is a zone of reduced charge. If a passing proton is well oriented and of the right spin, the charge field will push the two protons together.

Lloyd wrote.

I'd like to know where the mainstream went wrong, if they did, in assuming that there are equal numbers of protons and electrons in existence. Within neutral atoms the numbers are equal. Aren't they?

Airman. I suppose mainstream went wrong when their test equipment measured plus and minus charges close to the atom, which they must have attributed to the electrons and protons present. I guess they assumed that in order for the atom to form, those charges must balance, but that's incorrect, there is no such balance. All charged particles: electrons protons, neutrons, planets, stars and galaxies simply recycle and emit charge.

P.S. Yes, there is a balance in proton/neutron/electron numbers, but that’s due to atomic configuration constraints – not charge neutrality as mainstream assumes. At the top of this thread I include a diagram of the Helium atom, aka the Alpha unit, - the minimum stable atomic structure consisting of 2 protons, 2 neutrons, and two electrons. Larger atoms are built up from many alphas.  You may argue the alpha is a neutral particle, but the important fact is the alpha’s ability to maintain its configuration despite constant charge collisions.
.

Hi LTAM,

Have you seen Miles' recent papers? He has a few mentions of spin and the color spectrum.

http://milesmathis.com/emc.pdf
http://milesmathis.com/aurora2.pdf

.
Hey Cr6, thanks for pointing them out. I had finished aurora2 earlier today because of Miles’ latest update and then I re-read emc at your suggestion. For one thing, Miles clearly states matter cannot absorb or emit charge, charge may only be channeled. That must mean my idea of charge particles filling each stacked spin is not correct. And electrons are not miniature protons and they do not recycle charge as protons do. On the electromagnetic spectrum, the difference between electrons and x-ray, visible, and infrared photons are spin ups or spin downs. The “nucleus” of the electron is its stacked spins with charge either spinning up or spinning down as it passes through the electron. Much as Nevyn modeled and I completely objected. Oh well, live and learn, all revelations are good.  

With respect to this Positronium thread, I believe it’s still correct to say that the protons of well aligned alphas do not come into direct contact, protected by the electrons orbiting those alpha proton poles. Opposing protons can maintain their stable separation. Electrons cannot form stable structures because well aligned pair or triplet electrons do not have smaller charge photons orbiting between them preventing each electron from direct pole-to-pole collisions. Protons can also form pole to equator configurations which electrons cannot.

Cr6 wrote. “He has a few mentions of spin and the color spectrum”.

Thanks for the additional soul searching, but I probably misunderstood your comment.

What do you mean by Miles' mentions of the color spectrum?
.

Sorry for the late reply but what actually creates "color"? I think that is where the ultimate question is at this level. Photons at particular angles? Asking for a friend here LTAM tbh. What materials constantly change color like statically the atoms don't change but the photon reflections in the eye do? Forgive the obtuseness. Like I'm looking at five cars side by side with different colors...why does my eye catch different solid colors...but changes if I look away? Same with the color spectrum. Basically how does photon stacking create this?

https://medium.com/cortically-magnified/estimating-the-number-of-photons-that-hit-the-eye-c0208e7e0b64

.
I’m not real confident talking about colors Cr6, but I’ll try giving it a go. Note Miles latest paper on the two slit experiment*. He makes several appropriate comments; such as, all matter is recycling charge all the time, we do not need lasers to create an interference pattern that already exists in the ambient field, all we need do is tune our photo receptors to the infrared. We never noticed the pre-existing infrared interference patterns, Miles mentions snakes and frogs do. Scientists discount the infrared emissions as heat - undesirable black body radiation. Lasers however do supply a great deal of higher energy visible wavelength photons which do increase the overall average ambient photon energy levels making it easy to see.   

People assume we see by the light of the sun, reflecting off objects, but that's incorrect. True, the sun is increasing the ambient photon energy level, but we do not see objects by “reflection”. Our eyes perceive a subset of the photons directly emitted by some object.

Ok, back to your question. The physiological constraints are important. Each photo receptor, (the rods and cones: their number, type, distribution and orientation on the eye’s internal spherical surface) can can detect a small real angle of its surroundings, of the particular type photon “interference” it is capable of detecting. The brain then integrates all the detector outputs into a single coherent “image”. The five vehicles parked side-by-side have different molecular spacings or gratings which our eyes detect as different colors. You use your center of view to best appreciate that. When you turn your eyes away slightly, you “see” those vehicles with the entirely different set of rods and cones at that particular (say azimuth and elevation) angle away from center view within you eyeball.

No spin stacking necessary(?).

Thanks for the break Cr6, I’ve got to get back to √Φ, the phi based origin, I’d like to reply today or tomorrow but it requires growing new brain cells and is slow going.

*
NEW PAPER, added 7/14/21, The Two-Slit Experiment Revisited. http://milesmathis.com/two2.pdf A new video at youtube allows me to hit this again, even harder.
.