-----Original Message----- From: Bob Cook > Is it your understanding that the paired electrons with 0 spin have a charge of -2?, even though they are one-dimensional? You indicated that they had a negative charge. It sounds like you are describing a different primary particle in real space.
Bob, much of this is based on Fred Sparber's ideas for this species. FS is not with us anymore, except as the smile of the Cheshire cat. He often mentioned fractional charge. Because extra spatial dimensions are poorly understood, I am assuming that a portion of charge is hidden, not gone buy hidden - but aside from that - we can get some clues from the FQHE. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_quantum_Hall_effect > Also is the reciprocal space you refer to the same as the space of the Dirac sea? The use of similar terms can make a discussion confusing, if it is assumed that they do not reflect the same idea. Dirac developed both concepts, but as far as I know, he never stated that reciprocal space was the identical locus for negative energy, so that is an inference which may be problematic. AFAIK Dirac considered reciprocal space a mathematical construct but the sea of negative energy to be real. However, it would be possible to integrate the two. > I have always assumed, maybe wrongly, that paired electrons in a molecule or atom were not a "singlet state" with 0 angular momentum and an effective -2 charge. That seems correct to me. This description of (e*) only applies to “free electrons” which are unbound, not valence electrons, not Cooper pairs. This is the species old Ben Franklin would have picked up with his kite, prior to electrocution by a lightning bolt :-) > I thought each electron obeyed Fermi statistics which requires each electron in the paired configuration (what you call a singlet state) to occupy a different energy state. The two electrons would be in different states as (e*) and would obey Fermi statistics. > The opposite spin vector provides for the differential energy of the two electrons in the "singlet state" AFAIK. This is where the problem would seem to lie. Differential energy could be the result of other parameters. Fermi statistics AFAIK do not demand that every parameter is different. Your comment:>>>> some portion of them is actually a singlet state of two electrons bound to an interfacial positron “hole” (the hole stays in reciprocal space)<<<< seems to suggest a bound pair of positrons in reciprocal space matching the electron-pair in real space and bound to them. Is that the possibility you suggest? No – my suggestion is one positron (hole) and two electrons. The positron is not in our 3-Space but both electrons are. Sparber’s version was different. Jones
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
