PDA

View Full Version : Electrons From Photons



Squashed
2007-Jan-16, 08:35 PM
Over in another thread an objection by Celestial Mechanic was made to my implication that electrons (and all sub-atomic particles) are made from photons.

In this post (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=902111&postcount=327) I responded that when an electron/positron pair annihilate only two photons are produced from the interaction - these two photons are the only by-products of the collision.

All the mass-energy of the electron/positron pair is accounted for in the two gamma photons and so if there is a 3rd charged particle that is required to create an electron then it must; therefore, have no mass-energy.

All the momentum of the electron/positron pair is also accounted for in the two gamma photons and so if there is a 3rd charged particle that is required to create an electron then it must; consequently, have no momentum.

It seems likely to me that the electron is simply the result of a "trapped" photon that is caught in a cyclical path that produces the pseudo-quality that we call "rest mass".

While off exploring other venues of the internet (via Google) I discovered this paper (http://members.chello.nl/~n.benschop/electron.pdf) that outlines a possible mechanism whereby an electron can be created from a single photon.

I have also read others' accounts of "standing waves" and other similar such descriptions of matter but I figured I'd ask the most knowledgeable audience I know, you all:

How could an electron (or positron) be created from a single photon and still have charge, spin, and all the other qualities of an electron?

And if it is impossible to create an electron (or positron) from a single photon then where did the missing electron qualities go that were not present in the resulting photon(s) from the electron/positron annihilation?

Peter Wilson
2007-Jan-16, 09:10 PM
Electron/positron pairs have complimentary properties.

You cannot create a single electron or positron from one photon, because there would be a charge imbalance...at the very least.

Squashed
2007-Jan-17, 05:21 PM
Electron/positron pairs have complimentary properties.

You cannot create a single electron or positron from one photon, because there would be a charge imbalance...at the very least.

Since only two photons result from the electron/positron annihilation then logically since we started with two entities and ended with two entities then it seems quite likely that the entities were just converted from one state to another state.

The only other way that I can envision such a one-to-one conversion is if half of one photon and half of the other photon created one particle while the two remaining halves created the anti-particle which is still a one-to-one conversion but using unique halves to create a single particle rather than one whole photon to create one whole particle.

The halving sounds a little incredulous unless we consider that photons are just packets of moving energy and the energy can be divided.

I am thinking photons are a type of oscillating energy or structure which, because of the oscillation, allows the photon to appear as a wave and also as a particle.

Imagine two equal mass bodies orbiting each other then if these two bodies were forced to go through a defracting slit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slit_experiment) then part of the attempts would be successful because the axis through the two bodies would be aligned with the slit but the rest of the attempts would be unsuccessful because the axis is aligned perpendicular to the slit.

When the axis is parallel the two bodies would appear to be a wave but when the axis is perpendicular the two bodies would appear to be a particle.

The toroidal oscillation would be likewise affected by a slit which would result in the familiar pattern (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Diffraction1.png) seen in such diffraction experiments.

01101001
2007-Jan-17, 06:21 PM
Since only two photons result from the electron/positron annihilation then logically since we started with two entities and ended with two entities then it seems quite likely that the entities were just converted from one state to another state.

Who couldn't recognize an instance of the famous Law of Conservation of Entity Count? Me. Do you have a cite for it? I'd like to read more.


I am thinking photons are a type of oscillating energy or structure which, because of the oscillation, allows the photon to appear as a wave and also as a particle.

Imagine two equal mass bodies orbiting each other then if these two bodies were forced to go through a defracting slit then part of the attempts would be successful because the axis through the two bodies would be aligned with the slit but the rest of the attempts would be unsuccessful because the axis is aligned perpendicular to the slit.

When the axis is parallel the two bodies would appear to be a wave but when the axis is perpendicular the two bodies would appear to be a particle.

The toroidal oscillation would be likewise affected by a slit which would result in the familiar pattern seen in such diffraction experiments.

This smells like advocacy. I suggest in Q&A, if you have a question, you try different punctuation: more question marks and fewer periods. Thanks.

Squashed
2007-Jan-17, 09:30 PM
Who couldn't recognize an instance of the famous Law of Conservation of Entity Count? Me. Do you have a cite for it? I'd like to read more.



This smells like advocacy. I suggest in Q&A, if you have a question, you try different punctuation: more question marks and fewer periods. Thanks.

I'll have to do a bit of research on the "Law of Conservation of Entity Count" but I am pretty sure it is a valid premise upon which the very foundation of physics is built.

Anyways, my advocacy is in one effect a manner of visualizing, with "concrete" concepts, the properties of a photon.

After reading this here thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=40056) from the "Similar Threads" section at the bottom of this thread I note that if energy is just a attribute/property of entities then there must be something "solid" which possesses the attribute or property and thus I came up with the mutually orbiting masses analogy.

I'll keep in mind your other suggestions pertaining to punctuation and sentence structure but I would like to make the defensive statement that: my original post did have two bonifide questions in it!!!

01101001
2007-Jan-17, 11:02 PM
I'll have to do a bit of research on the "Law of Conservation of Entity Count" but I am pretty sure it is a valid premise upon which the very foundation of physics is built.

Maybe Conservation of Lepton Number? Conservation of Baryon Number?

I'm not a particle physicst, so I don't know about these entities that might be conserved. It's not a term from the art is it?

I think I've seen particle interaction diagrams where there were more or fewer entities, as Webster and I use the word, before and after.

When a neutron decays into a proton, electron, and antineutrino: what would your entity-accounting ledger look like?


I'll keep in mind your other suggestions pertaining to punctuation and sentence structure but I would like to make the defensive statement that: my original post did have two bonifide questions in it!!!

Indeed. That was good. Keep the questions coming.

Squashed
2007-Jan-18, 03:10 PM
...

I'm not a particle physicst, so I don't know about these entities that might be conserved. It's not a term from the art is it?

I think I've seen particle interaction diagrams where there were more or fewer entities, as Webster and I use the word, before and after.

When a neutron decays into a proton, electron, and antineutrino: what would your entity-accounting ledger look like?

...

I, too, am not a particle physicist but I now find myself interested in this very topic due to my exploration of other topics, more specifically relativity.

It seems to me that since there has been little input into this thread that:

1. either we have very few participants with particle physics experience/knowledge or

2. particle physicists are a tight-lipped bunch -

I tend to the former because it is the more optimistic outlook on the situation.

But aside from the above ponderings I know from the Wikipedia knowledge that I have gained that the electron/positron interaction can lead to an assortment of different particle/photon conclusions but the most simple is when the two turn into just two gamma photons.

I think I will have to get a book on particle physics and read up on the subject but until then I will engage in a discourse of thought below:



If matter is just "trapped" photons - that are in an oscillating path - then it seems sensible to believe that the oscillation path size is dependent upon the photon's wavelength.

To illustrate take two identical linear sinusoidal curves and bend them around a circle - there is only one circle diameter that will allow the two sinusoidal curves to occur without either overlap or empty gaps.

So with that thought in mind then if photon wavelengths are stretched out due to the disintegration of the big bang gravity well then so too would the size of the electron and all other forms of matter since the actual size of these matter particles is dependent upon the wavelength of the photons that create the matter particles.

So our physical meterstick would actually grow proportionally in relation to the lessening gravity well of the big bang and since the gravity well has disintegrated then our meterstick is growing more and more slowly with time due to a more constant gravity background.

Looking backward in time with a telescope should reveal that things are growing quicker the farther away we look than our current meterstick and ergo: space expansion.

trinitree88
2007-Jan-18, 06:02 PM
Over in another thread an objection by Celestial Mechanic was made to my implication that electrons (and all sub-atomic particles) are made from photons.

In this post (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=902111&postcount=327) I responded that when an electron/positron pair annihilate only two photons are produced from the interaction - these two photons are the only by-products of the collision.

All the mass-energy of the electron/positron pair is accounted for in the two gamma photons and so if there is a 3rd charged particle that is required to create an electron then it must; therefore, have no mass-energy.

All the momentum of the electron/positron pair is also accounted for in the two gamma photons and so if there is a 3rd charged particle that is required to create an electron then it must; consequently, have no momentum.

It seems likely to me that the electron is simply the result of a "trapped" photon that is caught in a cyclical path that produces the pseudo-quality that we call "rest mass".

While off exploring other venues of the internet (via Google) I discovered this paper (http://members.chello.nl/~n.benschop/electron.pdf) that outlines a possible mechanism whereby an electron can be created from a single photon.

I have also read others' accounts of "standing waves" and other similar such descriptions of matter but I figured I'd ask the most knowledgeable audience I know, you all:

How could an electron (or positron) be created from a single photon and still have charge, spin, and all the other qualities of an electron?

And if it is impossible to create an electron (or positron) from a single photon then where did the missing electron qualities go that were not present in the resulting photon(s) from the electron/positron annihilation?

Squashed. Not true. It is true that you can get two gamma ray photons totally 1.022 Mev from e+/ e - annihilation...but it's not limited to two 511 kev's at 180 degrees . You can also get three lesser photons at 120 degrees in a plane (co-planar). Divide 1.022 by 3. Homework.
The weak force creates electrons when a W- decays to an electron and an electron type antineutrino. If you had a photon of sufficient energy to create a W+/W - pair....then in the decay of the pair (where conservation laws are upheld)...you get an electron......along with the antineutrino, and the positron from the other W, and a neutrino along with that positron. So you could say that a high energy enough photon can create an electron, but associated production of charged pairs prohibits just that alone happening. OK? Pete.

Aristocrates
2007-Jan-18, 06:19 PM
I'm also not a particle physicist, but it's my understanding that particles that interact to form other particles, or that decay into other particles, were not necessarily ever "made of" those resulting particles. The new particles resulting from the event merely need to have the right properties to preserve things like total charge, momentum, etc.

Can anyone confirm this?

trinitree88
2007-Jan-18, 06:26 PM
I'm also not a particle physicist, but it's my understanding that particles that interact to form other particles, or that decay into other particles, were not necessarily ever "made of" those resulting particles. The new particles resulting from the event merely need to have the right properties to preserve things like total charge, momentum, etc.

Can anyone confirm this?

Aris...You are correct. A good primer for rookies is Asimov's "The Neutrino"..paperback...or his "The Electron, Proton, and Neutron". In all his texts, I've found one typo. Wish I could say that.Pete.

Squashed
2007-Jan-18, 06:59 PM
Aris...You are correct. A good primer for rookies is Asimov's "The Neutrino"..paperback...or his "The Electron, Proton, and Neutron". In all his texts, I've found one typo. Wish I could say that.Pete.

trinitree88, thanks for the replies and the two book references. I'm not a big fan of Asimov but I will try to acquire and read the books.

In no particular order are the following Wikipedia topics:

Pair production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_creation)

Electron-positron annihilation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron-positron_annihilation)

W and Z bosons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W_boson)

Standard Model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_model)

Particle physics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_physics)

trinitree88, do you have experience in the particle physics field?

sirius0
2007-Jan-18, 09:08 PM
I sometimes wonder if all these particles are like a guitar string where you get the particle your after by placing your finger on the appropiate fret.



I was taught that light can be understood to be a varying electric field inducing a varying magnetic feild that induces the next cycle of vaying elcetric field and so on as it propagates. Well doesn't the varying electric field infer that it might have charge ihidden in their? Could the abillity to vary strength of feild be because of an interference pattern between a positive and negative charge?

trinitree88
2007-Jan-18, 09:11 PM
trinitree88, thanks for the replies and the two book references. I'm not a big fan of Asimov but I will try to acquire and read the books.

In no particular order are the following Wikipedia topics:

Pair production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_creation)

Electron-positron annihilation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron-positron_annihilation)

W and Z bosons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W_boson)

Standard Model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_model)

Particle physics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_physics)

trinitree88, do you have experience in the particle physics field?

Squashed. I am a photographic chemist. I teach physics, chemistry, biology, physical science, and photography at times...have used cloud chambers, geiger counters, scintillation counters, calibrated wire chambers for CEBAF, done X-ray sensitometry. I have an interest in astrophysics..... particularly supernovae, neutrino physics, weak interactions, high energy physics. I have been a lecture-junkie at various universities in Greater Boston, and have worked at the Bates Linear Accelerator in Middleton, and the Nuclear Interaction Group @ MIT's Cambridge campus for a summer. I give talks at AAPT Meetings and AAPT joint APS Meetings in the Northeast. Still, I can only answer some questions with regards to particle physics, but I field most of the FAQ from my students OTOMH.
I think you will find the differing opinions in the field at times bewildering, but a concensus will develop in your mind as you go. Beware the journal articles that are found to be wrong are never highlighted in yellow like a carefully noted textbook. Asimov makes few errors in his introductory materials, and is a good place to start but not the only one.
Asking the right questions is, in my mind, the ultimate skill of a good scientist. Good luck. Ask away. Pete.

Squashed
2007-Jan-19, 12:45 AM
Squashed. I am a photographic chemist. ...
Pete.

Thanks for the impressive resume'. I mainly asked because I was curious if my comments about particle physicists and the posting population inspired your reply. I meant no ill by either approach.

I know that I have read about other's recommending your expertise on neutrinos but that is about all I knew of your experience (maybe I should have read your profile?).

Thanks again.

trinitree88
2007-Jan-19, 01:09 AM
Thanks for the impressive resume'. I mainly asked because I was curious if my comments about particle physicists and the posting population inspired your reply. I meant no ill by either approach.

I know that I have read about other's recommending your expertise on neutrinos but that is about all I knew of your experience (maybe I should have read your profile?).

Thanks again.

Squashed. You're entirely welcome. I was,quite frankly, embarassed to discover that I had reached my early thirties, had taught for about 7 years and had never heard of a neutrino. I resolved to do something about that as a matter of self study as the NSF had abandoned their educational funding.
Now whenever I teach conservation of momentum, I remind students that even Nobel laureate luminaries like Marie Curie and Niels Bohr both considered abandoning the law of conservation of momentum with regards to beta decay.(antineutrinos were to blame).They both said later it was a monumental blunder in their careers...(I won't entertain you with my own sorties there...) Neutrinos and their anti-particles fall quite logically out of conservation laws....detecting them (Cowan & Rheines).. was another matter.
Glad to help. I am of a limited opinion with regards to neutrino masses though. If they're massive, they're subluminal..Special Theory....and that means they're indistinguishable from their anti-particles, which means abandoning a conservation law.....(those who do not learn from history are doomed to.......Baudelaire?). Massless neutrinos keep the conservation laws.Believe. Pete.

Squashed
2007-Jan-23, 02:44 AM
Aris...You are correct. A good primer for rookies is Asimov's "The Neutrino"..paperback...or his "The Electron, Proton, and Neutron". In all his texts, I've found one typo. Wish I could say that.Pete.

Well, I went to the library to get the two books you recommended, I typed into the computer author search "Asimov" and was surprised to see so many books written by the man!!!

Unfortunately the library did not have either of the two books amongst the multitude that the library did have.

I always thought Asimov just wrote science books, specifically astronomy, but was I ever wrong!!!

The most interesting book title I encountered (other than astronomy titles) was the book: Animals of the Bible by Isaac Asimov with pictures by Howard Berelson; intrigued, I checked it out from the juvenile section of the library.

I noted one typo on the page about camels in which he writes: "Jeremiah refers to a switly running dromedary."

Also, on the page about the hippopotamus Asimov states that it is mentioned in the Bible as the "behemoth" and so, curious, I looked it up and found the following description:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JOB 40:15 "Look at the behemoth,
which I made along with you
and which feeds on grass like an ox.

JOB 40:16 What strength he has in his loins,
what power in the muscles of his belly!

JOB 40:17 His tail sways like a cedar;
the sinews of his thighs are close-knit.

JOB 40:18 His bones are tubes of bronze,
his limbs like rods of iron.

JOB 40:19 He ranks first among the works of God,
yet his Maker can approach him with his sword.

JOB 40:20 The hills bring him their produce,
and all the wild animals play nearby.

JOB 40:21 Under the lotus plants he lies,
hidden among the reeds in the marsh.

JOB 40:22 The lotuses conceal him in their shadow;
the poplars by the stream surround him.

JOB 40:23 When the river rages, he is not alarmed;
he is secure, though the Jordan should surge against his mouth.

JOB 40:24 Can anyone capture him by the eyes,
or trap him and pierce his nose?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The description seems to describe a hippo except in JOB 40:17 which states: "His tail sways like a cedar; ..." which does not sound like a hippo's tail.

The passage then goes on about a leviathon which sounds like a whale - the transition is indistinct but since the behemoth is described with "limbs like rods of iron" then the behemoth can't be the leviathon.

It was a short book (since it is from the juvenile section) and there was no other remarkable things to note other than about how it describes where humans got the domesticated animals like the horse, cattle, cat, dog, donkey, etc.

That was kinda interesting.

Jeff Root
2007-Jan-23, 03:48 AM
The sleeping beast that by the Nile dreameth
Some scholars call behemoth
While scholars of another cloth
Prefer to call him behemoth
And others still, rejecting both,
Insist he is a behemoth.
The beast is one, the name trichotomous:
In fact he's hippopotamus.

trinitree88
2007-Jan-23, 07:14 PM
Well, I went to the library to get the two books you recommended, I typed into the computer author search "Asimov" and was surprised to see so many books written by the man!!!

Snippet: Once Asimov became a successful author, he hired ghost writers to assist him...hence his prolific output....but it has his "spin" on things. I learned a lot from the man...now with two typos...:shifty: lol. pete

Squashed
2007-Jan-23, 10:02 PM
Snippet: Once Asimov became a successful author, he hired ghost writers to assist him...hence his prolific output....but it has his "spin" on things. I learned a lot from the man...now with two typos...:shifty: lol. pete

Thanks for the PM - I tried to send a reply with my thanks but got the following message:

"trinitree88 has exceeded their stored private messages quota and can not accept further messages until they clear some space."

grant hutchison
2007-Jan-23, 10:17 PM
Snippet: Once Asimov became a successful author, he hired ghost writers to assist him ...Wow. That's a serious claim, since Asimov on many occasions maintained that he researched and wrote everything himself. Where did you get your information from?

Squashed, if it's interesting titles you're after, Asimov also wrote a book entitled "The Sensuous Dirty Old Man", which perhaps wasn't available at your library. :)

Grant Hutchison

trinitree88
2007-Jan-23, 11:20 PM
Wow. That's a serious claim, since Asimov on many occasions maintained that he researched and wrote everything himself. Where did you get your information from?

Squashed, if it's interesting titles you're after, Asimov also wrote a book entitled "The Sensuous Dirty Old Man", which perhaps wasn't available at your library. :)

Grant Hutchison
Grant. See [url]http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G17168794.html[url]

pete

trinitree88
2007-Jan-23, 11:21 PM
Wow. That's a serious claim, since Asimov on many occasions maintained that he researched and wrote everything himself. Where did you get your information from?

Squashed, if it's interesting titles you're after, Asimov also wrote a book entitled "The Sensuous Dirty Old Man", which perhaps wasn't available at your library. :)

Grant Hutchison
Grant. See http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G17168794.html

pete

grant hutchison
2007-Jan-23, 11:29 PM
Grant. See http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G17168794.html"File not found", I'm afraid.

G

Squashed
2007-Jan-24, 01:14 AM
...

Squashed, if it's interesting titles you're after, Asimov also wrote a book entitled "The Sensuous Dirty Old Man", which perhaps wasn't available at your library. :)

Grant Hutchison

Grant, I thought you were joking with that title but then I looked it up and sure enough the book is there: http://www.answers.com/topic/isaac-asimov-complete-bibliography

Here is Wikipedia's article on the man: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Asimov

Jeff Root
2007-Jan-24, 07:20 AM
In high school in 1971 I had a class in which we each gave a talk
about someone we admired. I talked about Isaac Asimov. The
teacher was unaware of Asimov before my talk. I got an A+ :)

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

trinitree88
2007-Jan-24, 11:42 PM
"File not found", I'm afraid.

G

Hmm. try Google: Isaac Asimov ghost writers...that's where I found it
Pete.

Kaptain K
2007-Jan-25, 01:26 PM
I agree with grant hutchison. I remember the intro to one of his books in which he mentioned that one of the major news weeklies (Newsweek?) had called him the lynchpin of a group of writers. He emphatically denied it!

trinitree88
2007-Jan-30, 09:35 AM
I agree with grant hutchison. I remember the intro to one of his books in which he mentioned that one of the major news weeklies (Newsweek?) had called him the lynchpin of a group of writers. He emphatically denied it!

KK. And the website author calmly claimed years of ghost writing.....Pete.

grant hutchison
2007-Jan-30, 10:49 AM
KK. And the website author calmly claimed years of ghost writing...Did (s)he provide any supporting evidence?
Presumably there has been nothing to stop one of these ghost writers from stepping forward in the years since Asimov's death.

Grant Hutchison

Jeff Root
2007-Jan-30, 04:09 PM
I have a set of books, "Isaac Asimov's New Library of the Universe",
originally written by Isaac, but revised and updated after his death by
Francis Reddy (an online acquaintence who kindly sent them to me).
Greg Walz-Chojnacki is also credited. Since Isaac was a word person
and didn't deal much with pictures, I suspect that Greg may have
handled the pictures. These are books for young children, with large
print and well over half the page area taken up by pictures. Isaac
may have been able to write one or two of the books per day.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

trinitree88
2007-Apr-14, 06:57 PM
Did (s)he provide any supporting evidence?
Presumably there has been nothing to stop one of these ghost writers from stepping forward in the years since Asimov's death.

Grant Hutchison

Grant. I'm not going to chase it on Google anymore. I have a lot of respect for both Isaac's teaching/writing skills, and yourself, and am not interested in beleaguring his reputation, so I'll leave it at that. Somebody else said so.pete

grant hutchison
2007-Apr-14, 07:59 PM
Pete:
Thanks for coming back to pick up this thread. Many would have left it dangling under these circumstances, and I do appreciate the time you've spent on trying to reach a resolution. :)

Grant Hutchison

Ken G
2007-Apr-15, 04:17 PM
I am of a limited opinion with regards to neutrino masses though. If they're massive, they're subluminal..Special Theory....and that means they're indistinguishable from their anti-particles, which means abandoning a conservation law.....(those who do not learn from history are doomed to.......Baudelaire?). Massless neutrinos keep the conservation laws.Believe. Pete.

Found this in the revived thread-- this sounds very misleading to me. Photons are massless, and are indistinguishable from their antiparticles. Why does that not break the conservation law you are referring to? And why would neutrinos with mass be indistinguishable from their antiparticles, while photons without mass are so indistinguishable?

trinitree88
2007-Apr-16, 11:52 PM
Found this in the revived thread-- this sounds very misleading to me. Photons are massless, and are indistinguishable from their antiparticles. Why does that not break the conservation law you are referring to? And why would neutrinos with mass be indistinguishable from their antiparticles, while photons without mass are so indistinguishable?

Ken G. True. Photons are massless, travel at c, and are indistinguishable from their antiparticles. Going forwards or backwards they look the same.With regards to lepton conservation;, be it electron family number, or muon family number or tau family number...photons are assigned a value of zero. You can make as many as you want, or destroy them nilly-willy with no consequence to the three families of conserved properties.
With regards to electron-type neutrinos, they have equal and opposite electron family number (1, -1) to their antiparticles (electron-type antineutrinos). So, if a photon creates a (neutrino/antineutrino pair)...you start with zero and end with zero. Nice and simple.
The same applies to a photon creating a (muon-type neutrino/ muon-type antineutrino pair)..(1,-1)...net zero...or a (tau-type neutrino/ tau type antineutrino pair)..(1,-1)...net zero change of lepton number, or family number.
What characterizes neutrinos as different from photons is that they have half integral spins(1/2, 3/2. etc) as fermions instead of integral spins (1,2,3,etc) as bosons, and they have assigned helicities. The helicity can be thought of as right and left-handed screws. Picture a wood screw with you turning a screwdriver clockwise to send it into the wood. You then turn the same screw counterclockwise to make it come back towards you.
If on the other hand, you have a left-handed screw, you turn it clockwise to back it off towards you, and the counterclockwise motion drives it into the wood. So the two screws of opposite helicity are not the same.
Now, the neutrino and antineutrino. If they are of opposite helicities, they are distinguishable and have different family numbers. If they are massless and travel at c...you will never catch them in your best spaceship, since SR forbids you (with non-zero rest mass) from attaining c. Away they go forever.
But, if they are massive (non-zero rest mass) like you...they can never attain c according to SR. That means you could at least in principle build a spaceship that flies closer to c than they.....and a neutrino twisting away from you in one clockmotion sense can be chased from behind and overtaken ...now twisting in the same way but approaching you as you exceed it's velocity. You have by virtue of your change of velocity converted a lepton into an antilepton with opposite helicity and lepton number. This has never been seen in a particle physics run.
The oscillation of neutrinos that has been seen has always been accompanied by traversing a matter path length...never in vacuo/sea. That suggests a superposition of neutrino/matter eigenstates and does not guarantee neutrino masses. True rest masses ought to oscillate in vacuum without a matter path. Moon base Alpha is calling. Pete.
Hope that helps.