Some reasoning why the photon is regarded as not having any specific antiparticle, but is its own antiparticle.
This is partly explained, or shown, for example, with two very high energy gamma-ray photons colliding resulting in an electron-positron pair. And suddenly we have a specific anti-particle (the positron). -Via the conservation of energy law. And the mass-energy equivalence (E=mc^2). That’s to say when two high energy gamma-ray photons merge or collide they alter shape, thereafter the created electron and positron annihilate to energy. Having two plain photons going through such collisions is not possible, when an electron-positron pair creation is in need of starting energies which photons do not have.
Such phenomenons were observed and the 1920’s physicists crafted new formulas, using the mentioned physics laws. I.e the observations evoked math that, with the undiscussable laws, explains or shows the specific event. Doesn’t this “process” with numbers and coherent rules cover up the explanation? To my understanding the math is – not – explaining. It’s some type of, more or less, exact number trick. OK, the basic laws are there and they seem to be fair and physically fully relevant in guiding the crafting of the formulas.
The all- general QM math is made by converting relevant observations to numbers and rules for the numbers. To very exact metaphors. Just like a slow motion video – without sound – showing these events. It’s exact without the describing words involved. Or the video may be a bit blurred or scrambled and not exactly, but sufficiently, depicting the QM event.
Still, physics is missing some relevant pieces, though the QM math is, exactly or adequately, showing – not describing – QM events. And the GR math with its own formulas is “showing” gravity in another, yet not in a unified, manner.
Whether a math trick or show the photons are there and unaware of the formulas. Obviously the “input” here was, amounts of variants of photons, gamma-ray photons. Probably it’s here somewhere one can speak of processes of showing observations, and not explaining them. To my knowledge Planck’s constant is only experimentally observed, if reasoning of the single photon, and defined as being a fundamental constant of nature. It’s not further explained how it was originally evoked into nature.
To conclude this short reasoning, of the photon or Planck’s constant, h, (the energy associated with the photon). Accepted for being a basic part of Universe or nature. Which leads to the physics science community using this central “value” when, for example, building parts of the continuing QM mathematics. Hence, probably, the “gap” between QM and GR remains. And the photon itself, refined from the standard model, was revealed to be without antiparticle. -Further explained, partly or fully, with the, in TOE page 2, presented QEB formula and its elementary manner of depicting one likely Universal evolutionary frame.
Regards
/admin