The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Would two hypothetical massless particles remain stationary?  (Read 2062 times)

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3157
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
If we hypothetically had two massless particles but of substance, both of negative energies, 1cm apart in a void, neither particle would be attracted or repelled by one another and would remain stationary?

« Last Edit: 09/10/2015 09:43:10 by Thebox »


 

Online Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1811
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Can you explain what you mean by massless particles "of substance"?

How do you obtain massless particles that are not travelling at c from the point/time of generation?
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3157
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Can you explain what you mean by massless particles "of substance"?

How do you obtain massless particles that are not travelling at c from the point/time of generation?


They are hypothetical negative monpole particles so that is how we get them to be in a void with no momentum , by substance I mean they are made of something opposed to being ''ghost'' like,


We are assuming the particles exist without any energy  and are a ''god particle''.  An elementary particle.


« Last Edit: 09/10/2015 19:11:14 by Thebox »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4704
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Tell us something about negative energy.
 

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4107
  • Thanked: 245 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: TheBox
hypothetical negative monopole particles
We have several very real negative monopole particles - the electron, the muon and the tau; together this group is classified with the "leptons" (meaning small, low mass).

Normally, when physicists talk about "hypothetical monopoles", they are talking about magnetic monopoles. If they exist (and some physicists are convinced that they do), they are thought to be quite massive (>600GeV/c2), and perhaps as massive as a black hole. Despite a number of experiments searching for them, there have been no repeatable observation of them.

Quote
two massless particles but of substance
"substance" is normally interpreted as "having mass".

The mass/energy of a lepton is not zero.
Someone who knows more about physics than I do could confirm whether having a negative charge causes a distortion in the electric field, which (in today's universe) carries an effective mass?

Quote
would remain stationary
If a particle has zero rest mass, and is stationary (has no momentum), then the particle has zero energy. Something with zero energy could hardly be called "substantial".

Please provide experimental evidence for such a particle.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3157
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Tell us something about negative energy.


I was thinking negative polarity rather than a negative energy, so I googled negative energy to find something already exists and I now think I have found a concept that already exists. You already know what I am saying dont you?

Now I feel a fool..


 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3157
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Tell us something about negative energy.

Negative energy is the entirety of space itself when in the form of a void it is a negative monopole.
 

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
Now I feel a fool..
Then why do you keep writing foolish things?
Physics is not "writing the first things that comes to mind", that is called "psychoanalysis"...

--
lightarrow
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3157
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Now I feel a fool..
Then why do you keep writing foolish things?
Physics is not "writing the first things that comes to mind", that is called "psychoanalysis"...

--
lightarrow


 ''A system of psychological theory and therapy which aims to treat mental disorders by investigating the interaction of conscious and unconscious elements in the mind and bringing repressed fears and conflicts into the conscious mind by techniques such as dream interpretation and free association.''

It helps me to think if I write it down, the one idea could be the important idea.   I am unsure of how this relates to why I write down the first thought that pops into my head, maybe I am evaluating myself , my own mind, or maybe I am evaluating the mind in general, I do not know, I just feel the need to speak, I am in a race against time, I have not got years to sit around I am poor, I need the now to be the now and hopefully by having a multiplex personality disorder, thinking faster than the speed of light, creating idea after idea , I may just get lucky.

My mind runs through different paths in what seems like a split second, I focus on my thinking and block out the rest of the world, yes you could argue that this is depression and I repress it by delusions of grandeur, to escape reality, but in this I found logical meaning to life, I do not feel depressed, I feel focused on ''trying to get lucky''

 

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
I feel focused on ''trying to get lucky''
Ok, but to increase the probability to have luck you can give more "structure" to your thoughts, relating them to base concepts.
In other words: the more your thoughts about physics are connected to real concepts of physics, the more "information" they have.
Using a metaphor, you can't become rich writing a novel with words taken "at chance", you have to use a general, precise language, a style, etc, etc.
In physics the language is "equations" and " precise formalization of concepts".
Regards.

--
lightarrow
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3157
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
I feel focused on ''trying to get lucky''
Ok, but to increase the probability to have luck you can give more "structure" to your thoughts, relating them to base concepts.
In other words: the more your thoughts about physics are connected to real concepts of physics, the more "information" they have.
Using a metaphor, you can't become rich writing a novel with words taken "at chance", you have to use a general, precise language, a style, etc, etc.
In physics the language is "equations" and " precise formalization of concepts".
Regards.

--
lightarrow

I do consider most of what I say is based on present information, base concepts that give me the ideas.  I am not  a scientist , more of a sort of mad ''inventor''  of science using science. I do not know all the maths, so sometimes make my own maths formulas that  make sense to me, but I do see your point. Mainly logic and visualising things in mind and asking myself questions is where my science comes from.

I.e In the title scenario, where does F=ma come from to make the particles move?   a question I ask myself, then I try and answer myself.  Drawing the conclusion that unless negative was attracted to negative there would be no force so no motion.

Then from this I consider atoms, protons, quarks and higgs parts to a set of the atom. Neither parts the same as an electron, so ask myself what holds the quarks together to draw a conclusion they are attracted to themselves, and so on to rule out possibilities leaving only one answer.







« Last Edit: 10/10/2015 23:25:09 by Thebox »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4704
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Putting scientific words in a sentence structure is not science. There's more to physics than simple word order, and if you get the physics wrong, you will not understand any other science.

Mathematics is a concise means of communicating scientific ideas but won't work if you invent youir own maths - you might as well invent a new language: just calling it French won't help you communicate with people who live in France.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3157
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Putting scientific words in a sentence structure is not science. There's more to physics than simple word order, and if you get the physics wrong, you will not understand any other science.

Mathematics is a concise means of communicating scientific ideas but won't work if you invent youir own maths - you might as well invent a new language: just calling it French won't help you communicate with people who live in France.

So true Alan but surely as long as I am using the same symbolic signs the language should be readable?

i.e  F   meaning force cubed , but you would say this is not maths. Or q/d   meaning twice the charge spread out over a distance.

q1←→q2=F/d=a   or something like this to represent opposing force.


= means gives the result rather than equals.


F/d is the result of q1←→q2

It a bit weird because if the partiles in the title are not going to move to each other, can we presume they oppose each other?

or can we presume they are attracted to each other with no energy added and it is energy that does the opposing?(water is slightly more a negative polarity).

Looking at every scenario in the title example

n1→←n2
n1.....n2
n1←→n2

P=.33^   

q1←→q2

P= 1


(q1,n1)←→/→←(q2,n2)
n1→←q2
q1→←n2
q1←→q2

P=1


(q1,n1)←→/→←(q2,n2)
n1→←n2
q1→←n2
n1→←q2
q1←→q2

P=1


you dont understand this?
« Last Edit: 11/10/2015 00:12:56 by Thebox »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums