Post by: Courier of darkness on 08/03/2015 06:18:06
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F8%2F8c%2FElectron-positron-annihilation.png&hash=240653e858dcd2803cd38bc26df0e170)
If the positron has a negative mass -m, and the electron has a positive mass +m, their sum is
-m+m=0
Can we explain why the photon mass is zero (its rest-mass is 0)?
Is it 0 because the photon is the particle into which the pair positron-electron is transformed in the annihilation?
Post by: PmbPhy on 08/03/2015 07:05:37
Quote from: Courier of darkness
If the positron has a negative mass -m, and the electron has a positive mass +m, their sum isFirst off, welcome to the forum! :)
-m+m=0
Next: That's a really big if. What gave you the impression that such a thing is possible?
Quote from: Courier of darkness
Can we explain why the photon mass is zero (its rest-mass is 0)?I don't follow. The diagram you showed is a Feynman diagram but it is not the diagram of an electron annihilating a positron because you have an electron and positron coming out of the reaction. In between where you have the single photon that's a virtual photon and virtual photons have a mass which is off-the-shell of a real photon's energy-momentum curve. That means that the proper mass (i.e. rest mass) of the photon can be non-zero. Virtual photons can't be observed.
Quote from: Courier of darkness
Is it 0 because the photon is the particle into which the positron-electron pair is transformed in the annihilation?I don't see that from the actual diagram and its correct interpretation.
Post by: Courier of darkness on 08/03/2015 08:13:54
First off, welcome to the forum! :)Thanks.
Next: That's a really big if. What gave you the impression that such a thing is possible?Are you asking why I think that whether mass can be negative?
I told that negative mass can explain why the photon mass is 0, or rather why its rest-mass is 0.
Quote from: Courier of darkness
Can we explain why the photon mass is zero (its rest-mass is 0)?
I don't follow. The diagram you showed is a Feynman diagram but it is not the diagram of an electron annihilating a positron because you have an electron and positron coming out of the reaction. In between where you have the single photon that's a virtual photon and virtual photons have a mass which is off-the-shell of a real photon's energy-momentum curve. That means that the proper mass (i.e. rest mass) of the photon can be non-zero. Virtual photons can't be observed.Yes it is true that my picture is a Feynman diagram.
It is true that Feyman diagrams always repesent an action at distance, or an interaction between two particles.
Feynman diagrams are not supposed to represent a head-on collision of two particles.
The problem is, my picture represents a head-on collision of a positron and an electron.
In other words, a Feynman diagram can represent a collision of two particles, although it is not generally admitted or understood. My picture should not be understood as representing an interaction between two particles transmitted with a virtual photon. Because if that were true, what are the particles interacting with each others?
Quote from: Courier of darkness
Is it 0 because the photon is the particle into which the positron-electron pair is transformed in the annihilation?
I don't see that from the actual diagram and its correct interpretation.A pair creation happens when an electron and a positron are created out of the photon.
If there was during the "annihilation" a transformation of the pair positron-electron into a photon,
then the correct interpretation of the diagram is that there did not happen any actual annihilation.
Instead there was a transformation of the pair positron-electron into a photon.
Therefore the photon can transform back into the pair positron-electron during the pair creation.
Post by: UltimateTheory on 08/03/2015 08:57:27
total energy of particles prior annihilation is equal to total energy of particles after annihilation,
so,
2*me*c^2 = total energy of two-three rarely more photons
where
me=0.510999 MeV/c^2
y=0.510999 MeV
so
2*0.510999 MeV (electron-positron) = 2*0.510999 MeV (2 photons)
or
2*0.510999 MeV (electron-positron) = 3*0.340 MeV (3 photons)
If electron-positron have kinetic energy (particles not at rest before annihilation), photons after annihilation will have also more energy accordingly.
If positron would have me=-0.510999 MeV
Then equation would looks like:
-0.510999 MeV +0.510999 MeV = 0
so photons would have to have 0 total energy (!),
and all would be screwed.
Post by: PmbPhy on 08/03/2015 09:07:23
Quote from: Courier of darkness
Are you asking why I think that whether mass can be negative?No. It's clear to me that you think that it can be negative. I'm asking you exactly what I posted, i.e. What gave you the impression that such a thing is possible? I.e. we already know that you believe that it's true. What we don't know is why you believe its true.
Quote from: Courier of darkness
I told that negative mass can explain why the photon mass is 0, or rather why its rest-mass is 0.But, as I explained above, your diagram and your argument don't support your assertion.
Quote from: Courier of darkness
Can we explain why the photon mass is zero (its rest-mass is 0)?If it wasn't then photons wouldn't be able to travel at the speed of light. That's the explanation.
Quote from: Courier of darkness
It is true that Feyman diagrams always repesent an action at distance, or an interaction between two particles.There's no such thing as action at a distance. Charged particles create electric fields. When another charged particle is placed in that field it exchanges virtual photons with the original charge. However it takes time for the virtual photons to move. But this can't be seen as action at a distance. See: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/virtual_particles.html
Quote
Forces don't happen because of any sort of action at a distance, they happen because of virtual particles that spew out of things and hit other things, knocking them around. However, this is misleading. Virtual particles are really not just like classical bullets.
Quote from: Courier of darkness
Feynman diagrams are not supposed to represent a head-on collision of two particles.Yes. I'm well aware of that, thank you. Most people here or in any physics forum are in fact. They represent an interaction between two charges regardless of their motion.
Quote from: Courier of darkness
The problem is, my picture represents a head-on collision of a positron and an electron.Not to someone who understands Feynman diagrams.
Quote from: Courier of darkness
In other words, a Feynman diagram can represent a collision of two particles, although it is not generally admitted or understood.I wouldn't make such an assumption if I were you. People who know what Feynman diagrams are probably know what they mean and what the representation means too.
Quote from: Courier of darkness
My picture should not be understood as representing an interaction between two particles transmitted with a virtual photon.That's incorrect. That's exactly what your diagram means.
Quote from: Courier of darkness
Because if that were true, what are the particles interacting with each others?I don't understand that question. It was poorly stated. I.e. what does "..., what are the particles interacting with each others?"
mean? I.e. "interacting with each others"??? I have no clue what that's supposed to mean and I doubt anybody else does. I think you must have made a mistake and not have seen it.
Quote from: Courier of darkness
A pair creation happens when an electron and a positron are created out of the photon.While I know what you meant, it may not be clear to everyone else. You should have made it clear that it's a virtual photon because pair creation cannot happen with a single real photon. It has to happen with a virtual photon. That's because there's no frame of reference in which a real photon's momentum can be zero while there always is with an electron/positron pair.
Quote from: Courier of darkness
If there was during the "annihilation" a transformation of the pair positron-electron into a photon,..No. The transformation was into a virtual photon because a virtual photon has non-zero rest mass and it can't be observed and only last an incredibly short period of time.
Why are you bothering with this anyway? Is it because you thought that when the electron and positron annihilated each other than the end result was zero rest mass? If that's what you thought then you were mistaken because the result wasn't a photon, which has zero rest mass, it was a virtual photon, which doesn't have zero rest mass.
Quote from: Courier of darkness
then the correct interpretation of the diagram is that there did not happen any actual annihilation.Yes. Correct.
Quote from: Courier of darkness
Instead there was a transformation of the pair positron-electron into a photon.No. There was a momentary transformation of the two particles into a virtual photon.
Post by: alancalverd on 08/03/2015 09:22:05
The threshold for pair production is (fairly) easily measured as 1.022 MeV (you can use it to calibrate a VandeGraaf accelerator) which neatly translates as 2 x me according to Prof Einstein.
No negative mass is required.
Post by: PmbPhy on 08/03/2015 09:44:25
Quote from: alancalverd
The misunderstanding starts at the beginning. The e-p annihilation produces two photons, not one.His mistake was that he thought he was talking about electron/positron annihilation, probably because that's what the Feynman diagram looked like to him. The Feynman diagram he showed was merely an electron interacting with a positron but not annihilating. Such a thing can happen in positronium.
Post by: ScientificSorcerer on 08/03/2015 11:20:54
Post by: PmbPhy on 08/03/2015 12:07:51
Quote from: ScientificSorcerer
It is unclear to me what you mean by negative mass. Do you mean mass which has a negative charge or anti mass I think your mixing the 2 together which is why your question dose not make sense.Nope. He means exactly what he said, i.e. negative mass. There are several types. The one he's talking about is negative inertial mass which is defined as p = mv where m < 0 and v is the 3-velocity and p is the 3-momentum. Herman Bondi addressed these concepts in an article in the journal Reviews of Modern Physics. The article is
Negative Mass in General Relativity, Herman Bondi, Rev. Mod. Phys., 29(3), July 1967
I uploaded it onto my companies website for you to read. See
http://www.newenglandphysics.org/Science_Literature/Journal_Articles/Bondi.pdf
Post by: JohnDuffield on 08/03/2015 14:55:36
Post by: Courier of darkness on 08/03/2015 15:10:35
I already said why: negative mass explains why the photon has zero rest-mass.Quote from: Courier of darknessAre you asking why I think that whether mass can be negative?No. It's clear to me that you think that it can be negative. I'm asking you exactly what I posted, i.e. What gave you the impression that such a thing is possible? I.e. we already know that you believe that it's true. What we don't know is why you believe its true.
But, as I explained above, your diagram and your argument don't support your assertion.If what I say is properly understood, then my diagram supports my assertion.
Quote from: Courier of darkness
Can we explain why the photon mass is zero (its rest-mass is 0)?
If it wasn't then photons wouldn't be able to travel at the speed of light. That's the explanation.But only the rest mass m0 of photons is zero. What can explain how photons can travel at the speed of light if their mass m is non-zero?
The relativistic mass formula is m= m0/
Insert m0 = 0 and v=c
It leads to m=0/0
You can't use the relativistic mass formula to explain the mass of photons. Anyway photons should have mass because they have energy.
There's no such thing as action at a distance. Charged particles create electric fields. When another charged particle is placed in that field it exchanges virtual photons with the original charge. However it takes time for the virtual photons to move. But this can't be seen as action at a distance. See: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/virtual_particles.html
There is such a thing as action at distance. Look at
https://www.hep.ucl.ac.uk/undergrad-projects/3rdyear/photons-at-HERA/guage.htm
Quote
The fact that gauge bosons are invisible to us, and that we can only observe the effects they produce rather then the particles themselves, has led to the phrase "action at a distance" to describe the way in which they work
Quote from: Courier of darkness
My picture should not be understood as representing an interaction between two particles transmitted with a virtual photon.
That's incorrect. That's exactly what your diagram means.
Quote from: Courier of darkness
Because if that were true, what are the particles interacting with each others?
I don't understand that question. It was poorly stated. I.e. what does "..., what are the particles interacting with each others?"
mean? I.e. "interacting with each others"??? I have no clue what that's supposed to mean and I doubt anybody else does. I think you must have made a mistake and not have seen it.
I wonder why did you not understand what I said. I try to explain again:
If my first picture represents two particles which interact with each others by exchanging a virtual photon
between them, then what are these two particles?
Let me show you another picture:
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fqph.is.quoracdn.net%2Fmain-qimg-2ead52d17caeeb578e6acac9f94636fd%3Fconvert_to_webp%3Dtrue&hash=232a374d0db2b5144c782bd9f7236107)
The above picture represents two electrons which interact with each others by exchanging a virtual photon
between them. So if I asked the same question now, it would be: What are the two particles interacting
with each others by exchanging a virtual photon between them? And the answer is in this case: two electrons.
Why are you bothering with this anyway? Is it because you thought that when the electron and positron annihilated each other than the end result was zero rest mass? If that's what you thought then you were mistaken because the result wasn't a photon, which has zero rest mass, it was a virtual photon, which doesn't have zero rest mass.
As I said, there happens no annihilation. What happens is a transformation leading into a formation
of a photon with rest-mass m0 = 0
Post by: JohnDuffield on 08/03/2015 15:51:28
Anyway photons should have mass because they have energy.They do have a non-zero inertial mass and a non-zero active gravitational mass. But nowadays when people say mass they usually mean rest mass. A photon doesn't have any rest mass because it isn't at rest, it's always travelling at c. However when it's bouncing back and forth in the mirror-box, it's effectively at rest, and it adds to the mass of the system. If you've heard of things like electron diffraction and magnet moment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_magnetic_moment) and the Einstein-de Haas effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93de_Haas_effect#Description) and electron spin (http://lorentz.leidenuniv.nl/history/spin/goudsmit.html) and atomic orbitals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital#Electron_properties) where electrons "exist as standing waves", you can hopefully think of photon momentum as resistance to change-in-motion for a wave going along at c, and electron mass as resistance to change-in-motion for a wave going round and round at c. Ditto for positron mass. It doesn't have a negative mass, it has a positive mass.
Post by: Ethos_ on 08/03/2015 16:54:09
Agreed John.....................the positive and negative signs here only relate to charge and not to the mass of the particle. Should be very logical and simple to understand that charge and mass are separate and singular attributes of these particles.
Ditto for positron mass. It doesn't have a negative mass, it has a positive mass.
Post by: lightarrow on 08/03/2015 20:08:24
I already said why: negative mass explains why the photon has zero rest-mass.But that is incorrect, because that photon has not zero mass. PmbPhy has already written it to you: that photon is a virtual photon WITH mass.
(a real photon have zero mass; but unfortunately that diagram does not represent any real photon).
--
lightarrow
Post by: evan_au on 09/03/2015 09:41:45
Quote from: Courier of darkness
If the positron has a negative mass -m......then you would expect antimatter to fly upwards if you released it (and I mean release it in a vacuum - ordinary Hydrogen manages to fly upwards in air!).
Measuring the acceleration of antimatter in the Earth's gravitational field is an experiment that has been attempted several times before, but with very large error bars. At least one team is hoping to get a fairly accurate measurement with anti-Hydrogen sometime this year.
They expect that if you dropped an atom of Hydrogen and an atom of anti-Hydrogen simultaneously, they will hit the bottom at the same time.
But the beauty of the experiment is that you don't really know until you try it!
Post by: JohnDuffield on 09/03/2015 10:08:42
Agreed John.....................the positive and negative signs here only relate to charge and not to the mass of the particle. Should be very logical and simple to understand that charge and mass are separate and singular attributes of these particles.And moreover, positive and negative charge is merely a convention. If you google on positron chirality (https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=positron+chirality) you appreciate that the positron has the opposite chirality or "handedness" to the electron, and that this is related to its opposite charge. Now look at your hands. They have the opposite handedness. But your left hand isn't actually some negative version of your right hand.
Quote from: evan_au
They expect that if you dropped an atom of Hydrogen and an atom of anti-Hydrogen simultaneously, they will hit the bottom at the same time.They know it. General relativity is one of the best-tested theories we've got, and its energy that interacts gravitationally, not just matter. It doesn't matter what form it takes. Light curves down, we make electrons and positrons out of light in pair production, they will both fall down. I'm afraid does antimatter fall up? is just a soundbite to attract the attention of the popscience media.
Post by: PhysBang on 09/03/2015 12:06:38
However, charge is some negative version, in the mathematical sense of negative.Agreed John.....................the positive and negative signs here only relate to charge and not to the mass of the particle. Should be very logical and simple to understand that charge and mass are separate and singular attributes of these particles.And moreover, positive and negative charge is merely a convention. If you google on positron chirality (https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=positron+chirality) you appreciate that the positron has the opposite chirality or "handedness" to the electron, and that this is related to its opposite charge. Now look at your hands. They have the opposite handedness. But your left hand isn't actually some negative version of your right hand.
Physics is about the actual measurements done and how well theory is able to match those measurements. Those who forgo the mathematics of physics forgo physics.
Quote
The equivalence principle is what guarantees that particles of opposite charge fall at the same rate. It has been tested as directly as possible to a very high accuracy and it is thus a part of a great many gravitational theories, not merely GR. It is, of course, good science to ensure that it applies to antimatter when this can be tested rather than merely assuming that it applies and never doing the possible test.Quote from: evan_auThey expect that if you dropped an atom of Hydrogen and an atom of anti-Hydrogen simultaneously, they will hit the bottom at the same time.They know it. General relativity is one of the best-tested theories we've got, and its energy that interacts gravitationally, not just matter. It doesn't matter what form it takes. Light curves down, we make electrons and positrons out of light in pair production, they will both fall down. I'm afraid does antimatter fall up? is just a soundbite to attract the attention of the popscience media.
Post by: ScientificSorcerer on 09/03/2015 13:24:35
Lets say there is a particle with normal mass, it has some kinetic energy and is moving through space. Like any thing with mass, this particle has a tiny gravitational field. If this hypothetical particle's gravitational field gets weaker and weaker over time then it's mass will diminish over time.
Just because the particle is loosing it's gravitational field (Mass) does not mean that it's kinetic energy is decreasing (it would still remain the same) because of this scenario, the equation E=mc² comes into play. The energy E of the particle remains the same and M is decreasing so the velocity of the particle therefore must be increasing until the mass of the particle gets to zero (at which point the particle would be going the speed of light)
If the mass goes into a negative number then any particle of negative mass would be going faster then the speed of light (perhaps backward in time) if it had any energy in it. BUT could such a particle have Negative energy? If so then it might as well have negative velocity meaning that the particle would be going backward in time. Right?
Post by: Bill S on 09/03/2015 14:44:22
Quote from: SC
If the mass goes into a negative number then any particle of negative mass would be going faster then the speed of light (perhaps backward in time) if it had any energy in it. BUT could such a particle have Negative energy? If so then it might as well have negative velocity meaning that the particle would be going backward in time. Right?
SC, you seem to be introducing the idea of the tachyon, here.
I have still not mastered the art of inserting diagrams, so here’s a description of what this one should look like.
Start with a rectangle. Draw a horizontal line through the middle, and mark this “c”.
Now draw some arrows, as follows:
Above the rectangle; pointing left, marked “Time: Tachyon’s view”.
Below the rectangle ; pointing right, marked “Time; Photon’s view”.
Within the rectangle;
Left side, pointing up; marked “Increasing speed of photon”.
Right side; pointing down; marked “ Increasing speed of tachyon”.
Above centre; pointing left; marked “Tachyon”.
Below centre; pointing right; marked “Photon”.
I seem to be suggesting that a photon accelerates, but this should not be interpreted as making any claim other than that, in different media the photon may appear to travel at less than “c”.
There seems to be a general assumption, at least in Pop. Sci. that tachyons accelerate. John Gribbin says: “So if a tachyon were created in some violent event in space, it would radiate energy away furiously…..and go faster and faster, until it had zero energy ……and was travelling at infinite speed”.
However, if the above “thought diagram” is inverted, there is a marked similarity between photons and tachyons.
Do we read too much into the idea of the tachyon?
Post by: Courier of darkness on 09/03/2015 14:53:08
Lets say there is a particle with normal mass, it has some kinetic energy and is moving through space. Like any thing with mass, this particle has a tiny gravitational field. If this hypothetical particle's gravitational field gets weaker and weaker over time then it's mass will diminish over time.
Just because the particle is loosing it's gravitational field (Mass) does not mean that it's kinetic energy is decreasing (it would still remain the same) because of this scenario, the equation E=mc² comes into play. The energy E of the particle remains the same and M is decreasing so the velocity of the particle therefore must be increasing until the mass of the particle gets to zero (at which point the particle would be going the speed of light)
If the mass goes into a negative number then any particle of negative mass would be going faster then the speed of light (perhaps backward in time) if it had any energy in it. BUT could such a particle have Negative energy? If so then it might as well have negative velocity meaning that the particle would be going backward in time. Right?
You are right.
Richard Feyman said that a positron is an electron going backwards in time.
Anti-matter can have Negative energy, meaning that its mass can be negative.
Post by: lightarrow on 09/03/2015 16:15:36
Answer me this.This is true.
Lets say there is a particle with normal mass, it has some kinetic energy and is moving through space. Like any thing with mass, this particle has a tiny gravitational field. If this hypothetical particle's gravitational field gets weaker and weaker over time then it's mass will diminish over time.
Just because the particle is loosing it's gravitational field (Mass) does not mean that it's kinetic energy is decreasing (it would still remain the same)
Quote
because of this scenario, the equation E=mc² comes into play.Wrong. The particle has non-zero velocity so the equation you have to use is:
E2 = (mc2)2 + (cp)2.
Quote
The energy E of the particle remains the sameAnd who said it? It could diminish, it could increase or stay the same. All depends on how it loses mass: if, e.g., it shoots mass away as in a rocket, in the same direction of its velocity, then its energy will diminish; if it shoot it away in the opposite direction, the velocity will increase; from side, velocity will stay the same.
The rest of what you say is just your idea (not the existence of tachions but the fact a negative mass object should accelerate further for the reason you say), not supported by physical reasons.
--
lightarrow
Post by: PmbPhy on 09/03/2015 18:19:05
Quote from: Courier of darkness
Richard Feyman said that a positron is an electron going backwards in time.That was a joke and wasn't meant to be taken seriously.
Quote from: Courier of darkness
Anti-matter can have Negative energy, meaning that its mass can be negative.That's incorrect. Anti-matter is just the same as matter. It's impossible to look at a particle and say "this is antimatter." What the term antimatter refers to is the fact that to every particle there is another particle with the same mass but opposite charge and spin. It's a matter of history which one got chosen to be called matter and the other antimatter.
Post by: alancalverd on 09/03/2015 19:14:07
Which is just as well, otherwise energy and momentum would not be classically conserved in pair production and annihilation, and they are.
Post by: PmbPhy on 09/03/2015 19:34:46
Quote from: alancalverd
Alas, if you google for "mass of positron", veryone ojut there seems to think it is the same as that of an electron.That's because it is. The mass of a particle is exactly the same as the mass of its antiparticle.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron
Mass of Electron = 9.109 382 91(40)×10−31 kg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron
Mass of Positron = 9.109 382 91(40)×10−31 kg
See? Exactly the same.
Post by: Bill S on 09/03/2015 19:47:55
Quote from: Alan
Richard Feyman said that a positron is an electron going backwards in time.
Was it a joke, or is it just something that has been distorted with time and repetition?
I think what Feynman actually said was: “… the math describing anti-particles moving forward in time is the same as the math describing particles moving backward in time.” This is a somewhat different statement from that which is commonly attributed to him.
Post by: alancalverd on 10/03/2015 00:23:49
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron
Mass of Electron = 9.109 382 91(40)×10−31 kg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron
Mass of Positron = 9.109 382 91(40)×10−31 kg
See? Exactly the same.
Just to be pedantic, the positron mass quoted in Wikipedia is the recommended value: I don't think anyone has actually measured it directly to 1 part in 1010. The recommendation is based on the presumption that it is exactly equal to the electron mass, which is confirmed by measurements of pair annihilation and common sense.
Post by: ScientificSorcerer on 10/03/2015 01:58:37
so how can E=mc² and -E=mc²?
Post by: Ethos_ on 10/03/2015 04:05:07
SO antimatter is made of negative energyNeither matter nor antimatter is made of energy. However, matter has energy as a constituent part of it's character. I frankly don't see any evidence for the existence of "negative energy". Energy is the force that produces change so how would anyone define "negative energy"? To suggest that "negative energy" produces no change is exactly the same as "no energy" and that simply means the absence of energy.
No such thing as "negative energy".
Post by: PmbPhy on 10/03/2015 04:43:06
It most certainty has been measured to that precision as has all the proper masses of all the elementary particles. And they theoretical have the exact same mass too. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiparticle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron
Mass of Electron = 9.109 382 91(40)×10−31 kg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron
Mass of Positron = 9.109 382 91(40)×10−31 kg
See? Exactly the same.
Just to be pedantic, the positron mass quoted in Wikipedia is the recommended value: I don't think anyone has actually measured it directly to 1 part in 1010. The recommendation is based on the presumption that it is exactly equal to the electron mass, which is confirmed by measurements of pair annihilation and common sense.
Quote
Corresponding to most kinds of particles, there is an associated antiparticle with the same mass and opposite charge (including electric charge).It's not an approximate mass, its the same mass. Just ask any particle physicist. You can look up the measured masses of all particle/antiparticle pairs and verify this fact.
Post by: PmbPhy on 10/03/2015 05:03:16
Quote from: ScientificSorcerer
SO antimatter is made of negative energy BUT it has positive mass just like regular matter.As I already explained in Reply 21, no. Antimatter is only a relative term. I.e. it is merely a convention which is called matter and which is called antimatter. See Supersymmetry and Beyond: From Higgs Boson to the New Physics by Gordon Kane
Quote
There is a certain popular mystique about antimatter that is not justified. The particles and their antiparticles are all particles with different charges. The antiparticles have all been observed. Which is called the particle and which is called the antiparticle is just a convention.
Quote from: ScientificSorcerer
So -E=MC²? We know E is negative in anti particles and mass is a positive number wheat about C? It does not appear to me that antiparticles should have -C but does it?.That's all wrong as I said in Reply 21. Didn't you read that response to that assertion? If you're going to ignore what I post then what purpose is there in posting. If you disagreed with it then say so, don't just ignore it please.
Post by: Courier of darkness on 10/03/2015 07:18:40
SO antimatter is made of negative energy BUT it has positive mass just like regular matter. So -E=MC²? We know E is negative in anti particles and mass is a positive number wheat about C? It does not appear to me that antiparticles should have -C but does it?.
so how can E=mc² and -E=mc²?
If E=mc² and -E=mc² it means that E=-E and +1=-1
The only possibility to solve this paradox is that antimatter has negative energy -E=-mc²
and regular matter has positive energy +E = +mc²
Their sum is -E + E = 0
During the Big Bang there were equal amounts of antimatter and regular matter and -E + E = 0
Whether antiparticles have -c , does not matter in E = mc², because c² is positive regardless
of if c is positive or negative.
Post by: PmbPhy on 10/03/2015 09:14:03
Quote from: Courier of darkness
If E=mc² and -E=mc² it means that E=-E and +1=-1CD - This is not the New Theories sub forum. You're not allowed to post your own theories here so please stop making these incorrect claims. Antimatter does not have negative energy. You're basing that assumption that the "anti" in the term "antimatter" means that all of its properties are negative to matter including energy. That's a false belief, aka that is not what the term means so please stop making this false claim. If you want to do this you have to go to the new theories forum.
Quote from: Courier of darkness
The only possibility to solve this paradox is that antimatter has negative energy -E=-mc²Wrong. There is no paradox and this claim makes no sense whatsoever. You started your argument by making a false claim, i.e. your false claim E=mc² and -E=mc² and then arrived at a contradiction and claimed there was a paradox. When you start off with an incorrect claim then of course you're going to arrive at nonsense.
and regular matter has positive energy +E = +mc²
In propagating all your false beliefs you've now got Scientific Sorcerer believing false assertions and making the same mistakes that you're making. Please knock it off.
Post by: PmbPhy on 10/03/2015 09:21:39
What he's referring to when it comes to negative energy is totally wrong. But there is such a thing as negative energy. We run into it all the time in physics as a matter of fact. Alan Guth describes the example of the negative energy of the gravitational field. See:SO antimatter is made of negative energyNeither matter nor antimatter is made of energy. However, matter has energy as a constituent part of it's character. I frankly don't see any evidence for the existence of "negative energy". Energy is the force that produces change so how would anyone define "negative energy"? To suggest that "negative energy" produces no change is exactly the same as "no energy" and that simply means the absence of energy.
No such thing as "negative energy".
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/ref/guth_grav_energy.pdf
Post by: Courier of darkness on 10/03/2015 11:08:54
Antimatter does not have negative energy.
Are you telling that antimatter has positive energy?
Quote from: Courier of darknessThe only possibility to solve this paradox is that antimatter has negative energy -E=-mc²Wrong.
and regular matter has positive energy +E = +mc²
I am not propagating false beliefs.
It is not me who is saying that positive energy is the same as negative energy.
I am saying that negative energy is not equal to positive energy.
It is you who is propagating false beliefs if you tell that antimatter has positive energy.
Post by: PmbPhy on 10/03/2015 11:47:44
Quote from: Courier of darkness
Are you telling that antimatter has positive energy?Of course I am. I've made that excruciatingly clear in this thread.
Quote from: Courier of darkness
I am not propagating false beliefs.When you repeatedly claim that antimatter has negative energy that is exactly what you're doing.
Quote from: Courier of darkness
It is you who is propagating false beliefs if you tell that antimatter has positive energy.Nope. You're quite wrong. Every physicist knows that antimatter has positive energy. If you chose to study it rather than make such a claim then you'd know that. I know you never read it in a physics text and merely assumed that it had to have negative energy based on your incorrect assumptions of what antimatter is. Several times now, perhaps on purpose, you've ignored the fact what is called matter and what is called antimatter is a matter of convention. There's nothing inherent about anything which would allow someone to call it either matter or antimatter. A particle is only "anti" to another particle.
Try learning about it before you post again and make false claims based on your ignorance. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiparticle
Post by: lightarrow on 10/03/2015 12:40:26
I am not propagating false beliefs.Ok, please write a link to a university Physics book, better if it's a book on "elementary particles Physics", where it is stated, and proved, that antimatter has negative energy.
It is not me who is saying that positive energy is the same as negative energy.
I am saying that negative energy is not equal to positive energy.
It is you who is propagating false beliefs if you tell that antimatter has positive energy.
Hint1: you won't find any.
Hint2: popular books don't always (I shoud say: almost never) convey real physics, start to study physics in serious books.
--
lightarrow
Post by: Bill S on 10/03/2015 12:44:14
http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/particleanti-particle-annihilation/
says:
“Now, a fact: if I put a particle and an anti-particle together, almost all their properties cancel. For instance, the electric charge of a muon (a heavy cousin of the electron) plus the electric charge of an anti-muon equals zero; the former is negative, the latter positive, but they are equal in size and so they cancel perfectly. The only things that don’t cancel are their masses and energies.”
Why do the mass and energy not cancel?
My understanding is that that is because the masses and energies of both particles and anti-particles are positive.
Am I on the right lines?
For non-experts like me, Matt’s articles are very valuable. On particle/anti-particles I would also recommend looking at:
http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/largehadroncolliderfaq/some-technical-concepts/what-are-anti-particles
Post by: Courier of darkness on 10/03/2015 12:47:49
Quote from: Courier of darknessAre you telling that antimatter has positive energy?Of course I am. I've made that excruciatingly clear in this thread.
Then you are wrong.
You are telling that negative energy -E is the same as positive energy +E
And that is a paradox. You are telling that there is no paradox.
Quote from: Courier of darknessI am not propagating false beliefs.When you repeatedly claim that antimatter has negative energy that is exactly what you're doing.Quote from: Courier of darknessIt is you who is propagating false beliefs if you tell that antimatter has positive energy.Nope. You're quite wrong. Every physicist knows that antimatter has positive energy.
Not true. Because physicists seem to agree that:
During the Big Bang there were equal amounts of antimatter and regular matter
and their sum was -E + E = 0
If you chose to study it rather than make such a claim then you'd know that. I know you never read it in a physics text and merely assumed that it had to have negative energy based on your incorrect assumptions of what antimatter is. Several times now, perhaps on purpose, you've ignored the fact what is called matter and what is called antimatter is a matter of convention. There's nothing inherent about anything which would allow someone to call it either matter or antimatter. A particle is only "anti" to another particle.
Try learning about it before you post again and make false claims based on your ignorance.
I have made no incorrect assumptions of what antimatter is.
You are making incorrect assumptions. It is you who should learn what antimatter
is.
Post by: lightarrow on 10/03/2015 12:56:43
An antiparticle's wavefunction is the coniugated complex of its correspondent particle. A part of it, in the particle's wavefunction, comprise the term e-iωt where ω is the particle's energy (divided by ħ) and t is the time. So in the antiparticle's wavefunction, that part will be, instead, eiωt.Quote from: AlanRichard Feyman said that a positron is an electron going backwards in time.
Was it a joke, or is it just something that has been distorted with time and repetition?
I think what Feynman actually said was: “… the math describing anti-particles moving forward in time is the same as the math describing particles moving backward in time.” This is a somewhat different statement from that which is commonly attributed to him.
At that time, when just a part of the story was known, it was natural to interprete an antiparticle as having negative ω (negative energy) or as negative t (moving back in the time).
But that was, indeed, just a part of the story. Today we know that an antiparticle must have positive energy and must move ahead in time (to see this last thing it's enough to see a photo of a positron going through a lead plate, inside a magnetic field, in a bubble chamber), that part of the wavefunction it's just "a part".
--
lightarrow
Post by: PmbPhy on 10/03/2015 13:54:26
Quote from: Courier of darkness
Then you are wrong.Please make an attempt to derive what you claim to be true rather than merely stating your claim.
You're clearly been ignoring every single fact and argument that I've posted explaining why you're wrong. Why? For example; why don't you explain why you've ignored the fact that what is called matter and what is called antimatter is arbitrary and as such you can't distinguish which is which by the sign of the energy? I anxiously await your reply. You can look this up in the following source
Introduction to Elementary Particles by David Griffiths, (2004). On page 21 the author writes
Quote
The positron, then, is an antielectron. (Actually, it is in principle completely arbitrary which one you call the "particle" and which one you call the "antiparticle" - I could just as well have said that the electron is the antipositron. But since there are a lot of electrons around, and not so many positrons, we tend to think of electrons as "matter" and positrons as "antimatter".)Please make sure you, read, absorb and comment on this fact and then try to prove your claim again with this in mind.
Quote from: Courier of darkness
You are telling that negative energy -E is the same as positive energy +ENo. You haven't been listening at all. I ***never*** said that. I said that the energy of any antiparticle/antimatter is positive, not negative.
Quote from: Courier of darkness
I am not propagating false beliefs.You most certainly are. The fact that you won't be able to find anything such as a journal or a textbook or a physicist that would agree with you proves it. You've also been ignoring statements from experts to the contrary. Why are you doing that? E.g. see
http://www.askamathematician.com/2012/02/q-whats-the-difference-between-anti-matter-and-negative-matter/
Quote
Quote from: Courier of darknessNot true. Because physicists seem to agree that:QuoteThey most certainly do not agree on that. You've misinterpreted the zero-energy universe hypothesis which states:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universeQuoteThe zero-energy universe theory states that the total amount of energy in the universe is exactly zero: its amount of positive energy in the form of matter is exactly canceled out by its negative energy in the form of gravity.There is no negative energy particles canceling the positive energy particles. The positive energy matter is being canceled by the negative potential energy of the gravitational field. How do I know this? Because I'm a physicist who not only specializes in special relativity but studies general relativity and cosmology. And I have very intelligent and knowledgeable colleagues who help me understand what I'm studying who are authorities in their respective fields.
The theory originated in 1973, when Edward Tryon proposed in the Nature journal that the Universe emerged from a large-scale quantum fluctuation of vacuum energy, resulting in its positive mass-energy being exactly balanced by its negative gravitational potential energy.[3]Quote from: Courier of darknessDuring the Big Bang there were equal amounts of antimatter and regular matterNot just during the Big Bang but now and forever too. In any case those are separate facts, not the same fact.
and their sum was -E + E = 0
Fact #1) The number of electrons, protons and neutrons was greater than the number of positrons, antiprotons and antineutrons in the early universe. The "particles" annihilated their corresponding "antiparticles." This process kept going until the antiparticles were all gone. Now they only have a temporary existence during particle interactions.
Fact #2) The amount of mass in the universe had a finite value of positive energy. The value of the gravitational potential energy in the universe had the exact same magnitude but opposite sign (i.e. negative). So the total energy of the universe was, is and for shall ever be, zero!
You can read all about it in my friends book Inflationary Universe. That part is online at:
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/ref/guth_grav_energy.pdf
Post by: PmbPhy on 10/03/2015 13:56:31
Quote from: Bill S
Matt StrasslerYes, Bill. Of course you are. I explained to him that every single textbook on the subject that talks about the mass and energy of antimatter will explain this. He may not want to look it up for fear of being proved false.
http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/particleanti-particle-annihilation/
says:
“Now, a fact: if I put a particle and an anti-particle together, almost all their properties cancel. For instance, the electric charge of a muon (a heavy cousin of the electron) plus the electric charge of an anti-muon equals zero; the former is negative, the latter positive, but they are equal in size and so they cancel perfectly. The only things that don’t cancel are their masses and energies.”
Why do the mass and energy not cancel?
My understanding is that that is because the masses and energies of both particles and anti-particles are positive.
Am I on the right lines?
Post by: Courier of darkness on 10/03/2015 14:38:11
Quote from: Courier of darknessThen you are wrong.I'm assuming that you understand that just because you repeat something it doesn't make it correct, right? You're clearly wrong and that's not a guess, that's a fact. You're clearly been ignoring every single fact and argument that I've posted merely so you can repeat yourself.
It is you who is wrong. It is you who is ignoring clears facts.
I have told how physicists agree with me that during the Big Bang there were
equal amounts of antimatter and matter and their sum was -E + E = 0
This equation can only be true if the negative energy -E is not equal to positive
energy +E.
Antimatter has the energy -E, negative energy.
Regular matter has the energy +E, positive energy.
Quote from: Courier of darknessYou are telling that negative energy -E is the same as positive energy +EWhat in the world is wrong with you? Are you not listening? I NEVER said that. I said that the energy of any antiparticle/antimatter is positive, not negative.
Nothing is wrong with me.
You are telling that the negative energy -E of antimatter is in fact positive.
Look what you are writing , you say that antimatter has positive energy.
In other words, you are telling that -E=+E, it is a paradox. You are telling there is no paradox.
There is no paradox if antimatter has negative energy so that -E+E=0
Quote from: Courier of darkness
I am not propagating false beliefs.
You most certainly are. The fact that you won't be able to find anything such as a journal or a textbook or a physicist that would agree with you proves it.
Most physicsts agree with me:
The sum -E + E = 0 can be true only if the antimatter has negative energy.
Quote from: Courier of darkness
Not true. Because physicists seem to agree that:
During the Big Bang there were equal amounts of antimatter and regular matter
and their sum was -E + E = 0
Those are separate facts. I showed that to Ethos and explained why. You just weren't paying attention. The total energy of the universe was zero. The positive energy was from matter/antimatter and the negative energy was from the negative gravitational potential energy.
Meanwhile I have no time left for your arrogance and unwillingness to learn.
It is you who is arrogant and unwilling to learn.
Post by: Ethos_ on 10/03/2015 14:45:30
Alan Guth describes the example of the negative energy of the gravitational field. See:Thanks for the link Pete. I will give it a look see.
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/ref/guth_grav_energy.pdf
Post by: PmbPhy on 10/03/2015 15:07:20
Quote from: Courier of darkness
It is you who is wrong. It is you who is ignoring clears facts.You're wrong again. You sure know how to be irritating, don't you. You come here making all sorts of claims, ***totally ignore*** the arguments that I've posted which ***prove*** that you're wrong but not only do you ignore them (because you know you can't prove that I'm wrong) but you refuse to state any sort of proof that you're right. You refuse to make any argument of what you hold to be true and refuse to state a source of your claims like lightarrow and myself have asked you for. And we know why you won't too. Because that would prove us right and you wrong.
Quote from: Courier of darkness
I have told how physicists agree with me that during the Big Bang there wereWhy aren't you listening? I explained your error and you can't fathom it? Read it again
equal amounts of antimatter and matter and their sum was -E + E = 0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe
Quote
The zero-energy universe theory states that the total amount of energy in the universe is exactly zero: its amount of positive energy in the form of matter is exactly canceled out by its negative energy in the form of gravity.[1][2]It's the ***gravitational potential energy*** that's negative, not any matter. I also explained to you that what is called matter and what is called antimatter is arbitrary. So according to your (bogus) claim, there's no valid reason to say that the energy of an electron is positive since it could be called the anti-particle and have a negative energy.
The theory originated in 1973, when Edward Tryon proposed in the Nature journal that the Universe emerged from a large-scale quantum fluctuation of vacuum energy, resulting in its positive mass-energy being exactly balanced by its negative gravitational potential energy.[3]
Quote from: Courier of darkness
Antimatter has the energy -E, negative energy.A bunch of nonsense. You're just far too much of a layman to understand this. Pick up a book and learn the subject.
Regular matter has the energy +E, positive energy.
Quote from: PmbPhy
Nothing is wrong with me.Bullshit. You keep on ignoring all the proof that you're wrong. Do you know how much of an idiot that makes you come across as?
You're too arrogant to help because you've demonstrated on multiple occasions now that you're absolutely unwilling to respond to the proofs that you're wrong. You won't even acknowledge that such proofs were given.
I've been a physicist for 30 years now and have the equivalent of an MS in physics. I clearly know the subject infinitely more than you do from what you've posted to date. You'll never learn by ignoring the proofs that people level against the nonsense you post.
Post by: PmbPhy on 10/03/2015 15:08:46
Thanks.Alan Guth describes the example of the negative energy of the gravitational field. See:Thanks for the link Pete. I will give it a look see.
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/ref/guth_grav_energy.pdf
This joker is way beyond help since he refuses to address all the proofs I've leveled against his bogus claims. If you have any questions or wish to discuss it let's take it to our private forum. Okay?
Post by: Ethos_ on 10/03/2015 16:24:26
Agreed.................
This joker is way beyond help since he refuses to address all the proofs I've leveled against his bogus claims. If you have any questions or wish to discuss it let's take it to our private forum. Okay?
Post by: Courier of darkness on 10/03/2015 16:56:08
Quote from: Courier of darknessIt is you who is wrong. It is you who is ignoring clears facts.You're wrong again. You sure know how to be irritating, don't you. You come here making all sorts of claims, ***totally ignore*** the arguments that I've posted which ***prove*** that you're wrong but not only do you ignore them (because you know you can't prove that I'm wrong) but you refuse to state any sort of proof that you're right. You refuse to make any argument of what you hold to be true and refuse to state a source of your claims like lightarrow and myself have asked you for. And we know why you won't too. Because that would prove us right and you wrong.
I am not irritating. You are just simply wrong and unable to understand it, therefore you are irritated.
It is you who ignore the arguments that I show. From the beginning you were unable to understand
Feynman diagrams I posted. You were unable to learn why the photon is massless.
Quote from: Courier of darkness
I have told how physicists agree with me that during the Big Bang there were
equal amounts of antimatter and matter and their sum was -E + E = 0
Why aren't you listening? I explained your error and you can't fathom it?
I am listening if you have a point but I don't intend to bend according to your will.
If I am right I am going to tell it, don't suppose I agree with you if you are wrong. You seem to
interpret that kind of behavior as if I were not listening, or as if I were arrogant.
It's the ***gravitational potential energy*** that's negative, not any matter. I also explained to you that what is called matter and what is called antimatter is arbitrary. So according to your (bogus) claim, there's no valid reason to say that the energy of an electron is positive since it could be called the anti-particle and have a negative energy.
And what is the source of ***gravitational potential energy***?
If an electron would be called an antiparticle and have a negative energy, then the positron would be
called a particle and have a positve energy. The situation would be exactly the same as normally: there would be both the positive and negative energies, and corresponding particles and their antiparticles.
Quote from: Courier of darkness
Antimatter has the energy -E, negative energy.
Regular matter has the energy +E, positive energy.
A bunch of nonsense. You're just far too much of a layman to understand this. Pick up a book and learn the subject.
It seems that the layman is you if you keep denying clear facts.
Quote from: Courier of darkness
Nothing is wrong with me.
Bullshit. You keep on ignoring all the proof that you're wrong. Do you know how much of an idiot that makes you come across as?
You're too arrogant to help because you've demonstrated on multiple occasions now that you're absolutely unwilling to respond to the proofs that you're wrong. You won't even acknowledge that such proofs were given.
I've been a physicist for 30 years now and have the equivalent of an MS in physics. I clearly know the subject infinitely more than you do from what you've posted to date. You'll never learn by ignoring the proofs that people level against the nonsense you post.
So you started calling me names. Can you read my name? What do you think it suggests?
Might I rather be a bringer of darkness instead of a joker that you seem to think I am?
So far you have demonstrated nothing where I am wrong. You seem to think that I am wrong
if I don't bend according to your will.
I have told that you are wrong and why you are wrong, and that is what you cannot handle.
Post by: JohnDuffield on 10/03/2015 18:11:22
But there is such a thing as negative energy. We run into it all the time in physics as a matter of fact. Alan Guth describes the example of the negative energy of the gravitational field. See:Gravitational field energy is positive, not negative. See this (http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/~searchResults?searchMode=advanced&context=-2&searchParam-SearchGroup=&lang=EN&searchText=gravitatively) where Einstein says "the energy of the gravitational field shall act gravitatively in the same way as any other kind of energy". There is nothing that exists that consists of negative energy. People talk of binding energy as negative energy, but it involves less energy, not something that is made of negative energy. The zero energy universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe) is wrong too. When two objects fall together and coalesce, some of their mass-energy is converted into kinetic energy and radiated away. But conservation of energy applies. You do not end up with less energy that you started with. The same applies for more objects. Sorry Pete.
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/ref/guth_grav_energy.pdf
Post by: PmbPhy on 10/03/2015 20:57:05
At least this is in the forum where it belongs. I.e. this thread was moved here because it's outside the domain of mainstream physics meaning that what the OP claims are all WRONG.Agreed.................
This joker is way beyond help since he refuses to address all the proofs I've leveled against his bogus claims. If you have any questions or wish to discuss it let's take it to our private forum. Okay?
Post by: alancalverd on 11/03/2015 00:12:50
If an electron would be called an antiparticle and have a negative energy, then the positron would be
called a particle and have a positve energy. The situation would be exactly the same as normally: there would be both the positive and negative energies, and corresponding particles and their antiparticles.
Repeating nonsense doesn't turn it into sense, and starting a sentence with "If" doesn't make any of what follows into a fact. The mass and energy of both electrons and positrons is positive. You can measure it if you like: what better proof could there possibly be?
On the other hand if you have indeed measured the mass of a positron and discovered it to be negative, do tell us how you measured it and why everyone else was wrong.
Note for Pete: I can't find any reference to a direct measurement of positron mass, but I've seen a neat proposal for measuring the gravitational force on a positronium atom. The wikipedia link you gave only discusses the conservation requirement that mp = me which is good enough for any sane person, but doesn't count as an independent and direct measurement.
Post by: PmbPhy on 11/03/2015 03:37:57
Quote from: alancalverd
Repeating nonsense doesn't turn it into sense, and starting a sentence with "If" doesn't make any of what follows into a fact.Yep. As you can see above I agree. He just can't fathom that he's wrong. What's bad about it is that he refuses to make an statement about why his claims should be taken as valid nor has he made an attempt to prove that he correct. He also ignores all the proof that he's wrong too. Bad juju.
Quote from: alancalverd
Note for Pete: I can't find any reference to a direct measurement of positron mass, but I've seen a neat proposal for measuring the gravitational force on a positronium atom.All you have to do is go to a particle accelerator labs website and find a particle physicist. They'll be glad to help you.
Post by: PmbPhy on 11/03/2015 05:13:04
Quote from: Courier of darkness
I am not irritating.Of course you are. Haven't you read the responses to your claims? Can't you see that your thread was moved to the New Theories Forum? That only happens when the claims made by the OP don't conform to mainstream physics like your bogus claims. What I've explained to you is straight out of advanced undergraduate textbooks and graduate textbooks on particle physics as well as textbooks on modern physics. How do I know? I know because I studied modern physics and particle physics and have the equivalent of a Masters Degree in Physics. From your posts I can tell that you have no formal education in physics. That's the source of your false claims and the reasons you're both unable and unwilling to back up your claims either with a proof or with a reference to a textbook on the subject matter. You've been asked to on many occasions and on each occasion you pretend that you haven't been asked. That way you won't be embarrassed when you fail.
Quote from: Courier of darkness
You are just simply wrong ...Based on what? I'm a well educated physics and I know WHY what I say is true. You on the other hand can't even state where you got that claim. You just spit it out like everyone is simply supposed to accept what you, somebody unknown to everybody here, want everyone to accept based on nothing.
It's quite literally impossible for any tardyon (i.e. a particle that moves slower than the speed of light and is not a virtual particle) to have negative energy E because E is the total energy of the particle which is defined as the sum of kinetic energy and rest energy, both of which are positive quantities.
Quote from: Courier of darkness
..and unable to understand it, therefore you are irritated.In your dreams. We know a nutcase when we see them because they insult people who explain their errors to them or say that they're wrong and that's all you've been doing since you got here is claiming that you know what's right and we don't because we're ignorant. The fact is that I've been a physicist for 30 years and you're merely an ignorant layman who refuses to state or prove why he thinks he's right.
Quote from: Courier of darkness
It is you who ignore the arguments that I show.What a load of BS. You've posted nonsense since you arrived. You started with a false assumption and arrived at a paradox not knowing that there's a paradox because you started with nonsense.From the beginning you were unable to understand everything.
In fact you were unable to grasp the fact that photons have a well defined relativistic mass because you mistook m = m0/sqrt{1 - v2/c2} because that was derived on the assumption that the particle is a tardyon, not a luxon. The definition of relativistic mass is given implicitly as the m in p = mv. Therefore m = p/v. Since v = c for a photon m = p/c. Substituting in E = pc or p = E/c we end up with m = E/c2.
You'll have to look up the terms tardyon and luxon because I'm damn sure you don't know what they mean.
That's found throughout all of the relativity literature where relativistic mass is used. E.g.
Relativity: Special, General and Cosmological by Rindler, Oxford Univ., Press, (2001), page 120
Quote
According to Einstein, a photon with frequency n has energy hf /c2, and thus (as he only came to realize several years later) a finite mass and a finite momentum hf/c.
Introducing Einstein's Relativity by Ray D'Inverno, Oxford Univ. Press, (1992), page 50
Quote
Finally, using the energy-mass relationship E = mc2, we find that the relativistic mass of a photon is non-zero and given by
m = p/c.
Combining these results with Planck's hypothesis, we obtain the following formulae for the energy E, relativistic mass m, and linear momentum p of the photons:
E = hf m = hf/c2 p = hf/c
Special Relativity by A. P. French, MIT Press, page 20
Quote
Let us now try to put together some of the results we have discussed. For photons we have
E = cp
and
m = E/c2
(the first experimental, the second based on Einstein's box). Combining these, we have
m = p/c
Quote from: Courier of darkness
Feynman diagrams I posted. You were unable to learn why the photon is massless.Nope. Not at all. You only proved that you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to Feynman diagrams.
Quote from: Courier of darkness
I have told how physicists agree with me that during the Big Bang there wereAnd I just showed you a portion of a text by one of the worlds leading experts on the subject saying that you misinterpreted what you believe and thus you're clueless again. Unless you're too scared to read for fear of being proved so darn wrong?
equal amounts of antimatter and matter and their sum was -E + E = 0
I am listening if you have a point but I don't intend to bend according to your will.The battle cry of the ignorant.
The rest is more of the same stupid garbage. You don't deserve any help because you're not intelligent enough to grasp it.
Post by: PmbPhy on 11/03/2015 06:04:49
Quote from: JohnDuffield
I'm afraid does antimatter fall up? is just a soundbite to attract the attention of the popscience media.Antimatter most certainly doesn't fall up since it behaves dynamically like matter. However have you read the Bondi article on negative mass? I forget what it says since its been many years since I've read it but it's surely not popscience media, that's for sure.
See http://www.newenglandphysics.org/Science_Literature/Journal_Articles/Bondi.pdf
Post by: PmbPhy on 11/03/2015 06:07:56
Quote from: Bill S
There seems to be a general assumption, at least in Pop. Sci. that tachyons accelerate.There's actually nothing surprising about tachyons accelerating just as there's nothing surprising about tardyons accelerating. It's simply that, theoretically, tachyons are created moving faster than c, the speed of light, and can move at any speed faster than c and can change velocity too so long as the speed is always greater than c.
Post by: PmbPhy on 11/03/2015 06:29:46
Quote from: Courier of darkness
You are just simply wrong and unable to understand it, therefore you are irritated.Tell me something Mr. Rude. If I'm so wrong why does the following say what it does? From Ask a Mathematician/Physicist
http://www.askamathematician.com/2012/02/q-whats-the-difference-between-anti-matter-and-negative-matter/
Quote
Physicist: Anti-matter is exactly the same as matter, but different. If you, and everything else on the planet, were suddenly turned into anti-matter, you’d never know the difference. While the “anti-” of anti-matter may seem to give it an air of mystery, it still acts just like ordinary matter in essentially every respect. Specifically, anti-matter carries positive energy and mass , just like regular matter, while negative matter carries negative energy and mass.while you, on the other hand, keep refusing to demonstrate your claim with a proof or a reference to a text which says you're right? Several of us have asked you to do so and you've ignored all of us. You've presented nothing anywhere which agrees with you and you refuse to state not only where you got that nonsense but what the physical meaning of negative energy is for a particle. And you keep ignoring the fact that what's called a particle and an antiparticle is arbitrary so you have no right saying that one has negative energy and the other one has positive energy.
All of us in these forums know that when someone refuses to back up their claim its because they're unable to as is the case here.
On the other hand I can back up any claim I make and have shot down every claim you've made, including your flawed interpretation of the zero energy universe. The real explanation is here:
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/ref/guth_grav_energy.pdf
READ IT this time!!
Post by: PmbPhy on 11/03/2015 18:17:39
Quote from: Courier of darkness
Not true. Because physicists seem to agree that:I'll tell you what I'm going to do. Alan H. Guth, an American theoretical physicist and cosmologist and winner of the 2014 Kavli Prize in Astrophysics, is a good friend of mine. See:
During the Big Bang there were equal amounts of antimatter and regular matter
and their sum was -E + E = 0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Guth
http://www.kavlifoundation.org/2014-astrophysics-citation
He's author of the book The Inflationary Universe: The Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic Origins which I showed you part of when
I posted this portion of it which proves you wrong: http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/ref/guth_grav_energy.pdf
From page 289
Quote
APPENDIX A
Since the negative energy of a gravitational field is crucial to the notion of
a zero-energy universe, it is a subject worth examining carefully. In this
appendix I will explain how the properties of gravity can be used to show
that the energy of a gravitational field is unambiguously negative. The argument
will be described in the context of Newton's theory of gravity,
although the same conclusion can be reached using Einstein's theory of general
relativity.
I'm visiting him
Post by: PmbPhy on 11/03/2015 18:49:49
Quote from: Courier of darkness
Not true. Because physicists seem to agree that:Before the Big Bang there was an un equal amount of matter and antimatter. The annihilation caused a balance to ensue
During the Big Bang there were equal amounts of antimatter and regular matter
and their sum was -E + E = 0
Alan H. Guth is an American theoretical physicist and cosmologist at MIT, winner of the 2014 Kavli Prize in Astrophysics. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Guth
http://www.kavlifoundation.org/2014-astrophysics-citation
He's also the author of the book The Inflationary Universe: The Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic Origins which I showed you part of when I posted this portion of it which proves you wrong: http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/ref/guth_grav_energy.pdf
From page 289
Quote
APPENDIX AGuth uses that fact that the relativistic mass of a photon (not to be confused with its rest mass) is non-zero and finite in his cosmology lecture notes on his Early Universe course at MIT. That part of his lecture notes is online at
Since the negative energy of a gravitational field is crucial to the notion of a zero-energy universe, it is a subject worth examining carefully. In this appendix I will explain how the properties of gravity can be used to show that the energy of a gravitational field is unambiguously negative. The argument will be described in the context of Newton's theory of gravity, although the same conclusion can be reached using Einstein's theory of general relativity.
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/guth.jpg
Post by: PmbPhy on 15/03/2015 16:22:45
Quote
Can you read my name? What do you think it suggests? Might I rather be a bringer of darkness instead of a joker that you seem to think I am?meant to be a threat? Why don't you tell us what its supposed to suggest in the context of an internet discussion forum?
Also, why have you yet to state any source which defines an antiparticle of a particle has having either negative mass or negative energy? And why have you ignored the fact that since its impossible to say one is an antiparticle and the other is a particle neither can have negative energy?
Post by: JohnDuffield on 20/03/2015 18:08:49
Antimatter most certainly doesn't fall up since it behaves dynamically like matter. However have you read the Bondi article on negative mass? I forget what it says since its been many years since I've read it but it's surely not popscience media, that's for sure.Yes I've read it. It isn't popscience, but with respect, it's bad science that results from a lack of understanding of mass and gravity, along with a touch of "lost in math". And I will reiterate: the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content. If you take away all the energy, the body does not exist, and you can't take away more energy. Ditto if you shorten a pencil to 0cm. It no longer exists, and you can't make it shorter.
See http://www.newenglandphysics.org/Science_Literature/Journal_Articles/Bondi.pdf
Post by: PmbPhy on 20/03/2015 18:24:42
Quote from: JohnDuffield
Yes I've read it.I'm not interested in your opinion because your opinion is always based on the very poor understanding of physics that you demonstrate in nearly all of your posts, such as this one in fact.
Quote from: JohnDuffield
It isn't popscience, but with respect, it's bad science that results from a lack of understanding of mass and gravity, along with a touch of "lost in math".Nonsense yet again. We're all pretty much used to the fact that in cases such as this it's always been your lack of understanding of the physics. This is easily seen in the fact that you were unable to make a definite statement of why you claim that the author, one of the actual contributors to the general theory of relativity in fact, doesn't understand gravity. What a load of BS.
Quote from: JohnDuffield
And I will reiterate: the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content.Correction: The mass of an isolated body at rest is a measure of its rest energy.
Please stop posting in the threads I create. I have no interest in what you have to say since you're understanding of physics is just that poor.
Post by: PmbPhy on 21/03/2015 03:12:16
Consider the electron-positron annihilationGoing back to the start of this thread I see that we all missed the obvious error in this post and I'm ashamed to admit that I missed it myself too.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F8%2F8c%2FElectron-positron-annihilation.png&hash=240653e858dcd2803cd38bc26df0e170)
If the positron has a negative mass -m, and the electron has a positive mass +m, their sum is
-m+m=0
Can we explain why the photon mass is zero (its rest-mass is 0)?
Is it 0 because the photon is the particle into which the pair positron-electron is transformed in the annihilation?
Conservation of mass: If the mass of anti-particle was actually negative like CD asserts then the total mass would be zero. However the total mass after the annihilation is not zero regardless of how one defines mass as invariant mass or relativistic mass. The invariant mass of a photon is zero but it has both energy and momentum and the energy and momentum of two identical particles traveling in opposite directions (which will be the case in these reactions). In that case the invariant mass of the system is non-zero. It actually has the value of the (total energy of the electron + positron)/c2.
Conservation of energy: If the energy of the antiparticle was negative the mass of the particle then the sum of the two is zero. However there are to photons after the reaction which have a non-zero total energy. Therefore the energy is not conserved. This means that the assumption of negative energy is false.
Post by: Courier of darkness on 17/06/2016 11:07:40
Post by: Courier of darkness on 29/06/2016 07:06:40
Consider the electron-positron annihilationGoing back to the start of this thread I see that we all missed the obvious error in this post and I'm ashamed to admit that I missed it myself too.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F8%2F8c%2FElectron-positron-annihilation.png&hash=240653e858dcd2803cd38bc26df0e170)
If the positron has a negative mass -m, and the electron has a positive mass +m, their sum is
-m+m=0
Can we explain why the photon mass is zero (its rest-mass is 0)?
Is it 0 because the photon is the particle into which the pair positron-electron is transformed in the annihilation?
The problem is, there is no error in my post.
Post by: guest39538 on 29/06/2016 14:02:22
Post by: guest39538 on 29/06/2016 14:30:17
Antimatter most certainly doesn't fall up since it behaves dynamically like matter. However have you read the Bondi article on negative mass? I forget what it says since its been many years since I've read it but it's surely not popscience media, that's for sure.Yes I've read it. It isn't popscience, but with respect, it's bad science that results from a lack of understanding of mass and gravity, along with a touch of "lost in math". And I will reiterate: the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content. If you take away all the energy, the body does not exist, and you can't take away more energy. Ditto if you shorten a pencil to 0cm. It no longer exists, and you can't make it shorter.
See http://www.newenglandphysics.org/Science_Literature/Journal_Articles/Bondi.pdf
The mass of a body is not a measure of its energy content. The mass of a body is a metric unit of quantifiable ''weight'' represented in kg on a set of scales, the intentions of the word mass was to represent the summation of all energies within a body, but the intentions are lost somewhere.
Mass should be represented m=
=EσHowever m represented by kg is a direct indistinguishable relationship to Newtons of force and F=ma.
Post by: jerrygg38 on 01/07/2016 13:29:46
Post by: guest39538 on 01/07/2016 13:39:21
According to my theory in my book, the property of mass is the result of a spherical momentum oscillation. An electron has an oscillation within its radius. The positron has a 180 degree phase difference in its oscillation as compared to the electron.. In addition both have degrees of linear and angular momentum. When you add an electron to a positron, you get a cancellation of the spherical momentum. This results in two photons. The energy is conserved and the photons now have high amounts of linear momentum.
Mass is entropy related, I do not know why you mention the above which I do not understand to mean anything, can you simplify that into layman terms?
Post by: jerrygg38 on 02/07/2016 00:30:38
Mass is entropy related, I do not know why you mention the above which I do not understand to mean anything, can you simplify that into layman terms?
The physics that we learn has two types of basic wave motion. A photon has linear motion and at the same time has a degree of spin motion. thus it has both linear and angular momentum. There is one other type of motion which causes mass and inertia. If we take a ball of energy and compress and expand it, it will have spherical motion. This form of momentum is responsible for mass. This form of energy was left out of the scientific discussion because we readily measure linear and orbital forms of energy but we do not readily measure the energy of a spherical compression/expansion oscillation. thus mass and gravity are spherical forms of forces and energy which have been overlooked.
Post by: Courier of darkness on 03/07/2016 09:41:48
At least this is in the forum where it belongs. I.e. this thread was moved here because it's outside the domain of mainstream physics meaning that what the OP claims are all WRONG.Agreed.................
This joker is way beyond help since he refuses to address all the proofs I've leveled against his bogus claims. If you have any questions or wish to discuss it let's take it to our private forum. Okay?
Just because my thread was moved here does not mean that my claims are all
WRONG.
in fact, my claims are correct.
Post by: Courier of darkness on 04/07/2016 06:25:04
He just can't fathom that he's wrong. What's bad about it is that he refuses to make an statement about why his claims should be taken as valid nor has he made an attempt to prove that he correct. He also ignores all the proof that he's wrong too.
I am not wrong.
Of course you are. Haven't you read the responses to your claims? Can't you see that your thread was moved to the New Theories Forum? That only happens when the claims made by the OP don't conform to mainstream physics like your bogus claims.
I repeat:
just because my thread was moved here, does not mean that my claims are bogus. You have presented no evidence against me except that my thread was moved here.
We know a nutcase when we see them because they insult people who explain their errors to them or say that they're wrong and that's all you've been doing since you got here is claiming that you know what's right and we don't because we're ignorant. The fact is that I've been a physicist for 30 years and you're merely an ignorant layman who refuses to state or prove why he thinks he's right.
I have not insulted anyone. It is you who is insulting. You don't know who I am. You did not explain my error, you only said that I must be wrong because my thread was moved here.
Post by: Courier of darkness on 04/07/2016 14:51:08
The rest is more of the same stupid garbage. You don't deserve any help because you're not intelligent enough to grasp it.I don't need any help. I did not ask for any help. It is you who needs help.
Post by: Courier of darkness on 06/07/2016 12:08:34
this thread was moved here because it's outside the domain of mainstream physics meaning that what the OP claims are all WRONG
Using this kind of logic, one can say that all the claims in all the threads here are all WRONG, the threads were moved here because they are all WRONG, all the new theories are WRONG.
Post by: Courier of darkness on 06/07/2016 19:50:59
In fact you were unable to grasp the fact that photons have a well defined relativistic mass because you mistook m = m0/sqrt{1 - v2/c2} because that was derived on the assumption that the particle is a tardyon, not a luxon. The definition of relativistic mass is given implicitly as the m in p = mv. Therefore m = p/v. Since v = c for a photon m = p/c. Substituting in E = pc or p = E/c we end up with m = E/c2
Lets examine more closely whether photons really have a well defined momentum:
The relativistic mass formula is m= m0/
The relativistic momentum is
for a photon v=c and
the problem is, for a photon m0 = 0 and therefore we end up with p =
cSo, are you implying that p = mc =
c is well defined?Post by: Courier of darkness on 09/07/2016 06:13:04
In fact you were unable to grasp the fact that photons have a well defined relativistic mass because you mistook m = m0/sqrt{1 - v2/c2}
I did not make an error, the relativistic mass formula is m= m0/
Are you going to explain why do you think that photons have well defined relativistic mass?
I told that photons have relativistic mass m =
Post by: Courier of darkness on 11/07/2016 13:04:57
He just can't fathom that he's wrong. What's bad about it is that he refuses to make an statement about why his claims should be taken as valid nor has he made an attempt to prove that he correct. He also ignores all the proof that he's wrong too.
You are ignoring the proof that you are wrong:
In fact you were unable to grasp the fact that photons have a well defined relativistic mass
It is you who is unable to grasp that photons don't have a well defined relativistic mass:
photons have relativistic mass m =
Post by: Courier of darkness on 19/07/2016 04:10:53
He just can't fathom that he's wrong
You are wrong, and it is clear now that you don't want to admit it. I have given you enough time to answer. I am no longer waiting. You can have your false beliefs, they are worthless. You don't want to admit that your assertions are not physics, you don't know the laws of physics, you are just making assertions and they are wrong.
Post by: Courier of darkness on 09/08/2016 04:54:19
you have decided to let me continue my monologue.
and it seems to you the thing to do would be to isolate the winner.
did you think that I needed you?
no.
it was you who needed my help.
I have told why mass can be negative.
Post by: katoomba on 09/08/2016 06:56:18
Post by: Courier of darkness on 11/08/2016 19:50:45
I don't think so.You do sound convincing considering that you created an account only to tell that you don't think so....as if the laws of physics cared what you think. Do you have multiple accounts here?
Post by: Courier of darkness on 23/08/2016 07:59:29
And it seems that there is a conspiracy to isolate Courier of darkness.....so I am forced
to hide the consequences of my mega science.........
Post by: Ethos_ on 23/08/2016 16:46:23
so I am forcedPlease do.............................
to hide the consequences of my mega science.........