0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Answer me this.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=mc˛ comes into play.

The energy E of the particle remains the same

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.

Alas, if you google for "mass of positron", veryone ojut there seems to think it is the same as that of an electron.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ElectronMass of Electron = 9.109 382 91(40)×10^{−31} kg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PositronMass of Positron = 9.109 382 91(40)×10^{−31} kgSee? Exactly the same.

SO antimatter is made of negative energy

Quote from: PmbPhy on 09/03/2015 19:34:46http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ElectronMass of Electron = 9.109 382 91(40)×10^{−31} kg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PositronMass of Positron = 9.109 382 91(40)×10^{−31} kgSee? 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 10^{10}. 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.

Corresponding to most kinds of particles, there is an associated antiparticle with the same mass and opposite charge (including electric charge).

SO antimatter is made of negative energy BUT it has positive mass just like regular matter.

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.

So -E=MC˛? 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 antimatter is made of negative energy BUT it has positive mass just like regular matter. So -E=MC˛? 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=mc˛ and -E=mc˛?

If E=mc˛ and -E=mc˛ it means that E=-E and +1=-1

The only possibility to solve this paradox is that antimatter has negative energy -E=-mc˛ and regular matter has positive energy +E = +mc˛

Quote from: ScientificSorcerer on 10/03/2015 01:58:37SO antimatter is made of negative energy Neither 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".

Antimatter does not have negative energy.

Quote from: Courier of darknessThe only possibility to solve this paradox is that antimatter has negative energy -E=-mc˛ and regular matter has positive energy +E = +mc˛ Wrong.

Are you telling that antimatter has positive energy?

I am not propagating false beliefs.

It is you who is propagating false beliefs if you tell that antimatter has positive energy.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Then you are wrong.

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".)

You are telling that negative energy -E is the same as positive energy +E

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.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]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.Quote from: Courier of darknessDuring the Big Bang there were equal amounts of antimatter and regular matterand their sum was -E + E = 0Not just during the Big Bang but now and forever too. In any case those are separate facts, not the same fact.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

Not 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.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]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.Quote from: Courier of darknessDuring the Big Bang there were equal amounts of antimatter and regular matterand their sum was -E + E = 0Not just during the Big Bang but now and forever too. In any case those are separate facts, not the same fact.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

They 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.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]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.Quote from: Courier of darknessDuring the Big Bang there were equal amounts of antimatter and regular matterand their sum was -E + E = 0Not just during the Big Bang but now and forever too. In any case those are separate facts, not the same fact.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

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.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]

During the Big Bang there were equal amounts of antimatter and regular matterand their sum was -E + E = 0