[PmbPhy]

Matt Strassler
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?

Yes, 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.

[Courier of darkness (OP)]

Then 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.

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

What 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

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.

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.

[Ethos_]

Alan Guth describes the example of the negative energy of the gravitational field. See:
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/ref/guth_grav_energy.pdf

Thanks for the link Pete. I will give it a look see.

[PmbPhy]

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.

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? Read it again
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

[PmbPhy]

Alan Guth describes the example of the negative energy of the gravitational field. See:
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/ref/guth_grav_energy.pdf

Thanks for the link Pete. I will give it a look see.

Thanks.

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?

[Ethos_]

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?

Agreed.................

[Courier of darkness (OP)]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[JohnDuffield]

This thread is going downhill, but nevertheless I must sound a note of caution on this:

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:
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/ref/guth_grav_energy.pdf

Gravitational field energy is positive, not negative. See this 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 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.

[PmbPhy]

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?

Agreed.................

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.

[alancalverd]

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  m_p = m_e which is good enough for any sane person, but doesn't count as an independent and direct measurement.

[PmbPhy]

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.

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.

[PmbPhy]

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.

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.

..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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

And 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?

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.

[PmbPhy]

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

[PmbPhy]

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.

[PmbPhy]

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/

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!!

[PmbPhy]

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

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:

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

      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

[PmbPhy]

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

Before the Big Bang there was an un equal amount of matter and antimatter. The annihilation caused a balance to ensue

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

      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.

Guth 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
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/guth.jpg

[PmbPhy]

Tell me CD. Was

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?

[JohnDuffield]

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

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.

[PmbPhy]

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.

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.

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.