0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
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?
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.
Then you are wrong.
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.
You are telling that negative energy -E is the same as positive energy +E
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.
Not true. Because physicists seem to agree that:During the Big Bang there were equal amounts of antimatter and regular matterand 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.
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
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 wereequal amounts of antimatter and matter and their sum was -E + E = 0
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.
Antimatter has the energy -E, negative energy.Regular matter has the energy +E, positive energy.
Nothing is wrong with me.
Quote from: PmbPhy on 10/03/2015 09:21:39 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.pdfThanks for the link Pete. I will give it a look see.
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?
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.
Why aren't you listening? I explained your error and you can't fathom it?
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.
A bunch of nonsense. You're just far too much of a layman to understand this. Pick up a book and learn the subject.
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.
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
Quote from: PmbPhy on 10/03/2015 15:08:46This 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.................
If an electron would be called an antiparticle and have a negative energy, then the positron would becalled 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
I am listening if you have a point but I don't intend to bend according to your will.
I'm afraid does antimatter fall up? is just a soundbite to attract the attention of the popscience media.
There seems to be a general assumption, at least in Pop. Sci. that tachyons accelerate.
You are just simply wrong and unable to understand it, therefore you are irritated.
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.
APPENDIX ASince the negative energy of a gravitational field is crucial to the notion ofa zero-energy universe, it is a subject worth examining carefully. In thisappendix I will explain how the properties of gravity can be used to showthat the energy of a gravitational field is unambiguously negative. The argumentwill be described in the context of Newton's theory of gravity,although the same conclusion can be reached using Einstein's theory of generalrelativity.I'm visiting him
APPENDIX ASince 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.
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?
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.