Merged Studying Sharma's equation on Linear Field Equations

ben m said:
Your first post in this thread seems to have something to do with a mildly-relativistic particle falling under uniform gravity---not virtual particle, nor an antiparticle, nor a component of the Dirac sea. Exactly the sort of thing for which only the + solution is meaningful. Nonetheless, your negative sign is there.
Click to expand...

I think you'll find its use was obsolete anyway due to an error i had made, so it doesn't matter.

What does matter, is when i am told i am wrong when i say ''the hamiltonian expresses E=Mc^2 with a negative solution in respect with the vacuum energy, and takes the form of the positron, and hence, other antiparticles.''

This is not wrong, but i was told i was. How long are we going to keep this up?
 
Singularitarian said:
It releases due to conservation 1022KeV of energy, in the form of two photons. It can also be seen as a form of decay, but this has absolutly nothing to do with what is being said. You are completely off-topic. You're arguing for a real antiparticle, the Hamiltonian of E=Mc^2 leads to a negative solution for virtual particles.

Do you know the difference?
Click to expand...

It has everything to do with it, but you missed what I would consider the best response to RC - namely that the positron is supposed to be an absence of a negative energy particle in the Dirac Sea model, and two negatives (the absence of a negative energy) make a positive. Also the Dirac Sea particles are not virtual - at least not according to any useful definition I can think of.

Anyway, the Dirac Sea as an idea has some unpleasant properties, and furthermore it seems to me ben m is quite right in noting the error in the original placement of the - sign in your original post.
 
edd said:
It has everything to do with it, but you missed what I would consider the best response to RC - namely that the positron is supposed to be an absence of a negative energy particle in the Dirac Sea model, and two negatives (the absence of a negative energy) make a positive. Also the Dirac Sea particles are not virtual - at least not according to any useful definition I can think of.

Anyway, the Dirac Sea as an idea has some unpleasant properties, and furthermore it seems to me ben m is quite right in noting the error in the original placement of the - sign in your original post.
Click to expand...

First off, it wasn't Ben.

Secondly, tell me then how you reconcile the obviously contrary work:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_sea

So if i was wrong, how come the page here explains that the equation is not wrong, as thus expressed in a Hamitonian?

Now, stop defending someone, when you don't even know the facts.
 
But it couldn't get any simpler in that article. This is how i have learned it independantly as well. I know its right.
 
Wikipedia is an excellent tool and one I often recommend to my students.

What I also make clear is they should never really completely trust ANY single source of information, and that includes myself, and that they should be especially careful when quoting from websites.

The fact that the article doesn't have a single source or reference should make any student go "hmmmm" and means they may have to dig a little deeper or ask a few more people before they take every single word and symbol as "gospel".
 
Singularitarian said:
First off, it wasn't Ben.

Secondly, tell me then how you reconcile the obviously contrary work:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_sea

So if i was wrong, how come the page here explains that the equation is not wrong, as thus expressed in a Hamitonian?

Now, stop defending someone, when you don't even know the facts.
Click to expand...

Sing: I know what the Wiki article says. In fact, I specifically said to you "You seem to be quoting the Wiki article". What made me think so? You keep tossing in the word "Hamiltonian" without knowing what it means, as though your main exposure to the word Hamiltonian were in the intro to the equation you want to force on everyone. You don't dare leave out the phrase "as expressed in a hamiltonian" because you have no way of telling, based on that one Wiki sentence, what it would mean to leave it out.

The physicists here have all agreed that:
1) Yes, if you allow E= -mc^2 (and some other assumptions) you can predict the Dirac sea
2) The Dirac sea would be a sea of *real* particles whose "holes" are *real* (not virtual), antiparticles
3) That's the first, last, and only use for E=-mc^2; since the Dirac sea has all sorts of other horrible properties, physicists think it does not really exist

Sol is right, that article needs to be rewritten.
 
ben m said:
Sing: I know what the Wiki article says. In fact, I specifically said to you "You seem to be quoting the Wiki article". What made me think so? You keep tossing in the word "Hamiltonian" without knowing what it means, as though your main exposure to the word Hamiltonian were in the intro to the equation you want to force on everyone. You don't dare leave out the phrase "as expressed in a hamiltonian" because you have no way of telling, based on that one Wiki sentence, what it would mean to leave it out.

The physicists here have all agreed that:
1) Yes, if you allow E= -mc^2 (and some other assumptions) you can predict the Dirac sea
2) The Dirac sea would be a sea of *real* particles whose "holes" are *real* (not virtual), antiparticles
3) That's the first, last, and only use for E=-mc^2; since the Dirac sea has all sorts of other horrible properties, physicists think it does not really exist

Sol is right, that article needs to be rewritten.
Click to expand...



I've solved plenty Hamiltonians. What surprises me is the continuous dogmnatism between some people here, despite the evidence flying in their faces. At least, this way, i differ somewhat.

By the way, no negative solutions equals a true positive real matter particle. Only in the appearance with a real electron, unless disturbed by the CP-Violation, then its appearance is simultaneous with a *real* particle which is its antithesis. I can assure you, before such an appearance of a real electron does a real positron appear. Until then, it does not abide by natural energy-momentum laws, nor does it apply generally with the matter we observe frequently. Deny this, and you are a fool.
 
I was reading today, funnily enough, Doctor Wolfs 'Spritual Universe...' Don't let the name threat you - it's quite a good read, and he actually talked about the Dirac Sea, in the third chapter if i remember rightly.

He descrived it as an

''energy-filling vacuum of potential particles, with a negative energy.''

And

''The motion of the electron is buffetted by these virtual particles.'' (hence, the periodic time, internal and fundamental to the electron).

And

''When an electron appears in spacetime, a positron appears also.''

This is when the particles become ''real.''
 
Singularitarian said:
I was reading today, funnily enough, Doctor Wolfs 'Spritual Universe...' Don't let the name threat you - it's quite a good read, and he actually talked about the Dirac Sea, in the third chapter if i remember rightly.
Click to expand...

So rather than cite texts which are meant to teach physics, you're referencing a text which is, at its heart, about religion. That is unpersuasive, to put it charitably.
 
Singularitarian said:
I've solved plenty Hamiltonians.
Click to expand...

Are you sure? I've never assigned or been assigned the task of "solving a Hamiltonian".

By the way, no negative solutions equals a true positive real matter particle. Only in the appearance with a real electron, unless disturbed by the CP-Violation, then its appearance is simultaneous with a *real* particle which is its antithesis. I can assure you, before such an appearance of a real electron does a real positron appear. Until then, it does not abide by natural energy-momentum laws, nor does it apply generally with the matter we observe frequently. Deny this, and you are a fool.
Click to expand...

I can dodge the "fool" bullet (whew!) in this case---I can't deny "this" because it does not make any sense. I can discern, in the second sentence, something like "electrons and positrons are created in pairs"---is that your point? That's true (and it's true of virtual as well as real electrons). The first and third sentences are incomprehensible. The fourth may contain something like "Virtual particles are allowed nonzero energies only thanks to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle"---is that what you meant?---which is true, and perhaps also some other statement (the second clause, basically) which is incomprehensible.
 
Yeh, sure, when we have to solve to find a certain condition of the Hamiltonian. Don't be circular in your specificies.

Either way, anyone who has come here, will see that the initial poster you defended was wholey wrong. You've made yourself out to be a fool, so i cannot even continue with this. I've explained, linked, and this still is not enough, so why should i continue an endless battle, which is pretty much boring to read.
 
Ziggurat said:
So rather than cite texts which are meant to teach physics, you're referencing a text which is, at its heart, about religion. That is unpersuasive, to put it charitably.
Click to expand...

No it's not about religion actually, but brief mentions, maybe at least three times throughout the whole book. Most of it is to do with scientists he met, and how he came to understand quantum physics can model a soul for the observer.
 
Ziggurat said:
So rather than cite texts which are meant to teach physics, you're referencing a text which is, at its heart, about religion. That is unpersuasive, to put it charitably.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind, his other citations have been mainly (a) unread Google search summaries and (b) non-refereed crackpot journals (Journal of Theoretics, Concepts of Physics) and (c) crackpot web pages (Calphysics). This makes Fred Wolfs look like Halliday and Resnick by comparison.
 
Though he has still been a ''professor of physics,'' at at least four universities and colleges, he has been an award winning author of ''taking the quantum leap,'' and he was the best seller for a year... so, yeh, he must be totally cranked.
 
Singularitarian said:
I've explained, linked, and this still is not enough
Click to expand...

I am willing to drop the (basically academic) point about whether or not the negative sign which Dirac used in his "Dirac Sea" model actually has anything to do with reality. Sing says "yes", Wikipedia's article contains sentences which say "yes" and paragraphs which say "no", and several qualified physicists here say "no, not at all".

This is all rather divorced from your first-post long essay, which (a) presumably you thought would be an interesting thing to discuss, (b) has absolutely nothing to do with the Dirac Sea, and (c) tosses a negative sign into things which look like kinematic equations. What was that all about?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom