Merged Studying Sharma's equation on Linear Field Equations

Dedicate was a fine word, I missed the intended sense (perfectly clear in retrospect). In any case, the word "Sharma" does not appear in the full-text search of the book---must be some other crackpot, there's no shortage of them. :)
 
Ziggurat said:
I said absolutely nothing about the charge on any antiparticle, the sign of which is quite obviously irrelevant. So not only are you wrong about antiparticles having negative energy, you fundamentally misunderstand what I have said.

But let's suppose that an antiparticle has negative energy. What should happen when a particle and an antiparticle annihilate each other? Why, nothing: energy is conserved, a + and a - energy add to zero, so that's the end of the story. And what should be required to make such a pair? Again, nothing: I can create a positive and negative energy pair from zero starting energy, so real pairs (not just virtual pairs) can pop out of nowhere.

But that's not what happens. When a positron and an electron annihilate each other, it creates TWO photons, each with the same energy as the electron's rest mass. Which means the positron has the same energy as the electron. And what if I want to make a positron-electron pair? I cannot do so with zero energy. In fact, if I want to do single-photon production (whack a heavy nucleus with it), I need that photon to have TWICE the energy of the electron, because I need to create an electron and a positron which BOTH have positive energy.

So you are wrong. Completely and utterly wrong. Where on earth did you get such a foolish idea?
Click to expand...

Look, your fooling no one. Any scientist knows that in a Hamiltonian the energy-equivalance is best described with a negative matter solution, and this has been worked on by nearly any university at some time. You said i was wrong, and i was not. I even linked you to varification, and you are still sitting there telling me i was wrong. Sigh*

You obviously have no conceptual knowledge of the Dirac Sea, and how its predictions of the antiparticle come from a negative sea of spinning quantum virtual particles. It's been varified time and time again, with the added problem its entire energy is about [latex]10^{122}[/latex] magnitudes of energy more than what should be expected.
 
Singularitarian said:
Look, your fooling no one.
Click to expand...

And yet, multiple other posters have also said that antiparticles have positive energy. So if I'm wrong, and I'm not fooling them, who is?

The rest mass energy of an electron is +511 keV. What is the rest mass energy of a positron? If an electron and a positron annihilate each other, how much energy should be released?

(And as an aside, the proper English in this case is "you're", which is a contraction of "you are", not "your", which is the possessive form of "you")

(Oh, and simple superscripts are much easier to use and read than latex in many cases. For example, 10122. If you quote this message, you can see how to use superscripts.)
 
Last edited:
Singularitarian said:
Look, your fooling no one. Any scientist knows that in a Hamiltonian the energy-equivalance is best described with a negative matter solution, and this has been worked on by nearly any university at some time. You said i was wrong, and i was not. I even linked you to varification, and you are still sitting there telling me i was wrong. Sigh*

You obviously have no conceptual knowledge of the Dirac Sea, and how its predictions of the antiparticle come from a negative sea of spinning quantum virtual particles. It's been varified time and time again, with the added problem its entire energy is about [latex]10^{122}[/latex] magnitudes of energy more than what should be expected.
Click to expand...

"Any scientist"? Funny, you're on a board with multiple professional physicists and nobody seems to agree with you.

Sol explained it very clearly: the Dirac Sea was the first method used to predict/describe antimatter. We still teach it in intro-particle-physics courses because it's kind of neat how the math works. Viewed in more detail, it is not a good description of the real world, and the correct version is taught later in those same courses. You haven't taken those courses yet, Sing, so you've missed half the picture.

(Never in this process does E = -mc^2 enter a kinematic equation; even in the Dirac Sea picture you can only do kinematics with "holes", or antiparticles, for which E = mc^2. Also, the Dirac sea would be made of real, not virtual particles---you are mistaken in associating it with the famous factor of 10^122 which is all virtual.)
 
No that is right. Real antiparticles have the positive energy you refer to. Where you are wrong is when you told me the equation [latex]E=\pm Mc^2[/latex] was wrong. That is why you where wrong, not for what you think.

At least now, you do know that virtual antiparticles are described that way from a Hamiltonian viewpoint.
 
Singularitarian said:
You obviously have no conceptual knowledge of the Dirac Sea, and how its predictions of the antiparticle come from a negative sea of spinning quantum virtual particles. It's been varified time and time again, with the added problem its entire energy is about
latex.php
magnitudes of energy more than what should be expected.
Click to expand...

More like the concept of the Dirac Sea was rendered obsolete in the 30s when quantum field theory was formulated. As a bonus, QFT does not demand that there be an infinite sea of negative energy that is balanced by the vacuum having infinite positive energy.
 
Anyway, off your high horse. I prove you where wrong in the link i gave you, if you even bothered educating yourself.
 
nescafe said:
More like the concept of the Dirac Sea was rendered obsolete in the 30s when quantum field theory was formulated. As a bonus, QFT does not demand that there be an infinite sea of negative energy that is balanced by the vacuum having infinite positive energy.
Click to expand...

I think you will find that the Dirac Sea did correctly predict the antiparticle. The good thing here is that the sea is replaced by a more logical and also varified existence, taking the form of the ZPF.
 
In this case, if we do not require a normalization, then it's still strange how there is too much energy, more than what is in the observable universe. In QFT, i can assure you its still a problem, because the ZPF is an infinite energy-filling resviour of negative potential particles. The renormalization might be as simple as a quantum ''cut-off'' in the region of particles in the vacuum, or at least, this is what has been suggested
 
The rest mass energy of an electron is +511 keV. What is the rest mass energy of a positron? If an electron and a positron annihilate each other, how much energy should be released?
 
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?
 
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...

Yes, I do know the difference. But first off, you never specified virtual particles only, and second, you're still wrong.
 
lol!!

I never specified that?

I certainly did when i linked you to the Dirac Sea yonks ago.

And i am not wrong, just because ''you say so-method.'' lol

Just admit, you did not know that the mass in the Hamiltonian of E=Mc^2 is actually E=\pm Mc^2, and has nothing to do with real particles. If you read the link, you might have saved yourself all this trouble.
 
Singularitarian said:
lol!!

I never specified that?

I certainly did when i linked you to the Dirac Sea yonks ago.
Click to expand...

No. The Dirac sea is supposed to be real particles, not virtual particles.

And i am not wrong, just because ''you say so-method.''
Click to expand...

No, you're wrong because what you say has no relationship to reality.
 
No, the Dirac Sea is composed of virtual energy. But it is actually the ZPF which now takes its identity. This also a sea of virtual potential energy.

Please go learn this stuff. Only when there sufficient energy in a given slice [latex]\sum[/latex] can a virtual particle appear commondating the exitence of its negative or opposite solution. So the Dirac Sea cannot consist of real matter, or all-space would be consumed by its energy.

Real matter is the stuff you and me is made of. Potential matter exists beyond the threshold of observation, but still have real effects in the world, dispite them having the unusual properties virtual particles have.
 
Better grasp? Is everyone on magic mushrooms on this site or something.

Who's side are you watching? He argued the Hamiltonian equation [latex]E=\pm Mc^2[/latex] was false. I showed him he was wrong, actually countless times i've showed he was wrong.

Amazingly, he's been able to even fool you. He never understood the math, and he can't even apologize. He also accused me of not warning him it was about virtual particles, which was absolutely not the case as well.
 
Singularitarian said:
lol!!

I never specified that?

I certainly did when i linked you to the Dirac Sea yonks ago.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom