lukeb28

SCIENCE!!!

Recommended Posts

It's a theory based on a name. Anti matter is made of the same stuff "normal" matter is, just with the opposite "charge", "given" to it by its quarks. There is a proper term for it, but I'll call it Quantum-charge.

There are no "anti-quarks", as little as you call an electron an anti-proton (which makes no sense on many levels). When two particles with excactly opposite quantum charge collide, they tend to disintegrate into energy.

Anti-matter isn't some otherwordly substance (that's dark matter :P), and there are no properly founded theories nor evidence for negative energy, and it's completely illogical to think it is.

Take a physics class in energy or something, because the thought of something that defies the law of the conservation of energy is stupid at best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a theory based on a name. Anti matter is made of the same stuff "normal" matter is, just with the opposite "charge", "given" to it by its quarks. There is a proper term for it, but I'll call it Quantum-charge.

There are no "anti-quarks", as little as you call an electron an anti-proton (which makes no sense on many levels). When two particles with excactly opposite quantum charge collide, they tend to disintegrate into energy.

Anti-matter isn't some otherwordly substance (that's dark matter :P), and there are no properly founded theories nor evidence for negative energy, and it's completely illogical to think it is.

Take a physics class in energy or something, because the thought of something that defies the law of the conservation of energy is stupid at best.

Please read my posts more carefully next time. Also, no need for that hostility man. One thing, I am actually taking a course on (amongst others) that.

A) yes of course antimatter is just like normal matter, it only has a different role in the Diracequation, a different strangeness (yes that's a thing), charge, spin (sometimes, not always) etc. What makes you think I'm that dumb?

B) if you read closely (or maybe if I didn't fail to type, my brain usually goes faster than my typing. If that's the case, I apologise. Yes I know I'm rambling a bit now) you would actually read that the law of conservative energy is, in fact, not broken. What happens when an anti-quark (yes, that's the official name, it exist) meets a normal quark an doesn't create a meson? It annihilates, creating energy of a different kind, ie changing the waveform a little. What ~would~ happen ~if~ negative energy exist (read, energy in counterphase), is the creation of another waveform which is location and energy (as all waves are location and energy). This does not break any law at all, except one's mind's logical laws.

That's why the whole theory is fishy, (yes I put it out here, that doesn't mean I'm some sort of fanboy) it is a theory to support the stabilisation of a wormhole's perimeter -a wormhole itself being a theory on its own, which in my opinion is nothing more than a awesome idea, scientifically supported by dogbollock.

This whole thing came along when we started using imagination and then reason. Did you really expect solid theories? If this turns into a bullshit throwing party, I'm out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps I should double-check the terms so I don't mess up just by translation.

But still, you said it had been created in a lab. Proof of that would be practical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps I should double-check the terms so I don't mess up just by translation.

But still, you said it had been created in a lab. Proof of that would be practical.

That is true, I'm still looking for the article about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that explains about nothing, holy, it says something at assumes that you will take it for a fact. how do we even know that this negative energy was produced?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that explains about nothing, holy, it says something at assumes that you will take it for a fact. how do we even know that this negative energy was produced?

it was to explain the concept, not the nocks and crannies of it....

i suppose the shovel produces it though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it was to explain the concept, not the nocks and crannies of it....

i suppose the shovel produces it though...

how can you explain a complicated concept without going into the nooks and crannies?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how can you explain a complicated concept without going into the nooks and crannies?!

time dilation is when one person goes into a spaceship and flies around at a REALLY REALLY high speed, the two people will experience time differently.

there is an example, i explained time dialiation in 1 sentance, and didn't get into any gamma,length contraction, or some other "greek stuff"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

time dilation is when one person goes into a spaceship and flies around at a REALLY REALLY high speed, the two people will experience time differently.

there is an example, i explained time dialiation in 1 sentance, and didn't get into any gamma,length contraction, or some other "greek stuff"

the basic premise isn't all that difficult to explain, though i may be biased because i already know what it is.

negative energy isn't so easy to explain because it's an opposite to something that shouldn't be able to have an opposite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the basic premise isn't all that difficult to explain, though i may be biased because i already know what it is.

negative energy isn't so easy to explain because it's an opposite to something that shouldn't be able to have an opposite.

i would explain negitive energy as one person pushing a table with the same force as another person pushing it the other way with the EXACT same force, the energy going into the system to push it is being countered by the energy pushing it in the opposite direction

i have a knack for explaining hard things....

[begin side note] it might come from doing a sexual reproduction (with a visual demonstration i might add) in grade 9....in a private school....that's Christian... [end side note]

EDIT: i would still think the hole analogy is the best one though....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, since Mark mentioned Paul Dirac, how about Dirac's Ocean? Can it exist somewhere? And can it be accessed through conventional methods so far?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was not able to find the article that I read back then, but this one is ok. http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/negativeenergy/negativeenergy.htm

Well, since Mark mentioned Paul Dirac, how about Dirac's Ocean? Can it exist somewhere? And can it be accessed through conventional methods so far?
I do not think it is very likely that it exists anywhere. The Dirac equation treats the positron as the absence of a particle, which would make a sea of negative charge density. Now, the quantum field theory changes the Dirac equation to treat the positron as a particle (which is now commonly perceived) changing the vacuum from a see of negative charge density to the vacuum that we know nowadays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, then, let's veer off course a little. Suppose there's several varieties of dark matter than the singular form that's commonly known today? Would any of that might be a good source of negative energy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the main stumbling block with dark energy/matter is the fact that its all theory's impossible to test with today's technology. It could turn into the same deal as Ether did. Everyone was convinced it existed but then it didn't.

would type more but in a rush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It could turn into the same deal as Ether did. Everyone was convinced it existed but then it didn't.

I'm still not entirely convinced it doesn't exist. I'm just not sure it exists in the form the previous generations of scientists thought it does. The Michelson-Morley experiment was not entirely conclusive in my mind because they made the assumption that the ether is entirely stationary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a theory based on a name. Anti matter is made of the same stuff "normal" matter is, just with the opposite "charge", "given" to it by its quarks. There is a proper term for it, but I'll call it Quantum-charge.

There are no "anti-quarks", as little as you call an electron an anti-proton (which makes no sense on many levels). When two particles with excactly opposite quantum charge collide, they tend to disintegrate into energy.

Anti-matter isn't some otherwordly substance (that's dark matter :P), and there are no properly founded theories nor evidence for negative energy, and it's completely illogical to think it is.

Take a physics class in energy or something, because the thought of something that defies the law of the conservation of energy is stupid at best.

That is not entirely true. There are actual antiquarks, denoted by a bar above their symbol. Every single of the six existing (or known) quarks has an antiquark. Quarks have the electric charges of +2/3 electronvolt or -1/3 electronvolt. All the antiquarks have inverse charges: -2/3 electronvolt or +1/3 electronvolt. However, these are not the only differences. For instance, the antiquarks have opposite color charges to their respective quarks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, while at work yesterday, i came to a profound realization...i just want to see if i am right or i am going to look stupid...

so force is energy right?

and if force is energy then

F=E

and now if Newtons thrid law....

F(1)= -F(2)

now if F=E then

E(1) = -E(2)

so if i'm right then i just proved that negitive energy exists with Newtons third law

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, while at work yesterday, i came to a profound realization...i just want to see if i am right or i am going to look stupid...

so force is energy right?

and if force is energy then

F=E

and now if Newtons thrid law....

F(1)= -F(2)

now if F=E then

E(1) = -E(2)

so if i'm right then i just proved that negitive energy exists with Newtons third law

Force is not energy though. Hue, that was fast.

And you've proved nothing. You just made an assumption (Negative energy exists) based on another assumption (Newton's third law). But that's almost semantics anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Force is not energy though. Hue, that was fast.

And you've proved nothing. You just made an assumption (Negative energy exists) based on another assumption (Newton's third law). But that's almost semantics anyway.

i thought force was energy....oh well....

i like if you shoot in the dark long enough eventually you will hit something right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i thought force was energy....oh well....

i like if you shoot in the dark long enough eventually you will hit something right?

And in some cases, you'll hit the grue.

He's right. Force isn't "energy" as in the Einsteinian/Heisenberg sense (ie particle/light superimposition) but rather particles moving other particles. There's really no loss/gain of energy states between particles when you punch a kitty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*Readies thread shock paddles*

CLEAR! ~bzzt~

Luke, you should love this one. Your class will probably hate you, lol.

Note that the following is quoted wholesale from "The complete idiot's guide to string theory". I wanted to paraphrase, but the book makes much more sense than what I was going to post.

As intuitive as the principle of relativity is, it seems to lead to a contradiction. If the laws of physics are the same for everyone, then so is the speed of light. Once you set a light wave in motion, it takes on a life of its own, divorced from its source. It moves at a rate that depends only on the laws of electromagnetic waves. Experiments have confirmed this autonomy to a high precision. But it throws our expectations about relative motion for a loop. Suppose you're standing on a station platform and I'm on a train gliding by you at 25 miles per hour. If I throw a ball forward at 20 mph, it'll actually be going 45 mph relative to you standing on the platform- a fact you'd better keep in mind if you try to catch it. The total velocity is the sum of the two mph's. So it stands to reason that if I shine a light beam toward the front of this moving train, it'll go 25 mph plus the speed of light. Yet you're supposed to see the light moving at the same speed as I do. So what gives?

This apparent paradox is one of those situations I discussed in the last chapter where an interloper is hidden in our thoughts, some unstated assumption we've taken for granted and shouldn't have. Einstein, standing on the shoulders of Dutch physicist Hendrick Lorentz and others, smoked it out. The total velocity is not simply the sum. A new rule for calculating relative velocities ensures that light always moves at the same speed for everybody. And that means something funky must be going on with time. :psyduck:

Suppose my fellow passenger and I stand back-to-back, like duelers at the center of the moving train car. Each of us throws a ball toward the end of the car. The balls will hit the wall at the same time. You, standing on the station platform also see the balls hit at the same time. Although the train car is moving, the balls are moving along with it. Now suppose I do the same experiment with light. I turn on a light bulb in the middle of the moving train car. Shafts of light travel toward the two ends of the car. A fraction of a second later, those of us on board see the light beams reach the ends of the car. But to you, standing on the station platform, the outcome differs. Unlike the balls, the light isn't moving with the train. It has its own fixed speed. In the time it takes light to travel the length of the car, the rear comes forward to meet the light, and the front of the car moves away from it. Accordingly, you see the light hit the rear before it hits the front.

Discuss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No time to look at it now due to me having a math exam in a few min :P

Once I'm done though I would love to poke holes cut up this theory ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No time to look at it now due to me having a math exam in a few min :P

Once I'm done though I would love to poke holes cut up this theory ;)

Oooh, then you'll either have a really hard time (if you're smart) or a really easy time (if you're to stubborn to look beyond what's logical), because string theory stuff is complicated and sometimes quite illogical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.