| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Michael Lodman" |
| Date: |
28 Mar 2006 11:31:26 PM |
| Object: |
Matter and antimatter |
Sorry if this is a stupid question but my web searches have yielded no
results:
Lots of sources say that particles and antiparticles, such as positrons and
electrons, collide and annihilate each other. They don't ever say why this
is so.
Why does simply having the opposite charge in electrons and positrons
result in annihilation?
.
|
|
| User: "HelpmaBoab" |
|
| Title: Re: Matter and antimatter |
28 Mar 2006 11:50:22 PM |
|
|
"Michael Lodman" <jlodman@baja-montana.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9794DAF277A2Bjlodmanbajamontana@70.169.32.36...
Sorry if this is a stupid question but my web searches have yielded no
results:
Lots of sources say that particles and antiparticles, such as positrons
and
electrons, collide and annihilate each other. They don't ever say why this
is so.
Why does simply having the opposite charge in electrons and positrons
result in annihilation?
Ye cannae mix matter and anti-matter captain.
Tam
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Stirling" |
|
| Title: Re: Matter and antimatter |
29 Mar 2006 02:03:49 AM |
|
|
HelpmaBoab <FU2@yahoo.co.zpc> wrote:
"Michael Lodman" <jlodman@baja-montana.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9794DAF277A2Bjlodmanbajamontana@70.169.32.36...
Sorry if this is a stupid question but my web searches have yielded no
results:
Lots of sources say that particles and antiparticles, such as positrons
and
electrons, collide and annihilate each other. They don't ever say why this
is so.
Why does simply having the opposite charge in electrons and positrons
result in annihilation?
Ye cannae mix matter and anti-matter captain.
What's the intermix chamber for then?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: The net mass-energy of the cosmos is known to be _Negative_. |
29 Mar 2006 07:52:02 PM |
|
|
Hi Michael_Lodman, You wrote:
Lots of sources say that particles and antiparticles,
such as positrons and electrons, collide and annihilate each other.
They don't ever say why this is so.
Why does simply having the opposite charge
in electrons and positrons result in annihilation ?
The net mass-energy of the cosmos is known to be _Negative_,
a.k.a. General_Relativity's lambda, a.k.a. GR's cosmological _Constant_,
a.k.a. dark energy, a.k.a. negative pressure... etc.
So... there might be more antiparticles than particles in the cosmos.
Although many are trying to discover if antiparticles contain negative mass,
the results so far are inconclusive because gravity is too weak to measure
at such scales, where charge plays a much more dominant role.
SNLS' preliminary data, released November 22,
and WMAP's March 17th data are confirming GR's cosmological _Constant_,
explaining the very _Source_ of gravity,
i.e. it's just leftover density... the cosmos has just always been dissipating.
Because gravitational time dilation is a function of the escape velocity,
I posit that things are actually traveling that fast there,
but in a cyclical, -- hence accelerated --, fashion, and in more dimensions.
SNLS' preliminary data has GR's lambda _Constant_, within a 10 percent error,
for at least the last 12 billion years, and WMAP defines lambda's value
to within a 5 percent error.
WMAP's March 17th data shows only polerizations consistent
with dissipation, -- i.e. ever increasing entropy --,
not from the massive gravity waves we'd see if, absurdly, the entire cosmos
had instantly popped into existence... sheesh, talk about science fiction !
So...
I posit that entropy is an intrinsic property of mass-energy.
Further, I posit that entropy is the measure of so-called cosmic time,
the fifth _Spatial_ dimension, Space_time_Entropy.
The 5D shape of the cosmos, Space_Time_Entropy, can be imagined
as a 2D hyperbola or a 3D horn with an infinitely long mouthpiece and flange.
As Hawking keeps saying... the cosmos has no beginning or end.
Because the cosmos has no center of gravity, it's 4D shape, i.e. Space_Time,
-- not 3D Space or 5D Space_Time_Entropy, mind you --,
is flat, like a straight 2D line.
The key to understanding cosmology or particle physics is this:
Nothing is intrinsically random; instead, some things are simply unknown,
given _Today_'s best observations/theories.
For example:
The spin of the earth and it's path around the sun are well known, a priori;
but, until it's measured, the spin of a photon and its path are unknown.
GR tells us that time and entropy are intrinsically _Spatial_,
it's only unknowns that make them seem directional.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The net mass-energy of the cosmos is known to be _Negative_. |
30 Mar 2006 07:51:33 AM |
|
|
"Jeff.Relf" <Me@Privacy.NET> cut and pasted into message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Mar_29_oPxy@Cotse.NET...
Once more you cut and paste the same drivel you have been spouting for what
seems like an eternity. You have no experimental evidence or theoretical
basis to support your claims.
You are as scientific a Frazir and Spaceman.
So...
I posit that entropy is an intrinsic property of mass-energy.
Further, I posit that entropy is the measure of so-called cosmic time,
the fifth _Spatial_ dimension, Space_time_Entropy.
How does the apparent brightness of a standard candle work in your 5D
universe?
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: T_Wake, loiter somewhere else. |
30 Mar 2006 04:23:56 PM |
|
|
Hi T_Wake, You can't even begin to understand SNLS's or WMAP's data,
nor can you begin to understand anything I write,
so do us all a favor and loiter somewhere else.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Jeff Is Feeling Hard Done By |
30 Mar 2006 04:33:26 PM |
|
|
"Jeff.Relf" <Me@Privacy.NET> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Mar_30_LhKc@Cotse.NET...
Hi T_Wake, You can't even begin to understand SNLS's or WMAP's data,
Wrong.
nor can you begin to understand anything I write,
Correct. But this is because it is meaningless gibberish that has no
scientific content.
so do us all a favor and loiter somewhere else.
It is interesting that you say this. You provide no science, you have no
ability to discuss science other than in quotemining (and often you get the
quotes seriously out of context) and you spend most of your life ignoring
the common protocols for communication. Yet you still post here.
Come on Jeff. Show some science.
How do you use the standard candles in a five dimensional universe?
Do you even know how they imply 3D by their nature? Do you understand the
basics of the fundamental forces?
As I have said, as soon as you admit you don't know I will explain it to
you. If you can still justify there being five spatial dimensions then we
can work on the model and you will be getting the Nobel prize.
Until then, I will correct your flawed postulate each time I see it.
The choice is yours. Be correct and scientific or post elsewhere.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: T_Wake, f_ck off you Shit_for_Brains *****. |
30 Mar 2006 04:41:44 PM |
|
|
Hi T_Wake, I'm amazed you know enough to ingest food,
or does someone do that for you ?
You know nothing about General_Relativity, especially not lambda.
You aren't capable of learning anthing about it,
so ***** you Shit_for_Brains *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Jeffs medication is wearing off |
30 Mar 2006 04:51:12 PM |
|
|
"Jeff.Relf" <Me@Privacy.NET> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Mar_30_3M30@Cotse.NET...
Hi T_Wake, I'm amazed you know enough to ingest food,
or does someone do that for you ?
Good one. Did you think it up all on your own?
You know nothing about General_Relativity, especially not lambda.
Prove it.
You aren't capable of learning anthing about it,
so ***** you Shit_for_Brains *****.
Well done Jeff. Instead of producing the evidence to support your five
spatial dimensions, all you do is hurl insults at me. Oddly enough, I don't
care about your opinion of me so these really do not bother me. If you can
come up with some original ones I will be entertained but until then I will
simply see it as your evasion tactics to avoid the simple fact your five
spatial dimension model is wrong.
You can posit it as often as you like. It is still wrong.
You have no idea how the three spatial dimensions of the universe are
experimentally validated have you?
You know nothing about the fundamental forces of physics.
You actually know even less about cosmology and relativity. If you lost
access to wikipedia your brain would implode.
I have actually come to suspect that you have to quotemine the wikis to be
able to tie your own shoe laces in the morning.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: T_Wake, Stop harassing me. You're helping no one. |
30 Mar 2006 04:57:20 PM |
|
|
T_Wake, Stop harassing me. You're helping no one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Post some science then |
30 Mar 2006 05:01:12 PM |
|
|
"Jeff.Relf" <Me@Privacy.NET> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Mar_30_oLBz@Cotse.NET...
T_Wake, Stop harassing me. You're helping no one.
I am not harassing you. You are the one making references to your desire to
get up my *****.
As I have said. As soon as you post the scientific basis for your claims I
will stop pointing out your fallacies.
You have the choices here Jeff. I am not forcing you to post in
news://sci.physics - but as long as you (and you continue to make off the
rails posits with are already falsified) then I will exercise my choice of
responding to you posts and ensuring any one who debates with you is aware
of your failings.
This is all because you have resolutely refused to explain how your idea of
entropy being the fifth spatial dimension can actually fit in with ANY other
physics (even the standard candles you love to talk about are based on three
spatial dimensions).
The kicker from my point of view is, you cant even see where you are going
wrong.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: T_Wake, Stop harassing me. You're helping no one. |
30 Mar 2006 05:33:06 PM |
|
|
T_Wake, Stop harassing me. You're helping no one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: stop crying, talk science. |
30 Mar 2006 05:38:56 PM |
|
|
still resorting to a cut and paste to avoid the questions I see)
"Jeff.Relf" <Me@Privacy.NET> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Mar_30_f2H5@Cotse.NET (and in
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Mar_30_5BrE@Cotse.NET and in
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Mar_30_zguv@Cotse.NET and in
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Mar_30_qMDZ@Cotse.NET and in
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Mar_30_Os2h@Cotse.NET and in
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Mar_30_oLBz@Cotse.NET )...
T_Wake, Stop harassing me. You're helping no one.
I am not harassing you. You are the one making references to your desire to
get up my *****.
As I have said. As soon as you post the scientific basis for your claims I
will stop pointing out your fallacies.
You have the choices here Jeff. I am not forcing you to post in
news://sci.physics - but as long as you (and you continue to make off the
rails posits with are already falsified) then I will exercise my choice of
responding to you posts and ensuring any one who debates with you is aware
of your failings.
This is all because you have resolutely refused to explain how your idea of
entropy being the fifth spatial dimension can actually fit in with ANY other
physics (even the standard candles you love to talk about are based on three
spatial dimensions).
The kicker from my point of view is, you cant even see where you are going
wrong.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "G. L. Bradford" |
|
| Title: Re: The net mass-energy of the cosmos is known to be _Negative_. |
30 Mar 2006 03:49:27 AM |
|
|
"Jeff.Relf" <Me@Privacy.NET> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Mar_29_oPxy@Cotse.NET...
Hi Michael_Lodman, You wrote:
Lots of sources say that particles and antiparticles,
such as positrons and electrons, collide and annihilate each other.
They don't ever say why this is so.
Why does simply having the opposite charge
in electrons and positrons result in annihilation ?
The net mass-energy of the cosmos is known to be _Negative_,
a.k.a. General_Relativity's lambda, a.k.a. GR's cosmological _Constant_,
a.k.a. dark energy, a.k.a. negative pressure... etc.
So... there might be more antiparticles than particles in the cosmos.
Although many are trying to discover if antiparticles contain negative
mass,
the results so far are inconclusive because gravity is too weak to measure
at such scales, where charge plays a much more dominant role.
SNLS' preliminary data, released November 22,
and WMAP's March 17th data are confirming GR's cosmological _Constant_,
explaining the very _Source_ of gravity,
i.e. it's just leftover density... the cosmos has just always been
dissipating.
Because gravitational time dilation is a function of the escape velocity,
I posit that things are actually traveling that fast there,
but in a cyclical, -- hence accelerated --, fashion, and in more
dimensions.
SNLS' preliminary data has GR's lambda _Constant_, within a 10 percent
error,
for at least the last 12 billion years, and WMAP defines lambda's value
to within a 5 percent error.
WMAP's March 17th data shows only polerizations consistent
with dissipation, -- i.e. ever increasing entropy --,
not from the massive gravity waves we'd see if, absurdly, the entire
cosmos
had instantly popped into existence... sheesh, talk about science fiction
!
So...
I posit that entropy is an intrinsic property of mass-energy.
Further, I posit that entropy is the measure of so-called cosmic time,
the fifth _Spatial_ dimension, Space_time_Entropy.
The 5D shape of the cosmos, Space_Time_Entropy, can be imagined
as a 2D hyperbola or a 3D horn with an infinitely long mouthpiece and
flange.
As Hawking keeps saying... the cosmos has no beginning or end.
Because the cosmos has no center of gravity, it's 4D shape, i.e.
Space_Time,
-- not 3D Space or 5D Space_Time_Entropy, mind you --,
is flat, like a straight 2D line.
The key to understanding cosmology or particle physics is this:
Nothing is intrinsically random; instead, some things are simply unknown,
given _Today_'s best observations/theories.
For example:
The spin of the earth and it's path around the sun are well known, a
priori;
but, until it's measured, the spin of a photon and its path are unknown.
GR tells us that time and entropy are intrinsically _Spatial_,
it's only unknowns that make them seem directional.
If someone just accidentally could possibly invent a time machine, guess
what it would run smack into the very instant it tried to perform its
function of traveling backward in time?
GLB
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Matter and antimatter |
29 Mar 2006 12:59:43 AM |
|
|
In article <Xns9794DAF277A2Bjlodmanbajamontana@70.169.32.36>, Michael Lodman <jlodman@baja-montana.com> writes:
Sorry if this is a stupid question but my web searches have yielded no
results:
Lots of sources say that particles and antiparticles, such as positrons and
electrons, collide and annihilate each other. They don't ever say why this
is so.
Why does simply having the opposite charge in electrons and positrons
result in annihilation?
It is not necessarily a matter of charge, neutral particles also have
antiparticles. Anyway, ask yourself, why won't, for example, proton
and electron annihilate one another when colliding?
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "srp" |
|
| Title: Re: Matter and antimatter |
29 Mar 2006 06:53:56 AM |
|
|
Michael Lodman a écrit :
Sorry if this is a stupid question but my web searches have yielded no
results:
Lots of sources say that particles and antiparticles, such as positrons and
electrons, collide and annihilate each other. They don't ever say why this
is so.
Why does simply having the opposite charge in electrons and positrons
result in annihilation?
It is not only a matter of having opposite charges. The particles
have to be totally identical _except_ for charge to be antiparticles
of one another.
Electron/positron is such a case.
As to why this occurs, this is a good question. Actually it is the
fundamental question.
It is an _observed_ phenomenon, just like electron/positron pair
creation from photons of energy 1.022 MeV or higher (that was
predicted by Dirac), that remains to be fully explained.
André Michaud
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael J. Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Matter and antimatter |
29 Mar 2006 12:06:21 PM |
|
|
"srp" <srp2@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:442A744F.5050701@globetrotter.net...
Michael Lodman a icrit :
Sorry if this is a stupid question but my web searches have yielded no
results:
Lots of sources say that particles and antiparticles, such as positrons
and electrons, collide and annihilate each other. They don't ever say why
this is so.
Why does simply having the opposite charge in electrons and positrons
result in annihilation?
It is not only a matter of having opposite charges. The particles
have to be totally identical _except_ for charge to be antiparticles
of one another.
Electron/positron is such a case.
As to why this occurs, this is a good question. Actually it is the
fundamental question.
It is an _observed_ phenomenon, just like electron/positron pair
creation from photons of energy 1.022 MeV or higher (that was
predicted by Dirac), that remains to be fully explained.
Andri Michaud
I've often thought that the annihilation concept is unnecessary.
If an electron and positron converge on each other from infinity,
classically they reach the speed of light at about the proton diameter
separation. This provides half the annihilation energy.
If they converge still further and merge into a neutral particle or orbit
each other, they could easily reach/release the observed "annihilation"
energy.
The resulting particle or complex would be light and uncharged (similar to a
neutrino but heavier) and be non-interacting and hard to detect (like the
neutrino).
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Strickland
Quality Services
703-560-7380
---------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "FrediFizzx" |
|
| Title: Re: Matter and antimatter |
29 Mar 2006 12:47:32 PM |
|
|
"Michael J. Strickland" <qualityser@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:x0AWf.648609$qk4.142935@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"srp" <srp2@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:442A744F.5050701@globetrotter.net...
Michael Lodman a icrit :
Sorry if this is a stupid question but my web searches have yielded
no
results:
Lots of sources say that particles and antiparticles, such as
positrons
and electrons, collide and annihilate each other. They don't ever
say why
this is so.
Why does simply having the opposite charge in electrons and
positrons
result in annihilation?
It is not only a matter of having opposite charges. The particles
have to be totally identical _except_ for charge to be antiparticles
of one another.
Electron/positron is such a case.
As to why this occurs, this is a good question. Actually it is the
fundamental question.
It is an _observed_ phenomenon, just like electron/positron pair
creation from photons of energy 1.022 MeV or higher (that was
predicted by Dirac), that remains to be fully explained.
Andri Michaud
I've often thought that the annihilation concept is unnecessary.
If an electron and positron converge on each other from infinity,
classically they reach the speed of light at about the proton diameter
separation. This provides half the annihilation energy.
If they converge still further and merge into a neutral particle or
orbit
each other, they could easily reach/release the observed
"annihilation"
energy.
This is not at all necessary for an electron and positron will
annihilate if brought together slowly so their kinetic energy is very
small. And we are not sure what you mean by "annihilation energy". Do
you mean the energy of the two or more photons released by the
annihilation?
The resulting particle or complex would be light and uncharged
(similar to a
neutrino but heavier) and be non-interacting and hard to detect (like
the
neutrino).
In our Quantum Vacuum Charge concept, we call them "zertons" and they
have to be "less than virtual" pairs which means they have to be in
another spacetime other than ours. A modified Dirac-like Sea. Dual
Spacetime with warped geometry between them.
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
http://www.vacuum-physics.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "srp" |
|
| Title: Re: Matter and antimatter |
29 Mar 2006 03:58:12 PM |
|
|
Michael J. Strickland a écrit :
"srp" <srp2@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:442A744F.5050701@globetrotter.net...
Michael Lodman a icrit :
Sorry if this is a stupid question but my web searches have yielded no
results:
Lots of sources say that particles and antiparticles, such as positrons
and electrons, collide and annihilate each other. They don't ever say why
this is so.
Why does simply having the opposite charge in electrons and positrons
result in annihilation?
It is not only a matter of having opposite charges. The particles
have to be totally identical _except_ for charge to be antiparticles
of one another.
Electron/positron is such a case.
As to why this occurs, this is a good question. Actually it is the
fundamental question.
It is an _observed_ phenomenon, just like electron/positron pair
creation from photons of energy 1.022 MeV or higher (that was
predicted by Dirac), that remains to be fully explained.
I've often thought that the annihilation concept is unnecessary.
If an electron and positron converge on each other from infinity,
classically they reach the speed of light at about the proton diameter
separation. This provides half the annihilation energy.
If they converge still further and merge into a neutral particle or orbit
each other, they could easily reach/release the observed "annihilation"
energy.
The resulting particle or complex would be light and uncharged (similar to a
neutrino but heavier) and be non-interacting and hard to detect (like the
neutrino).
As mentioned by Fred, an electron and a positron will "annihilate" even
if they close in very slowly.
They simply capture each other just like a proton will capture an
electron to become a neutral hydrogen atom.
In the case of electron-positron capture, they form an unstable system
named positronium (ortho- if both particles are parallel spin aligned,
and para- if they are antiparallel spin aligned).
On short notice, ortho- will decay into 3 very normal 0.34 MeV photons
and para- will decay into 2 very normal 0.511 MeV photons.
I put annihilate in quotes, because they do not really annihilate.
What they do is "convert" into equivalent energy.
This has been well understood and documented since the 1930's.
André Michaud
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Matter and antimatter |
29 Mar 2006 07:48:31 AM |
|
|
Michael Lodman wrote:
Sorry if this is a stupid question but my web searches have yielded no
results:
Lots of sources say that particles and antiparticles, such as positrons and
electrons, collide and annihilate each other. They don't ever say why this
is so.
Why does simply having the opposite charge in electrons and positrons
result in annihilation?
Particle-antiparticle annihilation is the opposite of pair production.
Read the Feynman diagram in the opposite direction.
Antiparticle
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Antiparticle.html
Also: What is antimatter?
http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=000848AB-9450-1CD1-B4A8809EC588EEDF
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
