Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Antimatter

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Indeed I was addressing two problems Dark matter and anti matter, I should have been more explicit.

"Furthermore, scientists have made anti-matter in the labs and used it to try produce energy. The problem with that matter anti-matter reaction is that due to the high cost of artifically producing anti-matter makes it to expensive with current technology. With that method it costs the same amount to power a light bulb as it does to power a large city. But the important thing is that they could detect it. They wouldn't of been able to do the experiment if they couldn't detect it.

It can't be an anti-concept if it was made in the labs and experiemented with."

Please do supply an example. Almost every day a new article proclaiming such "proof" comes out about dark matter and blackholes[an equal fairytale}

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=qwk0u6cc

all based on assumptions. Ill demostrate in another post soon.

Consider these words:

" neutron combines the charges from a proton and an electron in a barely stable resonance, which decays in minutes. Its decay must have a cause and may involve an interaction with a neutrino. However, when combined with protons it seems neutrons form a new stable resonant structure that serves to bind the protons electrically despite the overall positive charge on the nucleus.

The notion that matter can be annihilated when normal matter meets antimatter is a confusion of language. Matter can neither be destroyed nor created nor can matter be exchanged for energy. Einstein's E = mc2 refers to mass, a property of matter, not matter itself. The mathematical relationship represents the restructuring of resonant systems of charge. What seems to happen in "annihilation" is that the complementary resonant charge structures of a particle and its antiparticle combine so that almost all of the internal energy is radiated away and the combined charges form a new collapsed particle of low internal energy.

The most collapsed form of matter is the neutrino, which has a vanishingly small mass. However, the neutrino must contain all of the charges required to form two particles – a particle and its antiparticle. This symmetry explains why a neutrino is considered to be its own anti-particle. A neutrino may accept energy from a gamma ray to reconstitute a particle and its anti-particle. "Empty space" is full of neutrinos. They are the repositories of matter in the universe, awaiting the burst of gamma-radiation to expand them to form the stuff of atoms. The weird "zoo" of short-lived particles created in particle accelerators and seen in cosmic rays are simply unstable resonant systems of charge.

The equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass implies that gravity is also an electrical force. Before Einstein, some noted scientists were suggesting that the gravitational force between neutral particles might ultimately be due to electrical polarization within the particles. In 1882, Friedrich Zöllner wrote in the introduction to his book, Explanation of Universal Gravitation through the Static Action of Electricity and The General Importance of Weber's Laws, "…we are to conclude that a pair of electrical particles of opposite signs, i.e. two Weberian molecular pairs attract each other. This attraction is Gravity, it is proportional to the number of molecular pairs." Indeed, gravity can be represented as the sum of the radially aligned electric dipoles formed by all subatomic particles within a charged planet or star.

This new electrical concept suggests that Newton's "universal constant of gravitation," or "G," is a dependent variable. G depends upon the charge distribution within a celestial body. Highly charged objects like comets look like solid rock, yet they have a gravitational field that suggests they are fluff-balls. And as they discharge they suffer what is euphemistically called "non-gravitational" accelerations. The extreme weakness of the force of gravity, compared to the electric force, is a measure of the minuscule electric dipolar distortion of nucleons. Gravity cannot be shielded by normal electrostatic shielding because all subatomic particles within the gravitational field respond to the dipolar distortion, whether they are metals or non-metals."

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=gdaqg8df

"At the level of the atom, the Electric Universe model takes a lead from the work of Ralph Sansbury, an independent New York researcher. Foremost is the simple recognition of the basic electrical nature of matter and the primacy of the electrostatic force** in matter interactions. It also rests upon the simple assumption that the proton, neutron and electron are composed of smaller charged particles, orbiting each other in a classical sense in stable, resonant orbits. That is, the energy exchanged between those sub-particles in elastic deformation during each orbit sums to zero. Being charged, the sub-particles interact via the electrostatic force. A simple calculation shows that the sub-particles that form an electron must travel at a speed far in excess of the speed of light - some 2.5 million light-years per second, or from here to the far side of the Andromeda galaxy in one second! So the electrostatic force must act at a speed which is almost infinite on our scale for the electron to be stable. It is the stable orbital resonances of these sub-particles, both within and between particles that give rise to the phenomena of protons, neutrons, electrons and atoms. Other denizens of the particle "zoo" are merely transient resonant states of the same charged sub-particles. The so-called "creation" of matter from energetic photons is an illusion in which pre-existing matter is reorganized into new resonant states that give the impression that a particle has suddenly materialized. Antimatter is a misnomer since it too is formed from the same sub-particles as "normal" matter except that the total charge is mirrored. Matter cannot be created or annihilated."

http://www.holoscience.com/synopsis.php?page=11

You do understantd that "spacetime" in the relativistic sense requires the reification of time and space,as well as the postulation of another "dimension ".

http://www.quackgrass.com/time.html

http://www.quackgrass.com/space.html

Indeed we can and have seen plasma every where in space as well as vast magnetic fields. You cannot have such fields wthout electric current.

I do realize that im suggesting revolutionary stuff that requires the review of the foundation of most of astrphysics/cosmology today. I can only say if you will give the information your consideration you will see that it is indeed objective,and that you may indeed reach a higher level of integration as a result of discarding false concepts. Visit these sites and investigate for your self.

http://www.holoscience.com/index.php

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/indexOLD.htm

http://thunderbolts.info/home.htm

PlasmaResources.com

http://plasmascience.net/tpu/TheUniverse.html

Plasma cosmology has its roots deep in experiment, Birkeland ,Alven ,Perrat, all with pear reviewed papers for you to consider

Im al little sparse for time but I invite all of you to the thunderbolts forum to discuss this topic with us.

http://thunderbolts.info/thunderbolts_forum.htm

I warn you indeed we do have our quacks and mystics also so consider each post in its context.

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Please do supply an example. Almost every day a new article proclaiming such "proof" comes out about dark matter and blackholes[an equal fairytale}

Considering that David was talking about ANTI-matter, not DARK matter, what the heck does your reply even mean? I remember reading in Discover magazine more than twelve years ago about a scientist who produced anti-hydrogen for the first time in a laboratory setting. It was expensive and difficult to create the properly controlled conditions, but it was done.

If you can't tell the difference between the words "anti" and "dark". the only mystical quack around here is you. Go play somewhere else until you get your brain straightened out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

all based on assumptions.

Antimatter isn't just an assumption; it is a fact. PET scans use positrons (antielectrons, a form of antimatter) to do their scans. PEt stands for positron emission tomography. You couldn't use positrons like that if antimatter was just an assumption. Also, the aforementioned antimatter reactions produce an amount of energy equal to four orders of magntiude greater than nuclear energy and 2 orders of magnitude greater than that possible from fusion. That couldn't be done if antimatter was just an assumption.

The notion that matter can be annihilated when normal matter meets antimatter is a confusion of language.

That is true, but if you read above posts, it is clarified that matter and anti-matter actually don't cancel each other out in a Star Trekian manner. In Star Trek the both cease to exist and only energy is left behind; that isn't the way matter and anti-matter reactions work in real life.

This symmetry explains why a neutrino is considered to be its own anti-particle.

Actually, a neutrino is the antimatter equivalent of a neutron.

"Antimatter is a misnomer since it too is formed from the same sub-particles as "normal" matter except that the total charge is mirrored."

No, it is not a misnomer, because it refers to it being anti in terms of charge when compared with the matter equivalent (with the exception of neutrinos), not to how it is formed. An antiproton has a negative charge and an antielectron (a positron) has a positive charge.

Indeed we can and have seen plasma every where in space as well as vast magnetic fields. You cannot have such fields wthout electric current.

I do realize that im suggesting revolutionary stuff that requires the review of the foundation of most of astrphysics/cosmology today. I can only say if you will give the information your consideration you will see that it is indeed objective,and that you may indeed reach a higher level of integration as a result of discarding false concepts. Visit these sites and investigate for your self.

That may or may not be the case, but that isn't really the issue this thread deals with. This thread deals with antimatter, which isn't a false concept. False concepts cannot be used in medical scanners and power production that works, antimatter has been used in the latter and continues to be used in the former.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering that David was talking about ANTI-matter, not DARK matter, what the heck does your reply even mean? I remember reading in Discover magazine more than twelve years ago about a scientist who produced anti-hydrogen for the first time in a laboratory setting. It was expensive and difficult to create the properly controlled conditions, but it was done.

If you can't tell the difference between the words "anti" and "dark". the only mystical quack around here is you. Go play somewhere else until you get your brain straightened out.

He was replying to my reply to him, not David's. I told him that antimatter is real. He was responding to that, not David.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was replying to my reply to him, not David's. I told him that antimatter is real. He was responding to that, not David.

Thanks for that Dragon. I am dismayed at this unreasonable ad-hominem. How do "anti" and "dark" and the confusion[alleged or not] equal one being a mystic? Non contextual ,maybe even arbitrary but Mystic??? Wow

Ill get back to you soon Dragon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, a neutrino is the antimatter equivalent of a neutron.

Not correct; a neutrino is an (almost) massless particle with no charge. A neutron is a much more massive particle. The anti-particle for a neutron is the anti-neutron, the anti-particle for a neutrino is the anti-neutrino. In fact, many reactions that we generally refer to as producing neutrinos are actually producing anti-neutrinos. For instance a neutron decaying into a proton produces an anti-neutrino.

No, it is not a misnomer, because it refers to it being anti in terms of charge when compared with the matter equivalent (with the exception of neutrinos), not to how it is formed. An antiproton has a negative charge and an antielectron (a positron) has a positive charge.

Actually it is more than just the electric charge that makes anti-particles anti-. Otherwise there could be no anti-neutron and no anti-neutrino, since they are both chargeless. In particular, if I recall correctly there is another quantity called "Baryon number" which is conserved in nuclear reactions, which is +1 for protons and neutrons, and -1 for the anti-particles. I believe also magnetic moments and spins are reversed for the anti-particles.

Nonetheless your central point remains. Antimatter exists and should not be confused with dark matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am dismayed at this unreasonable ad-hominem.
And now here is the moral of the story. When you post a reply, you should learn how to use the quote tags so that the name of the poster is displayed for all to see. Do note just start replying, reply contextually. Insofar as this thread is about antimatter and you started by saying "Anti-matter is an anti conceptual abstraction", it's fair to conclude that you either are really careless in typing, or are totally wrong about anti-matter. When quoting a person, attribute the quote by name.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nonetheless your central point remains. Antimatter exists and should not be confused with dark matter.

Well, actually that was the main point of a previous post. The point of the post you responded to was that antimatter exists and that the "anti" in it shouldn't be taken to mean "the opposite of matter" or some other silly thing like that. That isn't what antimatter means

As for my mistake, thank you for pointing that out. You are, of course, correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This symmetry explains why a neutrino is considered to be its own anti-particle.

No, in the standard theory a neutrino is considered to have an anti-particle. Photons and the Z-boson are considered to be their own anti-particles, as are nonfundamental particles like the pion (composed of an up or down quark and its antiquark).

The equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass implies that gravity is also an electrical force.

No it doesn't.

Before Einstein, some noted scientists were suggesting that the gravitational force between neutral particles might ultimately be due to electrical polarization within the particles. In 1882, Friedrich Zöllner wrote in the introduction to his book, Explanation of Universal Gravitation through the Static Action of Electricity and The General Importance of Weber's Laws, "…we are to conclude that a pair of electrical particles of opposite signs, i.e. two Weberian molecular pairs attract each other. This attraction is Gravity, it is proportional to the number of molecular pairs." Indeed, gravity can be represented as the sum of the radially aligned electric dipoles formed by all subatomic particles within a charged planet or star.

No it can't, because an electric dipole field drops off as the cube of the distance. You can sum over a great number of randomly-arranged dipoles to eliminate the angular dependence of each dipole, but you cannot combine all those dipole fields to produce an inverse-square law. (Indeed, you wouldn't even get an inverse-cube force field, since the dipoles would effectively cancel out thanks to the angular dependence of the field symmetrical about the dipolar axis, giving a net field of zero with random brief fluctuarions about zero.) Mathematically impossible to get anywhere near an inverse square field, just won't work.

This new electrical concept suggests that Newton's "universal constant of gravitation," or "G," is a dependent variable. G depends upon the charge distribution within a celestial body. Highly charged objects like comets look like solid rock, yet they have a gravitational field that suggests they are fluff-balls.

Huh? They look like big clouds in the sky, and they act like small bundles of rock with large accretions of ice and other frozen matter--which is what you'd expect, since that's what they are.

And as they discharge they suffer what is euphemistically called "non-gravitational" accelerations.

"Euphemistically"? Nonsense. Matter vaporizes off the surface as the Sun's radiation heats it and pushes the comet the other way in accordance with Newton's Third Law. There's no euphemism--those are precisely accelerations resulting from non-gravitational forces (reaction forces, to be precise).

The extreme weakness of the force of gravity, compared to the electric force, is a measure of the minuscule electric dipolar distortion of nucleons. Gravity cannot be shielded by normal electrostatic shielding because all subatomic particles within the gravitational field respond to the dipolar distortion, whether they are metals or non-metals."

More nonsense. If it's an electrmagnetic force, then metals will not permit the force to pass through them while non-metals will act like dielectrics or whatever, precisely as they do for the coulomb field of a bare electric charge. Sorry, that's an ineluctable consequence of the nature of electromagnetism. No gravity, sorry.

Indeed we can and have seen plasma every where in space as well as vast magnetic fields. You cannot have such fields wthout electric current.

Nonsense. You need high temperature is all, as you'd know if you actually knew any plasma research.

I warn you indeed we do have our quacks and mystics also so consider each post in its context.

Indeed.

Edited by Adrian Hester
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just wanted to add a few clarifications. Perhaps this quote from :

http://livefromcern.web.cern.ch/livefromce...-history01.html

may help to illuminate how I approached Antimatter in the same context as Dark matter and Black holes:

"It was the beginning of the 20th century, an exciting time when the very foundations of physics were shaken by the appearance of two important new theories: relativity and quantum mechanics.

In 1905 Albert Einstein unveiled his theory of Special Relativity, explaining the relationship between space and time, and between energy and mass in his famous equation E=mc2. Meanwhile experiments had revealed that light sometimes behaved as a wave, but other times behaved as if it were a stream of tiny particles. Max Planck proposed that each light wave must come in a little packet, which he called a "quantum": this way light was not just a wave or just a particle, but a bit of both.

By the 1920s, physicists were trying to apply the same concept to the atom and its constituents, and by the end of the decade Erwin Schrodinger and Werner Heisenberg had invented the new quantum theory of physics. The only problem now was that quantum theory was not relativistic - meaning the quantum description worked only for particles moving slowly, and not for those at high (or "relativistic") velocity, close to the speed of light.

In 1928, Paul Dirac solved the problem: he wrote down an equation, which combined quantum theory and special relativity, to describe the behaviour of the electron. Dirac's equation won him a Nobel Prize in 1933, but also posed another problem: just as the equation x2=4 can have two possible solutions (x=2 OR x=-2), so Dirac's equation could have two solutions, one for an electron with positive energy, and one for an electron with negative energy. But in classical physics (and common sense!), the energy of a particle must always be a positive number!

Dirac interpreted this to mean that for every particle that exists there is a corresponding antiparticle, exactly matching the particle but with opposite charge. For the electron, for instance, there should be an "antielectron" identical in every way but with a positive electric charge. In his Nobel Lecture, Dirac speculated on the existence of a completely new Universe made out of antimatter!

From 1930, the hunt for the mysterious antiparticles began..."

.

As you can see they are linked as to the source of their development.

I'm not interested in a debate just some food for thought for you all.

"QUOTE (Plasmatic @ Jan 18 2008, 05:14 PM)

This new electrical concept suggests that Newton's "universal constant of gravitation," or "G," is a dependent variable. G depends upon the charge distribution within a celestial body. Highly charged objects like comets look like solid rock, yet they have a gravitational field that suggests they are fluff-balls.

Adrian Hester replied:

Huh? They look like big clouds in the sky, and they act like small bundles of rock with large accretions of ice and other frozen matter--which is what you'd expect, since that's what they are."

Actually Comets are not dirty ice balls as thought:

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/01...ise-that-c.html

Which is what the Plasma Cosmologist have been saying for decades:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/pdf/ElectricComet.pdf

Hester replied:

"Nonsense. You need high temperature is all, as you'd know if you actually knew any plasma research."

I would love for you to supply a link for this statement. I assure you Hannes Alfven would disagree!

Megan Snow wrote:

"Considering that David was talking about ANTI-matter, not DARK matter, what the heck does your reply even mean? I remember reading in Discover magazine more than twelve years ago about a scientist who produced anti-hydrogen for the first time in a laboratory setting. It was expensive and difficult to create the properly controlled conditions, but it was done.

If you can't tell the difference between the words "anti" and "dark". the only mystical quack around here is you. Go play somewhere else until you get your brain straightened out."

I was drawing the comparison of the many claims for confirmation of "dark matter" and "black holes" to the claim that antimatter has been proven to exist. In any case your response is unwarranted as I am only here to discourse not demand compliance or imply personal attacks. There is no Moral to any story that ends with a justification for Ad Hominem.

Be back later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I guess you run into these whackos no matter what message board you're on. Antimatter does exist and is nothing magical. An antimatter particle has certain measurements that are the exact opposites of their "matter" counterparts - for example, spin, or charge (just as the charge of an electron is the opposite of the charge of a proton). They all have mass, so they're all part of what one traditionally understands as "matter". Blame the particle physics community for this terminology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess you run into these whackos no matter what message board you're on. Antimatter does exist and is nothing magical. An antimatter particle has certain measurements that are the exact opposites of their "matter" counterparts - for example, spin, or charge (just as the charge of an electron is the opposite of the charge of a proton). They all have mass, so they're all part of what one traditionally understands as "matter". Blame the particle physics community for this terminology.

I suspect folks like Plasmatic just scour the web for any forum or mention of anything relating to Einstein, Dark Matter, or Anti Matter so they'll have an oppurtunity to spew thier psuedoscience. He only has 7 posts and all were in this thread and an Einstien one. Seems very troll like to me.

Edited by Matus1976
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could someone who knows a bit about antimatter please tell me exactly what it is?

Wow, this is a...uhh, interesting thread.

Not to confuse the issue more than it is, but Feynmann posits that antimatter is matter traveling backwards through time. The release of energy from particle meeting antiparticle, is, according to his view, the reversal of time direction of the same particle, with energy being releases forward in time. Similarly a blast of energy can result in the "creation" of a matter-antimatter pair, which can be thought of as an antimatter particle reversing to go forward in time. Not sure if Feynmann was as good an accountant as he was a physicist, so I have questions about the beginning and end balances of particles and antis in the universe.

Pretty wild idea. There's a thin book called QED (Quantum Electro-Dynamics) that explains his theory. If you haven't read any Feynmann, do yourself a favor. He was a character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, this is a...uhh, interesting thread.

Not to confuse the issue more than it is, but Feynmann posits that antimatter is matter traveling backwards through time. The release of energy from particle meeting antiparticle, is, according to his view, the reversal of time direction of the same particle, with energy being releases forward in time. Similarly a blast of energy can result in the "creation" of a matter-antimatter pair, which can be thought of as an antimatter particle reversing to go forward in time. Not sure if Feynmann was as good an accountant as he was a physicist, so I have questions about the beginning and end balances of particles and antis in the universe.

Pretty wild idea. There's a thin book called QED (Quantum Electro-Dynamics) that explains his theory. If you haven't read any Feynmann, do yourself a favor. He was a character.

His ideas sound a bit crazy, so I don't think I'll bother. I have more interesting things to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect folks like Plasmatic just scour the web for any forum or mention of anything relating to Einstein, Dark Matter, or Anti Matter so they'll have an opportunity to spew thier psuedoscience. He only has 7 posts and all were in this thread and an Einstien one. Seems very troll like to me.

Actually I just discovered the forum when i posted first , and thought it would be appreciated by fellow Objectivist. I see even amongst "reasonable" folks Ad hominem is popular. I hesitated to respond because of the disappointing childlike display of personal attacks , as well as the need to dig into certain rebuttals responsibly. I'm an avid Objectivist enthusiast and cant believe the level of compartmentalization in relation to Physics here. I make no claims to expertise My statement that antimatter was anti conceptual is based on the fact that "anti" is "non essential" ITOE PG. 94. to the concept as it is attributed to matter, as far as I can see. If I charge my hair by rubbing a balloon on it , it doesn't become "anti" hair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I just discovered the forum when i posted first , and thought it would be appreciated by fellow Objectivist. I see even amongst "reasonable" folks Ad hominem is popular. I hesitated to respond because of the disappointing childlike display of personal attacks , as well as the need to dig into certain rebuttals responsibly. I'm an avid Objectivist enthusiast and cant believe the level of compartmentalization in relation to Physics here. I make no claims to expertise My statement that antimatter was anti conceptual is based on the fact that "anti" is "non essential" ITOE PG. 94. to the concept as it is attributed to matter, as far as I can see. If I charge my hair by rubbing a balloon on it , it doesn't become "anti" hair.

That's fine Plasmatic, so you're not a troll, but it seems your big problem with the concept of 'anti matter' is just that a poorly chosen word was used to describe it. It is a very real thing, but yeah I suppose the word 'anti' preceding matter is in fact not a valid concept, but these are just the *words* used to convey an idea, they are not the idea itself. Negative matter might have been a better word, but now that is being used to describe something entirely different.

anti-matter = just like regular matter but with the opposite electrical charge (and other properties are opposite in non charged particles) expirementally confirmed and used regularly in such things as PET scans and nuclear batteries.

dark-matter = the name for whatever matter is out there which is apparently not very reflective and not emitting light of it's own which is required according to known and tested laws of physics to hold the not very massive yet rapidly spinning galaxy together. Most likely exists, might be heavy nuetrinos, might be brown dwarf stars, might be some other form of dense matter we are not yet familiar with. It might not even be literally dark, but it's albedo (reflectivitiy) is certainly below a threshold, but if on earth it might be more reflective than a nice stucco wall.

negative matter / negative energy = a previously hypothetical material whose existence was implied by Einstein’s relativistic formulas, negative energy / matter is gravitationally repulsive and is thought to be responsible for the observed accelerating expansion of the universe, it has been experimentally confirmed to exist via the casimir effect experiments. I think that's the gist anyway, others may chime in.

I don't doubt there are some misdirection’s in science, such as Tokamak Fusion (Robert Bussard jokes that the Russian scientist who invented them gave them to the US to make sure we never actually get fusion power working) and perhaps some of string theory, it has happened many times in the past. But I know that I am also not knowledgeable enough to comment intelligently on these matters. But whatever new comes out will not replace QED or Relativity, both of these are the most experimentally confirmed theories humans have yet devised, it will encompass them. I do doubt that some arm chair weekend physicist will overthrow the whole of modern physics because the words used to describe the complex concepts are limited and sometimes form non-sensical english sentences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

negative matter / negative energy = a previously hypothetical material whose existence was implied by Einstein’s relativistic formulas, negative energy / matter is gravitationally repulsive and is thought to be responsible for the observed accelerating expansion of the universe, it has been experimentally confirmed to exist via the casimir effect experiments. I think that's the gist anyway, others may chime in.

It would have to be non-literal in the "negative" part. Repulsive force isn't really "negative". It is a positive effect or it wouldn't be repulsive.

One thing is for sure. The idea of "negative mass" particles is rubbish. You cannot get negative mass.

I don't doubt there are some misdirection’s in science

Light being both a particle and wave is a good example. It contradicts the Law of Identity becayse the two are two different things. Something can only be one thing, not two different things. To say something is two different things is a contradiction and contradictions cannot exist in reality, not in part or in whole. They can only "exist" in our imaginations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, this is a...uhh, interesting thread.

Not to confuse the issue more than it is, but Feynmann posits that antimatter is matter traveling backwards through time. The release of energy from particle meeting antiparticle, is, according to his view, the reversal of time direction of the same particle, with energy being releases forward in time. Similarly a blast of energy can result in the "creation" of a matter-antimatter pair, which can be thought of as an antimatter particle reversing to go forward in time. Not sure if Feynmann was as good an accountant as he was a physicist, so I have questions about the beginning and end balances of particles and antis in the universe.

Pretty wild idea. There's a thin book called QED (Quantum Electro-Dynamics) that explains his theory. If you haven't read any Feynmann, do yourself a favor. He was a character.

Well Feynmann sure did have some...interesting theories. However postulating that antimatter is matter travelling backwards through time is really stupid. Time is a concept used to measure motion, ie it is a concept use to measure changes in the states of entities. It makes no sense whatsoever to assign a "direction" to time and to claim it can go backwards. Time has no "direction" whatsoever. It is not an actual thing moving, it is a measurement of motion and nothing more.

He was a character though, I read part of his Lectures on Computation series, its quite good and he had a compelling lecture style it would seem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I just discovered the forum when i posted first , and thought it would be appreciated by fellow Objectivist. I see even amongst "reasonable" folks Ad hominem is popular. I hesitated to respond because of the disappointing childlike display of personal attacks , as well as the need to dig into certain rebuttals responsibly. I'm an avid Objectivist enthusiast and cant believe the level of compartmentalization in relation to Physics here. I make no claims to expertise My statement that antimatter was anti conceptual is based on the fact that "anti" is "non essential" ITOE PG. 94. to the concept as it is attributed to matter, as far as I can see. If I charge my hair by rubbing a balloon on it , it doesn't become "anti" hair.

You misunderstand (or pretend to) in what sense "anti" is used in this context. It is mean to imply that antimatter is in terms of at least some properties, an antithesis, or opposite of regular matter (eg its charge has an opposite mathematical sign). It actually is used in a manner that differentiates matter and antimatter in very essential terms, ie charge in this case, not some nonessential attribute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Feynmann sure did have some...interesting theories. However postulating that antimatter is matter travelling backwards through time is really stupid. Time is a concept used to measure motion, ie it is a concept use to measure changes in the states of entities. It makes no sense whatsoever to assign a "direction" to time and to claim it can go backwards. Time has no "direction" whatsoever. It is not an actual thing moving, it is a measurement of motion and nothing more.

Well, it was a formalism for representing antiparticles in Feynmann graphs that no doubt made calculations easier; that doesn't mean Feynmann proposed it as an actual theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it was a formalism for representing antiparticles in Feynmann graphs that no doubt made calculations easier; that doesn't mean Feynmann proposed it as an actual theory.

Well it might have made the maths easier. I sure hope he was not crazy enough t o claim it had any actual reality to it. Even still, if one is going to formulate mathematical theories that describe such systems it would be preferable if they used ideas that actually are realistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I just discovered the forum when i posted first , and thought it would be appreciated by fellow Objectivist. I see even amongst "reasonable" folks Ad hominem is popular. I hesitated to respond because of the disappointing childlike display of personal attacks , as well as the need to dig into certain rebuttals responsibly. I'm an avid Objectivist enthusiast and cant believe the level of compartmentalization in relation to Physics here. I make no claims to expertise My statement that antimatter was anti conceptual is based on the fact that "anti" is "non essential" ITOE PG. 94. to the concept as it is attributed to matter, as far as I can see. If I charge my hair by rubbing a balloon on it , it doesn't become "anti" hair.

Bad terminology does not an anti-concept make. One could just as easily object to the Standard Model on the following grounds: The Standard Model is false because it says quarks have flavor. But "flavor" doesn't apply to quarks; it applies to food!

In other words, you can't object to a scientific theory because it uses terminology you don't like. Part of commenting intelligently on science is knowing the difference between terminology (i.e. words i.e. symbols) and concepts. Scientists often use words in strange ways for completely innocent ideas. Reread the ITOE sections about words vs concepts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bad terminology does not an anti-concept make. One could just as easily object to the Standard Model on the following grounds: The Standard Model is false because it says quarks have flavor. But "flavor" doesn't apply to quarks; it applies to food!

In other words, you can't object to a scientific theory because it uses terminology you don't like. Part of commenting intelligently on science is knowing the difference between terminology (i.e. words i.e. symbols) and concepts. Scientists often use words in strange ways for completely innocent ideas. Reread the ITOE sections about words vs concepts.

Perhaps someone can explain to me how "charge" is "essential" to the "concept" of matter? Charge is essential to the concept of electrodynamics! However this is not the only problem I have with the topic , simply the reason I call it anti-conceptual . However Im still reviewing the subject in order ti properly integrate it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Light being both a particle and wave is a good example. It contradicts the Law of Identity becayse the two are two different things. Something can only be one thing, not two different things. To say something is two different things is a contradiction and contradictions cannot exist in reality, not in part or in whole. They can only "exist" in our imaginations.

The only thing that was imagined was the idea that waves and particles were separate things in the first place. All matter has properties we retroactively consider wave-like and particle-like. Saying that it "contradicts the law of identity" is pomo nonsense if you are trying to use it as an argument against the observations. Nature does not care about our perceived paradoxes.

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
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.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...