Antimatter

[DavidOdden]

Perhaps someone can explain to me how "charge" is "essential" to the "concept" of matter?

It may help to focus on the concretes that the concept "matter" refers to. A proton is a form of "matter" and protons have a positive charge. An electron is a form of matter and it has a negative charge. Charge is essential, because there are no positively charged electrons. Similarly, there are no negatively charged positrons. Compare "squares" and "triangles". 4-sidedness is an essential property of squares -- there are no three-sided squares, and no 4-sided triangles. The thickness of the lines, on the other hand, is non-essential. One of the three charges, +,0,-, is a characteristic of any form of matter.

[brian0918]

The idea of "negative mass" particles is rubbish. You cannot get negative mass.

And you have in no way rebutted the concept. "Mass" is not the same as "matter". Mass is simply a measure relating two things: 1) the force applied to an object; and 2) how much the object accelerates as a result. You take the first number, divide it by the second, and that quotient you call "mass". Saying something has "negative mass" simply means that when it is subject to a force or gravitational field, it accelerates in the opposite direction as compared to an object with "positive mass" subject to the same conditions.

So, if I pushed on something with negative (inertial) mass, it would accelerate back towards me, rather than accelerate in the direction that I pushed it. While standing on Earth, if I dropped something with negative (gravitational) mass, it would accelerate upward, rather than fall to the ground.

Now I am not saying that believing in that possibility is any more reasonable a position, but it's at least more tangible than simply saying "negative mass".

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.

The only thing that is negative is its direction of motion compared to what you would normally expect. That is all that is meant by the word "negative".

Edited February 14, 2008 by brian0918

[brian0918]

Time has no "direction" whatsoever. It is not an actual thing moving, it is a measurement of motion and nothing more.

This is circular. How do you measure motion without reference to other motion, or fundamentally without reference to time? You cannot measure an object's motion without reference to what its position was in the past. You can take measurements of an object's position, but in order to connect those measurements to determine the object's motion, you need to make reference to time - you have to say "it is now at position C, and before that it was at position B, and before that it was at position A." Time as a dimension is integral to all of theoretical physics. Whether it is possible to move in the negative direction of that dimension, I'm not sure.

[Atlas51184]

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.

There are two senses of "matter" at play here. One is the wide concept of matter, which refers to all physical stuff. The other concept of matter refers to the type of physical stuff we see normally. So we have P-matter (for all physical stuff) and N-matter (for the physical stuff we see normally). Until Dirac, scientists thought P-matter and N-matter were the same. But Dirac wrote down an equation which implies that there is such a thing as a positively charged electron. Eventually scientists learned that there is a type of matter, all of which has the opposite charge of every day N-matter. For a while they called this new type of matter "contraterrene matter," but latter settled on "antimatter."

So what is essential here? The foil of antimatter is not P-matter, but N-matter. And what differentiates antimatter from N-matter is charge. Antimatter is P-matter with the opposite charge of N-matter. What is essential to the wide concept of matter (P-matter) is not charge. The essential nature of P-matter might be something about its particulate nature (as opposed to fields or consciousness), but I don't know for sure. What is essential about N-matter and antimatter is charge.

[DavidV]

Light being both a particle and wave is a good example. It contradicts the Law of Identity because 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.

I don't think that scientists say that photons are both particles and a wave. They say that light behaves like both a particle and a wave. The concepts "particle" and "wave" are applicable within the context of macro-scale world. It is entirely plausible that in the quantum world, the distinction breaks down. The ultimate nature of entities might be "super strings" or "fuzzy meta-puffs" which are neither particles nor waves.

[brian0918]

I don't think that scientists say that photons are both particles and a wave. They say that light behaves like both a particle and a wave. The concepts "particle" and "wave" are applicable within the context of macro-scale world. It is entirely plausible that in the quantum world, the distinction breaks down. The ultimate nature of entities might be "super strings" or "fuzzy meta-puffs" which are neither particles nor waves.

I think the main thing to understand is that we don't even know yet what the proper "identity" of everything is; that is why it made no sense to say something violated the Law of Identity.

[DavidV]

I think the main thing to understand is that we don't even know yet what the proper "identity" of everything is; that is why it made no sense to say something violated the Law of Identity.

We know the identity of many things, and we can recognize when someone makes a contradictory claim. The fallacy is applying an identity out of context. It's impossible to know the identity of "everything" since the concept of identity only applies within a certain context. For example, "color" only applies to entities larger than the minimum wavelength of visible light. We can still recognize that it is a contradiction to claim that an object is simultaneously red and blue.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

.... And what differentiates antimatter from N-matter is charge.

Your argument is correct except for this detail (which isn't quite essential). Charge is NOT the only differentiator between antimatter and what you have labeled N-matter (seems reasonable for purposes of this discussion, so I'll follow suit). There are also quantities like spin and baryon number, etc, which are opposite between the two. Otherwise there could be no antineutrino and no antineutron, and there are (both they and their N-matter equivalents have no charge).

[Prometheus98876]

I don't think that scientists say that photons are both particles and a wave. They say that light behaves like both a particle and a wave. The concepts "particle" and "wave" are applicable within the context of macro-scale world. It is entirely plausible that in the quantum world, the distinction breaks down. The ultimate nature of entities might be "super strings" or "fuzzy meta-puffs" which are neither particles nor waves.

This is somewhat true, many scientists in the field do indeed say that they behave in ways resemble either a particle and a wave. Appparently there has been a lot of work over the years along the lines of saying that they are one or the other, and trying to explaion all known properties as being consistent with them being a particle or a wave. Have a look here, it links to some of this research.

[Atlas51184]

Your argument is correct except for this detail (which isn't quite essential). Charge is NOT the only differentiator between antimatter and what you have labeled N-matter (seems reasonable for purposes of this discussion, so I'll follow suit). There are also quantities like spin and baryon number, etc, which are opposite between the two. Otherwise there could be no antineutrino and no antineutron, and there are (both they and their N-matter equivalents have no charge).

Right you are. That's actually a good example of the contextual nature of definition and essense. At first it seems charge is the important difference, but then as they learn more the defining feature becomes more fundamental. Point being, you can't know any of this by complaining about terminology.

[DragonMaci]

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.

You misunderstand my point. I never said having the propertoes of both particles and waves defies the law of identity, but that saying that it is both does. Next you try criticising me try reading me properly and comment on that not what you imagined I said.

And you have in no way rebutted the concept. "Mass" is not the same as "matter". Mass is simply a measure relating two things: 1) the force applied to an object; and 2) how much the object accelerates as a result. You take the first number, divide it by the second, and that quotient you call "mass". Saying something has "negative mass" simply means that when it is subject to a force or gravitational field, it accelerates in the opposite direction as compared to an object with "positive mass" subject to the same conditions.

Mass is, "The property of a body that causes it to have weight in a gravitational field." You cannot say something has hegative weight. That is a contradiction.

The only thing that is negative is its direction of motion compared to what you would normally expect. That is all that is meant by the word "negative".

Which is just as bad.

I don't think that scientists say that photons are both particles and a wave. They say that light behaves like both a particle and a wave. The concepts "particle" and "wave" are applicable within the context of macro-scale world. It is entirely plausible that in the quantum world, the distinction breaks down. The ultimate nature of entities might be "super strings" or "fuzzy meta-puffs" which are neither particles nor waves.

Sadly, I have heard scientists say the fact it behaves like particles and waves makes it both. Now while, light may or may not behave like both (I am unsure), it is a fallacy to say that makes it both. As for the ultimate makeup being neither particles nor waves, well that is irrelevant ti my point since I was talking a larger scale than that.

I think the main thing to understand is that we don't even know yet what the proper "identity" of everything is; that is why it made no sense to say something violated the Law of Identity.

Which doesn't matter since I wasn't talking about what it is, but rather the claim that something is too different things. That is what I said contradicted the Law of Identity, not what you imagined that I said. GC recognised that and addressed that point. You didn't. The sort of contradiction I was talking about is along the lines of this:

We can still recognize that it is a contradiction to claim that an object is simultaneously red and blue.

[brian0918]

Mass is, "The property of a body that causes it to have weight in a gravitational field." You cannot say something has hegative weight. That is a contradiction.

Sorry, despite what Objectivism makes you think, not everything you misunderstand or dislike can simply be written off as a "contradiction". Your dislike for the phrase "negative weight" simply rests on your assumption about what weight is. As I already explained, mass is the force of gravity divided by the resulting acceleration of the object. "Negative mass" simply means the object accelerated in the opposite direction of an object with "positive mass". That doesn't mean we'll ever find an object that acts like this, but writing it off as a "contradiction" because it's unfamiliar is ridiculous and hilarious.

Edited March 1, 2008 by brian0918

[dream_weaver]

Physicists Store Antimatter Atoms for 1,000 Seconds

Part of the quest to understand something requires the ability to study it. Previous attempts to contain antimatter have provided less than a second to make observations. It appears that a little more study time is now on the horizon.

[JCizzle]

I'm about to turn the clock in my office anti-clockwise and see what happens.