Re: religion


"Oliver Wong" <owong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:42Aqf.1798$m05.1599@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:40ufi2F1c0rt8U1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> If all the energy (matter) in the universe is considered, it comes to
>> zero. (That is why antimatter annihilates matter).
>
> When matter and anti-matter come in contact, they transform into
> energy.

Not exactly. (Energy is released; they are annihilated, not transformed)

> So if the universe were compose of an equal amount of matter and anti
> matter, and if we brought all of that together, we'd end up with a large
> amount of energy. Assuming there is no such thing as "anti-energy", this
> doesn't result in a zero sum.
>
There is "anti-energy". It was shown by Dirac to exist and a positron (for
example) is comprised of it.

The original equations of Relativity show that the energy of a particle that
has mass M and momentum P is given by:

E^2 = M^2C^4 + P^2C^2

Which reduces to the well known: E = MC^2 when the momentum is zero.

Because the more familiar equation comes from taking the square root of the
full equation, E can be + or -

Of course most people discount the - side, as the only answer we are
obviously interested in, is the positive root.

Dirac (being a genius) did not take this obvious step but instead considered
the implications. When energy levels are calculated in the relativistic
version of Quantum Mechanics, there are two sets: one all positive,
corresponding to MC^2, and one all negative, corresponding to MINUS MC^2.

Electrons ought, according to the theory, to fall into the lowest unoccupied
energy state and even the highest negative energy state is lower than the
lowest positive energy state. So what do the negative energy levels mean,
and why didn't all the electrons in the universe fall into them and
disappear?

Dirac's answer hinged upon the fact that electrons are fermions and that
only one electron can go into each possible state (two per energy level; one
with each spin). It must be, he reasoned that electrons don't fall into
those negative states because all those states are full. What we call "empty
space" is actually a sea of negative energy electrons! He didn't stop there.
Give an electron energy and it will jump up the ladder of energy states. So,
if we give an electron in the negative energy state some more energy, it
ought to jump into the real world and become visible as an ordinary
electron. To get from the state of -MC^2 to +MC^2 clearly requires an energy
input of 2MC^2, which, for the mass of an electron is about 1MeV and can be
provided quite easily in atomic processes or when particles collide with
each other.

The negative energy electron, promoted into the real world, would be normal
in every respect, but it would leave behind a "hole" in the negative energy
sea, the ABSENCE of a negatively charged electron. Such a hole, said Dirac,
ought to behave like a positively charged particle (the absence of a
negatively charged particle in a negative sea ought to show up as a positive
charge). In 1936 Andersen won the Nobel prize for detecting the exact
particle with the right mass and charge (positron) that Dirac had predicted
from the above.

Any particle can, in principle, be produced by the Dirac process above,
directly from energy, provided it is always accompanied by production of its
antiparticle counterpart, the "hole" in the negative energy sea.

Although Physicists today have more erudite explanations for particle
creation, the rules are fundamentally the same. When a particle meets its
anti-particle it "falls into the hole", liberating energy 2MC^2 and
disappearing. (Not so much in a puff of smoke, but in a burst of gamma
rays.).

The released energy (photons) could interact to create new electrons and
anti-electrons or other particles, or can move back across the Planck
threshold (or not). The effect is a 'balance' of negative and positive
energy. I referred to this as "zero".

I stand by it.

(Some of the above is paraphrased from "In Search of Schrodinger's Cat" by
John Gribbin.)

Pete.

> I hadn't considered this before, so I'm not sure how (or if) the big
> bang theory addresses the issue of a non-zero sum. Guess I have another
> item to add to my weekend-research checklist.
>
> - Oliver
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: John Polasek "Dual Space" (real or imaginary??)
    ... >vacuum as suggested by John Wheeler. ... >energy state of a system of which the equations obey wave mechanics ... a sea of particles in the negative energy state. ... except that in Espace they (electron and positron ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: religion
    ... When energy levels are calculated in the ... > unoccupied energy state and even the highest negative energy state is ... and why didn't all the electrons in the universe fall ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: de broglie and electron transitions caused by dark energy
    ... > Is it possible that electron transitions from a high energy state to a ... > low energy state are caused by the electrons interacting with some ... > cubic metre.If the area of our electron was facing 1m^2 of dark energy ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • On explanation of negative energy states and electron pair creation
    ... particles of equal mass but of negative energy. ... Dirac electron theory would simply decay down to -infinity. ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • de broglie and electron transitions caused by dark energy
    ... Is it possible that electron transitions from a high energy state to a ... low energy state are caused by the electrons interacting with some ... Now, space is filled with dark energy, at a density of 10^-27 kg per ...
    (sci.physics.particle)