Re: religion
- From: "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 13:04:45 +1300
"Alistair" <alistair@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1135628578.058239.193080@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>> "Oliver Wong" <owong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> > "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> >> 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.
>
> I thought this smelled a little off. A positron (posited by Dirac and
> proved to exist by others) is an anti-matter particle composed of
> energy which will annihilate with a matter particle releasing energy.
> There is no anti-energy; the result of annihilation is energy.
>
Yes, that particular interaction is so and I said it ends up in a cloud of
gamma rays (photons). My statement that the positron is comprised of
anti-energy is incorrect; at the time I learned this, that was the agreed
understanding. More recent work has shown it is not so. However, Quantum
theory predicts that said photons will behave in a number of ways, including
popping out of existence or combining into electrons again. And none of this
denies the existence of negative energy.
Negative energy is a concept that is required by Quantum Mechanics and the
Uncertainty Principle.
A quick search shows the following links:
http://www.physics.hku.hk/~tboyce/sf/topics/wormhole/wormhole.html
http://www.physics.nmt.edu/~raymond/classes/ph13xbook/node150.html (this one
includes the Relativistic equation I quoted which forms the basis for the
deduction of negative energy)
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/gsea21.htm
http://www.cheniere.org/references/negative%20energy.htm (this one bears out
my point regarding everything equating to zero)
I did not search or read any of the above before today, and did so only in
response ot your post.
My point in posting any of this was that it is possible to get something out
of nothing. In fact, the "something" "remembers" that it came from nothing,
and could be collapsed back into nothingness (at least, theoretically).
My proposition was that if all the energy and matter in the universe was
paired with it's anti-equivalent, the result would be zero. Oliver's
objection was that there is no such thing as negative energy; I think that
has been shown to be false, there is.
>>
>> 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.
>
> Or e=imc**2 ?
>
> Does that mean that we could be living in an imaginary universe?
>
No, it doesn't mean that. But we certainly could be living in an imaginary
universe... :-)
Pete.
>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: religion
- From: Alistair
- Re: religion
- References:
- Re: Making money from Java
- From: Judson McClendon
- Re: Making money from Java
- From: Alistair
- Re: Making money from Java
- From: Judson McClendon
- Re: Making money from Java
- From: Howard Brazee
- Re: Making money from Java
- From: Judson McClendon
- Re: Making money from Java
- From: Oliver Wong
- Re: Making money from Java
- From: Judson McClendon
- Re: Making money from Java
- From: Oliver Wong
- Re: Making money from Java
- From: Judson McClendon
- OT: religion
- From: Howard Brazee
- Re: religion
- From: Judson McClendon
- Re: religion
- From: Howard Brazee
- Re: religion
- From: Judson McClendon
- Re: religion
- From: Pete Dashwood
- Re: religion
- From: Richard
- Re: religion
- From: Peter Lacey
- Re: religion
- From: Pete Dashwood
- Re: religion
- From: Oliver Wong
- Re: religion
- From: Pete Dashwood
- Re: religion
- From: Alistair
- Re: Making money from Java
- Prev by Date: Re: OT: Agnoticism (WAS: Making money from Java)
- Next by Date: Re: Zero supression and tinyCobol
- Previous by thread: Re: religion
- Next by thread: Re: religion
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|