[Merged] Studying Sharma's equation on Linear Field Equations - Page 2

ben m · 6th August 2009, 01:17 PM

Dedicate was a fine word, I missed the intended sense (perfectly clear in retrospect). In any case, the word "Sharma" does not appear in the full-text search of the book---must be some other crackpot, there's no shortage of them.

Singularitarian · 6th August 2009, 04:56 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I said absolutely nothing about the charge on any antiparticle, the sign of which is quite obviously irrelevant. So not only are you wrong about antiparticles having negative energy, you fundamentally misunderstand what I have said.

But let's suppose that an antiparticle has negative energy. What should happen when a particle and an antiparticle annihilate each other? Why, nothing: energy is conserved, a + and a - energy add to zero, so that's the end of the story. And what should be required to make such a pair? Again, nothing: I can create a positive and negative energy pair from zero starting energy, so real pairs (not just virtual pairs) can pop out of nowhere.

But that's not what happens. When a positron and an electron annihilate each other, it creates TWO photons, each with the same energy as the electron's rest mass. Which means the positron has the same energy as the electron. And what if I want to make a positron-electron pair? I cannot do so with zero energy. In fact, if I want to do single-photon production (whack a heavy nucleus with it), I need that photon to have TWICE the energy of the electron, because I need to create an electron and a positron which BOTH have positive energy.

So you are wrong. Completely and utterly wrong. Where on earth did you get such a foolish idea?

Look, your fooling no one. Any scientist knows that in a Hamiltonian the energy-equivalance is best described with a negative matter solution, and this has been worked on by nearly any university at some time. You said i was wrong, and i was not. I even linked you to varification, and you are still sitting there telling me i was wrong. Sigh*

You obviously have no conceptual knowledge of the Dirac Sea, and how its predictions of the antiparticle come from a negative sea of spinning quantum virtual particles. It's been varified time and time again, with the added problem its entire energy is about $10^{122}$ magnitudes of energy more than what should be expected.

Ziggurat · 6th August 2009, 05:13 PM

Originally Posted by Singularitarian

Look, your fooling no one.

And yet, multiple other posters have also said that antiparticles have positive energy. So if I'm wrong, and I'm not fooling them, who is?

The rest mass energy of an electron is +511 keV. What is the rest mass energy of a positron? If an electron and a positron annihilate each other, how much energy should be released?

(And as an aside, the proper English in this case is "you're", which is a contraction of "you are", not "your", which is the possessive form of "you")

(Oh, and simple superscripts are much easier to use and read than latex in many cases. For example, 10¹²². If you quote this message, you can see how to use superscripts.)

ben m · 6th August 2009, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by Singularitarian

Look, your fooling no one. Any scientist knows that in a Hamiltonian the energy-equivalance is best described with a negative matter solution, and this has been worked on by nearly any university at some time. You said i was wrong, and i was not. I even linked you to varification, and you are still sitting there telling me i was wrong. Sigh*

You obviously have no conceptual knowledge of the Dirac Sea, and how its predictions of the antiparticle come from a negative sea of spinning quantum virtual particles. It's been varified time and time again, with the added problem its entire energy is about $10^{122}$ magnitudes of energy more than what should be expected.

"Any scientist"? Funny, you're on a board with multiple professional physicists and nobody seems to agree with you.

Sol explained it very clearly: the Dirac Sea was the first method used to predict/describe antimatter. We still teach it in intro-particle-physics courses because it's kind of neat how the math works. Viewed in more detail, it is not a good description of the real world, and the correct version is taught later in those same courses. You haven't taken those courses yet, Sing, so you've missed half the picture.

(Never in this process does E = -mc^2 enter a kinematic equation; even in the Dirac Sea picture you can only do kinematics with "holes", or antiparticles, for which E = mc^2. Also, the Dirac sea would be made of real, not virtual particles---you are mistaken in associating it with the famous factor of 10^122 which is all virtual.)

Singularitarian · 6th August 2009, 05:17 PM

No that is right. Real antiparticles have the positive energy you refer to. Where you are wrong is when you told me the equation $E=\pm Mc^2$ was wrong. That is why you where wrong, not for what you think.

At least now, you do know that virtual antiparticles are described that way from a Hamiltonian viewpoint.

nescafe · 6th August 2009, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by Singularitarian

You obviously have no conceptual knowledge of the Dirac Sea, and how its predictions of the antiparticle come from a negative sea of spinning quantum virtual particles. It's been varified time and time again, with the added problem its entire energy is about

magnitudes of energy more than what should be expected.

More like the concept of the Dirac Sea was rendered obsolete in the 30s when quantum field theory was formulated. As a bonus, QFT does not demand that there be an infinite sea of negative energy that is balanced by the vacuum having infinite positive energy.

Singularitarian · 6th August 2009, 05:18 PM

Anyway, off your high horse. I prove you where wrong in the link i gave you, if you even bothered educating yourself.

Singularitarian · 6th August 2009, 05:20 PM

Originally Posted by nescafe

More like the concept of the Dirac Sea was rendered obsolete in the 30s when quantum field theory was formulated. As a bonus, QFT does not demand that there be an infinite sea of negative energy that is balanced by the vacuum having infinite positive energy.

I think you will find that the Dirac Sea did correctly predict the antiparticle. The good thing here is that the sea is replaced by a more logical and also varified existence, taking the form of the ZPF.

Singularitarian · 6th August 2009, 05:23 PM

In this case, if we do not require a normalization, then it's still strange how there is too much energy, more than what is in the observable universe. In QFT, i can assure you its still a problem, because the ZPF is an infinite energy-filling resviour of negative potential particles. The renormalization might be as simple as a quantum ''cut-off'' in the region of particles in the vacuum, or at least, this is what has been suggested

Ziggurat · 6th August 2009, 05:23 PM

The rest mass energy of an electron is +511 keV. What is the rest mass energy of a positron? If an electron and a positron annihilate each other, how much energy should be released?

Singularitarian · 6th August 2009, 05:26 PM

It releases due to conservation 1022KeV of energy, in the form of two photons. It can also be seen as a form of decay, but this has absolutly nothing to do with what is being said. You are completely off-topic. You're arguing for a real antiparticle, the Hamiltonian of E=Mc^2 leads to a negative solution for virtual particles.

Do you know the difference?

Ziggurat · 6th August 2009, 05:45 PM

Originally Posted by Singularitarian

It releases due to conservation 1022KeV of energy, in the form of two photons. It can also be seen as a form of decay, but this has absolutly nothing to do with what is being said. You are completely off-topic. You're arguing for a real antiparticle, the Hamiltonian of E=Mc^2 leads to a negative solution for virtual particles.

Do you know the difference?

Yes, I do know the difference. But first off, you never specified virtual particles only, and second, you're still wrong.

Singularitarian · 6th August 2009, 05:53 PM

lol!!

I never specified that?

I certainly did when i linked you to the Dirac Sea yonks ago.

And i am not wrong, just because ''you say so-method.'' lol

Just admit, you did not know that the mass in the Hamiltonian of E=Mc^2 is actually E=\pm Mc^2, and has nothing to do with real particles. If you read the link, you might have saved yourself all this trouble.

Singularitarian · 6th August 2009, 05:54 PM

I also clarified it in post 42 as well.

Try another tactic.

Ziggurat · 6th August 2009, 05:59 PM

Originally Posted by Singularitarian

lol!!

I never specified that?

I certainly did when i linked you to the Dirac Sea yonks ago.

No. The Dirac sea is supposed to be real particles, not virtual particles.

Quote:

And i am not wrong, just because ''you say so-method.''

No, you're wrong because what you say has no relationship to reality.

Singularitarian · 6th August 2009, 06:08 PM

No, the Dirac Sea is composed of virtual energy. But it is actually the ZPF which now takes its identity. This also a sea of virtual potential energy.

Please go learn this stuff. Only when there sufficient energy in a given slice $\sum$ can a virtual particle appear commondating the exitence of its negative or opposite solution. So the Dirac Sea cannot consist of real matter, or all-space would be consumed by its energy.

Real matter is the stuff you and me is made of. Potential matter exists beyond the threshold of observation, but still have real effects in the world, dispite them having the unusual properties virtual particles have.

Floyt · 6th August 2009, 06:28 PM

(Continually insulting those who continually demonstrate a better grounded knowledge than you makes one heck of an impression on observers. Just sayin'.)

Singularitarian · 6th August 2009, 06:40 PM

Better grasp? Is everyone on magic mushrooms on this site or something.

Who's side are you watching? He argued the Hamiltonian equation $E=\pm Mc^2$ was false. I showed him he was wrong, actually countless times i've showed he was wrong.

Amazingly, he's been able to even fool you. He never understood the math, and he can't even apologize. He also accused me of not warning him it was about virtual particles, which was absolutely not the case as well.

ben m · 6th August 2009, 07:32 PM

Originally Posted by Singularitarian

lol!!

I never specified that?

I certainly did when i linked you to the Dirac Sea yonks ago.

Your first post in this thread seems to have something to do with a mildly-relativistic particle falling under uniform gravity---not virtual particle, nor an antiparticle, nor a component of the Dirac sea. Exactly the sort of thing for which only the + solution is meaningful. Nonetheless, your negative sign is there.

Ziggurat · 6th August 2009, 10:07 PM

Originally Posted by Singularitarian

Better grasp? Is everyone on magic mushrooms on this site or something.

If everyone around you seems crazy, maybe it's you.

Singularitarian · 7th August 2009, 12:39 AM

Originally Posted by ben m

Your first post in this thread seems to have something to do with a mildly-relativistic particle falling under uniform gravity---not virtual particle, nor an antiparticle, nor a component of the Dirac sea. Exactly the sort of thing for which only the + solution is meaningful. Nonetheless, your negative sign is there.

I think you'll find its use was obsolete anyway due to an error i had made, so it doesn't matter.

What does matter, is when i am told i am wrong when i say ''the hamiltonian expresses E=Mc^2 with a negative solution in respect with the vacuum energy, and takes the form of the positron, and hence, other antiparticles.''

This is not wrong, but i was told i was. How long are we going to keep this up?

lionking · 7th August 2009, 12:43 AM

Originally Posted by Singularitarian

I think you'll find its use was obsolete anyway due to an error i had made

I thought everyone else made errors but you.

Just out of curiosity, how old are you?

Singularitarian · 7th August 2009, 12:46 AM

No, that's you just being patronizing.

>Age; old enough.

lionking · 7th August 2009, 12:57 AM

Originally Posted by Singularitarian

patronizing.

The irony is breathtaking.

Singularitarian · 7th August 2009, 01:01 AM

Not as breathtaking as your ego, might I add.

edd · 7th August 2009, 02:30 AM

Originally Posted by Singularitarian

It releases due to conservation 1022KeV of energy, in the form of two photons. It can also be seen as a form of decay, but this has absolutly nothing to do with what is being said. You are completely off-topic. You're arguing for a real antiparticle, the Hamiltonian of E=Mc^2 leads to a negative solution for virtual particles.

Do you know the difference?

It has everything to do with it, but you missed what I would consider the best response to RC - namely that the positron is supposed to be an absence of a negative energy particle in the Dirac Sea model, and two negatives (the absence of a negative energy) make a positive. Also the Dirac Sea particles are not virtual - at least not according to any useful definition I can think of.

Anyway, the Dirac Sea as an idea has some unpleasant properties, and furthermore it seems to me ben m is quite right in noting the error in the original placement of the - sign in your original post.

Singularitarian · 7th August 2009, 05:01 AM

Originally Posted by edd

It has everything to do with it, but you missed what I would consider the best response to RC - namely that the positron is supposed to be an absence of a negative energy particle in the Dirac Sea model, and two negatives (the absence of a negative energy) make a positive. Also the Dirac Sea particles are not virtual - at least not according to any useful definition I can think of.

Anyway, the Dirac Sea as an idea has some unpleasant properties, and furthermore it seems to me ben m is quite right in noting the error in the original placement of the - sign in your original post.

First off, it wasn't Ben.

Secondly, tell me then how you reconcile the obviously contrary work:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_sea

So if i was wrong, how come the page here explains that the equation is not wrong, as thus expressed in a Hamitonian?

Now, stop defending someone, when you don't even know the facts.

sol invictus · 7th August 2009, 05:36 AM

Originally Posted by Singularitarian

Secondly, tell me then how you reconcile the obviously contrary work:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_sea

So if i was wrong, how come the page here explains that the equation is not wrong, as thus expressed in a Hamitonian?

That article needs to be re-written.

Singularitarian · 7th August 2009, 05:41 AM

But it couldn't get any simpler in that article. This is how i have learned it independantly as well. I know its right.

DazzaD · 7th August 2009, 06:47 AM

Wikipedia is an excellent tool and one I often recommend to my students.

What I also make clear is they should never really completely trust ANY single source of information, and that includes myself, and that they should be especially careful when quoting from websites.

The fact that the article doesn't have a single source or reference should make any student go "hmmmm" and means they may have to dig a little deeper or ask a few more people before they take every single word and symbol as "gospel".

ben m · 7th August 2009, 07:19 AM

Originally Posted by Singularitarian

First off, it wasn't Ben.

Secondly, tell me then how you reconcile the obviously contrary work:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_sea

So if i was wrong, how come the page here explains that the equation is not wrong, as thus expressed in a Hamitonian?

Now, stop defending someone, when you don't even know the facts.

Sing: I know what the Wiki article says. In fact, I specifically said to you "You seem to be quoting the Wiki article". What made me think so? You keep tossing in the word "Hamiltonian" without knowing what it means, as though your main exposure to the word Hamiltonian were in the intro to the equation you want to force on everyone. You don't dare leave out the phrase "as expressed in a hamiltonian" because you have no way of telling, based on that one Wiki sentence, what it would mean to leave it out.

The physicists here have all agreed that:
1) Yes, if you allow E= -mc^2 (and some other assumptions) you can predict the Dirac sea
2) The Dirac sea would be a sea of *real* particles whose "holes" are *real* (not virtual), antiparticles
3) That's the first, last, and only use for E=-mc^2; since the Dirac sea has all sorts of other horrible properties, physicists think it does not really exist

Sol is right, that article needs to be rewritten.

Singularitarian · 7th August 2009, 04:47 PM

Originally Posted by ben m

Sing: I know what the Wiki article says. In fact, I specifically said to you "You seem to be quoting the Wiki article". What made me think so? You keep tossing in the word "Hamiltonian" without knowing what it means, as though your main exposure to the word Hamiltonian were in the intro to the equation you want to force on everyone. You don't dare leave out the phrase "as expressed in a hamiltonian" because you have no way of telling, based on that one Wiki sentence, what it would mean to leave it out.

The physicists here have all agreed that:
1) Yes, if you allow E= -mc^2 (and some other assumptions) you can predict the Dirac sea
2) The Dirac sea would be a sea of *real* particles whose "holes" are *real* (not virtual), antiparticles
3) That's the first, last, and only use for E=-mc^2; since the Dirac sea has all sorts of other horrible properties, physicists think it does not really exist

Sol is right, that article needs to be rewritten.

I've solved plenty Hamiltonians. What surprises me is the continuous dogmnatism between some people here, despite the evidence flying in their faces. At least, this way, i differ somewhat.

By the way, no negative solutions equals a true positive real matter particle. Only in the appearance with a real electron, unless disturbed by the CP-Violation, then its appearance is simultaneous with a *real* particle which is its antithesis. I can assure you, before such an appearance of a real electron does a real positron appear. Until then, it does not abide by natural energy-momentum laws, nor does it apply generally with the matter we observe frequently. Deny this, and you are a fool.

Singularitarian · 7th August 2009, 04:51 PM

I was reading today, funnily enough, Doctor Wolfs 'Spritual Universe...' Don't let the name threat you - it's quite a good read, and he actually talked about the Dirac Sea, in the third chapter if i remember rightly.

He descrived it as an

''energy-filling vacuum of potential particles, with a negative energy.''

And

''The motion of the electron is buffetted by these virtual particles.'' (hence, the periodic time, internal and fundamental to the electron).

And

''When an electron appears in spacetime, a positron appears also.''

This is when the particles become ''real.''

Ziggurat · 7th August 2009, 05:03 PM

Originally Posted by Singularitarian

I was reading today, funnily enough, Doctor Wolfs 'Spritual Universe...' Don't let the name threat you - it's quite a good read, and he actually talked about the Dirac Sea, in the third chapter if i remember rightly.

So rather than cite texts which are meant to teach physics, you're referencing a text which is, at its heart, about religion. That is unpersuasive, to put it charitably.

ben m · 7th August 2009, 05:14 PM

Originally Posted by Singularitarian

I've solved plenty Hamiltonians.

Are you sure? I've never assigned or been assigned the task of "solving a Hamiltonian".

Quote:

By the way, no negative solutions equals a true positive real matter particle. Only in the appearance with a real electron, unless disturbed by the CP-Violation, then its appearance is simultaneous with a *real* particle which is its antithesis. I can assure you, before such an appearance of a real electron does a real positron appear. Until then, it does not abide by natural energy-momentum laws, nor does it apply generally with the matter we observe frequently. Deny this, and you are a fool.

I can dodge the "fool" bullet (whew!) in this case---I can't deny "this" because it does not make any sense. I can discern, in the second sentence, something like "electrons and positrons are created in pairs"---is that your point? That's true (and it's true of virtual as well as real electrons). The first and third sentences are incomprehensible. The fourth may contain something like "Virtual particles are allowed nonzero energies only thanks to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle"---is that what you meant?---which is true, and perhaps also some other statement (the second clause, basically) which is incomprehensible.

Singularitarian · 7th August 2009, 05:20 PM

Yeh, sure, when we have to solve to find a certain condition of the Hamiltonian. Don't be circular in your specificies.

Either way, anyone who has come here, will see that the initial poster you defended was wholey wrong. You've made yourself out to be a fool, so i cannot even continue with this. I've explained, linked, and this still is not enough, so why should i continue an endless battle, which is pretty much boring to read.

Singularitarian · 7th August 2009, 05:22 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

So rather than cite texts which are meant to teach physics, you're referencing a text which is, at its heart, about religion. That is unpersuasive, to put it charitably.

No it's not about religion actually, but brief mentions, maybe at least three times throughout the whole book. Most of it is to do with scientists he met, and how he came to understand quantum physics can model a soul for the observer.

ben m · 7th August 2009, 05:22 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

So rather than cite texts which are meant to teach physics, you're referencing a text which is, at its heart, about religion. That is unpersuasive, to put it charitably.

Keep in mind, his other citations have been mainly (a) unread Google search summaries and (b) non-refereed crackpot journals (Journal of Theoretics, Concepts of Physics) and (c) crackpot web pages (Calphysics). This makes Fred Wolfs look like Halliday and Resnick by comparison.

Singularitarian · 7th August 2009, 05:26 PM

Though he has still been a ''professor of physics,'' at at least four universities and colleges, he has been an award winning author of ''taking the quantum leap,'' and he was the best seller for a year... so, yeh, he must be totally cranked.

ben m · 7th August 2009, 05:30 PM

Originally Posted by Singularitarian

I've explained, linked, and this still is not enough

I am willing to drop the (basically academic) point about whether or not the negative sign which Dirac used in his "Dirac Sea" model actually has anything to do with reality. Sing says "yes", Wikipedia's article contains sentences which say "yes" and paragraphs which say "no", and several qualified physicists here say "no, not at all".

This is all rather divorced from your first-post long essay, which (a) presumably you thought would be an interesting thing to discuss, (b) has absolutely nothing to do with the Dirac Sea, and (c) tosses a negative sign into things which look like kinematic equations. What was that all about?

6th August 2009, 01:17 PM	#41
ben m Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,651	Dedicate was a fine word, I missed the intended sense (perfectly clear in retrospect). In any case, the word "Sharma" does not appear in the full-text search of the book---must be some other crackpot, there's no shortage of them.
ben m Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,651

6th August 2009, 04:56 PM	#42
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008	Originally Posted by Ziggurat I said absolutely nothing about the charge on any antiparticle, the sign of which is quite obviously irrelevant. So not only are you wrong about antiparticles having negative energy, you fundamentally misunderstand what I have said. But let's suppose that an antiparticle has negative energy. What should happen when a particle and an antiparticle annihilate each other? Why, nothing: energy is conserved, a + and a - energy add to zero, so that's the end of the story. And what should be required to make such a pair? Again, nothing: I can create a positive and negative energy pair from zero starting energy, so real pairs (not just virtual pairs) can pop out of nowhere. But that's not what happens. When a positron and an electron annihilate each other, it creates TWO photons, each with the same energy as the electron's rest mass. Which means the positron has the same energy as the electron. And what if I want to make a positron-electron pair? I cannot do so with zero energy. In fact, if I want to do single-photon production (whack a heavy nucleus with it), I need that photon to have TWICE the energy of the electron, because I need to create an electron and a positron which BOTH have positive energy. So you are wrong. Completely and utterly wrong. Where on earth did you get such a foolish idea? Look, your fooling no one. Any scientist knows that in a Hamiltonian the energy-equivalance is best described with a negative matter solution, and this has been worked on by nearly any university at some time. You said i was wrong, and i was not. I even linked you to varification, and you are still sitting there telling me i was wrong. Sigh* You obviously have no conceptual knowledge of the Dirac Sea, and how its predictions of the antiparticle come from a negative sea of spinning quantum virtual particles. It's been varified time and time again, with the added problem its entire energy is about $10^{122}$ magnitudes of energy more than what should be expected.
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008

6th August 2009, 05:13 PM	#43
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,199	Originally Posted by Singularitarian Look, your fooling no one. And yet, multiple other posters have also said that antiparticles have positive energy. So if I'm wrong, and I'm not fooling them, who is? The rest mass energy of an electron is +511 keV. What is the rest mass energy of a positron? If an electron and a positron annihilate each other, how much energy should be released? (And as an aside, the proper English in this case is "you're", which is a contraction of "you are", not "your", which is the possessive form of "you") (Oh, and simple superscripts are much easier to use and read than latex in many cases. For example, 10¹²². If you quote this message, you can see how to use superscripts.)
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law Last edited by Ziggurat; 6th August 2009 at 05:15 PM.

6th August 2009, 05:17 PM	#44
ben m Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,651	Originally Posted by Singularitarian Look, your fooling no one. Any scientist knows that in a Hamiltonian the energy-equivalance is best described with a negative matter solution, and this has been worked on by nearly any university at some time. You said i was wrong, and i was not. I even linked you to varification, and you are still sitting there telling me i was wrong. Sigh* You obviously have no conceptual knowledge of the Dirac Sea, and how its predictions of the antiparticle come from a negative sea of spinning quantum virtual particles. It's been varified time and time again, with the added problem its entire energy is about $10^{122}$ magnitudes of energy more than what should be expected. "Any scientist"? Funny, you're on a board with multiple professional physicists and nobody seems to agree with you. Sol explained it very clearly: the Dirac Sea was the first method used to predict/describe antimatter. We still teach it in intro-particle-physics courses because it's kind of neat how the math works. Viewed in more detail, it is not a good description of the real world, and the correct version is taught later in those same courses. You haven't taken those courses yet, Sing, so you've missed half the picture. (Never in this process does E = -mc^2 enter a kinematic equation; even in the Dirac Sea picture you can only do kinematics with "holes", or antiparticles, for which E = mc^2. Also, the Dirac sea would be made of real, not virtual particles---you are mistaken in associating it with the famous factor of 10^122 which is all virtual.)
ben m Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,651

6th August 2009, 05:17 PM	#45
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008	No that is right. Real antiparticles have the positive energy you refer to. Where you are wrong is when you told me the equation $E=\pm Mc^2$ was wrong. That is why you where wrong, not for what you think. At least now, you do know that virtual antiparticles are described that way from a Hamiltonian viewpoint.
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008

6th August 2009, 05:18 PM	#46
nescafe Caffeinated Beverage Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Just above the coffeemaker Posts: 864	Originally Posted by Singularitarian You obviously have no conceptual knowledge of the Dirac Sea, and how its predictions of the antiparticle come from a negative sea of spinning quantum virtual particles. It's been varified time and time again, with the added problem its entire energy is about magnitudes of energy more than what should be expected. More like the concept of the Dirac Sea was rendered obsolete in the 30s when quantum field theory was formulated. As a bonus, QFT does not demand that there be an infinite sea of negative energy that is balanced by the vacuum having infinite positive energy.

6th August 2009, 05:20 PM	#48
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008	Originally Posted by nescafe More like the concept of the Dirac Sea was rendered obsolete in the 30s when quantum field theory was formulated. As a bonus, QFT does not demand that there be an infinite sea of negative energy that is balanced by the vacuum having infinite positive energy. I think you will find that the Dirac Sea did correctly predict the antiparticle. The good thing here is that the sea is replaced by a more logical and also varified existence, taking the form of the ZPF.
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008

6th August 2009, 05:23 PM	#49
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008	In this case, if we do not require a normalization, then it's still strange how there is too much energy, more than what is in the observable universe. In QFT, i can assure you its still a problem, because the ZPF is an infinite energy-filling resviour of negative potential particles. The renormalization might be as simple as a quantum ''cut-off'' in the region of particles in the vacuum, or at least, this is what has been suggested
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008

6th August 2009, 05:26 PM	#51
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008	It releases due to conservation 1022KeV of energy, in the form of two photons. It can also be seen as a form of decay, but this has absolutly nothing to do with what is being said. You are completely off-topic. You're arguing for a real antiparticle, the Hamiltonian of E=Mc^2 leads to a negative solution for virtual particles. Do you know the difference?
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008

6th August 2009, 05:45 PM	#52
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,199	Originally Posted by Singularitarian It releases due to conservation 1022KeV of energy, in the form of two photons. It can also be seen as a form of decay, but this has absolutly nothing to do with what is being said. You are completely off-topic. You're arguing for a real antiparticle, the Hamiltonian of E=Mc^2 leads to a negative solution for virtual particles. Do you know the difference? Yes, I do know the difference. But first off, you never specified virtual particles only, and second, you're still wrong.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

6th August 2009, 05:53 PM	#53
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008	lol!! I never specified that? I certainly did when i linked you to the Dirac Sea yonks ago. And i am not wrong, just because ''you say so-method.'' lol Just admit, you did not know that the mass in the Hamiltonian of E=Mc^2 is actually E=\pm Mc^2, and has nothing to do with real particles. If you read the link, you might have saved yourself all this trouble.
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008

6th August 2009, 05:54 PM	#54
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008	I also clarified it in post 42 as well. Try another tactic.
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008

6th August 2009, 05:59 PM	#55
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,199	Originally Posted by Singularitarian lol!! I never specified that? I certainly did when i linked you to the Dirac Sea yonks ago. No. The Dirac sea is supposed to be real particles, not virtual particles. Quote: And i am not wrong, just because ''you say so-method.'' No, you're wrong because what you say has no relationship to reality.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

6th August 2009, 06:08 PM	#56
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008	No, the Dirac Sea is composed of virtual energy. But it is actually the ZPF which now takes its identity. This also a sea of virtual potential energy. Please go learn this stuff. Only when there sufficient energy in a given slice $\sum$ can a virtual particle appear commondating the exitence of its negative or opposite solution. So the Dirac Sea cannot consist of real matter, or all-space would be consumed by its energy. Real matter is the stuff you and me is made of. Potential matter exists beyond the threshold of observation, but still have real effects in the world, dispite them having the unusual properties virtual particles have.
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008

6th August 2009, 06:28 PM	#57
Floyt Chordate Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Cape Town! Not mugged yet. Looking for chameleons. Posts: 1,426	(Continually insulting those who continually demonstrate a better grounded knowledge than you makes one heck of an impression on observers. Just sayin'.)
	__________________ They had no god; they had no gods; they had no faith. What they appear to have had is a working metaphor. - Ursula K. Le Guin, "Always Coming Home"

6th August 2009, 06:40 PM	#58
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008	Better grasp? Is everyone on magic mushrooms on this site or something. Who's side are you watching? He argued the Hamiltonian equation $E=\pm Mc^2$ was false. I showed him he was wrong, actually countless times i've showed he was wrong. Amazingly, he's been able to even fool you. He never understood the math, and he can't even apologize. He also accused me of not warning him it was about virtual particles, which was absolutely not the case as well.
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008

6th August 2009, 07:32 PM	#59
ben m Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,651	Originally Posted by Singularitarian lol!! I never specified that? I certainly did when i linked you to the Dirac Sea yonks ago. Your first post in this thread seems to have something to do with a mildly-relativistic particle falling under uniform gravity---not virtual particle, nor an antiparticle, nor a component of the Dirac sea. Exactly the sort of thing for which only the + solution is meaningful. Nonetheless, your negative sign is there.
ben m Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,651

6th August 2009, 10:07 PM	#60
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,199	Originally Posted by Singularitarian Better grasp? Is everyone on magic mushrooms on this site or something. If everyone around you seems crazy, maybe it's you.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

7th August 2009, 12:39 AM	#61
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008	Originally Posted by ben m Your first post in this thread seems to have something to do with a mildly-relativistic particle falling under uniform gravity---not virtual particle, nor an antiparticle, nor a component of the Dirac sea. Exactly the sort of thing for which only the + solution is meaningful. Nonetheless, your negative sign is there. I think you'll find its use was obsolete anyway due to an error i had made, so it doesn't matter. What does matter, is when i am told i am wrong when i say ''the hamiltonian expresses E=Mc^2 with a negative solution in respect with the vacuum energy, and takes the form of the positron, and hence, other antiparticles.'' This is not wrong, but i was told i was. How long are we going to keep this up?
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008

7th August 2009, 12:43 AM	#62
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,653	Originally Posted by Singularitarian I think you'll find its use was obsolete anyway due to an error i had made I thought everyone else made errors but you. Just out of curiosity, how old are you?
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

7th August 2009, 12:46 AM	#63
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008	No, that's you just being patronizing. >Age; old enough.
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008

7th August 2009, 12:57 AM	#64
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,653	Originally Posted by Singularitarian patronizing. The irony is breathtaking.
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

7th August 2009, 01:01 AM	#65
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008	Not as breathtaking as your ego, might I add.
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008

7th August 2009, 02:30 AM	#66
edd Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 1,556	Originally Posted by Singularitarian It releases due to conservation 1022KeV of energy, in the form of two photons. It can also be seen as a form of decay, but this has absolutly nothing to do with what is being said. You are completely off-topic. You're arguing for a real antiparticle, the Hamiltonian of E=Mc^2 leads to a negative solution for virtual particles. Do you know the difference? It has everything to do with it, but you missed what I would consider the best response to RC - namely that the positron is supposed to be an absence of a negative energy particle in the Dirac Sea model, and two negatives (the absence of a negative energy) make a positive. Also the Dirac Sea particles are not virtual - at least not according to any useful definition I can think of. Anyway, the Dirac Sea as an idea has some unpleasant properties, and furthermore it seems to me ben m is quite right in noting the error in the original placement of the - sign in your original post.
edd Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 1,556	__________________ When I look up at the night sky and think about the billions of stars out there, I think to myself: I'm amazing. - Peter Serafinowicz

7th August 2009, 05:01 AM	#67
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008	Originally Posted by edd It has everything to do with it, but you missed what I would consider the best response to RC - namely that the positron is supposed to be an absence of a negative energy particle in the Dirac Sea model, and two negatives (the absence of a negative energy) make a positive. Also the Dirac Sea particles are not virtual - at least not according to any useful definition I can think of. Anyway, the Dirac Sea as an idea has some unpleasant properties, and furthermore it seems to me ben m is quite right in noting the error in the original placement of the - sign in your original post. First off, it wasn't Ben. Secondly, tell me then how you reconcile the obviously contrary work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_sea So if i was wrong, how come the page here explains that the equation is not wrong, as thus expressed in a Hamitonian? Now, stop defending someone, when you don't even know the facts.
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008

7th August 2009, 05:36 AM	#68
sol invictus Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Nova Roma Posts: 8,419	Originally Posted by Singularitarian Secondly, tell me then how you reconcile the obviously contrary work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_sea So if i was wrong, how come the page here explains that the equation is not wrong, as thus expressed in a Hamitonian? That article needs to be re-written.

7th August 2009, 05:41 AM	#69
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008	But it couldn't get any simpler in that article. This is how i have learned it independantly as well. I know its right.
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008

7th August 2009, 06:47 AM	#70
DazzaD Critical Thinker Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Romford Posts: 303	Wikipedia is an excellent tool and one I often recommend to my students. What I also make clear is they should never really completely trust ANY single source of information, and that includes myself, and that they should be especially careful when quoting from websites. The fact that the article doesn't have a single source or reference should make any student go "hmmmm" and means they may have to dig a little deeper or ask a few more people before they take every single word and symbol as "gospel".

7th August 2009, 07:19 AM	#71
ben m Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,651	Originally Posted by Singularitarian First off, it wasn't Ben. Secondly, tell me then how you reconcile the obviously contrary work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_sea So if i was wrong, how come the page here explains that the equation is not wrong, as thus expressed in a Hamitonian? Now, stop defending someone, when you don't even know the facts. Sing: I know what the Wiki article says. In fact, I specifically said to you "You seem to be quoting the Wiki article". What made me think so? You keep tossing in the word "Hamiltonian" without knowing what it means, as though your main exposure to the word Hamiltonian were in the intro to the equation you want to force on everyone. You don't dare leave out the phrase "as expressed in a hamiltonian" because you have no way of telling, based on that one Wiki sentence, what it would mean to leave it out. The physicists here have all agreed that: 1) Yes, if you allow E= -mc^2 (and some other assumptions) you can predict the Dirac sea 2) The Dirac sea would be a sea of real particles whose "holes" are real (not virtual), antiparticles 3) That's the first, last, and only use for E=-mc^2; since the Dirac sea has all sorts of other horrible properties, physicists think it does not really exist Sol is right, that article needs to be rewritten.
ben m Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,651

7th August 2009, 04:47 PM	#72
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008	Originally Posted by ben m Sing: I know what the Wiki article says. In fact, I specifically said to you "You seem to be quoting the Wiki article". What made me think so? You keep tossing in the word "Hamiltonian" without knowing what it means, as though your main exposure to the word Hamiltonian were in the intro to the equation you want to force on everyone. You don't dare leave out the phrase "as expressed in a hamiltonian" because you have no way of telling, based on that one Wiki sentence, what it would mean to leave it out. The physicists here have all agreed that: 1) Yes, if you allow E= -mc^2 (and some other assumptions) you can predict the Dirac sea 2) The Dirac sea would be a sea of real particles whose "holes" are real (not virtual), antiparticles 3) That's the first, last, and only use for E=-mc^2; since the Dirac sea has all sorts of other horrible properties, physicists think it does not really exist Sol is right, that article needs to be rewritten. I've solved plenty Hamiltonians. What surprises me is the continuous dogmnatism between some people here, despite the evidence flying in their faces. At least, this way, i differ somewhat. By the way, no negative solutions equals a true positive real matter particle. Only in the appearance with a real electron, unless disturbed by the CP-Violation, then its appearance is simultaneous with a real particle which is its antithesis. I can assure you, before such an appearance of a real electron does a real positron appear. Until then, it does not abide by natural energy-momentum laws, nor does it apply generally with the matter we observe frequently. Deny this, and you are a fool.
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008

7th August 2009, 04:51 PM	#73
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008	I was reading today, funnily enough, Doctor Wolfs 'Spritual Universe...' Don't let the name threat you - it's quite a good read, and he actually talked about the Dirac Sea, in the third chapter if i remember rightly. He descrived it as an ''energy-filling vacuum of potential particles, with a negative energy.'' And ''The motion of the electron is buffetted by these virtual particles.'' (hence, the periodic time, internal and fundamental to the electron). And ''When an electron appears in spacetime, a positron appears also.'' This is when the particles become ''real.''
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008

7th August 2009, 05:03 PM	#74
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,199	Originally Posted by Singularitarian I was reading today, funnily enough, Doctor Wolfs 'Spritual Universe...' Don't let the name threat you - it's quite a good read, and he actually talked about the Dirac Sea, in the third chapter if i remember rightly. So rather than cite texts which are meant to teach physics, you're referencing a text which is, at its heart, about religion. That is unpersuasive, to put it charitably.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

7th August 2009, 05:14 PM	#75
ben m Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,651	Originally Posted by Singularitarian I've solved plenty Hamiltonians. Are you sure? I've never assigned or been assigned the task of "solving a Hamiltonian". Quote: By the way, no negative solutions equals a true positive real matter particle. Only in the appearance with a real electron, unless disturbed by the CP-Violation, then its appearance is simultaneous with a real particle which is its antithesis. I can assure you, before such an appearance of a real electron does a real positron appear. Until then, it does not abide by natural energy-momentum laws, nor does it apply generally with the matter we observe frequently. Deny this, and you are a fool. I can dodge the "fool" bullet (whew!) in this case---I can't deny "this" because it does not make any sense. I can discern, in the second sentence, something like "electrons and positrons are created in pairs"---is that your point? That's true (and it's true of virtual as well as real electrons). The first and third sentences are incomprehensible. The fourth may contain something like "Virtual particles are allowed nonzero energies only thanks to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle"---is that what you meant?---which is true, and perhaps also some other statement (the second clause, basically) which is incomprehensible.
ben m Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,651

7th August 2009, 05:20 PM	#76
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008	Yeh, sure, when we have to solve to find a certain condition of the Hamiltonian. Don't be circular in your specificies. Either way, anyone who has come here, will see that the initial poster you defended was wholey wrong. You've made yourself out to be a fool, so i cannot even continue with this. I've explained, linked, and this still is not enough, so why should i continue an endless battle, which is pretty much boring to read.
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008

7th August 2009, 05:22 PM	#77
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008	Originally Posted by Ziggurat So rather than cite texts which are meant to teach physics, you're referencing a text which is, at its heart, about religion. That is unpersuasive, to put it charitably. No it's not about religion actually, but brief mentions, maybe at least three times throughout the whole book. Most of it is to do with scientists he met, and how he came to understand quantum physics can model a soul for the observer.
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008