Kramer

Stranger

---- I didn't tell you the exact equivalent because that was not relevant. The only point I was making was that you can use any equivalent units to express mass with no change in meaning.
---- So to make your point----
The characteristics of some Kramer:
Race ---light absorbed. Height--- 5,67 *10^-9 c*t , age….6.07 *10^-9 B.B.y. Etc… Ridiculous, isn’t it for calling a scientific debate, about the nature of holes, of mater, of concept back in time?

There is no need of embarrassment; there just needs to be a willingness to learn. The trouble is when people attempt to explain things, you just reject it.

So I don't know what you want. You plead you are a "poor layman" (so I am I) who needs to learn. But when people attempt to explain things you get angry and insulting.
----- Do you know Strange. Seems to me, it is a scientific jargon, used random in science debate, for covering human’s ignorance about essence of physic’s phenomena of nature: absorbed, annihilated, change flavor, change color, appear, disappear etc…
Now as a know-ledged person you are, you will ready with rebut: “your ignorance, not humans”. And here begins bickering and the cause of anger and insult.

As always with your threads.
---- I see the muster of insulting.
Anyway, when I open a thread, I want to know the others thoughts about the issue and to compare them with my guess, my hunch. I know that is not always easy to respond on why? And how? But I don’t like “shut up, and calculate” because posting in speculation forum, always may be a speculative answer, like photon go in Vega, in other constellations, and instantly return to kick your electron.

OMG = Oh My God - an expression of surprise.

Do you really mean you have never heard of things like kg and pounds and other units of mass?
----- What kind of a rebut!

The exact value doesn't matter: it is the concept that people are trying to get you to understand: it doesn't matter what unit of mass is used; it is still just mass. The units are chosen for convenience: eV/c2 in particle physics, solar masses in astronomy, kg in everyday life. The units are just chosen because they give numbers that are easy to manage - the choice does not change the meaning. That is all we are trying to explain to you.
-----Convenience in calculations and disorientation in conceptual nature. This I was trying to explain to you.

Because you appear not to know these common things.
---- I am right about problem of megalomany.

Strange

What are you talking about. I am not saying anything about mass or gravity being secondary, I am not saying anything about energy. I am not saying anything about "quantum". I am just showing that you can express mass in any appropriate units, with no change in meaning.
----- Then why didn’t tell me that you are 53.480082 kg.? To show that you can operate with unities freely, when poor lay-man needs to learn? Isn’t this an offence, when every body needs to learn all his or her life, and is not why to be embarrassed?

It is just blindingly obvious to anyone with a basic education.
---- Again….

Physics didn't change because people stopped using feet and pounds and moved to centimetres and grams (CGS). And then it didn't change again when they moved to metres and kilograms (MKS).

You could express my weight or mass that way as well. Or pounds. Or stones. Or fothers. Or tons. Or grams. Or fotmals. Or hundredweight. Or Troy ounces. Or grains. Or sacks. Or slugs. Or ...

It doesn't change the meaning.
---- Then we are churning water in vain.

Sensei

---- OMG.
----- What is OMG. Now it is for the first time that I read : in physic is changed unit of mass.

eV/c^2 is UNIT OF MASS.
Equivalent to 1.78*10^-36 kg
----- Isn’t more exact 1.7826694*10^ -33 gr. ?

It's basic that anybody learn in primary school

1.5 km is 1 mile, isn't?

One can express speed of light in miles/s, other one can in km/s, third can in m/s, forth can in km/h and so on so on.
---- - Then why you take the role of teacher, for knowledge that are so common.

Strange
No one is trying to offend you. But if you really don't understand the units that can be used to measure mass, then you do need to learn some basic physics.
----- When you say that your “weigh is about 3x10³⁷ eV/c² (and I am not a photon)”. you made me laugh, and don’t take this as an offense: too skinny for a male, but too elegant for a female.

That you are not a photon, for this I am sure: you don’t bounce a meter up the earth not to gets high with C velocity. Because in used from you, your weight by the means of energy in “eV/c^2”, you are trying to say that mass and gravity are secondary, they may exist and “created “ only via energy. This is a trying to patch the quantum.

Of course changing the units of measurement doesn't change the underlying physics. No one thinks it does.
---- I am not sure if this is your conviction, or mainstream’s.

I don't know why you think that electromagnetic phenomena are considered to be more important than gravity. Many of the big unanswered questions are related to general relativity (i.e. gravity).
---- Don’t take for offence, but I think you are too naïve, or play naivety. If it is my first supposition, I will not be amazed if you will tell me that your weight is (h*7.254*10^51Hz) /c^2. ---- If is the second supposition, you play with me for fun, and I with you.

Sensei. Strange. Mordred.

Your triple bounce show me that:

or you are fooled by my post about unity of mass and energy,

or you have found a cause to offend me and to show your scientific megalomania, with very cheap demonstration.
You know very well that I have quite enough knowledge in physic to push you in corner, with my simple questions, even though only with logic, only with elementary knowledge in physic.
You know very well that my question was not about equivalence of all kind of standard of measures, which I am sure know better than you.

My question was to show that change of systems of measures, doesn’t change concept of physic. Only made them more flexible to operate….. and fool people about the importance of physics concepts : mass ?, energy? , particles? fields?, Dimocrites? Plato?
But if you, with this trick of equivalence, put in the ‘pen sheep’ together with sheep , goats, and want to fool me that has not importance because they are the same, I will answer: you have cataract in your eyes.
Who of you boasters know the mechanism of transformation of mass mater in mass-less matter, and vice verse? What made you think that this has not importance?
My question was about importance that modern science of physic gave toward electromagnetic phenomena, and in this manner downgraded the importance of gravity in modern physic. It is about “incompleteness” of quanta.

Mordred
Ok let's look at a proton.

Proton has mass

1.67262178 × 10^-27 kilograms
----- Right.

or 938.272 MEV/c^2
----- No or! “If”-- transformed in photon.

Made up of 2 up and 1 Down quark.

Up quark mass roughly 2.3 Mev/c^2
Down quark mass roughly 4.8 Mev/c^2
----- Disputable. Now I am sure this will anger staff of the site. But if you want to discus in the equal term, I have reason to rebut:

-- Why “quarks”, as particle (if) of pure “mass”, are evaluated in MeV/C^2, and not in Kg. Please don’t tell me that it is made for to put those in the same unity. This if you want to make balance of matter (mass --- energy) via Einstein.use both kind of unities.

Add those up 9.4 Mev/c^2

9.4/938*100=1%.
---- So mass is only 1% and 99% is:


The majority of the mass of the proton is the strong nuclear force.
---- Mass --- equal force?? Because is it strong? What when is it weak?

Not it's constituent components.
---- Hem…. Seems that constituents are “the smallest cog of the wheel”.

http://www.fnal.gov/...ssReadMore.html
The strong nuclear force is mediated by gluons. Experiments have limitted gluons to mass less than 0.0002 eV/c^2.
The above is rest mass, that same proton can gain inertial mass via e=mc^2
---- Very clouded. Gluons with mass less 0.0002eV/C^2 ! What kind of beast is gluon? Is a particle of mass? is a particle of energy? Or both---like mesons? If they interact between quarks, in what way? With electromagnetic action, gravity action, or ??? Is it firm between quarks, or move around them? With what velocity? In what distance? Hold apart quarks, or attract them?
----- And: quarks, of all kind, gluons, and other particles, have they been identified experimentally as entity, (in the real meaning of particle), or are they invented mathematically, and identified, (as ridiculed them an humorist) as “a hump” in any kind of ….gram.
And plus those, there must be added particle (or particles) of Higgs.
--- Don’t you see, a little complicated this painting?

If you wish to change the rules, you must first understand the rules.
----The road of understanding a rule, begin with doubt about validity of rule.

Mordred
The Higgs isn't responsible for all mass. It is responsible for mass in
fundamental particles such as elementary fermions (including electrons and quarks) and the massive W and Z gauge bosons.

---- Aren’t electrons and protons-neutrons the main factors of overall mass? Which other?
If you say that W and Z gauge bosons, are factor of mass, I would prefer more reliable their products of disintegration, --- the same I may say for Higgs boson.
You should really look over the links and materials were providing.
Will the Higgs finalize the standard model. Probably not, were continuously discovering new questions and in some cases new particles. It's a step in our understanding.
---- Sure no. Because the “finalize”, I think (who care?), is far – far away, near Plank area of energies. If scientist will continue to try this futile creation of bosons till extreme, even I am sure it is impossible, theoretically they may find boson of “unique particle”, this structure of two “unique sub particles”.
----------------------------------
Opening this thread I hoppened that may find any clue, about my idea of intertwines of solid matter particles with solid antimatter particles, in this weirdness of “holes”. I don’t say -- it is a delusion. I continue ( who care?) to be hesitant.

Mordred

To the OP. No the Higgs is not like God lol it was a pop media term that kind of stuck. Pop media is like that sometimes.
---- Okay.

Thankfully now that the Higgs has been found its rarely referenced in those terms now.
---- Are you sure the main problem of Standard is solved? Are you sure the Higgs is able to create all the mass, hence gravity? Isn’t strange that a particle of field create particle of mass, when we see in every day experience, that it is mass that create field of gravity, it is electric charge that create all kind of electric and magnetic fields.
What about a statement that for solving problem of creation of mass, needs an accelerator with immense dimension?

Sensei
We're giving links with material to read them by you..
Not to ignore them.
---- Now from the role of mediator, this is a role of teacher, mentor? Thanks for the links, but what I read is my will.

That's why neutral clouds of Hydrogen doesn't fuse.
They need pressure and temperature (energy).
First to ionize, second to accelerate to overcome Coulomb's barrier.
http://en.wikipedia....Coulomb_barrier
IIRC it's couple keV for Hydrogen.

----- When I posted my doubt about the validity of your equation, I make it to attire your attention that, I think, it is not so simple. I think (let nobody care about) that reactions where have transformation of energy with mass, and vice versa in nucleons, participate another kind of carriers of energy too: neutrinos. Disregarding the role of this kind of carriers, bring the need for invention of surrogate kind of actors.

These kind of experiments with photons are cheap. Few hundred dollars.
--- Don’t try to persuade me in this direction. I can’t.
Strange

It is about how the photoelectric shows that light must consist of "quanta" (the name photon was invented much later). There is no structure to photons.
----Well. I think that there is.

You can "believe" whatever you want. On the other hand, you could study and learn what the scientists mean by that.
----The experimenters, aren’t they in rang of scientist? Aren’t valid simulations?

A hole is the absence of an electron in a crystal lattice.
--- If this is so simple I borrow some electrons to fill the holes if there is a deficit of them.

It is just a description of a symmetry; like saying that a left glove is a reflection of a right glove. No one thinks that a left glove is really a reflection and no one thinks anti-particles really go back in time.
---- All right then.

They are all a result of symmetries. Every conservation law is a related to a specific symmetry. We are back to that again - it seems that symmetry is a really fundamental aspect of reality.
---- Only refused to be in main reality: -Sqrt(G) with + Sqrt(G). That’s strange.

For example, the fact that physical systems behave the same at all times and in all places leads to the conservation of energy and momentum.

---- Only not in moment of creation. We go from zero to…… zero?

Sensei

You're mixing Photoelectric effect, with Pair production and Compton Effect.

Comparison of various photon-atom interactions:

----- I don’t mix things. I know what is photoelectric, Pair production, and Compton effect. They have all a main actor: electromagnetic wave. What I can’t find is: how they
having the same nature, act differently, and how this interaction happens in fact.
Example: moment before is E.M.W., moment after is electron –positron. Isn’t it strange?
If you know how and why happens between moments, please give me the clue. Let the clue be a speculation.
If not, I have the right for own speculation.

Strange

Sorry, I have no idea what that means. Do you want to try again. What is popping up from nowhere? What is a "pra-dad"?

Sure you understand. And about popping up, that is a nothing----some kind of a universe, or hundred of them?

When a scientist wanted to write a popular book about the Higgs boson, he wanted to call it "The Goddamn Particle" because it was proving so had to find. His publisher thought that might offend people and changed it to "The God Particle". Which has to be one of the stupidest decisions of all time.
---- That’s goddamn publishers are always too greedy, but I think the authors not less.

It was first observed in the 19th century. Einstein provided the mathematical description in 1905 (and got the Nobel Prize for it).

Perhaps you should read Einstein's 1905 paper?

(I don't know what your first language is, but if it is German, then you could read the original.)
---- Thanks for your precision. But Sensei corrects both of us. A contest between two know ledged people and a lay-man. Now I am out of this contest of precision.

I haven’t read the Einstein paper and you have triggered my curiosity about his mathematical description. Is it about discovery that light has particular nature, that those particles of light he named "photons", that energy of those photons depends not by amplitude but by frequency? Or is about the structure of this particle Photon, and how
this structure may divided in two other particles called electron and positron, only when energy of photon is equal energy of particles created by there on? I don’t know what kind of math has in his paper Einstein except the final extract : h*f = 2*me*C^2.
If you know something more detailed please illuminate me. Because the discovery of Einstein is superb, but it opened a big gap for scientist to explain how this happens that energy transform in mass and vice versa.
And I think, this gap is not filled till now even though scientists managed to use His discovery with high success for creating arms and current energy.

I'm not sure what you mean by "in reality". Photons are small "packets" (quanta) of electromagnetic radiation with a specific frequency and energy. Electrons, well, they are electrons.

If you think that this is enough and excessive knowledge, let leave in steady where it is. But when scientist made statement that electron is a point without dimension, and I see the simulation of the electron from experimentations as three shine blots, who, do you think, I must believe?

Sensei
Nope. It's in 1887. That's in page in link I gave! You didn't read?

--- I admit, didn’t read. Because the important was not in precision of date of discovery, but if is an old or new one.

Of course.

If you have container with substance, and bring it close (or turn on device) radiate it with well know particles, and substance will be split. You know that it's result of radiation..

If you would have source of strong neutrinos turned on/off (like nuclear/fusion reactor) or with controllable direction of beam of neutrinos and split would be occurring after beam pass through substance, then you would have prove it's cause of neutrinos.

Well, it happens. That's how neutrinos detector works.

f.e.

Cl-37 + Ve + 0.814 MeV -> Ar-37 + e-

http://en.wikipedia....utrino_detector

Neutrino must have energy > 0.814 MeV otherwise detector is not working. It's quite a lot. The most of neutrinos from the Sun are in range 0... 0.42 MeV from proton-proton
Thanks for explanation. My question about doubt between the role of photons or neutrinos in disintegration or vice versa, short in reactions, was by my lack of knowledge that exists detectors, high perfected, for perceiving neutrinos in exact their energy.
Only for curiosity, if is not too complicated, how is Princip of work of detectors for anti neutrinos?

It's either measured, and calculated:
Thanks for information.

Creation of Deuterium:
p+ + p+ -> D+ + e+ + Ve + 0.42 MeV
938.272 MeV + 938.272 MeV = 1875.61 MeV + 0.510999 + 0.42 MeV

Split of Deuterium:
D+ + 2.22 MeV -> p+ + n0fusions.
One question about the above equation of creation of deuterium: We know that +p +p repel each either. So the left hand of equation lack something, any kind of energy that will force protons to mingle and to make work the process. But this put in doubt all the process even though equation is perfect about amounts of energies. Any answer?

Make experiments that will prove it.
You always suggest me for experiments. But I have not this possibility. I enjoy and trust experiment as facts in side of common sense.
In previous you displayed the experiment of attraction of drops of water by electrostatic field of stick. I wanted to ask: was water saline or desalinated (pureH2O)? As I know desalinated water is used in some kind of electric breakers as cooler and insulator. I was curious to know if drops of desalinated water react toward electrostatic field the same as saline .
As for spatial dimensions of “photon” I am sure, not I a lay man, but even an expert as you doubt to be able to find experimentally. Or I am wrong?

Swanson
Nobody trashes them? I can tell you don't actually read the literature. And whether they are "fantastic" or not is not measured by your understanding.
----- I don’t “sell measures” for others people, I let this honor for experts like you. But nobody has the right to put in doubt my rights to express my opinion about everybody and whatever, yes -- by my understanding.

So, if you are asking questions everything is OK, but if you are insisting that you have a new model and don't actually have a model or evidence, then you must quit the thread, or it will be done for you.
=== I asked and I read all the answers. I am more confused than before. What is ‘hole’? is it an electron, a proton, a positron, an anti proton ,absence of whatever of them? What is the meaning of moving back in time, is it about a real movement, or a mathematics’ one. Exist any detector instrument that detect in act, “the movement back in time”?
The answers were unclear, obfuscated, as always superficial, with for all known, scientific statements that now are nothing else but jargon. Nothing new.
The debate deviates in direction of specifics, particularities, about how and why. And this is okay, normal, even is linked with other issues. Are they are ‘answers’ or ‘questioners’, nobody wants them to be sheep, but debaters.
If you are eager to lock this thread go ahead.

Sensei
Please. Not again, Swansont. If you will be locking every thread he makes, he won't learn anything. That's counter productive. He just must start reading links we're giving him..
--- Why? I admit that I participate in the forum of speculation, to speculate with my controversial hypothesis, that have posted till now in whatever thread. About everything that I consider dubious, weird, irrational, transcendent, immaterial, mystified, I will try to find the opposite. I don’t complain that nobody support my idea.

Sensei don’t be my mediator.

mass.
Mordred

The Higgs was called the God particle because it was a critical piece of evidence to validate the standard model. As well as explaining much on how quarks and gluons gain
Is it like God, to solve problems?

To truly understand why certain terms are used, in particle physics and electrodynamics one has to study the math. There is numerous conservation rules that must be obeyed. Most people aren't aware of many of them.
I would like to know what conditions the existence of conservation rules. Why they appears. I don’t disregard their existence. But what cause them to be what they are.

Conservation of energy/momentum, color,charge,Lepton number,baryon,flavor,isospin. These rules govern what reactions can occur and how particles decay into lower energy particles. Decays that don't follow these rules do not occur.

--- See the post of Sensei below as a rebut. As for me, I have a lot of lack of knowledge about conservations laws. But with this a lot of questions, among which the main: what cause them to be conservation law. For example electric charges: Even when they do not exist, scientist would say -- no they exist because so says the conservation law: not exist is equal zero, but zero is equal +e + - e. Voila, from nothing we have something - two electric charges.
Mordred ----I think that each of your sentences in this post may be a particular thread. And we may discus a lot about each of them.

Stranger

Common sense is very unreliable. Which is why we use science.

Is more reliable than “pop” up things from nowhere, from nothing. Is more reliable than “scientific discovery” that my pra-dad my be behind the door in” parallel universe”, or in “tenth dimension”.

I assume they are proceeding as fast as they can. I don't why you think the Higgs boson has anything to do with it.
---- You are right. Depends by the precedence. Ha? I didn’t know that Higgs boson has nick - name “Gods particle”. You tell me -- Why?
Sensei
f.e. photoelectric effect

http://en.wikipedia....odisintegration

To split Deuterium atom you need 2.22 MeV energy.

Result is free proton and free neutron..

So it's not just freeing electrons (ionization), but splitting nucleus as well.
----- How many question derive after the fact:

--- Is it science sure-sure that splitting is not created by neutrinos?
--- 2.22 MeV is measured or is it derived by left-right balance of reaction?
--- What difference has a photon with low energy from another with high energy, except their frequency? How about any difference in space volume of photon?
--- etc…
Vikipedia is about known facts. When you don’t find there any answer, have you tried to speculate with your variant of explanation?

Swanson
What you think doesn't matter. What evidence do you have that this is so, and what model do you propose to replace the existing physics?
As for "not wanting to see" these ideas, it's not me, personally. It's the way we run the site. In order for discussion of your idea to be entertained, you must follow the guidelines for that discussion.

--- For me matter a lot what you think about what is debated in the thread. To discard the importance or trashiness of somebodies thoughts, that is the role and the aim of debate. A priory judgment, for issues in dispute, is a doctrinaire judgment.
You may say that everything of issues in debate is clear solved. You know very well that it’s not true, nothing is clear. Other ways the “scientific literature” will be not teeming with hundred of unknown particles with very strange names, with very fantastic theories. Nobody call them “speculations”. Nobody trash them. The authors of them are real scientist.
If I mingle in some threads the speculation about importance and generalized role of “antimatter sub particles” in many phenomena of nature, that’s because I find on them an answer that stands logic and…… and the common sense.
If you put the post block of guidelines that for discussion to be entertained, I ought to stay “in the square” of Standard, it is clear I must quit. I must quit also about the condition of evidence.

Strange

In semiconductors they can be created in many ways, for example by "doping" the semiconductor (adding atoms of another element with fewer electrons than the bulk material). Or the application of energy (e.g. photons) can cause an electron to be freed from the lattice leaving a hole: then you have two current carriers, positive and negative.

They can go in any direction. Holes, like free electrons, will just drift around slowly in
the absence of something forcing them to move in a particular direction. Which is why I said:
If you apply an electric field, then the electrons will tend towards the positive side and holes towards the negative.

---- All known. That is in general but not in details. In details sleep devil.
----- One simple question: how a photon can cause an electron to be freed, creating a hole and for “me” to have two current carriers, positive and negative. What about the fate of photon?

This is in the process of being tested by the CERN ALPHA experiment - when they can generate enough anti-hydrogen to measure the effect of gravity on it.
---- Only they are not in a hurry. The first – first, the hurry is about God’s particle, and now something plus particle, my memory fail the name.

Strange

Not really. But as you say, no big deal, it is just terminology.

Because "hole" is shorter?
----- Humorous! Isn’t? Or maybe “hole” open the door for entering in scene a phantom? Ha?

You have a positively charged hole. The location of an electron is not precisely defined; it is a probability which is affected by the presence of charges around it. The presence of a nearby positive charge (the hole) means the electron is likely to move in that direction and fill the hole (leaving another hole behind). In the absence of an external electric field, there is no reason for the hole to move in any particular direction so it might just move back where it was: it will just drift around at random.

----- The debate is entering in a dull boring technical chit-chat, with nothing new and interesting. But let clear some of things.
What create the hole? I mean, what forces the electron to leave ‘a chair’ where it is embedded electrically secure, and to bounce in the neighbor chair? The “not precise location” and the “probability” I think are not convincing arguments. Except the distances, between negative and positive charges, nothing else has sense.
Why does not happen this phenomena with dielectric atoms?
Why in semiconductors “the holes” permit the bounce only in one direction?
And in the end: are holes really “absence” or ”any kind of substitute”.

If you apply an electric field, then the electrons will tend towards the positive side and holes towards the negative.

---- All known.

(The process is slightly more complex, as the hole is not localised to a single atom. Because of the available energy levels in the crystal, the hole is spread out over several atoms.)
--- That’s a very intriguing knowledge. Now the “hole” became really weird.

An electron is not a reflection of a positron, nor is it a positron travelling backwards in time.
---- So I think too.

I think that is what you are doing by saying that antimatter is just matter travelling back in time.

---- Wrong interpretation of title of post. Some times “question titles” are provocative for the opposite.

Exactly. It is just a way of visualising things.
---- Just a way?

Sensei

Imagine room with seats, and standing people. They run to have a seat. Once they find their chair, they are not moving anymore.
---- A very though-full, humorous and didactic post. The explanation is very simple.
Swanson

The point is that we have particles that exist that look like mirror images of other particles, and particles that behave exactly like another, if the video were running backwards. We're talking about descriptions of real things.
----- The existence of antimatter particles I think is out of doubt. I speculate only about the amount of them, and about the role with interaction with matter particles. That they have the same characters, but with opposite effect doesn’t make them the same as matter particles. And I don’t believe that they are the mirrored ones.
My persuasion continue to be that they my have gravity repelling ability, which is the main important character of them that differs them from matter particles. In the common antimatter particles: positron, anti proton, the gravity energy of this ability is highly reduced, in confront with their electric ability. That because about their structure….
I know that you not only refute those speculative ideas, you don’t want to see those in your cite.
---- I checked the link, suggested by you, and was amassed that I am not the only that think in this direction.

Swanson

By your use, I have doubts that you understand it. Parity is a separate symmetry from charge, and from time reversal.
----I admit that I have vague understanding about symmetries. My concept about symmetry is like mirror reflection of reality. But is only an illusion. The Kramer in mirror is not real Kramer. I have the watch in left wrist, the reflected Kramer has it in right hand.
Do you think that electron is nothing else but a mirrored positron? I don’t think so. This will be like reflected Kramer in mirror has changed not only left with right, but so something else.
Isn’t it a try to refute the real existence of antimatter particles?


http://en.wikipedia....ki/CPT_symmetry

Time reversal symmetry is momentum reversal. It's conceptually what you would see in some interaction if you ran the video of it backward.
---- O no. I think that momentum reversal is the same illusion as by reflected real things in a mirror. Only here moments are typed in sequences for record, typing is made in real time. Running backward a video is doable illusive, first--- is only a “record “ of something real, second--- “time of running” is always “after time” of record. The running backward is a hoax that never has happened in real time.

Strange

It is just a symmetry. It doesn't mean the particle is actually travelling back in time.

---- All right. No traveling back in time. I hope you don’t think I invented this “traveling back in time “ even you have nothing to say about real authors.

It is like a pair of gloves: if you look at the left glove in a mirror it looks the same as the right glove. That doesn't mean that the left glove is a reflection. It is just a way of describing the symmetry.
---- All right, too, about the symmetry.

They are usually described as "quasi-particles". They behave like particles.

I don't really see the difference. The hole is, in effect, a positively charged particle.

---- Seems to me that, continuing to use terms like “quasi-particles”, and “holes” as charged particles, your explanation differs from Sensei’s. But no big deal.

Sensei

It's not weird. It's your lack of knowledge of physics.
---- Right Sensei. My questions are about lack of knowledge in physics.

"hole" is atom that has more protons than electrons. Thus overall positive charge.

There is also reversed situation. Atom that has more electrons than protons. Thus overall negative charge.
-----So simple. That is an explanation: “Holes” equal “ions”! But as ions, usually, lurks in liquids, for solid’s ions, is coined term “hole”. Why not “absence”? Anyway.

f.e. electron jumps from one neutral atom hole-to-be to hole, filling it.

Before we had charges 0 and +1,

after we have charges +1 and 0.

Then imagine queue of such atoms, one stealing electron from yet another in queue.
---- I think, here is the crux, which asks for an explanation. In liquids, ions move freely from one point in another. The proximity of them with neutral atoms, made possible exchange of periphery electrons, so atoms became ions and ions became atoms.
Can you explain how a neighbor ion, which is “steady”, can “steal” from neutral “steady” neighbor atom an electron to fill own absence, and so on in queue? Especially when “stealing” happens only in one direction ?!
By the way you do not accept the idea that one “ion” initiator is doted with an antimatter particle? Yet, positive charge of nuclei of atom is not antimatter.

Strange

As far as I know, there is no evidence that anything can move backwards in time.
-----Swanson, seems to me, has different concept about “moving backward in time”.

I haven't heard anti-particles referred to as holes. (*) But in semiconductors you can have positive charge carriers called holes, which are where an electron is "missing". These holes can move around and are important current carriers.

---- Positive charge carriers, are or aren’t they particles? “Holes carry positive charges”, do you mean that they “only carry charge” (from one place to another) but it is not own “possession”? Do you mean that holes and charges have not any relation but only “taxi and passenger”? Doesn’t you see it weird: charge without particle, and hole with a some-how strange property to carry electric charges?

The hole is not "nothing", just a place where there is 1 less electron than normal

The positrons are matchede by an equal number of electrons, so the net charge is zero.

--- And now the assertion: “hole is just a place”. And place is not “nothing”, only it is absence of an electron.

So we have a conundrum:
space = a number of pairs of electron-positron, with an overall charge zero.
But, has a pair of charges a space dimension? If yes: --- how many pairs supposed in a cm^3 of space? If not---- aren’t they like phantoms, that appears only in special cases?

(*) Just Googled this, and apparently Dirac described them this way

More here: http://physics.stack...charge-carriers

thanks for link..

Swanson
A positron moving forward in time has the exact same description as an electron moving backward in time. That's because of the symmetry of charge, parity and time. If you reverse one, you can compensate by reversing another and preserving the overall description>
----- With description you means the mathematical characterization of particle.
Well I understand the parity of electric charge, (even lepton charge). I would add -----parity of gravity ability too?!, but I have to shush, don’t I?

What I don’t understand it is the parity (Symmetry) of time.
I see this way: A pair (electron positron) splits). Let say electron is moving toward north “today”. For the sake of relativity toward each other, this is equal like positron is moving south with the same velocity, but in opposite direction. This is not equal that positron is moving toward south, ”yesterday”. Ha? This I cant digest.
--- Other. What about detectors of back in time movement?
What about link between of electric constant of space and the pairs.

THE HOLE’S “FOOT-PRINT”, GO BACK IN TIME! EXISTS ANY RELIABLE DETECTOR WATCHING THIS PHENOMENA?

The aim of this post, for me is to grasp the “natural concept”, caused by the ” weirdness “ of moving “things” back in time.
As this thing (Hole) is positron, an antimatter particle, some other questions derive:
1- Is it “moving back in time”, “a mode of movement” for whatever antimatter particle?

2- The its given name--- “hole”--- has the same natural meaning as hole = emptiness, nothingness.
3- The DIRAK’s sea, is full of positrons, does this mean that space is charged only with positive charge, or I am wrong? How is it linked (or has it any link) with electric constant “epsilon zero”?
Any help by expert will be highly appreciated.

Strange

And if you object to the big bang again because of "creation" or "something from nothing" you will be pleased to know that I will ignore all your future posts!----- The big bang without creation and expansion of space-time, (in accordance with teaching of St Agostiny-- ha), and without “let it be light”, is a soap bubble.
As of ignoring my posts, I am pleased by your wish. I too will ignore yours for your pleasure.
Is somebody read for padlock?

Only if gravitons have anti-gravity property, and if they as particles are not able to form blobs.

Stranger
I don't know. You will have to ask her.

Nothing is proved in science.

There is no evidence that the universe was created in the big bang theory. You have repeated this straw man argument several times now. Why?

Sorry, I don't understand any of that. I suggest you write in short, declarative statements or questions.

Then why do you disagree with its conclusions simply because you don't like them? You have no evidence, no alternative model. You just have an emotional dislike of the theory. Well, that's just too bad.

What discrepancy? What velocity?

------ Well Stranger. I am sure now that our conversation is taking the laconic form: no, yes. That make me think about two options:
or you don’t want to continue the conversation, which will turn in a debate.
Or you have nothing to say about my issues of my post.
This because: 1) or you are not able to withstand a debate because you see that my arguments are right. 2) or you have vague ideas , digested without chews, about the Big Bang speculation, even though you have read a lot of books and I not.
I am trying to clear the fog with some questions:

1---Admit, you, or not that Big Bang speculation (Call it, if you want, theory) is about history of creation of universe? Any your answer --- about approve you it or not
2--- Is it violated Einstein postulate about velocity in this speculation?
If yes: isn’t it an argument about “ time span from moment of creation until now”?
3 --- I bring a simple equation of movement for the first moment of time “ in creation of universe”. I was eager to see a solving of it‘s derivation from the expert of math. None. Only was told that the equation is wrong, without any prove.
In the previous post I suggested that the only two solving are: or ideal time and space are zero. Or they are infinite. Again silence?
4--- We are debating in the speculation forum, not to chime with scientist’s statements, which seems wrong, or worse fish dubious. If I say that I don’t trust some weird statements of physics like creation of particles, of universes, from nothing, that doesn’t mean I dislike achievements of science, practical or theoretic based in experiments. What I dislike are achievements “interpreted with aim to obscure science with metaphysic “.

Strange

It is not my math. You posted it. As I say, I'm not sure what solution you are looking for. And I don't know why you have posted it in a question about the big bang.
---- Isn’t math the Almighty’s instrument? Wasn’t with math that scientifically is proved the creation of universe in Big Bang? And isn’t this event the beginning of movement? The simple equation is the equation of movement. Here must have begun the math.
Yes. This equation seems without meaning. But my guts say that it has something to say: or S = infinite and indeed t = infinite and dt = 0 or all are 0 and there is only stir of water.

The CMB is calculated from the using the FLRW metric to extrapolate back to the earlu hot dense state of the universe. And applying well-understood physics to those conditions.
(I don't know how you can describe something that anyone can measure as "so called".)
----- I see. Physics conditions used are nothing but Plank constants, interpreted as beginning particle with all it properties, and a metric ( I admit – am ignorant about) but sure violate the main factor about extension of time: the postulate of velocity. And with this wiggle used, I wonder, why make a statement that age of universe is 16 billiards years and not 16 thousand?
My point is, if you have questions then you should ask them in the appropriate section. Many of the people who could give good asnwers regarding cosmology do not visit the Speculations forum. So if you posted questions in the right place, you might get better answers. And you wouldn't have to put up with me.
---- Maybe I wanted to know what think about this issue, my friend Stranger,--- and others.
There is zero evidence that the universe was created from nothing. It isn't science. It is a straw man argument. Stop going on about it.

Evidence? From 16 billiard years ago? O dear. Even math., this ideal instrument of precision, is not able to pacify controversies produced by human brain.

You can, of course, believe whatever you want. I don't care. But you insist the science is wrong because it disagrees with your beliefs (and you don't understand the science). That is irrational.

If you had a scientific model of an eternal, unlimited universe then you could compare it against observation and see if it works or not.
---- I believe in science, especially in Physics. When I watch a face from far away friend, in my computer, this is wonderful, but not unnatural. Like Baang. Like pop. Etc.

Neither do I.
--- Glad, even a bit dubious.

Genesis is a story about the creation of the universe. The big bang theory says nothing about the creation of the universe.
---- I doubt. If you think about the discrepancy on time, like a week or 16 billiard years, you understand, that depends on velocity.

Stranger
It is not very clear what you are asking. However, it is obviously not “blatant speculation”. It was a model derived from well established theory (general relativity). The model made various predictions. Observations were made that confirmed all those predictions. Therefore the model is, in general, accepted.
----- Your tactic Stranger always to dodge right and direct questions.
First, - no you, nobody else solved the simple problem of movement I serviced:
dV = dS / dt or (a*t*dt) / 2 = dS / dt -----if beginning from zero. Is your math.

How are able you to continue further in calculation of so called CMB.
Without basement is only a castle in air.
My understanding is that the rules of the Speculation forum require you to have a model.If you want to ask questions you should not be doing it in the Speculations forum.
---- Read above moderator’s note.
Why are specialists and moderators, if not to elucidate the cooks?
That is speculation.
----Isn’t it?

Phi for all
The Big Bang was NOT an explosion, so that's one "misconception", and then you offer another misconception to explain your objection. The universe wasn't "nothing" just before the BB.
----- Misconception? I say is a speculation based on a myth. Misconceptions flourished after when proponents of so called theory, wiggled to patch the blatant nakedness.

About “ nothing” or from “nothing” is an issue of believers. I believed in an eternal universe, unlimited, always in movement. I make questions only to compare my beliefs with those supported by modern physic, I mean by “ science “ .
I don’t believe that something may created by nothing, as I don’t believe that something becomes nothing.

Mordred
Even more ironic since both those misconceptions are covered in the article I posted. Ah well

----- As for me here are not at all misconceptions, are gross inventions.
Mishel123456
I am a little bit confused.
My apologies Kramer, I misunderstood your Opening Post completely.
---- You should. Not for me, for your presentation as a human being.
I am pretty sure that even after complying with BB misconceptions you will remain with the same interrogations, simply you will be able to put your questions in a more appropriate frame.
---- I don’t understand what is appropriate frame.
Don't expect any answer though.
---- Your wish.
Even a slight comparison of the BB with "genesis" will not be accepted here.
---- Slight comparison? Don’t be hypocrite, like don’t understand where sleep the hare. It is about the source of creation, camouflaged for sell with “ etiquette of evolution”.

Strange
For two reasons:

1. One is about the creation of the universe and the other isn't.
----- What is, what isn’t?

2. One is science and the other isn't.
Are they? Seems both tell-tales.

You might as well compare a car to a banana.
---- Try to sell this to kids.
Mishel123456

Disagreement is one of these things that push things forward, not especially backward.----Agree. Only what to do with requirements of math analyze about disagreements? Any way, I will enjoy as spectator your “fight” with your opponent even I am fool in math..

There doesn’t appear to be anything to solve there.

Strange

Maybe you are talking about the big bang model? In which case, nothing exploded.
In this meaning I am talking about first version of “ BIG BAAANG”. Something very hot, very noisy, that began from zero to become an universe or multy verse as you like.
As the model it is a “blatant speculation” for me, and if you are willing to rebut my statement as anti scientific explain plainly: the meaning of name, not the history, but the aim used in the so-called theory.

What is a "thermal process"?
Let say the appearance of temperature. Isn’t it a thermal process when thermal energy create a temperature about 10^32K. In this case in what environment was applied this energy, speaking with statement of somebody that can’t be temperature without movement of particles.

You claimed to have an alternative model to the big bang. A model means mathematics, and specifically, mathematics that describes what we see around us. If you don't have such a model, then you should stop making outrageous claims.
---- Have I claimed? In this thread no. In past thread I alluded that there has not been any genesis. Genesis it’s a myth, modern science try to give scientific meaning, as believing in myths is fading.
The rules prohibit me to display any model. The rule says: only one of both - questions about models or your model. Not both! I am obedient on rules. So I prefer only questions. If not you, maybe somebody else will find time to clarify my doubt.

Then feel free to ask questions in the appropriate part of the forum.

----- In the speculation forum I read many threads about cosmos, universe even creationists threads. For this is speculation.

There doesn’t appear to be anything to solve there.

---- Is this a serious statement? Instead of an honest answer: I don’t know how to solve an differential equation in which all are variables and all began from zero.

Imatfaal

It's wrong. Velocity is the change of displacement over the change in time. But you have the change in velocity dv ie the acceleration - that is equal to dv/dt not ds/dt
Right! But here is the obstacle for somebody with little learning to understand, what to do when all components of equation are variable, and all begin from zero? How you people of math have solved the equation of movement, to decide in the end of your solving for explanation of nature of CMB? I mean this is linked with dimension of space, with entropy and so on.

Motdred.
Assuming your talking about the BB you have some misconceptions.
Misconception? I think is a big speculation the creation of something from nothing.

Somebody CONDOUNDED ABOUT “ GENESIS “

It is sure that people boasting about solving problems post “genesis”, are able to solve the basements of “genesis” mathematically, so speaking. I am “confused” about many beginning things.
It was an explosion? What was exploded?
It was a thermal process during “expansion”? On what, those thermal processes, were applied?
Now I have the right to ask the friends that are appassionato about Math. and which asks lay-mans, with aim to hush them, with problems like this:
Please show in mathematical detail:
a) How your model predicts the temperature and spectrum of the CMB.
Sure the layman isn’t able to answers, it has not a Ph.D. Or not aim to have one. But he have the right to be illuminated about wonders that have been serviced to him:

“Please solve this math: dV = dS / dt when are unknown all? Or let say only one?”

Swanson

I already provided you with two

You can interpret them any way you want. But if you post them, you need to do so within the guidelines you were given.
Strange

No one else does. So maybe the problem is with your understanding.

------It is futile and unproductive the further conversation, in this adversary way.

So. “Quasi divergences” between doctrinaires of S.M. are leveled, idea about a material corpuscular reality of world is buried, as dead horse. Now O.P may go and sleep in peace.

Is it absent, but this is not important because it must be intended, the mysterious hidden hand that exits unreal particles from the fields.

A speculations forum, where we expect you to follow certain guidelines
---- I hope that guidelines don’t go further than the right of word. The speculation forum I suppose is open for question, especially about interpretations of weirdness of some phenomena of the branch of physics called quantum mechanic, by some physicists, I think for dark agenda.
I suppose that modern physics luxuriate with hypothesis that I am appalled that nobody calls them speculations. Instead they are given a high publicity to make them credible.

As I expected, it's quasi-particle behavior. So, let's see what we have.
----May be it is my ignorance about “quasi particle behavior” that confuse me. May any link about, an easy to understand, please?

No, what's happening is that when the electron interacts in this material, under certain conditions, you see separate charge and magnet behaviors. It isn't happening with a bare electron.

---- Well. This “behaviors”, that happens in different spots of space, and that are not, (or are they?) linked tight with an un-dimensional center, we call bare electron, that surprise me. And about this I am curious to learn.

No. The poles of a magnet are not electrical charges.

---- I had not in mind the poles of magnet, when I ad two electric charges. The electric charges of mater and antimatter evolve toward each other in a circle, create so called magnet, naturally with two point up and down in the center of circle, the so called “poles”.

There's not controversy, much less a flagrant one. This kind of behavior has been observed before. What's new is that it's in 2D rather than 1D.
---- Sorry about my impertinence, but when you read : “they appear to split into a magnet and an electrical charge, which can move freely and independently of each other” I see a flagrant controversy about “ zero dimension” of electron, about “unity” in his structure.

The notion that this is a rule of threes is simplistic and wrong.
---- Have, or have not, I the right to interpret experiments other-ways? Even they must be speculations, simplistic and …. maybe wrong ?
I imagine the tiny, but not zero dimension, tiny electron --- as a tiny “ spherical chest “ create by two mater “subs.” with “- e” electric charge, and one antimatter sub. with “+e” charge, normally evolving in “spherical three dimensional trajectories”, as a unity.
In one experiment this “three dimensional spherical chest” is squashed in a “quasi one dimension”, and the electron has display its components: one electric charge “-e” and one pair +e, -e evolving in circle that display “magnetic” property.
In the other experiments, I speculate, the tiny “spherical chest -like electron” is transformed in “ spherical cow -like (…?) electron, attracted in sphere of helium bubbles.
Any rebut or you think to close?

Regard - and happy new year 2015 ' tireless and encyclopedic Swanson'.