Jump to content

QFT: Every particle is an excitation of it's own field?


Silvestru

Recommended Posts

Just now, MarkE said:

Indeed, but the space between -1 and 0 has the exact same value as the space between +1 and 0.

So you were talking about differences, not values?

1 minute ago, MarkE said:

In the zero-energy Universe, energy has the value of +1, and gravity has the value of -1. Therefore, they both have the exact same value, when compared to 0.

They don't have the value +1 and -1. You could say they have the value +x and -x, I suppose. But it is probably easier to just say they are equal and opposite (or their sum is zero) as we don't know what the values are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, MarkE said:

I don’t see why I’ve deserved your tone of voice. I’m trying to understand the physical world (just like you, I presume), and I’m doing the best I can to explain how I'm interpreting certain scientific laws and observations, in order to compare them with members on this forum, and possibly adjust my interpretations.

If however disagreeing with you generates negative emotions, rather than generating a scientific discussion about these contrasting arguments, and why they are different, in which at least one of us obtains a different perspective on the matter, it might be better to not have those discussions anymore (which would be unfortunate, because I can remember higher quality discussions we’ve had in the past, and we really should have more of those, don't you think?). 

You're right that I wasn't very clear about this value of 1, and what I meant by it, so please excuse me for that, but I really don't think I deserve to be compared to poison and cyanide sugar because of that.

I know MarkE, I remember. I didn't compare you to poison, I said ignorance is.

The problem is that when we are in a discussion on the science forum, You are telling me for example: "We will meet at the big port thing and then we eat ice-cream."

If I don't understand what you mean by "big port thing" we don't go further to the ice cream part as it will be moot. I first need to understand what you mean but you were jumping from subject to subject and changing your opinions as we go. First you said gravity = 1 then you said gravity =  -1 and referencing the Zero-energy model to show me that you are right.

Indeed the model says that all the positive energy is cancelled out by the negative one from gravity. But nowhere does it give any value, especially without a unit of measure or reference.(I was curious where you found this "1")

Apologies for my behaviour, maybe my method of expressing myself was wrong but the message was correct and I am trying to explain. You cannot attribute a positive energy value when referencing a model that has 0 energy. 

Strange might kill me for bringing this into discussion but there is another Hypothesis, but this one is way more cranky and more BS than the Zero Energy Universe one.

(I am just using it as an example to understand what these hypotheses mean, why they are not reliable and also to understand each other.)

It's called " A universe from nothing ", it came form a book, written by a physicist who is for sure a very intelligent man but on one unfortunate night, he decided that his common sense and past knowledge and sense of logic needed some well deserved rest so he shut it all down and wrote:

Quote

we have discovered that all signs suggest a universe that could and plausibly did arise from a deeper nothing—involving the absence of space itself and— which may one day return to nothing via processes that may not only be comprehensible but also processes that do not require any external control or direction

With absolutely no evidence to back this up. God is in the gaps and there is no bigger gap than understanding how the whole Universe started and how it works. So guess who started it all according to this book? 

So imagine I am referencing this theory to you, you ignore the fact that it's total BS and keep listening to me talking about it, and I say that "The universe from nothing describes how everything came from a banana". Doesn't quite sound right does it? 

The same has been happening until page 4 of this thread. Where you say Zero energy and energy = 1. (and also gravity is 1 for some weird reason)

I know you changed your mind somewhere at the end of page 3 and said energy =1  and gravity = -1 which still isn't correct but at least the maths adds up. But by this time, sleeves have been rolled up and harsh words have been thrown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Silvestru said:

I know MarkE, I remember. I didn't compare you to poison, I said ignorance is.

The problem is that when we are in a discussion on the science forum, You are telling me for example: "We will meet at the big port thing and then we eat ice-cream."

If I don't understand what you mean by "big port thing" we don't go further to the ice cream part as it will be moot. I first need to understand what you mean but you were jumping from subject to subject and changing your opinions as we go. First you said gravity = 1 then you said gravity =  -1 and referencing the Zero-energy model to show me that you are right.

Indeed the model says that all the positive energy is cancelled out by the negative one from gravity. But nowhere does it give any value, especially without a unit of measure or reference.(I was curious where you found this "1")

Apologies for my behaviour, maybe my method of expressing myself was wrong but the message was correct and I am trying to explain. You cannot attribute a positive energy value when referencing a model that has 0 energy. 

Accepted! In future communication I will choose my words more carefully. 

I gave these values in order for them to cancel each other out, as the zero-energy Universe hypothesis is suggesting as well. I could have chosen other values instead, for example 430 and -430 which also would cancel out each other into a zero sum, the same way in which a proton doesn’t actually have +1 charge. We could have given it a +3 charge (the up quark would be +2, and the down quark -1), but this would only entail that the charge of the electron should change from -1 into -3. Once again, numbers aren’t real, proportions are. Or what about D glucose and L amino acid, (the ones our body uses, instead of their enantiomers) to indicate handedness. There's no L-ness about L amino acids, we could have named them both D glucose and D amino acid, or L glucose and L amino acid, it's just that we have to make the distinction between two different mirror images of a chiral molecule.

I thought I’ve already pointed this out by arguing:

On 4/20/2018 at 12:41 AM, MarkE said:

Just to be clear about this value of "1": numbers don't actually exist, humans made those up because they come in handy in abstract thinking, and making calculations. Proportions do exist, but numbers aren't created by nature, just like the concept of a "field" can be helpful in setting up equations, but there is no proof that all particles have their own actual existing field.

Since Noether’s theorem states that there is a conservation of charge, which is also related principle to Maxwell’s equations on electromagnetism, I’m supporting the zero-energy Universe. What about you? If I’m understanding you correctly, you're not supporting this hypothesis. Could you share your main criticism against this hypothesis, and/or present a better one? Because I don’t want to support an hypothesis if there’s a more plausible alternative.

Edited by MarkE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, MarkE said:

Since Noether’s theorem states that there is a conservation of charge, which is also related principle to Maxwell’s equations on electromagnetism, I’m supporting the zero-energy Universe. What about you? If I’m understanding you correctly, you're not supporting this hypothesis. Could you share your main criticism against this hypothesis, and/or present a better one? Because I don’t want to support an hypothesis if there’s a more plausible alternative.

It's not that I am not supporting it. There is no proof for this. I can't confirm or deny this  theory  hypothesis as we really don't know right now.

Also as Swansont mentioned " if the expansion has to do work, then some original energy would be required.

Also as we discussed in a different thread, regarding the conservation of energy, we saw that there are some "exceptions".

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html

To sum up, and because there is so little evidence for any of the 3 cases, (net positive/net negative and 0) I would avoid assuming that the net amount of energy is an exact value like 0.

By the way, yesterday I opened an invoice full of 100 and -100 (amount was different but for sake of argument made me think of this) Only these figures where there and they seemed to have about the same quantity. Looking on this huge spreadsheet that seemed without end one could make the assumption (without using =SUM) that they even themselves out right? and the total amount would be 0.

Then I realised that it's just a list of invoices for a service with the receipt ( -100) and the payment (100). It was totally random and in the end (because people will probably pay) the result will probably be 0. Just like the NET ENERGY OF UNIVERSE! haha jk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MarkE said:

Indeed, but the space between -1 and 0 has the exact same value as the space between +1 and 0. That's what I meant (but failed to convey clearly). In the zero-energy Universe, energy has the value of +1, and gravity has the value of -1. Therefore, they both have the exact same value, when compared to 0.

That's not how numbers work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 19.04.2018 at 2:45 PM, MarkE said:

Photons are able to divide (pair produce), but electrons/positrons can't. If these matter/antimatter particles could only undergo change by annihilating with each other to form photons again, then this process could only have taken place back and forth, and this could never have yielded the Universe we live in today.

Therefore there must be something else going on than just ‘quantum fluctuations’, and photons that turn into matter/antimatter particles, because the initial particles that made up the early Universe couldn’t just change form by dividing themselves further and further.

Gamma photon which is able to create pair of electron-positron must have at least 1.022 MeV energy.

[math]\gamma + 1.022 MeV \rightarrow e^- + e^+[/math]

 

After annihilation of electron-positron there are created two gamma photons with ~ 510998.928 eV energy each (it's just one of few annihilation channels, but with the highest probability of happening, therefor other channels are typically omitted in discussions).

[math]e^- + e^+ \rightarrow \gamma (0.511 MeV) + \gamma (0.511 MeV) [/math]

It's shortened to:

[math]e^- + e^+ \rightarrow \gamma + \gamma + 1.022 MeV [/math]

So, after annihilation photons have not enough energy for pair-production.

 

When photon is scattering with matter (or antimatter), part of energy from photon is given to matter/antimatter, and new photon with smaller energy is created. Particle which received energy from photon is accelerated. It can be repeated over and over again, and from initial 0.511 MeV photon after millions of such interactions, you will have millions of photons with very low energies (e.g. visible spectrum, then IR)..

One of scattering is Compton scattering. Here is article if you want to read:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_scattering

 

Edited by Sensei
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.