Jump to content

Do somebody study negative energy particle ?


Recommended Posts

Hi,

I'm curious about a type of particle that WOULD NOT be anti particles, but real negative energy particles : They would be define as :

P + None(P) = nothing 

( instead of P + None(P) = (energy / mass of both) ) 

all the charges would be opposite, and also mass... is it possible ? I suspect it contradict some equations.. 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Edgard Neuman said:

Hi,

I'm curious about a type of particle that WOULD NOT be anti particles, but real negative energy particles : They would be define as :

P + None(P) = nothing 

( instead of P + None(P) = (energy / mass of both) ) 

all the charges would be opposite, and also mass... is it possible ? I suspect it contradict some equations.. 


 

The idea of an "energy particle" doesn't really make much sense. Particles have energy. They can't be energy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Energy is related to the configuration of a system, and defined as the ability to do work,
What then, is the meaning of 'negative energy' ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There have been so many puzzles in theoretical physics, and so many more people working on it than ever before, that almost every conceivable idea of that kind has already been tried.

Dirac tried with his sea of negative-energy electrons, but it was proven that Dirac's vacuum would be unstable, and wouldn't last. A vacuum in quantum field theory with negative-energy quanta is nothing like our universe's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 5/16/2022 at 2:27 PM, Genady said:

Dirac did, 90 years ago: Dirac sea - Wikipedia

("though they are mathematically compatible." . OK. THANK YOU. I've been promoting this for 20 years now. Void is made of none-particles and QM is only statistical but I digress)

1) energy is mass. Mass is energy at rest. All particle are "made of" some energy. Particle and antiparticle anihilate into energy... it imply all particle are made of energy.
2) rest mass isn't relative to the observer

Just to be sure everybody correctly understand my question :
Positron have positive mass. When you combine a rest electron and a rest positron, you get (at least) their rest mass in energy (according to e=mc²). 
I'm talking about negative mass electron (with positive charge).. It's not a positron. A positron have positive energy. Here, I would invert rest mass. Let's call it "none-particle". (none-electron none-positron etc) 
When you combine a rest electron and a rest none-electron, you would get 0, NONE energy (so it's not a positron).  The none-electron would have a negative rest mass.
To be exact, it's not one of the CPT inversion. It's not a relativistic inversion. It concern the "rest" mass. (You should all know that a positron is an electron seen in reverse in time. Do you ?) Rest mass isn't frame dependent. It's not "time" dependent. Mass that is "dependant of the frame" is the relativistic mass


Ok but why didn't Dirac assume there could be negative energy electrons AND ALSO negative energy protons or positrons (with the negative charges corresponding)  ? Since we invert rest mass.. we have to always invert electric charge, but we can invert mass and charge indepently in this scenario.. inverting one of CPT give antiparticles, but here i'm interested in only inverting mass. Since we want the particle to be the cancellation we have to invert charge, but you can do the same with other type of particle, and antiparticles as well.. Since a anti-electron has a positive mass, we can create none-anti-electron with negative mass and positive charge. 

Edited by Edgard Neuman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Edgard Neuman said:

Ok but why didn't Dirac assume there could be negative energy electrons AND ALSO negative energy protons or positrons (with the negative charges corresponding)  ? Since we invert rest mass ( 1) energy is mass.  2) rest mass isn't relative to the observer).. we don't have to always invert electric charge.. inverting one of CPT give antiparticles, but here i'm intersting in only inverting mass. Since we want the particle to be the cancellation we have to invert charge, but you can do the same with other type of particle as well.. Since a anti-electron has a positive mass, we can create none-anti-electron with negative mass and positive charge. 

What would stop the 'regular' particles with negative mass from continuously losing energy while moving to lower and lower energy levels to negative infinity and at the same time infinitely heating the environment? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Genady said:

What would stop the 'regular' particles with negative mass from continuously losing energy while moving to lower and lower energy levels to negative infinity and at the same time infinitely heating the environment? 

losing energy how ? You're talking about thermal radiation ?

Matter lose energy via radiations because the relative motion of their charges comes to equilibrium by emitting photons.  It's the thermal radiation. 
A single stable particle doesn't decay by losing energy, why would the none particle do the same ??

Edited by Edgard Neuman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Genady said:

If they are charged, for example, by emitting photons.

But why would they ? since electron and positron don't vanish into thin air

Edited by Edgard Neuman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Genady said:

Because this would bring them to a lower energy level.

Why an electron doesn't go into a lower energy level, lower than its REST mass ? 
(Are you talking about negative kinetic energy ?)

10 minutes ago, Genady said:

Because this would bring them to a lower energy level.


I think I know what you're talking about. You are thinking about an electron in an ATOM. An electron in a atom emit a photon and goes into a lower orbit. So I'm going to write it again : 

Matter lose energy via radiations because the relative motion of their charges (the structure they form, the orbital energies etc, their relative thermal motion)  comes to equilibrium by emitting photons (basically emitting momentum).  It's the thermal radiation, or electron losing "orbital" energy.  The energy you lose is never the rest energy. (rest energy of an electron is a constant)
A single stable particle doesn't decay by losing energy.

Edited by Edgard Neuman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Edgard Neuman said:

Why an electron doesn't go into a lower energy level, lower than its REST mass ? 
(Are you talking about negative kinetic energy ?)

Yes, negative kinetic energy and negative momentum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, Genady said:

Yes, negative kinetic energy and negative momentum.

So why would a single (ordinary) electron emit real photons (not virtual) in the void ? 

 

Edited by Edgard Neuman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
54 minutes ago, Edgard Neuman said:

("though they are mathematically compatible." . OK. THANK YOU. I've been promoting this for 20 years now. Void is made of none-particles and QM is only statistical but I digress)

1) energy is mass. Mass is energy at rest. All particle are "made of" some energy. Particle and antiparticle anihilate into energy... it imply all particle are made of energy.
2) rest mass isn't relative to the observer

Just to be sure everybody correctly understand my question :
Positron have positive mass. When you combine a rest electron and a rest positron, you get (at least) their rest mass in energy (according to e=mc²). 
I'm talking about negative mass electron (with positive charge).. It's not a positron. A positron have positive energy. Here, I would invert rest mass. Let's call it "none-particle". (none-electron none-positron etc) 
When you combine a rest electron and a rest none-electron, you would get 0, NONE energy (so it's not a positron).  The none-electron would have a negative rest mass.
To be exact, it's not one of the CPT inversion. It's not a relativistic inversion. It concern the "rest" mass. (You should all know that a positron is an electron seen in reverse in time. Do you ?) Rest mass isn't frame dependent. It's not "time" dependent. Mass that is "dependant of the frame" is the relativistic mass


Ok but why didn't Dirac assume there could be negative energy electrons AND ALSO negative energy protons or positrons (with the negative charges corresponding)  ? Since we invert rest mass.. we have to always invert electric charge, but we can invert mass and charge indepently in this scenario.. inverting one of CPT give antiparticles, but here i'm interested in only inverting mass. Since we want the particle to be the cancellation we have to invert charge, but you can do the same with other type of particle, and antiparticles as well.. Since a anti-electron has a positive mass, we can create none-anti-electron with negative mass and positive charge. 

Steady on. Particles are not "made of" energy. Both mass and energy are properties of physical systems. Particles have energy and mass, but they are not made of them, any more than they are made of spin, momentum or electric charge.

You can say mass is energy at rest, if you like, but you have always to be aware that these are just properties of some system. Particles do not annihilate into energy. They annihilate into radiation - which has energy, along with other properties (frequency, amplitude, angular momentum....).

Edited by exchemist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Edgard Neuman said:

So why would a single (ordinary) electron emit real photons (not virtual) in the void ? 

 

An 'ordinary' electron at rest would not emit a photon because of the energy conservation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Steady on. Particles are not "made of" energy. Both mass and energy are properties of physical systems. Particles have energy and mass, but they are not made of them, any more than they are made of spin, momentum or electric charge.

You can say mass is energy at rest, if you like, but you have always to be aware that these are just properties of some system. Particles do not annihilate into energy. They annihilate into radiation - which has energy, along with other properties (frequency, amplitude, angular momentum....).

I understand I go a step further than what's is known.
But whatever a particle is made of seems entirely convertible into "radiations", and opposite charges seems to be able to "cancel" themselves into nothing. So whatever the substance is, it's all convertible into the lowest form of it that is radiation. 
AND if you understand relativity, you know that relativistic mass is mass. Energy has the same effect than mass. That's the point of "e=mc²". So for instance the "thing" that is kinetic energy of a fast particle, has the same effect of the "thing" that is rest mass of a resting particle.
You know that two "light" particles with high kinetic energy can effectively transform into "2 heavy rest mass" particle (that's how particle accelerator).
A particle accelerator take energy and transform it into matter (real rest matter of heavy particles). 
Since "energy" in the energy form (like real relative kinetic energy) can transform into "mass" in the rest form, I can assume it's made of the same thing in different forms. (For some reason I thought it was common knowledge)

But OK. I suppose it's only my interpretation. 

 

17 minutes ago, Genady said:

An 'ordinary' electron at rest would not emit a photon because of the energy conservation.

So why would a "none-electron" do ? Why "energy conservation" (which is not energy loss) wouldn't apply to negative energy ? 




To be honnest, I'm fearly sure there is a reason why there can't be none-particles.. (like for instance all the problems with negative inertia etc)

Edited by Edgard Neuman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Edgard Neuman said:

I understand I go a step further than what's it's know. But what ever a particle is made seems entirely convertible into "radiations", and opposite charges seems to be able to "cancel" themselves into nothing. So what ever the substance is, it's all convertible into the lowest form of it which is radiation. 
AND if you understand relativitity, you know that relativistic mass is mass. Energy has the same effect than mass. That's the point of "e=mc²". So for instance the "thing" that is kinetic energy of a fact particle, has the same effect of the "thing" that is rest mass of a resting particle. You know that two "light" particles with kinetic energy can effectively transform into "2 heavy rest mass" particle. Since "energy" in the energy form (like real relative kinetic energy) can transform into "mass" in the rest form, I can assume it's made of the same thing in different forms. (For some reason I thought it was common knowledge)

But OK. I suppose it's only my interpretation. 

 

So why would a "none-electron" do ? Why "energy conservation" (which is not energy loss) wouldn't apply to negative energy ? 

Just be careful not to equate energy with some kind of substance. You can't have a jug of energy. "Pure energy" is Star Trek, not science. There's always a system, whether it is a particle of matter or a system of fields of some kind, like radiation.

The same goes for electric charge. That too is a property of a system. It makes no sense to say that when charges cancel you are left with "nothing". What you are left with is an uncharged system of some sort. That is not nothing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Just be careful not to equate energy with some kind of substance. You can't have a jug of energy. "Pure energy" is Star Trek, not science. There's always a system, whether it is a particle of matter or a system of fields of some kind, like radiation.

The same goes for electric charge. That too is a property of a system. It makes no sense to say that when charges cancel you are left with "nothing". What you are left with is an uncharged system of some sort. That is not nothing. 

But this is a state of modesty saying "we don't know if there is something else", not saying "we know there is something else".
Energy is conserved, so the fact that energy must take a form (of particles), doesn't imply that everything isn't made of energy.
It's like saying "A rock always have a shape so there's something else than just rock"..
Let's agree by saying that "information" imply energy must have some shape (that you call system) withing constrained form that are particles. 
But then that's why I ask the question : can there be "true" negative system, that would completely cancel positive ones 

Edited by Edgard Neuman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Edgard Neuman said:

Energy is conserved, so the fact that energy must take a form (of particles), doesn't imply that everything isn't made of energy.

What is says is that we have a model - a very successful one - where energy is a property. If you want to hypothesize that things are made of energy, feel free to come up with such a model. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Edgard Neuman said:

So why would a "none-electron" do ? Why "energy conservation" (which is not energy loss) wouldn't apply to negative energy ? 
 

Energy is conserved if a negative-mass-electron emits a photon. The photon gets energy E and the negative-mass-electron gets kinetic energy -E. This is unlike the ordinary electron which cannot get a negative kinetic energy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
48 minutes ago, Edgard Neuman said:

I understand I go a step further than what's is known.
But whatever a particle is made of seems entirely convertible into "radiations", and opposite charges seems to be able to "cancel" themselves into nothing. So whatever the substance is, it's all convertible into the lowest form of it that is radiation. 
AND if you understand relativity, you know that relativistic mass is mass. Energy has the same effect than mass. That's the point of "e=mc²". So for instance the "thing" that is kinetic energy of a fast particle, has the same effect of the "thing" that is rest mass of a resting particle.
You know that two "light" particles with high kinetic energy can effectively transform into "2 heavy rest mass" particle (that's how particle accelerator).
A particle accelerator take energy and transform it into matter (real rest matter of heavy particles). 
Since "energy" in the energy form (like real relative kinetic energy) can transform into "mass" in the rest form, I can assume it's made of the same thing in different forms. (For some reason I thought it was common knowledge)

But OK. I suppose it's only my interpretation. 

 

So why would a "none-electron" do ? Why "energy conservation" (which is not energy loss) wouldn't apply to negative energy ? 

 

24 minutes ago, swansont said:

What is says is that we have a model - a very successful one - where energy is a property. If you want to hypothesize that things are made of energy, feel free to come up with such a model. 

Thank you, I let you handle the semantics and the philosophy. I'm free to believe any idea, let it be any part of any model. As often, you seem to have "philosophical" reactions of pain and taboos when I present my "naive understanding of thing"

If you know the real solid argument that justify why your model is that way and not another, feel free to explain it to me. Otherwise, you may as well be speaking about religion and dogma to me.   
It's like saying : "we don't remove the roof of cars. We have cars with roof, they are very successful". That's not an argument.  

I often ask question here that OBVIOUSLY I can't find in 2 seconds in Wikipedia using Google. I've been asking question a long time, so of course, the ones that still aunt me are not trivial. But for some reason, when I come here, the reaction is "Da ! equation ". Or "read this !" (I read, and it's something else.. like the sea of Feynman) or "let my proove to you that you're a idiot", or "it's like that, because that's the model". And I NEVER HAVE THE ANSWER TO MY QUESTION
 

20 minutes ago, Genady said:

Energy is conserved if a negative-mass-electron emits a photon. The photon gets energy E and the negative-mass-electron gets kinetic energy -E. This is unlike the ordinary electron which cannot get a negative kinetic energy.

But here we are talking about REST energy. REST mass. A none particle would probably emit "none-photons" with negative energy (leaving positive kinetic energy)

Edited by Edgard Neuman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Edgard Neuman said:

 

But here we are talking about REST energy. REST mass. 

Exactly. We start with the neg-mass-electron at rest, with kinetic energy 0. It emits a photon and starts moving, in the same reference frame, getting the negative kinetic energy, and the total energy is conserved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Genady said:

Exactly. We start with the neg-mass-electron at rest, with kinetic energy 0. It emits a photon and starts moving, in the same reference frame, getting the negative kinetic energy, and the total energy is conserved.

Sorry, I understand but then :  a none particle would probably emit "none-photons" (not ANTI photon which I KNOW are the same as photon) with negative energy (leaving positive kinetic energy)

I wonder, is there a symmetry that "reverse" energy ? 

Edited by Edgard Neuman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Edgard Neuman said:

Thank you, I let you handle the semantics and the philosophy. I'm free to believe any idea, let it be any part of any model. As often, you seem to have "philosophical" reactions of pain and taboos when I present my "naive understanding of thing"

If you know the real solid argument that justify why your model is that way and not another, feel free to explain it to me. Otherwise, you may as well be speaking about religion and dogma to me.   
It's like saying : "we don't remove the roof of cars. We have cars with roof, they are very successful". That's not an argument.  

Physics works, and it’s all intertwined. For me to explain why it works one way and not another would require you to meet me partway and have an understanding of physics; I don’t know what that level is, but I’m not prepared to teach you several semesters’ worth of it. Absent that, you just have to defer to folks who give you the big picture: Energy isn’t a substance. That’s been tried and it failed (e.g. caloric theory)

“I have no understanding and I reject your science with no basis” isn’t an argument, either.

BTW, convertibles and roofless cars exist. We could discuss how roofs keep rain out, because I presume you have an understanding of rain. 

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
 Share

×
×
  • 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.