Jump to content

Does somebody study complex energy particle ?


Recommended Posts

There may be cases where it is preferable to treat mass/energy as a complex value, just as there may be cases where it is preferable to treat mass/energy as negative ( Effective mass ? ), but no, I don't believe the concept of complex, or negative mass/energy has any physical meaning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You would have a violation of unitarity, which isn't a good thing.

All relativistic state vectors for massive particles have a factor that in natural units looks like,

\[ e^{-imt} \]

Assuming,

\[ m=\textrm{Re}\left(m\right)+i\textrm{Im}\left(m\right) \]

You would get,

\[ e^{-imt}=e^{-i\textrm{Re}\left(m\right)t}e^{\textrm{Im}\left(m\right)t} \]

Now, suppose you have \( \textrm{Im}\left(m\right)>0 \) => runaway solution everywhere for growing t.

But if \( \textrm{Im}\left(m\right)<0 \) you have a vanishing solution everywhere for growing t.

Both violate unitarity, so you have a much bigger problem than with a negative mass. Negative masses are no good because of decay. Particles would spontaneously decay to lower levels, 'more negative'-mass states. But non-unitarity is a non-starter.

I'm sure there are more other arguments but, to me, that would be enough.

Edited by joigus
minor correction
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, joigus said:

You would have a violation of unitarity, which isn't a good thing.

All relativistic state vectors for massive particles have a factor that in natural units looks like,

 

eimt

 

Assuming,

 

m=Re(m)+iIm(m)

 

You would get,

 

eimt=eiRe(m)teIm(m)t

 

Now, suppose you have Im(m)>0 => runaway solution everywhere for growing t.

But if Im(m)<0

This issue can be solved by replacing the m with its norm in that factor.

(But I was not serious to start with.)

Edited by Genady
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Genady said:

This issue can be solved by replacing the m by its norm in that factor.

OK. But with that what you're doing is inventing a fancy complex mass m=Re(m)+iIm(m) (a quite esoteric quantity) which is only there to give rise to the 'actual mass', which is its modulus (norm.)

You're quite right. You can always declare any positive real quantity as the norm of some other inconsequential complex variable. But Ockam's razor will cut it off.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is all the fuss about ?

Mass is not an 'invariant, but sometimes depends upon the environment as well as the frame.

Stoles invented 'negative mass' early in the 19th century for the dynamics of soap bubbles rising through water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, studiot said:

What is all the fuss about ?

Mass is not an 'invariant, but sometimes depends upon the environment as well as the frame.

Stoles invented 'negative mass' early in the 19th century for the dynamics of soap bubbles rising through water.

Of course, you're right.

The "fuss" here is about the rest mass of fundamental particles, specifically.

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.