derek w Posted February 22, 2013 Author Share Posted February 22, 2013 That's what you get of you apply time reversal to the particle, with CPT as a good symmetry. This implies that there are 2 asymmetric universes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Przemyslaw.Gruchala Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Then imagine situation: We are producing electron and positron using two gamma photons, positron is supposed to be electron traveling back in time according to what you said. It existed in the future and now it's in event. We're using electromagnet to separate electron and positron to catch them so positron doesn't immediately annihilate. We have 1,2,..., 10,.. 1000 etc caught positrons in vacuum separated from our matter. If they traveled back in time previously before we "created" them, how they can now travel forward in time, in place were we are storing them.. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 This implies that there are 2 asymmetric universes. I don't see what you're getting at. If you apply T reversal and CP, you end up with the same system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek w Posted February 23, 2013 Author Share Posted February 23, 2013 I don't see what you're getting at. If you apply T reversal and CP, you end up with the same system. If big bang starts at time=0.Introducing the idea of forward and backward time,then you have the possibility of 2 asymmetric universes,one made of matter going forward and one made of anti-matter going backward? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 If big bang starts at time=0.Introducing the idea of forward and backward time,then you have the possibility of 2 asymmetric universes,one made of matter going forward and one made of anti-matter going backward? It's a huge leap from discussing an electron and positron to the big bang. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek w Posted February 23, 2013 Author Share Posted February 23, 2013 It's a huge leap from discussing an electron and positron to the big bang. True,but I am at least sticking with my thread in the sense that a deviation from a point of equilibrium must produce an equal and opposite effect. e.g:- proton and electron are equal and opposite effects about a point of equilibrium,and a photon is an oscillation about the same point of equilibrium. I have a question,does a photon interact with matter at it's peaks,and interact with anti-matter at it's troughs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kramer Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 Instead of waves packets as building blocks, and moving back in time fantasies, i think is more real the hypothesis of unique particle as building block of electron positron photons even protons, anti protons and neutrinos. If you consider this intrusion as an highjack please disregard this post.Kramer 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juanrga Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 Providing you have up/down and anti-up/down quarks,all other particles will be created as side effect. No. quarks are only one of the irreducible representations associated to the known zoo of elementary particles and the interactions involving quarks are limited as well My understanding is that particles are thought of as wave packets,and that interaction changes the wave packets. No. Ballentine textbook on QM explain very well why a particle cannot be associated to a wave packet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Przemyslaw.Gruchala Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 No. quarks are only one of the irreducible representations associated to the known zoo of elementary particles and the interactions involving quarks are limited as well The truth is that if they would be really irreducible pion particles wouldn't decay spontaneously.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek w Posted February 24, 2013 Author Share Posted February 24, 2013 In a hot,dense quark gluon plasma,the wave function of an electron would not exist. Only after the quarks "freeze out" could electrons appear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 The truth is that if they would be really irreducible pion particles wouldn't decay spontaneously.. That does not follow. Quarks being irreducible does not in any way imply that particles comprised of quarks do not decay. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juanrga Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 (edited) The truth is that if they would be really irreducible pion particles wouldn't decay spontaneously.. To add a little to swansont reply. Pions are composite particles and precisely by this reason pions are associated to a reducible representation. Edited February 25, 2013 by juanrga Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now