Przemyslaw.Gruchala

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.. ?

So you're suggesting right now that positron is electron that travels back in time? And antiproton is proton that travels back in time? And pion+ is pion-, muon+ is muon-, tau+ is tau- etc that all travels back in time than their opposite electric charge equivalents.. ?

There are needed at least positive wave and negative wave. If they overlap, we detect neutral object. Otherwise charge must be hidden variable. Property of particle. But such model doesn't explain how two gamma photons are producing electron and positron. Property is automagically split.. It's like splitting 1 cent in finances...

Their work was immediately placed to speculations.. You must be kidding..

For somebody who is inside of train F=mg is still valid. From this person point of view, string, cockroach and ball are at rest.

What you obviously missed is fact that either string, ball and Cockroach should also receive kinetic energy, and their relativistic mass should be also accordingly adjusted to velocity of train using m=m0/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) You're calculating strength of string using it's rest mass.

I have theory that even pion-, pion+, muon-, muon+, tau-, tau+ etc. are stable particles in other areas of Universe. And they have their own versions of pion proton, muon proton, tau proton, 1836.15 times heavier. But they're not stable here, not in our world. There are real existing experiments showing that when there is eruption on the Sun, radioactive particles are starting decaying faster. Eruption on the Sun = shower of neutrinos. So conclusion is that particles are unstable because they collide with our star neutrinos. 65 billion neutrinos per cm2 per second. Imagine heavy star made of "pion hydrogen": pion- (which are the same what electron is for us) orbiting around pion proton+. It should have 256.3 GeV (139.57 MeV * 1836.15). You can't detect it just by observation of mass ratio between e- and p+. It's the same across the entire Universe. No matter what particle is orbiting which with opposite charge. It can be experimentally tested. f.e. take steady beam of neutrinos and point on any radioactive atoms. Record ratio of decaying prior experiment, and during experiment, then after removing source of neutrinos. If we will find a way to isolate some area from neutrinos, we should see that radioactive atoms are stable and pion, muon etc. are also stable.

Imagine that we have 5 protons and 6 neutrons in nucleus (just an example). Now neutron hypothetically is converted to antiproton and positron. In nucleus we have 5 p+ and 5 n0. p- is colliding with one of p+ in nucleus, and there is shower of 1.876 GeV energy. And nucleus has now on 4 p+ and 5 n0, 2 mass number less than original. Notice that if positron would be emitted by proton (and converted to neutron), it would create 4 p+ and 7 n0. Unstable configuration. Too many neutrons. That's decaying method in proton rich nucleus. But here we have neutron rich nucleus. 1.876 GeV they would notice if they would know about it and have just a single chemical element in vacuum. If they wouldn't know, they would have probably piece of millions or billions atoms, and 1.876 GeV energy would be immediately at least partially absorbed by other surrounding atoms.

Conservation of charge - not at all. Neutron has 0 charge, so the same antineutron. Neutron would decay to +1 proton, and -1 electron, and 0 neutrino, Antineutron would decay to +1 positron, and -1 antiproton, and 0 neutrino. Charges are equal on both sides of equation. It would have to be decay too. Decay neutral particle to positron and antiproton, instead of electron and proton. Or forced reaction by collision with something we will provide. The most probably in neutron rich, ionized unstable isotope of some heavy element. Without careful analyze somebody could think that this isotope is producing photons during decay (because antiproton would immediately find opposite proton and annihilate). If I would know answer, I would be in middle of building annihilation power station, instead of telling you here on forum.

Any particle is energy. We just need to find cheap way to change neutron to antineutron, which after decaying will produce antiproton and positron. Or find natural source of antiprotons. There are natural sources of positrons, so I find it plausible to have similar for antiprotons. Bananas are organic source of positrons http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking/2009/07/23/antimatter-from-bananas Then join antiproton with proton will cause annihilation and you have the all energy these particles had. Current way of production of antiprotons is very inefficient - basically there is needed proton that will be accelerated to 0.866c (generally 0.9c), and collided with proton at rest. Or we can concentrate currently on production of positrons in such quantity it will have sense to annihilate them with electrons and production of energy.

Biological analogy: if two women (or two men) would feel attraction, any specie would disappear in the first generation. Nothing would exist if it would be reverse, in physics, and biology. Proton would attract other proton, and so on, and very shortly we would have Universe in one point.

That's relativistic theory of crackpottery..

Then you should have no problem explaining how proton is converted to neutron and positron in beta decay+. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_decay And how proton that received electron is also converted to neutron in electron capture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_capture

The smallest known not dividable energy for current physics is E=h (if the smallest frequency is 1 Hz), anything above it is multiplied by h. f.e. light 550 nm E = h * c / 550 nm = h * 545077196363636 Matter like proton and electron is not quite elementary- you can collide it with it's antiparticle and cause annihilation and production from it photons. If photons have too high frequency you can use beam splitter and again receive smaller pieces. But so far nobody knows how to split photon with the smallest frequency AFAIK.

Mine point was such that because photons are absorbed in path between original source like f.e. star in galaxy billion light years far from here, we detect less photons from far star, than our own Sun. The farther the more chance that it will be absorbed. And annihilation is production of photons, which eventually can again produce pair + - particles. And again eventually annihilate (or fly in opposite directions), and do it infinitely. In "infinite" time there is possible everything. I was thinking more about higher energetic gamma photons. Two colliding 3.5 TeV gamma photons should be able to produce 1836*2 protons and 1836*2 antiprotons.

Electron-positron pair production is non-sense?! since when? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production If two gamma with enough energy collides and produces electron-positron, it's possible the higher energetic two gamma photons can produce proton and antiproton the same way. Swansont said that the biggest gamma photon detected has 3.5 TeV http://www.eurekaler...u-pfe120905.php this gamma photon has 6,849,341 more energy than gamma photon needed to produce electron-positron. In future lab we need to produce such gamma photon and try to collide with other such gamma photon. michel123456, do you think too that I am writing non-sense and hijacking your thread? If so, I wont write anything else.

That's very easy. Light that travels through entire galaxy and entire Universe is colliding with other particles (absorbed photons), and other photons from time to time, photons with higher energy are produced. At the end two gamma photons collide and regular matter in intersection of them appears. I believe in so that in areas between galaxies there are born new clouds of hydrogen, which will with time build new stars and new galaxies. We don't see them yet, they didn't start emitting light.

Calculate how drastically. GPS satellites orbit is 26560 km, Earth radius is 6370 km, so satellite is at height 20190 km. with speed 3.9 km/s

Black is lack of light in visible by humans wavelength. Black colored surface is absorbing light at visible wavelength and emitting light at non visible wavelength.

pie A: E= h*5 pie B: E=h*10

Michel, do you think that photon particle has "length" c?

In most of these devices on video metal is put to hot water, changing shape, then put to cold water and changing shape again. But something has to heat water in the first place. Hot water is cooling all the time, giving fraction of its energy to either piece of metal, and air. And reverse process happens with cold water. If we won't heat hot water and keep cool cold water, their temperature will suddenly will go to the same point. And device will stop moving.

There are known asteroids orbiting other asteroids. In comparison to them Moon is giant. NASA satellite orbiting Moon is example of such object at right velocity. Too high velocity and it'll escape object. Too low, and it'll be attracted to surface.

The most likely there was no beginning, and there will be no end. Stars are building heavy particles in core, and emitting the rest as photons and neutrinos. But black holes are doing reverse, eating whatever fly around them. At the end there will be no stars, they will radiate all photons, and there will be only black holes. Each galaxy will be one gigantic black hole, sucking the all debris of stars, planets and other remaining dust. And black holes will suddenly eat other black holes. If whole universe was created from single point, what is difference between point containing the all energy of universe and black hole containing the all energy of universe? Probably none. And everything will start again.

Michel.. see post #15.. I showed there what is "SM photon". Gamma, or other high energetic photons need even more energetic sources to produce them. There is low quantity of such high energetic particle in nature. Collisions of them happen rarely. So there is small number of gamma photons in nature (in comparison to lower energetic photons). Analogy: rat has 8+ child per year, that are each couple grams (less than mother), elephant has one child per year or less, whale has one child per ten years or so. whale child is like thousands of rats. Always their mother mass is higher than quantity * mass of each child. There is billion rats around the world, whales is couple hundreds or thousands (depending on species) or so. mother = source particle. child of rat = photon with visible wavelength child of whale = gamma photon.