If Black holes slowly evaporate over time is there a point where they stop being a black hole?

[Mordred]

That's ok anyone can easily confirm the first equation is the photon propogator its in dozens of textbooks. It a standard form for the Feymann rules. Including the one I provided lmao

1 hour ago, MSC said:

Mordreds better at explaining his math in plain English than you are at refuting it in plain English. If he's made errors then for the sake of the people that understand the math, provide corrections.

Also chill with the personal attacks. Nobody gets graded for anything said here and cutting the attacks out of sincere debate is entirely within your capabilities. 

That's pretty much how I go about debating philosophical and ethical topics. Where I often stand corrected because it's not a precision science like particle physics is but these are pretty uniform academic standards that you don't even have to attend university to infer from just observing debates in different venues. 

I appreciate you taking the time on this topic. Maybe one day I'll understand the math!

however thanks for the support. 

1 hour ago, MSC said:

 

I appreciate you taking the time on this topic. Maybe one day I'll understand the math!

Takes time but it can be accomplished. If you really want to learn I would start with vectors and spinors learn their components and addition rules. Then do so under field treatments. Once you do that GR becomes rather easy. To get a handle on QM and QFT statistical mechanics is the next route as it also uses the vectors/ spinors.  Path integrals uses momentum space hence you need the above as its momentum space/phase space includes probability wavefunctions for all possible paths (path taken is the least action). The amplitude of that wavefunction giving the highest probability ( the weighted sum). Those probabilities are determined using Fourier transformations.  QFT uses the Klein Gordon equation which is Lorentz invariant. However QM uses the Schrodinger equation which is not Lorentz invariant.

This also means the photon propagator can come in different forms depending on the gauge its being applied in. There is also a couple of different forms for Feymann. So you can easily see a solid understanding of vectors/ spinors as standalone and as fields is essential and applies at all levels of physics and in every physics theory.

 Start there the rest will come far easier by default.

should also mention calculus of variations is also applicable for integrals

 

Edited May 6 by Mordred

[Markus Hanke]

17 hours ago, MSC said:

So lets say a stellar mass black hole about 10 times the mass of our sun. Like Gaia-BH1. 3 clocks. One in a safe stable orbit around the black hole, one fixed just before the event horizon, one in freefall.

Let’s further assume that clock (1) is far from the BH, and orbits slowly. This clock will see (2) to be still ticking, but at a much slower rate (compared to itself). It will see (3) to initially fall at increasing speed, while its tick rate gradually slows; as it approaches the horizon its descent will appear to slow more and more, and its tick rate appears slower and slower. Its visual appearance becomes dimmer and redder, and it eventually just fades into invisibility. But it will never be reckoned to have reached the horizon.

(2) sees (1) to be ticking at a much faster rate, and it will visually appear blue-shifted. (3) will appear similar as described above, just at a different rate; it will also never be reckoned to have reached the horizon.

For (3) itself, the time it takes to reach the horizon is finite; the fall time from horizon to singularity is also finite (for a 10 solar mass BH this will be on the order of ~150 microseconds). What tick rates it will see on clocks (1) and (2) will depend on where along its free fall trajectory the clock is - this is a bit of a balancing act between its own position in the gravitational well, and the degree of relative motion between the clocks. However, once it has fallen below the horizon, it should see both (1) and (2) to be ticking faster wrt itself.

17 hours ago, MSC said:

If I drop multiple clocks in free fall, an hour after the other, would the clocks seem to catch up to the first dropped clock, relative to the external stable orbit clock?

After the initial free fall period, they would all be seen to be asymptotically slowing towards the same region of space, while gradually fading from view. But they would never quite catch up.

17 hours ago, MSC said:

See I don't really know how to think about spacetime.

This is not simple, since it’s a mathematical model in four dimensions.

Spacetime is not a substance, so resist the temptation to think about it that way. The best I can offer is to think about it as a network of relationships - it tells you how clocks and rulers at different places and times are related to one another. Each nexus within the network corresponds to a physical event (meaning: a specific point in space at a specific instant in time), and has attached to it an object (called the metric tensor) which, if you tell it a direction, will give you the spacetime distance to its closest neighbouring nexus in that direction. So it’s a network of separations between events. In special relativity that separation is the same wherever and whenever you are (the metric tensor is just a matrix of constants), but in general relativity it may explicitly depend on where and when you are. For events that are more widely separated (not neighbouring), you add up all the individual separations between the nexus that are in between, so you perform an integration.

The global properties of that network as a whole influence local relationships, and the form of local relationships puts constraints on how the global network can look like. Also, if something changes locally, the effects of that will propagate outwards and “ripple along” the network. It’s a bit like a spiderweb.

Be careful about the trampoline analogy - it is just a visual plot that tells you how certain length measurements (rulers) are related along a specific coordinate in a specific geometry. It’s not a complete picture of what this spacetime would look like.

11 hours ago, Genady said:

Nothing. The 4D-spacetime curvature becomes infinite.

Technically speaking, it’s the limit of scalar curvature that diverges - the point r=0 isn’t part of the manifold, so no curvature tensors are definable there. This is why the technical definition uses geodesic incompleteness, and not curvature. That just as an aside

Edited May 6 by Markus Hanke

[Mordred]

25 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

 

Technically speaking, it’s the limit of scalar curvature that diverges - the point r=0 isn’t part of the manifold, so no curvature tensors are definable there. This is why the technical definition uses geodesic incompleteness, and not curvature. That just as an aside

An important detail as Markus just mentioned R=0, cannot be defined The mathematics breaks down is the short hand descriptive. Its also not part of any finite group. We can't define anything particle related there as well. For the same reasons...if you can't define the spacetime the particles would reside in. Its impossible to define any particle presence 

[Genady]

5 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

Technically speaking, it’s the limit of scalar curvature that diverges - the point r=0 isn’t part of the manifold, so no curvature tensors are definable there. This is why the technical definition uses geodesic incompleteness, and not curvature. That just as an aside

 

5 hours ago, Mordred said:

An important detail as Markus just mentioned R=0, cannot be defined The mathematics breaks down is the short hand descriptive. Its also not part of any finite group. We can't define anything particle related there as well. For the same reasons...if you can't define the spacetime the particles would reside in. Its impossible to define any particle presence 

Exactly so. A value of a function being undefined somewhere is often part of a function's definition. It does not break math or anything.

A singularity exists, by definition

A notion of a particle "being there" is undefined, by definition  

Edited May 6 by Genady

[Mordred]

Funstrating isn't it. You know somethings there but you can't define it. Any infinite quantity has a finite portion but the finite portion is outside R=0

Edited May 6 by Mordred

[Genady]

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

You know somethings there but you can't define it.

I don't know. Occam tells me, it's nothing.

[Mordred]

 Unfortunately spacetime doesn't curve on its own. One could argue how to describe R=0 till they are blue in the face. Occams nothing is as good as any other way to describe it lol.

[Genady]

That's why I don't argue about it. I don't like my face blue. LOL

[MSC]

On 5/5/2024 at 11:50 PM, Mordred said:

however thanks for the support. 

Anytime. Solidarity within groups of reasonable people feels more urgently needed now more than ever. Without being too OT and alarmist, when dictatorships are at your door, eliticide is shortly behind them. 

On 5/6/2024 at 9:07 AM, Genady said:

don't know. Occam tells me, it's nothing.

I think black holes could just be matter in a transient state constantly in motion toward a convergence in spacetime from our perspective. There has to be an original core made up of the remnant star somewhere but the matter on it's way crosses the event horizon and reaches that core at vastly different rates relative to observer positions located outside of black holes. What pours into the event horizon trickles down to the core along stretching geodesics (did I use that term correctly?) I'm speculating from ignorance but who knows Jack O'Neill effect might give one of y'all an inspiration pump. 

Edited May 7 by MSC

[Markus Hanke]

I came across another good video, concerning in-fall into a Kerr BH (mass, angular momentum). This one contains explanations, and also readings on two reference clocks; I thought some readers here might like this:

 

[MSC]

16 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

I came across another good video, concerning in-fall into a Kerr BH (mass, angular momentum). This one contains explanations, and also readings on two reference clocks; I thought some readers here might like this:

 

Awesome video! Thanks for sharing, but there was one detail about it that bugged me. Go to 1.50 in the video and watch what happens to external time when camera time hits 3.15.20.0000 external time jumps to 99.99.99.9999. What's happening with the clock? 

@Mordred I've been thinking a little. If we have found sterile left spin neutrinos, what is so different about right spin that makes them much harder to detect? Dark matter is more abundant than baryonic matter from what I understand so unless dark matter is a non local phenomenon, why havent we detected it yet and come up with any hard answers about the stuff that makes up so much of the universe?

Also what is meant by sterile in this context?

Another question; kind of OT toward QFT, but could dark matter be the sum of all currently existing virtual particles, making dark energy the vacuum energy that arises from the mass of virtual particles that comes out of it? As I understand it virtual particles aren't massless, have energy and momentum and they tend to share characteristics of their real particle counterparts and don't all have the same lifespans. We can't detect them either so I don't know. Contender or does latice field theory effectively eliminate the need for virtual particles?

[Mordred]

56 minutes ago, MSC said:

 

@Mordred I've been thinking a little. If we have found sterile left spin neutrinos, what is so different about right spin that makes them much harder to detect? Dark matter is more abundant than baryonic matter from what I understand so unless dark matter is a non local phenomenon, why havent we detected it yet and come up with any hard answers about the stuff that makes up so much of the universe?

Also what is meant by sterile in this context?

Ok this can get complex however  the main difference between left hand neutrinos and right hand neutrinos goes beyond simply being opposite in charge..Left hand neutrinos are doublet's while right hand neutrinos are singlets. Those terms directly relates to their respective cross section. In so far as their respective mass terms..

 Now originally it was felt that hand neutrinos would remain massless. (Hence a singlet) ,(also the sterile term) However later finding due to neutrino oscillations strongly indicate that as being incorrect. 

 The Higgs seesaw mechanism along with Majoranni mass terms indicate that the less mass the LHS neutrino the more massive the right neutrino would be.

Now neutrinos being extremely weakly interactive are very difficult to detect. What adds to the problem is the higher mass term it's out of the range of our particle accelerators. We simply cannot produce the amount of energy that would be needed this factor and being weakly interactive are two of the primary factors of why we can't detect them.

Now I realize very few ppl will understand the mathematics but I include them anyways along with the reference articles. (I have it already in my BBN thread on page 2

\[m\overline{\Psi}\Psi=(m\overline{\Psi_l}\Psi_r+\overline{\Psi_r}\Psi)\]

\[\mathcal{L}=(D_\mu\Phi^\dagger)(D_\mu\Phi)-V(\Phi^\dagger\Phi)\]

4 effective degrees of freedom doublet complex scalar field.

with 

\[D_\mu\Phi=(\partial_\mu+igW_\mu-\frac{i}{2}\acute{g}B_\mu)\Phi\]\

\[V(\Phi^\dagger\Phi)=-\mu^2\Phi^\dagger\Phi+\frac{1}{2}\lambda(\Phi^\dagger\Phi)^2,\mu^2>0\]

in Unitary gauge

\[\mathcal{L}=\frac{\lambda}{4}v^4\]

\[+\frac{1}{2}\partial_\mu H \partial^\mu H-\lambda v^2H^2+\frac{\lambda}{\sqrt{2}}vH^3+\frac{\lambda}{8}H^4\]

\[+\frac{1}{4}(v+(\frac{1}{2}H)^2(W_mu^1W_\mu^2W_\mu^3B_\mu)\begin{pmatrix}g^2&0&0&0\\0&g^2&0&0\\0&0&g^2&g\acute{g}\\0&0&\acute{g}g&\acute{g}^2 \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}W^{1\mu}\\W^{2\mu}\\W^{3\mu}\\B^\mu\end{pmatrix}\]

Right hand neutrino singlet needs charge conjugate for Majorana mass term (singlet requirement)

\[\Psi^c=C\overline{\Psi}^T\]

charge conjugate spinor

\[C=i\gamma^2\gamma^0\] 

Chirality

\[P_L\Psi_R^C=\Psi_R\]

mass term requires

\[\overline\Psi^C\Psi\] grants gauge invariance for singlets only.

\[\mathcal{L}_{v.mass}=hv_{ij}\overline{I}_{Li}V_{Rj}\Phi+\frac{1}{2}M_{ij}\overline{V_{ri}}V_{rj}+h.c\]

Higgs expectation value turns the Higgs coupling matrix into the Dirac mass matrix. Majorana mass matrix eugenvalues can be much higher than the Dirac mass.

diagonal of

\[\Psi^L,\Psi_R\] leads to three light modes v_i with mass matrix

\[m_v=-MD^{-1}M_D^T\]

MajorN mass in typical GUT 

\[M\propto10^{15},,GeV\]

further details on Majorana mass matrix

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.0988.pdf

https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/9702253.pdf

Edited May 9 by Mordred

[MSC]

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

Now originally it was felt that hand neutrinos would remain massless. (Hence a singlet) ,(also the sterile term) However later finding due to neutrino oscillations strongly indicate that as being incorrect. 

 The Higgs seesaw mechanism along with Majoranni mass terms indicate that the less mass the LHS neutrino the more massive the right neutrino would be.

So does that make RHS neutrinos WIMPs or when you say more massive than the LHS do you just maen relatively more massive but still not WIMPs?

Are the states of the LHS and RHS correlating toward them being an entangled pair or does that just not come into it at all?

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

Now neutrinos being extremely weakly interactive are very difficult to detect. What adds to the problem is the higher mass term it's out of the range of our particle accelerators. We simply cannot produce the amount of energy that would be needed this factor and being weakly interactive are two of the primary factors of why we can't detect them.

Are some of the bigger colliders that are allegedly in the works going to be capable of detecting them?

 

[Mordred]

15 minutes ago, MSC said:

So does that make RHS neutrinos WIMPs or when you say more massive than the LHS do you just maen relatively more massive but still not WIMPs?

Are the states of the LHS and RHS correlating toward them being an entangled pair or does that just not come into it at all?

Are some of the bigger colliders that are allegedly in the works going to be capable of detecting them?

 

All neutrinos are weakly interactive [WIMP] the M for massive simply denotes it has an invariant mass aka rest mass.

We hope they can but we only have theorized cross sections to know where to look in terms of mass.

[Markus Hanke]

6 hours ago, MSC said:

Go to 1.50 in the video and watch what happens to external time when camera time hits 3.15.20.0000 external time jumps to 99.99.99.9999. What's happening with the clock? 

What you’re referring to is the instant that the camera crosses the event horizon.

The reading on the bottom clock (“External time”) refers to what an external observer who is at rest far away from the BH would see. But the problem is that from such an observer’s point of view, the falling camera never reaches the horizon at all; just before it gets there, it will appear to fall slower and slower, and will visually appear redder and dimmer, until it fades into invisibility. There is no instant on the distant observer’s clock at which the camera is reckoned to have crossed the horizon - the entire region of the horizon and below cannot be mapped into the external observer’s coordinate system at all, because from his point of view such a region cannot be accessed (and vice versa, the falling camera cannot get back out either). Thus, once the horizon is reached, the times on the falling camera’s clock no longer correspond to any times on the external clock, even though the camera continues to fall and continues to accumulate time normally on its own clock. There simply is no longer any meaningful notion of simultaneity at all, whether relativistic or not.

So you see, time on its own in GR is a purely local concept, specific to a specific observer. It may not be shared by others. In order to ensure agreement between observers, you must now use covariant quantities instead.

[Carrock]

 

On 7/28/2024 at 9:29 PM, swansont said:

I’d need to see examples, because if you can support an argument it doesn’t sound like pseudoscience. And you make no mention of the support for your position.

The thing is, every scientist is/can be wrong about some things. We do have misconceptions, and they can become entrenched. But that doesn’t make it pseudoscience; that’s a much higher bar.

I haven't posted in the above thread as there are issues in this and a related thread I intend to address.

I'll only include one example plus another issue since this is so time consuming.

An example IMO of a pseudoscientific explanation of Hawking radiation:

On 5/3/2024 at 2:32 AM, Mordred said:

here is the thing about Hawking radiation a virtual particle pair must form outside the event horizon. Due to conservation laws all particles pop into existence as particle pairs primarily but not restricted to conservation of charge. (matter , antimatter for example) which Hawking radiation uses. the matter particle escapes to infinity while the antimatter particle falls in. Its a rather simplistic descriptive but the mass loss is due to being the anti particle of the pair. A photon is its own antiparticle. The difference between them isn't charge but rather its polarity. As a wave it obeys constructive and destructive interference. So anti-photons will annihilate with matter photons.

Mordred here makes up science through lack of understanding and later produces vast numbers of equations but never provides relevant references. Isn't making things up but never providing evidence/references to support/refute them at least close to pseudoscience?

On 5/3/2024 at 8:25 PM, Carrock said:

If you have a reference to there being both anti-photons and matter photons please share it.

Ignored, but from

On 5/5/2024 at 11:58 PM, Mordred said:

providing precise step by step on a forum is quite frankly impossible.

Quite right.

I've pointed out several times that things which are the same as each other are not also different from each other. I have clearly not made this clear enough for you and to do so is quite frankly impossible.

 

On 5/5/2024 at 11:58 PM, Mordred said:

photon

 

iΔμν(k)=i−k2−iϵ[gμν−kμkνk2(1=α)

 

antiphoton

 

iΔμν(k)=−i−k2−iϵ[gμν−kμkνk2(1=α)

 

 

I started having a glance through your equations; thanks for the obvious errors in these two which made me realise that was a waste of time.

It seems your equations go from textbook to forum without engaging your brain except to remove explanatory text and symbol definitions.

I'm done wasting my time here.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

I spoke too soon....

On 5/6/2024 at 4:40 AM, Mordred said:

That is why I don't waste my time trying if they can't take the time to show the error. I don't mind being corrected but I won't change what I've been professionally taught on someone's word without collaborative proof. Certainly not from some bland statement of being wrong without any further detail

I overestimated Mordred's ability/willingness to see obvious errors (e.g. an opening bracket but no closing bracket). Sadly, I don't have anyone willing to collaborate with me to decide whether equations with a missing bracket are valid. Maybe I can find someone on David Icke's forum.

 

Without definitions of terms (which are quite often changed), it's generally impossible to tell if a correctly formed equation is valid:

e.g. these valid equations are from a book of electrical engineering lecture notes from ca. 1900

V=CR, P=C²R, P=CV etc. Unlike Mordred, the author defines his terms, including C for current.

 

On 5/6/2024 at 4:26 AM, Mordred said:

Go ahead mathematically show me being incorrect with the formulas I provided. Impress me beyond your bland statements of me making errors Prove your case instead of simply declaring errors. If you wish to accuse me of errors you had best back it up.

 

It seems impossible to quote directly from another thread, so....

The thread is eight years old but back then Mordred eventually looked at errors I pointed out and corrected some of them. As his attitude has worsened I think it's legitimate to revisit the last time I can remember disagreeing with him.

I was fortunate enough to find published cosmology lectures which included the equations Mordred had modified with similar but more detailed text; knowing the variables it was simple to use dimensional analysis to find errors in three out of the thirteen equations I checked. (There were other errors but I was only going for the low hanging fruit.)

I posted the error notifications here and included this admission of my own error

Quote

Somewhere along the way I forgot that my objection was the inappropriate use of classical physics to derive cooling of the CMBR. Using pv=nRt is perfectly valid.

 

Mordred soon responded...

 

Quote

 

Carrock you obviously have some difficulty seeing the ideal gas law relations involved. Might I suggest picking up a textbook....

 

In one of the other posts I posted you a few references. You obviously didn't read...

__________________________________________________________________

So you explain why Cosmology involves equations of state without classical thermodynamic relations.

 

Go on give it a whirl I could use a good laugh.

________________________________________________________________

and similar silly challenges....

_________________________________________________________________

Personally what mathematical forms I choose to use is my choice provided its accurate.

 

Instead of responding in the other thread my reply to you. You choose to attack a difference thread.

 

So, saying I got something wrong invites challenges for me to prove it wasn't wrong???

Mordred 'knows' there are no errors, so my pointing out errors is an attack, not an attempt to prevent other readers puzzling over equations which literally make no sense?

 

Followed by a whole post the next day about pv=nRt, complete with 5(?) references...

And a later unusually polite post, with only a hint of pv=nRt.

Quote

PS I'm sorry you have a problem with thermodynamic applications in Cosmology. However that is the way it is.

 

Edit: seeing as you did find the errors I'll grant a +1

Expecting Mordred to read a reference to dimensional analysis was obviously a stretch; my worked example in my next post, which exposed more errors in a corrected equation, didn't 'work' either.

 

I suppose I'd better describe the errors I've spotted in Mordred's last post or I'll be accused of faking errors.

Quote

You didn't catch the full correction on the first equation. Completely replace dv=pdf with DU=pdv. It's understandable your confused there. (For some dumb reason I typed f again Grr).{dumb spell check on phone}

 

DU=pdV

Should be dU=−pdV

 

I thought Mordred would copy it from cosmology lectures page 1

Correct eqn used later

 

Quote

First take the first law of thermodynamics.

 

dU=dW=dQ

 

U is internal energy W =work.

 

As we dont need heat transfer Q we write this as DW=Fdr=pdV

First = should be +

Next equation is correct

{

     Latex didn't copy properly. Best to look at post

     ρ=dpdrr˙=−3ρr˙r

     Fails dimensional analysis:

     Mordred's version of eq 3.7 in cosmology lectures page 3

}

And using n and N interchangeably.

_______________________________________________________________________

 

Mordred is a qualified scientist but he likes to have his cake and eat it on this forum.

It's perfectly OK on this forum not to give source references but I suggest people compare Mordred's final 'corrected' post with the first two or three pages of cosmology lectures and see which they prefer. Unfortunately this option is not available for his other threads.

I recommend dimensional analysis (page 21 - that's all you need) for anyone doing physics exams; it detects about 90% of wrong equations so you can devote time to fixing errors rather than checking all your working.

Edited July 29 by Carrock

[swansont]

44 minutes ago, Carrock said:

Mordred here makes up science through lack of understanding and later produces vast numbers of equations but never provides relevant references. Isn't making things up but never providing evidence/references to support/refute them at least close to pseudoscience?

What’s the made-up part? What is your support for the claim?

And what is your definition of pseudoscience? It must differ from mine.

[Mordred]

I'm getting tired of accusations from posters that never show any mathematical argument to support their claims. I think I am well within my right that if someone claims I am wrong they are expected to prove just that beyond bland statements.

For example those equations you posted Carrock are contained in  textbooks on Cosmology with regards to the thermodynamics. Accusing me of pseudoscience when I am describing textbook equations and relations doesn't work in your favor

For one thing I have never seen this article before I don't use screen shot reference papers from some lecture for something inclusive in standard textbooks.

The reason those equations look familiar is precisely for the detail they are in standard textbooks.

 

 

Edited July 29 by Mordred

[swansont]

At least two of the objections above are likely typos; = instead of + and n instead of N are issues of not hitting the “shift” key at the right time. If you can’t be charitable about typos, you might not have the right temperament for online discussion.

I can’t fathom how one gets from that to “pseudoscience”

And as I’ve suggested before, complaining without bringing the receipts? No. It’s just whining.

[Mordred]

yeah they are typos not pseudoscience.

Carrock have you ever bothered to look into charge conjugation with regards to photon/antiphoton yet and look at how Helicity is involved between standard model particles vs their antiparticle ? Can you identify which is the doublet and which is the singlet ? If you have then under QFT the sum of amplitudes given by their cross sections is what determines what occurs in Feymann path integrals. That equation you posted above is literally the photon/antiphoton integrals used in Feymann diagrams.

 That's the barrage of math I used to provide the needed formulas

the key equation though falls back to 

\[Q+I^3+\frac{\gamma}{2}\]

however you have to understand at least U(1) symmetry group mathematics ideally SU(2) as well. Which is what a large bulk of those equations I posted earlier this thread directly apply to

Edited July 29 by Mordred

[Carrock]

33 minutes ago, swansont said:

What’s the made-up part? What is your support for the claim?

And what is your definition of pseudoscience? It must differ from mine.

My editor keeps crashing so I'll post individually.

 

That there are negative energy anti-photons and also positive energy matter photons. I am not aware of anyone except Mordred asserting such particles exist. It's impossible to prove a negative but the absence of vast numbers, or even any known negative energy anti-photons makes it unlikely.

 

1 hour ago, Carrock said:

Mordred here makes up science through lack of understanding and later produces vast numbers of equations but never provides relevant references. Isn't making things up but never providing evidence/references to support/refute them at least close to pseudoscience?

 This is just one instance of arguable pseudoscience. It would help if you provided your own definition.

[Mordred]

energy density is always positive for every particle in the standard model left hand particles are doublets under weak isospin the singlets are the antiparticles. Left handed helicity is the normal particle. Right handed helicity is the antiparticle. That is in textbooks.

Tell me something if the photon wasn't its own anti particle then where does the issue with baryogenesis and leptogenesis in Cosmology come into play ? You would already would have a matter positive universe simply by having photons. So obviously even though the photon is charge neutral it still has charge conjugation.

those negative energy states are negative FREQUENCY modes described with helicity.

Now lets apply some every day classical physics.

What happens when a Negative frequency encounters a positive frequency ? You only need to look at the elastic and inelastic scattering equations to answer that question.

 

Edited July 29 by Mordred

[Carrock]

40 minutes ago, swansont said:

At least two of the objections above are likely typos; = instead of + and n instead of N are issues of not hitting the “shift” key at the right time. If you can’t be charitable about typos, you might not have the right temperament for online discussion.

I can’t fathom how one gets from that to “pseudoscience”

And as I’ve suggested before, complaining without bringing the receipts? No. It’s just whining.

I'll wait to respond to Mordred until editing time has passed.

 

Mordred assumes if I don't correct an error, however trivial, it's incompetence.

1 hour ago, Carrock said:

Quote

You didn't catch the full correction on the first equation. Completely replace dv=pdf with DU=pdv. It's understandable your confused there. (For some dumb reason I typed f again Grr).{dumb spell check on phone}

 

DU=pdV

Should be dU=−pdV

 

I thought Mordred would copy it from cosmology lectures page 1

Just an upper case 'D' and a keyslip '-'

I'm certainly not conflating a mathematician who struggles with calculus with “pseudoscience.”

What does "complaining without bringing the receipts" even mean?

28 minutes ago, Mordred said:

energy density is always positive for every particle in the standard model left hand particles are doublets under weak isospin the singlets are the antiparticles. Left handed helicity is the normal particle. Right handed helicity is the antiparticle. That is in textbooks.

Tell me something if the photon wasn't its own anti particle then where does the issue with baryogenesis and leptogenesis in Cosmology come into play ? You would already would have a matter positive universe simply by having photons. So obviously even though the photon is charge neutral it still has charge conjugation.

those negative energy states are negative FREQUENCY modes described with helicity.

Now lets apply some every day classical physics.

What happens when a Negative frequency encounters a positive frequency ? You only need to look at the elastic and inelastic scattering equations to answer that question.

 

From May until today you claimed there are negative energy anti-photons and matter photons.

Unless you're rejecting the Standard Model a little hint of “pseudoscience” and you instantly abandon that idea. Have you no confidence in Swansont's assertion you're not a pseudoscientist?

I would have lost interest long ago if you'd abandoned that idea earlier.

I have no interest in debating you about photons or anything else except maths from about eight years ago where I know the variable definitions. BTW did you ever learn how to do dimensional analysis? You never said.

I'll respond to posts tomorrow. It's after midnight here.

[Mordred]

1 hour ago, Carrock said:

I'll wait to respond to Mordred until editing time has passed.

 

Mordred assumes if I don't correct an error, however trivial, it's incompetence.

Just an upper case 'D' and a keyslip '-'

I'm certainly not conflating a mathematician who struggles with calculus with “pseudoscience.”

What does "complaining without bringing the receipts" even mean?

From May until today you claimed there are negative energy anti-photons and matter photons.

Unless you're rejecting the Standard Model a little hint of “pseudoscience” and you instantly abandon that idea. Have you no confidence in Swansont's assertion you're not a pseudoscientist?

I would have lost interest long ago if you'd abandoned that idea earlier.

I have no interest in debating you about photons or anything else except maths from about eight years ago where I know the variable definitions. BTW did you ever learn how to do dimensional analysis? You never said.

I'll respond to posts tomorrow. It's after midnight here.

while your at it I hope you look up charge conjugation of the photon being -1. With regards to particle/anti particles including neutral particles such as the photon.

 Here is a reference paper on charge conjugation as it applies to particles and antiparticles.

https://alpha.physics.uoi.gr/foudas_public/APP-UoI-2011/Lecture10-Charge-Conjugation.pdf

see page 14 for the negative energy solution top of page.

That is the QFT treatment applying the creation and annihilation operators in regards to all particle/antiparticle pairs. This article also directly describes the Helicity terms in regards to all particle/antiparticle pairs. Good luck understanding the equation on page 14 without understanding QFT under those groups

The group relations outside this article are the U(1) SU(2) groups you need as you will need both the Dirac matrices and the Gamma matrices. Those equations are previously posted including the covariant derivative for each group.

 

Edited July 30 by Mordred

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Carrock said:

From May until today you claimed there are negative energy anti-photons and matter photons.

You don’t quote (including enough for proper context) or link to this claim. That’s what I mean by not bringing the receipts. 

The mention that I saw was here, in the context of Hawking radiation, and the particle that reduces the mass of the BH is indeed associated with a negative energy, because it’s a virtual particle/antiparticle pair. That’s why the mass decreases, and how you get real particles emitted as radiation.