magician v's physicist

[derek w]

Rule1:-The first thing a magician needs to do is set the stage for his illusion.

Rule2:-Know your audience,if the physicist has a standard model and conventional practices,the magician can use this to his advantage,to hood wink physicists.So magician invites physicists to be his audience.

The magician sets the stage,by hiding and pretends he is not there,that he is a void,a vacuum,empty space.But the magician is there ,he is not an empty space,he consists

of a vast number of very small matter/anti-matter capacitors.Each capacitor can hold a range of different levels of energy,from a minimum to a maximum,storing energy or giving it up to the next capacitor.

The magician disguised as a 3 dimensional empty space,starts his show by energizing a selection of capacitors,sending a small spherical Mexican wave across the empty

space.Announcing to the audience this is a photon,to the audience it appears to be a force carrying particle(photon).

Rule3:-The oldest trick in the magicians book,is to keep an ace up his sleeve.In this case the magician shows the audience gravity,invites them to examine it.But this is a deception

,he keeps anti-gravity up his sleeve,never showing it to the audience.

Rule4:-Slight of hand,distract audience with one hand and switch something around,out of sight of the audience,with the other hand.

For his next illusion the magician creates a much larger spherical Mexican wave,which he then spins at very high revs/sec.Using gravity he makes the matter go inwards and

uses centrifugal force(anti-gravity) to make the anti-matter go outwards.He announces to the audience he has created a hydrogen atom,and its made of matter.But unbeknown to the audience there is a switch,the electron is made of anti-matter.The magician then before the audience notices creates a vast multitude of hydrogen atoms,using gravity to hold them in a bubble.Whilst the audience is bewildered he also creates out of sight anti-hydrogen atoms,with anti-protons going inwards to a nucleus and positrons (made of matter)

going outwards.He uses anti-gravity from up his sleeve to send anti-hydrogen outwards away from the bubble,outside the auditorium,where the audience cannot see them.

After the show is over the physicists will say no you cannot do this it goes against convention,its not part of our standard model.The magician answers by saying i am just a

magician your the physicist you figure it out,you tell me why it cannot work,in my universe everything balances.

 

 

energy in/energy out

gravity/anti-gravity

matter protons/anti-matter electrons

equal amount of matter/equal amount of anti-matter

capacitors(+)/capacitors(-)

space inside bubble/anti-space outside bubble

 

[Realitycheck]

Positrons are by definition not matter but anti-matter.

Edited November 3, 2011 by Realitycheck

[derek w]

by what definition,collisions at HERA between electrons and protons,do not indicate or prove that the electron is made of matter.I would be interested to read articles that give the evidence for electrons being made of matter,and positrons are made of anti-matter,if not its just an assumption.How do we prove that protons and electrons are made of the same stuff.

Edited November 4, 2011 by derek w

[mooeypoo]

by what definition,collisions at HERA between electrons and protons,do not indicate or prove that the electron is made of matter.I would be interested to read articles that give the evidence for electrons being made of matter,and positrons are made of anti-matter,if not its just an assumption.How do we prove that protons and electrons are made of the same stuff.

 

By the physical definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron

 

Positron is the antiparticle to the electron, by definition. We detected 'something' (or rather, somethings ?) around the nucleus, we figured out it has quantized energetic "levels" (quantizes... quantum... quantum mechanics....) we called it electron.

 

And then we decided that whatever is the anti particle, would be called a positron. In that aspect, it's by definition.

 

 

 

As for what protons and electrons are made of, if one was matter and one was antimatter, they'd have annihilated themselves, isn't that the point? When we collide two particles together they annihilate themselves because of the extreme speeds, not because of matter/antimatter reaction. When atoms collide at lesser speeds they are just fine.

 

In fact, in liquid or solid states, some materials exchange electrons when energy is given to the system, so electrons 'bounce around'. If they were the anti-particle of the nucleus, we'd have a pretty big boom every time we'd heat up a little bit of fluid.

 

 

 

~mooey

[derek w]

No proof of that at HERA when they collide electrons or positrons with protons the electron and positrons act pretty much the same.

 

I will suggest a different model:-

 

matter is positively charged

anti-matter is negatively charged

 

up quark consists of 2/3 matter + 1/3 anti-matter

down quark consist of 1/3 matter + 2/3 anti-matter

 

proton consists of 2ups + 1down

anti-proton consists of 1up + 2downs

 

electron consist of matter

positron consists of anti-matter

 

neutron = proton + electron

anti-neutron = anti-proton + positron

 

photon = anti-matter wave/particle

anti-photon = matter wave/particle

 

neutrino = matter & anti-matter wave/particle

 

 

But keep in mind how a MEXICAN WAVE creates an illusion,just because people sit down does not mean they are not there any more.I am not suggesting that the electron is only made of anti-matter,i am saying that the anti-matter is up while the matter is down.

[mooeypoo]

No proof of that at HERA when they collide electrons or positrons with protons the electron and positrons act pretty much the same.

The same as what? In particle colliders, the collisions are at *incredible* speeds. The products are absolutely not the same as collisions in low velocity...

 

I don't follow. Could you give us the reference you're using to say that both are 'the same'? I might be misunderstanding what you mean.

[derek w]

Your point about electrons bouncing around inside a material,they would never collide with the nucleus or interact with it,just be capture or released,depending on the energy level of the atoms.

 

If we are saying that both proton and electron are made of matter,then why the different charges,negative and positive.

If we say that matter is positively charge and anti-matter is negatively charged,then saying proton are made of matter and electrons are made

of anti-matter.makes more sense.My question is are we saying that electrons are made of matter simply because it is convention or is there

experimental proof?I have seen no mention of it.