THE HOLE’S “FOOT-PRINT”, GO BACK IN TIME! EXISTS ANY RELIABLE DETECTOR WATCHING THIS PHENOMENA?

[Kramer]

 

THE HOLE’S “FOOT-PRINT”, GO BACK IN TIME! EXISTS ANY RELIABLE DETECTOR WATCHING THIS PHENOMENA?

The aim of this post, for me is to grasp the “natural concept”, caused by the ” weirdness “ of moving “things” back in time.
As this thing (Hole) is positron, an antimatter particle, some other questions derive:
1- Is it “moving back in time”, “a mode of movement” for whatever antimatter particle?

2- The its given name--- “hole”--- has the same natural meaning as hole = emptiness, nothingness.
3- The DIRAK’s sea, is full of positrons, does this mean that space is charged only with positive charge, or I am wrong? How is it linked (or has it any link) with electric constant “epsilon zero”?
Any help by expert will be highly appreciated.

 

[Strange]

1- Is it “moving back in time”, “a mode of movement” for whatever antimatter particle?

 

As far as I know, there is no evidence that anything can move backwards in time.

 

2- The its given name--- “hole”--- has the same natural meaning as hole = emptiness, nothingness.

 

I haven't heard anti-particles referred to as holes. (*) But in semiconductors you can have positive charge carriers called holes, which are where an electron is "missing". These holes can move around and are important current carriers.

 

The hole is not "nothing", just a place where there is 1 less electron than normal.

 

3- The DIRAK’s sea, is full of positrons, does this mean that space is charged only with positive charge, or I am wrong?

 

The positrons are matchede by an equal number of electrons, so the net charge is zero.

 

(*) Just Googled this, and apparently Dirac described them this way

 

More here: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/389/positrons-versus-holes-as-positive-charge-carriers

[swansont]

 

1- Is it “moving back in time”, “a mode of movement” for whatever antimatter particle?

 

 

 

A positron moving forward in time has the exact same description as an electron moving backward in time. That's because of the symmetry of charge, parity and time. If you reverse one, you can compensate by reversing another and preserving the overall description.

[Kramer]

 

Strange

As far as I know, there is no evidence that anything can move backwards in time.
-----Swanson, seems to me, has different concept about “moving backward in time”.

I haven't heard anti-particles referred to as holes. (*) But in semiconductors you can have positive charge carriers called holes, which are where an electron is "missing". These holes can move around and are important current carriers.

---- Positive charge carriers, are or aren’t they particles? “Holes carry positive charges”, do you mean that they “only carry charge” (from one place to another) but it is not own “possession”? Do you mean that holes and charges have not any relation but only “taxi and passenger”? Doesn’t you see it weird: charge without particle, and hole with a some-how strange property to carry electric charges?

The hole is not "nothing", just a place where there is 1 less electron than normal

The positrons are matchede by an equal number of electrons, so the net charge is zero.

--- And now the assertion: “hole is just a place”. And place is not “nothing”, only it is absence of an electron.

So we have a conundrum:
space = a number of pairs of electron-positron, with an overall charge zero.
But, has a pair of charges a space dimension? If yes: --- how many pairs supposed in a cm^3 of space? If not---- aren’t they like phantoms, that appears only in special cases?

(*) Just Googled this, and apparently Dirac described them this way

 

More here: http://physics.stack...charge-carriers

thanks for link..

Swanson
A positron moving forward in time has the exact same description as an electron moving backward in time. That's because of the symmetry of charge, parity and time. If you reverse one, you can compensate by reversing another and preserving the overall description>
----- With description you means the mathematical characterization of particle.
Well I understand the parity of electric charge, (even lepton charge). I would add -----parity of gravity ability too?!, but I have to shush, don’t I?

What I don’t understand it is the parity (Symmetry) of time.
I see this way: A pair (electron positron) splits). Let say electron is moving toward north “today”. For the sake of relativity toward each other, this is equal like positron is moving south with the same velocity, but in opposite direction. This is not equal that positron is moving toward south, ”yesterday”. Ha? This I cant digest.
--- Other. What about detectors of back in time movement?
What about link between of electric constant of space and the pairs.

[Strange]

Swanson, seems to me, has different concept about “moving backward in time”

 

It is just a symmetry. It doesn't mean the particle is actually travelling back in time.

 

It is like a pair of gloves: if you look at the left glove in a mirror it looks the same as the right glove. That doesn't mean that the left glove is a reflection. It is just a way of describing the symmetry.

 

Positive charge carriers, are or aren’t they particles?

 

They are usually described as "quasi-particles". They behave like particles.

 

“Holes carry positive charges”, do you mean that they “only carry charge” (from one place to another) but it is not own “possession”?

 

I don't really see the difference. The hole is, in effect, a positively charged particle.

[Sensei]

I haven't heard anti-particles referred to as holes. (*) But in semiconductors you can have positive charge carriers called holes, which are where an electron is "missing". These holes can move around and are important current carriers.

---- Positive charge carriers, are or aren’t they particles? “Holes carry positive charges”, do you mean that they “only carry charge” (from one place to another) but it is not own “possession”? Do you mean that holes and charges have not any relation but only “taxi and passenger”? Doesn’t you see it weird: charge without particle, and hole with a some-how strange property to carry electric charges?

 

It's not weird. It's your lack of knowledge of physics.

 

"hole" is atom that has more protons than electrons. Thus overall positive charge.

There is also reversed situation. Atom that has more electrons than protons. Thus overall negative charge.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_hole

 

f.e. electron jumps from one neutral atom hole-to-be to hole, filling it.

Before we had charges 0 and +1,

after we have charges +1 and 0.

Then imagine queue of such atoms, one stealing electron from yet another in queue.

Edited January 28, 2015 by Sensei

[swansont]

Swanson

A positron moving forward in time has the exact same description as an electron moving backward in time. That's because of the symmetry of charge, parity and time. If you reverse one, you can compensate by reversing another and preserving the overall description>

----- With description you means the mathematical characterization of particle.

Well I understand the parity of electric charge, (even lepton charge). I would add -----parity of gravity ability too?!,

 

By your use, I have doubts that you understand it. Parity is a separate symmetry from charge, and from time reversal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPT_symmetry

 

 

What I don’t understand it is the parity (Symmetry) of time.

Time reversal symmetry is momentum reversal. It's conceptually what you would see in some interaction if you ran the video of it backward.

[Kramer]

 

Strange

It is just a symmetry. It doesn't mean the particle is actually travelling back in time.

---- All right. No traveling back in time. I hope you don’t think I invented this “traveling back in time “ even you have nothing to say about real authors.

It is like a pair of gloves: if you look at the left glove in a mirror it looks the same as the right glove. That doesn't mean that the left glove is a reflection. It is just a way of describing the symmetry.
---- All right, too, about the symmetry.

They are usually described as "quasi-particles". They behave like particles.

I don't really see the difference. The hole is, in effect, a positively charged particle.

---- Seems to me that, continuing to use terms like “quasi-particles”, and “holes” as charged particles, your explanation differs from Sensei’s. But no big deal.

Sensei

It's not weird. It's your lack of knowledge of physics.
---- Right Sensei. My questions are about lack of knowledge in physics.

"hole" is atom that has more protons than electrons. Thus overall positive charge.

There is also reversed situation. Atom that has more electrons than protons. Thus overall negative charge.
-----So simple. That is an explanation: “Holes” equal “ions”! But as ions, usually, lurks in liquids, for solid’s ions, is coined term “hole”. Why not “absence”? Anyway.

f.e. electron jumps from one neutral atom hole-to-be to hole, filling it.

Before we had charges 0 and +1,

after we have charges +1 and 0.

Then imagine queue of such atoms, one stealing electron from yet another in queue.
---- I think, here is the crux, which asks for an explanation. In liquids, ions move freely from one point in another. The proximity of them with neutral atoms, made possible exchange of periphery electrons, so atoms became ions and ions became atoms.
Can you explain how a neighbor ion, which is “steady”, can “steal” from neutral “steady” neighbor atom an electron to fill own absence, and so on in queue? Especially when “stealing” happens only in one direction ?!
By the way you do not accept the idea that one “ion” initiator is doted with an antimatter particle? Yet, positive charge of nuclei of atom is not antimatter.

[Strange]

---- Seems to me that, continuing to use terms like “quasi-particles”, and “holes” as charged particles, your explanation differs from Sensei’s. But no big deal.

 

Not really. But as you say, no big deal, it is just terminology.

 

 

But as ions, usually, lurks in liquids, for solid’s ions, is coined term “hole”. Why not “absence”? Anyway.

 

Because "hole" is shorter?

 

 

Can you explain how a neighbor ion, which is “steady”, can “steal” from neutral “steady” neighbor atom an electron to fill own absence, and so on in queue? Especially when “stealing” happens only in one direction ?!

 

You have a positively charged hole. The location of an electron is not precisely defined; it is a probability which is affected by the presence of charges around it. The presence of a nearby positive charge (the hole) means the electron is likely to move in that direction and fill the hole (leaving another hole behind). In the absence of an external electric field, there is no reason for the hole to move in any particular direction so it might just move back where it was: it will just drift around at random.

 

If you apply an electric field, then the electrons will tend towards the positive side and holes towards the negative.

 

(The process is slightly more complex, as the hole is not localised to a single atom. Because of the available energy levels in the crystal, the hole is spread out over several atoms.)

[Kramer]

 

Swanson

By your use, I have doubts that you understand it. Parity is a separate symmetry from charge, and from time reversal.
----I admit that I have vague understanding about symmetries. My concept about symmetry is like mirror reflection of reality. But is only an illusion. The Kramer in mirror is not real Kramer. I have the watch in left wrist, the reflected Kramer has it in right hand.
Do you think that electron is nothing else but a mirrored positron? I don’t think so. This will be like reflected Kramer in mirror has changed not only left with right, but so something else.
Isn’t it a try to refute the real existence of antimatter particles?


http://en.wikipedia....ki/CPT_symmetry

Time reversal symmetry is momentum reversal. It's conceptually what you would see in some interaction if you ran the video of it backward.
---- O no. I think that momentum reversal is the same illusion as by reflected real things in a mirror. Only here moments are typed in sequences for record, typing is made in real time. Running backward a video is doable illusive, first--- is only a “record “ of something real, second--- “time of running” is always “after time” of record. The running backward is a hoax that never has happened in real time.

[Strange]

Do you think that electron is nothing else but a mirrored positron? I don’t think so. This will be like reflected Kramer in mirror has changed not only left with right, but so something else.

 

An electron is not a reflection of a positron, nor is it a positron travelling backwards in time.

 

Isn’t it a try to refute the real existence of antimatter particles?

 

I think that is what you are doing by saying that antimatter is just matter travelling back in time.

 

 

The running backward is a hoax that never has happened in real time.

 

Exactly. It is just a way of visualising things.

[Sensei]

---- I think, here is the crux, which asks for an explanation. In liquids, ions move freely from one point in another.

Ions in water are surrounded by water molecules.

Water is polar liquid.

Oxygen in water molecule has negative charge, and Hydrogen in water molecule has positive charge.

Electric field attracts or repels water drops, which can be seen on YouTube (or home experiment) f.e.

 

Positive ion f.e. Na+ will align water molecules around it differently than Cl-

One will attract Oxygen, other one will attract Hydrogen.

 

 

The proximity of them with neutral atoms, made possible exchange of periphery electrons, so atoms became ions and ions became atoms.

Can you explain how a neighbor ion, which is “steady”, can “steal” from neutral “steady” neighbor atom an electron to fill own absence, and so on in queue? Especially when “stealing” happens only in one direction ?!

Suppose so we have plate of copper/aluminium. One end we are connecting to battery positive electrode, other end to battery negative electrode.

Positive electrode has absence of electrons, while negative electrode has abundance of electrons. They attract inside of battery.

But once we close circuit, using our metal plate, they find a way through metal that will allow positive ion in positive electrode be filled by electron.

At the beginning electron on metal plate (or wire) is used, then his neighborhood. and this goes, and goes, until reaching negative electrode.

 

Imagine room with seats, and standing people. They run to have a seat. Once they find their chair, they are not moving anymore.

Edited January 29, 2015 by Sensei

[swansont]

Swanson

By your use, I have doubts that you understand it. Parity is a separate symmetry from charge, and from time reversal.

----I admit that I have vague understanding about symmetries. My concept about symmetry is like mirror reflection of reality. But is only an illusion. The Kramer in mirror is not real Kramer. I have the watch in left wrist, the reflected Kramer has it in right hand.

Do you think that electron is nothing else but a mirrored positron? I don’t think so. This will be like reflected Kramer in mirror has changed not only left with right, but so something else.

Isn’t it a try to refute the real existence of antimatter particles?

 

 

http://en.wikipedia....ki/CPT_symmetry

Time reversal symmetry is momentum reversal. It's conceptually what you would see in some interaction if you ran the video of it backward.

---- O no. I think that momentum reversal is the same illusion as by reflected real things in a mirror. Only here moments are typed in sequences for record, typing is made in real time. Running backward a video is doable illusive, first--- is only a “record “ of something real, second--- “time of running” is always “after time” of record. The running backward is a hoax that never has happened in real time.

 

The point is that we have particles that exist that look like mirror images of other particles, and particles that behave exactly like another, if the video were running backwards. We're talking about descriptions of real things.

[Kramer]

 

Strange

Not really. But as you say, no big deal, it is just terminology.

Because "hole" is shorter?
----- Humorous! Isn’t? Or maybe “hole” open the door for entering in scene a phantom? Ha?

You have a positively charged hole. The location of an electron is not precisely defined; it is a probability which is affected by the presence of charges around it. The presence of a nearby positive charge (the hole) means the electron is likely to move in that direction and fill the hole (leaving another hole behind). In the absence of an external electric field, there is no reason for the hole to move in any particular direction so it might just move back where it was: it will just drift around at random.

----- The debate is entering in a dull boring technical chit-chat, with nothing new and interesting. But let clear some of things.
What create the hole? I mean, what forces the electron to leave ‘a chair’ where it is embedded electrically secure, and to bounce in the neighbor chair? The “not precise location” and the “probability” I think are not convincing arguments. Except the distances, between negative and positive charges, nothing else has sense.
Why does not happen this phenomena with dielectric atoms?
Why in semiconductors “the holes” permit the bounce only in one direction?
And in the end: are holes really “absence” or ”any kind of substitute”.

 

If you apply an electric field, then the electrons will tend towards the positive side and holes towards the negative.

---- All known.

 

(The process is slightly more complex, as the hole is not localised to a single atom. Because of the available energy levels in the crystal, the hole is spread out over several atoms.)
--- That’s a very intriguing knowledge. Now the “hole” became really weird.

An electron is not a reflection of a positron, nor is it a positron travelling backwards in time.
---- So I think too.

I think that is what you are doing by saying that antimatter is just matter travelling back in time.

---- Wrong interpretation of title of post. Some times “question titles” are provocative for the opposite.

Exactly. It is just a way of visualising things.
---- Just a way?

Sensei

Imagine room with seats, and standing people. They run to have a seat. Once they find their chair, they are not moving anymore.
---- A very though-full, humorous and didactic post. The explanation is very simple.
Swanson

The point is that we have particles that exist that look like mirror images of other particles, and particles that behave exactly like another, if the video were running backwards. We're talking about descriptions of real things.
----- The existence of antimatter particles I think is out of doubt. I speculate only about the amount of them, and about the role with interaction with matter particles. That they have the same characters, but with opposite effect doesn’t make them the same as matter particles. And I don’t believe that they are the mirrored ones.
My persuasion continue to be that they my have gravity repelling ability, which is the main important character of them that differs them from matter particles. In the common antimatter particles: positron, anti proton, the gravity energy of this ability is highly reduced, in confront with their electric ability. That because about their structure….
I know that you not only refute those speculative ideas, you don’t want to see those in your cite.
---- I checked the link, suggested by you, and was amassed that I am not the only that think in this direction.

[swansont]

 

Swanson

The point is that we have particles that exist that look like mirror images of other particles, and particles that behave exactly like another, if the video were running backwards. We're talking about descriptions of real things.

----- The existence of antimatter particles I think is out of doubt. I speculate only about the amount of them, and about the role with interaction with matter particles. That they have the same characters, but with opposite effect doesn’t make them the same as matter particles. And I don’t believe that they are the mirrored ones.

My persuasion continue to be that they my have gravity repelling ability, which is the main important character of them that differs them from matter particles. In the common antimatter particles: positron, anti proton, the gravity energy of this ability is highly reduced, in confront with their electric ability. That because about their structure….

I know that you not only refute those speculative ideas, you don’t want to see those in your cite.

 

What you think doesn't matter. What evidence do you have that this is so, and what model do you propose to replace the existing physics?

 

As for "not wanting to see" these ideas, it's not me, personally. It's the way we run the site. In order for discussion of your idea to be entertained, you must follow the guidelines for that discussion.

[Strange]

What create the hole? I mean, what forces the electron to leave ‘a chair’ where it is embedded electrically secure, and to bounce in the neighbor chair?

 

In semiconductors they can be created in many ways, for example by "doping" the semiconductor (adding atoms of another element with fewer electrons than the bulk material). Or the application of energy (e.g. photons) can cause an electron to be freed from the lattice leaving a hole: then you have two current carriers, positive and negative.

 

 

Why in semiconductors “the holes” permit the bounce only in one direction?

 

They can go in any direction. Holes, like free electrons, will just drift around slowly in the absence of something forcing them to move in a particular direction. Which is why I said:

 

If you apply an electric field, then the electrons will tend towards the positive side and holes towards the negative.

---- All known.

 

 

 

My persuasion continue to be that they my have gravity repelling ability, which is the main important character of them that differs them from matter particles.

 

This is in the process of being tested by the CERN ALPHA experiment - when they can generate enough anti-hydrogen to measure the effect of gravity on it.

[Kramer]

 

Swanson
What you think doesn't matter. What evidence do you have that this is so, and what model do you propose to replace the existing physics?
As for "not wanting to see" these ideas, it's not me, personally. It's the way we run the site. In order for discussion of your idea to be entertained, you must follow the guidelines for that discussion.

--- For me matter a lot what you think about what is debated in the thread. To discard the importance or trashiness of somebodies thoughts, that is the role and the aim of debate. A priory judgment, for issues in dispute, is a doctrinaire judgment.
You may say that everything of issues in debate is clear solved. You know very well that it’s not true, nothing is clear. Other ways the “scientific literature” will be not teeming with hundred of unknown particles with very strange names, with very fantastic theories. Nobody call them “speculations”. Nobody trash them. The authors of them are real scientist.
If I mingle in some threads the speculation about importance and generalized role of “antimatter sub particles” in many phenomena of nature, that’s because I find on them an answer that stands logic and…… and the common sense.
If you put the post block of guidelines that for discussion to be entertained, I ought to stay “in the square” of Standard, it is clear I must quit. I must quit also about the condition of evidence.

Strange

In semiconductors they can be created in many ways, for example by "doping" the semiconductor (adding atoms of another element with fewer electrons than the bulk material). Or the application of energy (e.g. photons) can cause an electron to be freed from the lattice leaving a hole: then you have two current carriers, positive and negative.

They can go in any direction. Holes, like free electrons, will just drift around slowly in
the absence of something forcing them to move in a particular direction. Which is why I said:
If you apply an electric field, then the electrons will tend towards the positive side and holes towards the negative.

---- All known. That is in general but not in details. In details sleep devil.
----- One simple question: how a photon can cause an electron to be freed, creating a hole and for “me” to have two current carriers, positive and negative. What about the fate of photon?

This is in the process of being tested by the CERN ALPHA experiment - when they can generate enough anti-hydrogen to measure the effect of gravity on it.
---- Only they are not in a hurry. The first – first, the hurry is about God’s particle, and now something plus particle, my memory fail the name.

[Strange]

I find on them an answer that stands logic and…… and the common sense.

 

Common sense is very unreliable. Which is why we use science.

 

Only they are not in a hurry. The first – first, the hurry is about God’s particle, and now something plus particle, my memory fail the name.

 

I assume they are proceeding as fast as they can. I don't why you think the Higgs boson has anything to do with it.

[Sensei]

----- One simple question: how a photon can cause an electron to be freed,

 

f.e. photoelectric effect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect

Photon is absorbed, electron freed and accelerated..

 

Photon disintegration of nucleus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photodisintegration

 

[math]_1^2D+2.22 MeV\rightarrow_1^1H + n^0[/math]

 

To split Deuterium atom you need 2.22 MeV energy.

Result is free proton and free neutron..

 

So it's not just freeing electrons (ionization), but splitting nucleus as well.

Edited January 31, 2015 by Sensei

[Kramer]

 

Stranger

Common sense is very unreliable. Which is why we use science.

Is more reliable than “pop” up things from nowhere, from nothing. Is more reliable than “scientific discovery” that my pra-dad my be behind the door in” parallel universe”, or in “tenth dimension”.

I assume they are proceeding as fast as they can. I don't why you think the Higgs boson has anything to do with it.
---- You are right. Depends by the precedence. Ha? I didn’t know that Higgs boson has nick - name “Gods particle”. You tell me -- Why?
Sensei
f.e. photoelectric effect

http://en.wikipedia....odisintegration

To split Deuterium atom you need 2.22 MeV energy.

Result is free proton and free neutron..

So it's not just freeing electrons (ionization), but splitting nucleus as well.
----- How many question derive after the fact:

--- Is it science sure-sure that splitting is not created by neutrinos?
--- 2.22 MeV is measured or is it derived by left-right balance of reaction?
--- What difference has a photon with low energy from another with high energy, except their frequency? How about any difference in space volume of photon?
--- etc…
Vikipedia is about known facts. When you don’t find there any answer, have you tried to speculate with your variant of explanation?

[Strange]

Is more reliable than “pop” up things from nowhere, from nothing. Is more reliable than “scientific discovery” that my pra-dad my be behind the door in” parallel universe”, or in “tenth dimension”.

 

Sorry, I have no idea what that means. Do you want to try again. What is popping up from nowhere? What is a "pra-dad"?

 

---- You are right. Depends by the precedence. Ha? I didn’t know that Higgs boson has nick - name “Gods particle”. You tell me -- Why?

 

When a scientist wanted to write a popular book about the Higgs boson, he wanted to call it "The Goddamn Particle" because it was proving so had to find. His publisher thought that might offend people and changed it to "The God Particle". Which has to be one of the stupidest decisions of all time.

 

----Photo-electric effect was discovered in the twenties of last century.

 

It was first observed in the 19th century. Einstein provided the mathematical description in 1905 (and got the Nobel Prize for it).

 

“Absorbed”, “accelerated”, “balance of energies of input output”, are the most common terms used in absence of a more subtle explanation: how???

 

Perhaps you should read Einstein's 1905 paper?

(I don't know what your first language is, but if it is German, then you could read the original.)

 

I think, (even what I think has zero importance but for sake of conversation) “I” don’t know what are “in reality” photons, electrons, energy, after a long time passed of theirs discovery.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "in reality". Photons are small "packets" (quanta) of electromagnetic radiation with a specific frequency and energy. Electrons, well, they are electrons.

[Sensei]

----Photo-electric effect was discovered in the twenties of last century.

Nope. It's in 1887. That's in page in link I gave! You didn't read?

 

--- Is it science sure-sure that splitting is not created by neutrinos?

 

Of course.

 

If you have container with substance, and bring it close (or turn on device) radiate it with well know particles, and substance will be split. You know that it's result of radiation..

 

If you would have source of strong neutrinos turned on/off (like nuclear/fusion reactor) or with controllable direction of beam of neutrinos and split would be occurring after beam pass through substance, then you would have prove it's cause of neutrinos.

Well, it happens. That's how neutrinos detector works.

f.e.

Cl-37 + Ve + 0.814 MeV -> Ar-37 + e-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_detector

Neutrino must have energy > 0.814 MeV otherwise detector is not working. It's quite a lot. The most of neutrinos from the Sun are in range 0... 0.42 MeV from proton-proton fusions.

 

--- 2.22 MeV is measured or is it derived by left-right balance of reaction?

It's either measured, and calculated:

 

Creation of Deuterium:

p+ + p+ -> D+ + e+ + Ve + 0.42 MeV

938.272 MeV + 938.272 MeV = 1875.61 MeV + 0.510999 + 0.42 MeV

 

Split of Deuterium:

D+ + 2.22 MeV -> p+ + n0

1875.61 MeV + 2.22 MeV = 938.272 MeV + 939.565 MeV

 

--- What difference has a photon with low energy from another with high energy, except their frequency? How about any difference in space volume of photon?

Make experiments that will prove it.

 

Vikipedia is about known facts. When you don’t find there any answer, have you tried to speculate with your variant of explanation?

I did in the past, now I prefer making experiments.

[swansont]

Swanson

What you think doesn't matter. What evidence do you have that this is so, and what model do you propose to replace the existing physics?

As for "not wanting to see" these ideas, it's not me, personally. It's the way we run the site. In order for discussion of your idea to be entertained, you must follow the guidelines for that discussion.

--- For me matter a lot what you think about what is debated in the thread. To discard the importance or trashiness of somebodies thoughts, that is the role and the aim of debate. A priory judgment, for issues in dispute, is a doctrinaire judgment.

You may say that everything of issues in debate is clear solved. You know very well that it’s not true, nothing is clear. Other ways the “scientific literature” will be not teeming with hundred of unknown particles with very strange names, with very fantastic theories. Nobody call them “speculations”. Nobody trash them. The authors of them are real scientist.

 

Nobody trashes them? I can tell you don't actually read the literature. And whether they are "fantastic" or not is not measured by your understanding.

 

If I mingle in some threads the speculation about importance and generalized role of “antimatter sub particles” in many phenomena of nature, that’s because I find on them an answer that stands logic and…… and the common sense.

If you put the post block of guidelines that for discussion to be entertained, I ought to stay “in the square” of Standard, it is clear I must quit. I must quit also about the condition of evidence.

The condition about evidence is what makes it science, and as this is a science discussion board, it is a requirement if you are going to propose a new solution for something.

 

So, if you are asking questions everything is OK, but if you are insisting that you have a new model and don't actually have a model or evidence, then you must quit the thread, or it will be done for you.

[Sensei]

 

So, if you are asking questions everything is OK, but if you are insisting that you have a new model and don't actually have a model or evidence, then you must quit the thread, or it will be done for you.

 

Please. Not again, Swansont. If you will be locking every thread he makes, he won't learn anything. That's counter productive. He just must start reading links we're giving him..

Edited February 1, 2015 by Sensei

[Mordred]

The Higgs was called the God particle because it was a critical piece of evidence to validate the standard model. As well as explaining much on how quarks and gluons gain mass.

 

To truly understand why certain terms are used, in particle physics and electrodynamics one has to study the math. There is numerous conservation rules that must be obeyed. Most people aren't aware of many of them.

 

Conservation of energy/momentum, color,charge,Lepton number,baryon,flavor,isospin. These rules govern what reactions can occur and how particles decay into lower energy particles. Decays that don't follow these rules do not occur.

 

Part of the problem of posters trying to learn physics without the math, is it is extremely difficult to explain concepts to them without the proper terminology.

 

More often than not attempts to simplify explainations to the layman leads to greater misconceptions and confusion.

 

The properties of particles is charge,spin,energy ,mass and momentum.

 

Volume is indeterminant, the term dimensionless or pointlike describe this.

 

Energy is a property of particles, it does not exist on its own.

 

As far as the term dimensions, this is a differential geometry term. A dimension can be assigned to a specific interaction. Examples is electric charge, color charge, or specific symmetry groups used in particle physics.

 

These groups have specific symmetries and transformations. Without going into Lie algebra this is difficult to describe.

 

Introductory to particle physics by Griffith is a good introduction book.

 

However arxiv has one available for free

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3328

A Simple Introduction to Particle Physics

 

Part 2 is here

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1395

 

Both articles cover extensively the required lie algebra and differential

Geometry terms used in particle physics.

 

 

One could literally spend a full year studying those two articles, However it's extremely rewarding as you will be able to pick up and understand the most technical articles posted on the internet, such as arxiv

 

Including relativity. Second link goes into detail in that arena