On Antimiatter
-
- Posts: 57
- Joined: October 16th, 2009, 2:01 am
On Antimiatter
The argument for antiparticles, to me, appears to be a matter of fact statement. We know from David Hume that all matter of fact statements are based on cause and effect. Hume also shows how cause and effect arguments are incomplete, because they fail to give a connexion between the cause and the effect. It is only through experience and inference that we can make cause and effect statements. Though we will always be unable to prove that a specific cause will invoke a specific effect. This is where the antiparticle argument is flawed.
In the argument we see a particle traveling along and it encounters 2 disturbances with the second taking it back to its original state, but when we look at the particle from another frame of reference that is quicker relative to them frame that we viewed the particle in (this is the time reversal frame, which is what is supposed to also cause the charge to become opposite of the original charge). We see that the 2nd disturbance happens first, and we see a particle moving in the reverse direction of time. The 2 particles meet up at the initial disturbance and both disappear.
In this case the cause is changing the frame of reference and the effect is supposed to be an antiparticle. Though how can it be proven that what we are seeing (outside of the mathematics) is an antiparticle? We can't fore in any cause and effect even the contradiction to the argument is as valid as the argument its self. Therefore we cannot prove that what we are seeing is in fact an antiparticle and not just a reversal of time with the 2 frames of reference simply canceling each other out.
To change frames of reference is to change observers. One observer sees a particle moving backward in time. So wouldn't the first observer simply see the particle do nothing but proceed onto the next disturbance, and the other observer see the particle disappear when it gets to the initial state (that is where the original observation is made.
The recent discovery of antimatter has yielded in some sorts a paradox. It does what it is supposed to (annihilate with matter), but it disobeys the every law of physics that claims to describe antimatter, which is an extrapolation of antiparticles. One of the laws is that of complete annihilation. In experiments physicists do not see this occur, there is always some matter left over from the collision.
I am looking for the article that I had read about annihilation not being 100% in matter-antimatter collisions. Though really all we need to do is look at the popular stance that in the early universe there was a one-to-one correspondence of matter and antimatter.
Other possible (non-philosophical, instead scientific) explanations for this are those that originate from CP symmetry.
- wanabe
- Posts: 3377
- Joined: November 24th, 2008, 5:12 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Gandhi.
- Location: UBIQUITY
- Contact:
I doubt that what is being seen is time in reverse. In actuality it's probably a reflection of from matter imploding on it self, creating a mirror image. Sort of like how if you looked at a drop of water go into a pond you could see the refection of the pond and the water droplet under ideal conditions.
-
- Posts: 57
- Joined: October 16th, 2009, 2:01 am
- wanabe
- Posts: 3377
- Joined: November 24th, 2008, 5:12 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Gandhi.
- Location: UBIQUITY
- Contact:
-
- Posts: 57
- Joined: October 16th, 2009, 2:01 am
________________________________________
It should be obvious from my other posts that I love to argue based off the definitions that are attributed to a concept. I will always go with the most common definitions, because they are the best representation of how the majority feel on an issue.
- wanabe
- Posts: 3377
- Joined: November 24th, 2008, 5:12 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Gandhi.
- Location: UBIQUITY
- Contact:
Here is the basic run down of that other post:
For things as advanced as work on antimatter we must eliminate the assumption of time, if we are to make further progress.wanabe in a different post sort of wrote:Time is the passing of events. When is an event over?(we can't say but arbitrarily) When does it start(even more difficult to correctly discern)? How do we separate one event from another (they all are part of each-other, to separate them would not yield the same event)? more over we cannot see all events(as of yet) so how are we to accurately measure time if it does exist?(we can't as of yet)
This also eradicates seeped in its current definition, the new definition would be a ratio of distances ("point" a/"point" b) (I have communicated in the other post that distance is actually the relative thing, not time, time does not exist.)
Has science ever assumed time is not real and tried their calculations or observations then? Most likely not.
So to reverse time would be to undo events that took place. You cant undo part of an event without changing the whole thing. If we can place an old rat where the time is supposedly going backwards and he gets younger I'll believe in time again.
I again assert; Its not time that is going backwards, it's an illusion caused by how we calculate the situation (assuming time) its visually a ripple like water as i explained before.
-
- Posts: 57
- Joined: October 16th, 2009, 2:01 am
One of my favorite methods of argument is borrowed from my studies in mathematics. It is called proof by contradiction. This is when we ASSUME that an argument is true in order to show why it is wrong. This was already addressed by the very next sentence after what you quoted me as saying.We can't just assume time is so. The same problem of: "This is because I feel that when ever the possibility of the existence or non-existence of something is brought into question you argue assuming the validity of the stance made by the originator of the argument." is present still, both sides are assumptions!
It is from contradictions and paradoxes where we learn the most and is why we must assume the validity of a statement in order to show its inconsistencies.
- wanabe
- Posts: 3377
- Joined: November 24th, 2008, 5:12 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Gandhi.
- Location: UBIQUITY
- Contact:
Let's assume time is real, show me the evidence. We can do this here, or in the other thread.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
setelement,
If your out their I would like to continue this discussion we can assume time is real as I stated before.
-
- Posts: 57
- Joined: October 16th, 2009, 2:01 am
Well wanabe in my time off of the forum I have come across an intresting article by one of my inetelectual idols. It was a paper written by Godel about the apparent non-existance of time (as in there is no past and future, only the now.) He did this within the frame work of general relativity, it is known as the Godel metric (don't know if you heard of it.) This was an intresting article to read. In it he had shown that space itself is twisted and this twisting gave the effect of time passing. There has not been, to my knowledge, a physicist yet who can refute this finding.
I am not saying that I particularly agree with this finding (I do not feel that a theory is good just because the math is), I did find it intresting to see an alternative pitcure to the time paradigm that has existed for centuries now, and it has caused me to develope some questions of my own. Particularly if we look at the example of a person running on a 1/4 mile track running one lap, for simplisity, how is it that we can figure out where the runner is located after any particular instant? Now if we look at this from the momentum frame we begin to see that this is a much easier thing to do. By this I mean that we can now for certain what the runners direction and his velocity are, but we don't know his location on the track. That would require knowing how much time has elapsed on the event. If only the now were to exist than every instant would be the time that we are measuring, thus voiding the measurement.
Now there was also something else that I have come across a set of limericks, known as "A Star Child's Mother Goose." One of the limericks in this goes:
Probable-Possible, my black hen,
She lays eggs in the Relative When.
She doesn't lay eggs in the Positive Now
Because she's unable to Postulate How
This has also raised questions in me. It is discussing the obvious argument that always arises when debating probability and possibility, but it also brings up something alittle more fundamental. Is it possible to have a now? Can there only be a past and future, and no present? If we look at the runner and every step that he makes. Is he making them now, or is it that he did or will make them? Is the finish of the run only in his future and past? When we reference a single step that makes it is either that he is going to make a step or he has made a step.
These are two seemingly contradictory ideas, but they bring up a good question. Is all of time elapsing around us simply nothing more than illusory occurance or is it real? If only the now exists, then all events happen simultaniously. If there is no now, then something can not happen. Either it will happen or it has happened.
I guess what I am saying about time is that I am more confussed than ever on the concept of time.
Though I am still contending that if we look at the original post that I have put on here, and we make the assumptions that all initial assumptions are true it shows an inherent flaw in the theroy itself. Now is it the lack of the existence of time that causes this or is it some yet to be discovered mechanism that is causing it? I can not answer with any certainty.
-Wittgenstein
- wanabe
- Posts: 3377
- Joined: November 24th, 2008, 5:12 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Gandhi.
- Location: UBIQUITY
- Contact:
I’m assuming you mean using a velocity formula… The simplest velocity formula is that of speed (s=d/t). Since this particular formula involves time (arbitrary separation of imaginary events [this is what time is]), we will assume its existence (time does exist, but only in the minds [imagination] of mature, socialized, animals [humans mostly, to the degree we are speaking of]). This formula does not tell his location (as you later acknowledge), only his distance traveled at a particular time. It also makes the erroneous assumption that the runner went on a smooth curved path around the ¼ mile track. We know that he did not, because people take strides as they run, and so one cannot take a smooth path around a track, there are some spots on the track he never actually touched, only stepped over.setelement wrote:How is it that we can figure out where the runner is located after any particular instant?
In essence this dilemma is Schrödinger’s uncertainty principal in quantum mechanics; stating roughly: we can only know the location (of an electron) for that instant, or we can know its direction (maybe you knew that, maybe not) we can’t know both (yet).setelement wrote:By this I mean that we can now for certain what the runners direction and his velocity are, but we don't know his location on the track. That would require knowing how much time has elapsed on the event. If only the now were to exist than every instant would be the time that we are measuring, thus voiding the measurement.
I don’t think it is apt to even look at time as being separated. All that has past is still in action, and all that can happen will not happen, only one course of events will happen, but any of them could happen (in this dimension at least). As Godel asserts all these events are twisted together, but you have yet to agree, so more food for thought.
I think predictions about the future can be made but they must be kept in statistical form, meaning that it’s a conglomerate of all that could happen not what will happen. Anything can happen, the runner could be shot dead right before he makes it to the finish line, so to speak.
I cannot answer these questions with any more certainty than you. I can only reiterate that it is more likely that time as a real thing(not just in our imagination) does not exist.
Enjoy the rest of your deployment, dont get dead.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023