On Antimiatter

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
Post Reply
setelement
Posts: 57
Joined: October 16th, 2009, 2:01 am

On Antimiatter

Post by setelement »

There has been research done that has shown that the classical (ideal, theoretical) concepts of antimatter are in no way consistent with observations. Since the basic constituent of antimatter is the antiparticle I will focus on it in this post.

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.
User avatar
wanabe
Posts: 3377
Joined: November 24th, 2008, 5:12 am
Favorite Philosopher: Gandhi.
Location: UBIQUITY
Contact:

Post by wanabe »

If light can be wave and a particle, its not that much of a stretch to call anti matter: anti particle and reverse time.

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.
Secret To Eternal Life: Live Life To The Fullest, Help All Others To Do So.Meaning of Life Is Choice. Increase choice through direct perception. Golden rule+universality principal+Promote benefits-harm+logical consistency=morality.BeTheChange.
setelement
Posts: 57
Joined: October 16th, 2009, 2:01 am

Post by setelement »

Actually if we go all the way back to the writings of P.A.M Dirac he does describe antimatter in the way in which I have described it here. It is also the the description that was accepted by Richard Fienman. So we do see that it is thought of in the since of time reversal and Dirac also used the different frames of reference in order to show a change in the observation.
User avatar
wanabe
Posts: 3377
Joined: November 24th, 2008, 5:12 am
Favorite Philosopher: Gandhi.
Location: UBIQUITY
Contact:

Post by wanabe »

Time does not exist, but in our minds (nothing depends on time for to happen, certain events must happen, but they come in no regular sequence[see thread: "does time exist"-metaphysics]). There is a more detailed explanation for the "time reversal" I'm sure, or they are working to understand it better to explain it as a concept independent of time.
Secret To Eternal Life: Live Life To The Fullest, Help All Others To Do So.Meaning of Life Is Choice. Increase choice through direct perception. Golden rule+universality principal+Promote benefits-harm+logical consistency=morality.BeTheChange.
setelement
Posts: 57
Joined: October 16th, 2009, 2:01 am

Post by setelement »

Okay I read the other thread (not the whole thing, because I rarely have the time to sit around that long). For the purpose of this thread (I may respond to the other thread later after reading all arguments and seeing if my view was already put forward by someone else) we will assume the existence of time. 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. Mainly because it is possible to find contradictions to what is stated. That being said, I am not arguing time itself. I am arguing the interpretation of the mathematical origins of this theory.

________________________________________
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.
User avatar
wanabe
Posts: 3377
Joined: November 24th, 2008, 5:12 am
Favorite Philosopher: Gandhi.
Location: UBIQUITY
Contact:

Post by wanabe »

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 assumed!

Here is the basic run down of that other post:
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.)
For things as advanced as work on antimatter we must eliminate the assumption of time, if we are to make further progress.

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.
Secret To Eternal Life: Live Life To The Fullest, Help All Others To Do So.Meaning of Life Is Choice. Increase choice through direct perception. Golden rule+universality principal+Promote benefits-harm+logical consistency=morality.BeTheChange.
setelement
Posts: 57
Joined: October 16th, 2009, 2:01 am

Post by setelement »

wanabe wrote
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!
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.

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.
User avatar
wanabe
Posts: 3377
Joined: November 24th, 2008, 5:12 am
Favorite Philosopher: Gandhi.
Location: UBIQUITY
Contact:

Post by wanabe »

I contend that time not existing has a higher probability of being correct.

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.
Secret To Eternal Life: Live Life To The Fullest, Help All Others To Do So.Meaning of Life Is Choice. Increase choice through direct perception. Golden rule+universality principal+Promote benefits-harm+logical consistency=morality.BeTheChange.
setelement
Posts: 57
Joined: October 16th, 2009, 2:01 am

Post by setelement »

First off I would like to say hello again to all. Sorry for the long period of not replying, but I am finishing up a deployment right now, and I really have not had the time to get on and discusse things. I have barely had the time to even read and study.

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.
7. Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

-Wittgenstein
User avatar
wanabe
Posts: 3377
Joined: November 24th, 2008, 5:12 am
Favorite Philosopher: Gandhi.
Location: UBIQUITY
Contact:

Post by wanabe »

setelement wrote:How is it that we can figure out where the runner is located after any particular instant?
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: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.
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).

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.
Secret To Eternal Life: Live Life To The Fullest, Help All Others To Do So.Meaning of Life Is Choice. Increase choice through direct perception. Golden rule+universality principal+Promote benefits-harm+logical consistency=morality.BeTheChange.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Science”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

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

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021