Notices
Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: photon

  1. #1 photon 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    13
    what is the antiparticle of the photon?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    It is it's own antiparticle, so to speak, as it has neutral charge.


    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Manchester, England
    Posts
    107
    It's an interesting question. It clearly isn't just matter of whether or not the particle has charge, as Q has suggested, because it is well known that there is an antineutrino and an antineutron, neither of which is charged. Perhaps the fact that photon is a boson has something to do with it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    956
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiparticle

    Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    Although particles and their antiparticles have opposite charges, electrically neutral particles need not be identical to their antiparticles. The neutron, for example, is made out of quarks, the antineutron from antiquarks, and they are distinguishable from one another because an antineutron, unlike a neutron, will rapidly annihilate itself by colliding with neutrons in ordinary matter. However, it is speculated that some neutral particles (such as some proposed types of WIMPs) are their own antiparticles, and can therefore annihilate with themselves. Some particles have no antiparticles; these include the photon, the hypothetical graviton, and any other hypothetical massless gauge bosons.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by JaneBennet
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiparticle

    Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    Although particles and their antiparticles have opposite charges, electrically neutral particles need not be identical to their antiparticles. The neutron, for example, is made out of quarks, the antineutron from antiquarks, and they are distinguishable from one another because an antineutron, unlike a neutron, will rapidly annihilate itself by colliding with neutrons in ordinary matter. However, it is speculated that some neutral particles (such as some proposed types of WIMPs) are their own antiparticles, and can therefore annihilate with themselves. Some particles have no antiparticles; these include the photon, the hypothetical graviton, and any other hypothetical massless gauge bosons.

    Wikapedia should be in the sci-fi search engine index. That is just totally ridiculous compared to everything I ever learned, used and or built.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Exactly what have you built that has anything to do with the properties and/or existence of neutrons?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Ph.D. Leszek Luchowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Gliwice, Poland
    Posts
    807
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Exactly what have you built that has anything to do with the properties and/or existence of neutrons?
    Just about anything any human being has built, from spears to spacecraft, will have contained neutrons and indirectly depended on their properties (of which existence is the most fundamental). But if Bill has been building anything to do with antimatter, then, given his daring scientific ideas, pardon me if I express a certain amount of concern.

    Take cover,
    Leszek.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    963
    Quote Originally Posted by Leszek Luchowski
    Just about anything any human being has built, from spears to spacecraft, will have contained neutrons and indirectly depended on their properties (of which existence is the most fundamental).
    Some of your countrymen have just finished building a house in my area.
    I heard they did a good job but I am sure this had nothing to do with their knowledge,or lack of knowledge, about the existence and properties of neutrons.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Ph.D. Leszek Luchowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Gliwice, Poland
    Posts
    807
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday
    Some of your countrymen have just finished building a house in my area.
    I heard they did a good job but I am sure this had nothing to do with their knowledge,or lack of knowledge, about the existence and properties of neutrons.
    So am I. And your point is ... ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    963
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Exactly what have you built that has anything to do with the properties and/or existence of neutrons?
    When replying to the previous post Magi Master was not saying that physical objects do not contain neutrons. He was asking how the previous poster could decide,partly on the basis of having built certain objects,that the Wiki article was nonsense.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Ph.D. Leszek Luchowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Gliwice, Poland
    Posts
    807
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday
    When replying to the previous post Magi Master was not saying that physical objects do not contain neutrons. He was asking how the previous poster could decide,partly on the basis of having built certain objects,that the Wiki article was nonsense.
    I see. Actually, I had tried to be witty, but severe hipocaffeinemia thwarted my attempts. A thousand pardons.

    Cheers, L.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Exactly what have you built that has anything to do with the properties and/or existence of neutrons?
    Things I build use the neutral nature of matter and ambient radiation. That was what was originally called the neutron. Not a particle or anything like that.

    The neutron was actually a German thing describing the ether. And the way that ambient radiation could either add an abundance of electrons to say a bomb. Or take away an abundance of electrons, like during the creation of an x-ray.

    http://www.rockwelder.com/Electricit...page/Howto.htm

    Check out the bottom of page 47 and the top of 48.

    Now granted none of the science writers that have survived are what I would call top 90 percentile writers or scientists. They have a lot of preconceived notions and wrong ideas. That often conflict themselves.

    However there are some bits and pieces of history there that you can view, and understand how science became so screwed up.

    The neutron was a misunderstood German concept. That many of our science writers and poor scientists like, Chadwick, Einstein, Fermi and others could not grasp.

    Our great scientists totally understood the ether and the neutral effect of the ether ,or what they called the ether, (ambient radiation).

    This was when American and German scientists were still trading the most outrageous science back and forth. During the start of World War Two. But only good scientists were trading information.
    Evil scientists were trying to end the world. With paranoia and secret cover-ups and secret experiments on both sides.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    963
    Quote Originally Posted by Leszek Luchowski
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday
    When replying to the previous post Magi Master was not saying that physical objects do not contain neutrons. He was asking how the previous poster could decide,partly on the basis of having built certain objects,that the Wiki article was nonsense.
    I see. Actually, I had tried to be witty, but severe hipocaffeinemia thwarted my attempts. A thousand pardons.

    Cheers, L.
    No need to apologise. I can only ask for pardon for having missed your flashing wit!
    Cheers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    They have a lot of preconceived notions and wrong ideas. That often conflict themselves.
    This sounds like someone else we all know. :P
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    They have a lot of preconceived notions and wrong ideas. That often conflict themselves.
    This sounds like someone else we all know. :P

    And yet you have never highlighted one conflicting point?

    Because there are none in my all electron universe.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    William, science is built on math. The Uncertainty Principle, for example, has an english translation of something like "the velocity and position of a particle cannot be know simultaneously." However, that's only a translation. The real Uncertainty Principle is . Your ideas have no math behind them because you don't believe in math. Your theories are just imprecise words. If we haven't pointed out any specific contradictions in your ideas, it's because your ideas are too vague to mean anything, much less anything particularly contradictory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    William, science is built on math. The Uncertainty Principle, for example, has an english translation of something like "the velocity and position of a particle cannot be know simultaneously." However, that's only a translation. The real Uncertainty Principle is . Your ideas have no math behind them because you don't believe in math. Your theories are just imprecise words. If we haven't pointed out any specific contradictions in your ideas, it's because your ideas are too vague to mean anything, much less anything particularly contradictory.

    Take a look at your first statement there. That science is built on math.

    Science works without an accountant. The universe continues along just fine.

    I will on the other hand having been a mathematician and honors math student. Admit that math is probably one of the most important tools the scientist has.

    However it is rarely to uncover new and sensational finds. The sensation if you go back over the years was nothing more then poor scientists bringing out scientific evidence with a lot of publicity. And often a lot of error.

    The math is basically a tallying, an accounting of experiment accuracy. And inaccuracy. So that other scientists can either verify or find fault or differences in materials used in other countries.

    But all these crazy black hole formulas are like little kids running around with a ray gun and making believe they are on the moon.

    You do not have to believe in math. Good math is rarely complicated. And proves itself. There is little arguing, and even less misunderstanding while using good math.

    We currently do not even use the proper order of mathematics. So I highly doubt you know whether or not I like or use math. Because you probably have never seen it.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    William, science is built on math. The Uncertainty Principle, for example, has an english translation of something like "the velocity and position of a particle cannot be know simultaneously." However, that's only a translation. The real Uncertainty Principle is . Your ideas have no math behind them because you don't believe in math. Your theories are just imprecise words. If we haven't pointed out any specific contradictions in your ideas, it's because your ideas are too vague to mean anything, much less anything particularly contradictory.

    Take a look at your first statement there. That science is built on math.

    Science works without an accountant. The universe continues along just fine.

    I will on the other hand having been a mathematician and honors math student. Admit that math is probably one of the most important tools the scientist has.

    However it is rarely to uncover new and sensational finds. The sensation if you go back over the years was nothing more then poor scientists bringing out scientific evidence with a lot of publicity. And often a lot of error.

    The math is basically a tallying, an accounting of experiment accuracy. And inaccuracy. So that other scientists can either verify or find fault or differences in materials used in other countries.

    But all these crazy black hole formulas are like little kids running around with a ray gun and making believe they are on the moon.

    You do not have to believe in math. Good math is rarely complicated. And proves itself. There is little arguing, and even less misunderstanding while using good math.

    We currently do not even use the proper order of mathematics. So I highly doubt you know whether or not I like or use math. Because you probably have never seen it.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    William, I'm a mathematician. I know what math is and how it's used. I know you don't like or use math because you've said so yourself.

    You are right that math is the most important tool in science though.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster

    William, I'm a mathematician. I know what math is and how it's used. I know you don't like or use math because you've said so yourself.

    You are right that math is the most important tool in science though.
    I love math, use it in real life all the time. I write macros for cadd using math.

    I just hate that the order of mathematics is not addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. As I learned it. I learned it both ways actually.

    This symbol "" did not mean a fraction when I learned math. This symbol meant to take everything to the left of it and divide it by everything to the right of it. It was the in line division key, that meant take everything to the left and divide it by everything to the right of it. The "/" symbol meant fraction.

    The capital "X" also meant to take everything to the left of it and multiply everything to the right of it. So that you were free to do all your addition and subtraction first, and then the large "X" would multiply everything on the right by everything on the left. The small "x" was used instead of parenthesis if you wanted to just multiply two numbers. It was the same as parenthesis around two numbers being multiplied.

    But that appears to be gone forever so I don't want to argue it.

    The guys on the cadd forum were wondering about my spacing system so I made a movie of it in action.

    It is pretty cool, that spacing program will also set objects that overlay each other like louvers in condenser air, through the window ducts, on large package AC units, in large buildings. You just use a negative spacing input.

    http://www.rockwelder.com/Flash/Spac...acingMacro.htm

    There is a lot of cool math going on there. A super time saver.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    How you do math or how I do math isn't math, it's only a way of doing math. The difference may not be obvious, but it is important.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    How you do math or how I do math isn't math, it's only a way of doing math. The difference may not be obvious, but it is important.
    Math is one of the few things, because it is not really complicated like the Universe. That you can hone to the finest possible system of totalling things to an exact outcome.

    That means that as you say it matters not who does the math, but who does the best, fastest, math. The math that has the best most understandable language, that allows you to input massive amounts of data in a streamline manner and have a neat orderly trail to check it out many times. Is the math.

    We do not have that now. That is why we are not on the moon.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    William, your is exactly the same as my and your is exactly the same as my . It's just that since more people use my way than your way, my way is more readable. Not more correct, just more readable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    William, your is exactly the same as my and your is exactly the same as my . It's just that since more people use my way than your way, my way is more readable. Not more correct, just more readable.
    I am saying that at one time some years ago in my grade school days. Math was still taught with a capital "X" meaning take everything to the left, in the whole formula and multiply it by everything to the right of it. Up to a division symbol "".

    The little or lower case "x" meant take the two integers or variables on either side of the lower case "x", and multiply them by each other. Much like a fraction but instead multiplying them. If you do a lot of measuring and creating in Cadd. My system is a dream.

    You can intermix, fractions, decimals, with no parenthesis. Total up small actually measured increments using the "+" addition symbol. Used to concatenate objects in a formula. We originally learned you do not break the chain. Unless you ran into the "/" or the "x" symbol.

    The current system is nothing but error, for high speed entry of information for processing. Often because you have to enter the formula in reverse in order to enter the parenthesis in their right order. In other words you have to work out the end of the formula before you can total up, what is going to have to be placed in the senseless parenthesis. You need to know what it is you want to do with the added up values at the end of the formula.

    This is a redundant nightmare like problem if you really enter a lot of measurements and perform calculations on them. Nothing but parenthesis.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    You know, if you took the time to learn it, I'm sure you'd love Polish notation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    You know, if you took the time to learn it, I'm sure you'd love Polish notation.

    No, I saw it. Just looked like a waste of time. This system I am talking about was built to burn.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •