Thursday, May 04, 2006

Once Upon a SpaceTime...

... A brilliant physicist by the name of, Paul Adrian Maurice Dirac, unified Einstein's, Special Relativity Theory, with Quantum Mechanics, by way of what is known as the Dirac Equation. This was rightfully hailed as a great feat in the world of theoretical physics, and he won the Nobel Prize for this contribution.

A funny thing about this, though, was that there are four solutions of the equation. Two of them correspond nicely to the two spin states of the electron. The other two solutions, however, extend to a strange prediction that there is an infinite set of quantum states where the electron has negative energy.

The two equations,

E=mc^2 and E^2=m^2*c^4

...are only different if there is a physical meaning to the negative mass and negative energy values, where the second equation allows for both positive and negative mass-energy solutions.

The expression arises from the fact that the magnitude^2 of the momentum four-vector is given by....


In the case of a body at rest, p=0, which leads to...


The concept of negative mass arises by analogy with electric charges, where the formula for the energy of a relativistic particle...


...derives that a particle with a certain positive energy but no momentum could theoretically have a positive or negative mass!

This brings us to his "hole theory", where Dirac rationalized the negative energy solutions by reinterpreting the vacuum state so that all of the negative energy states are filled, and all of the positive energy states are empty.

Dirac's theory was flawed in-spite its success at predicting the existence of the "Positron", because it can't fully account for particles of negative energy, since it is restricted to positive energy particles, but the Quantum Field Theory representaton for this is not an accurate representation of Dirac's negative energy states.
Dirac's hole theory and quantum field theory are generally thought to be equivalent. In fact field theory can be derived from hole theory through the process of second quantization. However, it can be shown that problems worked in both theories yield different results.

And therin lies the problem that has not been resolved by *any* "reinterpretation" of the vacuum state, and so the quantum expectation for the energy density of the vacuum is about 120 plus orders of magnitude^ greater than it should be without the assumption of an "ad hoc" suppression mechanism to cover this "little" discrepency.

The problem goes back to the negative mass absurdity that falls from the Dirac Equation, and QFT's "ad hoc" assumption is what I meant when I previously said that science has assumed the flaw, rather than to fix it, which only carries and compounds the problems when extended to Quantum Gravity theories of all varieties.

- - - - - - - - - -


Daniel Morgan said...


do you comment on triablogue as "eklektos"? This fellow also has doubts about "positron regions". He is also a creationist from Florida. Just a lot of coincidence there...


island said...

Hi danny, it's quite likely that I have posted at those blogs, but I'm an atheist.

Just out of curiosity, what makes you think that I'm a creationist?... Is it because of my support for the anthropic principle?

joshbowling said...

An athiest who believes in magic?

island said...

No, that would be those who believe that infinities and multiverses supercede the special implications of the physics for the anthropic principle.

I'm guessing that would be you, but you'll have to be more specific for me to know for sure.

So, do you have a single exampled point to make, or will you just leave it at nothing relevant to anything that you will find on my site?

joshbowling said...

Well if your totally not our lord and savior jesus christ designer is that awesome at making universes with life he probably had to make infinite ones for his infinite glory. Thats a problem.

Look on the bright side, none of this matters if there is enough dark matter to ensure a big crunch. (my belief in case you were wondering)

Then the universe is infinitely old and every possible set of laws could have every possible set of variations, at one time or another that is... including one for life as know it. Probably a few for life as we don't know it. That life if evoloved to thinking capacity would also assume that life could only be composed of whatever exotic material they dwell in.

This leaves out those multiple universes that you hate and those magical old men who live in a different universe from us and want us to be good boys and girls that I hate.

But if you are one of those ultra rare the earth is like 10,000 years old and all life sprang forward within a few days of each other "except dinosaurs they are a lie of the liberal media" type athiests... Well you are never going to be happy.

island said...

Then the universe is infinitely old and every possible set of laws could have every possible set of variations

No, that's false, and you only have evidence that entropy always increases without making the unfounded, unsupported, and wishful leaps of faith to whatever form of religion that you're practicing without something more than your "belief" to support your belief... whoops!... Popularized speculation does not supercede empiricism when it is not necessary, so without equally hard **physics** to prove your lame claim is a more accurate representation of nature than a model that does not require such wild, unproven ideas, then you lose when it comes to the necessarily prferred theory, so sorry, try again, except with physics this time. Not somebody's theory says this...

Also, just an FYI, but your statements indicate that you have no clue whatsoever where I'm coming from, so you should either take the time to study it all very carefully, or keep exposing your foolishness which makes you appear not to understand much of anything that's related to physics.

joshbowling said...

I write my blog for generally my friends who are generally ex and current art students and such. So I don't get technical or even really dwell on this too much. (of 74 posts about 4 or so are critical of intelligent design)

cyclical theory of universe will probably turn out wrong but thats fine because if it takes one step closer to discovering the truth then its fine by me.

the anthropic cosmological principle is giving up. Its giving up and it runs contrary to the very spirit of science.

I do applaud you on at least being a step above the young earth people.

In theory I would have no problem with your scientific views. You aren't a young earth person (I don't think anyway) and I haven't seen any posts on your page incorrectly claiming missing links. So you probably believe in evolution too.

You refuse to be civil. You never explained how you are an athiest who believes in intelligent design.

I've become rather curious now.

I am an athiest too but even before that I didn't try to find God in the world. God didn't want to be found or he would have. He wouldn't have led humanity in a wild goose chase throughout the cosmos for vague hints.

Thats all a moot point now.

By definition an atheist basically believes in what can be proven.
You are advocating what cannot be proven ever.

island said...


You never explained how you are an athiest who believes in intelligent design.

um... because I never said the first word about intelligent design... because I DON'T "believe" in intelligent design, and you have made a fatal error by assuming that the anthropic principle can possibly have anything to do with ID without direct proof that this is the case.

You also didn't do "much" homework or you'd know that, but I'm going to post a new blog entry later when I have time to address the rest of your misconceptions in more general terms that don't specifically attack your ignorance of the subject, as this is a common affliction of neodarwinians who don't know thr difference between intrinsic finality and god...

Rather... they buy straight into the creationist's hype like little sheep, because they can't fathom how it might be possible that we are not here by accident, yet this is only physics...


Anonymous said...

Very pretty design! Keep up the good work. Thanks.