/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10028851
>antimatter is moving backwards in time
interesting assertion

you just make that up?

>>10028862
No

>>10028862
Its true.
Its charge parity time (CPT) transformation that makes this possible.

anti-matter isn't anti anything. It's just inverted.
It's like saying putting the batteries in your gameboy backwards allows you to play the game in reverse.

>>10028866
>>10028880
so radioactive decay of anti-mater doesnt happen? Like a piece of anti-plutonium wouldnt decay, it would spontaniously increase in anti-mass by absorbing neutrons from the surrounding area or something?

i think you're wrong, that doesnt make sense.

>>10028884
That's like saying connecting two batteries reserve destroys both batteries.

>>10028884
>he never used the battery reverse glitch to get mewtwo before the first gym

>>10028894
>decay of anti-mater doesnt happen?
I think it still would happen since antimatter has basically the same properties like regular matter, only it has negative energy or something like that.

Oh I have found two easy to understand explanations if anybody is interested.
>https://www.quora.com/Why-are-anti-particles-defined-as-particles-having-negative-energy-and-propagating-backward-in-time-in-solutions-for-the-Dirac-equation

>https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-anti-particle-wavefunctions-evolve-backwards-in-time

>>10028851
That could have been more clever:

>Tomorrow's reminder that antimatter is moving backwards in time.

>>10028907
>it has a negative energy or something like that
>something like that
Wasn't you dropped at your head when you was small or something like that?

>>10030403
I didnt study the dirac equation so i wasnt sure. No bully plx

>>10028851
Daily reminder that antimatter is available at your regional hospital

>>10028894
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiparticle#Feynman%E2%80%93Stueckelberg_interpretation

>>10028862
>you just make that up?
OP here, yes.

>>10028894
>so radioactive decay of anti-mater doesnt happen?
it happens
>Like a piece of anti-plutonium wouldnt decay, it would spontaniously increase in anti-mass by absorbing neutrons from the surrounding area or something?
The charge-parity-time-reversed version of decay is possible, but you need to have the decay products collide with each other; it doesn't just magically draw them in.

What does this mean exactly?
That over time their entropy decreases?

>>10031634
for anti-mater, entropy is reversed

if matter and anti-matter collide, entropy is destroyed from existence

>>10028851
Daily remind that just because mathematical language makes this possible, it doesn't necessarily make this a reality, as math is an abstracted model and not "the language of the universe" as the science nigger has convinced redditors to believe.

>>10031817
true
>>10028894
good debunking

It's just a convention in the Feyemann graphs. By the way, it hardly makes sense to say something like "moving back in time", if you think about it. When you solve the Dirac equation you get that the two solution must have energies with opposite sign (but you could also assign the negative energy to the real particle, since the sign of the exponential argument in the solution is purely conventional). All that matter is that the effect of the phase term on one particle wavefunction (related to the normal evolution of time) is "like" the effect on its antiparticle if for that particle the time would go backward.
But physically speaking, i repeat it, say that a particle moves "backward in time" is bullshit (it just doesn't make any sense).
In the feymann graphs, this imply an arrow that goes in the opposite direction of the time one (and CONVETIONALLY we assign the positive time direction to the particle). I didn't take full QED so i don't know, mathematically, where it exactly come out.

>>10031817
You can't know. Unreasonable effectiveness of math (and cs) is surprising.

>>10028894
>so radioactive decay of anti-mater doesnt happen? Like a piece of anti-plutonium wouldnt decay
The opposite. Whereas "positive" matter decays into photons, antimatter is produced by the collision of photons. This is the reason there is so little antimatter in the universe: our universe is still young. But over time we can expect all matter to turn first into energy, and eventually into antimatter. At that point the cycle will begin again, with antimatter in place of matter.

>>10032468

Im kinda uncertain if youre pulling that out of your ass. elaborate ?

>>10028851
>>10028880
Entropy decides the direction of time. It's the same for matter and anti matter.

What is time?

I never understood why lamarr was all bloody.
if she's tamed surely she wouldn't have been sucking heads recently, unless of course she's only tame around kleiner+friends and kleiner lets her out to go hunting. which really wouldn't make sense because I think alyx and many others would be gravely morally offended, and besides kleiner said she was harmless and "debeaked" anyway, whatever that means.
and surely kleiner wouldn't have picked an adult headcrab to tame and keep as a pet; one that had already zombified who knows how many innocent people. he would have raised one from a... headcrab egg, or whatever. and even if lamarr was a previously bad adult headcrab, why hasn't the blood been washed away by now?

>>10033162
sometimes we need to eat, too.

>>10032334
Whether you can know or not is irrelevant, maths is still an abstract symbolism. That one might later use it to meaningfully describe something doesn't change what it is.

>>10033162
autism

>>10031817
Sort of. It's like language, where you can say absurd but grammatically correct sentences. The content and context matter for both.