Michael J. Strickland wrote:
> What would be the implications of negative mass?
AIUI, through the equivalence of mass an energy, negative mass would imply
negative energy. So if we had control over enough negative energy, we could
build an Alcubierre-style warp drive.
> I'm not talking about anti-matter which is positive mass with opposite
> charge (and other properties) like a positron.
ACK.
> I'm talking about an electron or a positron with a mass of -9.11 e-31 kg
> instead of +9.11 e-31 kg.
That does not make sense. If it exists it would be a particle with negative
mass, but then it could not be an electron or a positron.
> Would it repel positive mass and attract other negative masses?
AIUI, yes.
> If we could find or produce anti-mass, would we observe anti-gravity?
Yes, see above.
> Are mass and charge both manifestations of the same thing?
No.
> Could we model them as the real and imaginary components of a complex
> charge/mass (inertia?). I've tried but it doesn't seem to help much.
Your “complex charge/mass (inertia?)” would have to keep charge conserved,
but not mass. That is probably why this approach has failed.
> Is mass required to contain charge?
Mu. Mass is a physical quantity, a property of particles and therefore
matter; so is charge. Mass does not contain charge or vice-versa. To
assume otherwise is a common misconception among crackpots (since you are
referring to John Baez on the bottom of your posting, you are probably
familiar with his Crackpot Index).
If instead you are asking whether a particle with non-zero mass has to have
non-zero electric charge, then within the Standard Model of particle physics
(SM) the correct answer is “No”: There are particles in the SM with non-zero
mass that have zero electric charge, namely neutrinos (their mass is
comparably small, but neutrino oscillation [2015 Nobel Prize in Physics]
indicates that it cannot be zero), the Z and the Higgs boson.
<
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model>
> There is currently nothing with charge that is massless.
Yes, but that argument is a fallacy:
<
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent>
> Is the electron/positron the mass quantum or has it been replaced by
> the new massive neutrinos?
Mu. And, apparently, mass is not quantized.
> Could neutrinos be small couplets of positive and negative charge
> thereby rendering it the new mass quantum?
Mu.
> Could photons be the ultimate charge and mass quantums with a tiny
> amount of both?
No.
> Has anyone done my experiment to detect charge in/on a photon yet?
>
> [Shine a light on a blackbody situated between two capacitor plates
> for a long time and see if the electric field measured between the
> plates (outside the block) changes. If any charge (even equal amounts
> of positive and negative charge) is deposited in/on the block, it
> should increase the dielectric constant (and epsilon) of the block,
> increasing the capacitance, and reducing the measured electric field
> (E) in response to a constant applied electric field (D).]
Have you done it? If no, why not? If yes, what are your results?
> And back to my favorite, WHAT IS CHARGE?
Electric charge is a conserved physical quantity, and a property of
particles.
> I still (after decades of patiently waiting) have received no satisfactory
> answer from the world of physics.
Probably because you are asking all the wrong questions.
<
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_(physics)>
> Is it just a "magic dollop" that is bestowed on some particles without
> any detectable change to the particles themselves other than the way
> they interact with other particles with the same or opposite
> "dollops"?
No.
> So is charge invisible?
No.
> Is it massless?
Mu.
> If you could crawl up close to (and inside of) an electron and a
> positron,
Electron and positrons are *elementary* particles. This means:
1. They are point-like; they do not have an inside.
2. It is impossible to crawl up close to an electron or a positron.
In order to find an electron or positron, you have to observe it first.
In order to observe it, you have to have another particle, e.g. a photon,
interact with the former. Thereby you are changing at least the momentum
of the particle to be observed.
<
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)>
> wouldn't they have to "look different" to "be different?
In a given version of string theory, the vibrational state of a string for a
electron is different than that for a positron. The problem with string
theory is the lack of experimental evidence.
However, in the same electromagnetic field, electrons and positrons of the
same spin have different trajectories because of their different electric
charge, and therefore can be told apart.
Also, an electron and another electron repel each other (which is the reason
for electricity); while an electron and a positron annihilate each other,
producing e.g. at least a pair of photons. So you can tell apart electrons
and positrons that way, too.
> I say they must.
Obviously.
> How much of the electron's mass is required to contain its negative
> charge?
Mu.
> An electron has 3 times the charge of a down quark
Correct.
> yet it is at least 3 times lighter.
The electron has a mass that is less than 1∕9 of the mass of the down quark.
> Where does it squeeze all that extra 2/3 negative charge in or conversely,
> how does the down quark dilute its 1/3 negative charge over 3 times the
> mass as an electron.
Apparently, quarks observe color confinement rules, so no single quark has
been observed to date.
Quarks are ascribed multiples of 1∕3 e so that the mathematics of the quark
model works out. Fortunately, all experiments so far agree with that model.
> These are the kind of things that try us EE's souls
What is “EE”?
There is an extra space in your posted name which you might want to fix.
--
PointedEars
Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.