Philipp Meier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 11:57:33AM +0200, vdongen wrote: > > Kelvin is based on the kinetic energy, which is 1/5 mv^2.
Isn't that � mv� ? In any case, it doesn't make any difference to the argument. > > to get a negative K you need a negative m since a negative v will also > > result in a positive kinetic energy. An imaginary magnitude for v will do it, though. Don't ask me what this looks like. > > Since anti-mass has been proofed, negative K is possible without > > Irrational numbers or complex numbers. > > Does anti-matter really has m < 0? Antimatter, where it has mass at all, has positive mass. See, for example, <http://www.sciam.com/askexpert/physics/physics56/>: The mass of any antiparticle is identical to that of the particle. All the rest of its properties are also closely related, but with the signs of all charges reversed. Here's a few more relevant pages: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/grav_antimatter.html http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/neg_temperature.html http://www.physlink.com/ae257.cfm http://www.udel.edu/mvb/PS146htm/146nosr6.html -- Carey Evans http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/c.evans/ "Quiet, you'll miss the humorous conclusion."
