Wait, virtual particle don't decay though, they annihilate don't they? (I am unsure what the significant difference might be)
And annihilation of virtual particles don't create any energy since there was none... But this makes me wonder, what about particles that there isn't an antimatter version of? I am not well versed on particle physics, but I can only think of the photon. Is there an anti-higgs? But while there isn't an anti-photon, photons do kinda cancel in an EMF sense, this can be seen whe one looks at the EMF around a receiving antenna, it creates an opposing EMF. But this reminds me of a thought I have often had, we assume that light absorbed (to our senses) is light somehow stopped, but could not not be seen as the superimposition of an opposite photon, both of which then carry on to the ends of the universe unimpeded as they interact with nothing as they equal zero? But still existing, just as the net zero magnetic flux around a torrid transformer can induce a voltage. Sure, this might not be able to make it's presence felt in the same way, but logically it would still exist as I guess information. John On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > If the created particles were mesons, these particles would decay into > electrons and neutrinos. I suspect that an experiment can be prepared to > detect those electrons. Also the mesons would effect the rate of nuclear > decay of radioactive isotopes. > > On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 5:56 PM, John Berry <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Ok, just a thought... >> >> But if there are particles popping into (semi)existence for a moment... >> If it were full existence their annihilation would not be so eventless. >> >> Then could these particles be effected by magnetic and electric fields? >> Could they react as other materials do? >> >> Could they actually act as at least part of the electric and magnetic >> field carrying capacity of the vacuum? (the permittivity and permeability >> of free space). >> >> I am unsure what interesting implications come from this line of >> reasoning, but I bet there are some. >> >> John >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> No one knows what is going on in the vacuum. If real particles are being >>> produced by EMF in the vacuum, then the drive is not reactionless. >>> >>> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 4:23 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> That is the point Robin. In the case of a car you can find where all >>>> of the original mass is located after the car accelerates to a new >>>> velocity. It might not be easy, but it can be done. >>>> >>>> The reactionless drive spaceship can not find the lost mass that is >>>> assumed to be converted into energy to generate thrust. A person onboard >>>> the ship will only see that the mass of his ship is depleted since his >>>> velocity is constant after the drive is cut off as far as he knows. Of >>>> course he will feel the acceleration as the drive is powered, but he has no >>>> way to determine his velocity relative to the universe before or after that >>>> occurs. Velocity is relative to the observer. >>>> >>>> If we take this process to the extreme, lets assume that 90% of the >>>> mass of the original ship is consumed by the energy required to operate the >>>> reactionless drive. Once the drive is shut down the spaceman begins to >>>> drift in space. As far as he can observe, he is sitting still in space and >>>> has no kinetic energy. But where did all that original mass end up? It >>>> just vanished, which makes no sense. >>>> >>>> With a normal ship that relies upon the conservation of momentum all of >>>> the mass that has been ejected can be located. Whether in the form of >>>> electromagnetic waves or raw mass that was ejected, the total will be the >>>> same as before the drive is activated. This makes complete sense and is >>>> what has been demonstrated so far in real life. >>>> >>>> In the first case mass has been lost without anything to show for its >>>> existence. In the second one, nothing is missing and everything adds up as >>>> expected. I find it very difficult to believe that both situations are >>>> possible. >>>> >>>> How would you explain to the spaceman on the ship powered by a >>>> reactionless drive where most of the mass of his ship is now located? Have >>>> atoms of fuel actually disappeared? Even if some form of nuclear reaction >>>> is used to power the drive he can not locate the energy generated by the >>>> nuclear process. >>>> >>>> Dave >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: mixent <[email protected]> >>>> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> >>>> Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 3:26 pm >>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. >>>> >>>> In reply to David Roberson's message of Fri, 21 Nov 2014 23:25:41 -0500: >>>> Hi, >>>> [snip] >>>> >My consideration of reactionless drives is based upon the observation >>>> >that the >>>> mass of atoms, molecules, and all other forms of matter remain a constant >>>> to the >>>> local observer at least. I include the mass that can be attributed to >>>> energy >>>> which is either emitted by some action of the matter or absorbed in other >>>> ways. >>>> So far, every attempt that I have made to calculate or measure this >>>> combination >>>> yields the same result. As you know, the total mass-energy would have to >>>> change >>>> if the system were to be subject to a reactionless drive. >>>> > >>>> >>>> It's just the same as a car on a road. You know that some of the energy in >>>> the >>>> fuel ends up as kinetic energy of the car, and this doesn't surprise you >>>> at all. >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Robin van Spaandonk >>>> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
