Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 06:27:48 UTC No. 16471713
>>16471482
yes.
Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 09:12:39 UTC No. 16471791
>>16471482
Yes, they’re just photons. The whole “anti” thing is very antiquated. We now know that particles are categorized by their parity and charge conjugation properties.
If you go by charge conjugation, photons are in the adjoint representation of the gauge group, which is real and thus invariant under charge conjugation (charge conjugation is just a physicist’s term for Hermitian adjoint). So by the charge conjugation criterion, anti-photons are the same as photons.
If you go by parity, then there are two types of photons according to their circular polarization: clockwise and counterclockwise. In that sense, a photon can be taken to have counterclockwise polarization and an anti-photon can be taken to have clockwise polarization. This is how we actually categorize neutrinos vs anti-neutrinos, since they are invariant under (electromagnetic) charge conjugation.
Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 09:38:42 UTC No. 16471800
>>16471791
Why don't they annihilate then?
Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 09:54:22 UTC No. 16471809
>>16471800
You mean between each other? They don't self-interact.
Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 09:56:55 UTC No. 16471810
>>16471809
>why don't they annihilate
>because they don't
bravo
Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 10:06:39 UTC No. 16471818
>>16471810
No, they don't annihilate because they don't self-interact. They don't self-interact because the underlying gauge group, U(1), is abelian. The photons commute.
Gluons are also their own antiparticles, but they annihilate between each other just fine, because their group is non-abelian.
Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 14:34:46 UTC No. 16471966
>>16471818
>>why don't they annihilate
>>because they don't
>bravo
Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 14:51:48 UTC No. 16471978
>>16471966
I'm sorry that you're retarded, anon.
Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 14:52:16 UTC No. 16471979
>>16471791
>The whole “anti” thing is very antiquated
Hah. I get it
Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 14:54:37 UTC No. 16471981
>>16471791
Clockwise and counterclockwise/anticlockwise are also rapidly becoming antiquated.
Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 15:46:21 UTC No. 16472019
>>16471966
lol, dumbass
Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 16:37:23 UTC No. 16472067
>>16471818
>why don't they annihilate
>because math
bravo
Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 17:07:07 UTC No. 16472087
>>16472067
stick to humanities lol
Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 17:08:36 UTC No. 16472090
>>16471810
Modern ""'physics""" in a nutshell
Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 19:44:02 UTC No. 16472277
>>16471979
wouldn't this mean they are quated?
Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 21:43:27 UTC No. 16472429
>>16471482
they called dark matter
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 01:27:53 UTC No. 16472684
>>16471818
If the W and Z bosons have an underlying SU(2) symmetry, what do their self-interactions look like?
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 04:09:27 UTC No. 16472932
>>16471966
Likely conservation, laws, just because ones wobbling one way, and the other is wobbling another way, doesn't mean if they bump into each other, the net of wobbling energy would vanish to 0
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 13:49:46 UTC No. 16473344
>>16472684
Similar to gluons’ self-interactions. Unlike the case for gluons, those are very hard to detect because of the high masses of W and Z’s. They usually only have an effect in loop corrections at low energies.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 13:51:56 UTC No. 16473347
>>16471818
Is there such thing as “disabelian”, sir? How that one is different from abelian?
🗑️ Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 13:53:28 UTC No. 16473350
>>16473347
An algebraic object is abelian if its elements commute. Numbers are abelian, for examole. Matrices are non-abelian because for two arbitrary matrices, AB = BA.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 13:55:15 UTC No. 16473355
>>16473347 #
An algebraic object is abelian if its elements commute. Numbers are abelian, for examole. Matrices are non-abelian because for two arbitrary matrices, AB =/= BA.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 15:44:31 UTC No. 16473463
>>16471818
This is not an explanation though. What you are saying is that photons belong to a class of physical phenomena whose choice of mathematical model precludes annihilation.
To really drive this home, imagine if retard OP asked "why do my shoes get wet when it rains?" and you answered "because the underlying abelian footwear group have RAINU(1) symmetry, they don't self-hydrophobia"
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 15:47:25 UTC No. 16473465
>>16473355
That's abeliest language and problematic.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 16:07:49 UTC No. 16473489
>>16471482
>photon don't have a charge
>can there be anti-photons?
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 16:33:55 UTC No. 16473512
>>16473489
>artillery do not charge
>is there anti-artillery?
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 16:38:42 UTC No. 16473517
>>16471818
>the mathematical abstractions we came up with say they don't
physics is an unironic meme. you inserted maths before reality in a causal chain, as if your symbol manipulations are what cause reality to occur
go outside, you're obviously lost in the sauce
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 16:40:20 UTC No. 16473519
>>16473512
I've read this many times and pondered it for several minutes. The only response I can come up is "what?"
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 17:00:35 UTC No. 16473536
>>16471810
Aunt Minnie is in the hospital.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 17:02:17 UTC No. 16473538
>>16473463
>whose choice of mathematical model precludes annihilation
This choice uniquely determines the form of Maxwell’s equations and QED corrections to them. And that’s what we observe. We observe Coulomb, Biot-Savart and Lenz’s laws. All of these can be derived from the fact that the underlying field is spin 1, massless and in the adjoint representation of U(1). No other Lorentz invariant field theory produces these equations. All of these things are very restrictive because both special relativity and quantum mechanics have strict mathematical concepts behind them.
When OP asks these things, there is no point in handwaving with bullshit explanations because annihilation is a precise mathematical concept. The burden of understanding this concept is on the OP; if he doesn’t want to then he should not had asked the question in the first place.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 17:04:38 UTC No. 16473540
>>16471482
No, they don't exist.
>>16471791
Blah, blah, blah let's treat different polarizations as though they were different charges. Whatever dude. No one knows whether the neutrino is Majorana particle anyway, and if it is, it is better to say the neutrino does not have an antiparticle either.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 17:05:03 UTC No. 16473541
>>16473517
see
>>16473538
If you are too dumb to understand math and abstract concepts, choose something more your speed and fuck off.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 17:07:16 UTC No. 16473542
>>16473540
>let's treat different polarizations as though they were different charges
Wtf are you on about? I have never said that.
>No one knows whether the neutrino is Majorana particle anyway, and if it is, it is better to say the neutrino does not have an antiparticle either.
This is completely irrelevant and the whole point of my original post was that muh antiparticle is a meaningless term because there are two reflection symmetries at play, not one.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 17:44:59 UTC No. 16473584
>>16473542
>>16473538
But that's a semantic break. Anti = Opposite = Inverse -> Annilation x+-x=0.
So yeah it is what it is, but it is wrong to call it "anti".
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 23:10:01 UTC No. 16473994
>>16471810
be thankful for photons to not interact with each other, anon.
think about it for a moment.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 23:18:23 UTC No. 16474003
>>16471800
they're already annihilated. they are electromagnetic radiation after all.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 23:56:17 UTC No. 16474051
>>16473994
What's there to think about? Black holes evaporate because annihilation is denied.