Re: [curiosa] Re: Debian Centre of Mass
Philipp Meier <meier@o-matic.de> 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 ½ mv² ? 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."
Reply to: