Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site watmath.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!csc
From: csc@watmath.UUCP (Computer Sci Club)
Newsgroups: net.physics
Subject: Re: Anti-Matter -> Anti-Energy??
Message-ID: <7850@watmath.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 24-May-84 20:23:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: watmath.7850
Posted: Thu May 24 20:23:10 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 30-May-84 09:06:45 EDT
References: <13000001@hp-pcd.UUCP>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 23

The idea is that the universe has a fixed amount of energy.  This energy
comes in many forms one of which is Matter (with a capital M).  Matter
comes in two forms matter, and anti-matter.  Both are a form of energy.
(a proton and an anti-proton represent the same amount of energy). 
Certain conservations laws state that if matter is created or destroyed
then an equivalent amount of anti-matter must be created or destroyed.
We do not need an anti-energy in this model.
   One could postulate an anti-energy, call it negative energy, from
which was formed negative matter.  In the same way as a proton and
an anti-proton combine to give a burst of energy, a proton and a
negative proton would comine to give nothing.  The problem with this
theory is that there one would expect the oposite to occur, that is
nothing decay to form a proton and a negative proton (which would
have negative kinetic energy, whatever that means).  We do not
observe protons and negative protons popping out of nowhere (at least
we do not observe protons, we might not be able to easily detect
negative protons, exept perhaps by watching protons disappear) so
this model loses credibility.
                                     William Hughes

Interesting idea though it would alow one to get around the first
law without breaking it.