Out of curiosity i was watching some physics documentaries. They threw out quantum theory and relativity and i have taken a modern physics course. I cant say i remember antimatter ever coming up in lecture. Im curious about the math.
I get that the double split experiment comfirmed the dual nature of particles but how does that tell me anything about antimatter?
I found this paper on google "The Dirac Equation and the Prediction of Antimatter" that answered all my questions
he antimatter comes out of the relativistic quantum equation of Dirac, which in particular admits solutions with negative energy
or with negative time, see Feynman diagrams
In any case, these anti-states were interpreted by Dirac himself as anti-particles: the experiments gave him reason
I have it in book form:
http://multimidia.ufrgs.br/conteudo/frontdaciencia/dirac antimatter paper.pdf
I'll read it, (I did not understand, in what sense it did not work out)See my post #6. This is not a valid explanation of antimatter; Dirac initially thought it was, but it didn't work out.
rightIf you mean "going backwards in time",
In the diagrams of feynman, an antiparticle is represented as a particle that goes back in time, we agree? (the arrow is antiparallel to the time axis), in accordance with the initial interpretation of Dirac in which the negative time solutions were just antiparticlesthis is one interpretation of Feynman diagrams, yes; but Feynman diagrams themselves are tools used in perturbation theory, not fundamental explanations of anything.
exactly, what I wanted to say, but I do not see where the problem is: a theoretical prediction is then confirmed by the experiments, quite normal in physics, (when physics is right..) like Higgs boson, just to cite an exampleNo, Dirac came up with his anti-particle interpretation before any experimental evidence existed for antiparticles. The positron was discovered based on his prediction that antiparticles should exist.
(I did not understand, in what sense it did not work out)
In the diagrams of feynman, an antiparticle is represented as a particle that goes back in time, we agree?
in accordance with the initial interpretation of Dirac in which the negative time solutions were just antiparticles
a theoretical prediction is then confirmed by the experiments
You can only count an experiment as a confirmation of a particular theory if there are no other theories that can explain the same experimental result.
In the case of antiparticles, quantum field theory explains their existence, and does so without the issues that Dirac's model has (again, the most obvious example is that QFT explains why bosons have antiparticles, whereas Dirac's model does not, and antiparticles of bosons have been experimentally detected).
I really don't think that Dirac's hole theory should count as a wrong guess.
Dirac didn't need to describe bosons in order for his theory of fermions to be essentially correct.
I don't see QFT as an alternative to Dirac's hole theory, but a cleaning up of it.