Talk:Dirac sea

message: I just added an assessment rating, but, as my knowledge of physics is limited to the equivalent to 1 year of freshman level physics in college, I have never dealt with a Dirac Sea, nor do I know its importance.  [Whoops, didn't read article carfully enough, missed a part I asked a question about.  Question removed. Sorry]Oneoverzero 20:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Importance Rating

message: The section on modern applications using the Dirac sea to explain semiconductors is misleading, at best.  The valence band is not like an infinite sea of electrons, and holes in no way resemble positrons.  Hole's are merely the absence of an electron in a band, allowing the net charge of a substance to become more positive.  Positrons are very different creatures indeed (see the first several sentences of the wiki article on electronic holes).  this section should be changed and/or removed.  Play4thesport (talk) 18:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Modern Applications

message: I'm proposing the removal of any plot-spoiling references to whatever fictional media is mentioned in the "In Fiction" section, specifically the bit regarding Chaos;Head. Such elements are not necessary to the informational purposes of the article and as such should be removed to avoid the unnecessary spoiling of various plot devices. -Randazzius 05:05 PM July 09, 2009 (EST)
That being said, no part of it is a plot spoiler, since you'd technically need to understand the concepts of the game first, and by that time, it would no longer be a plot spoiler. Sooo zetta slow! 16:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: In Fiction

message: Evangelion provides a very easy to understand explanation/interpretation of the Dirac Sea. I suggest that this article make mention of the Dirac Sea and how it is used in evangelion.67.84.159.28 (talk) 16:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basic explanation 

message: "Here the negative solution is antimatter, discovered by Carl Anderson as the positron." I thought the positron (and antimatter in general) has both positive mass and positive energy, so it would not correspond to the negative solution E = −mc². Is there something I'm missing, or is the article misleading? --Jmk (talk) 12:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The positron is often described as the absence of a negative energy electron, thereby giving it positive energy and charge. As is usual in quantum theory, such word descriptions are necessarily rather loose analogies, but relating negative energy solutions of the equations to antiparticles is clearly valid in the context of the standard model. See also the history section of the positron article. Tim Shuba (talk) 18:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Sigh I wish people would sign there comments.  Actually your point about negative matter is slightly off.  Most people confused the negative mass-energy density that is called for by wormholes as negative matter.  In reality, it is very similar to the negative energy states when we talk about quantum foam or antimatter-matter reaction. Physics16 (talk) 14:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Negative solution? 

message: Calling Dirac's sea an ether would be wrong, I believe, as an ether lacks relative vantage and since he applied relativity and quantum mechanics to Maxwell's ether, it stopped being an ether and became a quantum field theory that attempt to unify with relativity.  Semantics, but ether was debunked because of its definite non-relative vantage... unlike fields.
Also, how would this http://www.universetoday.com/84934/antigravity-could-replace-dark-energy-as-cause-of-universes-expansion/ fit in with Dirac's theory, assuming you removed his monopoles idea and otherwise updated it? -Reticuli 71.65.115.103 (talk) 21:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  anti-gravity 

message: I am confused by this statement in the article: "The existence of the sea implies an infinite positive electric charge filling all of space. In order to make any sense out of this, one must assume that the "bare vacuum" must have an infinite negative charge density which is exactly cancelled by the Dirac sea."
I have two questions.  The first is that, since the article emphasizes the example of electrons so heavily, if this statement refers to a Dirac sea of electrons, wouldn't such a sea have an infinite negative charge?  In which case the "bare vacuum" would have to balance that somehow by possessing an infinite positive charge?  "Holes" in this electron sea are what would act like isolated positive charges in this case, but the sea itself would be negative.  However, the statement in the article does not mention electrons explicitly; so, could it be referring to something else, such as protons perhaps?  This leads to my next question.  Since all of the fermion particles must have their own seas in Dirac's picture, and since positively and negatively charged fundamental fermions exist in equal proportions, I don't understand why the vacuum needs to have any intrinsic charge density at all.  The variety of different fermions can balance their own charges easily enough.  Is the concern that these different seas wouldn't naturally be expected to fill to equal zero-point energy levels, so that something about the vacuum would be necessary to force this?50.174.178.168 (talk) 05:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electric Charge of the Dirac Sea