Antimatter gravity could explain Universe's expansion

Apr 13, 2011 By Lisa Zyga feature
It’s possible that antimatter could exist in the voids between galaxy clusters and superclusters. Image credit: NASA and ESA.

(PhysOrg.com) -- In 1998, scientists discovered that the Universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. Currently, the most widely accepted explanation for this observation is the presence of an unidentified dark energy, although several other possibilities have been proposed. One of these alternatives is that some kind of repulsive gravity – or antigravity – is pushing the Universe apart. As a new study shows, general relativity predicts that the gravitational interaction between matter and antimatter is mutually repulsive, and could potentially explain the observed expansion of the Universe without the need for dark energy.

Ever since was discovered in 1932, scientists have been investigating whether its gravitational behavior is attractive – like normal matter – or repulsive. Although antimatter particles have the opposite electric charge as their associated matter particles, the masses of antimatter and matter particles are exactly equal. Most importantly, the masses are always positive. For this reason, most physicists think that the gravitational behavior of antimatter should always be attractive, as it is for matter. However, the question of whether the gravitational interaction between matter and antimatter is attractive or repulsive so far has no clear answer.

In the new study, Massimo Villata of the Osservatorio Astronomico di Torino (Observatory of Turin) in Pino Torinese, Italy, has shown that an answer can be found in the theory of general relativity. As Villata explains, the current formulation of general relativity predicts that matter and antimatter are both self-attractive, yet matter and antimatter mutually repel each other. Unlike previous antigravity proposals – such as the idea that antimatter is gravitationally self-repulsive – Villata’s proposal does not require changes to well-established theories. The study is published in a recent issue of EPL ().

“The significance of this study is actually twofold,” Villata told PhysOrg.com. “On one side, that of physics in general, it is to have shown that one of the most heretical concepts debated in the last several decades, i.e., that of antigravity, can be found as a prediction of the coupling of two of the best-established theories of the last century, providing the extension of general relativity to antimatter, considered as space-time-reversed matter, as requested by CPT symmetry. On the other side, the cosmological implications of this finding have shown antigravity as an alternative to (or explanation of) the wooly concept of for the accelerated expansion of the .”

Repulsive gravity

At first, the idea of repulsive gravity between matter and antimatter seems to go against intuition, since we usually consider mass to be the only component determining an object’s gravitational behavior. But as Villata explains, there is more than just mass involved in gravity. In this case, time and parity are involved.

The idea is based on the concept that all physical laws have CPT (charge, parity, and time) symmetry. CPT symmetry means that, in order to transform a physical system of matter into an equivalent antimatter system (or vice versa) described by the same physical laws, not only must particles be replaced with corresponding antiparticles (C operation), but an additional PT transformation is also needed.

From this perspective, antimatter can be viewed as normal matter that has undergone a complete CPT transformation, in which its charge, parity and time are all reversed. Even though the charge component does not affect gravity, parity and time affect gravity by reversing its sign. So although antimatter has positive mass, it can be thought of as having negative gravitational mass, since the gravitational charge in the equation of motion of is not simply the mass, but includes a factor that is PT-sensitive and yields the change of sign.

As Villata explains, CPT symmetry means that antimatter basically exists in an inverted spacetime (the P operation inverts space, and the T operation inverts time). He gives the following analogy: if an anti-apple falls onto the head of an anti-Newton sitting on an anti-Earth, it would fall in exactly the same way as if all of these objects were made of normal matter. But if an anti-apple falls on the (normal) Earth, or a (normal) apple falls on an anti-Earth, then the result is different. In both cases, a minus sign arises in the equation of motion, which reverses the gravitational interaction between the anti-apple and Earth, or apple and anti-Earth, making it repulsive.

Observations and experiments

The theoretical prediction of antigravity between matter and antimatter could have significant consequences, if it’s true. Whenever matter and antimatter meet, they annihilate and produce photons. But if matter and antimatter repel each other, then they would tend to isolate themselves apart from each other and not annihilate. The force of this matter-antimatter repulsion could explain why the Universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, eliminating the need for dark energy and possibly dark matter.

Villata suspects that antimatter could exist in the Universe in large-scale voids that have been observed in the distribution of galaxy clusters and superclusters. Previous studies have found that these voids can originate from small negative fluctuations in the primordial density field, which repel surrounding matter – as if they have a negative gravitational mass. With diameters of tens of megaparsecs (about a hundred million light years), these voids are the largest structures in the Universe. The problem is that, so far, researchers have not observed antimatter in these locations. Villata plans to investigate this question in a future study on the invisibility of antimatter in voids.

“The relevant ideas are there, but I'm looking for the best way to formalize them,” he said. “However, you can find anticipations on this and many other features of matter traveling backwards in time in the novel by Max Wells (which is my literary pseudonym, in honor of J. C. Maxwell and H. G. Wells), The Dark Arrow of Time, which is currently published only in Italian (La freccia oscura del tempo), but I hope to find an English publisher soon.”

As for testing the possibility of antigravity between matter and antimatter, the upcoming AEGIS experiment at CERN could provide some answers. The experiment will compare how the Earth’s affects hydrogen and antihydrogen atoms, and could give scientists a better understanding of antimatter’s gravitational properties.

“Antigravity has always been controversial, and likely it will still be so until we can get an experimental (or observational) response,” Villata said. “However, I hope that my work, in the meantime, can at least dissipate some prejudices against antigravity.”

Explore further: It's particle-hunting season! NYU scientists launch Higgs Hunters Project

More information: M. Villata. “CPT symmetry and antimatter gravity in general relativity.” EPL (Europhysics Letters), 94 (2011) 20001. DOI:10.1209/0295-5075/94/20001

4.8 /5 (50 votes)

Related Stories

Signs of dark matter may point to mirror matter candidate

Apr 27, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- Dark matter, which contains the "missing mass" that's needed to explain why galaxies stay together, could take any number of forms. The main possible candidates include MACHOS and WIMPS, but there is no shortage ...

UBC physicists make atoms and dark matter add up

Nov 29, 2010

Physicists at the University of British Columbia and TRIUMF have proposed a unified explanation for dark matter and the so-called baryon asymmetry -- the apparent imbalance of matter with positive baryon charge and antimatter ...

Recommended for you

Particles, waves and ants

21 hours ago

Animals looking for food or light waves moving through turbid media – astonishing similarities have now been found between completely different phenomena.

User comments : 243

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

WhiteJim
3 / 5 (4) Apr 13, 2011
negative time, negative mater and negative energies thrive in the voids between the galaxies. This can explains everything to do with dark energy and dark matter.

One thing is how to use it to explain the anomoly in the rotation speed of spiral galaxie?
nuge
4.7 / 5 (3) Apr 13, 2011
What are the implications of anti-matter possessing the property of negative time?
typicalguy
3.8 / 5 (13) Apr 13, 2011
It seems rather unethical to publish a paper to sell your book. After the 'working cold fusion' at the end of last year and now this, I start to wonder if any Italian scientist does actual science or if they just scam people into giving them money.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (22) Apr 13, 2011
If anti-matter is mutually attractive then shoudln't it clump together like regular matter does. More precisely: shouldn't we be seeing 'anti-stars' or even 'anti-galaxies' in the voids where he says anti-matter supposedly resides

(One might argue that some of the galaxies we do obserbe are anti-galaxies---but then we are back at the point where we have to account for a lot of missing mass/energy)
GreyLensman
4.7 / 5 (11) Apr 13, 2011
Unfortunately, in the real world, CPT is violated, demonstrating that it's not nearly as deep a concept as it sounds. The idea of antimatter being normal matter travelling back in time (with C&P reversed as well) is an old one and is just a model - like Dirac's original model of antimatter being "bubbles" in a sea of negative matter.
Furthermore, if voids were full of antimatter, they'd form anti stars and anti galaxies, and from a distance they'd look indistinguishable from normal stars and galaxies, so to us, there wouldn't be any voids. Additionally, the interface between the voids and "normal" regions of space would emit very characteristic gamma rays as the very sparse intergalactic matter in normal regions anhilates with the similarly sparse antimatter in the voids.
typicalguy
2.8 / 5 (5) Apr 13, 2011
What are the implications of anti-matter possessing the property of negative time?


Just a guess? With regular matter - gas collects, forms a giant star, the star burns, the star explodes, the star becomes a black hole, the black hole gives off hawking radiation and evaporates.

Reverse time: radiation collects and forms a white hole, the radiation combines to create mass and the white hole spits out matter until most of the radiation is converted to matter, the white hole implodes and sucks in additional gas, a dark star forms that sucks in photons and matter before breaking up into gas and scattering...that's time backwards, I'm not sure if they are implying that is what happens to anti-matter. this is eeverse entropy also.
Quantum_Conundrum
3.2 / 5 (6) Apr 13, 2011
If anti-matter is mutually attractive then shoudln't it clump together like regular matter does. More precisely: shouldn't we be seeing 'anti-stars' or even 'anti-galaxies' in the voids where he says anti-matter supposedly resides

(One might argue that some of the galaxies we do obserbe are anti-galaxies---but then we are back at the point where we have to account for a lot of missing mass/energy)


Was pretty much going to say the same thing.

However, there is another issue.

Is this an implication that some stars and galaxies formed in the FUTURE and moved backwards in time, growing "older" as they move into the past?

And if that is the case, would their photons (anti-photon) be moving backwards in time as well?
typicalguy
4.2 / 5 (6) Apr 13, 2011
QC:
This shouldn't be a concern for trillions of years since they won't form until the end of the universe? Of course,by this logic it follows that it can't be anti-matter repelling since it should all be anti-photons right now....

I don't think he is saying they actually move back in time like this. He is actually saying 'buy my book'. BTW, I don't think anti-photons are a real thing. Instead, many photons get together and turn into matter and anti-matter. It sounds like a scheme for an eternal universe if you take this theory to conclusion. This is a publicity stunt don't take it seriously.
kaasinees
1.4 / 5 (16) Apr 13, 2011
@typicalguy,

This hypothesis sounds far better than the big bang hypothesis.
typicalguy
4.6 / 5 (5) Apr 13, 2011
@typicalguy,

This hypothesis sounds far better than the big bang hypothesis.


I do find it an interesting thought experiment but the insertion of 'buy my book' makes it lose all credibility.
FainAvis
5 / 5 (1) Apr 13, 2011
Are there anti-neutrons? Or are neutrons their own antiparticle?
And:
If there were anti galaxies out there, forming in giant bubbles of anti space, should there be bubbles of regular space between large clustering anti galaxies? Like, which is the substance of the bubble and which is the inflating substance?
Surely we would be able to see areas of space crackling like the wire from the clock tower in Emmett Brown's rig at the interface between the two kinds of stuff?
xamien
not rated yet Apr 13, 2011
Is this an implication that some stars and galaxies formed in the FUTURE and moved backwards in time, growing "older" as they move into the past?

And if that is the case, would their photons (anti-photon) be moving backwards in time as well?


The evidence suggests no, given that other studies recently published suggest that light is unable to travel in closed timelike curves, which I would wager would be the required property in order for us to be able to see these backwards traveling universes.
ubavontuba
2.3 / 5 (9) Apr 13, 2011
Recently, we've seen some great science articles on this site ...this isn't one of them.

I wonder, was physorg paid for this advertisement?
SincerelyTwo
1 / 5 (2) Apr 13, 2011
I always thought 'Dark Matter' and 'Dark Energy' implied anti-matter and anti-gravity.
lengould100
1.5 / 5 (10) Apr 13, 2011
A waste of time. The requirement for dark matter to explain the rotation of galaxies is spurious, simply a case of an over-simplification in Einstein's equations of gravity. Since we don't even have correct theories to explain gravity at large-scale distances, how can we expect to explain the need for so-called "dark energy"? See MOG, "Re-inventing Gravity" by John Moffat (physicist, U of Toronto). Book review http://www.eetime...n-Moffat
jscroft
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 13, 2011
I think the best argument against this idea is the absence of "crackling at the interfaces". Or maybe not... there may have BEEN such crackling ten billion years ago, but now things have sorted themselves out such that any remaining crackling is completely obscured by the intervening interstellar (or intergalactic) medium.

What a great thought experiment, in any case! Any thoughts? Can we make this idea conform to observation, at least on the back of an envelope?

@FainAvis: Yes, there are antineutrons. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antineutron. And if you've been around here long enough, you may have detected the presence of anti-NEURONS, as well! :)
Baseline
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 13, 2011
anti-NEURONS ROFL...
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (10) Apr 13, 2011
Commonality. The reason antimatter is so scarce in the universe is the same reason that it is so scarce on earth. Matter influences other matter (anti or not) by the fields created due to direction of its spin. At great distances matter will cause antimatter to change its spin, effectively changing it into an atom common to our universe. The whole universe is polarized with common spin. At short distances matter influences antimatter still, this time due to location the change is more rapid and results in the annihilation of both the particle and the antiparticle.

The only antigravity force that exists is electromagnetism. Light causes matter to spread apart, gravity pulls it together. At short distances gravity is very powerful (hence celestial bodies), at long distance electromagnetism prevails (hence the distance between celestial bodies). The universe will always expand at a rate faster than it contracts ( with time the speed of expansion will continually increase ).
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (9) Apr 13, 2011
There are two true natural forces - the strong nuclear forces - and - electromagnetism - which stem from neutral space. The strong force is felt as gravity in the macro world. The weak force is nuclear decay, fractioning of nuclei by way of electromagnetism.
ZephirAWT
Apr 13, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
gwrede
4.4 / 5 (9) Apr 13, 2011
The force of this matter-antimatter repulsion could explain why the Universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, eliminating the need for dark energy and possibly dark matter.
This is not possible. Gravitational lenses would not work like it does, galactic rotational rates would not be as they are, if any form of repulsion is the cause.

This seems like a case of somebody willfully conjuring up dragons in the shades and then writing and selling a book about it. "As long as this is so complicated that nobody can dismiss this just off-hand, then I'm safe. And the more controversy, the more revenue."
ZephirAWT
Apr 13, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Pyle
3 / 5 (4) Apr 13, 2011
I am soooo confused. Why is there no discussion of redshift in this article??? Isn't the red shifting of distant galaxies our primary evidence for the accelerating expansion of the Universe? And this article discussing an alternative to DE doesn't even mention red shift?
jamesrm
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 13, 2011
"the wooly concept of dark energy" might just be replace by an even woolier one :)

rgds
James
ZephirAWT
Apr 13, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ZephirAWT
Apr 13, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Moebius
2.9 / 5 (7) Apr 13, 2011
I think this theory, like string theory, will go the way of dinosaurs. I'm not a physicist but it seems to me that Einsteins theory of gravity being warped space is mutually exclusive with the theory that gravity has a mediating particle, the graviton. I personally believe Einsteins warped space and that there is no graviton. That means this article's theory is wrong since warped space only cares about mass, not matter or anti-matter. It also seems to me that since we can create anti-matter, this article's theory is testable.
krundoloss
1 / 5 (3) Apr 13, 2011
The human mind struggles to comprehend things beyond its reach. I like the idea of reverse time and forward time swirling around each other and intermingling. A very cool concept that is hard to grasp, yet fairly simple. It makes more sense than the Big Bang. Dont we already have some Antimatter to test this out with? I thought I read that we can create antimatter in very small quantities.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (1) Apr 13, 2011
We make antimatter in particle accelerators. Sometimes when two nuclei collide one will change its direction of spin. Containment is difficult as the influence of other matter causes it to revert back, repolarize.
ZephirAWT
Apr 13, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (1) Apr 13, 2011
Or in case of contact, annihilate in a flash of light.
jjoensuu
1 / 5 (1) Apr 13, 2011
(One might argue that some of the galaxies we do obserbe are anti-galaxies---but then we are back at the point where we have to account for a lot of missing mass/energy)


So maybe the anti-galaxies send out anti-photons which our eyes can not see;-)

BTW cute if anti-matter is the source of anti-gravity.

Since quantum dots are 'artificial atoms', perhaps we can create 'artificial anti-atoms' (using quantum dots) that give us anti-gravity?

We can perhaps finally create

FrankHerbert
0.7 / 5 (54) Apr 13, 2011
Baseline, there are antineutrons. Maybe you should know your science before you ridicule others.
ZephirAWT
Apr 13, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Skultch
not rated yet Apr 13, 2011
Maybe we can't see these anti-galaxies because the anti-photons emitted by them annihilate before they reach us. What should we observe if this were true?
ZephirAWT
Apr 13, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ZephirAWT
Apr 13, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ZephirAWT
Apr 13, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
WhiteJim
1.4 / 5 (5) Apr 13, 2011
Mater and antimater are constantly created spontaniously everywhere and the energy product creates the foamy fabric of expanding spacetime. The leftover particles create all the mass and all the energy of the universe at a growing rate as the universe gets bigger. The Big Bang is not necessary in this model because if the universe (spacetime) is being created constantly from everywhere at the same time and increasingly so, then it would appear to all observers as if there was a point in time when everything was at a singularity. The big bang then can be simply an illusion created by an actual constant growing expansion which dilutes prior information. The antimater going backwards in time would be part of the two time loops working in two cycle to perpetuate the system indefinetly.
Foolish1
1 / 5 (2) Apr 13, 2011
Lets say you collide anti-matter with matter does half of the resulting energy conversion also have a negative impact on gravity or does this parameter not need to be conserved?

If gravitationally repulsive anti-matter behaves the same way wouldn't anti-hydrogen collapse into a star the same was as normal matter? Wouldn't it then be blantently obvious negative gravity existed?
kaypee
4.8 / 5 (6) Apr 13, 2011
Didn't some group create neutral anti-hydrogen this year? In order to do that and have it hang around long enough before annihilating on the container walls, wouldn't it have to be really cold, i.e. slow molecules? So, can't this experiment with neutral anti-hydrogen answer the question as to whether antimatter is attracted or repelled from normal matter? If it repels, antimatter should accelerate upward away from the surface of the earth at 9.8 m/s^2, right? So, does the antihydrogen fall and annihilate on the bottom of the container or on the top of the container?
that_guy
5 / 5 (1) Apr 13, 2011
What are the implications of anti-matter possessing the property of negative time?


Physics is not time dependant - physics equations work equally well forward or backward - so it makes sense that gravity from the matter-antimatter perspective is switched (One particle's forward is another one's backwards.) The only hitch is entropy...which is time dependent.
Question
5 / 5 (4) Apr 13, 2011
Didn't some group create neutral anti-hydrogen this year? In order to do that and have it hang around long enough before annihilating on the container walls, wouldn't it have to be really cold, i.e. slow molecules? So, can't this experiment with neutral anti-hydrogen answer the question as to whether antimatter is attracted or repelled from normal matter? If it repels, antimatter should accelerate upward away from the surface of the earth at 9.8 m/s^2, right? So, does the antihydrogen fall and annihilate on the bottom of the container or on the top of the container?

Exactly! My bet is that there is no difference between how antimatter and matter behave in a gravity field or how they relate to time.

Turritopsis
2.6 / 5 (8) Apr 13, 2011
@skultch

Photons are spin 1 particles, a photon is its own antiparticle. There is no difference between a photon and an antiphoton.

The merging of a positron (positive energy) and an electron (negative energy), which are both 1/2 spin particles results in a full spin particle, the photon.
holoman
1 / 5 (1) Apr 13, 2011
anti-gravity using anti-matter has patent applied for 3
years ago.

visit colossal storage API side of web page.
Aristoteles
not rated yet Apr 13, 2011
Are you Lisa or Lisi [ Anton ]?....general relativity predicts that the gravitational interaction between matter and antimatter is mutually repulsive - it is PURE HERESY !!!
Antimatter plays common gravity!
beelize54
1 / 5 (4) Apr 13, 2011
So, does the antihydrogen fall and annihilate on the bottom of the container or on the top of the container?
What we know already, during formation of antihydrogen from positrons and antiprotons the normal energy has been released, not antienergy. IMO the antimatter exhibits only weak antigravity, only the photons are completely antisymmetric reading this. For example, if the rest mass of antineutrino if 1000x higher, than the mass of CMBR photons, its mass will be only 0.999 factor of neutrino mass. For heavier particles the mass difference will be even lower.
beelize54
1 / 5 (2) Apr 13, 2011
What I cannot understand is, if Big Bang theory is apparently missing the antimatter and the dark matter is apparently redundant in general relativity (on which Big Bang theory is mostly based) - what actually prohibits the physicists to connect these two concepts together? They're apparently dancing around this idea whole years, but one proposed expressed it clearly so far.
Thrasymachus
3 / 5 (2) Apr 13, 2011
Ok, so anti-matter has opposite CPT from ordinary matter, and for gravity, only PT matters. It seems to me that if you reverse P, then gravity is reversed, or if you reverse T, then gravity is reversed, but if you reverse them both, then their reversal cancels each other out and gravity is normal.

That's a sloppy way to put it, I guess, but if you change the sign on the force felt by an object when you invert parity, and change it again when you invert time, then you end up with the same sign on the force as you started with.
Skultch
not rated yet Apr 13, 2011
Thras, that makes sense to me. I wonder what the interaction would be at the heliopause/galactopause at the normal/anti barrier. Could the annihilations provide the negative gravity as well as mask direct observation? If you are right, and the gravity is normal, anti-galaxy lensing would still be the same, right? Could the light bend around the anti-galaxy group enough to where we wouldn't notice any loss due to annihilation? IOW, could the anti-galactopause prevent most annihilations and give us what we see now?
FrankHerbert
0.7 / 5 (50) Apr 13, 2011
Skultch, I'm assuming you voted Turritopsis' comment directed at you a 1. He is right. Photons are their own anti-particle and the rest of his response to you is spot on as well.
George_Rodart
not rated yet Apr 13, 2011
Even if we assume there is a CPT reversed universe made up of antimatter, it would be invisible to us. In a CPT reversed frame, entropy would be relative to negative time, all the math could/would work the same as it does in our universe. From our frame of reference, negative time would mean starlight in a CPT reversed universe, would appear to travel into the stars, it would be invisible to us. It might be that our CPT universe and the CPT reversed universe are spatially interspersed. If so, the boundary would have a zero time direction (maximum entropy) making it difficult to cross at large scales or appearing as a CPT violation at small scales.
beelize54
1 / 5 (3) Apr 13, 2011
Could the annihilations provide the negative gravity as well as mask direct observation?
As noted above, the pressure of radiation is the negative gravity, and the radiation routinely occurs during annihilation.
if you reverse T, then gravity is reversed
Indeed, the true mirror matter would be very expanded and puffy. The antimatter isn't.
drel
not rated yet Apr 13, 2011
Baseline, there are antineutrons. Maybe you should know your science before you ridicule others.


anti-NEURONS ROFL...(a.k.a. anti-nerve cells)
not
anti-neutrons

FrankHerbert, Maybe YOU should look closer before you ridicule others.
Husky
not rated yet Apr 13, 2011
I find the concept of antimatter ---> antigravity very interesting, but like some posters, where are the clumping anti matter galaxies????, on the other you have have this Schwinger pair production in vacume and space all around us where particles and anti-particles come very briefly in existence before mutual annihilation, i wonder if CP violation would interfere with complete annihilation (conversion to gamma rays) and instead some of the momentum is conserved/expelled as positively or negatively signed graviton waves/particles, if there is a disbalance there, space would tend to curve to a more postive or negative direction, and it wouldn't come from the voids, it would come from all around us, the theorised antimatter voids could not be the cause but the consequence of space pulling appart
Skultch
not rated yet Apr 13, 2011
Skultch, I'm assuming you voted Turritopsis' comment directed at you a 1. He is right. Photons are their own anti-particle and the rest of his response to you is spot on as well.


Nope, not me. Thanks, for confirming that, though. I saw that 1-vote and wondered if he was right or not.
Skultch
1 / 5 (1) Apr 13, 2011
@skultch

Photons are spin 1 particles, a photon is its own antiparticle. There is no difference between a photon and an antiphoton.

The merging of a positron (positive energy) and an electron (negative energy), which are both 1/2 spin particles results in a full spin particle, the photon.


Thanks.

Wouldn't this mean that at the galacto-pause we should see a ton of photons being emitted? Maybe the hypothetical negative gravity prevents almost all possible interaction?
Bigblumpkin36
3 / 5 (2) Apr 13, 2011
Anti-matter is tiger blood
Husky
not rated yet Apr 13, 2011
it would very interesting if for each fundamental force of nature an equivalent anti force would exist, if that could be discovered than you could manipulate the coulomb barrier with a catalyst and make fusion a lot easier than we do now, also the spaceships from the sf novels using antigravity and spacetime warping would move from the fantasy realm to the lab.
beelize54
1 / 5 (6) Apr 13, 2011
IMO the cold fusion of hydrogen and nickel can work at room temperature, because the repulsive Coulomb barrier is relevant for naked nickel nuclei only, i.e. these completely ionized one. The atom nuclei stripped of all electrons can be prepared easily at the case of lightweight atoms, like the hydrogen or hellium - but heavier atoms are surprisingly reluctant against the complete lost of their electrons. The energy (density) required for complete ionization of nickel nuclei is comparable to the energy density required for its fission - which basically means, the electrons at the bottom of nickel orbitals are forming the nearly homogeneous energetic continuum with the underlying atom nuclei. So, when the nickel atom is full of electrons, these electrons are balancing/shielding the repulsive forces of atom nuclei for tiny proton, which could literally "swim" through nickel orbitals into its core.

http://www.aether...sion.gif
Turritopsis
2.1 / 5 (8) Apr 13, 2011
Skultch:

Energy is required for virtual particle creation in space. The more energy present the higher the incidence of production.

2 forms of energy can be involved.

1. Electromagnetic
2. Gravitational

Gravity causes the neutral space to stretch, particles are literally divided from neutral space, particle antiparticle pairs arise from the neutral field. E=mc^2. But, gravity at close distances is really strong - infinitely strong at the singularity actually - so these particles that arise from nothing just as quickly return to their former form. So we call them virtual. Sometimes, though, the energy pulling them together is overpowered by the energy pushing them apart (like at the big bang), sometimes virtual particles that are pulled out of nothing change their fate, they are torn apart before annihilation.

Blackholes have high gravitational energies, virtual pairs are far more frequent in energetic areas than they are in intergalactic space.
Silverhill
5 / 5 (2) Apr 13, 2011
Wouldn't this mean that at the galacto-pause we should see a ton of photons being emitted?
*That* is the explanation for the "energy barrier at the rim of the galaxy" as shown in _Star Trek_! ;-)
SincerelyTwo
1 / 5 (1) Apr 13, 2011
Hey wait a second, we could actually test this theory by sending satellites in to 'the void' and seeing if they survive, right?
Ober
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 13, 2011
As far as I know, we don't understand gravity at the quantum level, nor do I believe we have done any experiments showing the effect of one atom interacting gravitationally with another atom. Thus I'm not sure we will be able to test the anti-gravitational effect of a few neutral anti hydrogen atoms in the lab, given that we have to contain them with a far stronger force of electromagnetism.

For those that think anti-gravity is a bit silly, then just take a look at inflationary theory (the Big Bangs successor). While it's a good fit with observation, it seems that we are continually inventing more and more WEIRD science to explain stuff we don't understand. Remember we don't really know why our universe is full of a matter, and where all the anti-matter is, yet we know anti-matter can exist.

Don't be so foolish to ridicule theoretical work. Remember black holes are simply a solution to Relativities equations. No one has actually seen one, only indirect evidence!!!
Tachyon8491
2.6 / 5 (7) Apr 13, 2011
In Feynman diagrams particle-paths can simply be reversed by changing them into their antiparticles and seeing them travel backwards in time. The idea that PT reversal could cause antigravitational force is not insane - but remains to be theoretically proven or substantiated by (indirect) evidence from observation. Give Villata some credit - he's clearly no amateur; also, the fact that he mentions his book does not have to be coercive underhand manipulation -instead it may make the details of this consideration more accessible to a non-scientific public.

What I wonder about, is whether high-energy radiation from distant sources passing through intermediate antimatter domains in LOS is not affected with some kind of typifying signature.
Turritopsis
2.3 / 5 (7) Apr 13, 2011
There hasn't been 1 complete theoretical construct yet that has withstood experimentation,and there has been many attempts at marriage between the micro and the macro world. Everything we have in physics has been a relative, humanistic derived point of view. There is a large bias due to this. We only care about what this is, because of what we are. So we listen with our ears, see with our eyes. Our equipment has been designed to extrapolate information relative to our acceptive range. Well maybe everything we know is not a result of itself but a result of interactions outside the verse? That's the bias. Our theories are extrapolated from what is. But this is what inspires the thinking, it gets us to calculate reality out in simplistic equations, simplicity is the point, but what is missing is the collaboratory unification, between the macro and micro worlds. Strings are a mess. They're too unreal, abstract. They calculate the quanta planks. That's not real.
Turritopsis
1.8 / 5 (6) Apr 13, 2011
It is not about putting the reality into the mind, we put it in the mind so we can turn it around and put it into reality. That's the point.
Skultch
4.7 / 5 (3) Apr 13, 2011
What I wonder about, is whether high-energy radiation from distant sources passing through intermediate antimatter domains in LOS is not affected with some kind of typifying signature.


This is what I'm trying to get at. Would the radiation emitted from the far side go through or around or reflected or refracted or altered or annihilated? I'm not trying to get into virtual particles or dark energy (same?). I'm trying to figure out if current observations could rule out this theory or if this theory removes unnecessary work-arounds, like inflation, DE, virtual particles, etc.

Just curious: In the standard model, are virtual particles possible, likely, or necessary? Do we have to throw out general relativity to throw out VPs? Is the standard model more aesthetically pleasing to throw out the VP hypothesis? Is there any advantage to throw it out, like helping a GUT?
jsa09
not rated yet Apr 14, 2011
The human mind struggles to comprehend things beyond its reach. I like the idea of reverse time and forward time swirling around each other and intermingling. A very cool concept that is hard to grasp, yet fairly simple. It makes more sense than the Big Bang. Dont we already have some Antimatter to test this out with? I thought I read that we can create antimatter in very small quantities.


Except that Einsteins warped space can be expressed in negative form. Think of the mass pressing down on the elastic surface as normal gravity and from the other side pressing up to make negative gravity.

It does work well and still bends light from the other side and can cause anti-matter clumping and galaxies as ours. With repelling masses collisions between matter and anti-matter are more difficult.
jsa09
not rated yet Apr 14, 2011
ooops wrong quote:

Moebius

I think this theory, like string theory, will go the way of dinosaurs. I'm not a physicist but it seems to me that Einsteins theory of gravity being warped space is mutually exclusive with the theory that gravity has a mediating particle, the graviton. I personally believe Einsteins warped space and that there is no graviton. That means this article's theory is wrong since warped space only cares about mass, not matter or anti-matter. It also seems to me that since we can create anti-matter, this article's theory is testable.


I meant to comment on Mobius implication that gravity distorts space time and is always described using the stretchy two-dimensional surface.

My point is that you can stretch a two-dimensional stretchy surface in the opposite direction and have the same effect. This being the case, one can consider photons as traveling only on the 2D surface. Therefore anti stars would appear (from a distance) the same as stars.
Turritopsis
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 14, 2011
@skultch

You cannot look for gravity in the atom gravity is the attraction of the atom. I'm hoping we soon find the remnant that is mass by fully, instantaneously, dispersing a particles energy and detecting pure raw spacial mass. A short-life miniature blackhole, the Higgs boson. If after fully dispersing negative and positive energy of the atom we detect a distortion in the Higgs field the theory will remain safe for now. But like I said, it remains only a theory - working theory but one non-the-less. We'll be past the point of theory when we replicate it. The day that we can design and build particles and atoms in the real world we'll be able to say that our theory on reality is in reality real.
aabiskar
not rated yet Apr 14, 2011
If gravity becomes more pronounced when small distance is considered, doesn't that means that repulsive gravity will push matter and antimatter with greater magnitude of force when they approach each other. So, i am wondering how do they annihilate?
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (3) Apr 14, 2011
The research is true, matter anti-matter produces an anti-gravity type event, that's repulsion, but the way this repulsion works is not ripples in the fabric of the rotating body creating a vortex that when nudges another body continually away - like a boat being pushed by waves, that is not the action that is taking place, gravitational waves move inwards towards the point of mass, it is spacial warping that is creating tightening of the field, gravity works towards mass.

But when matter and antimatter interact they do create waves, electromagnetic ones, we've witnessed positrons and electrons emerging from atoms, when these two combine they are on a trajectory infinity, when negative and positive energy combine they constitute a wave, it is these em waves that are causing matter in the universe to spread through the universe at an ever accelerating pace.

Anti-matter either repolarizes (reverts to go with the flow) or meets matter and becomes pure raw energy.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (2) Apr 14, 2011
@aabiksar

An atom has a positively charged nucleus with a negatively charged shell, an anti-atom has a negatively charged nucleus with a positively charged shell. If you wanted to induce fusion this is your perfect scenario, the two are a perfect match to merge. But this is way better yield than fusion, in fusion most energy remains in the atom while some radiates out, when matter and antimatter merge all of the energy radiates out.

Anti-gravity is just a conceptual add on to the perceived missing energy, there is a lot that is not accounted for.
Thrasymachus
4 / 5 (7) Apr 14, 2011
I'm sorry, I don't buy it, and I don't see any credible evidence that suggests that antimatter and matter don't mutually attract one another through gravity. When you reverse just the parity, you reverse the direction of the force of gravity, when you reverse just the time, you reverse the direction of the force of gravity, but when you reverse them both, you end up with the same direction to the force of gravity. A mass of antimatter will attract a mass of regular matter gravitationally, not repel it. An anti-apple will fall on normal-Newton's head, the same as a regular apple. Unless there's some new math where multiplying by -1 once is the same as multiplying by -1 twice.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (3) Apr 14, 2011
Thrasymachus:

You're right the antimatter apple would be attracted by the earth, if we cleared the atmosphere of all air that apple would leave a little boo boo on Newtons head, lol, if that doesn't modify his dynamics nothing can.
Thrasymachus
4 / 5 (6) Apr 14, 2011
So why did you say
The research is true, matter anti-matter produces an anti-gravity type event, that's repulsion,
?

Bits of antimatter should attract each other gravitationally. We don't know because we've never seen enough of it to tell, but the theory that predicted antimatter in the first place tells us it should. Bits of matter demonstrably do attract each other gravitationally. And bits of matter should attract bits of antimatter gravitationally. Again, we don't know, because we've never seen enough antimatter to tell, but the theory that predicted antimatter in the first place tell us it should.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (3) Apr 14, 2011
Anti-gravity "type" event, as in repulsion. When matter and antimatter collide they produce an outward force (electromagnetic wave, photons). It is inverse of gravity, gravity attracts, electromagnetic waves repell.

To clarify, when the anti-apple hits Newtons head the atoms that make up the earth would be repelled away. Matter and antimatter cause disbursion of energy.

And anyways the scenario behind the hypothes is wrong. If an anti-atom gravitationally pushed the atom away and the atom simultaneously pulled it towards matter and antimatter would constantly be in each others vicinity. Matter would be following anti-matter, we'd notice I would think, well actually we wouldn't because we'd probably never have been here at least not in the way we are. We couldconstrucy scenarios where this type of action is true but we'd have to employ other dimensions, wormhole connections from matter to anti-matter with time centering around the connection with our time in the positive spectrum
Turritopsis
1.3 / 5 (4) Apr 14, 2011
...and the negative time in the antimatter universe, the whole thing becomes a mess of variables and we lose beauty.

In this scenario there is a divide between matter and anti-matter that would be impossible to test, how can we see chronologically in reverse? If this is the nature of the universe (multiverse in this case) we'll never know it other than theoretically. At that point in time we'd have to stop the search for the theory of everything and focus solely on known interactions between known variables. Relativity.
hush1
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 14, 2011
It is not about putting the reality into the mind, we put it in the mind so we can turn it around and put it into reality. That's the point.


There hasn't been... ...real.


All interesting comments. Not just the quotes above. As if reality offers something new everyday and keeps everyone on their toes. As if imagination is emergence.

Weird is good. When the words (of explanation) start to sound weird, you know the language (you are using)is cutting you short of conveying your concept.

What remains counterintuitive forever? A static language.
We aren't caught short using an inadequate language for long.
Too many words waiting to be born.

Imagination your comparable fellow constituents of yesteryear listening to you now. lol Imaginably sayin: Mighty strange.
frajo
4 / 5 (8) Apr 14, 2011
Skultch, I'm assuming you voted Turritopsis' comment directed at you a 1. He is right. Photons are their own anti-particle and the rest of his response to you is spot on as well.
While photons indeed may be seen as their own antiparticles, the rest of his text is neither spot nor on:
The merging of a positron (positive energy) and an electron (negative energy), which are both 1/2 spin particles results in a full spin particle, the photon.
Demonstrates confusion of charge and energy and ignorance of the law of conservation of momentum which demands that (at least) two photons are created in the annihilation process.
frajo
5 / 5 (1) Apr 14, 2011
Imagination your comparable fellow constituents of yesteryear listening to you now. lol Imaginably sayin: Mighty strange.
No - pleasantly familiar. Someone who can express himself without "cool" and "geek".
ZephirAWT
Apr 14, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
frajo
5 / 5 (3) Apr 14, 2011
Ok, so anti-matter has opposite CPT from ordinary matter, and for gravity, only PT matters. It seems to me that if you reverse P, then gravity is reversed, or if you reverse T, then gravity is reversed, but if you reverse them both, then their reversal cancels each other out and gravity is normal.
There is no "opposite CPT". Instead there is a postulate of CPT conservation (which seems to be violated due to mass differences between neutrinos and their anti-particles).
Parity is related to spatial mirroring and/or spin; changing them does not induce a change of gravitational direction.

But your skepticism is appropriate as any connection between CPT invariance (and its violation) and the direction of gravity is purely speculative.
ZephirAWT
Apr 14, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
frajo
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 14, 2011
Everything we have in physics has been a relative, humanistic derived point of view.
Of course. Especially Quantum Mechanics.

It is not about putting the reality into the mind, we put it in the mind so we can turn it around and put it into reality.
Nobody "puts" reality into his mind.
Instead, we evolved through several phases. Initially, we unreflectedly interpreted the brain-internal representation of the (outer and inner) world as "reality". Then came Plato's cave allegory and we began to reflect upon our perceptions.
Now, we use maths and models and speculate about their discrepancies with reality.
ZephirAWT
Apr 14, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (2) Apr 14, 2011
@frajo

Nobody knows everything, this becomes especially apparent when your input goes in.
ZephirAWT
Apr 14, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Ober
1 / 5 (1) Apr 14, 2011
I'll make a wild comment here, but if the universe is truly expanding, then there is indeed "something" which resembles anti-gravity. It can be interpreted as the cosmological constant, or negative pressure, but why not go ahead and call it anti-gravity??? I'll also point out the similarity between the equations of electromagnetic force and gravitational force (classically speaking), as well as the fact that the speed of Gravity = speed of light. I'm now wondering if all FORCES travel at light speed??? If so then forces are intimately linked with space-time itself. I'm beginning to think that space-time must be a SOMETHING. Sounds like the concept of the Aether, but perhaps not like what ppl have suggested here on physorg. The Higgs Ocean also sounds like the Aether. I'm still amazed at the article regarding fluid-dynamics equations and their apparent ability to solve complex quantum mechanics problems.

I say, lets revise the Aether theory. (No, not the crackpot stuff we see in posts)
ZephirAWT
Apr 14, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Ober
1 / 5 (1) Apr 14, 2011
@ZephirAWT.
Ok I went to that site and read the 37 anti-crackpot bullets.
I'm afraid I'm no wiser.

Can you inform me why you directed me to that site?
Is there something I said in particular that you would like me to follow up?? Perhaps point me to a site where I can read about alternative ideas???
I guess this came from my useage of the words "AETHER" and "crackpot". Note though that I am suggesting that the Aether theory may have something to it. Perhaps my understanding of the "Aether" and yours is different. Please point me to a site so I can become familiar with your reasoning, other than a site that suggests I am nothing more than an anti-crackpot.
ZephirAWT
Apr 14, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Ober
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 14, 2011
@ZephirAWT

Hmm, it seems you might want to re-read your anti-crackpot site, as I think you might be found guilty of several of the statements made on that site.

Your reply makes little sense to me so unfortunately I cannot enter an intellectual discussion with you.
frajo
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 14, 2011
AWT is solely based on real-life analogies, no math.
That's why it belongs in pre-math times.

My experience is, the people, who are really interested about new ideas don't ask, where to found them. And the discussion with others is just a waste of time.
So why do you waste your time so often, using so many accounts?
ZephirAWT
Apr 14, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jjoensuu
not rated yet Apr 14, 2011
Question, question...

Is anti-matter also anti-magnetic besides anti-gravitic?

If it is, does the anti-matter "north" repel both "north" and "south" in our regular matter?

Or does anti-matter "north" repel only the "south" in our regular matter, and attract regular "north"?
ZephirAWT
Apr 14, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Skultch
5 / 5 (4) Apr 14, 2011
The pre-math times are repeating right now, because the world and ideas are evolving in circles in similar way, like the waves in the water: from brownian noise into deterministic ripples and back into noise again, etc...


^Hippy nonsense.

Yes, ideas do seem to revolve. This is a description of human society, but it says absolutely nothing towards the nature of reality or the reality of nature. See, I can babble word salad, too. :)

It seems you are not American, Jigga, but seem to have a similar malady. Here we have an epidemic of spirituality. It is fashionable for the 20-40 yr old generation to believe in any form of spirituality that suits them. They give no mind to it's lack of truth, only that it makes them happy with the life they have already chosen to lead. Hippy nonsense.
Thrasymachus
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 14, 2011
What I mean, frajo, is that an anti-proton is identical to a normal proton with inverted CPT. Let's deal with each of those properties in turn, one at a time. Let's say we came across a particle that was identical to a proton but with just it's charge inverted. This would be a particle with a negative charge that moves towards positive charges in time, and away from positive charges in time. Now, let's say we came across a particle identical to a proton, but with just it's parity inverted. This would be a positive particle that moves towards positive charges in time, and away from negative charges in time, because it's spatial orientation to forces is inverted. And the same thing would happen to such a particle that was only inverted in time. When you run across a particle that is inverted in all three properties, you get a negative particle that moves away from negative charges and towards positive charges, that is, traditional anti-matter.
Thrasymachus
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 14, 2011
We don't have mutually attracting like charges because the P inversion and the T inversion cancel each other out. If antimatter were only P inverted, but not T inverted, or vice versa, then like charges between an inverted particle and a normal particle would attract one another.

With gravity, we can leave C out of the equation. Particles interact with one another due to their mass and distance and cause acceleration toward one another in time. P inversion inverts the distance. A positive quantity becomes a negative one. If we do not also invert time, then the sign on the gravitational force between a regular particle and a P inverted particle will be inverted, rather than attracting, they will repel. But if we invert time as well, then the sign on the gravitational force is inverted again, and the force will be attracting again, rather than repelling.

This reads more like an attempt to get people to buy a novel than a credible scientific announcement.
ZephirAWT
Apr 14, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
DavidMcC
not rated yet Apr 14, 2011
Like many other posters here, I am also highly sceptical of the claim that the great voids are caused by matter-antimatter repulsion, mainly for the same reasons the other posters are.
DavidMcC
not rated yet Apr 14, 2011
The "wooly concept of dark energy" isn't necessarily "wooly", if you accept that Lee Smolin was wrong to reject his own "fecund universes" hypothesis. In a loop quantum gravity-based multiverse, dark energy is simply our universe, as a black hole in a "mother universe", mopping up matter left over from the formation of other black holes in that universe.
ZephirAWT
Apr 14, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ClevorTrever
5 / 5 (2) Apr 14, 2011
Read the paper - it hasn't been published yet but there's a link in the article to the IOP where you can create an account and get the paper free.

It's junk science at its most disingenuous.

The argument of the authors is that if their CPT transform is valid for the electrodynamic equations of motion then they must hold true for GR as Einstein's equations are of the same form as Lorentz'. This is to miss the point - charge comes in two flavours, positive and negative. Mass is mass even it is associated with antimatter and there is no difference between inertial mass and gravitational mass. If antimatter is time reversed from our perspective, and if antimatter has negative gravitational mass from its own perspective, then we should see it as having attractive gravity just like ours.
ZephirAWT
Apr 14, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ClevorTrever
4 / 5 (4) Apr 14, 2011
@ZephirAWT

My argument of pseudoscience is the spurious claim that the minus sign which pops up in the CPT transform of the electrodynamic equations of motion is equivalent to antigravity in the GR case.

And I urge everyone to log in as a referee to dismiss the paper as you suggest!

ZephirAWT
Apr 14, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ZephirAWT
Apr 14, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ZephirAWT
Apr 14, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Skultch
5 / 5 (8) Apr 14, 2011
... and the layman people are becoming confused with it. The strictly rigorous approach apparently hit its limits.


Wow. Most people don't understand reality, therefore we should redefine reality? We should artificially make it conform to the limits of our brains? That is dangerously stupid.

Truth is independent from popularity and should not be democratized into obscurity. We should teach better. We don't need everyone to understand everything, just enough of us to keep progress moving.

The theories of contemporary physics are all based on the formal postulates, which nobody understand actually.


Nobody? Really? I think you are projecting.
ZephirAWT
Apr 14, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Skultch
3.8 / 5 (5) Apr 14, 2011
Oh boy! Epistemology again? Why does every discussion here evolve to this? Perhaps this IS the heart of our problem with a GUT.

Our brains are working like the chaos generators on the probability principle rather than algorithmic machine.


Sounds like quantum consciousness hippy nonsense. You cannot support that argument until you can explain EXACTLY how the quantum world can affect the classical. AFAIK, lack of evidence indicates that our neural interactions are far removed from the quantum randomness. My guess, is that the nearly Planck number of particles that defy probability has a severely negligible affect on our neurochemistry. I could be way off base, there, though.
Skultch
3.2 / 5 (5) Apr 14, 2011
In quantum terms each neuron is an essentially classical object. Consequently quantum noise in the brain is at such a low level that it probably doesn't often alter, except very rarely, the critical mechanistic behaviour of sufficient neurons to cause a decision to be different than we might otherwise expect... - Michael Clive Price


Ok, I did a little digging. I may have been a little hasty in describing quantum consciousness as hippy nonsense. There appears to be some legit support for the idea, notably, from Roger Penrose. Sorry, I just love the phrase "hippy nonsense." It's just so apt, so often for me, and quite funny. :)
ZephirAWT
Apr 14, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
beelize54
1 / 5 (3) Apr 14, 2011
BTW Such way of signal propagation could be called relativistic computing as well. Because it's completely nondispersive - it's strictly low-dimensional and various clever feedback mechanism are proving the background independent motion of solitons along neurons without interference with their actual environment (like the electrons within superconductor and/or vortices in superfluids). The center of neuron is working like hollow-cable optical fiber, which maintains the stable shape of signal spikes, i.e. atemporal from local perspective of these solitons. I.e. in similar way, which the motion of particles is considered in relativity theory.
Modernmystic
2.5 / 5 (8) Apr 14, 2011
Are there anti-neutrons? Or are neutrons their own antiparticle?


Respectively yes and no.

http://en.wikiped...ineutron
ClevorTrever
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 14, 2011
@Modernmystic

No - electrical neutrality is no proof that the neutron is its own antiparticle. A neutron is composed of two down quarks and an up quark, an antineutron is composed of two antidowns and an antiup. Both cases are electrically neutral but they are CPT inversions of each other.

As for the Penrose idea of quantum consciousness, I have been thinking for a long time about the fact that neural systems use pulse trains as the basic signal type and that a pulse train is its own Fourier transform, so the beauty of a brain is that using one signal type, the pulse train, signals can be processed by a single type of structure - the neuron - in both time and frequency domains simultaneously without any conversion. Very neat. There's nothing about the transcendental nature of consciousness that needs quantum theory to explain it - it really is just very funky signal processing.
Modernmystic
2.4 / 5 (9) Apr 14, 2011
No - electrical neutrality is no proof that the neutron is its own antiparticle.


Good thing that isn't what I said...

I said respectively to his questions yes, and no. His questions in order were:

Are there anti-neutrons? Or are neutrons their own antiparticle?

:)
ClevorTrever
5 / 5 (6) Apr 14, 2011
@Modernmystic

You are absolutely correct and I offer my humble apology - I glanced at your answer without thinking about it and then blushed as I hit the Submit button and saw what you had actually written!
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (8) Apr 14, 2011
@Modernmystic

You are absolutely correct and I offer my humble apology - I glanced at your answer without thinking about it and then blushed as I hit the Submit button and saw what you had actually written!


Now worries man, like I'VE never done that before :P
ClevorTrever
not rated yet Apr 14, 2011
Ta!
Turritopsis
2 / 5 (7) Apr 15, 2011
Neutrons decay into a proton electron pair. Anti-neutrons decay into an anti-proton positron pair.

Neutrons collectively don't have charge but the quarks that comprise them do.

An atom is neutral in charge too.

Anti-Neutrons are made up of 1 up antiquark and 2 down antiquarks.

Neutrons are not their own antiparticles like photons are.
6_6
1.8 / 5 (4) Apr 15, 2011
to a human it might appear expanding, I just don't believe it is, our lifetime is short, it's too early to draw conclusions and make this factual. only when we reach the other side and measure from there will I be convinced.
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (9) Apr 15, 2011
An atom is neutral in charge too.


http://en.wikiped...wiki/Ion

:)
DavidMcC
3 / 5 (1) Apr 15, 2011
6_6, it is the actual red shift of distant galaxies that tells us that they are receding from us, not its time-dependence.
FrankHerbert
0.9 / 5 (52) Apr 15, 2011
MM, an atom specifically refers to a system with neutral charge. An ion is something different. That's why it has a different name.
Skultch
4.3 / 5 (3) Apr 15, 2011
MM, an atom specifically refers to a system with neutral charge. An ion is something different. That's why it has a different name.


Complete BS. An ion is a TYPE of atom. Find me ONE definition of atom where is requires neutrality.
Turritopsis
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 15, 2011
Skultch, FrankHerbert is correct. The reason for the word "ion" is to create a clear distinction between a neutral atom and one that has a net charge. It is incorrect labelling calling ions atoms, if you like you can call them ionized atoms, but calling a proton a hydrogen atom is incorrect, the hydrogen atom has 1 proton and 1 electron. When we change the number of electrons we create an ion.

You can choose to call an ion whatever you like, but calling it an ion clears up confusion for everyone listening.

A rose by any other name smells just as sweet, but calling a rose 'poop' will cause everyone around you to wonder: what are you doing smelling poop and how can you think it smells sweet?
Turritopsis
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 15, 2011
And frank, both Mm and skultch know that ionized atoms differ from our definition of atoms, they're just being sphinctorally tight. The definition of an atom is the smallest indivisible bit of matter. The word is somewhat a misnomer now as we've long ago split the atom into smaller constituents. The meaning for the word today differs from the original meaning. Both mm and skultch know the difference, they're just being funny.
tkjtkj
not rated yet Apr 16, 2011
If anti-matter is mutually attractive then shoudln't it clump together like regular matter does. More precisely: shouldn't we be seeing 'anti-stars' or even 'anti-galaxies' in the voids where he says anti-matter supposedly resides


Yes, good thought, and the answer might be 'yes, it does'. However, the issue of the visibility of such material was addressed by the author. We can not say its not there merely because we can not see it ... (hopefully "yet"!)

hard2grep
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 16, 2011
this article is a bunch of baloney.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 16, 2011
It is incorrect labelling calling ions atoms
Actually, no it isn't.
if you like you can call them ionized atoms,
Or ions, or atoms. All ions are atoms, not all atoms are ions.
but calling a proton a hydrogen atom is incorrect
No, it is correct, you admit so yourself. Watch:
the hydrogen atom has 1 proton and 1 electron.
Yes, and
When we change the number of electrons we create an ion.
Yes. A proton is a hydrogen atom stripped of it's electron.

Since hydrogen is an atom consisting of one eletron and one proton a, proton can be considered a hydrogen ion, a proton, an atom, or an atomic component. There is no scientific delineator between atom, ion, and proton when speaking in terms of hydrogen.
And frank, both Mm and skultch know that ionized atoms differ from our definition of atoms, they're just being sphinctorally tight.
No, they're attempting to be accurate and correct in the utilization of terms.
tkjtkj
1 / 5 (1) Apr 16, 2011
I'm impressed by this article. So much of physorg seems so poorly written. But now we have this gem of an example of good English much of which was written by an Italian!

I also value its clarity. It's one of the few expositories that i can comprehend .. whether it's true or not, the methods of science will show. For now, this view is something i can hang my hat on. I never was good at fantasy-play, such as are the latest 'Dark' of the day.
Turritopsis
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 16, 2011
@skepticheretic

Atoms have an equal amount of positive and negative charge. Parity. An atom with 1 proton in a neutral state has 1 electron. By ionizing it we take the atom out of its neutral state.

Are you trying to be difficult on purpose or are you just not comprehending that for ease of use we create words to define characteristics. Go take the periodic table and have a read through. You'll notice that the elements we define have an equal ratio of protons to electrons.

Our current use of the word atom is for an element in its neutral state. Our current use of the word ion is for an element that has lost neutrality (either through addition of electrons creating an anion or removal of electrons creating a cation).

Terminology is irrelevant to the self, but when conveying your message to others unless your terms are correct your message will not translate. Ions are deneutralized atoms.
FrankHerbert
0.8 / 5 (51) Apr 16, 2011
No, they're attempting to be accurate and correct in the utilization of terms.


Attempting and failing. Ions are not atoms. An atom has neutral charge. Ions don't. This is not a "squares are rectangles but rectangles are not squares" situation. An atom can never have charge and an ion can never be neutral.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 16, 2011
Attempting and failing. Ions are not atoms. An atom has neutral charge. Ions don't.
Wrong and I'll show you.
This is not a "squares are rectangles but rectangles are not squares" situation. An atom can never have charge and an ion can never be neutral.
Ok, define ion without utilizing the word 'atom' in a response that is a full and accurate depiction of all ions and no atoms.

Just for reference, the accepted definition of all ions is "an atom which has acquired charge by way of gaining or losing electrons".
Turritopsis
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 16, 2011
An ion is an elementary particle which has lost/gained electrons in the process we call ionization. The ionic particle is no longer an element and it will exhibit electromagnetic properties on its course to neutrality. The ion will radiate the excess electrons away, or, attract electrons in its search for neutrality, depending on the charge. When the ion rebalances it will be a complete neutral particle, an atom.
ClevorTrever
5 / 5 (6) Apr 16, 2011
An ion is not an elementary particle but an atom that has gained or lost one or more electrons, thus giving it an overall charge.

An elementary particle is a particle which has no internal structure. Examples include electrons and positrons.

Ions don't radiate electrons.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (6) Apr 16, 2011
You're correct Trevor, my mistake. S_H asked for a definition of an ion not involving an atom. There isn't one. I should have called it an 'element' instead of an "elementary particle" but stupid breeds stupid. S_H's stupidity rubbed off on me. I'm not perfect, no one is. I accept viewpoints of others as possible unlike our little dumb dumb friend.

He's one of those anal people, which is sometimes alright, but not in his case as his knowledge base is rather low, which is sometimes alright, but not when you're a pompous know it all.

Ions do give off excess electrons. And we can't say for certain that electrons and positrons are indivisible, but yes we haven't been able to simulate energies high enough to crack them. So yes, as of today they are indivisible. You never know what the future will bring (but sometimes we do).
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (6) Apr 16, 2011
S_H:

Ions are atoms with an uneven ratio of protons to electrons. To most people this would be definition enough but not to a delivery man who thinks he's a physicist, I suppose.
Turritopsis
1.7 / 5 (9) Apr 16, 2011
"I delivered lab equipment, look at me I'm a scientist." Zero humility, all arrogance, and no intelligence. His memory is somewhat good, unless he's a wiki addict, which is almost a certainty.

The people that defined an ion defined it for the sole purpose of distinguishing it from an atom. Yes ions are derived from atoms and yes they will become atoms again in the future. That's the nature of things.
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (8) Apr 16, 2011
Our current use of the word atom is for an element in its neutral state. Our current use of the word ion is for an element that has lost neutrality (either through addition of electrons creating an anion or removal of electrons creating a cation).
So a wire, carrying a charge, is not made of atoms?

Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 16, 2011
An ion is an elementary particle which has lost/gained electrons in the process we call ionization.
So the W and Z bosons are ions? Your definition fails. All ions are atoms. Sorry.
The ion will radiate the excess electrons away, or, attract electrons in its search for neutrality, depending on the charge.
There is no radiation of electrons.
Ions are atoms with an uneven ratio of protons to electrons.
Correct. Ions are a subclass of atoms which carry an uneven ratio of protons to electrons. Ions are atoms.
To most people this would be definition enough but not to a delivery man who thinks he's a physicist, I suppose.
So if I'm a deliveryman who thinks he's a physicist then why did I have the definition and you didn't?

You working for UPS or Fedex?
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (4) Apr 16, 2011
@ubanova

No. Atoms are made of energy. So the wire is made of energy.
jimbo92107
1 / 5 (1) Apr 16, 2011
If gravity is an emergent phenomenon as suggested by the entropic theory...

http://en.wikiped..._gravity

...then I suppose a form of gravity that repels normal matter could be just a different spin on our familiar suckage.

Once again the megaminds and mentats have a lot more figurin' to do.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2011
@thrash
I'm sorry, I don't buy it, and I don't see any credible evidence
-And where would YOU see evidence for this?
that suggests that antimatter and matter don't mutually attract one another through gravity. When you reverse just the parity, you reverse the direction of the force of gravity, when you reverse just the time, you reverse the direction ...
yadda yadda. What makes you think word calcs are in any way adequate for figuring out how these things should work?

"But as Villata explains, there is more than just mass involved in gravity. In this case, time and parity are involved."

-These scientists say you have no idea what you are talking about and no way of acquiring such an idea, and they use real calculations and examine real phenomena to determine this. You use -what- your 'opinion' based on -what- words and the ability to fiddle with them? Only you imply your opinions are valid conclusions and are worth discussing as such.

Where do you get off?
daqman
not rated yet Apr 16, 2011
The idea makes sense but either Villata et al stopped short of taking it to it's logical conclusion or it isn't discussed here. Imagine a primordial universe with equal amounts of matter and antimatter. Positive and negative charged particles attract and one of two things happen. Either a particle meets it's antiparticle and annihilates or atoms hydrogen and anti-hidrogen are formed. Both atoms and anti-atoms are electrically neutral and the remaining long distance force affecting them is gravity. If Villata et al are correct the hydrogen atoms attract each other to form stars and the anti-hidrogen atoms attract to form anti-stars but stars and anti-stars repel. The stars and anti-stars form galaxies and anti-galaxies which form clusters and anti-clusters.

Given the age of the universe it should be possible to work out the structure of such a universe. I would bet that it looks like filaments of anti-galaxies or galaxies separated by voids. The observed structure of the universe
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Apr 16, 2011
@thrash
This reads more like an attempt to get people to buy a novel than a credible scientific announcement.
Your word calc arguments read more like an attempt to reach a pompous conclusion than to acknowledge your inability to say something intelligent toward the topic. Due to your profound lack of appreciation of science in general and of physics in particular.

THEYRE scientists. Youre not. Theyve spent a great deal of time coming to their conclusions by using all the tools that scientists use. You spend a total of maybe 10 minutes using no tools whatsoever but your unscientific misconceptions of what words ought to mean and how they might be used to discount real scientific inquiry; combined with an overabundance of gall.

'Opinions' such as yours are as dangerous as those of any creationist.
ckd
5 / 5 (4) Apr 16, 2011
If the voids were filled with anti-matter, then there would be matter/anti-matter boundary regions. At the boundaries, wouldn't there be a detectable pattern of matter/anti-matter collisions? Since such activity is NOT observed, it seems doubtful that the voids are filled with anti-matter. I also agree with the objections that ask "wouldn't there be anti suns and galaxies?"
ClevorTrever
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 16, 2011
@All

Please can we try to be really civil and not to fall prey to the temptation of internet anonymity to bully one another?

No one knows the truth of the universe and discussions like this help us to discuss what we read about and think about. If we can have a civilised conversation without getting emotional then I think we'll all be the be better off.

Love, respect, dignity, equality, you're wrong and I'm right. See?
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (7) Apr 16, 2011
Antisuns exist they're anomalies, they're a turn of events of events of events of events of events gone oppostionally wrong, annihilation is thorough mechanical degradation, 100% is converted from a particle of matter into light if 40 degree sunlight can cook you imagine what a hotter form would do. Anomalies are controllable so mechanics are true, as a studied calculation, which is good, but matter from light is better.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2011
@CT
No one knows the truth of the universe and discussions like this help us to discuss what we read about and think about. If we can have a civilised conversation without getting emotional then I think we'll all be the be better off.
One question. You seem to know a little about the subject. Does this make sense to you?
When you run across a particle that is inverted in all three properties, you get a negative particle that moves away from negative charges and towards positive charges, that is, traditional anti-matter.
And if it doesn't shouldn't someone point out that fact? Anybody else think thrash knows what he's talking about? If he does then I'll shut up.
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (8) Apr 17, 2011
Does this make sense to you?
When you run across a particle that is inverted in all three properties, you get a negative particle that moves away from negative charges and towards positive charges, that is, traditional anti-matter.


Didn't you see where CT essentially said the same thing?

"If antimatter is time reversed from our perspective, and if antimatter has negative gravitational mass from its own perspective, then we should see it as having attractive gravity just like ours."

And:

"CP is the product of two symmetries: C for charge conjugation, which transforms a particle into its antiparticle, and P for parity, which creates the mirror image of a physical system."

http://en.wikiped...is_CP.3F

Anybody else think thrash knows what he's talking about? If he does then I'll shut up.
It looks like thrash knew what he was talking about.
Callmewhatuwant
1 / 5 (1) Apr 17, 2011
oooo...bye bye dark energy....
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Apr 17, 2011
Sorry ubu I meant someone who knew physics. Your exerpts are crude word approximations of the math that physicists use to actually do their science. I say that if thrash was anyway near right then it was just pure coincidence. But I don't believe he was.

Anybody else?
hard2grep
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 17, 2011
we use antimatter all the time. it has not shown itself to be gravitationally repulsive yet.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Apr 17, 2011
I say that if thrash was anyway near right then it was just pure coincidence. But I don't believe he was.

Anybody else?

He's correct based on CPT calculations. The only conjectural component is whether antimatter is actually time inverted. The formulae suggested by observation of the small amounts of antimatter we've created suggest the possibility, but without hardline observable evidence of time inversion (don't ask me how we'd get it)it's impossible to clear up that last bit.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 17, 2011
Thankyou SH. The author of the published paper is attempting to translate calcs into words. It is impossible for him to convey the complexity of these calcs and so the words themselves cannot serve as tools for performing additional calcs. Correct? The author uses one example:

" the gravitational charge in the equation of motion of general relativity is not simply the mass, but includes a factor that is PT-sensitive and yields the change of sign."

-Indeed, GR contains *many* equations which are not *simply* anything, certainly not words, and for someone to use words to imply that it is, and to further state
This reads more like an attempt to get people to buy a novel than a credible scientific announcement.
-as if such a conclusion could be derived with WORDS and not numbers, is a bit arrogant don't you think?

I think it furthers the gross misconception that science which laymen cannot understand cannot be true. As I said I think this sort of *arrogance* should be objected to.
beelize54
1 / 5 (4) Apr 17, 2011
There are many experiments proving, that the Universe doesn't expand, the light of distant sources is just dispersing along its travel through CMBR photons. The effects of red-shift disappear for microwave light.

http://www.tgdail...t-at-all

It all implies, the Universe as a whole neither expands, neither collapses and this notion is wavelength dependent. And experiments are always going first, theories later.
Thrasymachus
5 / 5 (6) Apr 17, 2011
Heh, if my knowing what I'm talking about were enough to get otto to shut up, he'd have had to shut up a long time ago. He's just mad at me because I pointed out to him some time ago that his Scientism and obsession with his pet World Conspiracy Theory is just as anti-science, and partakes of just the same self-involved attitudes of faith, as the various deistic religions he mocks. His level of actual scientific understanding is that of a sci-fi reader; no doubt better than an average layman, but fairly ignorant of the actual method of science and its implications.

No doubt, we will all soon be deluged with a flood of otto spam in this thread and others I've posted in recently as he seeks to denigrate me and defend his World Conspiracy idea. If so, I apologize to everybody else for being the catalyst for such a reaction.
beelize54
1.4 / 5 (7) Apr 17, 2011
Blue shift of radiowave source has been observed as a Pioneer maser anomaly

http://arxiv.org/.../0603191

ARCADE-2 measurements of background radio emission demonstrated, it was several times brighter than the inverse square law predicts.

http://arcade.gsf...006.html

Astronomers have found recently many galaxies, older than the alleged Big Bang and they observed too, these galaxies are actually shrinking with time - whereas the free space between galaxies doesn't expand at all.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.4956

It all serves as a evidence, the dispersion of light, not the expansion of Universe is responsible for the red shift. The people, who don't know about these observations are disqualified from the further discussions of the nature of Universe expansion, because they're not competent to judge it at all.
ubavontuba
2.5 / 5 (8) Apr 17, 2011
Your exerpts are crude word approximations of the math that physicists use to actually do their science.
What, maybe you think physicists only speak to each other in mathematical equations? Words are used to explain the concepts. Math is used to explore, refine, and verify the validity of the concepts.

-as if such a conclusion could be derived with WORDS and not numbers, is a bit arrogant don't you think?
The concepts thrash expressed are valid. The concepts expressed in the article are generally rejected by physicists, as stated in the article!

"...most physicists think that the gravitational behavior of antimatter should always be attractive, as it is for matter."

I think it furthers the gross misconception that science which laymen cannot understand cannot be true. As I said I think this sort of *arrogance* should be objected to.
I think many physicists would disagree. Or, perhaps you think Brian Greene isn't a physicist?

TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 17, 2011
pet World Conspiracy Theory is just as anti-science, and partakes of just the same self-involved attitudes of faith, as the various deistic religions he mocks.
-Including your own metaphysical infatuations? But all that has nothing to do with your obflamafuscations of the legitimate scientist whose work you choose to discount with WORDS does it? Otto would not be so disrespectful except out of ignorance- like yourself.
His level of actual scientific understanding is that of a sci-fi reader
-Which I admit freely, unlike yourself, and would never attempt to discount the work of scientists who submit papers to journals... unlike yourself.

I suppose if I had spent a lifetime engaged in a discipline which has proven itself *inadequate* to explain much of anything, I might be prone to shin-kicking of relevant gentlemen like above author. But my sense of dignity would make me want to resist it. Poor philo. Tell us again how free will makes us do things against our will...?
Thrasymachus
5 / 5 (4) Apr 17, 2011
Hypothesis confirmed. So, you have my apologies, everyone.
Husky
1 / 5 (1) Apr 17, 2011
inspired by the powerfull bipolar jets that can emerge from black holes, i toy with the idea of a Jet Bang, the big bang happening as two opposing directional jets, one of predominantly matter, the other antimatter, both jets would be able to condense into seperate universes, i like to point to observed phenomena, such as the Dark Flow and the Great Attractor wich deviate from the expected uniform expansion. It would be interesting to look in the statistics if traces of a common rotational axis for the hypothised jets persist today
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Apr 17, 2011
What, maybe you think physicists only speak to each other in mathematical equations? Words are used to explain the concepts. Math is used to explore, refine, and verify the validity of the concepts.
Uh no math is used to explain the concepts.
The concepts thrash expressed are valid.
Hey look thrash youre being defended by a fellow religionist word-monger. Still think you're on the right track?
The concepts expressed in the article are generally rejected by physicists, as stated in the article! "...most physicists think that the gravitational behavior of antimatter should always be attractive, as it is for matter."
You're drawing the wrong conclusions sir. You have no idea in what way they are being rejected nor to what extent, and you do not posess the knowledge or training to understand WHY they are. Religionists will take such a statement as evidence for god for example, an improper conclusion based on a handful of WORDS.
ubavontuba
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 17, 2011
...legitimate scientist whose work you choose to discount with WORDS does it? Otto would not be so disrespectful except out of ignorance- like yourself.

-Which I admit freely, unlike yourself, and would never attempt to discount the work of scientists who submit papers to journals.
All you're saying here is that if YOU don't understand a concept, you don't think anyone else can possibly understand it either. And yet, you'd accuse others of being arrogant?

Hey look thrash youre being defended by a fellow religionist word-monger.
I don't recall being in agrement with you over any issues.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Apr 17, 2011
I think many physicists would disagree. Or, perhaps you think Brian Greene isn't a physicist?
I think he would agree that one certainly cannot do physics, or critique it in any meaningful way, with WORDS.
Hypothesis confirmed. So, you have my apologies, everyone.
-If anything, philos do know how to work a crowd eh? This is called Rhetorics.

Your transgressions still stand. I think I've made the point pretty well. And I will continue to do so.
Thrasymachus
4.5 / 5 (4) Apr 17, 2011
Considering uba's reputation as a commenter on this site, otto, I'm happy to stand in both his and SH's, as well as gwerde's and typicalguy's camp. All of those guys have demonstrated understanding of the topics on which they comment, and an ability to explain their positions clearly and without appeal to fictional entities.
ubavontuba
2.3 / 5 (9) Apr 17, 2011
Uh no math is used to explain the concepts.
Wrong. The heuristic, intuitive, and approximate arguments come first.

"theoretical physics emphasizes the links to observations and experimental physics which often requires theoretical physicists (and mathematical physicists in the more general sense) to use heuristic, intuitive, and approximate arguments."

"mathematical physicists primarily expand and elucidate physical theories. Because of the required rigor, these researchers often deal with questions that theoretical physicists have considered to already be solved."

http://en.wikiped..._physics

ubavontuba
2 / 5 (8) Apr 17, 2011
I think he would agree that one certainly cannot do physics, or critique it in any meaningful way, with WORDS.
So now you're saying he can't simply agree with the "most physicists" mentioned in the article? Since when did mainstream physics become invalid, in your world view?

It seems you're so determined to find fault with thrash, that you've put yourself out on the proverbial limb.

TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Apr 17, 2011
Uh no math is used to explain the concepts.
Wrong. The heuristic, intuitive, and approximate arguments come first.
First- concept/hypothesis (usually); then math to explore/explain it. Which is what i said. I think your word calculator is busted. Radio Shack?
So now you're saying he can't simply agree with the "most physicists" mentioned in the article? Since when did mainstream physics become invalid, in your world view?
Again, 'agree' is a word which cannot adequately explain the complex process by which physicists confer, check, and confirm each others work. You can read any professional peer review to see that this is the case. Hint: it's full of numbers.
ubavontuba
2.5 / 5 (8) Apr 17, 2011
First- concept/hypothesis (usually); then math to explore/explain it. Which is what i said.
You're backpedaling. You clearly rejected the heuristic, intuitive, and approximate arguments, out of hand.

Again, 'agree' is a word which cannot adequately explain the complex process by which physicists confer, check, and confirm each others work. You can read any professional peer review to see that this is the case. Hint: it's full of numbers.
When did thrash claim he was performing a scientific peer review?

This is a public comment section, not a peer review. He's entitled to have an opinion, and he's entitled to freely express his opinion.

Stop being such a control freak.

Turritopsis
2.5 / 5 (4) Apr 17, 2011
Lol. Nouns and verbs. Variables and interactions.

I think some people may not know what mathematics are.

I've got five fingers on my hand (f) and I have two hands. Grand total of ten fingers.

5f x 2 = 10f

Math is a simplification of language. It is all relative.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Apr 17, 2011
When did thrash claim he was performing a scientific, peer review?
When he proclaimed the physicist a novelist.
section, not a peer review. He's entitled to have an opinion, and he's entitled to freely express said opinion
And I mine. You're aware of that right?

Tutmoses has four fingers and one thumb on each hand. Words are no substitute for numbers in science. This is obvious or should be.
Thrasymachus
5 / 5 (5) Apr 17, 2011
Anybody else find it funny that this shortening of my screenname to "thrashy" or "thrash" actually adds a letter that is not present in the full name? Thrasymachus is a minor character in the first chapter of Plato's Republic. He makes the claim that it is better to be unjust while being thought to be just, than to be just and thought to be unjust. The rest of the Republic is an extended metaphor to disprove that claim.
Thrasymachus
5 / 5 (4) Apr 17, 2011
from the text of the article:
he said. However, you can find anticipations on this and many other features of matter traveling backwards in time in the novel by Max Wells (which is my literary pseudonym, in honor of J. C. Maxwell and H. G. Wells), The Dark Arrow of Time, which is currently published only in Italian (La freccia oscura del tempo), but I hope to find an English publisher soon.
The "he" who said this is Villiata, the physicist in question.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Apr 17, 2011
Anybody else find it funny that this shortening of my screenname to "thrashy" or "thrash" actually adds a letter that is not present in the full name? Thrasymachus is a minor character in the first chapter of Plato's Republic. He makes the claim that it is better to be unjust while being thought to be just, than to be just and thought to be unjust. The rest of the Republic is an extended metaphor to disprove that claim.
Which, after all, does not speak to your knowledge of physics, only perhaps to pretension. Do you feel you were being just to the physicist in the article and of all his learning, experience, and work?
Thrasymachus
5 / 5 (4) Apr 17, 2011
From CleverTrevor
Read the paper - it hasn't been published yet but there's a link in the article to the IOP where you can create an account and get the paper free.

It's junk science at its most disingenuous.

The argument of the authors is that if their CPT transform is valid for the electrodynamic equations of motion then they must hold true for GR as Einstein's equations are of the same form as Lorentz'. This is to miss the point - charge comes in two flavours, positive and negative. Mass is mass even it is associated with antimatter and there is no difference between inertial mass and gravitational mass. If antimatter is time reversed from our perspective, and if antimatter has negative gravitational mass from its own perspective, then we should see it as having attractive gravity just like ours.


This, combined with the author's own admitted literary aspirations, is reason enough to suggest that I have been more than fair to this individual.
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (8) Apr 17, 2011
When he proclaimed the physicist a novelist.
Did you even read the article? The physicist in question claimed this himself!

And I mine. You're aware of that right?
Sure, but your comments tend to be oppressive, mean-spirited personal attacks, with little relevance to the article - which is out of line with the purpose of this comment section.
Turritopsis
2.7 / 5 (6) Apr 17, 2011
" Words are no substitute for numbers in science. This is obvious or should be."

Math is a language. So is English. If you can't speak math I can see how you can't make a translation to it from English. Just like any other language, you must know it to speak it. But someone who speaks both math and English can translate English words spoken into math for you.

Don't fool yourself Otto. Math is only a tool, just as English is, for spreading the word.
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (8) Apr 17, 2011
Anybody else find it funny that this shortening of my screenname to "thrashy" or "thrash" actually adds a letter that is not present in the full name? Thrasymachus is a minor character in the first chapter of Plato's Republic. He makes the claim that it is better to be unjust while being thought to be just, than to be just and thought to be unjust. The rest of the Republic is an extended metaphor to disprove that claim.
Sure, but "thrash" sounds like a nickname for a great heavy metal rock guitarist. In other words, you rock!
frajo
5 / 5 (7) Apr 17, 2011
we use antimatter all the time. it has not shown itself to be gravitationally repulsive yet.
Of course, as the conditions it is kept in all the time don't allow any gravitational effect to be measured.
frajo
5 / 5 (1) Apr 17, 2011
I cannot get used to the strange English language habit of twisting the Greek suffix -os into the Latin suffix -us. No wonder English speakers often have difficulties to tell Greek from Latin words.
MorituriMax
3.3 / 5 (4) Apr 17, 2011
According to Brane Theory(?) we are one universe among many others.

If our own universe has been expanding, could we not be getting closer to other universes and thus their own mass would be attracting ours? Which would look like our own expansion is accelerating over time?

Just a thought since we keep reading how our universe is "expanding" but I haven't seen anything that talks about how this would look "outside" of our universe.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Apr 17, 2011
Don't fool yourself Otto. Math is only a tool, just as English is, for spreading the word.
A simile... Ok, as they are applicable to doing physics, words are like hammers whereas numbers are like scanning electron microscopes, good for moving kernels of meaning one atom at a time. People who think they can work physics with words should be building houses instead I guess.
This, combined with the author's own admitted literary aspirations, is reason enough to suggest that I have been more than fair to this individual.
Let me see, 2 anonymous nicks on a science news site vs a published physicist... I think I'll side with the pro. Especially one who's self-confident enough to discuss the flaws with his own theory, against an anon who seeks to establish credibility by explaining the pedigree of his nick to the audience? Please.

You guys wanna post your CVs, we could go from there.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Apr 17, 2011
This really gets me:
is reason enough to suggest that I have been more than fair to this individual.
YOU, a freaking house-builder, have been FAIR in criticizing a scientist in his own discipline?? With a few WORDS and perhaps 10 man-minutes of thought? They teach blind Audacity in philo school? No wonder it's a dead art.
ubavontuba
2.3 / 5 (9) Apr 17, 2011
This really gets me:
Okay, so you've established that you're not qualified to have any opinions on science. So, why are you here?

Why don't you hold yourself to your own standards (and promise) and stop commenting already?
Husky
not rated yet Apr 17, 2011
fee free to discuss the science of house-building with him, i am sure he can value the ideas from people thinking outside his box
Turritopsis
1.3 / 5 (4) Apr 17, 2011
Otto we're in agreement, math is a better tool for the physics trade than words. But you miss the point that we name every variable in the real world a symbol. Math is about placing variables in their corresponding relationships.

Have you ever read your math to someone else? Math is what we do to simplify reality, to derive relationships to aid in calculation of reality.

I really can't say that math differs from English any more than English does from French. It's just another language.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (10) Apr 17, 2011
@Turritopsis,

I feel like Otto should've said something long ago, yet didn't. So I'll do it for him.

Human brains are naturally suited to processing and operating with natural language. However, experiments show humans in general are piss-poor at logic. Mathematics is a type of language, yes, but it is a strictly-constructed and highly specialized language that automates and enforces LOGICAL thought.

This is what makes math a unique tool, and QUALITATIVELY -- not just quantitatively -- different from any other type of language.

Natural language operates on hazy concepts; its phrases and words can have many interpretations and shades of meaning, its syntactic constructs are limited in complexity (for instance, depth of recursive statement nesting) to that which can be accommodated in real-time by the limited-capacity working memory of the human brain. None of which is the case with math.

You say math simplifies; I say it enables far more complex thought than any other language.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (9) Apr 17, 2011
ctd.

It is true that mathematical thought begins with certain axioms or observables, which are necessarily derived from natural experience. Even math's rules are derived from natural experience -- as is, necessarily and unavoidably, any and EVERY artifact of human thought.

In some ways, mathematical thought is limited by the richness and accuracy of its premises. But that is true of any other mode of analysis or synthesis. However, math is exceptionally good at demonstrating the very inadequacy of its premises: for instance, by letting us deduce complex conclusions that do not correspond to empirical evidence -- thereby alerting us to the need of revising the premises.

Before the advent of formal mathematical systems, philosophers sought to derive strict rules of logic, and structure thought accordingly. They TRIED thinking mathematically, in essence, while still utilizing natural language. It was a rather difficult and not very productive enterprise, on the whole.
George_Rodart
5 / 5 (1) Apr 17, 2011
With enough antimatter to have a universe. Its gravity should still be attractive between antimatter. If its arrow of time is negative then, from a viewpoint within an antimatter universe, the physics and math should be more or less the same except with a bunch of sign changes. Causality isn't violated when viewed within the framework of an antimatter universe.

Using a 2D surface to model our universe, gravity is a change in its shape. An antimatter universe could exist on the reverse side of the plane with its negative gravity shapes space in concert with positive gravity. Negative gravity creates a well in space when viewed from the antimatter side. This would appear as a hump on our side of the universe which in effect would push matter apart, appearing as negative gravity.

The 'join' between the matter and antimatter space would be like an event horizon, with time = 0 and having a positive arrow in our universe and a negative arrow in an antimatter universe.
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (8) Apr 17, 2011
This is what makes math a unique tool, and QUALITATIVELY -- not just quantitatively -- different from any other type of language.
I will agree with this, in principle. However, it's not prohibitive to translation. That is, the mathematical constructs can be (and generally are even in original papers) correspondingly described in English.

Furthermore, many physicist strive to translate their concepts into accessible language forms (a la: Albert Einstein, Brian Greene, Stephen Hawking, etc.), so discussion in language forms is both encouraged by and acceptable to the physics community for lay consumption.

And as I quoted above:

"theoretical physics emphasizes the links to observations and experimental physics which often requires theoretical physicists (and mathematical physicists in the more general sense) to use heuristic, intuitive, and approximate arguments."

...in other words, they use language and make guesses.

jimbo92107
5 / 5 (1) Apr 17, 2011
Hey, wait a second. Does this mean that if you were inside an antimatter container, that container would float away (or be pushed away) from the earth? Can normal gravity pass through a layer of antimatter?

If so, that might provide an interesting way of propelling a spacecraft.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.7 / 5 (3) Apr 18, 2011
I think it furthers the gross misconception that science which laymen cannot understand cannot be true. As I said I think this sort of *arrogance* should be objected to.
Feynman put it best:
http://www.youtub...=related
n0ns3ns0r
not rated yet Apr 18, 2011
if voids were full of antimatter, they'd form anti stars and anti galaxies, and from a distance they'd look indistinguishable from normal stars and galaxies, so to us, there wouldn't be any voids


If these particles move backwards in time, it would be impossible to see them because from our perspective, they wouldn't emit light at all. Light in their "future" would be moving into the antimatter particles' past. It's quite easy to understand why we would be repelled by anti-gravity, not see light from anti-matter, or otherwise not be able to observe or detect large clusters of anti-matter.

I suppose it then comes down to determining rates of expansion, modeling amounts of anti-matter, and applying figures to current understandings of how gravity behaves. Math bores me. But I'm sure there are lovely borderline autistics out there willing to do the grunt work. :)
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Apr 18, 2011
Otto
Anybody else?
Me.

Ethelred
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Apr 18, 2011
Otto
Anybody else?
Me.

Ethelred
You what you? Please explain the briefest post you've ever posted.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Apr 18, 2011
fee free to discuss the science of house-building with him, i am sure he can value the ideas from people thinking outside his box
Although I assume that thrash is really not a housebuilder I might expect him to try to tell an engineer how to design a bridge. With words.
You say math simplifies; I say it enables far more complex thought than any other language.
I would go a bit further and say that math enables the exploration of things totally beyond thought.
It is true that mathematical thought begins with certain axioms or observables, which are necessarily derived from natural experience
I would also say that math enables the exploration of totally abstract things which have no relation to natural experience.
It was a rather difficult and not very productive enterprise, on the whole.
AND I think this is a gross understatement. But thanks for your elucidations.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2011
I will agree with this, in principle. However, it's not prohibitive to translation. That is, the mathematical constructs can be (and generally are even in original papers) correspondingly described in English.
NO they're not. You're exposing your fundamental misunderstanding of the complexity of science. This is a profound disconnect. You don't understand science and you fail to realize this.

When scientists refer to a theorem or a hypothesis in discussion with other scientists, it is with the tacit understanding that those other scientists are familiar with the pages and pages of calculations which comprise those theorems.

They use words as gross abbreviations for years of work and effort and discovery using math, and only adequately expressed in math terms. Years and pages of numbers. Kapiert?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2011
Okay, so you've established that you're not qualified to have any opinions on science. So, why are you here?
I've worked with scientists and engineers for most of my professional career. I do not presume to understand how they do what they do but I can appreciate the level of accomplishment needed to do it. I have a great deal of respect for their capabilities and would never presume to seriously refute hard science or call a scientist a novelist because I know it would only betray my level of ignorance, and demean their efforts in the eyes of others.

Perhaps your mutual upraters are doing you a disservice by reinforcing your misconceptions, and tolerating your lack of appreciation rather than correcting it, leaving iconoclasts like otto no other choice than to do it themselves. With hammers.
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Apr 18, 2011
No.

Ethelred
El_Nose
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 18, 2011
this is all a hope that it may be possible that nature has provided us with the materials to build a metamaterial with a negative energy density - so that we can travel the stars -- reality will probably much more cruel
Modernmystic
2.8 / 5 (9) Apr 18, 2011
Uh no math is used to explain the concepts.


"If we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist."

-Stephen Hawking
Thrasymachus
5 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2011
I think, otto, that you should perhaps question whether your intolerance of me has caused you to throw your lot in with those you otherwise would not have chosen to associate. You are certainly free with your characterizations of me, which are far more grounded in your animosity than in anything I've said or attitude I've expressed.

The belief that the author of this article is not to be taken seriously is shared by many other commenters, and is grounded in two facts, taken from the article itself. The first is that while the author admits his work is entirely theoretical, and grounds his hypothesis on inverted spacetime due to the inverted spatial parity and inverted time of antimatter particles, but neglects to mention that this double inversion would cancel each other out in the equations that describe the structure of spacetime. The second is the author's self-admitted ambitions in publishing and promoting his novel, in which this idea plays a prominent role.
ubavontuba
2.3 / 5 (9) Apr 18, 2011
That is, the mathematical constructs can be (and generally are even in original papers) correspondingly described in English
NO they're not.
Yes, they are.

Here are some examples from some of the better known physicists. Please note how each paper is text heavy, and each equation tends to be carefully described in text. These examples are typical.

Examples:

http://prac.us.ed...king.pdf

http://131.111.17...an05.pdf

http://www-f1.ijs...bohr.pdf

You're exposing your fundamental misunderstanding of the complexity of science.
No. You're displaying the Scientism and self-involved attitudes of faith to which Thrasymachus referred.

You don't understand science...
Obviously, it's you who doesn't understand science - as it's apparent, you've NEVER read an actual scientific paper!
Thrasymachus
4 / 5 (1) Apr 18, 2011
As for your denigration of me, I do not build houses, or buildings of any sort. I read blueprints and translate those blueprints into material quantities so that a cost estimate can be generated and a bid can be submitted to do the job. There are many times when I have suggested a change to the architects, and at least a couple when I pointed out that what they drew was neither possible nor wise. I remember one in particular where the plans called for a 6" slab reinforced with 2 mats of #8 bars at 8 inches on center. I pointed out that 2 mats of #8s was over 4 inches thick all by itself, leaving less than an inch of concrete over the top of the rebar, making the structure less stable than if smaller reinforcing bars were used. Moreover, that sort of reinforcing is not called for on a support slab in the middle of a school. They don't even use 2 mats of #8s in bridges.

I know the importance of math, but unless you can translate that into physical predictions, math is useless.
ubavontuba
2.1 / 5 (9) Apr 18, 2011
other scientists are familiar with the pages and pages of calculations which comprise those theorems.
To what "pages and pages of calculations" do you refer? Cite some examples.

never presume to seriously refute hard science
Which simply means you take their word on faith, without bothering to try to understand.

The purpose of science is to discover and dispense knowledge. That you refuse to partake in the knowledge, is your own doing.

or call a scientist a novelist
Even if he identifies himself that way? That's disrespectful.

Otto, the purpose of an education is to learn and explore the knowledge that has been hard won by the very scientists you worship. Learning is a give and take process where questioning the instructor and the knowledge base is generally encouraged. You should try it. I highly recommend it.

Skultch
4.8 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2011
Otto,

I agree with your general idea the most of philosophy is obsolete, and I thank you for enlightening me to this idea. I also thank the multiple posters that clarify the role and nature of math in relation to understanding.

That said, I think if there was one word to describe you based on your commentary in this thread, it is stubborn. Thrasy said:
This reads more like an attempt to get people to buy a novel than a credible scientific announcement.


which prompted a tirade from you meant to defend all scientists.

Thrasy said nothing wrong. You took it the wrong way, reading more into what was actually said. A credible scientific announcement should have addressed the cancelling out of PT inversions. It didn't, so it read like something else. Combine that with the book plug, and Thrasy's comment is apt. You simply used Thrasy as a scapegoat for an emotionally driven lecture. You seem to either be projecting, or just not on your A game.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (4) Apr 18, 2011
To what "pages and pages of calculations" do you refer? Cite some examples.
Jesus. The article above mentions GR. Go to the library, find a bonafide TEXTBOOK on GR, not just the Time/Life picture addition. Pick it up. Feel how heavy it is? Open it. Flip through the pages. Do you see all the numbers and strange symbols? There are 1000s of them.

GR physicists know exactly what all those numbers and symbols mean, and when they refer to GR they are referencing this entire book, all the work necessary to compile it, and all the research that's been done to confirm it. It took them decades of study to get to the point where they could understand this and use it meaningfully in conversation with other scientists with similar training.

Anyone have a more charitable example for the gentleman born with a thumb where his brain should be? I am showing much restraint.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2011
Even if he identifies himself that way? That's disrespectful.
Scientists can be very innocent and unassuming in their self-deprication when speaking to other scientists. When speaking to you guys they may not realize that in your ignorance and arrogance you will tend to take their comments out of context and use it against them.

Medical doctors are trained to deal with this because they deal with the clueless all the time; most scientists are not. After a few such unfortunate encounters they may learn to become wary of the public.
Thrasymachus
5 / 5 (8) Apr 18, 2011
There are 10 field equations of General Relativity, not pages and pages of them. There are an infinite number of solutions for those field equations, and working through those solutions, finding ones with physical relevance, will indeed take books and books. But the importance of a solution for one of the field equations is not that it is a solution for those equations, but whether that solution has physical significance, that is, does what it describe match up with what is observed. And since we don't observe the world as mathematically symbolic solutions of field equations, and we don't get falling apples when we solve field equations, we have to be able to translate math into observations and vice versa.

And you have never shown much restraint. All you are showing is an inability to understand your error. Your error is that you worship the authority of science, not its method. You don't even understand its methods, as you admit.
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (8) Apr 18, 2011
Go to the library, find a textbook on GR. Pick it up. Feel how heavy it is? Open it. Flip through the pages. Do you see all the numbers and strange symbols? There are 1000s of them.
Obviously, you've NEVER read THE defininig book on GR, written by Albert Einsein, himself.

"...I have purposely treated the ...theory in a "step-motherly" fashion, so that readers unfamiliar with physics may not feel like the wanderer who was unable to see the forest for the trees. May the book bring some one a few hours of happy suggestive thought."

- A Einstien, December 1916

And, you've NEVER actually seen a real college physics textbook. They're mostly words!

TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Apr 18, 2011
since we don't observe the world as mathematically symbolic solutions of field equations
No, YOU don't and don't appreciate the necessity of being able to do so when doing science or criticizing scientists. You have no respect for them or what they do. Or rather you believe that whatever training you may have gives you the ability and authority to criticize them, which it does not. You are what we laymen like to call "a piece of work".
Thrasymachus
5 / 5 (2) Apr 18, 2011
Sure thing otto. Physicists see solutions to field equations when they look at the world. Keep venting your spleen, your opinions will end up as irrelevant as kevinrts or marjon's. I suppose the marginalization of your fanaticism will have to do, though I'd prefer you engage in a bit of self-critique and abandon your self-appointed priesthood of Science. After all, it's not as if you're unintelligent, just too blinded by your adoration and self-involvement.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Apr 18, 2011
@ubu
Your Einstein book is not really a textbook although most all of the terms he uses refer to concepts which are only understood by digesting textbooks such as this:
http://scipp.ucsc...art4.pdf

-Einstein is speaking to people who have been through the necessary textbooks, which give them the knowledge to understand what he is talking about. Not posturers and posers and denigrators who may like to use them as props.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2011
-You will note that all the explanatory words in the textbook I referenced are references and abbreviations for additional mathematical concepts which the reader must be schooled in in order to understand the original text.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Apr 18, 2011
Sure thing otto. Physicists see solutions to field equations when they look at the world. Keep venting your spleen, your opinions will end up as irrelevant as kevinrts or marjon's. I suppose the marginalization of your fanaticism will have to do, though I'd prefer you engage in a bit of self-critique and abandon your self-appointed priesthood of Science. After all, it's not as if you're unintelligent, just too blinded by your adoration and self-involvement.
OOp Da bitchslap- last redoubt of da Ruinated. It's not as if you're all that intelligent...

Philo and godder together, sailing off into the sunset... Let us shoot flaming arrows into their sails, like they did for Ernest Borgnine.
ubavontuba
2.3 / 5 (9) Apr 18, 2011
No, YOU don't and don't appreciate the necessity of being able to do so when doing science or criticizing scientists. You have no respect for them or what they do. Or rather you believe that whatever training you may have gives you the ability and authority to criticize them, which it does not. You are what we laymen like to call "a piece of work".
Thrasymachus nailed it. Your scientism really is a matter of unshakable faith for you.

It seems rather apparent you no longer even see the humanity in scientists and therefore their human propensity for screwing up. Rather, you see them as some sort of divine creature, beyond all hope of comprehension. How sad for you.

TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2011
Nice music- not thrash, more black:
http://www.youtub...a_player

-Here's to the end of the reign of (pseudo) religionist terror which has hobbled humanity for so long. [otto lifts ram horn full of meade]
ubavontuba
2.3 / 5 (9) Apr 18, 2011
@ubu
Your Einstein book is not really a textbook although most all of the terms he uses refer to concepts which are only understood by digesting textbooks such as this:
http://scipp.ucsc...art4.pdf
These aren't calculations from a science paper. This is from a textbook on applied mathematics ("Introduction to Tensor Calculus and Continuum Mechanics"), not even a physics textbook, per se. It's equation heavy because it's a book about equations.

From the preface:

"Each section includes many illustrative worked examples."

-Einstein is speaking to people who have been through the necessary textbooks,
Wrong again. He clearly states otherwise in the preface.

"The ...book is intended ...to give an exact insight into relativity to those readers who ...are interested in theory, but are not conversant with the mathematical apparatus of theoretical physics."
- A Einstein

Stop commenting on what you obviously don't know.
Pyle
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 18, 2011
Sorry to distract from your therapy session guys, but could one of you guys help me.

How does an antimatter expansion universe account for red shift? Why is this ignored? Isn't red shift the primary evidence we use for determining that the universe is expanding in the first place?

All this nonsense about repulsion by anti-matter and nothing about red shift (or lensing effects). Somebody tell me what I missed.
Pyle
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2011
To chime in on the therapy session though.

The reasons this antimatter idea won't work is going to be math. Not because the scientist wrote a novel. While deducing motivations from that is possible, it really is scientist using very difficult math or very expensive equipment that will show him to be wrong, not us anon unqualified commenters.
Skultch
5 / 5 (1) Apr 18, 2011
I posted this in the newest, redundant article on this theory:

What would the gravitational lensing look like? If the antigalaxies repel instead of bend the light, would we see some distant objects as split up almost infinitely? Would some of the far galaxies light be refracted 180 degrees and we observe them in a drastically different position? Could this article's theory explain the geometry of cosmic filaments and super clusters?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Apr 18, 2011
These aren't calculations from a science paper. This is from a textbook on applied mathematics ("Introduction to Tensor Calculus and Continuum Mechanics"), not even a physics textbook, per se. It's equation heavy because it's a book about equations.
You have no idea whether it applies to GR or not. GR is composed of calcs which are abbreviations of much more complex calcs defining space, time, velocity, energy, mass, etc. All of physics is COMPOSED of equations. Does this make any sense to you? No it does not.
So the book you gave as an example of a textbook is even less of one than I implied? Way to go Einstein.

Einstein IS saying that in order to be conversant in the theory, one must be able to work the math.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Apr 18, 2011
Wrong again. He clearly states otherwise in the preface.

"The ...book is intended ...to give an exact insight into relativity to those readers who ...are interested in theory, but are not conversant with the mathematical apparatus of theoretical physics."
missed a quote. My response: So the book you gave as an example of a textbook is even less of one than I implied? Way to go Einstein.

Einstein IS saying that in order to be conversant in the theory, one must be able to work the math. Meaning: conversant in the mathematical apparatus of theoretical physics. Which you and your fellow berserker are not.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Apr 18, 2011
@ubu
-if you're interested in how continuum mechanics relates to relativity, you can spend $139 and buy this:
Tensors: The Mathematics of Relativity Theory and Continuum Mechanics (Hardcover)
Anadijiban Das
http://www.amazon...-6080310
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2011
@mr skultch
Thrasy said nothing wrong. You took it the wrong way, reading more into what was actually said.
No, what got me going was what led thrash to conclude that the scientist didn't know what he was talking about:
What I mean, frajo, is that an anti-proton is identical to a normal proton with inverted CPT. Let's deal with each of those properties in turn, one at a time. Let's say we came across a particle that was identical to a proton but with just it's charge inverted. This would be a particle with a negative charge
-etc. for 2 or 3 posts. Using word math as if it was a substitute for the real thing.

Discussing science for recreation is fine and I enjoy it a lot. But discussing it and pretending to know how to do it are quite another. I can see that thrash has no formal professional training; if he did he would have looked up rebar requirements in applicable codes and standards and found that it only requires 3/4" concrete cover. Typically.
Skultch
5 / 5 (1) Apr 18, 2011
Discussing science for recreation is fine and I enjoy it a lot.


Somehow, today, based on multiple threads, I've had doubts about that. You seem even more aggressive than usual. Maybe it's me and this annoying vegan detox diet I'm on. Yeah, probably that. Anyway, I just never got the impression that Thras was disrespecting the author. I read a guy trying to think out loud. Again, perhaps it's our different perspectives which are responsible for our different take.
Skultch
not rated yet Apr 18, 2011
But discussing it and pretending to know how to do it are quite another.


I really don't understand why this annoys you so. Are they false, or just too imprecise for your taste? For me, these conversations are perfect. I get to learn more of what is known and get to consider new ideas, for free. I can't say thank you enough to most of the regulars here. It's perfect because, usually, the ideas they talk about are just advanced enough for me to follow and still be challenged. Frajo, while usually spot on, is sometimes over my head with the math. To you, I would think, he is more accurate and gives more trustworthy mathematical knowledge. To me, it's so far over my head, it's worthless. So, for me, I see more value in 'ignorant' approximations and guesswork, than cold, hard, advanced logic.
Thrasymachus
5 / 5 (1) Apr 19, 2011
In your zeal to have shown me a fool, you seem to have overlooked the rather embarrassing fact that 2/3 of an inch is less than 3/4 of an inch. But then, overlooking facts in your zeal to attack has always been a fault of yours, otto.
TheGhostofOtto1923
Apr 19, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Apr 19, 2011
We can see in the above comments how woefully errant and shallow ubu's conception of physics was, based on word math, reinforced and encouraged by selfish mutual upraters. Perhaps ottos polemic has saved one soul from playacting hell? If so I have done good.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Apr 19, 2011
And yes, we did find out that thrash is arrogant enough to want to tell an engineer how to design a bridge, and we should temper our view of his *knowledge* in that light.
Skultch
5 / 5 (3) Apr 19, 2011
You should be careful that you are not being misled by posturers and crowd pleasers.


I usually fact check, but not all the time. Trust is a valuable time saving tactic. Many posters here have earned my limited trust. I say limited, because I know how hard it is to remove my own bias, so I expect it out of everyone. I also have absolutely zero plans on being a physicist or mathematician. I know I have the aptitude, just not the enjoyment, discipline or ambition. Because of this, I am forced to accept the chance that I will trust the incorrect. Oh well. The time others are doing calculations, I'm hiking, snowboarding, and brewing beer. :D
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Apr 19, 2011
I think it's best to keep an open mind and some humility. Personally I like to sit in a darkened room and listen to black metal and brood. Just kidding, I'm at the gym a lot :-)

Sometimes otto dreams of World Domination but he knows that Others have already beat him to it. The Good Guys. 8-O
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (8) Apr 19, 2011
We can see in the above comments how woefully errant and shallow ubu's conception of physics was, based on word math,
Did you have trouble understanding my references? Maybe you have a problem with guys like Einstein, Hawking, and Bohr?

You need to decide. Do you believe what scientists say, or not?
Thrasymachus
5 / 5 (7) Apr 19, 2011
I think it's best to keep an open mind and some humility.

Damn it otto, now I gotta get a new keyboard. And coffee hurts when it comes out your nose like that.
El_Nose
1 / 5 (1) Apr 19, 2011
@ Everyone

You got to admit argueing with Otto and the other trolls - ( i exlude otto from trolls as he does believe in what he types -- he has youtube videos up and was a professor - though most of us dissagree with him on a personal and private level) bbut you got to admit argue with people on here has made many of us better commenters and increased our overall physics knowledge.

!! happy commenting
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 19, 2011
Are you referring to Oliver, "omatumor"?

He's the one with the vids, crackpot theories, and is no longer allowed on college campuses.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Apr 19, 2011
Are you referring to Oliver, "omatumor"?

He's the one with the vids, crackpot theories, and is no longer allowed on college campuses.
Indeed otto has no vids and was never a prof. What are you talking about nose?
argue with people on here has made many of us better commenters and increased our overall physics knowledge.
Indeed I see from another thread that thrash has picked up a new word from our GR discussion- tensor- but alas only uses it to make people think he knows what it is.

Hey thrash you can add that to those 8 simple field equations to round out your vast knowledge of a theory most physicists will admit they do not understand. Freely. Or you can read the whole wiki article and learn lots more!
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Apr 19, 2011
I think it's best to keep an open mind and some humility.

Damn it otto, now I gotta get a new keyboard. And coffee hurts when it comes out your nose like that.
So the philo has some sense of humor. Do you ever laugh at your own foibles sir? Do you ever take yourself less than seriously? This is a sign of a healthy mind and something to admire I think.
George_Rodart
5 / 5 (1) Apr 19, 2011
We can use a 2D surface to visualize 3D gravity as a spatial distortion, think of poking our finger into an elastic sheet. It makes a depression which represents increased gravity. Using this analogy we see that the sheet deforms into a dimension that is one higher, 3D. So we could visualize that gravity is a deformation of 3D space contained in a larger 4D space.

If at the big bang space and gravity are emergent, with our 3D space contained in a larger 4D space. The creation of antimatter, and anti mater physics with a negative time arrow, is created simultaneously. This antimatter 3D space is on the 'other side' of our 3D space.

If the two spaces are joined, then antimatter gravity is attractive on the antimatter side and repulsive on the matter side. Matter and antimatter create a complex space in which both kinds of matter can exist but are separated from each other because their time arrows point in opposite directions. Antimatter stars are invisible to us.
beelize54
4 / 5 (4) Apr 22, 2011
Antimatter stars are invisible to us.
Why they should be? Antiphotons are identical with photons.
George_Rodart
1 / 5 (1) Apr 22, 2011
Photons and antiphotons aren't the issue. In an antimatter world time the time arrow is negative when viewed from our framework in a matter world. In the antimatter world this is sorted out by the other negative numbers and antimatter stars would appear in an antimatter world in the way one would expect. It would appear that only gravity would be independent of the matter-antimatter frame of reference.
George_Rodart
not rated yet Apr 22, 2011
In other words, from our frame of reference, antimatter starlight travels away from us, hence it will be invisible.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2011
In other words, from our frame of reference, antimatter starlight travels away from us, hence it will be invisible.

That makes absolutely no sense.

Antimatter would be matter with all aspects reversed, if time is also reversed, antimatter would emit radiation similarly jsut as matter does.

We had this conversation further up towards the top of the comment thread.
beelize54
1 / 5 (1) Apr 22, 2011
antimatter starlight travels away from us, hence it will be invisible.
This is orthogonal/irrelevant to the problem of visibility of antimatter stars. Suppose that such antimatter star can be formed, it will radiate light in the same way, like the positrons are emanating normal visible light, when they're vibrating vigorously.

The nonexistence of heavier antimatter objects is another question.
Kieseyhow
not rated yet Apr 22, 2011
I was always impressed how the micro seems to mirror the macro and have read many articles by people obfuscating about such. It comes to mind that solar systems and galaxies are somewhat like gas molecules. Wouldn't it be poetic if the universe just expands because it wants to fill as much space as possible, like gas does ...*teasing grin*

The poetic image of the balloon and matter on one side and antimatter on the other. Also, the big bang creating two jets which create two universes. Another poetic image of the evaporating stars and their radiation gathering into antimatter and absorbing the light and the whole thing linked with tunnels through hyperspace from black holes to white holes. This is all very romantic to the mind. While all these ideas sound good and make sense in a way, so do many other things that until proven, are like good Sci-Fi books. I love a good story, don't you?
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2011
@George_Rodart

You're thinking of conical space-time. This would mean that every atom of matter is connected with its own antiatom past the singularity. Top cone represents the atom, the inversion point the singularity, bottom cone the antiatom. The antiverse exists past the singularity. By inverting matter we create antimatter. Antimatter is on the other side of matter.
George_Rodart
not rated yet Apr 22, 2011
The time arrow is negative for an antimatter universe, so the light travels away from an observer in our universe with a positive time arrow.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (1) Apr 22, 2011
Until the Higgs is found we cannot say that atoms are massive due to a warping of the Higgs field. If blackholes are responsible for mass (Higgs boson) we'll know that in the heart of every atom lay a singularity. Past the singularity no one knows, in all likelihood, a place identical to our own mirrored back.
George_Rodart
not rated yet Apr 22, 2011
Not quite, but I'm thinking that there was some kind of symmetry at the big bang. Whatever didn't get converted directly into energy became matter and antimatter. I'm suggesting that antimatter needs its own space-time coordinates to exist and as the article suggest this includes a negative time arrow.

Moreover, I think its possible for the antimatter world with a negative time arrow to coexist with our matter universe when they are both contained in a higher dimensional space. This means that one second in our world maps to one second in the antimatter world, but it appears to us as if the antimatter second has traveled back in time.

In the antimatter world the negative numbers work out in the math so antimatter physics/cosmology happens is roughly the same way it does in a matter world. The stars seem to shine in the antimatter world to an observer in the antimatter world because their clock runs in the right direction for their frame of reference.

When we try to observe the ant
beelize54
1 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2011
Until the Higgs is found we cannot say that atoms are massive due to a warping of the Higgs field.
The most inappropriate name ever given to the Higgs boson is "The God particle". The name gives the impression that the Higgs boson is the central particle of the Standard Model, governing its structure. But this is very far from the truth. The Higgs sector is arbitrary, and its form is not dictated by any deep fundamental principle.

It is sometimes said that the discovery of the Higgs boson will explain the mystery of the origin of mass. In fact, the Higgs mechanism accounts for about 1 per cent of the mass of ordinary matter, and for only 0.2 per cent of the mass of the universe. This is not nearly enough to justify the claim of explaining the origin of mass.

http://www.amazon...99581916 (page 174)
George_Rodart
not rated yet Apr 22, 2011
Oops, cut off earlier ... When we try to observe the antimatter universe, their clock runs backwards relative to our clock, so events which look simultaneous to an outside observer in a higher dimensional space, happen at different times in the matter and antimatter worlds. Hence they are invisible to us.
Skultch
5 / 5 (3) Apr 22, 2011
This antimatter backwards time thing is SO anti-intuitive to me. If the antimatter arrow of time is reversed starting, say, .0001-2 minutes after the BB, then what? How does it not completely disappear from this universe? I'm having a very hard time conceptualizing a subset of the universe or even any particle evolving backwards in time. I don't know what that means.
Skultch
5 / 5 (3) Apr 22, 2011
Seems like you are claiming knowledge you don't actually have:

The Higgs sector is arbitrary, and its form is not dictated by any deep fundamental principle.


because you don't believe in the Standard Model.

This is not nearly enough to justify the claim of explaining the origin of mass.


You think this because you don't want to believe in dark energy. That's fine, it's a placeholder, I know. But you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, do you?

Like in the other antimatter thread, you have yet to show evidence that your theory predicts things better than QM/GR/SR, and you haven't even some up with a sufficient hypothetical experiment, afaik.
George_Rodart
1 / 5 (1) Apr 22, 2011
I don't think the antimatter arrow of time 'gets reversed' In theory time is a dimensional continuum with both positive and negative values. As I understand it, the arrow of time is related to entropy. So in a antimatter universe, the arrow of time points towards larger negative numbers, which is the opposite of our matter universe time arrow.

If the matter universe and antimatter universe occupy the same geometric 3D space, matter and antimatter at the same xyz coordinate would be there at a different time coordinate. This means that there wouldn't be matter and matter at the same point and time. Still the matter and antimatter could gravitationally distort the xyz space forcing the matter and antimatter to separate.

The two universes are connected by the gravitational distortion of xyz space and except at small scales we cannot experience the antimatter universe.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Apr 22, 2011
I don't think the antimatter arrow of time 'gets reversed' In theory time is a dimensional continuum with both positive and negative values
From what perspective?
George_Rodart
1 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2011
What I meant was that the time arrow doesn't start out in one direction and then reverse. In an antimatter universe time values would be negative and entropy would favor a time arrow pointing towards larger negative numbers. From our perspective in a matter universe with time positive, the time arrow points towards larger positive numbers.

What I'm speculating is that at the big bang (whatever) there was a symmetric creation of matter and antimatter. Some of the matter and antimatter collides and is turned into energy, what remains starts to separate in time, the matter and antimatter time arrows pointing in opposite directions.

From the perspective of either universe, its mirror universe has a time pointing in the opposite direction from the time arrow of the viewer.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Apr 23, 2011
From the perspective of either universe, its mirror universe has a time pointing in the opposite direction from the time arrow of the viewer.
But you're insisting that there is no electromagnetic interaction as they are time seperated.
SincerelyTwo
not rated yet Apr 24, 2011
If gravity becomes more pronounced when small distance is considered, doesn't that means that repulsive gravity will push matter and antimatter with greater magnitude of force when they approach each other. So, i am wondering how do they annihilate?


Well, gravity isn't a very strong force, I imagine they just have to travel fast enough, and the odds of a direct collision is probably only a bit smaller from matter which attracts.
Shelgeyr
1 / 5 (2) Apr 24, 2011
SincerelyTwo said (many days ago):
I always thought 'Dark Matter' and 'Dark Energy' implied anti-matter and anti-gravity.

Not necessarily, but seeing how they're all completely imaginary constructs it isn't surprising one might draw that conclusion.
George_Rodart
not rated yet Apr 25, 2011
@SH- What I'm suggesting is that antimatter is confined in a -3D-T space imbedded in the space of our universe. What separates the matter and antimatter is similar to an event horizon. No information can cross the zero time boundary except the graviton. It's invisible except for its gravitational effects.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Apr 25, 2011
@SH- What I'm suggesting is that antimatter is confined in a -3D-T space imbedded in the space of our universe. What separates the matter and antimatter is similar to an event horizon. No information can cross the zero time boundary except the graviton. It's invisible except for its gravitational effects.

Sorry, this still doesn't make sense, and is a huge leap in logic. you're assuming a great multitude of things that are untestable.
George_Rodart
not rated yet Apr 25, 2011
At small scales we can create antimatter in very limited amounts. It takes a lot of energy and is difficult to contain.

At cosmological scales, either there aren't large areas composed of antimatter or whatever physics is required to maintain antimatter on a cosmological scale precludes us from being able to measure it, with the single exception of gravity.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.