Scientists find evidence for significant matter-antimatter asymmetry

Considering the presence of other powerful magnets (for focusing the beams, for giving energy to the protons, etc.), I'd be surprised if there weren't a one-percent difference when you reverse the detector magnet.

I'd like to read more on how they've made sure this is not the case.

In aether theory Universe is dense gas of nested density fluctuations, which have character of fractal foam, like the streaks of dark matter and the particles are wave excitations of this foam analogous to waves at water surface.

The membranes inside of foam always have at least two surface gradients, inner and outer one. When this foam is sparse, then the difference between curvature of inner and outer gradients is quite subtle, so there is only slight difference between behavior of particles, which are spreading along inner and outer surfaces of foam, with exception of their mirror symmetry.

But when our universe was young and collapsed (or at least it appeared so from our perspective), then the vacuum foam was dense and composed of spherical bubbles like thick soap foam after intensive shaking. And the difference between particles and antiparticles was substantially larger. Such situation exists inside of atom nuclei or during particle collisions, when vacuum foam is shaken well.

Foamy dense aether has found a wandering colt on their farm, they will name it Santorum for when the symmetry of the puppets have included the lighter materials of Vaseline.

Considering the presence of other powerful magnets (for focusing the beams, for giving energy to the protons, etc.), I'd be surprised if there weren't a one-percent difference when you reverse the detector magnet.

Before few years a weak polarization of light between poles of supermagnets was reported during PVLAS experiments, but these results were retracted later. It's evident, the macroscopic stable fields achievable by present state of technology are still too weak in comparison to temporary, but intensive EM fields during particle collisions.

..foamy dense aether has found a wandering colt on their farm..

It's just the simplest explanation of the experiments discussed in the article. Feel free to introduce some better one - and we'll see...

This sounds really interesting. A new type of CP violation would have enormous implications (wouldn't it?) I wonder how long it will take to verify these results.

The above model has many analogies. For example, in contemporary heavily expanded society only subtle difference between social roles of men and women exists. But when our civilization was tiny & compact, then the social roles of men and women were quite different. Such difference would arise again, when we would expose human civilization some stress, war or large social turbulence (impact of asteroid, for example).

Many primitive organisms (protozoa or yeast cells) are breeding asexually by budding, when their society is rich and large. But under high stress conditions, they divide sexually by mating like higher animals.

Top 10 things some fat guy would do to give normal people more pain.
1. Always do long monologes
2. Post links which has nothin to do with your text
3. Think that ppl come here to read your posts
4. Always say that only loosers rate your post with 1 without a reason.
5. Tell that you're a shaman and you're trying to save the world from nibiru
6. Show everyone that the only thing you can do is hamburger, keyboard, and retarded mind with one website installed.
7. Do not listen to other people, your mom knows the best.
8. Submit is on the left Cancel is on the right.
9. Allways start your text with pure facts that your father told you when you were a child.
10. The world begs to know your opinion.

With respect former members of our gang or just the same fat guy with many nicks and hopes for matrix to be real. Alizee Seneca Sceptic_Heretic Zero

If your opinion is free doesn't mean you can trash the world with it.

There should be a way to hide comments so we don't have to read comments from certain people.

This is a fascinating discovery - if it's real - and I'd really like the adults to be able to have a discussion without it being hijacked by a couple of overzealous crackpots.

Foamy Dense Aether Theory, or as I like to call it "Santorum", predicted your comments. It also tastes bad on toasted arugula.

The problem Alizee , is the very simple fact that I don't understand what you are saying. I don't think that would be a good idea to ask you to elaborate any further, right?

The problem Alizee , is the very simple fact that I don't understand what you are saying. I don't think that would be a good idea to ask you to elaborate any further, right?

When people are confronted with crazy conspiracy theorists on the street corner, they usually just avoid eye contact, not give them pity. I just happen to be the guy that likes to shout back at them in order to entertain myself.

Is that so wrong?

the very simple fact that I don't understand what you are saying.

But I'm just explaining the article subject, i.e. the nature of matter-antimatter asymmetry for to be accepted easier. Why there should be such asymmetry?

Many people believe already from popular Brian Greene books, vacuum is composed of quantum foam. I'm just explaining, such foam has a properties of real soap foam, so it can be used in explanation of that asymmetry. Such foam is composed of membranes, which have two surfaces: inner and outer, each of which is slightly different curvature, i.e. asymmetric. And so on... I presume, this is not so difficult to understand.

..I just happen to be the guy that likes to shout back at them in order to entertain myself....

I'm just explaining various connections of reality in most trivial way, I can. Science doesn't care about non-reproducible artifacts. The randomly shouting guys like you are transparent vacuum for me. Without logic you're no one, face it.

Even the foamiest of aether may contain a particle of truth or insight, however. Frequently a conceptual disconnect prevents understanding. Other times, just plain gaga.

This article interests me chiefly because of another article from physorg yesterday:

http://www.physor...592.html

perhaps this is further proof that, since this slight nonsymetry of amounts of regular matter vs antimatter being produced(by various possible mechanisms) the amount of baryonic matter is slowly increasing in the universe.

Perhaps, in the case of gravitational field/zero point field interaction, the action of gravity is sufficient to alter the energy equilibrium of a "virtual" particle enough to convert, or phase-shift it into an "actual" particle in our universe.
Obviously, I don't know this for a fact, nor do I possess the maths to back such an extraordinary claim- but, isn't it worth some serious consideration?

...this is a fascinating discovery - if it's real - and I'd really like the adults to be able to have a discussion without it being hijacked by a couple of overzealous crackpots..

This is why I'm proposing simple explanation and various analogies of it. Do you have some problem with it? Or do you prefer to discuss it with people, who have no explanation for it?

..other times, just plain gaga..

This is the same model, the same explanation - just in different context. It has no meaning to label it by five points under one post and by one point under another.

.."Many of us felt goose bumps when we saw the result," said Stefan Soldner-Rembold, co-spokesperson of DZero...

This sounds adventurously - but it's neither easy, neither cheap to organize such many years standing experiments - so you should know very well, what to expect.

Alizee - OK, let me be fair with you.

What do you mean by "real soap foam"? Elaborate.

Do you believe that the vacuum does behave like...soap? How that would explain the asymmetry that the article just suggested? Let me advise you that the experiment is not yet corroborated widely therefore you should be a little skeptical until solid evidences are established (even if you are not a physicist).

The problem Alizee , is the very simple fact that I don't understand what you are saying. I don't think that would be a good idea to ask you to elaborate any further, right?

When people are confronted with crazy conspiracy theorists on the street corner, they usually just avoid eye contact, not give them pity. I just happen to be the guy that likes to shout back at them in order to entertain myself.

Is that so wrong?

It better not be or I am in BIG trouble. I also like to throw big pieces of rotten fruit at them but hey... thats just me.

Soap foam thickens after shaking. Thick foam is composed of spherical bubbles. Spherical bubbles have thick walls with large difference in curvature between inner and outer surfaces of foam membrane. It means, during introduction of energy into soap foam some asymmetry in energy spreading arises.

Actually, I don't believe, vacuum is behaving like soap. I do believe, vacuum is dense particle system, which is rather similar to condensing supercritical fluid with intimate mixture of less and dense phases, which has some aspects of foam behavior. Some other aspects are different, but they're irrelevant/invariant to explanation particle-antiparticle asymmetry.

Some people believe, Universe is formed by interior of black hole. If such idea holds at least a bit of truth, how such material should appear and behave? Could we use our experience with dense gas or fluid to describe it?

I do believe, yes - it should be possible.

I also like to throw big pieces of rotten fruit at them but hey... thats just me.

Dense aether theory isn't rotten fruit, it's just unknown fruit.

I admit, this fruit is smelling suspiciously for many people, who learned laboriously at schools, aether concept is really bad for mental health of every sane physicist.

But this is just a prejudice - in fact, the very last physicist who proposed dense aether concept was Oliver Lodge before one hundred years - and from his time this model was never tested.

Nobody knows, what the dense aether fruit really is.

Alizee - I still don't see how that causes the matter and anti-matter asymmetry in nature.

I am also noticing that you collect a lot of facts and ideas here and there trying to link them somehow so they would make sense to you in some not very clear way.. But then you lack continuity in your thoughts (not trying to offend you by any means, not my nature).

How specifically the soap model above you just mentioned explain the matter and anti-matter asymmetry? You say that the "vaccum is dense particle system"? But what kind of system are you taking about? I am lost here.

You closing statement "Some other aspects are different, but they're irrelevant/invariant to explanation particle-antiparticle asymmetry. " is absolutely vague.

that the experiment is not yet corroborated widely therefore you should be a little skeptical until solid evidences are established

It wasn't a blind experiment at all. In fact, too many physicists needed such experiments to explain, why antimatter disappeared from our universe after Big Bang - after all, as article explained. Some media are even presenting it like understanding of God or the nature of our existence, which is simply ridiculous.

http://www.nytime...mos.html

what kind of system are you taking about? I am lost here.

The idea of quantum foam isn't new at all - it was proposed by J.A.Wheeler in 1955, so it's more than fifty years old idea already. And fifty years isn't a short period of time

http://en.wikiped...tum_foam

The problem is, the "quantum foam" concept is so poorly defined, no one has dealt with it seriously. Occasionally it's used as a catchy name in various popular books & articles about fabric of space-time, spin foam or string-net liquid.

http://www.newsci...5954.200

But for using such concepts in predictions and explanations we should attribute them some real tangible properties - or such concepts will remain void and useless.

Each foam is composed of mixture of less and more dense phases, i.e. from bubbles dispersed in fluid. Every bubble can be approximated by polygonal zones of less dense phase, which is separated from another bubbles by less or more thin wall composed of more dense phase.

Energy, like the energy of light can spread across volume of bubbles, but this way isn't very effective due the dispersion of energy during crossing wall of bubbles. So that the only acceptable way for propagation of energy at large distance is the spreading in waves along foam membranes. I.e. in similar way, like the spreading of ripples at the watter surface.

Was all this clear for everyone? It's not rocket science at all, just an justification of well used concepts.

The another idea of dense aether theory is, virtually all material particles are wave excitations of the vacuum foam, so that all particles are basically wave packets or clusters of foam ripples, spreading along surfaces of vacuum foam. There is virtually no conceptual difference between photons with zero rest mass and heavier particles with nonzero rest mass. The only difference is, inside of massive particles the part of energy bounces from inner walls of particle back and forth, so it effectively undulates at place.

This model explains, why particles aren't braked or dispersed by motion through foam - they're literally undulating through it without friction like waves at watter surface. This idea isn't so easy to imagine, though - it requires to consider extremely high density of vacuum foam, with compare to which the wave excitations are relatively subtle and non-dispersive. String theory is using similar concept too: in this theory all particles are wave excitation of strings.

The last important point is the understanding, every membrane of foam has at least two sides, each of which is formed by pair of surface gradients. So we would have at least two particle families, one of which would propagate along internal sides of foam membranes, the another one would use the outer side of membranes.

The roles of both particles are non-switchable, because for ripples at watter surface the particles of environment are undulating in circles or surface vortices. And the ripples at the opposite sides of foam membranes have the opposite direction of rotation. The image bellow illustrates it clearly, I hope.

http://tinyurl.com/36ljhgm

So, whenever some wave or particle spreading along outer surfaces of foam will met together with wave, which is spreading along the opposite side of foam membranes, these waves will collide mutually like vortices in watter with opposite direction of rotation and they will annihilate mutually like electron and positron in direct contact.

From abstract perspective the model of foam can be never completely symmetric, because the surface gradients at the internal side of foam membranes are slightly more proffered over the gradients at the outer side of it. Please note, that the inner side of bubbles is always of positive curvature, whereas the outer side of foam bubbles is always of negative curvature. The spreading of waves along such gradients will be always dispersive.

But when the foam will be sufficiently sparse, then the wall of bubbles will be thin and both surfaces will be nearly plan-parallel. So at most of common cases, the intrinsic difference between behavior of particles and antiparticles would be quite limited in this model - but it should always exist.

For example, because antiparticles are always of slightly negative curvature, they would be expelled by gravity field of positive curvature slightly like bubbles are repelled by density gradients. Whereas normal particles will be attracted by it.

This is why I'm proposing simple explanation and various analogies of it. Do you have some problem with it? Or do you prefer to discuss it with people, who have no explanation for it?

The problem I have with it is, that you seamingly have an explanation for everything..

By dense aether/soapfoam theory, you have an explanation for every "phenomena", for every single (postulated or just proposed) member of the whole "particle zoo", for every symetry/parity violation, for most anomalies, etc.. You can explain "dark" matter, "dark" energy, "strange" matter, "strangelets", Higgs bosson, "unparticles" (o_O), quantum phenomenas, quantum postulates, relativity postulates, ST postulates, LQG postualtes, whatnot.. And that all just by using your dense aether logic.. (?!)

Excuse my scepticism, but when someone tries to convince, that he can explain every ever postulated/proposed/made-up thing scrapped from a truckload of various theories/hypotheses, then it hardly can be taken seriously..

Anyway, this situation will change dramatically, when the foam becomes more thick & dense from observer perspective. The flat polygonal walls of such foam will change into more spherical ones. And the spreading of particles through such foam would become quite dispersive.

Because inside of such thick foam the gradients at the surfaces of foam membranes aren't plan-parallel anymore, the behavior and motion direction of antiparticles would differ significantly from those of normal particles. They would annihilate at large distance mutually. And the antiparticles will be expelled by gravity field of normal matter fast. Whenever such mixture would be formed, the particles and antiparticles would annihilate immediately and part of matter will be expelled by gravity field and the pressure of annihilation radiation at large distance.

This explains, why we cannot find antimatter near common observable matter inside of our Universe.

Dense aether theory isn't rotten fruit, it's just unknown fruit.

And you are a fruitcake, obviously ;-)

(just kidding ofcourse)

..but when someone tries to convince, that he can explain every ever postulated/proposed/made-up thing scrapped from a truckload of various theories/hypotheses..

Dense aether theory is geometric model of randomness. It doesn't need to use any concept of existing theories - but because I know, you wouldn't believe/understand in it at all after then, I'm referencing these concepts of existing theories for comparison.

In aether theory the universe is simply random gas with density fluctuations in it. These density fluctuations appear like irregular blobs in sparse gas, but they have character of strings and membranes of fractal foam in dense gas.

It's not so easy to imagine such transform, but the picture of some dense gas prepared at terrestrial conditions could serve as a clue. The most dense gas known so far is the supercritical fluid.

http://www.chem.l...co24.jpg

It's evident, inside of such dense gas the density fluctuations appear like foam.

For example, string or loop quantum gravity theories are nearly forty years old - i.e. nearly as old, as the concept of quantum foam itself.

If we should believe in them, we should move one step forward and to attempt to explain, why the hell some strings, branes or loops should exist in vacuum at all? Why the interior of Universe appears like fractal foam?

http://ghostradio...tion.jpg

Should we remain astonished by these findings for the whole rest of our life - or we should take it like normal thinking people asking for explanations?

Could this effect be due to the neutrino flux? As the earth moves through its orbit there will be a neutrino wind that changes direction by time of day, and intensity over the seasons. It would be interesting to see if there was any correlation with time of year or day.

It's like the question, if the yield of nuclear explosion cannot be affected by direction of wind. Actually, neutrino flux is quite sparse. Scientists were able to recognize the neutrino oscillations just by comparison of observed solar neutrino flux with theory.

The solar neutrinos detected are very high energy, but there will be many more low energy neutrinos. Possibly including massive numbers from supernovas and the big bang. However at the interaction speeds in this experiment even the thermal neutrinos will seem to be very high energy and have a chance of interacting. If they are falling in the gravity field of the earth and sun there should be a faster flux in the early AM hours when direction of earth's spin matches the orbit. And the time of year when the earth is closest to the Sun (Perihelion) the velocity will be higher, and also closer to the sun, the solar neutrino flux will be higher. There may also be a greater density of neutrinos trapped in the sun's gravity. (Although cannot be that much mass altogether otherwise we would see effect on planets orbits)

On the other hand it may not be due to any direction of the neutrinos just the mere presence of more neutrinos compared to antineutrinos could bias the experiment. A large number of decay modes involve neutrinos.

I know, but it doesn't explain problem anyway - it just transfers it to some hypothetical ratio of neutrinos compared to anti-neutrinos. Model of foam is geometric - it doesn't require to consider anything else and it explains, why the matter-antimatter asymmetry manifests only at the high energies. Whereas at the case of some lightweight neutrino asymmetry I'd expect, such imbalance would manifest rather at the low energies, don't you think?

Don't feed Alizee, the links (s)he's posting belong to a well-known pseudo-physics nut-job, who was banned on several scientific forums, after people (real scientists) tried to reason with him, because they genuinely weren't able to tell if he was genious or a graphomaniac madman, and finally acknowledge that it's the later (after year). I'm not sure if Alizee is directly him, or he somehow convinced other people to get in to his mad theories. Just to warn you guys. Otherwise I'm really curious how this affect the Standard Model, after it's confirmed.

Proponents of mainstream physics will never accept explanation(s), which wouldn't require some years of studies at their schools & institutes. It's similar, like to expect, proponents of fossil fuel lobby will suddenly sponsor cold fusion research or big pharma will invest into real cures.

http://www.newswe...ut/print

It's simply money driven industry lobby, which perfectly knows about its preferences.

It's simply money driven industry lobby, which perfectly knows about its preferences.

Ofcourse its just a conspiracy. Some lazy old dudes that doesnt want to hear the real and only truth about aether bubbles.

You know that if something is working in yourt mind it doesnt have to be real right?

Of course its just a conspiracy.

Conspiracy is a typical mechanism favored by formally thinking people, who cannot imagine nothing which isn't organized - but aether model considers omnipresent emergent origin of social phenomena, too.

..if something is working in your mind it doesn't have to be real..

Of course, but it still doesn't mean, it's a BS. It's the simple explanation of experiments at the moment, when you have none. You're defending a vacuum.

What proof is there that anti-matter existed and then dispersed after a big bang?

The magnets of the accelerator are away from the detector, and the fields are well mapped. More important are the magnets inside the detector, a solenoid in the central tracker and large toroids in the muon detector. These are also mapped to high precision, and the field polarities are reversed every two weeks in under to minimize systematic effects. All detector-related systematics are estimated, using data, and described in detail in the paper.

Considering the presence of other powerful magnets (for focusing the beams, for giving energy to the protons, etc.), I'd be surprised if there weren't a one-percent difference when you reverse the detector magnet.

I'd like to read more on how they've made sure this is not the case.

There are so many things that might make us think there are parity violations when there really aren't, like:

1. Subtle chirality (not just in 3-space) of ambient fields.

2. Particles under test are really not anti-particles (there might be flavors of particle which we are not aware, and the supposed "antiparticles" we test really aren't antiparticles)

What proof is there that anti-matter existed and then dispersed after a big bang?

We can observe annihilation signal (511 keV) near large massive objects, including our own galaxy. But this signal is too strong for to be assigned only to anihillation of dark matter.

http://www.physor...146.html

"What we concluded is that the detection of so many positrons makes it unlikely they're all from dark matter," Kaplinghat said...

There are so many things that might make us think there are parity violations when there really aren't

Many observations of monojet suppressions during proton collisions can be attributed simply to asymmetry of collision with respect to core of resulting quark-gluon plasma: one jet is dispersed in quark-gluon plasma, the another one not.

http://www.tinyurl.cz/pm6

But it's known artifact and I presume, the DZero guys knew well, what to measure...

There needs to be a way we can post a "Do Not Feed the Trolls" sign.

There needs to be a way we can post a "Do Not Feed the Trolls" sign.

First of all, there's a need to detect and ban users with multiple accounts. They are worse than trolls.

First of all, there's a need to ban users, who are provoking OT ad-hominem discussions, label other trolls and who are abusing voting system by down-voting posts by their author, not by content. At second, the baning of users can be made on personal cookie basis, not by using of abused public voting. If someone doesn't like Alizee of Frajo, he could filter it for himself, not interfering the filter of other readers.

How bout we just ban Alizee, and all accounts from his IP? That would probably halve the amount of server space required from his insane multi-post monologues. And Alizee, go take a formal logic class, then take a class in higher level algebra and calculus. If you manage to pass (which I doubt) then you can come back. You think your dense aether theory explains fundamental physics, ecosystem balancing, and social evolution without needing math? None of those things can be understood without math. At best, they can be pointed to. Math is not some obscure, impenetrable voodoo meant to keep you out. It is logic, pure and simple, all the way down. So don't tell people they need to get the logic, then refuse to do the math.

I see that Thrasymachus is part of the conspiracy to keep my Dense Foamy Santorum Theory from the mainstream.

Alizee:

Thrasymachus is right, without math and proper foundation your ideas cannot accomplish anything in Physics. Your ideas lack the formal framework necessary to establish a physical theory and you cannot accomplish that without mathematics. You need metrics (mathematical analysis) in order to give basis to your ideas and allow the ideas to be exposed to experimental verification. Physics is an exact science.

It is good to see so much enthusiasm about science from someone but in your case it is misguided.

Not just physics. All of science requires math in order that it be understood. There must be something to measure, and those measurements must be related to one another through precise logical (i.e. mathematical) transformations. Natural language is insufficient to do science.

I was referring to Physics in this case but you are right.

All of science requires math in order that it be understood.

That's an interesting statement. What about medicine & health? The statistically measurable, but not causally understood effects of placebos, acupuncture, and psychological well-being?

soft-science vs. hard-science is a debate that has been going on for a long time, and the definition continues to blur at the edges (think of a Venn Diagram). The soft-sciences are still bound by epidemiological viability. I find it interesting that you separated placebos and acupuncture, but it is more of a "haha" interesting, than a "hmmm" interesting.

We still don't know the root cause of gravity, yet it is still in the realm of physics. Anything that has observable and reproducible results can be considered scientific.

You think your dense aether theory explains fundamental physics, ecosystem balancing, and social evolution without needing math? None of those things can be understood without math. At best, they can be pointed to.

This is just a hypothesis. I'm just pointing out, the dense aether model leads to strings and loops of modern theories and the concept of quantum foam, from which the results of many experiments can be derived qualitatively.

Such coincidence simply there is and no one still denied it. From this model follows too, whatever complex physical system could be modeled by using of sufficiently large system of colliding particles.

This indeed doesn't replace the need of math and formal models, which are in duality with qualitative model. But I'm surprised, how systematically the proponents of so called mainstream physics are fighting against every attempt to make the explanation of mainstream physics more transparent and easier. This is just a paranoia.

A. You need metrics (mathematical analysis) in order to give basis to your ideas and allow the ideas to be exposed to experimental verification. Physics is an exact science.

The somewhat more real position of math in physics demonstrates rather the fluid dynamics, which is based on few equations, which are often not used at all and replaced by various numeric model, including cellular automata (Lattice - Boltzmann models).

Anyway, the understanding of physics cannot be reduced into few equations and even the building of formal models should be based on robust understanding of physical situation at logical level.

Without it the physicists are at risk, they would develop the more complex formal models, the more fundamental and simple the underlying situation will be. The question is, what these people would risk, if such approach would provide them a safe job without feedback of publicity. Common mathematician has no problem with the fact, his model has nothing to do with reality

All of science requires math in order that it be understood.

This idea is nothing new and it was canonized in concept of "mathematical Universe of Max Tegmark.

http://en.wikiped...pothesis

Dense aether theory is apparently based on dual approach and math is reduced there into algebra during particle collisions. But its still forced to explain, why many aspect of reality follow surprisingly simple schematic laws.

IMO our Universe is completely random, but the energy propagates only slightly through such random system at distance and it uses density fluctuations for it preferably. Observable reality is just the product of spreading of this tiny portion of energy, which had survived the tedious travel through random field, which is why we can assign evolutionary models for its description.

Such idea isn't completely new too and it's called a "block universe"

http://en.wikiped...universe

Dense Aether Foamy Santorum Theory raped my dog and then drank all of the beer.

Inside of random gas the energy always spread in two dual ways: in transversal and longitudinal waves. But from historical reasons the mainstream physics describes just this transversal part. The portion of reality, which cannot be described so easily simply ignores and it keeps this for analysis of another sciences of "lower category".

All physicists are deformed by this formal approach and as the result, they cannot understand/imagine even the most trivial connections, which cannot be described mathematically, like the thickening of foam and its membranes during shaking. They cannot or even refuse to recognize the conceptual simplicity behind their complex models.

So my prediction is, the understanding of physics will undergo symmetry breaking and the intuitive and formal understanding of it will diverge and it will be develop independently, because there is too many important connections, which can be learned & developed independently to formal models of it.

"Anyway, the understanding of physics cannot be reduced into few equations and even the building of formal models should be based on robust understanding of physical situation at logical level."

However math is necessary to give the physical theory a strong framework with formal logic. You need to relate the physical principles quantitatively. That does not mean that you are replacing physical intuition and visualization with mathematics.

The very definition of a theory is a formal relationship between two measurable quantities. If your theory resists formalization by its very structure/operation, it's not a theory. In fact, I'll go further. If your understanding of a phenomenon is incapable of being formalized, you don't understand that phenomenon. Now go learn some math.

We still don't know the root cause of gravity, yet it is still in the realm of physics.

The root cause of gravity was revealed before more than three hundred years by Nicolas Fatio de Duillier in 1690.

http://en.wikiped...vitation

At undulating watter surface all massive objects are attracted & held together, because they're slow down the spreading of waves, thus creating a shadows around them. The situation in cosmic space is analogous with the only exception, massive bodies are porous and they enable to penetrate waves to different lengths at different wavelength. This shielding mechanism therefore enables to explain all forces - not just gravity. We could call it a supergravity principle.

However math is necessary to give the physical theory a strong framework with formal logic. You need to relate the physical principles quantitatively.

But without understanding of these physical principles all formal models are just a guessed regression. Indeed, as JayK already said, such boundaries are fuzzy. We can get into many interesting connections just by thorough analysis of the resulting regression and frankly - this is the approach, which formal physicists are using during last hundred years.

But the relative success of such approach cannot still cover the fact, the understanding of underlying phenomena is somewhere else. And it's not easier process, then the development of formal models. If it would, someone else would propose all these foamy-spongy models before me already.

But the intuitive approach has one advantage: once developed, it's reproduction remains rather easy, whereas the complexity of math models doesn't change.

If your understanding of a phenomenon is incapable of being formalized, you don't understand that phenomenon. Now go learn some math.

But the behavior of N-body system in Newtonian gravity field is well understood, but we still have no formal model of it. We can solve this system by using of computers, though - and whole dense aether theory is just a generalization of this approach. Note that this system could be linearized by introduction of NxN extra-dimensions and by using the 3D slice of the resulting solution as the result.

Another example is the formal proof of Kepler's conjecture: we all can see, there is only one way, how to arrange spheres into most compact structure, but the formal proof of this result is still assisted by computers.

Even at the case, the formal model could be constructed and we could get some formal solution of it, it still doesn't mean, we understand all consequences of it. There is still another layer of understanding.

The duality of quantum mechanics and general relativity illustrates well the duality of the intuitive and formal description of reality. The quantum mechanics describes the particle reality from perspective of much larger observer from outside (exsintric perspective), whereas the general relativity describes the experience of the observer from inside of such particle system, when he is a much smaller (insintric perspective).

The probabilistic character of quantum mechanics illustrates clearly, the formal description of reality has its own uncrossable limits, despite many physicists, who favored relativity (including Einstein) attempted to prove the opposite. We cannot formalize quantitatively even the simplest model situations of quantum mechanics.

Briefly speaking, in the same way, like the formal theorists will develop more and more complex models of reality, the people like me would develop more and more deeper qualitative models of it.

But the behavior of N-body system in Newtonian gravity field is well understood, but we still have no formal model of it. We can solve this system by using of computers, though

Contradict yourself much? Computers can't do anything except math and formal logic. N-body gravitational systems are well understood, and there are formal models expressing their behavior. It's the same model as the one describing 2-body systems. The computations involved in its application are beyond the capacity for most humans to complete in their lifetimes. The theory governing gravitational interactions is well understood, it is the application of that theory that requires computers to complete. Maybe you should take a basic science and philosophy class as well.

.. N-body gravitational systems are well understood, and there are formal models expressing their behavior...

But these models aren't solvable and as such useful.

http://en.wikiped..._problem

As it has been shown by Siegel, that collisions which involve more than 2 bodies cannot be regularized analytically. End of story.

There is another point: the system of Navier-Stokes equations describing the fluid could be simplified by using of Lattice-Boltzmann statistical approach, which is using only binary operations. And because the system of many bodies is sort of fluid too, we can expect, we could reduce the formal solution of N-body system in the same way.

Briefly speaking, at the moment, when computers are in the game, then the role of math could be minimized to additions - without impacting the final solution. Such level of formal math is indeed acceptable even by aetherists...;-)

http://en.wikiped...n_method

Such level of formal math is indeed acceptable even by aetherists

Both of them? Consensus has been reached!

After then we should put a question, why to develop more & more complex models of reality, if such models could be replaced by atomized models. The engineers in fluid mechanics have understood it already. They don't waste their time by development of more and more complex formal models based on Navier-Stokes equations, although such models could be composed and attempted to solve definitely. Instead of this, they're modifying finite elements schemes without care, which formal model such scheme actually represents.

After all, why to compose such formal models, if we must discretize it in the next step for being able to solve it at all? So we can work with discrete models of reality from its very beginning a much more effectively.

Both of them? Consensus has been reached!

I never said, aether model is without math completely. I'm just saying, this math could be minimized to repeated additions and subtractions of speed during particle collisions in analogy to L-B methods, which can be made by computers.

With compare to formal models, this approach is incredibly computationally expensive. On the other hand, I can see no limits in its complexity. By using of particle models you can simulate the situations, which would be impossible to only compose in formal math, not saying about their solution. The best of all, the construction of such discrete models is quite simple, as you're not required to learn anything about spinors, tensors and integral equations... But teachers won't tell you this at school, because they would lose their jobs.

http://tinyurl.com/35xmy9w

Briefly speaking, the discrete math is always one step ahead before formal analysis in its possibilities. This perspective is quite apparent.

I can see the perspective of formal math in physics in the same way, like the role of assembly language or even machine code in computer programming. Some trolls are still attempting to develop more and more complex programs in assembler and they're calling it a computer science. But they're just wasting their time and our money. Nearly nobody is programming in assembly language today from effectiveness reason, albeit it would be possible definitely - I saw many programs written for Windows in pure assembly language.

But such approach is just an intellectual sport for freaks, as it doesn't bring any new fundamental understanding of reality. We aren't required to pay it from our taxes. This cruel stance is somewhat exaggerated in this moment, but soon it will become a reality, because money are everything.

The formal physicists are feeling it, so they're fighting for their ecological niche by now by all means possible.

There is another point, the fast growing number of various formal models makes the mainstream physics incomprehensible even for most experienced physicists. These guys simply have no time to study their own models, so they're developing them again and again without having some general picture before eyes. They can see no problem with it, because they're payed by the rest of society for number of articles, not for actual progress in understanding. The string theory with its 10E+500 possible solutions is simply a welcomed salary generator from this perspective.

Again, this stance is somewhat exaggerated in this moment, but the perspective of formal approach to physics appears clear and undeniable for me. It follows just from the particle model, which I'm describing. Too many cooks spoil the broth.

"The probabilistic character of quantum mechanics illustrates clearly, the formal description of reality has its own uncrossable limits, despite many physicists, who favored relativity (including Einstein) attempted to prove the opposite. We cannot formalize quantitatively even the simplest model situations of quantum mechanics."

Now you are really confusing things. The probabilistic character of QM is considered to be intrinsic behavior of nature (some philosophers and physicists challenge this concept however). In any case, QM is a formal theory, mathematically constructed, extremely successful, and very elegant. What is not clear it is its interpretation.

If you want to convince the "formal physicists" you will have to sit down, work your math carefully, verify the consistencies of your hypothesis with established physical facts, publish your paper, wait for clinical analysis of your ideas, wait for experimentation and collect your glory.

..If you want to convince the "formal physicists" you will have to sit down, work your math carefully..

LOL, you apparently missed the whole point...;-) It's like to convince the shoulder-hitters about inconclusiveness of violence just by brutal force, i.e. by their own methods... Or to convince Holly Church by more imploring rogations...;-) I'm not required to convince some physicists at all - but the people, who are paying them. These people will do the rest.

.. the probabilistic character of QM is considered to be intrinsic behavior of nature.. extremely successful, and very elegant.

Why not - its "elegance" is still a matter of discussion, but this relative success of QM is just based on the fact, it reflects the intrinsic chaotic nature of underlying reality and its aether model most closely. Another source of this success it, it relies on Hamilton mechanics, i.e. the very classical physics following principle of least action on background. There is about twenty interpretations of quantum mechanics and aether model makes clear/substantiated most of them.

http://en.wikiped...echanics

No, I am not missing the point, I making my point.

"But the behavior of N-body system in Newtonian gravity field is well understood, but we still have no formal model of it. We can solve this system by using of computers ..." - You said.

Well, lo and behold, we do have a formal model of the Newtonian gravitational field.

If you have a non-linear system ruled by non linear equations (in your case the N body system you mentioned) that does not mean that the theory is not formally established just because in order to resolve the equation you need numerical approach or analysis to solve them (computers are great to crunch numbers for us, right?).

Math is fun just get rid of your fear and learn it. You will tank us for the motivation.

Oh, if you knew anything about Hamilton mechanics you would consider it to be one of most elegant part of physics. Believe me.

Well, lo and behold, we do have a formal model of the Newtonian gravitational field.

This is just a blind numeric regression based on astronomical observations. I could use Excel for it...;-)

Without aether model there is no apparent reason, why gravity should be proportional just the inverse square of distance. Recently Mr. Verlinde derived another model of it, but this derivation (despite of its simplicity) assumes more aspects of reality, then it explains it.

Oh, if you knew anything about Hamilton mechanics you would consider it to be one of most elegant part of physics..

Again, it's because it's the most close to particle models of physics. This is why I'm approximating gravity field by density field in my explanations. My model of space-time follows from the same perspective.

http://en.wikiped...an_flows

I know classical physics quite well - if I'm not deriving here some equations, it doesn't mean, I don't know anything about it.

The question is, if Hamilton mechanics is so elegant, why mainstream physics doesn't use it for explanation of time arrow and time travel, for example? Apparently it would make the problem more simple, then it's acceptable for mainstream shamans - layman people would understand too much from it...

http://www.physor...490.html

No, it's actually a formal extension of Newton's equation for gravitational attraction between two bodies. The only thing you need "numerical regression based on astronomical observations" for is to more precisely determine the gravitational constant G. What you need computers for in solving N-body problems is solving the equation specified by the theory multitudes of times for each object over the course of the simulation. Math never conceals the truth, only people who are too stupid or afraid to learn the math do that.

.. The only thing you need "numerical regression based on astronomical observations" for is to more precisely determine the gravitational constant G.

You'll still need the observation for explanation of second power in Newton's law and the proportionality of the forces and the mass. For example, Newton believed in proportionality of force to first power of distance, just the discussion with Hooke (who based his opinion on the ancient Arabic sources) convinced him about relevancy of the second power in Newton law...

http://en.wikiped...#History

Therefore virtually every part of Newton law is guessed from astronomical observations - not only the gravity constant! The Iraqi Ibn al-Haytham (born in AD 965..) is probably the true originator ideas, which had lead to both gravitational law, both principle of least action, Fermat principle and Hamilton mechanics.

http://en.wikiped.../Alhazen

Personally I do believe, Newton has been finally convinced about relevancy of inverse square law just because of his close relationship with Fatio deDuillier, who derived the second power from aether model of gravitational shielding, later known as Le-Sage theory. Newton was convinced aetherist, too.

http://en.wikiped...Duillier

But I've not evidence for it - it's just coincidence, because I don't believe, Newton would accept the opinion of Robert Hooke only, who was public enemy of Newton. Newton was so upset by his defeat, he withdrew from public life for many years. It's funny, most of people still believe, gravitational law was a Newton's idea! It evident, most of publicity is living in virtual reality, established by mainstream physics propaganda for many years.

Alizee: Or is it Zephyr himself ? I thought I killed you down in Moria. Check this out, it's a well known theoretical physics document, used very often unfortunately.

http://math.ucr.e...pot.html

I can inform you, that your score is through the roof, at least something positive, right ?

The labeling of opponents is just an evidence of lack of arguments.

Did I said something wrong? If not, why I'm called a crackpot after writing of dozen posts w/out mistake? If yes, why don't you show us this mistake directly instead of off-topic linking the analogy of Malleus Maleficarum book? BTW Such handbooks are typical for every closed sectarian community, based on religion instead of facts.

http://en.wikiped...eficarum

Considering the presence of other powerful magnets (for focusing the beams, for giving energy to the protons, etc.), I'd be surprised if there weren't a one-percent difference when you reverse the detector magnet.

I'd like to read more on how they've made sure this is not the case.

One would think that such obvious mistakes would have been avoided during construction.