[Burichan] [Desudesudesu] [Photon] [Gurochan] [Futaba] [Tomorrow] - [Home] [RSS Live Feed] [Manage]

[Return]
Posting mode: Reply
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
Link
Subject
Comment
Boku?
File
Password (for post and file deletion and editing)
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG
  • Maximum file size allowed is 10240 KB.
  • Images greater than 250x250 pixels will be thumbnailed.

File: 1261320195502.jpg -(48.4 KiB, 450x563) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
49522 No.9851   [Delete]   [Edit

Einstein was a brilliant man, but he made one mistake which so far no physicist has corrected.

He explained gravity as "curved space". This is a great way to visualize why, for example, light (which has no mass) is still affected by gravity and can not escape a black hole. It can also explain the movement of planets and other celestial bodies. He was however, wrong.

Curving space does not actually explain how it is possible for any object that is in rest compared to the earth to suddenly fall to the ground when you let it go. It does not explain how a thrown ball makes a different arc towards the ground depending on how hard you throw it. This is because a large mass does not curve space, it moves it. Indeed, gravity is the movement of space itself.

This not only explains the effect on mass-less light and the movement of planets just like the curving of space does, but it also accounts for why relatively stationary objects start to move “on their own”. You might believe this isn’t possible because “where would the space be moving to, then?”. This is actually not an issue, as space itself has no density and as such it doesn’t get compacted at the centre of the earth, nor does it become less dense at the edges of a gravity-fields outer effective border (it doesn’t actually have those though).

That gravity is not a force and looking for a “graviton” particle is useless should have been obvious decades ago as well, as if it was anything like any other force you would see heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects, which is not the case. (drop a feather and a lead ball in a vacuum and they both arrive at the ground at the same time).

Einstein’s math and the formula’s he made to explain his curving of space were correct, but his interpretation of them were wrong. All this also makes the struggle for a unified theory of everything rather pointless, as gravity isn’t a force at all.

A second point of interest is that antimatter in does the opposite. It repulses space and therefore will never form into a star or planet like matter does. It disperses instead homogenously over space between galaxies.

Case in point, if the moon is right above you space moves a little slower, and you actually do weigh slightly less.

>> No.9852   [Delete]   [Edit]

Nobel Prize incoming.

But, I don't think I actually understand your explanation too well. You're saying that gravity completely moves space instead of curving it, and it's not a force? I'm not quite sure I get it.

>> No.9856   [Delete]   [Edit]

>>9852
it's not a force in that it isn't at all like the 3 other "universal forces", being electromagnatism and the strong and weak nuclear forces. those 2 latter ones are mostly only of interest on the scale of individual atoms.
physicists today believe that there is one underlying force where the other 4 are merely different manifestations of. I argue that gravity as a force does not exist, as the matter is not attracted, merely the space it occupies.
I also argue that the abundance of antimatter in between galaxies is the cause of why astronomers see all the galaxies moving away from one another, which leads them to conclude that the universe is expanding. I also predict that while the universe is expanding in this way, individual galaxies are shrinking and the universe will at one point no longer have galaxies, only massive black wholes who will over time also evaporate into only radiation.

>> No.9858   [Delete]   [Edit]
>>Curving space does not actually explain how it is possible for any object that is in rest compared to the earth to suddenly fall to the ground when you let it go. It does not explain how a thrown ball makes a different arc towards the ground depending on how hard you throw it. This is because a large mass does not curve space, it moves it. Indeed, gravity is the movement of space itself.

Sure it does. Space is bending in a manner difficult to visualize in 2D or the human mind in a way that makes the ball roll towards earth. Haven’t you heard of the rubber sheet analogy?
And moving space? Boy, you bumped yo’ head?

>>This not only explains the effect on mass-less light and the movement of planets just like the curving of space does, but it also accounts for why relatively stationary objects start to move “on their own”.

Stationary objects move on their own. Either this is a new universe with new rules or someone didn’t pay attention in physics.

Newton’s first law of motion says that an object at rest will stay at rest and an object in motion will stay in motion unless said object(s) are acted upon by an outside force. Gravity acts on said object(s), and thus they move.

>>You might believe this isn’t possible because “where would the space be moving to, then?”. This is actually not an issue, as space itself has no density and as such it doesn’t get compacted at the centre of the earth, nor does it become less dense at the edges of a gravity-fields outer effective border (it doesn’t actually have those though).

Wat

>>That gravity is not a force and looking for a “graviton” particle is useless should have been obvious decades ago as well, as if it was anything like any other force you would see heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects, which is not the case. (drop a feather and a lead ball in a vacuum and they both arrive at the ground at the same time).

Quantum theory holds that each force has a messenger particle. These relay the force from one object to another (just as gluons hold atoms together, gravitons attract objects to one another).

So your argument is basically “It’s not a force because if it were it’d be more like the other ones”?

>>Einstein’s math and the formula’s he made to explain his curving of space were correct, but his interpretation of them were wrong. All this also makes the struggle for a unified theory of everything rather pointless, as gravity isn’t a force at all.

Right. So it’s not a force even though it acts on things.

>>A second point of interest is that antimatter in does the opposite. It repulses space and therefore will never form into a star or planet like matter does. It disperses instead homogenously over space between galaxies.

I've been studying astronomy and theoretical physics for years and never once have I heard the proposition that antimatter is repulsive.

I mean god damn do you even know what antimatter is?

Antimatter is matter that, on the atomic level, has the opposite spin and charge. So an electron for example ahs a negative charge. It’s antimatter counterpart, the positron, is positive.

But there’s one little thing that makes a lot of difference.

When antimatter and matter come into contact, they blow each other the fuck up. If antimatter were everywhere, the whole of creation would explode.

Antimatter does not exude negative pressure or negative gravity and would have no way of increasing the size of the universe, insofar as I know. Oh sure, there could be dark matter out there, which would explain the anomalies in galactic rotational symmetry, not to mention the missing mass of the universe, but antimatter? There isn't really much around anyway.

>>Case in point, if the moon is right above you space moves a little slower, and you actually do weigh slightly less.

Because it’s pulling on you. Gravitons are going in between you and the moon, pulling you slightly towards it.

Fun fact: When an apple falls to earth, the earth rushes up very very slightly to meet it.

>>it's not a force in that it isn't at all like the 3 other "universal forces", being electromagnatism and the strong and weak nuclear forces. those 2 latter ones are mostly only of interest on the scale of individual atoms.
>>physicists today believe that there is one underlying force where the other 4 are merely different manifestations of. I argue that gravity as a force does not exist, as the matter is not attracted, merely the space it occupies.

...so you're saying that the space is affected by non-existent gravity, as opposed to the matter?

>>I also argue that the abundance of antimatter in between galaxies is the cause of why astronomers see all the galaxies moving away from one another, which leads them to conclude that the universe is expanding. I also predict that while the universe is expanding in this way, individual galaxies are shrinking and the universe will at one point no longer have galaxies, only massive black wholes who will over time also evaporate into only radiation.

True. This is due to the Hawking Radiation though.

Basically let's imagine there's a black hole. There's nothing else. So this BH can't gain mass.

Quantum jitters (pairs of particles, one matter, one antimatter) are still around, coming into existence, fusing, then going out of existence. This happens everywhere, including the border of the event horizon.

A particle will appear outside, an antiparticle on the inside. The antiparticle will annihilate the particle inside the black hole, shrinking it a bit, where the particle will wander away.

This, over time, will lead to the black hole dissolving.

See what I said earlier about antimatter. Dark energy could be responsible for inflation of the universe, but not antimatter.

Moving on, spacetime itself is stretching. A good analogy is to take a balloon and inflate it a bit. Draw a grid of dots (the original experiment suggested gluing pennies to it, but this is easier and works for the most part the same) on the balloon and inflate it once more. The dots all rushed away from each other, but their size didn't change much (due to the fact that it's marker or something on a pen, which is why the penny version is better).

Moving on to what you said about galaxies getting smaller, where is everything going? Matter can't just disappear. Is everything being compressed? Because if so, if I'm not mistaken and I admit I may, this would raise the mass of everything, as well as the temperature, which would violate thermodynamics.

Last edited 09/12/21(Mon)00:34.

>> No.9859   [Delete]   [Edit]

>>9858
thank you for your wonderful exposition on the general consensus. that what I claim does not coincide is kind of the point.

instead of quoting what other bright people are saying, it would be nice if you explained how the rubber sheet analogy explains this force you claim gravity has on stationary objects (like is needed by newtons law). all the rubber sheet analogy really says is that a small marble will "orbit" a bowling ball when the marble is set moving towards the dent the bowling ball creates in a rubber sheet. why would the marble not stay where it is when halfway into the dent after being put there while at rest relative to the bowling ball?

Last edited 09/12/21(Mon)02:34.

>> No.9860   [Delete]   [Edit]
File: 1261352382722.png -(189.8 KiB, 600x754) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
194345
>> No.9862   [Delete]   [Edit]

>>9859
I had a feeling you wouldn't feel like actually counter my points. But excuse me for telling what I saw as the truth. I'll be sure to make up my own stupid shit next time instead of trying to be accurate.

Well you seem to at least have heard of the rubber sheet analogy. But it's just that: an analogy. We have a rubber sheet here on earth. It's level, except where you have say a bowling ball. The gravity of the earth doesn't pull down on the marble too much when the surface of the sheet is flat, but when it gets near the bowling ball, it rolls towards it because gravity is pulling the bowling ball towards the earth (and everything else in the universe, but that's not important right now). As a result, the marble rolls towards the bowling ball.

The marble wouldn't start orbiting the bowling ball until it moves at appropriate velocity that it spins around it, essentially falling around it, which is what orbiting is. But in the rubber sheet analogy, the friction of the sheet would slow the marble down and it would fall into the dip and hit the bowling ball.

But as I said, it's just an analogy so don't act like that's how gravity really works and ask me where the magic force pulling on the bowling ball is.

Last edited 09/12/21(Mon)03:30.

>> No.9865   [Delete]   [Edit]

>>9862
your over-sensitive, defensive reaction is quite remarkable. it reminds me of a Christian who gets annoyed when somebody asks questions they don't want to think about.

regardless, all you are saying is the analogy is flawed. that there is in fact still a force, except for the curving, that draws the marble to the bowling ball. I'm saying the same thing.
namely, that gravity is not a force that originates from a mass like any other force, instead mass influences/warps the surrounding space. I however modify the analogy that the bowling ball doesn't so much make a dent in the rubber sheet, as that the sheet "moves/disappears" into it. kind of like a drain in a bath tub. also a flawed analogy of course, but I consider it to more plainly (if you'll excuse the pun) convey what is happening than the regular version.

>> No.9866   [Delete]   [Edit]
File: 1261359052872.jpg -(302.3 KiB, 880x720) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
309519

>>9851
>>9856
>>9858
>>9859
>>9862
>>9865

>> No.9868   [Delete]   [Edit]

>>9865
As is your arrogant little ad hominem. I quite liked the part about people who don't want to think about questions and instead avoid answering them.

So you're basically doing the opposite of what I asked and accepting that the analogy is flawed, and thus that the theory is somehow flawed as well? If I'm not right, please by all means correct me. No dickishness or anything intended in that.

The curving is the force, is the point of the analogy.

I'm afraid I still don't quite understand your analogy though. Could you perhaps explain a bit more about how the sheet disappears into the bowling ball and how this means other things are attracted to it? Do you mean that the other things are sucked in as well, in the same manner as a black hole, only without the increasing mass?

>> No.9869   [Delete]   [Edit]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I34FNr_peUk
totally related guise

>> No.9870   [Delete]   [Edit]

>>9868
nice how you are calling me arrogant while you've been saying I must be dumb since post one.

what I'm saying is that curved space does account for how a moving object seemingly changes it's course in a gravity well, but not why gravity accelerates an object towards a mass. the analogy reflects this and that's what I'm pointing out.

the analogy I'm using is that gravity is more like a bathtub draining it's water. place a rubber ducky near the drainage pit and it will start moving towards it, and a little wind up boat will also not go in a straight line when passing near the pit. so no, a mass does not "suck up" other mass without increasing it's mass, it attracts space itself, and the matter that is contained therein moves along. the attraction of space in itself does not lead to increased mass as space has no mass.

perhaps I should put it this way. Einsteins notion that space gets curved is correct in a way, however this is a dynamic process that is happening continuously. I guess you could liken it to a rotating spiral, where the curving is happening all the time giving a sense of the space moving in on itself with the mass causing it at the centre.

Last edited 09/12/21(Mon)06:22.

>> No.9873   [Delete]   [Edit]

>>9870
Oh come now. You can't claim to have been any better.

>>what I'm saying is that curved space does account for how a moving object seemingly changes it's course in a gravity well, but not why gravity accelerates an object towards a mass. the analogy reflects this and that's what I'm pointing out.

But it does, my friend. Imagine a hill. some parts of this hill are rather steep, some rather flat-ish. An object doing down the steep part will go down faster than it will the more level areas, right? The closer you get to the center of mass, the steeper the dip gets. This is why a black hole is represented as a rip in the sheet: once you're in, you're not getting back out (Hawking radiation nonwithstanding).

>>the analogy I'm using is that gravity is more like a bathtub draining it's water. place a rubber ducky near the drainage pit and it will start moving towards it, and a little wind up boat will also not go in a straight line when passing near the pit. so no, a mass does not "suck up" other mass without increasing it's mass, it attracts space itself, and the matter that is contained therein moves along. the attraction of space in itself does not lead to increased mass as space has no mass.

Indeed. I think I see the angle you're coming from now. Certain scientists in the past have maintained that space is a tangible thing (like a cosmic stage), independent of objects, where others say it only exists by virtue of the things in it, like an alphabet (without the letters, of objects in it, there's nothing there). You're leaning more towards the first.

While it's true that as an object is compressed it starts to spin, and a massive spinning body does drag space around it, this doesn't mean that Einstien's views were wrong. It also doesn't mean that space itself is being dragged into an object. It can bend and warp around objects, but it doesn't just get sucked into everything.

>>perhaps I should put it this way. Einsteins notion that space gets curved is correct in a way, however this is a dynamic process that is happening continuously. I guess you could liken it to a rotating spiral, where the curving is happening all the time giving a sense of the space moving in on itself with the mass causing it at the centre.

I think I understand what you're saying now, but it goes back to what I said earlier. Spacetime is a thing, it can warp and even twist, but it can't be absorbed or gobbled up itself.

>> No.9874   [Delete]   [Edit]
>But it does, my friend. Imagine a hill. some parts of this hill are rather steep, some rather flat-ish. An object doing down the steep part will go down faster than it will the more level areas, right? The closer you get to the centre of mass, the steeper the dip gets

and that is where I disagree. normally things fall down hills because of gravity itself and this feels very natural to any human and is easy to understand. however, if you try and explain gravity in such a way as space being curved and things rolling down that curve you are simply substituting one gravity with another more universal one. meaning, you say there is another force that always makes things "roll" towards the centre of a dip in the space-plane. the whole reason why a body would roll down that hill of curved space-time is not evident from either theory or analogy, even though it perfectly accounts why a moving objects seems to get it's trajectory altered when entering the dip.

the reason I believe what I do is also because it ties in beautifully with my ideas of antimatter. for one thing, I assume that the universe in total has (nearly) as much matter as it does antimatter (though not necessarily 0-sum based). this is not a new notion, this has been discussed many times over the past decades.

the only problem is that while tiny amounts of it have been created (so it's proven to exist) we don't really see it at all when we look into space. if I assume that normal matter has gravity in the way of attracting space itself, it's not impossible to conceive that large amounts of antimatter would repulse it, being practically the inverse of normal matter. if this is the case than no antimatter suns were ever created. it might form into anti-helium atoms with the nuclear forces being so much stronger than gravity but they would not clump together but be spread out. only normal matter got converted to heavier elements in suns and formed galaxies. these regions between galaxies then would have relatively plentiful of this anti-helium, and all together would push the galaxies away from one another. in this I assume that the original big bang is not the (sole) cause of the universe expanding as it is now. all this still needs to be either proven or disproven though, but everything starts with the hypothesis. I might even go so far in saying the common background radiation is not (just) leftover heat from the big bang, but is matter and antimatter reacting with one another as whole galaxies move through anti-matter filled space.

>> No.9875   [Delete]   [Edit]
>>and that is where I disagree. normally things fall down hills because of gravity itself and this feels very natural to any human and is easy to understand. however, if you try and explain gravity in such a way as space being curved and things rolling down that curve you are simply substituting one gravity with another more universal one.

I’m…substituting gravity for gravity?

>>meaning, you say there is another force that always makes things "roll" towards the centre of a dip in the space-plane. the whole reason why a body would roll down that hill of curved space-time is not evident from either theory or analogy, even though it perfectly accounts why a moving objects seems to get it's trajectory altered when entering the dip.

The rolling represents gravity pulling two objects together.

>>the reason I believe what I do is also because it ties in beautifully with my ideas of antimatter.

Really? Alright this should prove interesting.

>>for one thing, I assume that the universe in total has (nearly) as much matter as it does antimatter (though not necessarily 0-sum based). this is not a new notion, this has been discussed many times over the past decades.

But is it still a widely-held belief? And what facts do you have? What are your sources? On what basis are you making this assumption?

>>the only problem is that while tiny amounts of it have been created (so it's proven to exist) we don't really see it at all when we look into space. if I assume that normal matter has gravity in the way of attracting space itself, it's not impossible to conceive that large amounts of antimatter would repulse it, being practically the inverse of normal matter.

…so you’re saying that when it comes to matter and antimatter, they’re not simply different in spin and charge, but in general behavior as well?

I had this idea myself in the past. I tried everyone from Jordan Goodman (the physics professor, not Americas Money Answers Man) to Brian Greene to Stephen fucking Hawking and nobody could give me an answer (only Jordan ever got back to my anyway), but upon reflection and looking at their basic behaviors, I saw no reason for antimatter to act as such. Perhaps if you had let’s say gravitons and antigravitons interacting you could nullify the gravity between one object and another, but I had a hard time believing that they could actually do the opposite of what the ordinary force does.

But if you have some sources or anything, then by all means post them. I’d be glad to read up on them.

And don’t you not believe in gravitons? So why would antimatter, which would presumably apparently emit antigravitons, be out there? And why would other galaxies even be visible if as soon as a photon from one got outside to all this antimatter it’d just explode?

>>if this is the case than no antimatter suns were ever created. it might form into anti-helium atoms with the nuclear forces being so much stronger than gravity but they would not clump together but be spread out.

Why now?

>>only normal matter got converted to heavier elements in suns and formed galaxies. these regions between galaxies then would have relatively plentiful of this anti-helium, and all together would push the galaxies away from one another.

Assuming antimatter emits antigravity (which in my personal opinion is basically LOL WUT).

>>in this I assume that the original big bang is not the (sole) cause of the universe expanding as it is now.

Well there is Dark Energy, you know.

>>all this still needs to be either proven or disproven though, but everything starts with the hypothesis. I might even go so far in saying the common background radiation is not (just) leftover heat from the big bang, but is matter and antimatter reacting with one another as whole galaxies move through anti-matter filled space.

So why haven’t the galaxies been destroyed yet? How does this theory account for the clumps of matter that have formed? Why hasn’t everything just been blown up before galaxies could even form?

And apart from all this, what does your antimatter theory say about the accelerating expansion of the universe?

>> No.9878   [Delete]   [Edit]
File: 1261383519811.gif -(518.7 KiB, 360x362) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
531129

>>9869
FUCK YEAH BETELGEUZE!!!
>>9868
>>9870
>>9873
>>9874
>>9875
This is such a great debate/topic. Makes me want to study Physics. :)

>> No.9881   [Delete]   [Edit]

>>9875

>I’m…substituting gravity for gravity?
>The rolling represents gravity pulling two objects together.

Imagine the same rubber sheet analogy, but this time in outer space and not on earth but anywhere where you are pretty near 0-g. without gravity helping the marble fall down towards the bowling ball it will just stay there and not roll at all, regardless of how steep the slope is. That’s what I mean when I say you are substituting gravity with another gravity. Just the sheet being sloped does not make the marble go towards the bowling ball, something more is needed to actually make it roll.

>But is it still a widely-held belief? And what facts do you have? What are your sources? On what basis are you making this assumption?

It is somewhat touched up here http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/31_02/nothing.html
rather than seeing gravity itself as a negative form of energy I pose that for (nearly) every quark of normal matter there is an antiquark that allowed the previous to come into existence. I however do not claim that the total sum of all energy is 0, just that the total sum of all mass is (it might be though, I can’t know). This again is really an assumption based on what variant of beginning of space-time one finds most likely.
And yes, I do believe that antimatter differs from normal matter in more than just spin and charge. And no, sadly I have no sources to back that up as it’s a claim I made and haven’t seen another make. As far as I’m concerned the differences in spin a charge combined is enough to make even gravity work differently for antimatter. Sadly this could only be tested if you could put enough together. It is interesting to note how the previous linked article refers to (normal) gravity as a negative form of energy while normal matter is positive. If you can agree with this than the inverse is not far away, giving rise to “positive” gravity.
And no, I don’t there are gravitons as such force carrying particles are based in the assumption that gravity should be in the list of 4 main forces. I don’t think it should be there at all. It’s not a force like the other 3 and if there were such a thing as gravitons and it were a force like the other 3 than heavier objects would be accelerated faster. Again, no sources. Sorry. This is only what I find logical.

>And why would other galaxies even be visible if as soon as a photon from one got outside to all this antimatter it’d just explode?

Photons can travel freely from one galaxy to another as photons are pure (positive) energy with no mass. There are no antiphotons to react with and it wouldn’t react with antimatter in any way. The thought of antiphotons and radiation with a negative charge is interesting though.

>Why now?

Because it is thanks to attractive gravity that nebula’s are formed, which coalesce into solar systems. Without attractive gravity no such clumping together will happen.

>Assuming antimatter emits antigravity (which in my personal opinion is basically LOL WUT).

emitting antigravity is not really how I would like to phrase it but there are a lot of people who go LOL WUT at both our sides in this conversation. Newton would say something similar too if he read some of Einsteins work. And Einstein never liked quantum mechanics at all.

>Well there is Dark Energy, you know.

I don’t think I’ve heard of dark energy, but I know of dark matter. the latter is actually thought to exist as something that is supposed to keep the universe together, not push galaxies apart.

>So why haven’t the galaxies been destroyed yet? How does this theory account for the clumps of

matter that have formed? Why hasn’t everything just been blown up before galaxies could even form?
because of antimatters tendency to push other antimatter away it will be very very thinly spread across the regions in between galaxies. While galaxies are moving through this space I do expect to see some reaction, but not enough to blow up entire galaxies. New matter and antimatter is also constantly created, which offsets the destruction. The rate of creation might also even be higher than the destruction, which would explain the observed acceleration of expansion.

>> No.9886   [Delete]   [Edit]

>>9851
Wasn't that a picture of bacon before? I could swear it was.

>> No.9913   [Delete]   [Edit]

>>9886
Not when I've seen it. I've only seen it for a day or so though.

>>9881

>>Imagine the same rubber sheet analogy, but this time in outer space and not on earth but anywhere where you are pretty near 0-g. without gravity helping the marble fall down towards the bowling ball it will just stay there and not roll at all, regardless of how steep the slope is. That’s what I mean when I say you are substituting gravity with another gravity. Just the sheet being sloped does not make the marble go towards the bowling ball, something more is needed to actually make it roll.

I see what you’re saying. But what you need to understand is again, it’s just analogy. One that works here on earth. In space you’d need to find something different, but since the vast majority of the people here have never left this planet, it’s the best kind of example because it’s an earth-like experiment producing earth-like results.

I think the problem here is that you’re taking it too literally.

>But is it still a widely-held belief? And what facts do you have? What are your sources? On what basis are you making this assumption?
>>It is somewhat touched up here http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/31_02/nothing.html

Ah, the zero-sum energy. Yes, I’m familiar with this idea.

I also am seeing for the first time why you’re saying there is so much antimatter. And I’m very pleased with this.

Now we move into speculation (until I find online sources, so far what I’ve been working on stems from Brian Greenes book The Fabric of The Cosmos, which is an excellent book I suggest you read sometime if you’re into this sort of thing).

Perhaps there was much more matter and antimatter in the beginning of the universe, but somehow the matter expanded more and the matter that was left over from the resulting explosion is what we have today in this universe, explaining the lack of abundance in antimatter.

>>rather than seeing gravity itself as a negative form of energy I pose that for (nearly) every quark of normal matter there is an antiquark that allowed the previous to come into existence. I however do not claim that the total sum of all energy is 0, just that the total sum of all mass is (it might be though, I can’t know). This again is really an assumption based on what variant of beginning of space-time one finds most likely.

Indeed. And perhaps during inflation when the particles were multiplying exponentially the matter somehow grew to outnumber the antimatter (sadly, all I have on this particular theory is a bathroom reader, but it makes sense).

Or perhaps the antimatter doesn’t exist in interstellar space, which from what I’ve been able to glean so far is widely considered empty, but instead forms its own structures in other areas of the universe.

From one source I read, it seems that the universe leans towards the first option, what with asymmetry and all, though nobody knows why.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryogenesis

>>And yes, I do believe that antimatter differs from normal matter in more than just spin and charge. And no, sadly I have no sources to back that up as it’s a claim I made and haven’t seen another make. As far as I’m concerned the differences in spin a charge combined is enough to make even gravity work differently for antimatter. Sadly this could only be tested if you could put enough together.

Indeed. Don’t get me wrong, I can see how it would seem that way, but as you said the problem is lack of enough material to do an experiment with. However keep also in mind that intuition seldom works on the subatomic level.

>>It is interesting to note how the previous linked article refers to (normal) gravity as a negative form of energy while normal matter is positive. If you can agree with this than the inverse is not far away, giving rise to “positive” gravity.

Indeed. There can be, under certain condition, negative gravity that pushes instead of pulls (one theory holds that this is what fueled the initial expansion of the universe). However gravity soon became the weak and attractive phenomena that we’re arguing about right now and is keeping me from floating off my seat and us all from dying.

>>And no, I don’t there are gravitons as such force carrying particles are based in the assumption that gravity should be in the list of 4 main forces. I don’t think it should be there at all. It’s not a force like the other 3 and if there were such a thing as gravitons and it were a force like the other 3 than heavier objects would be accelerated faster. Again, no sources. Sorry. This is only what I find logical.

Again, intuition seldom works on the subatomic level.

Are you saying that the problem with gravity is it’s too weak? Because if so string theory offers an explanation.

>>Photons can travel freely from one galaxy to another as photons are pure (positive) energy with no mass.

Photons have no mass, but that doesn’t mean there is no accompanying particle. Yes it’s a wave, but it must also be a particle since it travels through space as only particles can, since as a wave it lacks a medium through which to move, even though without mass the particle doesn’t exist but if it doesn’t how then…well, you get the paradox.

>>There are no antiphotons to react with and it wouldn’t react with antimatter in any way. The thought of antiphotons and radiation with a negative charge is interesting though.

Why not? If there’s enough antimatter in the universe to counter the matter, why not have antiphotons?

>>Because it is thanks to attractive gravity that nebula’s are formed, which coalesce into solar systems. Without attractive gravity no such clumping together will happen.

I see. This, again, is assuming that gravity somehow works differently for the supposed vast stores of antimatter out in interstellar space.

I’d like to take a moment now to say that when they speak of the universe expanding, it’s not like a nation expanding it’s borders by researching another civic tech and building forts (kudos to anyone who gets the reference). It’s more stretching. There’s not even a nothing to expand into. The notion of an outside the universe is expanding into is meaningless (which is one reason I dislike the shape of the universe analogy).

>>emitting antigravity is not really how I would like to phrase it but there are a lot of people who go LOL WUT at both our sides in this conversation.

Indeed :D

>>Newton would say something similar too if he read some of Einsteins work. And Einstein never liked quantum mechanics at all.

True.

>> No.9914   [Delete]   [Edit]
>>I don’t think I’ve heard of dark energy, but I know of dark matter. the latter is actually thought to exist as something that is supposed to keep the universe together, not push galaxies apart.

Insofar as I can tell, the two are not related. And until I get into college (lolmoney) I can’t ask anyone because nobody who responds to me seems to know.

Yes, dark matter is thought to have mass and such, but besides WIMPs and possibly MaCHOs, they exist partly to solve problems in galactic rotational anomalies I believe I mentioned earlier and to explain where some of the “missing mass” of the universe is.

Dark Energy makes up the remaining mass-energy sum of the universe. It is the force responsible for the accelerating expansion.

Unfortunately I could be completely wrong. I’ve fallen out of practice, not been studying and keeping up, you know.

>So why haven’t the galaxies been destroyed yet? How does this theory account for the clumps of matter that have formed? Why hasn’t everything just been blown up before galaxies could even form?
>>because of antimatters tendency to push other antimatter away it will be very very thinly spread across the regions in between galaxies. While galaxies are moving through this space I do expect to see some reaction, but not enough to blow up entire galaxies.

That’s not the whole point though. What about before the galaxies have formed?

>>New matter and antimatter is also constantly created, which offsets the destruction.

No it doesn’t. The new matter and antimatter offset each other.

>>The rate of creation might also even be higher than the destruction, which would explain the observed acceleration of expansion.

Creation of antimatter? Excuse me my good sir but were does the matter go? There has to be enough mass to equal the energy of creation, which the particles use to come into existence, they then fuse and repay their energy debt destroying each other.

>> No.9917   [Delete]   [Edit]
File: 1261425591622.jpg -(40.3 KiB, 694x530) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
41310

Bump

>> No.9918   [Delete]   [Edit]

As a physics major myself, this thread has left me highly confused.

  1. We're fairly certain that antimatter does NOT have negative mass, because it's made of the same quarks regular matter is - just arranged differently - and those quarks all have positive mass. As a matter of fact, no instances of negative mass have ever been observed, so trotting it out makes as much since as appealing to the cosmic aether or space unicorns.
  2. Conservation of matter+energy is pretty much an absolute.
  3. Your "moving space" model is just that, a model, like the "curved space" model is. Models don't explain anything, they only attempt (imperfectly) to describe what is happening.

Last edited 09/12/21(Mon)23:04.

>> No.9920   [Delete]   [Edit]

>>9918
I thought it was entirely different matter. That's what I've heard.

>> No.9922   [Delete]   [Edit]

>>9913
>>9914
It is good to see we are nearing each other in mutual understanding of way of thinking.

>I think the problem here is that you’re taking it too literally.

The point that I’m trying to make is that both theory and analogy speak only of space being curved as a result of mass which results in what we see as gravity. I don’t see how space could be curved in such a way that an object within the curved region would expend less energy by accelerating towards the mass than staying put like it would outside the curved region. That is, unless the curving itself is a flowing, continuous process which is what I propose.

>Are you saying that the problem with gravity is it’s too weak? Because if so string theory offers an explanation.

Its weakness is not what I have a problem with, but how differently the attraction works compared to the other 3 fundamental interactions. If it were similar, a heavier object like a ball of lead would be accelerated faster by the graviton flow than a much lighter object of the same size and shape. This does not apply if you consider the graviton to have it’s influence on space itself and not other matter.
Thinking some more on it, it’s entirely possible that I’m wrong since the force on a heavier object would indeed have to be greater to show the same acceleration. Inertia could be balancing it completely, which strikes me as a great coincidence - which it probably would not be.

>Why not? If there’s enough antimatter in the universe to counter the matter, why not have antiphotons?

There might be a lot of antiphotons in between galaxies which we’ve never seen because they get instantly annihilated when crossing into our galaxy. I do however think that not many anti-photons would be created compared to how much comes from galaxies, as must comes from hydrogen crossing over into helium. Since I argue that antimatter doesn’t form into stars this doesn’t happen. (assuming a-photons are created by antimatter in the same way normal photons are created by normal matter)
When I spoke about antimatter likely to exist as a-helium in between galaxies this was a gross error, I meant a-hydrogen.

>The notion of an outside the universe is expanding into is meaningless (which is one reason I dislike the shape of the universe analogy).

With antimatter in between all galaxies pushing every galaxy away from every other galaxy the same effect will be shown. This is very different from the common perception that all galaxies are moving away from some centre somewhere. (where the big bang would have been) your reference reminds me of civilization 4 though. Many games are like that.
I shall look into dark energy more, it sounds interesting.

>That’s not the whole point though. What about before the galaxies have formed?

This is very hard to make a good analogy for, but essentially what I think happened is that a large amount of both matter and anti matter was created during the big bang and/or has been created during the course of history. Gradually, while the antimatter was spreading itself around in all directions and thinned out, the normal matter clumped together. The outer regions of which often reacting with surrounding antimatter but still “safe” in their own bubbles. The other point is that new creation of both matter and antimatter could very well take place at the borders of galaxies as well, as newly formed antimatter could move away from the galaxy, and normal matter towards the galaxy. I would guess in a way not entirely dissimilar to hawking radiation near a black hole.
All this may sound unlikely but since matter and antimatter at a medium range don’t really influence each other that much (one curving space towards itself, the other curving space away from itself) this seems possible to me. It is only with the combined effect of all antimatter in between a galaxy that galaxies gets pushed away from each other. Maybe I should say the space in between becomes inflated instead though.

>> No.9923   [Delete]   [Edit]

interesting article on the subject
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_interaction_of_antimatter

>>9918

  1. the constant creation of particle-antiparticle pairs are an important part how hawking radiation is supposed to work. these seemingly happen everywhere all the time and are created out of nothing. seemingly the total energy of both parts needs to be 0. what you say does have merit though, as matter and antimatter obviously electrically attract each other which implies positive mass for both just different charge. it's just something that needs further research imo.
  2. see one
  3. I can live with that.
>> No.9944   [Delete]   [Edit]

Bump. Working on a response and fighting off a deadly joint attack of apathy and lazyness.

>> No.9959   [Delete]   [Edit]

>>9923
Just because they have to be opposites doesn't mean antimatter can have negative mass.

Hell, mass is a measurement (roughly speaking) of how much space something takes up. How can anything have negative mass?

I hope this is a good argument.

>>The point that I’m trying to make is that both theory and analogy speak only of space being curved as a result of mass which results in what we see as gravity. I don’t see how space could be curved in such a way that an object within the curved region would expend less energy by accelerating towards the mass than staying put like it would outside the curved region. That is, unless the curving itself is a flowing, continuous process which is what I propose.

I’m afraid I don’t understand where you got the bit about an object expending more/less energy.

>>Its weakness is not what I have a problem with, but how differently the attraction works compared to the other 3 fundamental interactions. If it were similar, a heavier object like a ball of lead would be accelerated faster by the graviton flow than a much lighter object of the same size and shape. This does not apply if you consider the graviton to have it’s influence on space itself and not other matter.

Well gravity has always been the odd man out. But really, “because it’s weird” isn’t a good reason to dismiss something, especially when it comes to this area of science.

>>Thinking some more on it, it’s entirely possible that I’m wrong since the force on a heavier object would indeed have to be greater to show the same acceleration. Inertia could be balancing it completely, which strikes me as a great coincidence - which it probably would not be.

Not sure how inertia would affect gravity interacting on an object aside from say an object flying pass a large massive body, resulting in the course of the object being changed, possibly inducing an orbit.

But yeah, that is very strange. But then again so are quantum jitters and string theory.

>>There might be a lot of antiphotons in between galaxies which we’ve never seen because they get instantly annihilated when crossing into our galaxy. I do however think that not many anti-photons would be created compared to how much comes from galaxies, as must comes from hydrogen crossing over into helium. Since I argue that antimatter doesn’t form into stars this doesn’t happen. (assuming a-photons are created by antimatter in the same way normal photons are created by normal matter)

I did some research and apparently photons and antiphotons are the same thing.

Oddly the source says that a photon and an antiphoton can collide to form an electron-positron pair though. So the better wording is that the photon is it’s own antiparticle.

Either way, my mistake.

>>When I spoke about antimatter likely to exist as a-helium in between galaxies this was a gross error, I meant a-hydrogen.

I see. And this goes back to what you said earlier about antimatter somehow having negative gravity, hence the lack of antistars. But I remember reading somewhere that antimatter solar systems could form, but would be massively different from those we know of.

>>With antimatter in between all galaxies pushing every galaxy away from every other galaxy the same effect will be shown. This is very different from the common perception that all galaxies are moving away from some centre somewhere. (where the big bang would have been) your reference reminds me of civilization 4 though. Many games are like that.

Actually it was Rise of Nations. Good game too.

But yeah, the notion of a center is meaningless in a curved 3-dimensional space.

>>This is very hard to make a good analogy for, but essentially what I think happened is that a large amount of both matter and anti matter was created during the big bang and/or has been created during the course of history. Gradually, while the antimatter was spreading itself around in all directions and thinned out, the normal matter clumped together.

That doesn’t exactly explain how everything wasn’t blown up, but the explanation isn’t finished so I’ll wait.

>>The outer regions of which often reacting with surrounding antimatter but still “safe” in their own bubbles.

Their own bubbles? Bubbles of what?

>>The other point is that new creation of both matter and antimatter could very well take place at the borders of galaxies as well, as newly formed antimatter could move away from the galaxy, and normal matter towards the galaxy.

wat

>>I would guess in a way not entirely dissimilar to hawking radiation near a black hole.

I hate to repeat myself like this, but wat

>>All this may sound unlikely but since matter and antimatter at a medium range don’t really influence each other that much (one curving space towards itself, the other curving space away from itself) this seems possible to me.

This, again, is assuming antimatter repulses things.

>>It is only with the combined effect of all antimatter in between a galaxy that galaxies gets pushed away from each other. Maybe I should say the space in between becomes inflated instead though.

That’s essentially it because there’s been no proof I’ve seen of antimatter in between galaxies.

>> No.9968   [Delete]   [Edit]

>>9959
sorry, little time. I'll keep it short.

mass at subatomic level gets usually defined as an amount of electronvolt, not in how much space it takes up.

everything tends to take the path of least resistance, whether it's a clump of mass or a sole electron. how can accelerating towards a mass (just because of space being curved) offer less resistance than staying put with space itself not moving?

with inertia I mean the phenomenon where the same force accelerates a lighter object faster than a heavier one. you must be thinking of it as in how an object already travelling in directed X will move into direction x+y after a force is applied in direction y. it's really basically the same thing.

yes, I forgot photons are their own antiparticle as well.

some claim that antimatter would repulse normal matter but attract antimatter. in that case you would indeed have anti-solar systems. I don't see any reason for why this would be true however.

I played rise of nations. good game, I know it sounded familiar.

the crux of the matterclumping story is that a galaxy represents a huge concentration of matter while the surrounding area has an extremely low concentration of antimatter. the surrounding area is pretty huge though. the way this started out is not entirely clear, but with 90% of all antimatter moving away in all 3 direction without reacting with normal matter that leaves 90% of the original normal matter to clump together. again, this is hard to explain well as I can't think of a decent analogy...
and yes, everything assumes antimatter curves space away from itself. you could say that the presence of equally distributed antimatter in between galaxies is merely a prediction my theory makes on which it could be tested. eventually.

>> No.9972   [Delete]   [Edit]
File: 1261519760545.jpg -(4564 B, 90x128) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
4564
>>mass at subatomic level gets usually defined as an amount of electronvolt, not in how much space it takes up.

I looked around and nowhere did I see anything about mass having anything to do with an electron volt.

PS an electron volt is a unit of energy. 1.60217646 × 10^-19 joules to be precise. And no, matter being frozen energy is not a valid argument.

>>everything tends to take the path of least resistance, whether it's a clump of mass or a sole electron. how can accelerating towards a mass (just because of space being curved) offer less resistance than staying put with space itself not moving?

Because gravity is an attractive force and the object would have to struggle between the gravity pulling on it and its own magic force pulling it away. Not the path of least resistance, which is just the object moving towards the mass pulling on it.

>>with inertia I mean the phenomenon where the same force accelerates a lighter object faster than a heavier one. you must be thinking of it as in how an object already travelling in directed X will move into direction x+y after a force is applied in direction y. it's really basically the same thing.

Inertia is a property of matter. BILL BILL BILL BILL

Seriously though, it's basically matter moving and wanting to continue moving at that velocity. It's Newton's First Law.

I think somehow you managed to confuse inertia with a force becoming stronger as distance decreases. How this has anything to do with inertia I have no idea.

>>some claim that antimatter would repulse normal matter but attract antimatter. in that case you would indeed have anti-solar systems. I don't see any reason for why this would be true however.

Nor do I see any reason that antimatter would emit negative gravity.

>>I played rise of nations. good game, I know it sounded familiar.

Cool. What's your favorite civ? Germans here.

>>the crux of the matterclumping story is that a galaxy represents a huge concentration of matter while the surrounding area has an extremely low concentration of antimatter.

Alright, so matter clumps. You haven’t said why or how it survived long enough to clump.

>>the surrounding area is pretty huge though. the way this started out is not entirely clear, but with 90% of all antimatter moving away in all 3 direction without reacting with normal matter that leaves 90% of the original normal matter to clump together. again, this is hard to explain well as I can't think of a decent analogy...

Clearly. But how would it not react with the matter? The repulsive aspect? Look, I'm sorry but until you can clearly explain why it repulses stuff instead of attracting it I'm calling bullshit on this. Because it's antimatter and therefore antigravity is not a valid reason.

>>and yes, everything assumes antimatter curves space away from itself. you could say that the presence of equally distributed antimatter in between galaxies is merely a prediction my theory makes on which it could be tested. eventually.

If there's so much antimatter out there between galaxies, why am I just now hearing about it? Why do most other sources say it's very rare?

And maybe if the clumping was unaffected by gravity, why wouldn't antimatter clump?

Oh, and sorry if I came off as a dick at any point.

Last edited 09/12/23(Wed)01:59.

>> No.9987   [Delete]   [Edit]

all this physics stuff is pretty cool guys huh

>> No.9993   [Delete]   [Edit]

>>9972

> I looked around and nowhere did I see anything about mass having anything to do with an electron volt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_volt#As_a_unit_of_mass
The problem we are having here is that you are satisfied with the rubber sheet analogy in how matter gets accelerated by the curving of space-time, while I am not. So no matter how I try to explain my thoughts you will not understand what I mean as you will keep referring back that balls roll down hills and that’s the end of it as far as you’re concerned.
However, I really like this guy’s explanation about how how gravity warps space-time
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080818065706AAG0W6m
he has is just as annoyed with the normal rubber sheet analogy as I am, and explains it in a different way. This different way of explaining it however just makes my claim of “flowing/moving” space more understandable and even believable. (He didn’t specifically mean it that way though)

> BILL BILL BILL BILL

wut?
From Wikipedia:
Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to a change in its state of motion. It is represented numerically by an object's mass. The principle of inertia is one of the fundamental principles of classical physics which are used to describe the motion of matter and how it is affected by applied forces. Inertia comes from the Latin word, "iners", meaning idle, or lazy. Sir Isaac Newton defined inertia in Definition 3 of his Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, which states:[1]“The vis insita, or innate force of matter is a power of resisting, by which every body, as much as in it lies, endeavors to preserve in its present state, whether it be of rest, or of moving uniformly forward in a straight line.”
All I was saying is that inertia basically means that you need twice the force to accelerate twice as big a mass by the same amount. A=F/M and all that.

>Cool. What's your favorite civ? Germans here.

sorry, been some time and didn't play it that much. I do remember it featuring the Dutch as a civ. They weren't that good but I liked they put them in. (being Dutch)

> But how would it not react with the matter? The repulsive aspect? Look, I'm sorry but until you can clearly explain why it repulses stuff instead of attracting it I'm calling bullshit on this. Because it's antimatter and therefore antigravity is not a valid reason.

I claim antimatter curves space in such a way that space seemingly flows away from it because it would explain why we see so little of it while still allowing there being an anti-particle out there for (nearly) every particle in existence. It also gives an explanation why galaxies all move away from each other and why we don’t see anti-matter galaxies. It is considered rare because we have a hard time making it and detecting it from here in the space between galaxies is fairly hard. We might be seeing the radiation of constant reaction at the edges of our and other galaxies all the time but we are explaining those measurements away as being radiation that’s still left from the big bang.
I’ll try to explain again how I think galaxies might have come to be: we have, say, x particles of matter and x particels of anti-matter floating in a 3d space of y cubic meters. Whether they came to be by a some (small) big bang or otherwise is not important right now. These particles however are chaotically/randomly distributed. I claim the antiparticles push each other away (or rather, they inflate the space between them) so that a significant number of them exit the y cubic meters area it all started in. the normal matter however would attract other normal matter and not be effected as much but the influence of anti-matter. this would result in normal matter outnumbering antimatter within the original space of y cubic meters and various clumps of normal matter forming where there happened to be a few of them together and there happened to be not too many anti-matter particles (random distribution and all that). Certainly a great deal of the particles would annihilate but in the end there would be an equilibrium of various pockets of clumping matter and lots of dispersed anti-matter. there would still be some activity going on around the pockets of matter but the amount of matter inside the pockets would so great compared to the low density of anti-matter particles around them it would not be enough to ever destroy all the normal matter in the pocket as the normal matter outnumbers the antimatter within the confines of the original y cubic meter space where most of the original matter started out. (this story calls for >9000 hours in paint but I’m lazy). All the antimatter combined in between the pockets however would over time inflate space enough for all the pockets to be moving away from each other. There is also the possibility of new matter/antimatter being created due to quantum fluctuations (http://universe-review.ca/R03-01-quantumflu.htm) at the edge of pockets of matter where some of the created antimatter doesn’t get destroyed but instead moves off into space away from the pocket of matter and the normal matter gets attracted into the pocket of matter, causing the pockets to grow over time.

Last edited 09/12/23(Wed)12:44.

>> No.10112   [Delete]   [Edit]

bump. For >>9944

>> No.10148   [Delete]   [Edit]

Yay I got a response finished. I hope it's good.

>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_volt#As_a_unit_of_mass

I see. I didn’t look hard enough then. First I’ve heard of it though.

It seems to me that it’s merely measuring the amount of energy you can get from a reaction though. If I’m not wrong, and I admit I can be.

But hey, mass and energy can be converted into each other, which is what the article in question seemed to be referring to.

>>The problem we are having here is that you are satisfied with the rubber sheet analogy in how matter gets accelerated by the curving of space-time, while I am not. So no matter how I try to explain my thoughts you will not understand what I mean as you will keep referring back that balls roll down hills and that’s the end of it as far as you’re concerned.

Care to say what makes it so bad? It seems to work, so I stick with it.

>>However, I really like this guy’s explanation about how how gravity warps space-time

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080818065706AAG0W6m

Ah. I’ve seen that as well. It’s another analogy, one that draws comparison to inertia.

>>he has is just as annoyed with the normal rubber sheet analogy as I am, and explains it in a different way. This different way of explaining it however just makes my claim of “flowing/moving” space more understandable and even believable. (He didn’t specifically mean it that way though)

Sadly I’m still not quite seeing it. Plus he says that it’s not a force, even though it pulls on you like one.

>>wut?

Bill Nye the science guy. You poor depraved soul.

>>From Wikipedia:

lol Wikipedia. Go on.

(insignificant bits cut, like what the word means in Latin, etc.)

>>Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to a change in its state of motion. It is represented numerically by an object's mass. Sir Isaac Newton defined inertia in Definition 3 of his Philosophi Naturalis Principia Mathematica, which states: “The vis insita, or innate force of matter is a power of resisting, by which every body, as much as in it lies, endeavors to preserve in its present state, whether it be of rest, or of moving uniformly forward in a straight line.”

Right. In laymans terms, an object at rest will stay at rest until acted upon by a force. Same for an object in motion.

It was a reference to Bill Nye the Science Guy.

>>All I was saying is that inertia basically means that you need twice the force to accelerate twice as big a mass by the same amount. A=F/M and all that.

I see. I think.

>>I claim antimatter curves space in such a way that space seemingly flows away from it because it would explain why we see so little of it while still allowing there being an anti-particle out there for (nearly) every particle in existence.

When it is said that every particle has an antiparticle counterpoint, that does not mean the universe is 50% matter and 50% antimatter. It means that there are antiparticles for every kind of particle. Not for every single particle.

Unless this is your answer to why there is seemingly more matter in the universe.

>>It also gives an explanation why galaxies all move away from each other and why we don’t see anti-matter galaxies.

You know the universe is expanding, right?

>>It is considered rare because we have a hard time making it and detecting it from here in the space between galaxies is fairly hard.

Are you aware of the observable universe or the Hubble Deep Field? We can see objects that far away, so far that they probably don’t exist anymore, yet seeing something right outside the universe is impossible/very difficult? Why?

>>We might be seeing the radiation of constant reaction at the edges of our and other galaxies all the time but we are explaining those measurements away as being radiation that’s still left from the big bang.

Why do we get readings from empty space then?

>>I’ll try to explain again how I think galaxies might have come to be: we have, say, x particles of matter and x particels of anti-matter floating in a 3d space of y cubic meters. Whether they came to be by a some (small) big bang or otherwise is not important right now.

Oh but I think it is. Moving on.

>>These particles however are chaotically/randomly distributed. I claim the antiparticles push each other away (or rather, they inflate the space between them) so that a significant number of them exit the y cubic meters area it all started in. the normal matter however would attract other normal matter and not be effected as much but the influence of anti-matter.

So basically things form as usual while the antimatter pushes itself away, diluting the density of the antimatter? Is that it? Matter and antimatter didn’t get close enough for everything to be destroyed? What about matter and antimatter having opposite charges? You know opposites attract and electromagnetism is much MUCH stronger than gravity, right? True, gravity is I believe stronger when negative but still. If gravitons are slipping away to other dimensions due to being closed strings and thus not stuck in a 3-brane, it doesn’t much matter it seems.

>>this would result in normal matter outnumbering antimatter within the original space of y cubic meters and various clumps of normal matter forming where there happened to be a few of them together and there happened to be not too many anti-matter particles (random distribution and all that).

Out of curiosity, what’s your explanation, if you have one, for the reason there is any non-equal distribution in existence anyway? Why isn’t everything of uniform density? Why wasn’t total entropy reached when existence started?

>>Certainly a great deal of the particles would annihilate but in the end there would be an equilibrium of various pockets of clumping matter and lots of dispersed anti-matter. there would still be some activity going on around the pockets of matter but the amount of matter inside the pockets would so great compared to the low density of anti-matter particles around them it would not be enough to ever destroy all the normal matter in the pocket as the normal matter outnumbers the antimatter within the confines of the original y cubic meter space where most of the original matter started out. (this story calls for >9000 hours in paint but I’m lazy).

I think I see what you’re saying. But that doesn’t, if I’m correct in viewing this, explain why the galaxies haven’t been slowly dissolving away as antimatter erodes them.

>>All the antimatter combined in between the pockets however would over time inflate space enough for all the pockets to be moving away from each other.

See the end of this.

>>There is also the possibility of new matter/antimatter being created due to quantum fluctuations (http://universe-review.ca/R03-01-quantumflu.htm) at the edge of pockets of matter where some of the created antimatter doesn’t get destroyed but instead moves off into space away from the pocket of matter and the normal matter gets attracted into the pocket of matter, causing the pockets to grow over time.

So what about the energy expended bringing the particles into existence? I’m willing to accept some other particle/antiparticle interacting with the new pair, but you can’t get something from nothing. The particles have to fuse back together expending as much energy as they’re equal to in order to have existed in the first place.

Finally:

> But how would it not react with the matter? The repulsive aspect? Look, I'm sorry but until you can clearly explain why it repulses stuff instead of attracting it I'm calling bullshit on this. Because it's antimatter and therefore antigravity is not a valid reason.

Remember? So far that’s all well and good but you haven’t said why antimatter repulses. So it’s still bullshit until you can explain it.

Sorry.

>> No.10172   [Delete]   [Edit]

>>10148

>Care to say what makes it so bad? It seems to work, so I stick with it.

Newtonian physics works pretty well too, still Einstein just wasn’t completely happy with it either.

>Sadly I’m still not quite seeing it. Plus he says that it’s not a force, even though it pulls on you like one.

I’m saying it’s not a force either, so that much is actually the same.
Bill Nye seems like an American idol. Not that well known across the pacific.

>that does not mean the universe is 50% matter and 50% antimatter

I don’t conclude this because there exists an antiparticle for every particle, but because for every particle to be created an antiparticle is also created as there is no known way for matter creation in the universe other than the forming of both pairs. I conclude that during the big bang, assuming there was one, massive amounts of both kinds were created, in (mostly) equal amounts.

>Are you aware of the observable universe or the Hubble Deep Field? We can see objects that far away, so far that they probably don’t exist anymore, yet seeing something right outside the universe is impossible/very difficult? Why?

I’m referring to the fact that “seeing” antimatter in between galaxies would be extremely hard because it is so thinly spread out. Hubble can see light from very far away, but actually detecting the antimatter in between galaxies would need more advanced tech.

>Why do we get readings from empty space then?

We get readings from all directions in the sphere, which is not strange as we are completely surrounded by antimatter. Just in very low density.

>You know opposites attract and electromagnetism is much MUCH stronger than gravity, right?

yes, it is vastly stronger I know. And yes, vast amounts do get destroyed. However, I’m talking about the few particles who are too far apart for those forces to have any effect.

>So what about the energy expended bringing the particles into existence?

For this I can only try and make up another analogy. The various particles are first created and has x Ev and the other has –x EV. The one goes off and the other got into a fight so its mom got scared. "You're movin' with your auntie and uncle in Bel-Air." It whistled for a cab and when it came near the license plate said fresh and it had dice in the mirror. If anything It could say that this cab was rare, but It thought, "Nah, forget it. Yo, holmes to Bel-Air!" It pulled up to the house about 7 or 8 and I yelled to the cabbie, "Yo homes smell ya later!" Looked at my kingdom It was finally there, to sit on its throne as the prince of Bel-Air.

>> No.10198   [Delete]   [Edit]
File: 1262153964940.png -(241.3 KiB, 576x432) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
247097
>> No.10218   [Delete]   [Edit]

I suppose I ought to throw something together, oughtn't I?

>> No.10223   [Delete]   [Edit]
File: 1262239351175.jpg -(14.9 KiB, 300x300) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
15292

FUCK YEAH BILL NYE THE MUTHAFUCKIN SCIENCE GUY!!!

BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL

>> No.10225   [Delete]   [Edit]

if you like to :)

mentioning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron_emission or beta decay in general would have sufficed in busting any of my ranting about antimatter though.

>> No.10236   [Delete]   [Edit]

Meh. I might just for fun.

>> No.10253   [Delete]   [Edit]

All this talk about physics. And my teachers told me I would never learn anything if I spent all my free time browsing the internet. I've learned more about gravity and antimatter from this thread alone than I have from 10 years of being in school. But this does raise a question. Why is such a heated discussion taking place on an internet image board? Shouldn't you geniuses be debating this topic on live tv or something? Although I am highly intrigued by this discussion, and would like to see where it goes.

>> No.10269   [Delete]   [Edit]
File: 1262340532589.jpg -(18.0 KiB, 623x350) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
18426

>>10253

>> No.10274   [Delete]   [Edit]

It was far too long since I fizziks'd

>> No.10280   [Delete]   [Edit]

>>10253
Because we're amateurs and not real physicists that would actually know what we're talking about :D

>> No.10281   [Delete]   [Edit]

>>10280
This. Any one of us versus one of the guys on The Universe or something would probably lose spectacularly.

Last edited 10/01/01(Fri)19:13.

>> No.10317   [Delete]   [Edit]

people have saved this shit for future reference correct??

>> No.10328   [Delete]   [Edit]

anyone who liked this thread might enjoy this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8IcciRHGvQ

I think I'll be subscribing to this guys channel lol

>> No.10706   [Delete]   [Edit]

Bumping with a question.
lets say that after a few years of running the LHC the higgs boson is never found meaning in all likelihood that string theory is probably more correct then the standard theory. So in conclusion if there is no gravity particle there is no anti-gravity particle. how would this affect both of your theories?

This is just opinion but the lhc WAS running for several months and with millions of neutron collisions a second there should have already been at least some evidence of its existence but still there was nun. I figure that the team running it is sabotaging it them selves after they realized there was no evidence as a way to keep the public's interest and keep their funding from being cut. So as long as they can milk the grants they will continue to make excuses.

But anyways feel free to ignore this post if you like because of my poor grimmer/spelling. This is just a bump.

Last edited 10/01/21(Thu)16:04.

>> No.10713   [Delete]   [Edit]

>>10706
Every high energy physics experiment carried out since the mid-20th century has eventually yielded findings consistent with the Standard Model, which predicts Higgs Bosons. if suddenly this, more or less final, particle were to remain elusive I would imagine many people would cry a lot.

my "theory" doesn't dispute nor cares about particle physics but it interprets the results differently. in other words: this "theory" doesn't care what causes matter to warp space, just how the warping itself takes form. regardless of it being caused by a higgs boson or divine magic.
honestly, I wouldn't dream of wanting to mess with quantum field equations or Quantum chromodynamics in general. I just like to troll people.

finally, since you are interested in this, have a look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Odtor8VIwM
it's quite an entertaining explanation about the standard model.

Last edited 10/01/22(Fri)04:57.

>> No.10745   [Delete]   [Edit]

>>9851
Einstein made plenty of mistakes in his personal life, and his philosophy and ethics were also extremely naive and offensively science man.



Delete Post [] Password
Report Post(s) to Staff