Oliver Thewalt

    Oliver Thewalt

    Theoretical Physics | Quantum Biology | Dark Matter Research | Energy Consulting | Creation of Hydrogen ATOM in the Higgs Field >> Vote for Nobel Prize

    Latest comments


    Antimatter Thread Compilation - Discussion at Facebook - Part Two

    Continued antimatter thread compilation  ...

    Oliver Thewalt No need to apologize, Ted, this will need some time to arrive in the physics community ....

    29. Juli 2013 um 13:26 · 1

     

    Ulla Mattfolk Trust your observations, not your math

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    29. Juli 2013 um 13:39

     

    Oliver Thewalt This is to be understood well: " ...,all of the existence is based on the electron bonding atoms to molecules and electrons are negatively charge and is the outer configuration of the atom,with there being a positive charged space there would only be annihilation at every point in space,the universe is negative because of the electron and anti-matter is of the opposing charge which is a part of all atoms ie protons...which are shielded,and shielded because of the same reason given above.the anti-matter is with us only shielded from the universal negative charge" (!)

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    29. Juli 2013 um 13:49

     

    K.S. Narayana The universe when observed from a point outside the universe ( ie., the void ) is perfectly neutral with no charge.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    29. Juli 2013 um 20:20 · 3

     

    Oliver Thewalt Yes, but how can you make a measurement?

     

    29. Juli 2013 um 20:31 · 1

     

    K.S. Narayana That's the hitch. Only imagination is the way ( at present ).

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    29. Juli 2013 um 20:41 · 3

     

    Oliver Thewalt Indeed, becasue it is not perfectly neutral but UNDEFINED.

     

    29. Juli 2013 um 20:43 · 2

     

    K.S. Narayana Yeah, you are right, in the absence of measurement, you can not define as neutral.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    29. Juli 2013 um 20:44 · 1

     

    Oliver Thewalt But is there a thought you intended to imply by -->neutral form the outside?

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    29. Juli 2013 um 20:45 · 1

     

    Ted Brandes I am sorry, I don't see what is to be understood in something that makes false observations, and defines antimatter and matter as something they are not Oliver. Why are we continuously quoting something that has no scientific or even logical basis? Antimatter is not negatively charged particles, nor is matter always positive, yet his statements make these very claims. All I see in that is someone butchering science, not aiding in the process.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    29. Juli 2013 um 21:05 · 2

     

    Ted Brandes Might I add this as well. For those of you who think the mathematics we use in physics is "voodoo math" we manipulate in our favor, here's something to chew on. The math only becomes "voodoo math" if you are not competent enough to know the difference. Math is observation in physics. We measure, study, and observe most of the variables in all those equations you seem to disapprove of and utilize them in theory. The handful that we create ARE DERIVED FROM OBSERVED VARIABLES. And so, instead of using a universal language, a universal LOGICAL process to explain and/or disprove (it works both ways), you suggest we submit to complete and utter personal opinion and bias? Math is not mechanical, nor is it synthetic. It is natural, IT'S HOW OUR BRAIN EVEN WORKS!!! It is as creative as a piece of art, and I can say that as an artist myself. The imagination derives itself from math, and math derives itself from imagination. Denying one denies the other.

     

    29. Juli 2013 um 21:13 · 2

     

    K.S. Narayana Dear Oliver, while I accept soberly Ted's point of view as one of the possible opinions, let me say a few words here : 1. Any particle with a linear (translational ) , or rotational , or vibration within the particle , has a speed more than c, speed of light , behaves as anti-matter and less than c, behaves as matter. Only two days back , I derived the rotational surface speed of proton as +0.924176 c ; and rotational surface speed of electron as SQRT( - 5.8541 ) c . I think by virtue of speed higher than c it behaves like antimatter; and by virtue of rotation of proton and electron in opposite directions; opposite charges.

     

    29. Juli 2013 um 23:15 · 1

     

    K.S. Narayana Once again, positively charged particle is matter. But, all matter need not be charged. For example, neutron is matter and is not charged for it does not rotate around itself. All protons, in my humble opinion rotate in a direction same as the direction in which the central massive black hole near the speed of light ( slightly < c ) which gives them positive charge . Electrons in the opposite direction slightly higher than the speed, c . It is the rotation which gives them charge. Not, the speed. The speed only decides whether it is matter or anti-matter.

     

    30. Juli 2013 um 01:19 · 1

     

    K.S. Narayana Similarly, in the same vein as above, there can be positive anti-matter and negative matter. Once again, it is speed ( linear / rotational / vibrational ) which decides whether it is matter or anti-matter . That is , if speed is > c anti-matter; and if speed < c matter. But anything which rotates in the direction of the central black hole will have positive charge; and in the opposite direction will have negative electric charge. Incidentally, I have arrived at proof for showing rotational energy causes charge energy; and also, that the Earth is a hollow sphere with void inside ( ie., perfect emptiness : without space, time , matter and energy ).

     

    30. Juli 2013 um 01:51

     

    K.S. Narayana Dear Oliver, the thought I intended to imply was that : if you go into imagination and see the universe as one entity from outside the universe ( for I guess the universe is finite ) it is just like an atom ( or molecule ) with nucleus and neutral in charge as a total; just like an ordinary atom or molecule. That's all.

     

    30. Juli 2013 um 06:29 · 2

     

    Abhas Mitra Even if universe would be finite, there would be no ``outside''; this is something like an ant crawling on a finite balloon surface finds no edge, no outside. By definition, universe is everything (unlike a galaxy) and with no ``exterior''...

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    30. Juli 2013 um 08:41 · 2

     

     

    Abhas Mitra Indeed you never know your entire universe

     

    30. Juli 2013 um 08:44 · 2

     

    Ted Brandes K.s. Narayana, your statement is completely inaccurate. The positron is an antiparticle, antiquarks are antiparticles, etc. and all are positively charged. There are numerous examples of observed antiparticles that break your erroneous claim. Speed certainly plays no role, especially when you consider relativity and quantum theory, both of which state this is false (unless you are confusing the Hamiltonian as charge, their charge does not matter and that is made very clear). There is also the fact that we have captured antiparticles at speeds slower than "c"... it's called the photon! The photon by definition is its own antiparticle, and we have slowed photons to a near halt in labs on numerous occasions. This is because the speed of light constant is a LIMIT, and not a strictly binding property to light. We've done the same with positrons, IT'S CALLED A SLOW-POSITRON-BEAM. And lastly, HOW CAN YOU LOOK AT THE UNIVERSE FROM "THE OUTSIDE" WHEN DOING SO WOULD INDUCE WAVE FUNCTION EXPANSION. That very concept is how Ph.D. Hugh Everett III conceived the Many-Worlds Interpretation of QM, because you can't consider the universe from the outside in a collapsed state. It's impossible, because you then have to consider all possible states which, when considering the states derived from these equally real possible states, extends to infinity. Our universe alone includes some 10^10^16 universes (THAT'S JUST IF WE CONSIDER ONLY OUR UNIVERSE; HYPOTHETICALLY IT COULD EVEN EXTEND TO INFINITY). You are ignoring so many variables and concrete observations that I can't see any substance to this.

     

    30. Juli 2013 um 21:02 · 4

     

    Ted Brandes Abhas, actually, that is incorrect and their are numerous hypothetical situations that could create an exterior to our universe. The term universe can be generalized to "everything," but the problem arises that "everything" can be different depending on where you are. For example, two membranes floating in hyperspace are by definition two different universes. The reason is that they are two separate spacetime continuum. In other words, what exists in one has 0% reality in the other. That's why we coined the term "parallel" universes, because they are complete separate from one another. However, let's assume the best possible case scenario for your argument and say the universe is infinite. Now everything's on one spacetime continuum. Problem solved, right? Nope. The problem occurs due to information transfer restrictions. All objects are restricted to observation bubbles, so what occurs beyond the scope of information transfer has 0% existence relative to those inside that bubble. There are some other fancy exceptions, but I don't want to get too far into wonky dimension setups and what-have-yous. To say the universe is everything is both an overgeneralization, and fails to consider the intricate scenarios that would easily break that notion.

     

    30. Juli 2013 um 21:07 · 1

     

    Ted Brandes And if Ley Wescott is still reading this thread, the regeneration of energy concept is an old concept we refer to as "The Static Universe." It was popular especially amongst figures like Albert Einstein and Fred Hoyle, that is until Penrose and Hawking dismantled their efforts by pointing out, I believe it was the energy tensor, was insufficient in supporting their theory. Hawking actually called Fred Hoyle out on the matter in front of a crowd, and if I'm remembering my history correctly, the two's relationship was never fully resolved. It is a legitimate concept, but it has for the most part been disproven, especially when you consider entropy laws, universal expansion, and information theory.

     

    30. Juli 2013 um 21:14 · 1

     

    Ted Brandes And Bob, I didn't fully follow your mathematics (they were a bit broken up), but did you consider any transformations and/or error?

     

    30. Juli 2013 um 21:17

     

    Bob Turner A couple of years ago, I went into a pub and saw a lad I hadn't seen for years. He was with a party of lecturers who were out on the tiles for his, retirement from the maths faculty, do. At some point I asked him if he still had the letter he got from Fred Hoyle. There were a few astonished looks from the group. Gordon, bless him, had thought nothing of it, he must have assumed that everyone got a vitriolic letter from Hoyle at some point.

     

    Then someone asked if I thought the Hawking, Hoyle, encounter was true. Gordon piped in with a telling statement. "It would explain why he's in a bloody wheelchair!"

     

    Hoyle should have got the Nobel prize, he didn't, because there were shed loads of people who hated his guts  There's something rather mealy mouthed about the Hawking, Hoyle anecdote methinks. It's presented as the young brilliant physicist v the old astronomer. The old astronomer, is somewhat angry. Yeah right! Fred Hoyle, would have physically beaten you up, not a man to cross lightly at all.

     

    Is the "steady state" model a static universe model? Not according to Dirac/Hoyle, though it has to be said that Eddington, did compare a static universe radiation to matter ratio. So what were they arguing aout, if indeed they were? Information and micro white holes perhaps. But surely that would mean that Hawking had equations before he could have had them? I grant you he may have had an inkling but then why take on Hoyle, in public, without at least an ak47?

     

    31. Juli 2013 um 01:41 · Bearbeitet · 1

     

    Bob Turner Dawin, stated that there were people and there were people from Yorkshire  He must have met Fred Hoyle!

     

    31. Juli 2013 um 01:44 · 1

     

    Abhas Mitra Hawking may not have attained this celebrity on the strength of his research alone, gamma ray and all other astronomers have failed to detect any ``Hawking Radiation'', as per my analysis, there is no such radiation. Though unfortunate, his disease helped a lot for his media hype & promotion. He is sadly compared with Newton & Einstein when, actual physical research wise, he is not even a pygmy

     

    31. Juli 2013 um 07:05 · 1

     

    Ted Brandes Considering red shift data, WMAP, COBE, thermodynamics, and other scenarios, the static universe is a rather far-fetched model. Not only would one have to explain WMAP, but why it has the geometry it does. It also has to explain red shift data to "T", which no other models other than ones involving the Big Bang have been able to do. Actually, considering the error involved with Hubble's equations, our red shift data has exploded in accuracy since it first came into use, and many of those discrepancies people on those nut-job sites like to bolster about have been resolved. There's also the problem of hydrogen recycling, which no static model, even the great Hoyle's could reconcile. Even Quasi-Steady State theory has been, for the most part, dismantled by numerous scientists. Actually, QSS has pretty much made itself a glorified Big Bang Model, buts instead of calling it a Big Bang they call them "creation events." They might as well just get in bed with Penrose and get rid of half the gaps in their theory that way. The amount of dust required in the new SS model is so great, we wouldn't be able to see half the things we observe with Hubble (reference Aguirre and Haimann, 2000). SS can't even predict a consistent opacity, and has said the anisotropy requires a large opacity and then a low opacity in another instant. Steady State finally fails on its synthesis claims, which only predict up down and strange quarks (reference Hoyle), when indeed we have confirmed three more quarks than predicted. It's a long dead theory regardless of when it was dismantled.

    1. August 2013 um 23:46

     

    Ted Brandes Does the Big Bang have holes? Yes. But I think people need to understand that these "holes" are mostly in areas that are at the fringes of the theory, not its core. There are about 8 different Big Bang models I could throw out there off the top of my head, and they're all competing for top dog. The Big Bang as is commonly thought of is most likely wrong, but the Big Bang concept is most certainly the lead candidate, and no one could possibly justify the contrary. It might not be the time-reversed black hole we thought it was, but the event itself is pretty certain to have happened. What it was is still up for debate.

     

     

    1. August 2013 um 23:53

     

    Ted Brandes Abhas, I think you forget that he also contributed to things like the Hawking-Hartle state, spacetime topology, singularity structure, as well as quantum gravity insights propelled us into modern physics. Hawking Radiation was just one of many contrib...Mehr anzeigen

     

    2. August 2013 um 00:01

     

    Oliver Thewalt http://www.nature.com/.../v463/n7277/full/nature08688.html http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.0674

    3. August 2013 um 10:56 · Bearbeitet · 4

     

    Abhas Mitra Special Relativity & QM do merge but still Quantum Gravity is a red herring

    3. August 2013 um 20:54

     

    James Stephens That's the trouble with stacking spheres..there are always 'holes'

     

    3. August 2013 um 22:09

     

    Abhas Mitra Ted : Important contribution in physics is something which is has importance for observations, experiments of the physical world. GR is a fundamental important contribution not only because of its math beauty but because of its role in understanding ph...Mehr anzeigen

     

    3. August 2013 um 23:42 · 1

     

    James Stephens i reckon its because,as in a fluid..you are in one part(fluid density) more than the other

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    4. August 2013 um 14:54

     

    James Stephens we have to relate why light is slowed down ?..after all ,it can have no limit in 'speed' as it is energy...fundamentally, unlimited of course

     

    4. August 2013 um 15:17 · 1

     

    Mark Aaron Simpson That is correct ^

     

    4. August 2013 um 15:22 · 2

     

    Ted Brandes Last time I checked Abhas, General Relativity alone fails to predict many observations like the flat rotation curves throughout our universe, and only describes the universe from a basic perspective (just a bit more than Newton described it). Actually, if you let GR play out in a simulation, IT WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO FORM GALAXIES AND SUSTAIN THEM IN THE PROPER TIME FRAME. When they added dark matter, which is very much a child concept of quantum gravity, poof, it finally worked. What is dark matter? No one knows, BUT to exclude it from the conversation would be like ignoring the fact that the guy you invited to dinner murdered your wife. If you're going to use the QT-Relativity gap as a means of argument then you clearly don't know what the problem between the two is. It is not that neither works, it is that they don't seem to connect at some point. They're two different measuring devices for two different scopes that have no grey area. QT is the microscope and GR is the meter stick. Just because the microscope and meterstick can't measure each other's realms doesn't mean either of them is wrong or farfetched... well, that is unless you don't believe in germs and that all disease is the working of the devil. There are ways we can attach the two, it is just a matter of finding them. String Theory aims to do this through extra dimensions, Loop Theory through dots, TwistorT heory through twistor space (which was subsequently integrated into its own String Theory later on), and Group Field Theory. And last time I checked, the absence of experimentation only puts an idea in its infancy; it doesn't make it wrong, nor make it any less important than something like Newton's laws.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    5. August 2013 um 05:15 · 1

     

    Elizabeth Maas I'll have to look into this further, but what models of the universe's inception are used in current computer simulations? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/.../The-amazing-video-shows-14.

     

    5. August 2013 um 05:24 · Bearbeitet · 1

     

    Ted Brandes They include most of everything we observe. They incorporate inflation, dark energy, dark matter, GR, SR, and most of the other cosmological and relevant concepts. Really, the mystery isn't "what" happened, but more so "how."

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    5. August 2013 um 10:55 · 1

     

    Oliver Thewalt I mean that it happened at all, is a also a fact! Conclusions?

     

    5. August 2013 um 11:01 · 1

     

    Ted Brandes Elaborate?

     

    5. August 2013 um 11:04 · 1

     

    Michael Balmer Great thread Oliver It was very enjoyable,thank you.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    5. August 2013 um 11:07 · Bearbeitet · 1

     

    Oliver Thewalt Ted, I wanted to avoid to elaborate that now, because everybody on this thread could write a novel about this here, so did I on FB during my time here. I just wanted to remind that it works in a stable universe and that many universes were not stable.

     

    I have had this thought recently, I am not sure whether I am on the right track here:

     

    I have looked at the Dirac equation(s) and the Pauli exclusion principle (also ferromagnetism, Chandrasekhar limit) and I want to know the very reason for Pauli's exclusion principle.

     

    Fermions are invariant after a rotation of 720 degree, bosons after 360 degree. Interesting, isn't it?

     

    It is just a guess, but could that be related to the positron and the speed of light, the reason for Pauli's exclusion principle?!

     

    9. Mai 2014 um 10:33 · Bearbeitet · 2

     

    Oliver Thewalt I cannot spell your name (how shall I call you?) Yes, now what is the conclusion if photons are part of space itself and vice versa and space is expanding (with acceleration and local contraction at the same time) at ANY speed?

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    5. August 2013 um 11:11 · 1

     

    Oliver Thewalt I thought that space is also part of photons (and vice versa), Hakim. I wait for Mark to confirm of deny that.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    5. August 2013 um 11:18

     

    Oliver Thewalt I think that is related also to the quark field and proton decay or lifetime?

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    5. August 2013 um 11:25 · 1

     

    Ted Brandes Actually, it predicts them, just under a different name "dark stars." Black holes were the first solutions to General Relativity (Schwarzchild), and are a product of Einstein's Field Equations. Just because the subject of black holes wasn't completel...Mehr anzeigen

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    5. August 2013 um 16:24 · 3

     

    Ted Brandes Might I add that I never said it predicted the Big Bang. You should read posts more carefully.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    5. August 2013 um 16:26

     

    Ted Brandes Might I also ask where you got your information, because CPT symmetry with the proton and antiproton has been experimentally verified.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    5. August 2013 um 16:33 · 1

     

    Ted Brandes If you are referring to the ATHENA or ATRAP experiments, the annihilation was due to high temperatures, not instability or decay. The "proof" submitted by Gridnev and Greiner was also shown to be based off "false conjectures" (i.e. they related HH-stability with particle mass; both have also been observed as stable), so I don't know where you're getting your info.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    5. August 2013 um 16:42 · 1

     

    Ted Brandes http://cds.cern.ch/record/846712/files/0506190.pdf

    5. August 2013 um 16:45 · 2

     

    Ted Brandes http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v89/i23/e233401

    5. August 2013 um 16:46 · 2

     

    Ted Brandes http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12368849

    5. August 2013 um 16:47 · 2

     

    Mark Aaron Simpson Sorry, but the Universe video really wasn't all that interesting. I have seen better animated models for the cyclic concept / that lends itself to the condensation models. I don't think the Big Bang is relevant anymore. It is just one man's opinion, but I cannot support conclusions based on an inaccurate model.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    5. August 2013 um 17:03 · Bearbeitet · 1

     

    Ted Brandes Yes, you did say that I said that. You tagged me in your attempt to clarify. Btw, you do understand that the paper you just cited just gives the equation in another form. Schwarzschild actually mentions it in that paper (the singularity) in a differ...Mehr anzeigen

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    5. August 2013 um 19:35 · 5

     

    Karen Orme wow i need to read this LOL

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    5. August 2013 um 19:36 · 1

     

    Ted Brandes Isn't the subject of... O.O . You're joking I hope. Antihyrdogen lifespan is a huge part in atomic and quantum mechanical experimentation. There is plenty of study going on, and EVERY single study tells you that they have short lab lifespans because they "quickly come into contact with the walls or equipment," [Prof. Hangst, CERN]. There is NOTHING legitimate that says the antihydrogen is unstable. NOTHING.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    5. August 2013 um 19:45 · 2

     

    Karen Orme Read Balmer's first few sentences... and stopped there. The man is a fraud.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    5. August 2013 um 19:46 · 2

     

    Ted Brandes Mark, the singularity Big Bang? Well, yes, I think many of us are diverging from that path. However, M-Theory's model is considered a Big Bang scenario, and since membranes are an integral part of String Theory, there's no escaping it. Brane collision, rebounding, quantum fluctuation, and wave function expansion, all are technically "Big Bang" scenarios. The term "Big Bang" has become a title for anything that says "this universe had a beginning."

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    5. August 2013 um 19:49 · 1

     

    Karen Orme Moonbats. All around us.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    5. August 2013 um 19:50 · 1

     

    Ted Brandes It doesn't matter how high your magnetic field is when the temperature of the antihydrogen is that high. THERE IS NO FREAKIN CONSPIRACY. Dear lord, I know a lot of the people that work there, and interact with them quite often (LHC, CERN, etc.). The...Mehr anzeigen

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    6. August 2013 um 10:17 · Bearbeitet · 4

     

    Jonathan Vos Post .

    The last book that I physically threw against a wall was "Angels and Demons"... just before the single worst paragraph EVER written about antimatter, the protagonist, at CERN, says: "Oh, you have a particle accelerator here?"

    ... which is like having someone visit Fort Knox and ask: "You have gold here?" And yet it became a huge bestseller and crappy movie.

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angels_%26_Demons

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    6. August 2013 um 10:25 · 2

     

    Ted Brandes It does when that field can only hold the antimatter for a few seconds, and then escapes. That period where it doesn't hit the wall is only a couple seconds, so maybe you should read the entire statement before paraphrasing Fermilab. Oh wait... that's three strikes for you now.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    6. August 2013 um 10:30 · 1

     

    Hossein Turner The funny thing is, most theorists who support the LHC believe in a universe dominated by non-baryonic matter (either CDM or HDM) which HAS to exist in just the right places to account for the morphology and rotation curves of galaxies and clusters. Unfortunately for them, there is no evidence that such non-baryonic matter is even needed in the first place. We have ideas such as MOND formulated to try and account for the behaviour of galaxies and clusters, but at large cluster scales MOND falls short. Recently there have been attempts to modify General Relativity to improve MOND's predictive powers. But these are ultimately very large fudge factors. In the view of plasma cosmologists - there are simple oversights that have been overlooked by Big Bang theorists. For more, please see Lerner et al on the issue of cosmic inflation.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    6. August 2013 um 10:46 · Bearbeitet · 1

     

    Ted Brandes http://gabrielse.physics.harvard.edu/.../Antihydrogen.html

    6. August 2013 um 10:33 · 1

     

    Ted Brandes Oh look, a link.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    6. August 2013 um 10:33

     

    Ted Brandes Oh look, it's ATRAP's page saying exactly why they can't hold it for more than a few seconds.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    6. August 2013 um 10:34 · 2

     

    Ted Brandes I've got better. Here's a US patent. Patent #: 6,163,587 Patent Date: December 19, 2000

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    6. August 2013 um 10:45 · 1

     

    Ted Brandes It's the same as hydrogen.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    6. August 2013 um 10:46 · 1

     

    Ted Brandes (which is something of 6x10^29 years, but most physicists just say "indefinite" because once you past trillions of years, you're getting around the classical universe's lifetime)

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    6. August 2013 um 10:47 · 1

     

    Ted Brandes Then bet your house. An experiment can't measure 6x10^29 year lifetime. It just can't. There are no experiments to show observed lifetime values for protons, antiprotons, and particles/atoms similar in nature. So, thank you for the house. The theory that tells you is called the Standard Model, and its rules for matter-antimatter invariance/symmetry is called CPT symmetry and the only violation of it we've found is the CP violation, which was actually a predicted violation that was so close to being symmetrical, it is not sufficient to explain the asymmetry between obvserved matter and the absence of antimatter. This "weak CP violation" is completely allowed by the Standard Model. All of this is taught in level 200+ physics courses, so buy a textbook, take some real physics courses, and then tell me to cite things you can find in the nearest modern physics textbook.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    6. August 2013 um 11:05 · 1

     

    Ted Brandes The patent (because apparently you can't read) cited the theoretical lifetime because they were explaining how the experimental lifetime is not the true half-life or lifetime of the antihydrogen, because the annihilation is due to interaction with matter, not decay.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    6. August 2013 um 11:06 · 2

     

    Ted Brandes Can I have my house now?

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    6. August 2013 um 11:08 · 3

     

    Ted Brandes YOU CAN'T TEST A LIFETIME THAT EXTEND 10^30 YEARS. THE EARTH WON'T EVEN BE AROUND THAT LONG. Proton decay is indefinite and cannot be experimentally verified (could be anywhere from 10^28 upward in theory), so is the antiproton. You can't experimentally verify something that lives that long.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    6. August 2013 um 11:18 · 2

     

    Ted Brandes Now... I want my dang house.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    6. August 2013 um 11:18 · 3

     

    Ted Brandes Hydrogen decay is pretty much as long as the proton; the same goes for antihydrogen. Dear God, didn't you learn this stuff in college?

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    6. August 2013 um 11:20 · 1

     

    Ted Brandes DO YOU READ!? Holy crap, are you kidding me. How about this, go back and ACTUALLY READ the sources I provided, and you'll see how stupid the statement you just made are. So, here's a tip. Go to college and actually learn something, please, because exchanging statements with you right now is about as effective as telling a wall it should move and let me into the next room. Ignoring the points I make and repeating yourself just makes you look like an idiot. ATRAP, CERN, AND ATEHNA ALL STATE THAT THE TRUE LIFETIME OF AN ANTIHYDROGEN (LIKE THE HYDROGEN) IS INDEFINITE, AND THAT THE ABRUPT ANNIHILATION WE OBSERVE IS DUE TO THE ANTIHYDROGEN PARTICLES ESCAPING THE ION TRAP. THEY ALL SAY THUS!!! IT SAYS IT ON THEIR FREAKIN' WEBSITES, OF WHICH I'VE ALREADY PROVIDED ONE. READ!!!!!!!!

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    6. August 2013 um 11:38 · 1

     

    Mark Aaron Simpson Wheeew !

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    6. August 2013 um 11:40 · 1

     

    Ted Brandes I'm losing faith in humanity more and more with each passing day...

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    6. August 2013 um 11:41 · 1

     

    Ehsan Farooq I dont understand it... Does it have something do with CP voilation..

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    6. August 2013 um 11:42 · 2

     

    Ted Brandes Don't understand what? Clarification would help.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    6. August 2013 um 11:44 · 1

     

    Mark Aaron Simpson Take a deep breath ! Now, repeat after me.....we don't have enough of the Universe properly surveyed to even be discussing this topic.....as far as the balance of matter and anti-matter. Perhaps our time is best spent doing other reachable goals ??

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    6. August 2013 um 11:45 · 6

     

    Ted Brandes Was it one of your other invalid sources that you've posted?

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    6. August 2013 um 11:45 · 1

     

    Ehsan Farooq I mean does this post mean that universe is negatively charged just because the dominance of electrons in universe..(more matter than antimatter)... But protons inside the nuclei are the same in number, so how is a charge imbalance there... Also if there is some net charge on universe, wudnt it lead to paradoxical events, i mean movement of other postive charges due to excees negative..

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    6. August 2013 um 11:49 · 1

     

    Ulla Mattfolk Funny that cold physics is so easily taking fire  Get some ice, ice.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    6. August 2013 um 11:49 · 1

     

    Ted Brandes No. The original post is actually a load of garbage. Antimatter is not purely positively or negatively charged. It's properties are determined by its counterpart. The positron is positively charged, the antiproton is negatively charged, etc. Just ignore the original post at this point, because the statement is based of absolutely false assumptions. The guy is also a fraud and not actually a physicist (background checks are amazing things), but I'm not going to use ad hominem as the basis of my argument.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    6. August 2013 um 11:52 · 3

     

    Ted Brandes The net charge of the universe is indeterminate, and there is no evidence to support it is charged in a specific manner. No physicist, astronomer, or cosmologist has ever observed any evidence to support universal charge.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    6. August 2013 um 11:53 · 3

     

    Mark Aaron Simpson Okay, the crux of the biscuit here is this: If anti-hydrogen and hydrogen are both isolated in normal space, do they differ in stability? Or is there a preference for one over the other, as far a properties in space-time and annihilation that can be reasonably observed ?? Probably not. Matter and anti-matter do not differ in the Higgs holo-plane, and you will not find and difference in the singularity consequences that would explain any natural selection of one over the other. The hyperspace is not any different, within the two forms of single proton emergent fields. The differences of quantitative distribution of the two forms likely occured at the time that condensation commenced, which is a directional cascade that is likely to have thermodynamic consequences that create an asymmetric breeding space for formation of elements.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    6. August 2013 um 11:57 · Bearbeitet · 5

     

    Ted Brandes I'd respond, but I don't have time to write all that I need, so I have to return later with my answer. I will say that we have verified components of the proton in CERN and that your question about charge (though irrelevant) is answerable.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    6. August 2013 um 11:59 · 2

     

    Ted Brandes Now, my girlfriend is waiting for me, so good day for now.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    6. August 2013 um 11:59 · Bearbeitet · 3

     

    Mark Aaron Simpson In case it isn't obvious, I do side with Ted Brandes on his specific answer on stability

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    6. August 2013 um 12:00 · Bearbeitet · 3

     

    Mark Aaron Simpson There is a key reason for such heated discussion. It goes to the utility of matter/ anti-matter mechanics. Some might think this is the method to harness and provide power for technology, so any key points made might indicate a way to create technology that yields surplus energy. If one could breed equal amounts of both, partition them, and then slowly allow them to recombine and release free energy, then you have an "energy well" from free space mechanics. I understand the appeal and the desire too. But what is missing is the cost for breeding , from free space, and also the question of whether you would obtain equal parts of both types of matter. Or whether you can even control a "condensation breeder" in the first place. I really doubt it. It would have to be performed in space, first of all, and secondly, it is a linear process, not a cycling one. I think there are better methods for free energy harvesting that do not require such extraordinary measures. Also, clearly condensation breeders are not practical for human environments.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    6. August 2013 um 12:24 · Bearbeitet · 4

     

    Ted Brandes My issue here, Mark Aaron Simpson, is not that I disagree with a challenging theory, but the use of false information as a means. To say something did not happen when it did, or that someone didn't say something when they did, or that something is something when it isn't, is not productive, not professional, and not acceptable. This entire thread literally started with a quote making ABSOLUTELY 100% FALSE CLAIMS BASED ON FALSE VIEWS OF WHAT MODERN PHYSICS SAYS. Why? Why acknowledge such an absolute disconnect, but worse yet, attempt to legitimize it!? NO COMPETITIVE MODERN THEORY HAS EVER STAMPED A CHARGE ON THE UNIVERSE. NOTHING IN QT EVER SAID THAT ANTIMATTER IS POSITIVE, NOR THAT THE UNIVERSE IS COMPRISED OF MOSTLY NEGATIVE CHARGE. NO OBSERVATIONS OF SUCH, FOR THAT MATTER HAVE BEEN MADE, YET THEY WERE PRESENTED AS IF THEY ALREADY HAVE. Sponsoring such deluded comments just empowers an empty argument that the lay and inexperienced will feast upon, simply because its fallacious nature is easier to comprehend. Not only that, but then to say I did not provide something when indeed I did is not etiquette, , especially when I am expected to offer the etiquette when they provide their own sources (which I did read in full). And now, I guess I should answer those red herrings I was asked earlier.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    7. August 2013 um 00:55 · 3

     

    Ted Brandes Charge (in EM) is an invariant and fundamental quantity of many subatomic particles, however it is not a characteristic to all such particles. Angular momentum plays a factor in defining the charge of a particle, and in String Theory, momentum is related instead through the Kaluza-Klein Theory (or variants of it), and gives us p=Q/R. Closed strings in String Theory "wrap" around this fifth dimension, and depending on their direction dictates their charge, while open strings utilize D-branes and Chan-Paton factors. Standard quantum mechanics utilizes more crude relations of angular momentum to charge, but mostly they are derived from the energy and momenta of the particles. As for your request about the quarks: MIT-SLAC. Heck, I'll even give you the equation they used after making the measurements: R=W2/W1(1+v^2/Q^2)-1. Best of all, when they made these discoveries, they didn't know or care what kind of quarks they found. They just reported what they saw.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    7. August 2013 um 01:20 · 3

     

    Marc Poulin And Color Charge such as in QCD?

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    7. August 2013 um 01:26 · 1

     

    Ted Brandes Again, READ. MIT-SLAC. Maybe you should pay attention

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    7. August 2013 um 11:23 · 1

     

    Ted Brandes That's nothing new. Hell, a PET scan utilizes antimatter. What's your point? I don't think you realize how much antimatter actually pops up in our daily life, and this is not much of a surprise to be honest.

    7. August 2013 um 18:21 · 3

     

    Ted Brandes The phenomena was easily explained and no issue arose from it.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    7. August 2013 um 18:24 · 1

     

    Mark Aaron Simpson Ted, I find your words compelling and well placed

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    7. August 2013 um 18:25 · 1

     

    Mark Aaron Simpson as far as charge, it was simply a flip of the coin, calling one charge negative and the other positive.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    7. August 2013 um 18:26 · 3

     

    Ted Brandes http://www.slac.stanford.edu/cgi.../getdoc/slac-pub-5724.pdf

    7. August 2013 um 19:03 · 4

     

    Mark Aaron Simpson Yes, and the dissection of the Su3 has brought us to the SU2 and a model for hyperspace (quark manifold), which was not an obvious concept.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    7. August 2013 um 19:07 · Bearbeitet · 4

     

    Oliver Thewalt The foundation of Pauli's exclusion principle is based on the fact that positrons are not occupying the same space as electrons - by a different spin or oscillation/charge respectively.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    20. Dezember 2013 um 17:18 · 4

     

    Joseph Kover Ted Brandes Michael Balmer great posts

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    7. Februar 2014 um 07:27 · 1

     

    Oliver Thewalt " ... The reason for bringing neutrinos in here is that Penrose states that neutrinos are equivalent to the ‘zig’ part of an electron, which makes them left handed (neutrinos are only left-handed in the Standard Model to make the weak interaction purely left-handed as experimentally observed; neutrinos interact with Z bosons in weak interactions). But because neutrinos have a very small mass, they can’t be entirely left-handed ‘zig’ particles and need to interact with a massive vacuum field occasionally in order to acquire mass so they can change flavour i.e. to ‘oscillate’ between electron neutrinos, muon neutrinos and tauon neutrinos. (Penrose, 2004, Figure 25.9.) Without mass, neutrinos would go at velocity c only and thus would be frozen and unable to oscillate; having a very small mass reduces their velocity to just under c and allows them to gradually change flavour on the 8.3 minute journey from the sun to the earth.

     

    This zig neutrino idea is funny because it will force a change to the Standard Model: the neutrino is not 100% left-handed; it is very slightly right-handed in order to explain its mass. The small proportion of right-handedness presumably will be linked to the ratio by which matter outweighs antimatter in the universe; because it is the left-handed weak interaction which allows downquarks (in neutrons) to decay into upquarks (allowing neutrons to decay into protons), but not vice-versa (nobody has detected a proton decaying). The asymmetry of left-handedness of weak interactions is clearly tied into the asymmetry of matter over antimatter in the universe from the first fraction of a second onward."

     

    "..The underlying mechanism for the square roots of mass in the Koide formula is linked to the Weyl 2-spinor (left and right handed spinors) using Schroedinger’s ‘Zitterbewegung’ lepton as discussed by Penrose, Road to Reality, 2004. See Penrose’s Figure 25.13 for a Feynman diagram showing how two components of a lepton interact to produce the de Broglie oscillation of a moving particle. They acquire mass at the interaction vertex. The Zitterbewegung vertex coupling constant for the interaction is a square root factor, because you square the momentum integrated amplitude of coupling constants and propagators for a Feynman diagram to get the resultant probability or reaction rate.

     

    Because Zitterbewegung involves interactions between two components, a zig and a zag, in a lepton, you need two interaction vertices in each complete oscillatory cycle of the particle as it propagates, and the coupling constants multiply together to give the amplitude according to Feynman’s rules; this provides the seed for an explanation of the square roots in the Koide formula. Since any lepton is acquiring mass from the same vacuum at vertices, it follows that to explain the variety of lepton masses that exist in nature, the Zitterbewegung vertex coupling constants must be proportional to the square root of the mass of the zig and zag components of a Zitterbewegung lepton. We know that neutrinos oscillate in flavour uniformly between three flavours while coming to us from the sun, which is why we detect just one third of the total (the third which have the flavour that our discriminate detector is searching for). If we extend this idea so that the zig and zag components of leptons in general, the masses of leptons will be represented by the sum of products of pairs of square roots of masses of different leptons. Although Koide’s original formula only applied to the masses of the electron, muon and tauon, Brannen has extended it with a modification to include neutrino masses."

     

    http://nige.wordpress.com/.../koide-formula-seen-from-a.../

    Übersetzung anzeigen

     

    The Koide formula explained by flavour mixing in a Weyl 2-spinor, Schroedinger...

    NIGE.WORDPRESS.COM

    8. März 2014 um 11:16 · 6

     

    Oliver Thewalt ...Foundation of Pauli's exclusion principle. continued:

     

    ..and because positrons are mediated FTL.

     

    -----

     

    my working hypothesis states that gravity is an EFFECT of energy (and by that matter fields in motion and vice versa) in general, comprehending energy as:

     

    energy seems to be an abstract terminology, as Michael Balmer stated an effect rather than a cause in view to dark energy,

     

    Quote (Michael Balmer, about Dark Energy https://www.facebook.com/notes/622742447837595/)): The biggest problem with determining what dark energy must be is, we are looking at it as energy and it is not energy,it has the energy to do what it is postulated to do,but it is not energy,you see Einstein's biggest blunder wasn't the Cosmological Constant,it was the term of "energy" he used,where in the application it was used,where he used it to describe, was mistaken for an Affect, when it, as with gravity is an Effect.

    What is dark energy?What is energy?we can answer this easy enough because we have always known the answer,how do we measure energy?inAmps,Volts,Farads,Joules,Newtons,Coulombs etc,etc,with one simple word and without it, nothing can exist..... CHARGE." Unquote

     

    I assume that energy is related to electron-positron spin working as a kind of a "spin-shield" and by that enabaling the quantum vacuum (matter-antimatter annihilation in near "future", quantum fluctuations) to form a matter gauge field or grid (positrons mediating FTL may also enable Pauli's exclusion principle):

     

    Antimatter is shielded, and space topology works like a partition, I think that this is also due by FTL mediation of positrons buliding up a "spin "shield" (foundation for Pauli's exclusion: The foundation of Pauli's exclusion principle is based on the fact that positrons are not occupying the same space as electrons - by a different spin or oscillation/charge respectively ))

     

    ... and being involved in the matter creation process (dark matter) --> spin -->gravity .. (I am skipping some details due to educational logic and because Mark and Michael are about to develop and publish this at first!) a bit hypothetical, the latter is a working hypothesis.

     

    What is spin? fermions have a spin and spin related properties (quanta properties, LS coupling, magnetic spin etc), but what about fermions in the higgs-field? they do not interact with ordinary matter unless, unless what?

     

    And by that thy are becoming ordinary matter, gravity and mass are induced.

     

    The post above was the first in a long series of research about black hole related spin issues, condition of a star collapsing to a black hole vs neutron star (Chandrasekhar limit, electron-positron pair production, electron degneracy pressure, Pauli's exclusion principle).

     

    -->fields in a modern interpretation beyond Landau Lifschitz formalism in flat space.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    24. Dezember 2014 um 11:08

     

    Joseph Kover Thumb up on partitioning, also merry Christmas Oliver

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    24. Dezember 2014 um 11:11

     

    Joseph Kover Unless.... degeneracy of the ground state.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    24. Dezember 2014 um 11:12

     

    Joseph Kover

    Joseph Kovers Foto.

    24. Dezember 2014 um 11:18

     

    Oliver Thewalt Compilation of an open thread, in order to discuss with ESA and German Einstein Institute in Hannover https://plus.google.com/.../11617516882.../posts/GdEbYhkpN99

    Übersetzung anzeigen

     

    STR, GTR Violation of Einstein's  Principle of Equivalence (WEP and Strong),…

    STR, GTR Violation of Einstein's  Principle of...

    PLUS.GOOGLE.COM

    24. Dezember 2014 um 11:36 · 5

     

    Mahal Kita That said, time is non-existant for a photon. Reflect on that..

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    25. Dezember 2014 um 00:42

     

    Bob Turner What I get for the half life of an electron is sqrt(2) * 1e 29 years.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    25. Dezember 2014 um 01:20 · 1

     

    Bob Turner I reckon that the Higgs and the anti Higgs are not balanced fifty fifty. What I get is 0.500505 and 0.499495

     

    We have two entangles states for the universe, one positive, the other negative with respect to positive. They are out of phase, so we have a beat. Our clock then is going to be a relationship between the top quark and the Higgs.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    25. Dezember 2014 um 02:18 · Bearbeitet · 3

     

    Stephen Langer ^conceivably!

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    25. Dezember 2014 um 03:40

     

    Bob Turner First take a look at this article by matt Strassler. Note his equation for the Higgs mass

    m_higgs = sqrt(2) *hbar / c^2 *b * v

     

    v = 4.3848648e-25kg (note that that's between error bars)

    So, sqrt(2) * hbar / c^2 * b is going to be about 0.5

     

    So, here's my working out of the Higgs mass. The universe hyper inflates, so we have a value for c when

    1.054571726e-34 = c^2 / x^6 * c^6

     

    Do take note though that the number is not hbar, it's a refractive index (dimensionless)

     

    Okay, next stage E = m* x^6 * c^6

     

    That gives us a huge energy, which I think is the "build energy", for a particle. But I want to re normalise that, and I do it by dividing the mass by 1.054571726e-34, I can then push that over onto the energy side of the equation.

    hbar^2* f = m *c^2

     

    f = c / lambda

     

    So, hbar^2 / m* c = lambda

     

    hbar^2 / m * c = 2 G M / c^2

     

    m = sqrt( hbar^2 *c / 2 *G

     

    That will give me a mass of the higgs, half of what it should be, I've still got that troublesome two in the denominator to get rid of. Simplest is to assume we have two entangled particles, and write that 2 as 2^0

     

    However, what I get for the value, is 2^1 / 5 *137)

    It's not 1 then but bloody close to one. So shove it upstairs onto the numerator, as about 0.99899

     

    Righto, now compare the two equations for the Higgs mass, by equating them.

    2 * (hbar^2 / c^4) * b^2 * v^2 = 0.99899 * hbar^2 *c / G

     

    Cancel out the hbar it and moves the c^4 bit over to give c^5

     

    Now for the really interesting bit , I think. The top quark mass is going to be M_tq = sqrt( e^phi * (m_higgs)^2)

     

    (another note. that's phi and not Phi)

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    25. Dezember 2014 um 04:58 · 1

     

    Bob Turner Forgot to put up that link http://profmattstrassler.com/.../does-the-higgs-field.../

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    25. Dezember 2014 um 05:22 · 4

     

    Oliver Thewalt Interesting, but we are on the cusp to debunk this assumption: "

    There is no reason to think that dark matter, which appears to make up the majority of the masses of galaxies and indeed of all matter in the universe, is made from particles that get all of their mass from the Higgs field."

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    27. Dezember 2014 um 12:52 · Bearbeitet · 1

     

    Ulla Mattfolk How is the massivation of dark or virtual matter then differing from massivation of ordinary matter?

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    27. Dezember 2014 um 07:38 · 1

     

    Oliver Thewalt btw. think about this http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/.../physicist-paul.../

    Übersetzung anzeigen

     

    Physicist Paul Steinhardt Slams Inflation, Cosmic Theory He Helped Conceive |...

    BLOGS.SCIENTIFICAMERICAN.COM

    27. Dezember 2014 um 07:39

     

    Oliver Thewalt Ulla, in no way dircetly, as long as nobody unravels the "dark" part, part of the answer is in the links I asserted, in the notes of Michael Balmer and within the posts of Mark Simpson's STD Group or GUT group: Antimatter and Dark Matter, FTL and Dirac Equations. Just read it and come back to this

    Antimatter Thread Part 3