Antihydrogen Trapped For 1000 Seconds
Nothing is going backwards in time, it's just a mathematical "trick". Mathematics also allows for negative mass, negative energy density and a bunch of other properties which have never been observed so far.
Nothing is going backwards in time, it's just a mathematical "trick". Mathematics also allows for negative mass, negative energy density and a bunch of other properties which have never been observed so far.
Can't antimatter be considered as matter moving backwards in time from the past to the present?
Can't antimatter be considered as matter moving backwards in time from the past to the present?
Maybe it's moving forwards from the future to the past participle...
[quote name='Human Resource' timestamp='1304477007' post='4806240']
Nothing is going backwards in time, it's just a mathematical "trick". Mathematics also allows for negative mass, negative energy density and a bunch of other properties which have never been observed so far.
Can't antimatter be considered as matter moving backwards in time from the past to the present?
[/quote]
As Human Resource said, matter does not actually move back through time. It's a mathematical model, and basically stipulates that the same physical laws apply to both an original and a symmetric system. Let me try to explain CPT symmetry (although it's been a while I was into these things, so please someone correct me if I'm wrong on some point).
Let's pretend you have a parallel universe. Everything is the same as in our universe, except that all spatial coordinates are inverted. It would seem logical that such a 'flipped' universe would still be governed by the same physical laws than ours (parity symmetry, or P-Symmetry). If you had no external point of reference, you would not be able to tell in which universe you'd be in. Unfortunately this turned out to be wrong. Some processes involving the weak nuclear interaction turned out to run slightly differently under such flipped conditions. So in order to get back the perfect symmetry (nature loves symmetries), you'd have to flip another property in your parallel universe, beyond the spatial coordinates: charge. You replace every particle with its anti-particle and hope that all physical laws will now behave the same way in both universes (CP-Symmetry).
Well, you guessed it, this again turned out to be wrong
Some very specific nuclear processes, again involving the weak nuclear force AFAIK, were still not the same in that parallel universe. By performing the exact same experiment in both universes, you would still get different results (CP violation). In order to finally get full equivalent behaviour in both frames of reference, you also need to invert time. All movement and particle momentum would be inverted, in addition to the spatial dimension flip and charge flip. This final combined configuration is called CPT-symmetry, and as far as I know, is currently unviolated.Now CPT symmetry is hard to verify experimentally. You can hardly reverse time in a lab, or turn space-time inside out. But now you can reverse the charge, which will enable interesting new experiments.
[ I hope this wasn't entirely wrong
]
Can't antimatter be considered as matter moving backwards in time from the past to the present?
No. Antimatter is matter and it follows the same laws as all other matter. Imo this antimatter label is a bit of a misnomer. It is just matter but for every "antimatter" type of matter there is another type of matter that is identical except for having opposite charge.
---
I've not read the original paper but I imagine the reason this experiment might be interesting in terms of gravity is that having such "still" particles for such a long time might make it easier to measure gravitational effects on a quantum scale. The reason for that is that gravity is relatively a very weak force at the quantum scale and thus its difficult to measure when other forces are involved. But the stillness of the the trapped particles minimizes that.
The fact we cannot unify general relativity and quantum mechanics yet means that there is some theory missing. Measuring gravity at the quantum scale might help to find that missing theory by yielding unexpected results.
But it is important to state that these kind of tests could be conducted with ordinary matter just as well as with antimatter matter, the only requirement being how long and how well you can trap the particles, and comparing somewhat like to somewhat like.
Finally, expecting antimatter to "fall up" is along the lines of when people expected black holes that would swallow the world to be made at the LHC.
Now it is important to note that while this experiment could be useful for people wanting to measure gravity at the quantum scale, this experiment was an end in itself, and apart from the incorrect musing of a the article quoted in the OP is there any indication of people actually queueing up to perform these very difficult tests on top of what is already a very difficult test?
P.S. BTW, on the subject of bets, I wouldn't be surprised if the LHC turned out to be a massive waste of money.
You taught me so much about Navier-Stokes (albiet indirectly) that I could care less if you were entirely wrong.
I just didn't like that other person's implication that it was impossible to test for CP / T asymmetry, when one of the world's most famous groups had released data on this very thing over 3 years ago. Their lack of apology / smug pat-on-the-back-to-me for correcting their misstatement was what pushed me over the edge.
As for gravity being a two-way street, I think someone needs to read up on dark energy more. The metric expansion of space and gravitational attraction are two very different things, with two very different results, even though they are both part of the same equation. For one, metric expansion of space allows for FTL divergence of masses, whereas gravitational attraction does not allow for FTL convergence of masses.
As for not being able to unify gravitation and the standard model, you all know that's simply untrue. It's called supersymmetric string theory. Your bashing of the LHC and supersymmetry only goes to show that you are a vehement anti-string person. To see the world in such black and white terms only goes to show that you are worse than a crackpot.
You also need to read up on the Quantum Graphity / Loop Quantum Gravity model. For starters, look up my final paper on vixra (I'll refer to it furthermore as "paper 3") where I showed that it is impossible to get attractive gravity using the hardcore holographic principle information limit. One needs to add a scattering matrix, at the very least, to each 3+ valent vertex in order for attractive gravity to arise. Once these matrices of real numbers, at the very least, are added the information limit absolutely must be ignored. In other words, QG / LQG are utterly broken models. You should also see Markopoulou's paper from a few weeks earlier ("paper 2"). It is clear that this researcher didn't even test their model before writing a preprint, because the result is repulsive gravity in all cases. You should then also see my other paper from a week or so before regarding Regge calculus without a timelike dimension ("paper 1").
It's clear to everyone who was paying attention that what I did was throw a rock in the bush to scatter them (paper 1), they bolted into the open as I had planned (paper 2), and then I shot their model dead as it ran straight toward me like a stupid animal (paper 3). Yes, I've studied predator-prey systems once or twice in my life.
It was only after this happened that I became a full-blown stringy convert. I could go on and on, but I'd rather make breakfast and watch some Wonder Pets while I chillax with the kidlets.
Wonder Pets!
Wonder Pets!
We're on our way
To help the baby model of gravitation
And save the day
We're not too big
And we're not too tough
But when we work together
We've got the right stuff
Go Wonder Pets yayyyyy!
ROFLMAOBBQ
I just didn't like that other person's implication that it was impossible to test for CP / T asymmetry, when one of the world's most famous groups had released data on this very thing over 3 years ago. Their lack of apology / smug pat-on-the-back-to-me for correcting their misstatement was what pushed me over the edge.
As for gravity being a two-way street, I think someone needs to read up on dark energy more. The metric expansion of space and gravitational attraction are two very different things, with two very different results, even though they are both part of the same equation. For one, metric expansion of space allows for FTL divergence of masses, whereas gravitational attraction does not allow for FTL convergence of masses.
As for not being able to unify gravitation and the standard model, you all know that's simply untrue. It's called supersymmetric string theory. Your bashing of the LHC and supersymmetry only goes to show that you are a vehement anti-string person. To see the world in such black and white terms only goes to show that you are worse than a crackpot.
You also need to read up on the Quantum Graphity / Loop Quantum Gravity model. For starters, look up my final paper on vixra (I'll refer to it furthermore as "paper 3") where I showed that it is impossible to get attractive gravity using the hardcore holographic principle information limit. One needs to add a scattering matrix, at the very least, to each 3+ valent vertex in order for attractive gravity to arise. Once these matrices of real numbers, at the very least, are added the information limit absolutely must be ignored. In other words, QG / LQG are utterly broken models. You should also see Markopoulou's paper from a few weeks earlier ("paper 2"). It is clear that this researcher didn't even test their model before writing a preprint, because the result is repulsive gravity in all cases. You should then also see my other paper from a week or so before regarding Regge calculus without a timelike dimension ("paper 1").
It's clear to everyone who was paying attention that what I did was throw a rock in the bush to scatter them (paper 1), they bolted into the open as I had planned (paper 2), and then I shot their model dead as it ran straight toward me like a stupid animal (paper 3). Yes, I've studied predator-prey systems once or twice in my life.
It was only after this happened that I became a full-blown stringy convert. I could go on and on, but I'd rather make breakfast and watch some Wonder Pets while I chillax with the kidlets.
Wonder Pets!
Wonder Pets!
We're on our way
To help the baby model of gravitation
And save the day
We're not too big
And we're not too tough
But when we work together
We've got the right stuff
Go Wonder Pets yayyyyy!
ROFLMAOBBQ
As for not being able to unify gravitation and the standard model, you all know that's simply untrue. It's called supersymmetric string theory. Your bashing of the LHC and supersymmetry only goes to show that you are a vehement anti-string person. To see the world in such black and white terms only goes to show that you are worse than a crackpot.
You also need to read up on the Quantum Graphity / Loop Quantum Gravity model. For starters, look up my final paper on vixra (I'll refer to it furthermore as "paper 3") where I showed that it is impossible to get attractive gravity using the hardcore holographic principle information limit. One needs to add a scattering matrix, at the very least, to each 3+ valent vertex in order for attractive gravity to arise. Once these matrices of real numbers, at the very least, are added the information limit absolutely must be ignored. In other words, QG / LQG are utterly broken models. You should also see Markopoulou's paper from a few weeks earlier ("paper 2"). It is clear that this researcher didn't even test their model before writing a preprint, because the result is repulsive gravity in all cases. You should then also see my other paper from a week or so before regarding Regge calculus without a timelike dimension ("paper 1").
I'll address this edited in part of your post since it seems to be addressed to me.
I implicitly stated that unifying GR and QM is possible. But also that it hasn't been done yet. And I think that last sentence is what you object to. However it is important to note there is a big difference between a well tested and verified theory and a completely untested and unverified theory. Science needs experiement to back it up. And I hope we are discussing things scientifically here not just philosophically.
I think what physics needs is some genius to come up with a relatively easily experimentally testable new bit of theory that's correct. EDIT: I wish that were me but its probably not.
Also let me state that I'm not vehemently anti-string or for that matter vehemently anti anything when it comes to physics. No one will be more wide eyed and bushy tailed than me if and when it occurs, regardless of the shape it takes.
About my tongue in cheek LHC comment, my reasons for it follow. Firstly, probably sheer ignorance. Secondly, well, its seems too much like a brute force approach, you know, like turning the volume up to 11 kind of thing and expecting awesomeness, a bit too hurr durrish.
I most certainly did object to your statement of "The fact we cannot unify general relativity and quantum mechanics yet means that there is some theory missing" by saying:
[size="7"]SUPERSYMMETRIC STRING THEORY
Does it help when I bump the font size up a few notches?
That said, I have done a ton of research on chaos, nonlinear systems, and fractals. I don't know who the fuck you think you are, but for you to call Rossler a crackpot because of just one idea is utterly ridiculous. I'm sure that you can tell from your deep studies of my work that I am a firm believer in Hawking radiation. Just because Rossler doubts its existence doesn't mean I think he's automatically a nutjob. You better watch what you say about fractal researchers from now on, or I will make a sport of fucking with your reputation just for shits n giggles. I am excellent at it, trust me.
P.S.
Paper 1: A Complete Graph Model of the Schwarzschild Black Hole
Paper 2: Background independent condensed matter models for quantum gravity
Paper 3: Implementing Proper Length on a Graph in R3 Via Polymerization Produces Negligible Entropy When Accounting for the Distinctness of Scattering Probability Distributions
Disregard the last section of paper 3. It was a trap to see how much bullshit I could get accepted by a mainstream journal. The paper was given back to me with the advice to simply "add more references". I didn't bother resubmitting because it would have been intentional fraud on my part. Hint: Lee Smolin is on the journal's board of editors.
It's precisely because of this Quantum Graphity bullshit that I'm livid at the Governments of Canada and Ontario for pumping 100s of millions of dollars into the Perimeter Institute instead of giving the money to worthwhile causes like the elimination of child prostitution or the construction of a First Nations holocaust museum. No one listened to me until I wrote the papers to prove that it was bullshit, and that just pisses me right the fuck off. I mean, an average citizen like myself (I barely made it out of high school, failed algebra 30 three times before they handed me a diploma and kicked my ass out) shouldn't have to waste 6 years of their life studying general relativity just to be able to scientifically prove what's already plainly fuckin obvious. Clearly you have no idea how deep this problem runs, given your inability to speak the truth and your total lack of political sensitivity/sensibility.
I've since switched my primary interest from physics to political science / psychology. Like I said, paper 3 was my final paper, and I'm not going to discuss this anymore with people who are worse than crackpots. I absolutely cannot stand racists or liars. Go fuck yourself asshole.
P.P.S. Oh noes, you rated me down!!! ROFLMAOBBQ
[size="7"]SUPERSYMMETRIC STRING THEORY
Does it help when I bump the font size up a few notches?
That said, I have done a ton of research on chaos, nonlinear systems, and fractals. I don't know who the fuck you think you are, but for you to call Rossler a crackpot because of just one idea is utterly ridiculous. I'm sure that you can tell from your deep studies of my work that I am a firm believer in Hawking radiation. Just because Rossler doubts its existence doesn't mean I think he's automatically a nutjob. You better watch what you say about fractal researchers from now on, or I will make a sport of fucking with your reputation just for shits n giggles. I am excellent at it, trust me.
P.S.
Paper 1: A Complete Graph Model of the Schwarzschild Black Hole
Paper 2: Background independent condensed matter models for quantum gravity
Paper 3: Implementing Proper Length on a Graph in R3 Via Polymerization Produces Negligible Entropy When Accounting for the Distinctness of Scattering Probability Distributions
Disregard the last section of paper 3. It was a trap to see how much bullshit I could get accepted by a mainstream journal. The paper was given back to me with the advice to simply "add more references". I didn't bother resubmitting because it would have been intentional fraud on my part. Hint: Lee Smolin is on the journal's board of editors.
It's precisely because of this Quantum Graphity bullshit that I'm livid at the Governments of Canada and Ontario for pumping 100s of millions of dollars into the Perimeter Institute instead of giving the money to worthwhile causes like the elimination of child prostitution or the construction of a First Nations holocaust museum. No one listened to me until I wrote the papers to prove that it was bullshit, and that just pisses me right the fuck off. I mean, an average citizen like myself (I barely made it out of high school, failed algebra 30 three times before they handed me a diploma and kicked my ass out) shouldn't have to waste 6 years of their life studying general relativity just to be able to scientifically prove what's already plainly fuckin obvious. Clearly you have no idea how deep this problem runs, given your inability to speak the truth and your total lack of political sensitivity/sensibility.
I've since switched my primary interest from physics to political science / psychology. Like I said, paper 3 was my final paper, and I'm not going to discuss this anymore with people who are worse than crackpots. I absolutely cannot stand racists or liars. Go fuck yourself asshole.
P.P.S. Oh noes, you rated me down!!! ROFLMAOBBQ
...
Sigh. As I implied in my post, unfortunately supersymmetric string theory has made no quantitative experimental predictions so that the theory could be tested.
EDIT: P.S. it was not me that rated you down. I don't mention this out of any kind of fear, but simply so that you don't get the wrong idea. EDIT: I tend not to hold grudges.
Sigh, you obviously aren't up to speed on the gravity-superfluid duality that was discovered in 2004 (yep, 7 years ago):
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0405231
http://motls.blogspo...-and-black.html
http://www.springerl...q2424q6n0528m5/
Like, for fuck sake, I just posted the latest news regarding this duality 2 whole days ago on this very website:
http://www.gamedev.n...bert-equations/
In case you are Peter Woit (evidence strongly points toward it), I just want to say that I'm a better physicist and a better programmer than you will ever be, and that you are nothing but a stupid fuckin piece of shit hater with zero actual skill. Now don't go thinking that I'm being hypocritical here -- I get to act this way toward liars because I've earned the privilege via years of actual hard work, where you most certainly have not.
So, will you finally shut the fuck up and stop spreading your bullshit lies? Please and thank you. I don't care who rated me down. I say that in all my posts that get rated down, irregardless of who actually did it. And, of course you're not afraid -- you're hiding behind a wall of anonymity, you stupid pussy.
Dear God, it's no wonder why I am a professional garbageman (yes, I'm very proud to be a Datsusara). Self-serving intellectuals are the most dishonest, slimy fuckers in all of existence. Thanks for reminding me.
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0405231
http://motls.blogspo...-and-black.html
http://www.springerl...q2424q6n0528m5/
Like, for fuck sake, I just posted the latest news regarding this duality 2 whole days ago on this very website:
http://www.gamedev.n...bert-equations/
In case you are Peter Woit (evidence strongly points toward it), I just want to say that I'm a better physicist and a better programmer than you will ever be, and that you are nothing but a stupid fuckin piece of shit hater with zero actual skill. Now don't go thinking that I'm being hypocritical here -- I get to act this way toward liars because I've earned the privilege via years of actual hard work, where you most certainly have not.
So, will you finally shut the fuck up and stop spreading your bullshit lies? Please and thank you. I don't care who rated me down. I say that in all my posts that get rated down, irregardless of who actually did it. And, of course you're not afraid -- you're hiding behind a wall of anonymity, you stupid pussy.
Dear God, it's no wonder why I am a professional garbageman (yes, I'm very proud to be a Datsusara). Self-serving intellectuals are the most dishonest, slimy fuckers in all of existence. Thanks for reminding me.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
