• Create Account

# Antihydrogen Trapped For 1000 Seconds

Old topic!

Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

96 replies to this topic

### #61Human Resource  Members   -  Reputation: 166

Posted 07 May 2011 - 08:13 PM

Velocity is a vector, negating a vector only reverses its direction, not magnitude. Reversal of time is pointless... Time going backwards should be explicitly that, every object "retracing" all its changes and movement over a given interval of time. Time is, for now, a scalar. It has no "direction" because we've never observed objects going to a previous state experimentally, if we were to observe such a thing, it would mean spontaneous entropy reduction and going to a higher energy state. Until that happens, everything discussed here is a repercussion of mathematics which does not necessarily convey the same logic as the real world. Just like negative mass and negative energy density.

We are going to learn a lot of new stuff as time proceeds onwards ( and since we've observed none other, onwards is really just a figure of speech), kick some old stuff in the teeth, but that will be through moderated experiments... Theoretical physics is good, but any theory is practically worthless until it's confirmed by an experiment, the basis of empirical reasoning. And if someone would like to rage on about time reversal, you first need to explain a lot of other things which would not add up as a repercussion of your theory.
The best advice I can give is the one I follow myself - listen to those with more experience. Listen and absorb.

### #62sjhalayka  Members   -  Reputation: 863

Posted 08 May 2011 - 08:35 AM

Human Resource,

I'm certain that you would love to dismantle Sean Carroll's work on the arrow of time. Don't bother looking for it in peer-reviewed journals or on arxiv though. He only publishes his most cutting edge work in paperback format for the low low price of $19.99. Time really is a dimension, as I'm sure you know. In basic relativity theory the velocity vector that you speak of is not three dimensional, but four (e.g., it is a four-vector). In other words, time is not just a scalar all unto itself. Anyway, as time marches forward we will indeed learn some new stuff. Your mention of this reminds me a lot of Smolin and Markopoulou's obsession with topos theory. Hmm. Clearly you haven't studied a whole lot of physics and entropy. One other obsession of Carroll's is the Boltzmann Brain hypothesis. It claims that life (and intelligent life, to boot!) can spontaneously form out of vacuum energy density fluctuations. If this doesn't ring any bells, let me remind you of your fascination with Dawkins' idea about how we are just random bits of matter that form intelligent life. It's essentially the same thing, except that Dawkins' version is an utter ripoff. Hopefully you chuckle at the fact that I regularly make fun of Carroll and Dawkins by reiterating my very own special Boltzmann Space Kitten hypothesis. Yep, that's right, space kittens just spontaneously pop up all over the Universe, with space suits and all, right from scratch. Magic! Of course all of this is actually possible, but it's just so highly improbable that writing papers on it is practically equal to intellectual masturbation. Likewise with information theory and entropy. The quantum of information is not a meme, but a distinct symbolic constant. The binary digits are the smallest set of such constants. If you knew this, you would know that Dawkins' "work" on memetics is an utter ripoff of the work of Shannon (and Jung, Boltzmann, etc, etc), and you wouldn't have your head shoved so far up Dawkins' ass. I'd rage on, but I think my point is clear -- I spotted you as a fraud the moment you walked through the door, and nothing you've said since then has proven my intuition to be false. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this. ### #63sjhalayka Members - Reputation: 863 Posted 08 May 2011 - 11:00 AM Quantum physics is the least confusing part of this thread... The manic mind is a fascinating phenomena. False. This is my permanent mode of operation, and so it's not actually manic. We just don't share the same baseline. The point I was making is that it's kind of annoying when trollbaiters like Human Resource and forsandifs play games. ### #64sjhalayka Members - Reputation: 863 Posted 08 May 2011 - 11:13 AM EDIT: However I still maintain the following 3 points: PLEASE REREAD THE PART WHERE THE COMPACTIFIED DIMENSIONS COULD BE UP TO A TENTH OF A MILLIMETER IN SIZE. I'm disagreeing with you not because we both have valid points of view. I'm disagreeing with you because you can't read English, or speak the truth. I don't go around telling *everyone* to shut the fuck up. My motto is "Instead of seeing just black and white like a child, learn to see grayscale like an adult. It will lower your blood pressure". Trust me, i f this motto actually applied to what you are saying, I would be a lot kinder to you. ### #65forsandifs Members - Reputation: 154 Posted 08 May 2011 - 11:45 AM ... Its ironic that you accuse me of not being able to read English when you miss the word "may" in my statement... EDIT: It might be worth noting that Taby has a habit of heavily editing his posts even after they have been replied to without marking the edits. The consistency of the discussion is therefore not guaranteed despite my best and honest efforts to maintain said consistency. ### #66sjhalayka Members - Reputation: 863 Posted 08 May 2011 - 12:17 PM ... Its ironic that you accuse me of not being able to read English when you miss the word "may" in my statement... I didn't miss it, trust me. You can't just slip in conditionals and bash string theory at the same time. Even in your latest post you still maintain that the idea of Planck-sized compactified dimensions turns you off. What you are doing is fraudulent double-speak. Given your own logic, the very real possibility of macroscopic-sized compactified dimensions and the LHC's capabilities should totally fucking exhilarate you to the point where you're turned on like a 14 year old boy hiding in a Catholic school girls' locker room. Yet, you claim to still be turned off. Shut the fuck up with your inconsistent bullshit. ### #67forsandifs Members - Reputation: 154 Posted 08 May 2011 - 12:26 PM I didn't miss it, trust me. You can't just slip in conditionals and bash string theory at the same time (e.g., it turns you off). What you are doing is fraudulent double-speak. I mean, the possibility of macroscopic compactified dimensions should exhilerate you, given your own logic, right? No, you're missing the point. Sure, they might be large enough, but they might not be. EDIT: in the latter case we have an inablity to falsify them. EDIT: Also, you're ignoring the quote from Newton. ### #68sjhalayka Members - Reputation: 863 Posted 08 May 2011 - 12:30 PM I didn't miss it, trust me. You can't just slip in conditionals and bash string theory at the same time (e.g., it turns you off). What you are doing is fraudulent double-speak. I mean, the possibility of macroscopic compactified dimensions should exhilerate you, given your own logic, right? No, you're missing the point. Sure, they might be large enough, but they might not be. In the latter case we have an inablity to falsify them. No, I get the point, and apparently you do too. All your initial bullshit about compactified dimensions absolutely having to be Planck-sized and supersymmetry being nonsense, because blah blah string theory is absolutely unfalsifiable using modern technology and the LHC is a grand waste blah blah, was totally uncalled for. I'm very glad that you can now admit that seeing things in grayscale is much better than seeing things in black and white. Please don't lecture me on Newton and / or Occam's razor. I get it. Perhaps you need to look into Hanlon's razor. I could only assume that since you're on gamedev that you're not a total idiot. The only logical conclusion left was that you were intentionally being a slimy liar. ### #69Human Resource Members - Reputation: 166 Posted 08 May 2011 - 12:35 PM Taby, you remind me of a guy I met on a local astrophysics forum who claimed that shadows are nothing but black light. He had a lot of theories, actually... Some of them were that the celestial bodies have nothing to do with tides, others yet discussed that the "force of gravity has no acceleration" (his words), that the Earth is actually going around the Sun and that the atmosphere is "sexually reproducing" because of the EM radiation, thus creating life on Earth. A good scientist will always look for an error on his part, rather than rushing out and bashing everyone else calling them a fraud, trollbaiter and what not. None of your theories are worth squat until you prove them, but that would require you to put your real name behind it. It's much simpler when you can hide behind a nickname on a game development forum, isn't it? But do continue, I love reading your posts, they crack me up. Before calling someone a fraud, consider the meaning of that word... According to the wiki, fraud can be defined as: "deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage". I assure you, I've received$0 for my statements here, my only purpose is to gain a broader understanding with fellow colleagues interested in physics, in a decent and friendly environment. Your response to me, for example, was pure gibberish which proved nothing. You were only restating the work of scientists whose work you've been bashing from the beginning of this thread (and knowing types like you, and beyond). Velocity vector is 4D, yes, it includes the time aspect which helps model spacetime and all the repercussions of the relativistic theory, but it's only a component of a vector, currently only ensuring the constancy of the speed of light across different reference frames (and all the consequences of such a claim)... Alone, it's a scalar which has never been observed "going the other way". That's a fact, your drug induced dreams might suggest otherwise, but that's not science... As your established, esteemed brain is probably aware of.

Show me experimental evidence and I'll believe you. Honestly.

All you've done here is spread your nonsense, no-proof theories and bash on the work of scientists who have proven themselves a long time ago. Standing behind what they say with their name and honor. Where is your brilliant mind out there? They'd slap you in your seat in .5 seconds. If nothing, at least try to be polite to other people.
The best advice I can give is the one I follow myself - listen to those with more experience. Listen and absorb.

### #70sjhalayka  Members   -  Reputation: 863

Posted 08 May 2011 - 12:40 PM

...

Um, everyone here who has been paying attention to this thread knows my real name and where to find my papers. Hell, I even gave you guys direct links. The fact of the matter is that It is you and forsandifs who are hiding behind a wall of anonymity, not I.

I have one very short but effective proof that shows that Quantum Graphity and Loop Quantum Gravity are not consistent theories of gravitation, let alone theories of all interactions.

Well, I guess I did have one other postulate about ultrahigh energy cosmic rays being part of dark matter, but recent cogent findings show that I'm likely incorrect. I admitted to this yesterday on a public forum, under my real name.

Anyway, you should check out the crackpot multiverse theories, and Carroll's work. It claims that we can indeed perform experiments to observe flipflops of the arrow of time. I don't believe it, but still, you're lying about how it's "impossible" according to "everyone". Plus, if you actually knew anything real about relativity theory, you would know that scalars are reserved exclusively for invariant quantities. Time is clearly not invariant in relativity theory. Stop being pedantic, because it works against you every time.

### #71Human Resource  Members   -  Reputation: 166

Posted 08 May 2011 - 12:50 PM

...

I'm not hiding behind anything, there's no need for anonymity... I have postulated no theories of my own nor do I have a definitive grasp on physics. Until I get my degree in Computer science, physics will remain to be just an interest. But the next in line after CS would be a degree in physics. For now, I just repeat things as I understand them ( I do not claim my understanding is correct, far from it, there's always more to learn) and look for discrepancies in various claims over different physical theories while trying to keep an open mind. If you have some papers and some solid mathematical proof, why don't you try forwarding it to a scientific journal, get feedback from the scientific community?

I understand time is not purely a scalar value as it is shown in general relativity, but although a mathematical possibility exists of it being a vector quantity, we still have no proof that a change of direction of time is possible. Observation is key and until some experimental data shows that it is indeed possible to experimentally prove time is a vector quantity ie. make it go backwards, okay. But for now it's just a belief generated out of current scientific development. For now, it's only a mathematical advantage to think about it as a vector. But it is a component of a four-vector and is crucial to Lorentz transforms. Whether it truly is a traversable dimension, only time will show. All that I am stating is the fact we've never observed such a thing.
The best advice I can give is the one I follow myself - listen to those with more experience. Listen and absorb.

### #72sjhalayka  Members   -  Reputation: 863

Posted 08 May 2011 - 12:56 PM

Oops, I guess you're right... I did have one other postulate that spacetime was plastic. I've since realized that this would mean that gravity is dissipative, which seems absurd to me now. If you want to read up on other postulates related to dissipative gravity though, check out 't Hooft.

Oh, and leave David Deutsch's shadow photon theory out of this. Unlike you, he's not a total asshole.

### #73Human Resource  Members   -  Reputation: 166

Posted 08 May 2011 - 01:20 PM

Oops, I guess you're right... I did have one other postulate that spacetime was plastic. I've since realized that this would mean that gravity is dissipative, which seems absurd to me now. If you want to read up on other postulates related to dissipative gravity though, check out 't Hooft.

Oh, and leave David Deutsch's shadow photon theory out of this. Unlike you, he's not a total asshole.

The part in bold was necessary because...?

One question... If you are such a brilliant scientist, how come your reputation has decreased over 9 times since you've joined this thread? If I recall correctly, it was 75 only five days ago.
The best advice I can give is the one I follow myself - listen to those with more experience. Listen and absorb.

### #74sjhalayka  Members   -  Reputation: 863

Posted 08 May 2011 - 01:39 PM

Heh.

If you really want to be start being honest, and are indeed truly interested in spotting fake scientists, then please read the latest papers on Quantum Graphity and Loop Quantum Gravity.

After you've done that, you should ask yourself why there is not one mention of Delaunay tesselation, and why all of their diagrams of "atoms of space" look like fish scales. Next, ask yourself why there is not one mention of Voronoi diagrams in the Quantum Graphity papers.

After you're done that, you should ask yourself why the only diagram of a black hole in the Quantum Graphity / condensed matter paper is square in shape, and how it leads to a false conclusion that their model provides attractive gravity.

Finally, apply Hanlon's razor. Clearly these people are either total idiots, or total liars. Either way, they are not real scientists.

Once you have verified that these facts are true, I will personally take you through a step by step tutorial on how I disproved their theories using actual mathematics. A small hint: It has everything to do with the fact that black holes are actually round.

If you don't do these things, then you're just proving what I already suspect -- you're full of shit, and likely a QG/LQG sockpuppet.

### #75forsandifs  Members   -  Reputation: 154

Posted 08 May 2011 - 04:01 PM

One question... If you are such a brilliant scientist, how come your reputation has decreased over 9 times since you've joined this thread? If I recall correctly, it was 75 only five days ago.

I think it has more to do with his erraticness and attitude than any lack of scientific prowess. I suspect his reputation would have increased rather than decreased if he had made the points he made in a calm, non-aggressive, non-insulting, and more easily followable manner.

EDIT: the style of his posts in this thread is just fine for anonymous forum trolling but not very suitable when trying to have an unanonymous, serious, and/or sensible discussion :/

### #76Alpheus  Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 6501

Posted 08 May 2011 - 05:27 PM

Back on topic.

So what exactly are the hypothetical applications for anti-matter? Are there any?

External Articulation of Concepts Materializes Innate Knowledge of One's Craft and Science

Super Mario Bros clone tutorial written in XNA 4.0 [MonoGame, ANX, and MonoXNA] by Scott Haley

If you have found any of the posts helpful, please show your appreciation by clicking the up arrow on those posts

Spoiler

### #77Eelco  Members   -  Reputation: 301

Posted 08 May 2011 - 05:28 PM

Quantum physics is the least confusing part of this thread...

The manic mind is a fascinating phenomena.

False. This is my permanent mode of operation, and so it's not actually manic. We just don't share the same baseline.

The point I was making is that it's kind of annoying when trollbaiters like Human Resource and forsandifs play games.

I dont know you well enough to comment on that; maybe you are indeed 'bi-winning', or a unipolar manic. But that hypothesis is rather inconsistent with the fact that it appears that you used to have a good rating until a few days ago. Or that you are married, or ever held any job whatsoever.

I have actually read your papers, and although im sure you conclude the same thing from them; they confirm my view on the matter.

You sir, are somewhere inbetween a hypomanic and manic state, and unfortunately you are probably doing the exact same thing to all other aspects of your life as you are doing to your rating here.

Sadly, I have no idea what to say to you, and you will probably just shout me down, but at least I tried: go talk to someone who knows about these things. Crosscheck your views on what your baseline actually is with people who know you well.

### #78way2lazy2care  Members   -  Reputation: 782

Posted 08 May 2011 - 06:58 PM

Back on topic.

So what exactly are the hypothetical applications for anti-matter? Are there any?

Making the papal conclave interesting?

### #79DukeAtreides076  Members   -  Reputation: 602

Posted 08 May 2011 - 07:10 PM

Back on topic.

So what exactly are the hypothetical applications for anti-matter? Are there any?

Aside from blowing up the Vatican, antimatter, if it could be produced and stored in useful quantities, would be great for propulsion. There are also medical applications.

Also, I'd just like to point out that although the majority of physicists hypothesize that antimatter will fall "down", this has not yet been experimentally observed. There are theoretical arguments, yes, but these theories can still be falsified. This experiment is a direct test of these theories.

### #80sjhalayka  Members   -  Reputation: 863

Posted 08 May 2011 - 11:22 PM

stuff

The inconsistencies you mention are actually consistencies. You see, the vast majority of people aren't total liars. I only act in a totally hostile manner toward people who deserve it. You know as well as I do that my reputation would be in the thousands if I got a positive review for every time that I helped someone or was nice to them. If this was a popularity contest for me, I would have given up on gamedev.net long before that stupid racist topic regarding "Native Americans" got the green light from the mods. And now just days ago a stupid racist topic regarding "Black people" and "Indians" got the red light from the mods. This is where the inconsistency lies, not with I.

So, are you interested in the personal tutorial on how QG / LQG are broken models? Like I said before, the final paper made sense to actual theoretical physicists. There is nothing hypomanic-to-the-point-of-incomprehensibility about it.

Still waiting on Human Resource to get back to me on whether he also wants the tutorial.

Old topic!

Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

PARTNERS