Farsight

First of all what processes do we know about that create generate anti-matter and what circumstances create better conditions for the anti-matter to be generated. And what particles does that include? I have heard about electron/positron pair production but what about proton/anti-proton?

Antiprotons are created routinely. Hang on, I'll find a link. Here's one: http://agni.phys.iit.edu/~vpa/fnalantiproton.html.

 

Secondly I have heard about a hypothises about neutron/anti-neutron occilation where a neutron can become an anti-neutron and vise versa.

No.

 

What is the standing of this theory?

Zip. No way can a neutron oscillate into an anti-neutron. A Bs meson does it no problem and can be explained in quite simple terms. But not a neutron. No way.

Yes, I imagine he was referring to this sort of thing:

 

 

Here the electric field is rising to the peak of the sine wave, and since it's a changing electric field it's also a magnetic field. But there is only one field, not two.

You can't interpret this classically, and trace it back to physical motion. You just can't.

Wanna bet?

Because it isn't in your textbooks. People really don't like it when I offer answers that aren't in the syllabus, even when the latter has folk coming out with mystic garbage that I can shoot down in a trice. So excuse me if I don't go into it at length. But here's a potted version using analogy to show willing:

 

Imagine you've got a bent steel bar, this sort of shape: ∩, and fairly thin. Imagine it's half a sine wave, and half a photon wavelength. Compton scattering is akin to straightening the bar a little, so increasing the photon wavelength and changing the direction of the photon. Think of it as the middle portion of the incident photon:

 

 

Hence the electromagnetic force can be likened to bending and twisting the bar. It's quite easy to do. The strong force is like stretching the bar along its length, and is much more difficult. The Weak Interaction with the neutral current can be likened to "rubbing" the bar along its length, whilst the charge-current interaction can be likened to rubbing it around its diameter. The rubbing sometimes snags, then you get what appears to be a massive W or Z intermediate vector bosons and radioactive decay. As to what causes the snag, the bar is subject to a constant buffeting, call it quantum fluctuation, it's a little like the random wavelets on the surface of the sea.

I know what causes radioactive decay. And I REALLY understand quantum actions.

I recently learned in physics class that in an electromagnetic field, the magnetic field is always perpendicular to the electric field. But I don't under stand how that is possible, because the two fields are obviously both three dimensional. Geometry 101, it is not possible for two three dimensional entities to be truly perpendicular to each other unless there is a higher dimension involved.

 

At best, the only way to position two 3D entities perpendicular is to have a gap in between. How then are electromagnetic fields perpendicular?

The perpendicularity isn't the right concept. An electric field is actually the same thing as a magnetic field, that's why we call it an electromagnetic field. The way it works is that if you move through an electric field, you would call it a magnetic field. Ditto if it's moving through you. A charged-up wire with no current flowing has an electric field. If there's a current flowing, the electric field is moving, so we call it a magnetic field. It's similar with a bar magnet, but instead of a current we've got electrons circulating in a favoured orientation.

In Relativity: The Special and General Theory page 155, Einstein expressed this quality of spacetime as follows,

"Spacetime does not claim existence on its own but only as a structural quality of the [gravitational] field"

 

Am I correct to assume that empty space or a vacuum is essentially the qualities of the gravitational field?

No. Relativity: The Special and General Theory was written by Einstein in 1916. Here's an Einstein quote from 1920:

 

Mach’s idea finds its full development in the ether of the general theory of relativity. According to this theory the metrical qualities of the continuum of space-time differ in the environment of different points of space-time, and are partly conditioned by the matter existing outside of the territory under consideration. This space-time variability of the reciprocal relations of the standards of space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact that ‘empty space’ in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic....”

 

A "gravitational field" is a variation in the qualities of space. It's caused by matter/energy "conditioning" the surrounding space. Note that "curved spacetime" is an inadequate concept that describes what it does, not what it is.

 

I have trouble understanding the concept of time, without the idea of movement.

That's the correct approach. Time and motion are cofounded.

 

Is there a motion that is associated with the gravitational field itself?

No.

I've got it, but I haven't had time to read it yet. I'm looking forward to it.

I recently thought of something; since photons travel at the speed of light they are moving 0% through time (very crudely put, I know). So what would happen if they came in contact with a powerful gravitational field? Since gravity causes time to slow down as well as velocity, wouldn't that mean that photons would travel back in time? Since they'd be moving through time slower than not at all.

Photons move through space. No time "passes" for a photon. Gravity doesn't cause time to slow down. It causes photons to slow down. And we mark our time from the motion of light. Nothing more. Note that photons do not "move through time". Neither backwards, nor forward. It's just a figure of speech, like "clocks run" and "time passes". They move through space. And that's why time travel is impossible.

Martin can you give a link to the ned Wright paper? I can't find any mention of it it either on arxiv or on http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm

And you picked totally the wrong username too!

 

If anybody still doubts Martin's point, see Davis, T. M. ; Lineweaver, C. H. ; Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 21, 97—109. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808v2

When I follow the link I saw this:

 

"Two-photon scattering is observed at such facilities when the approaching particles both emit photons, which then interact with each other via a charged fermion/antifermion pair".

 

That seems to say the photons do not scatter off one another.

NO ANTIGRAVITY FORCE EXISTS

 

Einstein described gravity as a pseudoforce, and a falling body experiences no force. So in a way "no gravity force exists" too. So it's no small wonder that NO ANTIGRAVITY FORCE EXISTS. But we know that gravity exists, we know what people mean when they talk about the force of gravity. Gravity "pulls things together". And we know that the universe expands. The microwave background radiation is redshifted, and the distances between galaxies increases. Whilst this is not antigravity, it is in a sense opposite to gravity, and that's enough for me to say no, you should not make your claim that "There is no place in the Laws of the Universe for antigravity, as it cannot exist".

... In experiment DS – e – 727 – 0,1 – 2 the electrons passing through the two slits S1 and S2 will cause bright and dark fringes to form on screen S will these fringes lie at a stable distance f = 0,5 cm from one another, as Wave Mechanics asserts? My opinion on the above question is NO! ...

 

Tsolkas, sorry, I think your approach is wrong here. Experiments indicate that these entities really do pass through both slits. And crystals or no crystals, the mathematics of Quantum Mechanics works. In my humble opinion you should challenge the interpretations, not the observations.

 

Being an anti-relativity crank means never having to explain yourself. (lest anyone feel this is persecution, the second line of his web site — to which I will not link — is "THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY IS WRONG") Posts: 11 Threads started: 10. Pretty much exclusively hit-and-run, and apparently not interested in defending his claims.

 

That is so cheap. Because if he was pro-relativity, explained himself clearly, and defended his claims such that nobody could put up a coherent logical argument against them, you know where his thread would end up.

 

Edit: I have just received a ten-point "flaming" infraction for the above from YT.

Bubble chamber experiments show that zero charge particles are not detected until they change (decay) into charged particles. I have shown that mass, volume and linear force can be used to detect the presence of zero charge particles. This method shows that the neutron is a five particle composite consisting of three charged particles and two zero charge particles.

Sorry to interject here Elas. But you've got a presumption in here that I think you need to examine. Yes, zero-charge particles change into charged particles. But is this a decay? I think not.

 

Experiments also show that a photon can change (decay) into either two leptons..

Yes, pair production transforms a 1022KeV gamma photon into an electron and a positron. But I think this is a constructional event, not a decay event. If we then push the electron and the positron together, annihilation transforms them into two 511KeV gamma photons. This isn't a decay event either. You can watch an electron forever, and it won't decay into one of those 511KeV gamma photons. And unless you've got a positron to hand, you can't change it into one. But when you do, what you've effectively done is split the original 1022KeV photon into two 511KeV photons. Can these each consist of two leptons? I think not.

 

As a neutron changes (decays) by the emission of either two leptons, or a lepton and a neutrino; it is logical to assume that the neutron is a composite of three charged particles and a (not directly detectable) photon.

I think there's a sense in which you're correct here, in that the neutron does genuinely undergo Betaˉ decay to yield eg an electron, a proton, and an antineutrino. But I think you're looking at it the wrong way, and I presume it was a typo when you said three charged particles. Yes, in a sense the neutron is a composite particle. But if you could look at it under a "magic microscope" you wouldn't actually see the components existing as separate entities.

 

 

I am using a non-accepted model because there is no accepted model of particle structure; there is only an accepted model that predicts what particles will do (Quantum theory). My model is related to experimental observations in respect of mass, volume, force and energy; It explains particle structure, not particle actions. Quantum theorists are still conducting experiments in search of an elementary particle or force (Higgs); I am saying the answer is there already in the form of a single elementary particle and single elementary force.

I agree with your thrust here, but not with your detail. My take on it is this: photons don't decay. When you use a photon to create two leptons, you're building up, not decaying down. And this thinking can be applied to baryons too.

Elas: I don't think the electron is a composite entity either, or the photon. I think you should look at this some more.

What's all this?

 

A photon is an action. Literally. Talking about a photon at rest is talking about a motionless action. It doesn't make sense.

Complete bull.

Just woundering about fire?

what element is that, eg. solid,liquid,gas,etc

 

I am hugely tempted to say:

 

Why, fire is its own element. Like the saying goes: earth, air fire and water. Surely everybody knows that?

 

But I won't. Sigh:

 

Fire, or as swanson says, flame, is a mixture of gases and particulate solids, usually incandescent, wherein some portion of the gases can be considered a "plasma". Don't worry about plasma. When the gases and particulate solids cool down a bit and stop glowing, we call it smoke.

I read the paper with interest, lingering on phrases like "there is a classic principle for restricting the possibilities" and automatically wanting to unflatten the cube on page 5 and spin it on a vertex looking for my trefoil. I couldn't help thinking in terms of a cube of space with xyz axes, where degrees of freedom are extension in different directions, eg:

 

1. x

2. y

3. z

4. xy

5. xz

6. yz

7. xyz

8. none

 

..but I left the paper at home along with my notes, and there's a lot I need to look up, so I'm currently scratching my head at "classic" and "how the E8 manifold twists and turns over spacetime, reproducing all known fields and dynamics through pure geometry".

 

Interesting.

It feels like a sliding scale, Norm. I'll have to do more work on it to get my ideas clear. How you keeping anyway?

 

Thanks Klaynos. I thought I'd buy it, but at $143 maybe not.

Do read the New Scientist article and the Joy Christian paper we were talking about earlier. The Simple Theory of Everything paper by A Garrett Lisi was interesting too. It's on anothe thread.

Not if interest stayed above the rate of inflation (and assuming the bank or its descendent organisation/s still existed when he got back, and honoured the account).

Yeah yeah. Snowball's chance in hell.

I skimmed this paper the other day and saw enough in it that I recognised to make me want to sit down and study it properly. I also picked up some very negative comments. But even if this paper is flawed, as I speak I think it's pointing in the right direction.

I also dislike the notion of "speed of time". Not that we don't move through time - we all do - at one second per second!

 

Oh no we don't.

 

So if i put a dollar or whatever in the bank when i left went all the way to the star and then came all the way back i could pay for my trip assuming i could live for 720 years.

 

Nope. Inflation would eat your dollar. And anyhow, if you're 2500 light years away and you own a planet, who cares.