“If antimatter and matter make contact, both are destroyed instantly. Physicists call the process ‘annihilation.” -Dan Brown
Antimatter is the counterpart to matter: it exists with the same mass, opposite charge, and if ever the two should touch, they annihilate away into pure energy via Einstein’s E = mc^2. But there are a great many properties of antimatter that we haven’t yet measured due to how much energy it takes to create it and how difficult it is to contain.
As we continue to make advances on this front, it’s important to keep in mind why we do it: antimatter must be fundamentally different from matter in some vital ways to create a Universe that’s filled with matter and not antimatter today. We’ve uncovered very few ways that these particles and antiparticles are different, and they’re so far insufficient to explain why our Universe is the way we observe it to be.
Antimatter is a matter of definition. My definition is that antimatter doesn't exist and matter is made of positive and negative particles. If antimatter exists then there would be 4 types of particle: positive and negative matter particles; and positive and negative antimatter particles. I don't think nature is that complicated.
@kasim #1: What you "think" is irrelevant to nature, and your demonstrated ignorance of physics leaves you incompetent to formulate a meaningful opinion on this matter.
There are positive, negative, and neutrally charged matter particles, and there are ALSO positive, negative, and neutrally charged antimatter particles. This is what I do for a living. I spent the first fifteen years of my physics carrier producing and studying all of the above.
@Ethan: a very minor nitpick. Bubble chamber tracks alone cannot determine all the properties of particles, not without significant assumptions (and thereby fairly large uncertainties). In fact, there's no kind of detector which directly measures the mass of any subatomic particle. That's always _inferred_ from the relationships between measurables like momentum, energy, or velocity.
Knowing the magnetic field means that you can get the track momentum and charge from the curvature (radius and orientation, respectively).
You can infer the particle's energy loss per unit length (dE/dx) in two ways: for very low momentum particles, like electrons, you can see them spiral inward, and can convert the changing radius to dp/dx. For heavy particles (like protons), you can see the energy loss in the changing (increasing) size of the bubbles along the track. Using Bethe and Bloch's universal expression for energy loss vs. momentum, ("the dE/dx curve") you can use these two pieces of information to do some particle identification (differentiate electrons from muons from protons, for example), which can give you the mass.
A bubble chamber can't give you an absolute energy measurement. For that, you need some for of energy deposition detector, or "calorimeter." For low energy particles (like those in the old bubble chamber experiments), scintillating crystals or plastic can do the job: the incoming particle is stopped, and all of its kinetic energy converts to ionizing atoms in the material, which then produce visible light when they recombine. The amount of light is proportional to the incident energy. At much higher energies (like the pions and protons at the LHC), you can use thin sheets of metal immersed in a noble gas, and measure the electric current caused by secondary particles produced as the particles hit the metal plates.
You can measure a particle's velocity directly, by having it pass through a transparent medium. If it's travelling faster than the speed of light in that medium, it will produce "Cherenkov radiation" in the form of a cone. The opening angle of that code measures the particle's velocity.
By combining these measurements (momentum, velocity, energy, dE/dx, charge), we can identify each of the different particles in a complex interaction. This is why modern particle physics experiments are so large: they involve many different kinds of detectors, nested one within another, and surrounding the interaction region sufficiently to minimize "losing" particles through gaps or holes.
1 - If matter touches anti-matter in space the two pieces annihilate into energy.
2 - Time is just a dimension in space-time. It is all the same stuff, just in a different direction.
3 - Neutrinos are their own anti-particle and can flavor change between anti-matter neutrinos and matter neutrinos.
Why does a matter to anti-matter flip not instantly cause the neutrino to annihilate? It its timeline the matter neutrino is touching the anti-matter neutrino.
"Why does a matter to anti-matter flip not instantly cause the neutrino to annihilate?"
Because "3 – Neutrinos are their own anti-particle".
So are photons.
Look at it this way (and I'll use photons as the example, because it's easier to understand the mechanism of them than the mechanism for the quantum description of a neutrino):
The strength of an electric field is the sum of all electric fields at that time and in that place. So if two photons, one a "positive" photon and the other an "anti" photon, they both have electric fields that apply at the same place when they pass each other. So they don't annihilate, because the electric fields don't destroy themselves, except in absorption, which two photons in free space cannot do.
Positrons and electrons will annihilate because their quantum description overlap destructively and the electromagnetic forces bring them together. Neutrinos and antineutrinos have only the weak force to pull them together, and when they ARE pulled together, their quantum description overlap positively, leaving both to survive in the same location.
Exclusion also changes things, because if the wavefunctions interfere to preclude a particle in the same location, that particle cannot be found in the same location. An electron's wavefunction doesn't have any solution in the same state, but for the same orbit, spin can be in two states for an electron, and therefore you can get two electrons in the same orbit, as long as one changes its spin to be opposite to the other. Ergo a third electron can't be in there because whichever spin it gets, it is unable to exist in the same orbit and will be refused in reality, because a zero amplitude wavefunction means the electron isn't there.
It's confusing partly because we have the model (the wavefunction) which mathematically proves they don't do this, but the particle doesn't go solving wavefunctions, so what's "really" happening is a question that can't be answered, except by what the model of reality allows.
@Denier: “Neutrinos are their own antiparticle” This is not yet known for certain. If this were true, that would mean that neutrinos are Majorana fermions, and neutrinoless double beta decays could occur, which can be viewed as two beta decay events with the produced antineutrinos immediately annihilating with one another (it is also to be noted that such an event violates lepton number conservation). Double beta decay events by themselves are rare, and to determine whether no neutrinos were emitted when one occurred is hard. Some experiments have been conducted in an attempt to detect these events, but as of now none as yet has detected an event with a sufficiently high level of certainty to say that it can happen. Whether neutrinos are Majorana or Dirac fermions is still a very much open question.
For each neutrino, there also exists a corresponding antiparticle, called an antineutrino, which also has half-integer spin and no electric charge. They are distinguished from the neutrinos by having opposite signs of lepton number and chirality. To conserve total lepton number, in nuclear beta decay, electron neutrinos appear together with only positrons (anti-electrons) or electron-antineutrinos, and electron antineutrinos with electrons or electron neutrinos
There's a non-mainstream theory that states "because antimatter is a matter of definition, we can define matter to be composed of positive and negative particles. Hence, no need for antimatter as positive and negative particles can annihilate each other just as readily".
If antimatter does exist then we need 4 types of particles: positive and negative matter particles; and positive and negative antimatter particles. I don't think nature is that complicated.
Neutral particles are composite particles of oppositely charged particles including the photon. In fact, it's more plausible for the photon to be composed of 2 oppositely charged particles because the charges would give rise to the electric field component of the electromagnetic field and their movement would generate the magnetic field component. Their spin would explain why the fields are alternating.
neutrinos would pose a problem because of their half integer spin. But what would happen if a neutrino collided with its antineutrino according to the current theory? would they annihilate each other into energy?
The new theory suspects the interpretation of the outcomes that led to their definition rather than actual reality.
"I don’t think nature is that complicated."
Nature asked me to pass this on: it doesn't care what you think. Sorry.
"In fact, it’s more plausible for the photon to be composed of 2 oppositely charged particles because the charges would give rise to the electric field component of the electromagnetic field and their movement would generate the magnetic field component."
No it isn't, because it's simpler to show as Faraday did, that an electrical field and magnetic field can promote each other at the speed of light together. Meanwhile, if there are two particles, that's two things that have never been found and can't go at the speed of light, that have to be added in AS WELL AS an explanation that stands up to scrutiny about how Faraday was wrong in his conclusion.
"The new theory suspects the interpretation of the outcomes that led to their definition rather than actual reality."
Meaningless and therefore irrefutable.
You have your belief and I have mine. I'm building my theorybit by bit to become a complete Theory of Everything which is a complete break from the incomplete mainstream unification programme; unlike Gordon's Theory of Everything which has a slight variation of the same existing theory.
You can find a first attempt at the new theory at https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/682488. It describes the new theory based on one of the existing forces as the only needed to explain nature without the maths.
"You have your belief and I have mine. "
That's rather the point. I believe in reality, and you believe reality is just a belief. It's why your claims were a load of baloney: no need to concede to reality, just believe it's irrelevant.
"Theory of Everything which is a complete break from the incomplete mainstream unification programme;"
Meaningless babble once again.
"You can find a first attempt at the new theory at ..."
No, I'm not reading a book that not even you can comprehend well enough to explain clearly.
Besides which, you've already stated that you have your belief, and therefore it's kinda pointless to think that there's anything other than blind faith behind your "knowledge".
I'm open minded enough to be persuaded, but the job of persuasion is yours, not mine to make.
"explain nature without the maths."
Aaaah. I see why you like it then, but don't understand. You're mathematically illiterate but find that depowering, so you want an idea that doesn't have maths in it.
Whether you are comfortable with reality doesn't mean squat to the universe.
Your eloquent use of language describes your reality.
Uuuhhhh, there's no such thing as a personal reality. There's reality and not reality.
If you disagree, then you haven't posted here at all, this has all been a dream, and you are really a 12 year old girl in the refugee camps, starving to death.
I'm talking about your use of bad language proves your arguments don't have any value.
"I’m talking about your use of bad language"
No, that was merely your belief of reality.
"proves your arguments don’t have any value."
A logical fallacy, dude.
The tone argument (also tone policing) is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument is dismissed or accepted on its presentation: typically perceived crassness, hysteria or anger. Tone arguments are generally used by tone trolls (esp. concern trolls) in order to derail or silence opponents lower on the privilege ladder, as a method of positioning oneself as a Very Serious Person.
The fallacy relies on style over substance. It is an ad hominem attack, and thus an informal fallacy.
Consider this dude:
2 protons are smashed together and the end result is a shower of leptons namely positrons and electrons. 2 issues come out of this: 1) baryon number conservation is violated; 2) no evidence of quarks.
Conclusion: protons are made of positrons and electrons not quarks. Baryon conservation law is a false one.
Science is full of false theories.
"2 protons are smashed together and the end result is a shower of leptons namely positrons and electrons"
really? However, that's just your belief in reality. I have mine.
"2 issues come out of this: 1) baryon number conservation is violated; 2) no evidence of quarks."
Yeah, we're back to your belief here.
"Science is full of false theories."
So your theory is not scientific? Or is it false?
Hey, given I didn't use rude words, that proves I'm right, yes?
@kasim #17: Once again your ignorance is on display. In a proton-proton collision, what is produced is primarily a mixtures of pi mesons, positive, negative, and neutral; gamma rays, some K mesons and charm mesons if the energy is high enough, and some baryons (protons, neutrons, hyperons, etc.). Most such collisions are not "head on", but have a relatively large impact parameter. As a result, the incident protons generally don't scatter into the detector, but travel down the beamlines.
If you're unfamiliar with "jets" in hadronic collisions, and the evidence for both quarks and gluons, then you're entirely incompetent to formulate "theories" (or should I say wild-ass guesses?) of any kind.
"pi mesons, positive, negative, and neutral; gamma rays, some K mesons and charm mesons". Are these particles stable? If not, what do they decay into? You'll find that the final list of particles are leptons and photons as the only stable particles.
Besides, have you seen their lifetimes? < a billionth of a second; and they still call them particles. They're transient particles made of leptons namely electrons and positrons because muons and the tau particles themselves decay into electrons and positrons because they're only high energy electrons/positrons. I stand by my claim. You only follow other people's interpretations of the data they collect. Go the extra mile. Do your own critical thinking.
Michael, khasim has already linked to a book written by someone else and characterised it as a book he wrote on his "developing new theory".
He's not really interested in truth, and doesn't care how much lying he does.
@WOW. "when you hold a lie to be the truth, then the actual truth is perceived as a lie" - anonymous.
I guess the reverse is true as well. I think that people are behaving like the Church in medieval times who persecuted people that believed in the heliocentric universe.
Did you know that the Higgs field/boson was invented to save the Standard Model? This is because, if its particles had intrinsic mass, its equations would fail. Here's Brian Greene of Columbia University: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ni-Lf1y51Dc.
"You’ll find that the final list of particles are leptons and photons as the only stable particles."
No,that's another lie.
" and they still call them particles. They're transient particles "
LOL. And, no, they're not made of leptons.
"You only follow other people's interpretations of the data they collect. "
This is Mike's frigging JOB you moron!
Piss off. If you can't, piss off here:
@WOW. “when you hold a lie to be the truth, then the actual truth is perceived as a lie”
David Simmons wrote that book NOT YOU.
But you see it as a lie.
And you can fuck off you wootard.
"You only follow other people's interpretations of the data they collect. Go the extra mile. Do your own critical thinking."
omg... maybe you should go an extra mile and google who Mr Michael Kelsey is and what he does and where he works, before writing the above crap.
Judging by the colourful language you use, I suspect that you work at a sewage works.
Since you're too important to read a book that I follow, why should I google your name? The unkind words are enough to tell me to steer clear of you.
Pions decay into leptons: positive pions decay into positrons; negative pions decay into electrons; neutral pions decay into photons which can split into electron-positron pairs.
That's proof enough for me.
Piss off to the thread, you moron.
Here it is again:
Woomancers who don't listen don't get to pollute reality with their BS.
"The unkind words are enough to tell me to steer clear of you."
Bloody special snowflake here. For all their "courage" when it comes to "being different", they're hella thin skinned.
And, SL, rather odd that they didn't even care to read your name OR your post, only remembering that you said "crap".
Which probably triggered him badly.
I started by voicing my opinion that I formed after reading The One Force of Nature by David Simmons. If he posted what I did, would he have the received the same bad language?
All I'm saying is that Simmons' theory sits right with me than mainstream science that tell us to leave our common sense at the door. I found that when protons are smashed into each other the end result is a shower of leptons. Reports say that it's a shower of hadrons without naming the hadrons. The only stable hadron is the proton. So, what science is telling me is that we smash 2 protons together and we get 2 protons back. Is that story of science.
I've already explained what pions decay into. Pions are hadrons, right?
I didn't say that the baryon number conservation law is also violated when the protons disappear in a shower of hadrons that eventually decay into leptons.
"Judging by the colourful language you use, I suspect that you work at a sewage works."
Nope. Sorry to disappoint you.
"Since you’re too important to read a book that I follow, why should I google your name? "
Never said to google mine. You should probably read that post again though.
"The unkind words are enough to tell me to steer clear of you."
Your bio and site tells me you're a whack. http://mpcnews.co.uk/News.php?Action=Page&Menu=About&ID=3
o special one... love the graphics tough.. lolz.
For the record, I'm a layman with only the Simmons's theory and my high school knowledge of physics and maths to go on. Simmons speaks to me without the jargon.
I'm impressed you looked me up. Because of all the posts that had been going to and from, could you remind me which post I'm supposed to read again.
What? The idiot brummie?
LOLing at this, though:
"In his spare time, Kasim studies spiritual healing as he's "gifted""
"Accounts for a dormant company made up to 31 October 2015"
Welp, I guess they failed to reduce unemployment!
And 1 officer, no other people.
Not much of a loss, then.
SL, this latest wootard is obviously hoping to get their "truth" spread to us "heathens" before Ethan tells him to piss off to the dump thread for people with nutjob claims and a complete lack of caring what anyone else says or thinks.
"For the record, I’m a layman with only...."
For the record, and it's right up there so anyone can read. You, as a layman, told a particle physicist who works in the field, to f*** off, and that you know particle physics better then the explanation he gave you. The we, a readers of this blog, told you to f*** off.. pretty straight forward.
Michael Kelsey referred me to a slideshow that was way over my head. I don't mind being blinded by science; but being blinded by mathematics is something else altogether. Besides, please forgive me if I got this wrong: the detectors detect low energy hadrons - primarily a mixtures of pi mesons, positive, negative, and neutral; gamma rays, some K mesons and charm mesons if the energy is high enough, and some baryons (protons, neutrons, hyperons, etc.) as Michael said.
All I was saying is that the list of particles Michael gave me eventually decay into leptons - they're not stable particles except the baryons, hyperons etc. He did mention protons and neutrons. Presumably these are created from the extra energy pumped into the accelerator.
So, it seems logical to me that hadrons are made of leptons. This is the missing link in science - it doesn't go all the way when discussing particle-particle collisions.
For the record, you're a useless and arrogant twat who hasn't the first clue what they're babbling about and will not listen to anyone else, and insists that everyone else has to get their own data WHEN YOU HAVEN'T DONE SO YOURSELF.
Even going so far as to complain to someone WHO DOES THAT WORK FOR THEIR LIVING to go and make their own data.
You are so blind and insular that you real SL's post, with SL's name above it, where he tells you to look up who michael kelsey is, whose posts even TELL you he is at SLAC in the identification area, that you don't want to google SL's, but ad hom into claiming he works in the sewers or some bollocks like that.
MASSIVE HINT: Sinsa IS NOT Mike. Just like your name is not "Shithead Fatface", even though it could well be, if your parents had known what an ignorant knobhead you'd grow up to be.
It's no wonder you are clueless when you suck so very VERY bad at reading you can't even see words when you're arguing on them.
"Michael Kelsey referred me to a slideshow"
No he didn't you ignorant retard. READ THE FRIGGING POSTER'S NAME!!!
"that was way over my head. "
Well, so are names, you moron. You're just going to argue from ignorance, of which you have a planetary mass of the damn stuff.
WE DO NOT GIVE A SHIT if you are refusing reality because you find it beyond you. This doesn't mean you get to make up shit out of your anus as true.
"All I was saying is that the list of particles Michael gave me eventually decay into leptons"
No he didn't, and no they don't.
Get over it.
The website Michael referred me to certainly looks like a slideshow - the pages looked slides.
I did read his name: he's a physicist at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Centre (SLAC).
He did give the list of particles I mentioned. They're in his post #20. I actually cut-and-pasted them. You're telling me that mesons (like pions) don't decay into leptons. You'd better check that out with Michael before you speak for him.
I'm not arguing from ignorance. Wikipedia verifies that mesons do decay into leptons, look it up. Or visit http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Particles/hadron.html to confirm.
The bad language you keep throwing at me is against Ethan's posting rules which means he's more likely to ban you than me. Remember, this is Ethan's blog; you're practically speaking for him.
BTW I don't take offence from unprofessional people like you. Nor will I get down to the same level as you. But I have to speak my mind.
Why are you such a stupid cunt, khasim? Training or brainwashing
There's a saying in the east that if you insult anybody out of context, the insults describe you. So don't be hard on yourself.
I emailed Michael Kelsey earlier today and I was shocked he replied almost immediately on Christmas day. He was very nice about it and offered me a list of recommended introductory level texts which I accepted gratefully.
So I'd like to put the matter to rest while I study those texts.
Post #20, where's the link, dumbass?
Mesons are intermediate mass particles which are made up of a quark-antiquark pair. Three quark combinations are called baryons. Mesons are bosons, while the baryons are fermions. Recent experimental evidence shows the existence of five-quark combinations which are being called pentaquarks.
Oh, and your intransigence and ignorance is against Ethan;s policy. If you are going to shit all over it, what the fuck place do you have to complain to me?
And I;m speaking my mind too. One rather more full of intelligence than your peasoup bilgewater. You see where I call you a fucking moron? THAT'S BECAUSE I'M SPEAKING MY MIND.
Yeah, there's an old saying in the west. You're full of shit if you come back with fake cod "wisdom" rather than evidence your brain is working.
"I emailed Michael Kelsey earlier today and I was shocked he replied almost immediately on Christmas day. "
Goodness. You've already said you've done that.
And found the maths too hard, so concluded it must be wrong.
See saying recorded to you at the top of this message.
I'm taking his advice mainly because he was courteous to me unlike you. I thought intelligent people didn't use the sort of language you do.
I had better stop replying to you. Otherwise I'd be accused of baiting you.
Boo hoo, your poor little feelings are hurt. Don't care.
You've not managed to visit reality or conceive of truth since you arrived. You'll never bother to accept what Michael says (not that you have talked to him), because you're just too dumb and ignorant to want to.
There's an old hypothesis (I think it was either Arthur C. Clarke or Isaac Asimov who wrote about it in an essay) that antimatter moves backward in time (or IS normal matter moving backward in time) and that all the antimatter created at the time of the Big Bang went backwards in time from there, while our universe of matter went forward. A cool idea, but has it been disproven on one ground or another?
That sounds more like Richard Feynman who said, and I paraphrase, that anti-particles are going backwards in time. You can see it in his legacy: the Feynman diagrams.
Personally, I don't think there is such a thing as antimatter. Matter is made of positive and negative particles. If antimatter does exist, then we would have 4 types of particles: positive and negative matter particles; and positive and negative antimatter particles. Nature is not that complicated.Remember Occam's razor.
Besides, we seem to be getting antimatter from inside matter e.g. in positron decay. Is the positron spontaneously created? I don't think so.
@Michael Hutaon #50: Yeah, it's a cool idea, but one based on a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of conventional quantum mechanics. The Schrodinger (non-relativistic) and Dirac (relativistic) equations are symmetric with respect to the time variable. That is, you can replace "t" with "-t" everywhere in the maths and you end up with the same equation as originally, but with some other quantities inverted in sign.
For example, the Dirac equation for a negatively charged particle under "-t" is exactly equivalent to the Dirac equation for a positively charged particle, with the same mass, under "+t".
Historically, Dirac tried to interpret this solution as the negative charge particle being the electron and the positive being the proton. But that is obviously wrong because of the mass difference. Instead, the positively charged particle, with the mass of the electron, is the positron, the "antimatter" equivalent to the electron.
Kasim, I think you're confusing antimatter with negative mass. The term "antimatter" is used for what you're calling "negative matter particles"- not particles with less-than-zero mass/energy. As far as we know such particles don't exist, although from a strictly mathematical viewpoint they're not ruled out.
@kasim #51: You continue to engage in your fallacious argument from incredulity. Just because you don't understand something, and have not taken the time to try to understand it, doesn't mean it's wrong. It just means that you don't know what you need to know in order to understand it.
Reposting what you already wrote (#8), in hopes that the new person won't realize that you're flogging nonsense, merely serves to reinforce your presence as an ignorant time waster.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I'm making an opinion based on my research which tells me that photons split into electron-positron pairs. I've been told that energy can split into any particle-antiparticle pair you like e.g. quark-antiquark pairs. But the latter are inseparable mesons that decay into leptons.
Using your words just because you say I'm wrong doesn't mean I'm wrong. We're all human capable of human error. Even Ethan wrote a timely blog about Einstein's 4 errors. Other scientists ignored Einstein and adopted QM.
I'm not ashamed of being wrong. Lawrence Krauss said about the Higgs boson: "I hope we're wrong" implying that we don't learn very much when we're right.
I can tolerate the filthy language your supporters use because that's the language of losers. Besides, it's against the rules of posting.
By the way, I was encouraged by Ethan's post about a famous scientist being wrong not only once but 4 times.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
You seem to have missed the second part, which is "but not their own facts."
For all that reading you claimed to have done, you don't appear to have learned anything from it.
Almost as if you ever were given a link and therefore could never read it,
This is SCIENCE. Your opinion is worthless. WHAT CAN YOU PROVE?
"Using your words just because you say I’m wrong doesn’t mean I’m wrong."
Indeed, it is your errors that mean youre wrong. You just don't bother listening to them.
YOU ARE WRONG.
"I’m not ashamed of being wrong. "
Then why the refusal to admit it?
Since you’re too important to read a book that I follow
BTW, it doesn't take much to get the flavor of the thing (emphasis added):
"[T]he strong and weak nuclear forces are manifestations of the electromagnetic force which implies that gravity is a manifestation of the electromagnetic force."
Kind of a "show your work" moment, IMNSHO.
"Currently, photons are regarded as massless waves yet they contribute to mass in an unknown way but according to Einstein's E=mc2."
And on it goes. There are extensive passages that are mostly just block quotations followed by random assertions. About the most notable part of the page linked above (which is not Smashwords) is the blurb at the top:
"Excerpt for <a href="htps://www.smashwords.com/books/view/682488">
<strong>The One Force of Nature</strong></a> by <a itemprop="author" href="/profile/view/kasim"><span style="white-space: nowrap">David Simmons</span></a>,
available in its entirety at <a href="htps://www.smashwords.com/">
Oh, dear, from his bio, it seems that "David Simmons" is rather unclear on the concept of a point source:
When I was at school, I always challenged the facts I was taught e.g. I disagreed with the inverse square law in that you can't get an infinity force. I proved that with two weak magnets by putting a south pole to another south pole and told my colleagues that, according to the inverse square law, it's impossible to make these poles touch. I then proceeded to make them touch thus disproving the law.
Referring to fellow high-school students as "colleagues" is rather novel, though.
It's sad that you take the reference to "my colleagues" as the highlight of what you understood from the quote. The important point I got out of it is that infinity is unachievable and it's usually caused by zero division. My assumption is that theories that have zeros and/or infinity are invalid. So photons are not massless, black holes don't have a singularity at their centre etc.
It’s sad that you take the reference to “my colleagues” as the highlight of what you understood from the quote.
I didn't. It's sad that you couldn't figure out the point of the comment. And that you've been engaged in hawking your scribblings while pretending that the author is someone else.
"When I was at school, I always challenged the facts"
IOW he was a dick at school and loves being a dick as an adult. He's on this for the jollies, he wants to complain about everyone else.
Because he never challenged HIS "facts".
This moron, like kasim here, heard that "questioning the theories" was "scientific" and never knew, or cared, any more about it.
News for you two dickheads: mulish contrarianism isn't scientific skepticism. And the FIRST person whose ideas you must be skeptical of ARE YOUR OWN. Fail on that, and even if you happen to be right (as with Democritus), it's not science.
"I proved that with two weak magnets by putting a south pole to another south pole and told my colleagues that, according to the inverse square law, it’s impossible to make these poles touch. I then proceeded to make them touch thus disproving the law."
Magnetic force isn't an inverse square law, for a start. And putting two macroscopic extended objects together isn't putting them infinitely close together. They are EXTENDED OBJECTS. The retard needs to get two infinitesimal, but equally strong, magnets and push them together. EVEN AT SCHOOL I knew this.
Hell, if magnetic force acted like he "proved" was wrong, just asking how the magnet was made would be enough to "prove" that the claimed mechanisation was wrong.
"The important point I got out of it is that infinity is unachievable and it’s usually caused by zero division"
Reality doesn't divide anything by zero.
Hell, even an infinitesimal is infinitesimally different, BUT STILL DIFFERENT from zero.
Depending on how you get that infinitesimal.
"So photons are not massless,"
Googling for "are photons massless" brings up the science saying "No".
" black holes don’t have a singularity at their centre etc."
Googling for singularities in black holes brings up the science saying "No".
Nobody understands what "point" kasim was trying to make here, but what we DO take from it is that kasim doesn't have the first frigging clue about what science says.
PS Still haven't had any evidence that he got anything like a link to information on the subject from Michael Kelsey.... Odd, innit.
When I was at school, I learnt that the Biot–Savart law is actually an inverse square law. The contribution that a piece of wire makes to the magnetic field is proportional to the inverse square of the distance.
Now, it seems to be an inverse cube law which is even worse i.e. you'll get to infinity far quicker; but you can't escape infinity. The main point from that experiment is the explanation that our science teacher gave us: the magnetic domains were distorted so that the law didn't act in the direction I was pushing.
Macroscopic matter are composite; which means that something happens at close distances that changes some of the laws of physics. The inverse square law isn't wrong at all distances; just at close distances.
Whatever you "learnt" at school wasn't what they were teaching.
When they say it's caused by a current, this means you CANNOT take it infinitely close by touching. Since all that really does is make a new current flow.
When they say closed contours, you can't get infinitely close, since the contour is zero length.
And that law doesn't apply to permanent magnets anyway.
Whatever you "learnt" (and I doubt you actually learned anything, only read up after the fact), you only bothered remembering what you wanted.
Not inverse square.
What if the 2 balls are electrically charged? Would they experience an infinite force? If they're oppositely charged, then once they've touched, you can't separate them because of the infinite force between them. This is what I'm arguing against.
Any law is valid only where the law applies. That's why laws and theories are different things.
"Macroscopic matter are composite; which means that something happens at close distances that changes some of the laws of physics"
No it doesn't. It means that they can't get closer than the mean separation of extent.
Two balls 2cm across can't get closer than 2cm from each other. Because the outer edge of the ball gets in the way and stops them getting any closer.
"What if the 2 balls are electrically charged? Would they experience an infinite force?"
NO, they're still 2 cm apart, learn how to read, retard.
"If they’re oppositely charged, then once they’ve touched, you can’t separate them because of the infinite force between them. "
Once they have touched,they're still distant from each other, not at the same spot.
Thank you for indirectly proving that nothing can have infinite anything which is the point of my post. But, everyone is talking about singularities that have infinite densities and hence infinite gravity.
A singularity is supposed to have zero volume but contain a certain mass which gives it infinite density and infinite gravity at the surface.
However, a point of zero volume has no surface; so you can't talk about infinite gravity. BTW I'm not saying this to you, I'm pointing out that people do believe in and talk about singularities as if they do exist.
"Thank you for indirectly proving that nothing can have infinite anything"
Thank you for showing how you only read what you want to read.
Fuck you for not seeing that the reason why not in the case your hero "proved" magnetism wrong was because making them touch does not put them at the same spot.
"A singularity is supposed to have zero volume but contain a certain mass"
So what? Is that supposed to be a black hole? If not, then your whinge about black holes was unsupported bullcrap.
"However, a point of zero volume has no surface; so you can’t talk about infinite gravity. "
Not even if there had been a singularity would it have made infinite gravity. Only infinite mass can manage that. And it does that even if it's not an infinitesimally small point.
"Only infinite mass can manage that."
Agreed. And the total amount of mass/energy in the universe is finite. I don't know what you're angry about; we're in agreement.
The problem is that Einstein predicted black holes and the singularity. If a singularity is not possible then Einstein is wrong. Einstein also told us that mass increases with velocity which he called relativistic mass. Then, after he died, scientists told us don't use relativistic mass as it causes confusion. Then they said it's inertial mass that increases. Then they said that even that doesn't change; it's the resistance to motion that increases. I hope that they would finally admit that GR is built on unsafe foundations.
Now, [Biot-Savart] seems to be an inverse cube law which is even worse i.e. you’ll get to infinity far quicker
Um, no. Leaving aside the fact that this has nothing to do with your bar magnet example, the inverse-cube scaling applies to the far field.
Now, are you going to get around to explaining this glaring issue, "David"?
I started by voicing my opinion that I formed after reading The One Force of Nature by David Simmons. If he posted what I did, would he have the received the same bad language?
You gave up the game yourself almost immediately. Why do you persist with the charade?
This is you:
"Look, when you put two magnets together, that should be infinite strength! PROOF that infinite isn't real, therefore science is wrong!"
"You aren't showing that it ought to be infinite strength because they can't be put in the same spot"
"See! You agree that it's not infinity, therefore science is wrong!"
"If he posted what I did, would he have the received the same bad language?"
Yes. And not only because we don't know who the fuck he is.
The same shit spewed gets the same shitstorm against it. DO NOT play the "race card" when you aren't hailed as the godhead but given the deserved level of disapproval as the crap ideas spouted make you deserve.
I bet if you posted this on an indian language blog you wouldn't be trying to play the race card.
"Agreed. And the total amount of mass/energy in the universe is finite. I don’t know what you’re angry about; we’re in agreement."
Oh, right, so we agree that science is pretty much right, you're wrong and you posted BS.
And *do not* get bent, you just said we were in agreement!
I've always said that theories that use zero and/or infinite quantities are false; and you've shown why distances between real objects cannot be zero. Hence, they cannot form infinite forces. That's what we're in agreement about.
No, you said we were in agreement. And I don't and haven't ever said that zero or infinite quantities indicate falsity. Indeed no such dogma can EVER be used as proof, and therefore since we're in agreement, you cannot either.
I do not insist that zero or infinity means that they produce infinite forces. If that is what we agree with, then you must rewrite your claims.
We seem to be poles apart. If we agree on something, it's bound to be accidental than fundamental. Let's face it: I can't convince you of my opinion nor can you convince me of your alleged facts; especially with the colourful language you use to express them. I mean, even your ideas are absolute truth, the way you express them, will put anyone off; and they sound false.
And I don't understand what you're angry about. We agree that science is pretty much right, you’re wrong and you posted BS.
"We seem to be poles apart."
But that can't be, you just said we were in agreement!?!?! If you don't even know whether we're in agreement on this, how can you know whether you're in disagreement with the science that even you claim you cannot grasp?
"I can’t convince you of my opinion"
Your opinion is based on bullshit. You need to have some evidence for your opinion, else it is MEANINGLESS.
"even your ideas are absolute truth"
YOU were the one claiming absolute truth: "theories that use zero and/or infinite quantities are false"
"the way you express them, will put anyone off;"
They way YOU express yourself shows you are PROUD not to understand, but you're a moron because you won't let your blatant lack of comprehension stop you from making any shit claim you fancy.
"and they sound false."
YOU are false. You claimed the wrong names, you've claimed to have been given info by someone that never happened.
Then you whinge and whine because your opinion is given the lack of acceptance half-baked nonsense deserves. When EVEN YOU admit you don't understand it.
You keep talking about published science as if it's fact. They're only accepted as such in the absence of alternative theories. Professor Jess H. Brewer, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Physics & Astronomy, Univ. of British Columbia said on Quora.com:
"We don’t 'actually know' anything, except through the interpretation of models and theories. When you look at a chair, your cerebral cortex is interpreting impulses from your optic nerve in terms of models it has accumulated through experience, which prompt it to send a message to your cerebral cortex saying, 'chair!' Why should physics be any different?"
Need I say more?
You keep talking about your bollocks as if it is fact. And you started first.
"Need I say more?"
Only if you want to make some relevant fucking point.
I only apologise for being off-topic. The topic of antimatter is exhausted for me and I'll say no more about it.
If you want to be listened to, do science, and that means give some evidence,NOT proclaim "opinion", because opinion means fuck all here.
"You keep talking about published science as if it’s fact. They’re only accepted as such in the absence of alternative theories."
There's a huge difference between theories (published or not), and experimental evidence repeated thousands of times across centuries with the same result, thus becoming observational fact! You seem to not be able to differentiate those two. Observational facts ARE reality. Theories try to best model those facts and get predictive outcomes. The closer that prediction is to observation, the more value a theory has.
It's easy and alluring to be hooked on your own theory instead of some other one, even if you know that facts are different than what your theory says. But the important thing is that you are aware of the facts. If you don't know the facts, or worse, if you don't even care about them... well, than no rational conversation is possible.
The fact is that for every elementary particle you create or detect, there is a particle with exactly the same mass but reversed charge, lepton number etc.. that you can create/detect as well, but which anihilates when in contact with it's counter part. That's not theory, that's experimental fact.
You can call particles "fruitloops" in your own theory, and give them all kinds of properties or symmetryes.. 2..4..256.. who cares... reality is what matters.
If your theory doesn't have particles of same mass and opposite properties to regular host of particles that make up our physical world... then it's your theory that's wrong, not the reality. And to paraphrase Feynman who you like so much: "If you're not happy with the reality of this Universe... go to some other one, it's your problem."