Research at CERN will attempt to examine direct evidence of the way antimatter atoms interact with gravity
The atoms that make up ordinary matter fall down. Will antimatter atoms fall up? Do they experience gravity in the same way that normal atoms do or is there also something called anti-gravity?
These questions have puzzled physicists for a long time, says Joel Fajans of the US Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories. According to the speaker, this is due to the fact that "it is an unlikely event." For antimatter to fall up we will need a fundamental change in our perspective on physics and a rethinking of how our universe works."
So far, all the evidence that antimatter behaves in regards to gravity just like normal matter is indirect evidence, therefore Fajans and his colleague Jonathan Wurtele are both faculty members at the accelerator at Berkeley Labs and the Division of Fusion Research, and professors of physics at the University of California at Berkeley - and friends In the Alpha Basran experiment, the judges decided to use the anti-hydrogen studies they were conducting to deal with the question directly. If the interaction of gravity with anti-atoms is unexpectedly strong, they estimate that the anomaly will be detectable in the data already available at Alpha about 434 anti-atoms captured by the particle accelerator's sensors at the axis.
The first results that measured the ratio between the known gravitational mass of the anti-hydrogen and its known inertial mass did not resolve the question. far from it. If an anti-hydrogen atom falls down, its gravitational mass will be up to 110 times greater than its inertial mass. If it falls up, its gravitational mass should be at most 65 times greater than its inertial mass.
What the research did show is that antimatter mass measurement is possible, using an experimental method that will allow greater precision in the future. They presented the methods they worked with in the April 30, 2013 edition of the journal Nature.
How do you measure the fall of an anti-atom?
The alpha experiment creates anti-hydrogen atoms by combining one anti-proton with one positron (or anti-electron), in a strong magnetic trap. When the magnet is turned off, the anti-atoms soon touch the normal atoms that make up the trap walls and are ionized with a flash of energy, thus indicating the place and time they hit the wall. In principle, if the experimenters knew the exact position and speed of the anti-atom at the moment the trap was turned off, all they would have to do is measure how long it takes for it to fall against the wall.
However, Alpha's magnetic field did not turn off immediately. Almost 30 milliseconds pass before the field fades to almost zero. In the meantime, the zakims occur all along the walls of the trap at times and places that depend on the details of the anti-atoms but without the possibility of knowing their positions, velocities and initial energies.
Wortel explains: "Particles that are slow to escape are the ones that had the lowest energy, so the effect of gravity is more evident on them, but there were only a few of them, 23 out of 343 of the antiatoms escaped after the echo was turned off for 20 milliseconds."
Fajans and Wortel went on to enlist the help of their colleagues at Alpha and Berkeley to compare simulations with their data and separate the effects of gravity from those of magnetic field strength and particle energy. However, statistical uncertainty still remains.
"If there is such a thing as anti-gravity?? Based on the free fall experiments conducted so far, it is impossible to say yes or no," says Fajans. "This is the first word, and certainly not the last."
Does anti matter fall up? An experiment at CERN may answer the question. (Credit: Illustration by Chukman So), published on the Alpha Bessern experiment website http://alpha.web.cern.ch/
The Alpha experiment is currently being upgraded to Alpha-2 and accuracy testing may be possible within one to five years. The anti-atoms will be laser-cooled to reduce their energy while in the trap, and the magnetic field will decay more slowly when the trap is turned off, so the number of low-energy events can be increased.
The questions that physicists and non-physicists have been wondering about for over 50 years will be the subject of a test that will be not only direct but also definitive.
98 תגובות
If antimatter is negative mass then it should fall up because that's what the gravity formula says
And if he doesn't reject it, then it's not anti-matter, it's something else
M'
See your response what 10.5
"Obviously, "ghost" is not the name of a person in any country.
It's a nickname used by imposters who don't dare speak for themselves."
As you rightly said, "the little bunny" is a very nice nickname, and I don't think you would blame a little bunny for impersonating 🙂 And whether a ghost believes in God or not, I don't think it has any relevance.
And don't think that I justify using different nicknames and different IP addresses. But sorry for inciting the interesting topic you were dealing with. Please continue.
Thank you Ehud and Israel. And this is the hidden truth: we still don't know what causes the mass-related phenomena. The closest we have come is the circular definition mass=energy=mass=energy=...
I don't know what he said in the lecture. I was not there. I can only
To guess that he was talking about a theory of quantum gravity that currently does not exist.
sympathetic.
About a year ago I attended a lecture by EDMUND BERTSCHINGER, head of the physics department at MIT, one of the topics of which was as he defined:
Scientists do not know the cause of nature's most obvious phenomena - gravity.
How does this stack up with conformal gravity, MOND, and other theories of gravity?
Conformal gravitation is an extension of general relativity based on the assumption that symmetry
The basic one is conformal symmetry of the metric. The original idea is Will's but Mannheim developed
The same for the last 25 years. The theory is a theory based on fourth-order derivatives (in contrast
second order in general relations). Recently Manheim and O'Brien were able to match the rotation speed of
141 galaxies without dark matter. In addition, conformal gravitation also addresses the problem of the cosmological constant
From the symmetry of the theory the cosmological constant has to reset itself.
Thank you Ehud (with a slight reservation from the accusation 🙂 )
Can you tell/bring a link about conformal gravitation?
jubilee
If you read my answer to Zvi and the answer I wrote to you and Zvi carefully you will see
I don't necessarily support MOND, I claim that there are problems with the current theory
which includes dark matter. The mention of MOND was in the context of the acceleration scale
The characteristic that appears in the theory that indicates that there are characteristic scales
that appear in different galaxies and indicate that there may be a basic mechanism that can
explain all results.
If you are already pushing me into a corner and asking me to choose a particular theory
Which I support I would point to conformal gravitation.
I will not list here my reservations about Ehud's conclusions because I have done so many times in the past.
In my opinion, dark matter is an excellent explanation for the observed phenomena and in fact the only one of all the models that have ever been on the table that works with you.
Regarding the question of SAFKAN :
As I have written many times in the past, the non-violence of dark matter has several confirmations, one of the best of which is obtained from the observations of the Slingshot cluster ( Bullet cluster )
sympathetic,
First, thank you for your time. I hate to answer you briefly, but I sincerely appreciate your seriousness.
two things:
1. MOND does not explain the phenomenon of gravitational contraction.
2. The correction proposed by Milgrom comes to give an ad hoc explanation, and in this respect it is like the dark matter hypothesis.
Zvi and Yuval
I'm sorry my answer is blocked for now I hope to be later
be released
Zvi and Yuval
I will make some general claims as to why I believe there is a problem with dark matter and I will be happy to elaborate on each
One of them.
First the dark matter is intended to allow us to continue to hold to the standard concept of gravitation
which includes the theory of relativity and its relative to Newtonian physics. Theoretically we know
Because general relativity does not fit in with quantum theory, so it is reasonable to assume that one of the theories will change or
will be replaced and in my opinion this already shows a certain problem in general relations (although the problem is in a high energy field).
Differentiating the problem with dark energy can be solved without renouncing general relativity but by introducing a cosmological constant that if
value we can argue that there is a problem (if a discrepancy of 60 orders of magnitude can be called a problem).
Dark matter is therefore intended to allow us to believe in general relativity, but is dark matter indeed a scientific theory?
Or just an invention like the website that allows us to continue to hold a certain perception?
1. There is no direct evidence of dark matter, the particles that make it up have not been observed in the laboratory.
2. There is no basic theoretical motivation for dark matter, its entire existence is to explain inconsistencies
in observations.
3. The dark matter theory has no predictions. Adjusting the amount of dark matter is done specifically for each
Galaxy means fine tuning.
4. It is not clear what is the criterion that can rule out the existence of this dark matter, contrary to the requirement of
Popper.
Regarding observational evidence showing that another theory should probably be preferred instead of the standard gravitational model combining dark matter and dark energy.
1. There are correlations in the observations, for example the Tully-Fisher relation, which are difficult for a dark matter model to deal with.
2. There is a characteristic acceleration scale that appears in the context of rotation speeds in galaxies as well as a cosmological scale.
This is the characteristic acceleration scale of MOND that can also be obtained from multiplying the Hubble constant by the speed of light.
In addition to all this there are problems to obtain a reasonable model of astronomical observations using dark matter. The intention is that the model of galaxy formation under the influence of dark matter does not fit the observations.
"We currently don't have a model that explains the observations and the field is in trouble." But the observations are clear and cannot be argued with. And if the "problem in which the field is located" stems from the lack of a model, then one is built.
deer
Your words imply as if it has been proven that the dark matter is not baryonic matter at a low temperature (it is said, for example, the helium that surrounds the galaxies). Is there *direct* proof for the claim that excludes baryonic matter at low temperature as the "dark matter"?
Claiming that it is not baryonic matter at low temperature because it contradicts accepted cosmological models is not a direct proof (but a circular proof). Ehud's attack (if I understand) is on the reliability of these models as a whole.
sympathetic,
I honestly do not understand why you say these things and I would like you to explain.
As far as I know, the assumption regarding the existence of dark matter is common knowledge in cosmology, therefore, given that we both do not understand enough about the subject, it seems right to me to adopt the popular opinion, and this, to my understanding, is clearly the hypothesis regarding the existence of dark matter. It is important to note that when there is something really unclear, such as dark energy, there is a very clear statement by the scientific community that the existing knowledge is far from sufficient.
For the sake of full disclosure, I say that I do not come from the field of elementary particles and it is possible that you know about the existence of theoretical problems to explain the existence of dark matter from this field - if so I would honestly like to hear.
Another small note:
The claim that they have been looking for the dark matter particle for more than 40 years is wrong and misleading, since for many years it was not at all clear that this substance is not simply baryonic matter at a low temperature, real experiments to find the dark matter are much newer.
Orty:
I thought not to respond, but still: the thing you describe as "this is what it was" is not what it really was.
You didn't attack anyone's Nick Nims at all.
The reason I thought I wouldn't comment is that I'm pretty sure you knew that when you wrote your comment.
sympathetic! Do you disbelieve in the truth of the findings that led to the assumption of the existence of a hidden mass? And if they are acceptable to you, do you have another nickname for them?
deer
I will try to write more later on why I believe that there is a serious problem with the assumption of dark matter, but the reasoning is that there is not
Another model that can explain the observations is not a measure of the correctness of dark matter.
"That a person with common sense who is not involved in the field but is endowed with a healthy non-conspiratorial skepticism, would prefer the assumption of the existence of dark matter. Certainly when the second option is tensor and biscalar fields, meanwhile devoid of physical intuition, which contradict much more logical assumptions such as the fundamental homogeneity of space."
In my opinion, a person with common sense will understand that we currently do not have a model that explains the observations and that the field is in trouble and not
Since there is no sufficient alternative to dark matter it is necessarily true.
For more than forty years, they have been looking for the particle that can make up the particle that makes up the dark matter without
Success (in addition to the fact that the latest experiments at Cern apparently rule out the existence of supersymmetry).
Zvi, please don't put me in the same bow as the dark matter fools. Not only am I convinced of its existence, but I also predicted its phenomena a long time ago. The dark matter behaves exactly like in the model I built 35 years ago.
Ehud and Yuval,
Your treatment of dark matter as a crazy idea of scientists is not serious and is more appropriate for other writers on the site.
As of today, there really isn't a good competing explanation for the existence of dark matter:
Revised gravitation theory (Mond)' remains on the margins and has difficulty explaining new results. Its relativistic version, TeVeS, is very problematic and does not maintain momentum conservation (all this for flat rotation curves!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor%E2%80%93vector%E2%80%93scalar_gravity
Compared to such peppered explanations, which encounter countless problems and inconsistencies with observations, there is the idea of dark matter - the idea is simple:
It is known that there is matter that does not participate in the strong interaction - what if there is matter that does not also participate in the electromagnetic interaction - this matter will be exactly the dark matter that the cosmologists are talking about and as soon as you assume such a thing, you get excellent explanations for a great many phenomena, including phenomena that were observed only after theoretical predictions were given.
It is clear that there is no proof of its existence and it is good that there are people who try to test alternative options as well, but until it is proven otherwise, it would be true that a person with common sense who is not involved in the field but is endowed with a healthy non-conspiratorial skepticism, would prefer the assumption of the existence of dark matter. Certainly when the second option is tensor and biscalar fields, meanwhile devoid of physical intuition, contradicting much more logical assumptions such as the fundamental homogeneity of space.
And as for experimental confirmation - hints of its existence have already been found - it's not five sigma yet, but give it time.
Regarding God:
In fact, the abandoned debate between the obligees and the negators is not whether there is a creator for the world, since it is agreed on almost everything that the world exists, but whether the creator is intelligent or not. Today, the main debate about the metaphysics of the universe is between two basic approaches: between those who hold that the universe began with something simple and between those who hold that the universe began with an intelligent creator. Although it is difficult to explain how a complex universe was created by itself from a simple nucleus - out of nothing, in fact - it is much more difficult to explain how a complex being such as an intelligent creator was created. Although we do not understand, as of now, how the universe was created, it is almost completely clear that the assumption that it was created by an intelligent creator does not solve anything but only complicates things. During the accumulation of scientific knowledge in the hands of humanity, and the ease of access to it, the proportion of those who deny the version of the intelligent creator is increasing. Most of the religions that exist today are anchored in the belief in an intelligent creator, and when the power of the intelligent creator is undermined, the power of these religions may also be undermined. However, humanity and religion live in symbiosis, and more than a person holds religion, religion strengthens him. Under these circumstances, I foresee the formation of "scientific" religions devoid of God (and I am not talking about Buddhism, because there is a belief in reincarnation which is even more complicated).
On antimatter and dark matter:
The name "antimatter" is not a good term, since antimatter is actually matter for everything. A more accurate term is "anti-particle". The matter in the universe arranges itself in different ways which are expressed, among other things, in particles. If two different particles ionize each other then they are anti each other. For arbitrary reasons we decide to classify particles known to us as matter and call the particles corresponding to them antimatter. For example, in an electron-positron pair we refer to the positron as an anti-electron but do not usually call the electron an anti-positron.
Not so with dark matter. Today we don't know enough about him to determine how he is organized (Ehud does not believe in his existence at all. Ehud! I would appreciate it if you could provide an organized reason for your anti-belief ☺ ). We do not know about particle structures of dark matter and therefore the existence of anti-particles-dark matter, as of now, is only a fantasy - maximum science fiction.
Michael, you are right. People should be able to express themselves anonymously. Is there a reason to descend to such a low level of attacking the "nick-names" that someone chose? That's all I said. In addition, it's a shame that serious discussions boil down to sayings like "I refuted you, are you embarrassed?" as we have seen. It's horribly childish!
I don't understand why Orti gets down on personal lines. Instead of responding to what I say he just blasphemes.
Michael
You write:
"In my opinion, Israel does not know about it because it was automatically blocked by the site and was never shown (therefore it is not clear to me what his claim is based on that some of the comments were censored)."
My entire intervention in the discussion was when Rafaim, until then still anonymous (Aalek, I and others identified him by the style of writing and he did not deny it), in order to sharpen his point in arguing with you, mentioned me and my "clumsy" riddles.
After I responded as I did, he responded a second time with the phrase I usually use about him.
These two comments of his have been deleted.
And speaking of riddles, where are your famous riddles? Maybe to lighten the weight of the discussion a little, you will give us nice puzzles in physics and mathematics?
I am willing to contribute my humble part by reconstructing those cumbersome puzzles of mine. At the time, after an exhausting and arduous discussion of those puzzles, I claimed that if you had been present you would have solved each puzzle in five minutes and two together in seven.
Orty:
No one is required to identify themselves.
This is a fact (and ignore the question of whether a link to a site that you manage is identification, since you could link to a site that you do not manage as many do and no one bothers to find out who manages what in the links that people put next to their names).
You are also not required to identify yourself and even if you mentioned this site and even if it is identification in your eyes - no one required you to do so.
Nissim does not use an anonymous name but his name, but even if he had consistently identified himself as the little rabbit, no one would have forced him to behave differently.
The claims that were made were towards identifying with alternate names or not identifying at all (which is reflected in the appearance of the name "anonymous user (unidentified)") and towards the constant exchange of fictitious email addresses and IP addresses
The subject was well explained.
Michael Rothschild, see my father's response:
"Orti, Nissim explained to you that he identified himself to me."
By the way, clicking on my name will take you to the group I manage on Facebook. I'm not hiding anything.
I understand that the rules of the site try to prevent the use of multiple anonymous names, but when I see that a certain writer is attacked for being anonymous while another writer is "protected", it seems like hypocrisy to me. In addition, the same user lowered the level of discourse that developed into petty and insulting arguments instead of intelligent dialogue. The fact that such a user is "protected" bothers me and that's why I wrote what I wrote, so that the editor of the site can see where the wind is blowing.
sympathetic:
The thought of the purification seems correct to me, but the idea of clusters of matter and clusters of anti-matter fascinates me.
Already when I presented the idea of anti-dark matter in the intergalactic medium, I said that it does not sufficiently solve the question of the (imbalance) between matter and anti-matter (the basis of my dissatisfaction was the fact that this idea only offers dark anti-matter and not normal anti-matter) and as soon as I thought about clusters Anti-matter I realized that there is actually an idea here that can solve both problems - both that of the expansion of the universe and that of the balance between matter and anti-matter.
As far as I know there is no observational way to determine whether a galaxy is made of matter or antimatter. the reasons
Against the fact that distant galaxies are made of antimatter are those that I already mentioned: galaxies are not really isolated
And for matter to be truly isolated it has to be part of a huge cluster of galaxies, otherwise we would see the radiation
which is the result of the massive release of energy in the ionization of matter and antimatter. There is no reasonable model that can explain
How did matter separate from antimatter at the beginning of the universe. In very early stages according to the accepted cosmological model
All the matter in the universe is in a very high density, that is, in a small volume, and in order for galaxies to be made of antimatter, there was a separation
Matter from antimatter occur at an earlier stage.
I do not agree with you regarding your claim "just as there are dark matter clusters in galaxies and their clusters - so it is possible that there are anti-dark matter clusters between the clusters." As far as I know there are no Apple clusters between galaxies otherwise we would have identified them by mistake
I was heavy (in addition to the fact that I don't believe in dark matter). In addition, dark matter (if there is such a thing) is fundamentally different from antimatter which reacts by ionizing with matter and therefore it is not essentially dark (so it cannot hide) therefore there is no analogy
Between what dark matter is capable of and what antimatter is capable of. The matter in the universe is not as isolated as we think
sometimes. There is intergalactic matter and gas clouds between galaxies.
Orty
As far as I know there is no need for you to reveal any of your personal details. At most you may ever be required in the future to provide your email as a condition for commenting on the forums. Since it is possible to use a free e-mail, you can always use your e-mail that you do not use significantly, so in practice you are anonymous (unless you use a nickname that you used on another site where you discovered personal details).
incidentally.
Aliens of the advanced type can detect who you are even if you try to hide your identity, they have a radiation detector that works through the internet network straight to your brain. Just them.
Orty
What's happening to you? My name is Nissim since my birthday (and I was told long before that). I don't represent anyone but myself. My e-mail is my name, and I did not hide it from the site.
I stand by everything I said and you have not been able to contradict anything I said.
Orty:
Do you know of anyone whose name is required to be disclosed?
Did you reveal your name?
As soon as you appeared under a fake name (and admitted it) and changed IP every second, this is the behavior of a scoundrel.
Orti, Nissim explained to you that he identified himself to me.
sympathetic:
And on another thought:
Do we have a way of knowing if the distant galaxy clusters are not, in fact, clusters of antimatter?
Thank you, Ehud.
Regarding the isotropy - I don't think there is a contradiction here - just as the matter (including the dark) was concentrated in clusters of different orders of magnitude - it is possible that so is the antimatter (including the dark).
Just as there are clusters of dark matter in galaxies and their clusters - so it is possible that there are clusters of anti-dark matter between the clusters.
The number of collisions is a function of the distance between the clusters and if the scenario I describe is correct - it is likely that there were many more of these in the distant past and their number has faded to almost zero due to the separation of the matter and antimatter clusters.
I must point out that as soon as I thought about it I noticed a similarity between this idea and an idea once proposed by Milgrom about a parallel universe in which the matter in it and the matter in our universe operate in reverse gravity.
http://stwww.weizmann.ac.il/G-JUNIOR/weizmann-paper/58/5.html
my father
Regarding the site rules, are certain users protected from this, such as Nisim, while others are required to reveal their identity? To all the readers, referring to a miracle talkbackist leads to a disproportionate argument as in the above example
https://www.hayadan.org.il/recicled-alien-from-suruys-030513/#comments
It is sad that people like him are protected by the editor while others are criticized for their desire to remain anonymous.
A sub-level of a talkbackist, he may even be part of the website team tasked with navigating to the places the editor wants to go.
מ
I am far from being an authority on the subject, so my opinion must be taken with limited liability. If I understand correctly, you are not interested
to explain the expansion of the universe through the reality of antimatter but to explain the acceleration of the universe by their existence
of antimatter deposits.
First of all, the assumption that underlies cosmology today (it has an Empiric foundation) is the assumption of homogeneity and isotropy
The existence of antimatter deposits in certain parts of the universe contradicts this view. Second, the background radiation shows us that there are correlations between different regions of the sky, which indicates that the universe was in thermodynamic equilibrium at some point, and therefore the model that assumes a large amount of antimatter is obliged to explain where the antimatter was in the early universe. Although the deduction is that antimatter is isolated from matter in general we should still expect that there will be
Collisions between them and the amount of energy that will be released in such an event is enormous. In all the observations made so far, no
They discovered events in which such an amount of energy is released.
Bottom line, it seems to me that the model you propose is unlikely, but as I explained, I am not an expert in the field.
Belizovsk*
Just so I understand correctly:
Are you calling me a junkie?
R.H. Rafai.M
I tried to understand your position.
I apologize for that
sympathetic:
Another attempt to overcome the scavenger effect:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/first-direct-evidence-of-how-atoms-of-antimatter-interact-with-gravity-05051/comment-page-2/#comment-419725
It is quite clear that religion is a 'sensitive' topic, but I have no interest in discussing religion with you. that's it.
I just asked….. we are sensitive………
To you I can simply answer: no.
Please don't start talking to me.
R.H. Rafai.M
do you believe there is a god
And regarding "religiousness":
I have no idea what you're talking about.
I have never been religious.
But an affinity for tradition....definitely there is and there is.
Maybe I seem like a religious person to you, but I think it's only because you are completely turned from head to toe by talking about religion and religious people, therefore, you must have thought that I am also religious. (And that's why you also started talking to me at the time as if I were religious).
M'
As you were told.
And without saying too much, so as not to make you confused, just release the last comment and let others judge where I was right and where you were wrong.
Avi Belzovsky
Machal is wrong.
But you can keep thinking he's right.
Ghost, please don't start the pranks and identity switching again. I read the argument between you, and Michael is absolutely right. What's more, Michael appears by his real name and you don't appear by your real name either, but by an alias and also variously as anonymous. This is against the site rules.
jubilee:
I really don't know what to do with this bother.
Should I agree with his false claims (including personal ones) and keep quiet?
I really feel very uncomfortable with this conversation but I don't think I have a choice.
The story is interesting because my history with him is long.
He started to act here on the border of religiosity - almost like a frying pan and then I argued with him and in the end he started to see the light and for a long time he would go out in knightly battles to protect me from attacks that he himself took before he realized what was happening.
Now it seems to me that the disease has returned and I don't know if I have the energy to heal (from the tongue of a ghost) him again.
There really is another (one and only) comment of his that was blocked.
This is the last comment he responded to and I don't think Israel knows about it because it was blocked by the site automatically and was never displayed (therefore I am not clear on what his claim that some of the comments were censored is based on).
In any case - this comment does not change the picture and I have no intention of releasing it. If my father wants - let him release.
jubilee
Some comments have been censored, so you don't see the whole picture.
And to your question: As far as I know, particles and charges always come in pairs, although it could be interesting if the same "polygamy" you suggested existed. The exception is the force of gravity which we know only attracts, the proposal to correct this historical injustice, hence our articles.
What I think is interesting in the article is the expected and huge difference between the masses of inertia and gravity.
Napoleon, Julius Caesar and Genghis Khan together pale at the ego battles taking place here. Is it physics?
And Tamm's question: does every substance have only one anti-matter or is "polygamy" possible? Is a photon created in every matter-antimatter encounter? If so then it seems to me that it is not perfect antimatter since a photon, however neutral it may be, is an entity that can be distinguished.
Well I'm going to bed.
To this day I've never dreamed of ghosts and I'm building on that tonight too because otherwise sleep will exhaust me too
As I clearly showed in my words - the one who took their words out of context is precisely you (or do you call the misleading omission of the middle of the discussion by another name?).
Of course, you didn't talk about poker in connection with the distribution of the cards, and the misrepresentation as if that's what you meant (and as if there's a reason why you'll get better cards) is nothing but ridiculous twisting.
This is my opinion and I hope you enjoy reading it
You can take that as a compliment. Your private matter.
Statistically if I had the winning hand more times than you, then it doesn't matter if you know how to lie or not, very simply mine will have more wins than you.
In general, I see that you chose to take things out of context and present them as if you were right in the end..
They messed up with you.
But your last comments resemble the behavior of a person who scratches his right ear with his left hand and his left ear with his right hand.
And thanks for the compliment about the poker thing.
I admit that I am not capable of lying like you.
And your curiosity, ghosts, crosses all limits:
The order of things was this:
In this response:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/first-direct-evidence-of-how-atoms-of-antimatter-interact-with-gravity-05051/comment-page-2/#comment-419677
When you identified yourself as the "Holy Spirit" you really wrote "It is quite clear to everyone here (at least I believe so), that R.H. Refai.m is not a legitimate name in any country."
I answered this in this response:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/first-direct-evidence-of-how-atoms-of-antimatter-interact-with-gravity-05051/comment-page-2/#comment-419696
As follows: "It is clear that "ghost" is not the name of a person in any country."
You answered this in this response:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/first-direct-evidence-of-how-atoms-of-antimatter-interact-with-gravity-05051/comment-page-2/#comment-419726
as follows: ” not true.
"Spirit" in the sense of "soul" or "soul" and the word "ghosts" are already mentioned in your book.
And I answered that here:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/first-direct-evidence-of-how-atoms-of-antimatter-interact-with-gravity-05051/comment-page-2/#comment-419736
the following: "Can you point to someone in any country called a ghost?"
If not, then your claim that my words are not true is a false claim."
You just put heads and tails together leaving out the middle to mislead the public.
And that's perfectly fine, Michael.
You are welcome to express your opinion at any time. I'm sure everyone (including me) will be happy to read.
Not everyone has to agree with everyone. That's how it is in nature. what should we do?
So you think I'm ashamed to identify myself.
so you think
sympathetic:
Since there are those who care about drowning the discussion in garbage and you may have missed the response I directed to you, I am directing you to this response now in the hope that the flood will stop. If it doesn't stop, I'll find an opportunity to refer you to her again or I'll send you an email:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/first-direct-evidence-of-how-atoms-of-antimatter-interact-with-gravity-05051/comment-page-2/#comment-419725
What I say is true and what I have said all along is true and all along I have only addressed the matter.
I did not say that I require you to identify yourself in any way.
I only said that the identification with Nick stems from a fear of true identification and that in the present case the fear probably stems from shame because it has no other reason.
I told you (and others told you too) that the exchange of nicknames is not cultural and I add what I'm sure those others also meant - that the complete lack of identification is also not cultural.
I repeat - I do not require you or anyone else to behave in a civilized manner and I do not require you or anyone else not to be ashamed - just as I do not require the tiger to turn his cronies.
There are things that certain people are simply not capable of and there is no point in demanding the same things from them.
I'm just expressing my opinion about your behavior.
M*
Here's what I wrote:
"It's pretty clear to everyone here (at least I believe so), that R.H. Rafai.m is not a legitimate name in any country."
Here is what you wrote:
“Can you point to someone in any country called a ghost?
If not, then your claim that my words are not true is a false claim."
There is no need to argue about truth and lies,
Let's just agree that if you, Israel Shapira, and I were playing poker together, you would fly first..
M'
Beyond the body of the commenter, you did not address my response at all. Whether thanks or no thanks.
Once again I explain to you:
You are wrong, of course. And this has nothing to do with fear of identification, at all.
You want to tell me that I have to identify myself?
And what about others? Can they continue to use Nick?
Is that what you want to say? Only if I get it right.
And also what you said in your last anonymity is not serious.
You are trying to "contradict" a claim I made with things that don't belong at all.
Can you name someone in any country called a ghost?
If not, then your claim that my words are not true is a false claim.
By the way - I did you a favor and spoke about the name "Ruch Rafaim" and not about the name "R.H. Rafa.Yim" which you adopted after the original nickname you chose for yourself was blocked due to uncivilized reactions that did not stop.
Veterans of the site remember this.
Ghosts:
It is related to the fear of direct and honest identification - even if you don't admit it.
Sometimes it is necessary to allow this in the case that things written about the owners can cause them to act unfairly outside the virtual space. Therefore there is no such requirement, but this does not change the fact that it stems from a fear of identification.
Since the interlocutors here are not dominant, there is no need for interest and therefore the only motive for not identifying can be shame.
This is of course added to the fact that it is really uncivilized and in all the discussion here the first (and only) revelation of uncivilizedness is the way you identify yourself.
M'
Not true.
"Spirit" in the sense of "soul" or "soul" and the word "ghosts" are already mentioned in your book.
There is one interesting thing about the antigravity of antimatter.
In fact, if it exists, then matter will attract matter and antimatter and matter will attract antimatter while matter and antimatter repel each other.
What's interesting about this is that it could explain the expansion of the universe by inventing clusters of anti-dark matter.
This can (albeit to a lesser extent) also explain the fact that we hardly ever encounter antimatter in our environment.
sympathetic:
I know you don't like the idea of dark matter in general, but how about the above?
It is clear to me that this is not related to shame but to the culture of discussion. Explain that to Michael Rothschild.
As you saw, there was no discussion culture once he started bluffing. But even then the nickname was irrelevant to the substance of the matter. The nick was only relevant to the respondent's body.
And now answer seriously: does it really bother you that this comment is anonymous?
Ghost
It is customary in the forum to use a permanent nickname in every comment in the forum. It's not related to shame but to discussion culture (you can't have a dialogue with someone who doesn't have a fixed nickname, avoiding a fixed nickname is "hit and run" behavior). For this reason, there are forums that require registration with a permanent account as a condition for participation in the forums.
Apart from a permanent nickname, you don't have to provide any other personal details.
Ghosts:
It is clear that "ghost" is not the name of a person in any country.
It's a nickname used by imposters who don't dare to speak for themselves.
I've already explained it several times but - just as it didn't help that I explained the other things several times - this probably won't help either.
And what about the censorship here?
With all due respect, for all your cleverness all the way, you didn't answer a single thing and a half of my response.
You still don't understand what is written. You just missed the point.
And the fact that you didn't understand what I wrote is no reason to run your mouth.
You can keep barking about how stupid I am until tomorrow. This is not what will help you understand the scriptures.
Like I said, let's wait and read the responses of those who do understand more than me and you in quantum physics.
And by the way,
It is quite clear to everyone here (at least I believe so), that R.H. Refai.m is not a legitimate name in any country.
It is actually a corruption of the word ghost. And the use of the specific word is intended to show the nickname with which I chose to identify myself on this site. And what my name is none of your business. that's it.
(What happened from Cal? Did you start censoring? Are you afraid of something? Questions too challenging for you?)
incidentally:
Is your name really R. H. Rafa. Yam?
After all, throughout your comments on the site, you are hiding behind a pseudonym.
Yes - and of course also fake and changing emails and an IP address that changes new to the controllers.
I explained why it looked like you were ashamed. It's because of the dishonorable anonymity.
Did you not read the explanation?
I explained everything I said throughout the discussion and I don't know what your strange reactions are from.
Respond or not, on your behalf or not, with attempts to explain unobserved phenomena or without such attempts - I really don't care.
As you can see (even if you pretend you don't understand) I respond matter-of-factly to both stupid questions and people who don't want to identify themselves.
Machel,
Why should I be ashamed of what I write? After all, I wrote it! If I was ashamed I wouldn't write!
This looks like another evasion attempt on your part.
Good. As you like, even if you say that your last comment was actually a matter-of-fact reference, that is no longer acceptable to me. You are not serious, and you are wasting my time. In any case, there are other people besides you with whom I can discuss physics and mathematics at a no less level, so I am not bothered by the fact that we will not talk anymore.
My suggestion is to see what Ehud will write (if he decides to write) on the subject, and your attitude to his words.
I promise not to interfere.
Successfully.
anonymous:
And by the way - this "effort" thing is strange for another reason.
The results do not require the gravitational mass to be 110 or 65 times greater than the persistence mass. These are only barriers or - in other words - the results only allow for more space in the positive area than in the negative area.
If at all one wants to conclude something from this, it is that the range of possible relationships between the mass of gravity and the mass of persistence tends to be in the positive range.
Add to that the fact that, as the article points out, there is also quite a bit of indirect evidence for the absence of a difference and my claim about trying to explain a phenomenon that was not observed can perhaps be replaced by a claim about trying to explain a phenomenon that was almost disproved.
By the way, why are you anonymous? Do you think you'll write something you might be ashamed of?
anonymous:
Quote from article:
"The first results that measured the ratio between the known gravitational mass of the anti-hydrogen and its known inertial mass did not resolve the question. far from it. If an anti-hydrogen atom falls down, its gravitational mass will be up to 110 times greater than its inertial mass. If it falls up, its gravitational mass should be at most 65 times greater than its inertial mass.”
In other words (actually in the same words) - the planners of the experiment think that the experiment did not solve the question, but you chose one of the solutions (which, as mentioned - has not yet been observed) and tried to find an explanation for it.
This is what I keep saying - and I'm right, so nothing I say is justification - those who are right should not be justified.
Personally, I don't think the universe can even make an effort. It follows certain rules and that's it. Any "effort" he makes to act against the laws will fail.
Also any effort by you to vaguely tell me what article you read and which you (who should know what you mean) couldn't find yourself and thereby make me look for the article will fail. If I thought it would contribute something - then maybe I would make an effort - but for now it seems to me to be part of an attempt to explain a phenomenon that was not observed by searching for an article that I don't know what it is and that is simply an excessive demand.
Can't even come up with something original of your own?
Well, anyway, I think you're going to be censored soon. One last rant and you'll be done.
anonymous.
Because you mentioned me (right, just for the hundredth time, did we say obsession?).
I see you are now taking care of more commenters.
A question for you, you who claim to "give a head" to all of us, the ignorant and the stupid:
Has the thought ever occurred to your arrogant mind that maybe the reason you are unable to understand much of what is said here is not "clumsy" phrasing as you say, but a horrendous lack of imagination on your part?
Because of your intelligence, who knows what, you are unable to understand almost any topic in depth?
that because of your broken Hebrew you are not able to distinguish between factual statements and tongue twisters?
that because of your characteristic laziness you always ask others to do the dirty work for you?
Or maybe because the ego fills such a large volume in your already limited brain, there isn't much left for the other brain functions, not even a normal identity and name, which is why you always hide behind the veil of anonymity, with the other cowardly anonymous parasites.
Site parasite treated.
anonymous:
The question I responded to is this:
"My question is does the particle accelerate? Or attracted to gravity?
That is, does the scenario originate in the particle itself or is the particle affected by another field (which is not taken into account) which pulls the particle in its direction."
The question seems to belong to the current posting. There is a reference here to particles and gravity and no other article is mentioned here.
Speculation is raised here regarding the involvement of another field, but since the involvement of any field has not been proven in the experiment - it seems to me irrelevant to start asking about the involvement of another field. It's kind of like asking about God's involvement.
In my response I commented on exactly that.
To which you replied that you wanted to bring up an idea for discussion (and again - to me it's like the idea of bringing God up for discussion on the question of gravitation of anti-particles) and you also bothered to conclude that there are no experts on the matter here (for what matter exactly? For a force whose existence has never been demonstrated? For God? For their particles? Why? !)
As mentioned - this response showed that you did not understand what I was talking about. It is advisable to remember that until that moment the unknown article that you later brought up as an excuse had not been mentioned.
So I said you didn't understand and it really seemed that way to me until this moment because you still haven't answered my question as to why one should invent speculations about an explanation for a phenomenon that has never been observed.
You answered me that I wasn't referring to your words but apart from that mistake (in my opinion) there was nothing in your words so I must have related to your words and realized that I was talking to a baby.
You started to "smarten up" on the term I used "searching for things under the ground" instead of referring to things and I concluded that you didn't understand my words, it just got stronger and stronger.
Then suddenly you came up with a story about another article that you can't find and that you meant in all things.
So let's say I believe you. In any case, you didn't bring any serious data about the article and you suggest that I look for it because you can't find it. Is that your second question? Do you want me to tell you what you mean because you don't know? I ask this because I do not find any other "second question" in your words.
In fact, one question appears here, which is your first response, and it appears to consist of two parts, one of which refers to the undefined difference between "accelerating" and "drawn" and the other is a strange speculative proposal as an explanation for an unobserved phenomenon.
I said it looks like that because if it even refers to that unknown article then I still don't know what it is.
I have nothing to ask because I have already asked everything I could ask in my previous comments and it seems to me that there is no expert here who can tell us what you want to say.
Machel
You are wrong.
But this time you, it seems to me, are also avoiding. And I'll explain why:
I asked 2 questions here.
Following them, you turned to me and told me that you think I missed the point. I explained to you what the questions were, but once again you did not address my questions.
You know exactly where to look and find my questions,
But please don't freak out if you didn't understand something I said.
You are welcome to simply ask the things you did not understand from my words.
And really, let's end this conversation here.
anonymous:
When what is written is a jumble of words that can (perhaps, not for sure) be understood only if you know exactly what you read in the past and what you understood from it and understand that you are not talking about the current article at all, then it is really impossible to understand what is written.
When you add language barriers like "you didn't understand" and "you didn't answer" and who knows what else, it becomes doubly difficult.
So let's end the conversation here.
By the way, the phenomenon I was talking about is an anomaly in the behavior of quarks at very high temperatures.
A phenomenon that was observed and an article on the subject was posted here on the website.
What I asked you to check.
In the context of your words about an unobserved phenomenon.
Machel
I'm sorry you don't understand what is written.
I meant what I wrote.
Because you didn't understand and you didn't answer my questions, so I reworded things, hoping you would understand.
Regarding Yair's plan, the same can be said about underground searches.
If you already know everything, and all you have left is to philosophize with other commenters, then I see no point in it. I'm sorry.
Regarding the photon:
Again, Ehud is right. There is no connection because the photon is not a fermion.
but
You are also right that the photon is relevant because the electron (the result of a photon in some cases) is indeed a fermion.
anonymous:
It's good that you don't write here about Yair Lapid's economic plan.
How exactly do you expect people to guess that when you respond to an article on subject X you are actually referring to subject Y, especially when even in your "clarification" response you do not mention the subject?
So you regret that I didn't refer to the article that even now you don't know what it is?
It can be said that you acted in a way that really guarantees that you will have something to complain about.
And again - you didn't talk about finding an unobserved phenomenon (this has a place in science) but about finding an explanation for an unobserved phenomenon (which makes no sense at all - how about we look for an explanation for the phenomenon of flying elephants?).
sympathetic:
What you wrote in your response was clear to me in advance.
It seems to me, however, that it should be noted that these are two equivalence principles that the proposed theory is supposed to violate (both the equivalence between mass and energy and the equivalence between gravitation and acceleration).
In my opinion, the discussion of the photon is actually relevant to the above illustration.
מ
I will try to explain again why the discussion of the photon is not relevant to the questions that the experiment came to examine. For that I will use
In a narrow definition of the concept of antimatter, according to such a definition an antiparticle and a particle ionize and create a photon. from definition
This can be understood even if the particle and the antiparticle are attracted differently by gravitation, then from symmetry considerations
It can be understood that the photon obtained from the ionization of both will be neutral, there is no reason for it to continue as the particle is attracted or repelled
As is the case with an antiparticle, for this reason it can be argued that from the point of view of the experiment, the photon has no gravitational charge.
In fact, from the ionization of a particle and an antiparticle, two photons are created, not one, but both photons
Ordinary only that they move in opposite directions and are therefore invariant under Schinfenf.
Regarding the principle of equivalence, in my humble opinion the theory that assumes a gravitational difference between antimatter and matter assumes
His violation, I'm sorry, it's possible that it's only a violation of his at the microscopic level and we don't have a theory yet
of quantum gravitation.
In my opinion, the argument in the alternative gravitation theory is that we live in a world where there is very little
Antimatter and therefore our scientific theories were built on the properties of matter and not antimatter. Like the world
In which there are only one type of electric charges (positive for example). A scientist in such a world will write a theory in it
All charges repel each other. Once he discovers negative charges they will also repel each other, but
When he examines the force between opposite charges he will find that it is an attraction.
anonymous:
I'm sorry but you didn't pay attention to what I said.
Do you think it is necessary to look underground for explanations for a phenomenon that has never been observed before?
Blowing water:
The fact that a certain sentence can be written syntactically does not mean that it should be written.
Anonymous user:
I think you missed the point. This is not a phenomenon for which an explanation is being sought, but an attempt to experimentally confirm someone's theoretical speculation. In the meantime, they have not been able to see any special phenomenon, so there is certainly nothing to dig under the ground to look for explanations for it.
My question is does the particle accelerate? Or attracted to gravity?
That is, does the scenario originate in the particle itself or is the particle affected by another field (which is not taken into account) which pulls the particle in its direction.
Yes, but an anti-photon is probably a photon that moves backwards in time, so givitational "repulsion" is possible
Sincerely
and another question:
Doesn't the existence of a mass that is inversely affected by gravity contradict the equivalence between acceleration and gravitation?
sympathetic:
A more comprehensive explanation is needed.
After all, any movement under the influence of gravitation is the result of the curvature of time and space.
Besides, since mass and energy are one and the same - the photon's movement is also affected by its effective mass.
And in general - if the gravitational charge we are talking about is the mass, then the existence of anti-mass also requires the existence of anti-energy, right?
I'll try to re-explain what I meant. The question that arises in the article is whether there are two gravitational "charges". Electrically we have positive and negative charges where a particle has a certain charge and an antiparticle has the opposite charge. A photon has no gravitational charge, the force of gravity acts on it not in relation to its "mass" but as a result of the curvature of time and space. Since the photon is neutral (also gravitationally), the questions raised in the article are not relevant regarding it.
Mark:
Definately not.
The names "up" and "down" of the quarks have nothing to do with what we call these names and certainly have nothing to do with what the article examines.
I think that in quantum versus classical phenomena, Ehud meant up-down phenomena, etc. that characterize the quark particles.
Ehud, you write: "The gravitational force that the photon feels is classical and arises from the curvature of space, therefore one should not expect classical gravity to differentiate between a particle and an antiparticle." The point is that this is exactly what intrigues the researchers according to the article. If it turns out that antimatter falls up, or it turns out that antimatter reacts with gravity more strongly than normal matter "we will be required to fundamentally change our perspective on physics and rethink how our universe works."
sympathetic:
I read once - I don't remember where - but in a place that seemed to me to be reliable - that there is some room for a question and that's why I expressed myself the way I did.
Regarding the question of whether the reference is to quantum phenomena and not to classical phenomena - perhaps - but I did not find a reference to this in the article.
In my opinion, the term "free fall" belongs precisely to classical physics.
What is meant by "if the photon is the antiparticle of itself..." This is not a hypothesis, this is a definition. Two photons cannot ionize and give energy, so the concept of antimatter regarding a photon is only derived from its quantum numbers, i.e. not a hypothesis but a definition. Beyond that, forget that the attraction that the photon feels is classical and arises from the curvature of space, therefore it should not be expected that classical gravity will differentiate between a particle and an antiparticle. The entire test topic that appears in the article is about quantum phenomena.
His own anti-particle? Anti photon? 🙂
Conservation laws of course...
indeed. On the other hand, there is no confirmation for the conventional assumption that photons of different wavelengths react to gravity in the same way. Repetitions of the Eddington experiment show a considerable dispersion of the refraction angle around the value expected according to GR. tend to attribute this to measurement inaccuracies, but I was happy to find that there are also other opinions:
http://vixra.org/abs/1301.0004
If, as assumed, the photon is its own antiparticle, then at least for it it is clear that the particle and the antiparticle are affected by gravity in exactly the same way