Re: Gravitation at Angstrom scales

From: Greysky (greyskynospam_at_sbcglobal.net)
Date: 06/18/04 

Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 06:40:42 GMT

"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:castal$j7m$1@titan.btinternet.com...
>
> "Greysky" <greyskynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:Am0Ac.70$uM.62@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > "Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> > news:cap869$cs0$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
> > >
> > > "Greysky" <greyskynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> > > news:qTQzc.3783$KJ7.3144@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
> > > >
> > > > "Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in
> message
> > > > news:canhqf$do2$7@titan.btinternet.com...
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > [snipped for manageability]
> > > >
> > > > > > > And, yes, the princip[le of equivalence does indeed say
> that
> > > m_G
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > m_I are equal, thus
> > > > > > > m_G = m_I
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The modulus of a quantity is the magnitude of that
> quantity.
> > > > > > > Now please explain what the modulus of an equation might
> mean
> > > > > > > As in
> > > > > > > |G_m = I_m|
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The I_m term (I still like to write it my way, but what the
> > > hey...)
> > > > > > probably doesn't need to be included in the equation
> because
> > > since
> > > > > I first
> > > > > > wrote it, experiments have confirmed that antimatter does
> indeed
> > > > > have a
> > > > > > positive inertial mass, but it doesn't hurt anything to
> leave it
> > > in.
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you still not unsderstand that the modulus of something is
> a
> > > > > property of a signed or complex quantity. An equation is not
> a
> > > signed
> > > > > or complex quantity, it is a relatioship between two or more
> > > > > quantities. A relationship does not have a modulus.
> > > >
> > > > If you put the equivalence principal inside absolute magnitude
> > > signs, does
> > > > anything change?
> > >
> > > Yes. You have changed gold into dross if you do so.
> > > And if, as you claim, (wrongly) that nothing changes by
> surrounding an
> > > equation by modulus signs, why do you do so at all?
> >
> > Any good scientist knows about the correspondence principle.
>
> Of course.
>
> > Any new theory
> > should incorporate all that is known before.
>
> Of course
>
> > One of the solutions does give
> > you the equivalence principle for matter.
>
> One of what solutions?
> The thing which you call an equation, namely |A = B|, is nonsense,
> whatever you may substitute for A and B
> The concept of an equation having a modulus does not exist.
> Could it be possible that you have been intending to say
> |A| = |B| ?

Sure, Franz. You can leave the '=' sign out. The soulution will still come
out the same, however. It's the outcome that really matters not the method
used to reach it.

>
> > > > No. Presently, all we see is positive mass, and positive
> > > > gravity. It would just be a foolish thing to do, and an extra
> waste
> > > of time.
> > > > Now, when they run the antihydrogen expeirments, and *if* they
> see
> > > the
> > > > antihydrogen accelerating against the gravitational field of the
> > > Earth, the
> > > > principle of equivalence will have to be changed some way.
> Inertial
> > > mass
> > > > will also be equal to the opposite of gravitational mass of
> > > antimatter
> > > > because the antihydrogen is moving in the wrong direction. You
> can
> > > argue
> > > > with my nomenclature all day long, but at the end of the day,
> the
> > > equation
> > > > for equivalence for antimatter will be signed.
> > >
> > > > However process you feel
> > > > comfortable in using to get the negative sign for the -m_G term,
> use
> > > it. The
> > > > most simple method is to just take the equivalence principle we
> all
> > > know and
> > > > love and stick it inside some absolute magnitude signs. You can
> now
> > > derive 4
> > > > variations, based on which quantity you decide to sign:
> > > >
> > > > Different variations:
> > > >
> > > > 1) m_G = m_I
> > > >
> > > > 2) -m_G = -m_I
> > > >
> > > > 3) m_G = -m_I and,
> > > >
> > > > 4) - m_G = m_I
> > > >
> > > > Case 1 is the familiar equivalence principle. Case 2 is
> > > mathematically equal
> > > > to case 1. Case 3 implies some type of positive gravitational
> > > matter that
> > > > has a negative inertial mass, and this has never been observed.
> It
> > > also
> > > > violates the conservation of energy, so will most likely never
> be
> > > observed.
> > > > Case 4 is what all the hullabaloo is about. Case 4 is why
> > > establishment
> > > > scientists want to run the antihydrogen experiments.
> > >
> > > Cases 3 and 4 are identical.
> >
> > They are? Please elaborate. Case 3 says the mass has positive
> gravitational
> > and negative inertial mass, and Case 4 says the opposite.
> > They are not the
> > same,
>
> Case 3 says
> m_G = -m_I
> Any equation is invariant with respect to multiplication of both sides
> by the same quantity. Therefore we may multiply both sides by the
> quantity (-1) to yield
> -m_G = m_I
> which is case 4
> You know absolutely zero algebra.

I know enough about math to know it is only a representative language
modeling reality. Just because I can multiply both sides of an equation by
(-1) does not mean reality will oblige me by flipping the sign of a
quantity. Case 3 and Case 4 represent physical quantities that are not the
same. Case 3 specefically deals with particles that have a positive
gravitational mass and a negative inertial mass. Case 4 deals with a mass
that has negative gravitational mass and a positive inertial mass. These
would not be manipulated qantities, but observed quantities. Multiplying by
negative 1 would have no meaning in relation to directly observed physical
quantities. For example, I can multiply electron charge by 1.43 but this has
no effect of the electron charge, does it?

>
> > and as I have said elsewhere, negative inertia has not been
> > observed....unless you know of some spankey new particle recently
> discovered
> > that spontaineously self accelerates...?
>
> You are right. Negative mass has not ever been observed.
> Not even in antiparticles.
>
> > > There are actually only 2 possibilities.
>
> > > > There is no good proof
> > > > showing what type gravity antimatter has.
> > >
> > > If the equivalence principle holds, then your case 1 is the
> correct
> > > one.
> >
> > Yep, and if antihydrogen falls up, then my Case 4 is the one also.
>
> Both cases 3 and 4 will then have occurred. They are the same case,
> dressed up differently.

 Nope. Bothe case 1 and 3 will have been observed to have occured. Case 4
wouldn't apply unless it was directly physically measured.

> >
> > >
> > > > The only real evidence there is
> > > > that there is a difference is the neutrino flux recieved from
> > > supernova
> > > > SN1987A. But the resolution of the experiment is not there -
> > > antineutrinos
> > > > may have been delayed by as much as 12 seconds. Because of the
> > > nature of
> > > > neutrinos, this is no proof one way or the other.
> > >
> > > So why did you raise this particular one?
> > > It was a non starter, because the neutrinos and the antineutrinos
> came
> > > from different reactions, and were not emitted simultaneously.
> >
> > I bring it up because some feel the antineutrinos can be used as a
> proof for
> > the gravitational polarity of antimatter. Being as honest as I can,
> I
> > mention it.
> >
> > >
> > > > > > Gravitational mass, however is a different story (if the
> > > > > anti-hydrogen
> > > > > > experiments show what I think they will show). The
> equivalence
> > > > > principle for
> > > > > > matter is I_m = G_m, and the equivalence principle for
> > > antimatter
> > > > > will
> > > > > > be I_m = -G_m.
> > > > >
> > > > > I take it you mean
> > > > > m_I = - m_G
> > > > >
> > > > > If so, you have no basis whatsoever other than wishful
> thinking
> > > for
> > > > > saying so.
> > > > >
> > > > > > They will both have the same absolute magnitudes, but work
> > > > > > 180 degrees out of phase.
> > > > >
> > > > > What in hell's name is this phase about which you are talking?
> > > > > I am talking about mass. Mass does not have a phase.
> > > > >
> > > > > When you solve |I_m = G_m| for sign,
> > > > >
> > > > > That is impossible, since what you have written is totally
> lacking
> > > in
> > > > > meaning.
> > > >
> > > > I like to speculate. To me that is what science is all about,
> not
> > > just
> > > > scribbling down dead equations. My ideas will only lack meaning
> if
> > > it is
> > > > found antimatter has a positive gravity, like normal matter. I'm
> > > willing to
> > > > wait before judging.
> > >
> > > Speculating from a position of ignorance is not particularly
> laudable.
> > >
> > > > > > this is the
> > > > > > solution you get. BTW you also get -I_m = G_m, but we
> haven't
> > > > > observed a
> > > > > > negative inertial mass so I discount it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hey, do you actually know any mathematics at all beyond
> simple
> > > > > > > arithmetic?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why would I use anything more complex than what is called
> for to
> > > > > make my
> > > > > > ideas clear? There is no shame in saying 1+1 = 2, after all.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am not asking you to do anything complicated. I am asking
> you
> > > not
> > > > > to plaster meaningless crap like
> > > > >
> > > > > |A = B|
> > > > >
> > > > > all over the thread.
> > > >
> > > > Again, I am willing to wait before I make that kind of judgment.
> > > |A=B|, as
> > > > you call it, is the simplest way one can refer to the results of
> > > said
> > > > experimental measurements if antihydrogen moves in an unexpected
> > > direction.
> > >
> > > You are talking nonsense.
> > > An equation does not have a modulus at all.
> > >
> > > > It will get more complicated if gravity is stronger that
> > > antigravity, or it
> > > > the two combine to produce a complex motion.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > antimatter is gravitationally antiparallel to matter,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That is a bull*** statement, totally devoid of meaning.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > No it isn't. unlike electic or magnetic fields, gravity
> seems to
> > > be
> > > > > > monopolar. There is no field of gravity flowing from matter
> to
> > > > > antimatter.
> > > > >
> > > > > That is a meaningless statement. Static fields of gravitation
> do
> > > not
> > > > > "flow"
> > > >
> > > > Exactly what I said. There is a mistaken beleif that if we do
> find
> > > > antigravity, then we can compare gravity to electricity or
> > > magnetism, where
> > > > there is a field of gravity just like there exists an electric
> field
> > > > between opposite charges.
> > >
> > > And neither do static electric fields "flow".
> >
> > Right. If antimatter does have antigravity properties, the big
> problem will
> > be to stop people from comparing gravity to electricity.
>
> > The first
> > assumption is that once antigravity is found, you now have a
> situation
> > analogous to electricity, where a gravity field is set up between
> two
> > opposite poles. Interestingly, though, bipolar gravity fields can
> not be
> > ruled out.
> >
> > >
> > > > > > Because of this fact, if we do observe antimatter being
> either
> > > > > > gravitationally attracted to matter, or at best,
> gravitationally
> > > > > neutral, I
> > > > > > am also willing to bet anti matter will be gravitationally
> self
> > > > > repulsive.
> > > > > > Two antihydrogen atoms will, in the absence of other
> interfering
> > > > > forces,
> > > > > > repulse each other - no matter how they react to normal
> matter.
> > > I do
> > > > > not
> > > > > > believe anyone other than me has said that.
> > > > >
> > > > > You are quite right in that last ststement. Nobody to my
> > > knowledge
> > > > > has dredged up that particular piece of crap yet.
> > > > > You have no basis for making such a prediction.
> > > >
> > > > Then you will clearly remember where you heard it first. Good.
> > >
> > > Not really, since one of my ex students was involved in the
> antimatter
> > > experiments at CERN when he was still on my staff. I am actually
> > > totally au fait with that work.
> >
> > Well then, you'll be amongst the first to review the data showing
> > antihydrogen falls up.
>
> Yes.
>
> > When your former students call you up in a panic, you
> > may want to tell them about me - fear, uncertainty, and doubt will
> be
> > replaced by a clarity of vision, written in correct mathematical
> notation no
> > less!
>
> What? Coming from a man who writes bull*** like
> |A = B|
> and also does not know that one may multiply both sides of an equation
> by the same quantity without altering the solutions to the equation?
>
> >
> > >
> > > > > By the way, earlier on I got the impression that you were
> > > maintaining
> > > > > that matter and antimater would repel gravitationally. Why
> have
> > > you
> > > > > changed your mind?
> > > >
> > > > I haven't changed my mind.
> > >
> > > Then please reconcile this, issued by you:
> > > Quote
> > > "Two antihydrogen atoms will, in the absence of other interfering
> > > forces, repulse each other"
> > > Unquote
> > >
> > > That implies that anti hydrogen and hydrogen would attract each
> other.
> > >
> > Why?
>
> If two antihydrogen atoms repel each other, then if you replace one of
> them by a normal hydrogen atom, attraction should result, otherwise
> everything will always repel everything else.

You got it half right. The possibility is that antimatter will always repel
both matter and antimatter. *Maybe*. When they run the antihydrogen
experiments, I would hope for completeness sake, they also measure how two
antihydrogens react to each other.

> >
> > > So where do you stand?
> >
> > There is a certain symmetry that should exist - if it doesn't god
> missed a
> > major penstroke when he built the universe. Gravity attracts,
> antigravity
> > repels. Antimass will not only repel mass, but itself - this is why
> we see
> > no antimatter planets, stars, or galaxies. This is the main reason
> our
> > universe of matter looks like 'swiss cheese' - over time, antimatter
> has
> > pushed matter into shells. This also explains why all the matter and
> > antimatter did not self annihilate when matter first formed when the
> > universe cooled down enough to let mass exist, without needing to
> create a
> > mechanism for assymetrical matter-antimatter production. The
> antimater still
> > is out there, just as many protons as antiprotons. Also, if
> antimatter
> > repelled matter, but at the same time matter was attracted to
> antimatter,
> > then you would have a situation where if you a lump of matter on one
> end of
> > a rod, and antimatter on the other end of the same rod, you would
> have the
> > situation where matter would be chasing the antimatter - spontaneous
> > acceleration without the input of energy. A nice star drive! Too bad
> energy
> > conservation laws rule it out...
>
> I leave that for posterity to read.
> Do remember that your burblings are rtecorede in the Google archives.

Yes! I really hope so! Usenet archives are vast and dated. There will be no
doubt who was the first to describe the results of the antihydrogen
experiments, maybe years before they do them.

>
> > > > But I also think there is a small chance that
> > > > antimatter may be transparent to positive gravity. I'm just
> saying
> > > it is
> > > > minimally possible. It is much more likely antimatter will
> repulse
> > > both
> > > > matter and antimatter.
> > >
> > > What you think on this topic is utterly irrelevant.
> > >
> > And what you think I think on this topic even more so.
>
> Actually, no. I have some knowledge, whereas you have shown yourself
> not only ignorant of what you are talking about, but also unable to
> argue logically.
>
You know Franz, maybe my ideas are rough hewn, and not expressed in the
precise language you have come to expect, but I am not going to let that
stop me. Even though I find conversing (in the informal medium of Usenet
newsgroups) with a crystalline intellect such as yours difficult, I wont
stop because I feel I may eventually learn something of use in my
never-ending quest to better myself. Does that mean I strive to have such a
sharply delineated mind? No... crystal may be beautiful, but it is delicate
and shatters easily.

Greysky

Quantcast