Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
aka CAT

Matter Matters

48 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

Foreword

 

This thread reflects my favorite recent discoveries.  Discussed at length are separate findings that were published in 2016 just before Christmas and near Summer’s end.  Respectively, the reports explain the significance of measuring the light emitted by anti-hydrogen and of detecting a galaxy that is nearly all dark matter.

 

Matter Matters

 

There were, prior to the discovery of non-equilibrium matter, four types of matter-- matter, antimatter, dark matter and negative matter (hypothetically,

  • it has negative mass and negative energy
  • it has a negative gravitational charge and repels normal matter).  

Addressed herein is Antimatter (Part I) and Dark Matter (Part II) by virtue of the facts that, 

- prior to December 2016, experimenters had dreamt for decades of measuring the spectrum of light absorbed by antihydrogen

and, 

- by August 25, 2016, a galaxy whose mass is almost entirely Dark Matter was discovered.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Part I - Antimatter

 

“In 1995, the first antihydrogen was produced by a team led by Walter Oelert at CERN” -- Wikipedia.

=======================================================

Physicists have observed the light spectrum of antimatter for first time

Putting Einstein's special relativity to the test.

 

BEC CREW

20 DEC 2016

 

After two decades of trying, physicists at CERN have reported the first ever measurement of the light emitted by an antimatter atom, revealing that antihydrogen is the exact mirror image of regular hydrogen [... Hence,]

 

 

Einstein's special relatively lives for another day, Adrian Cho for Nature:

 

"Explaining exactly why special relativity requires antimatter to mirror matter involves a lot of math. But in a nutshell, if that mirror relationship were not exact, then the basic idea behind special relativity couldn’t be exactly right.

 

Special relativity assumes that a single unified thing called spacetime splits differently into space and time for observers moving relative to each other. It posits that neither observer can say who is really moving and who is stationary. But, that can’t be exactly right if matter and antimatter don't mirror each other."

 

 

[... This] new way of testing Einstein’s special theory of relativity [...] could help us answer one of the biggest mysteries in modern physics - 

why is there so much more regular matter than antimatter in the Universe? 

If you’re not familiar with the whole "Where is all the antimatter?" problem in physics, here’s some background info.

 

The law of physics predicts that for every particle of regular matter, there’s an antiparticle. So for every negatively-charged electron, there’s a positively charged positron. That means for every regular hydrogen atom, there’s an antihydrogen atom, and just as a hydrogen atom is made up of an electron bound to a proton, an antihydrogen atom is made up of an antielectron (or positron) bound to an antiproton.

 

If an antiparticle happens to find a regular particle, they will cancel each other out, releasing energy in the form of light. This fact creates two rather hefty problems. The first  is that because there’s so much regular matter in the Universe, it’s virtually impossible for physicists to find antimatter in nature [that’s not] annihilated before they even get the chance to start looking.

 

The second problem is why there’s so much more regular matter than antimatter - if our current physics models suggest that an equal amount of regular particles and antiparticles were produced by the Big Bang,  shouldn’t everything in the Universe have cancelled itself out? [...]”

http://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-have-observed-the-light-spectrum-of-antimatter-for-first-time

==========================================================

Ten things you might not know about antimatter 

 

www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/april-2015/ten-thing...Proxy  Highlight

Apr 28, 2015 ... Antimatter is the stuff of science fiction. In the book and film Angels

and Demons, Professor Langdon tries to save Vatican City from an ...

----------------------------------------------------------------

Part II - Dark Matter

 

Dragonfly 44 is a relatively near galaxy that is 99.99% dark matter.  Dim and, thus, overlooked until last summer, the large, elongated and ultra diffuse galaxy is “330 million light years from Earth in the Coma Cluster.”  It, for having so few stars, would have quickly ripped apart without something to hold it together.

 

Astronomers, in determining the amount of dark matter in Dragonfly 44, found it  comparable to our Milky Way Galaxy in two ways.  Each galaxy has both a “halo of spherical clusters of stars” around its core and an overall mass that’s a trillion times that of the Sun.  “Finding a galaxy with the mass of the Milky Way that is almost entirely dark was unexpected,”

said Roberto Abraham, a co-author of 

Scientists Discover Massive Galaxy Made of 99.99 Percent Dark Matter

“Motions of the stars tell you how much matter there is,” [collaborator Pieter] van Dokkum said. “They don’t care what form the matter is, they just tell you that it’s there. In the Dragonfly galaxy stars move very fast. So there was a huge discrepancy: using Keck Observatory, we found many times more mass indicated by the motions of the stars, than there is mass in the stars themselves.” 

"We have no idea how galaxies like Dragonfly 44 could have formed,” Abraham said. "The Gemini data show that a relatively large fraction of the stars is in the form of very compact clusters, and that is probably an important clue. But at the moment we're just guessing."

“This has big implications for the study of Dark Matter,” van Dokkum said. “It helps to have objects that are almost entirely made of Dark Matter so we don’t get confused by stars and all the other things that galaxies have. The only such galaxies we had to study before were tiny. This finding opens up a whole new class of massive objects that we can study.

“Ultimately what we really want to learn is what Dark Matter is,” van Dokkum said. “The race is on to find massive dark galaxies that are even closer to us than Dragonfly 44, so we can look for feeble signals that may reveal a Dark Matter particle--” 

http://www.keckobservatory.org/recent/entry/scientists_discover_massive_galaxy_made_of_99.99_percent_dark_matter

 

 

Edited by aka CAT
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Quote

The law of physics predicts that for every particle of regular matter, there’s an antiparticle. So for every negatively-charged electron, there’s a positively charged positron. 

 

Why don't they call electrons "negatrons" and end the confusion?

 

Edited by taniwha
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, taniwha said:

Why don't they call electrons "negatrons" and end the confusion?

History.

Same reason why electrons have negative charge: People decided on a convention before the full situation was understood. Since the detailed situation is only of concern to a relatively small number of people, the original convention stuck.

Lots of scientists and engineers work with electricity; a much smaller subset of those care about the details of an electron. The convention regarding the direction of flow of electricity --- decided decades before the existence of electrons was confirmed --- is maintained to keep continuity with the larger body of people, and thus electrons must have a negative charge.

Of the scientists and engineers who care about the quantum mechanics of an electron, only a much smaller subset care about matter/anti-matter experiments. The convention of the name ``electron'' is maintained to keep continuity with the larger body of people, and thus ends up being semantically uncorrelated with the word ``positron''.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, taniwha said:

Why don't they call electrons "negatrons" and end the confusion?

Hello, taniwha.  Your mind works so differently than mine that I tend to find you entertaining in a Steven Wright kind of way, e.g.

3 hours ago, sepulchrave said:

History.

Same reason why electrons have negative charge: People decided on a convention before the full situation was understood. Since the detailed situation is only of concern to a relatively small number of people, the original convention stuck.

Lots of scientists and engineers work with electricity; a much smaller subset of those care about the details of an electron. The convention regarding the direction of flow of electricity --- decided decades before the existence of electrons was confirmed --- is maintained to keep continuity with the larger body of people, and thus electrons must have a negative charge.

Of the scientists and engineers who care about the quantum mechanics of an electron, only a much smaller subset care about matter/anti-matter experiments. The convention of the name ``electron'' is maintained to keep continuity with the larger body of people, and thus ends up being semantically uncorrelated with the word ``positron''.

Excellent answer.

Y'all,

Re: dark matter -

Don't you reckon Dragonfly 44 has fundamentally different physical laws than the galaxy we inhabit?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, aka CAT said:

Hello, taniwha.  Your mind works so differently than mine that I tend to find you entertaining in a Steven Wright kind of way, e.g.

 

What a crack-up! :clap: Heres one for ya...

An atom walks into a bar...:whistle:...

 

Edited by taniwha
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, taniwha said:

What a crack-up! :clap: Heres one for ya...

An atom walks into a bar...:whistle:...

 

:lol: LOL. 

I think that :devil: Chemist hangs out here.

e95499198febded1f7eb01ade170b2fa.jpg

... that's the problem with geek jokes.

 

th?id=OIP.ZFxagyfPHxqotnZkY64vMwDTEs&pid

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, aka CAT said:

Y'all,

Re: dark matter -

Don't you reckon Dragonfly 44 has fundamentally different physical laws than the galaxy we inhabit?

It is an interesting thought.

It seems that many galaxies in the Coma cluster seem to be ``too dark'' (Dragonfly 44 is possibly the most ``dark'', but there seem to be many others).

I am not an expert in astronomy, and am out of my depth here, but I never felt very comfortable with the idea of dark matter (and dark energy is even worse). I am more inclined to believe that our way of interpreting the images of extremely distant objects is flawed.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 2/11/2017 at 1:42 PM, sepulchrave said:

History.

Same reason why electrons have negative charge: People decided on a convention before the full situation was understood. Since the detailed situation is only of concern to a relatively small number of people, the original convention stuck.

Lots of scientists and engineers work with electricity; a much smaller subset of those care about the details of an electron. The convention regarding the direction of flow of electricity --- decided decades before the existence of electrons was confirmed --- is maintained to keep continuity with the larger body of people, and thus electrons must have a negative charge.

Of the scientists and engineers who care about the quantum mechanics of an electron, only a much smaller subset care about matter/anti-matter experiments. The convention of the name ``electron'' is maintained to keep continuity with the larger body of people, and thus ends up being semantically uncorrelated with the word ``positron''.

And as I am sure we all know, "electron" is derived from the Greek "elektron" which means amber. When people rubbed a piece of amber they found small pieces of fur and so on were attracted. In ancient Egypt and elsewhere, priests used to attach a piece of amber on the end of a stick and rub this to magically attract bits of fur or whatever. This was the origin of a magician's wand. It is interesting how a physical phenomenon on the one hand led to the science of electricity and particle physics, and on the other hand to Harry Potter.

Edited by Derek Willis
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To my mind, when we study the physical universe we can only study behavior and effects. For instance, an electron has a negative charge, a proton a positive charge. We understand the consequences of these aspects of these elementary particles, but we don't know what positive or negative "charge" is as itself.

Is something behaving, or is there just behavior? It's always seemed to me there is a more fundamental level of existence operating that we cannot access that is the origin of these kinds of  physical properties we attempt to understand.

Matter matters to us because we are that matter. This places a limitation to our understanding. We can understand behavior, but not the thing itself that behaves. 

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, sepulchrave said:

It is an interesting thought.

It seems that many galaxies in the Coma cluster seem to be ``too dark'' (Dragonfly 44 is possibly the most ``dark'', but there seem to be many others).

I am not an expert in astronomy, and am out of my depth here, but I never felt very comfortable with the idea of dark matter (and dark energy is even worse). I am more inclined to believe that our way of interpreting the images of extremely distant objects is flawed.

People tend to consider 'dark' what they do not understand, which partly explains the names of dark matter and dark energy.  Negative energy sounds no more inviting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

4 hours ago, StarMountainKid said:

To my mind, when we study the physical universe we can only study behavior and effects. For instance, an electron has a negative charge, a proton a positive charge. We understand the consequences of these aspects of these elementary particles, but we don't know what positive or negative "charge" is as itself.

Is something behaving, or is there just behavior? It's always seemed to me there is a more fundamental level of existence operating that we cannot access that is the origin of these kinds of  physical properties we attempt to understand.

Matter matters to us because we are that matter. This places a limitation to our understanding. We can understand behavior, but not the thing itself that behaves. 

Sometimes my perceptions give me insights into things that are eventually fleshed out of scientific findings.  

Inherent in the 'order of things,' do you think there a purpose for negative matter's being repulsive to matter?  In other words, isn't it natural for a body to avoid repellents?  

Edited by aka CAT
To allow for the ethereal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I have seen some research findings suggesting that gravity both attracts and repels matter at the same time. However the attraction is slightly stronger than the repulsion which hides the said repulsion. On top of that the sums give out the impression gravity is a weak force.

However in the equations the repulsion dies off quicker than the attraction as the distance from the object increases. So at very large galactic distances gravity becomes a very strong force.

Bye bye dark matter and dark energy theories.

Edited by RabidMongoose
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, aka CAT said:

Sometimes my perceptions give me insights into things that are eventually fleshed out of scientific findings.  

Inherent in the 'order of things,' do you think there a purpose for negative matter's being repulsive to matter?  In other words, isn't it natural for a body to avoid repellents?  

There's negative, positive and neutral, and they all cooperate to create our universe. I suppose this is the inherent or natural 'order of things', as you say.

Inherent: existing in something as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute, the essential character of something.

It's interesting that all these attributes fit together so well, possibly by random configuration. If these properties varied by only a few percent, the universe would be a different configuration and we wouldn't be here to wonder about it. So, I think this local natural order that we call the universe is a sort of accident of birth. Natural can mean different things, and perhaps there is no universal naturalness, just various configurations.

I don't think this answered your post, but it's what's going through my mind at the moment. ")

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

3 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

I have seen some research findings suggesting that gravity both attracts and repels matter at the same time. However the attraction is slightly stronger than the repulsion which hides the said repulsion. On top of that the sums give out the impression gravity is a weak force.

However in the equations the repulsion dies off quicker than the attraction as the distance from the object increases. So at very large galactic distances gravity becomes a very strong force.

Bye bye dark matter and dark energy theories.

How do you explain Dragonfly 44’s having a nearly equivalent mass to our galaxy in apparent absence of much matter?  Also, why is that smidgeon of matter moving so fast?

Edited by aka CAT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

3 hours ago, StarMountainKid said:

There's negative, positive and neutral, and they all cooperate to create our universe. I suppose this is the inherent or natural 'order of things', as you say.

Inherent: existing in something as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute, the essential character of something.

It's interesting that all these attributes fit together so well, possibly by random configuration. If these properties varied by only a few percent, the universe would be a different configuration and we wouldn't be here to wonder about it. So, I think this local natural order that we call the universe is a sort of accident of birth. Natural can mean different things, and perhaps there is no universal naturalness, just various configurations.

I don't think this answered your post, but it's what's going through my mind at the moment. ")

You brought up behavior, which implies action and/or interaction that is observable, whereupon I reasoned: 

Dark matter, which, by definition, only interacts via gravity and the weak atomic force, is said to only be perceptible when a particle of it bumps directly into the nucleus of an atom of normal matter.  Nothing is left after the latter meets anti-matter.  Negative matter, repelled by gravity as much as matter that ‘gravitates’ toward mass as do we, must be meant to evade us in our current state of being.

From there, I find intriguing the possibility that a mathematician, by so defining negative matter, might subliminally seeks a state of being that defies what is connoted by gravity.

Edited by aka CAT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, aka CAT said:

You brought up behavior, which implies action and/or interaction that is observable, whereupon I reasoned: 

Dark matter, which, by definition, only interacts via gravity and the weak atomic force, is said to only be perceptible when a particle of it bumps directly into the nucleus of an atom of normal matter.  Nothing is left after the latter meets anti-matter.  Negative matter, repelled by gravity as much as matter that ‘gravitates’ toward mass as do we, must be meant to evade us in our current state of being.

From there, I find intriguing the possibility that a mathematician might subliminally seek to be free of what is connoted by gravity by so defining negative matter.

I may not completely understand you, but you use the term 'purpose' and  "'meant' to evade us in our current state of being". I'm not convinced there is any purpose or meaning to the natural state of the universe, repulsive or attractive.

The slave Jim and Huckleberry Finn are lying on their backs looking up at the stars one night on their raft floating down the Mississippi river. Jim asks Huck, "Do you think the stars are made or did they just happen?" Huck thinks for a minute and says, "I think they just happened." 

We can only understand our being and the being of the universe from the perspective of the universe, which is, we are the universe. If there is a more fundamental source it may be our of our reach of comprehension. I find it logical that at the beginning of the universe there is both matter and anti-matter, as they are the only two forms of matter possible, and what is possible seems to be obligatory.

This may be why dark matter and dark energy exist. They exist because they can exist. It's like the Law of the ants: "What is not forbidden is mandatory." This Law may also explain the existence of the universe.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, StarMountainKid said:

I may not completely understand you, but you use the term 'purpose' and  "'meant' to evade us in our current state of being". I'm not convinced there is any purpose or meaning to the natural state of the universe, repulsive or attractive.

The slave Jim and Huckleberry Finn are lying on their backs looking up at the stars one night on their raft floating down the Mississippi river. Jim asks Huck, "Do you think the stars are made or did they just happen?" Huck thinks for a minute and says, "I think they just happened." 

We can only understand our being and the being of the universe from the perspective of the universe, which is, we are the universe. If there is a more fundamental source it may be our of our reach of comprehension. I find it logical that at the beginning of the universe there is both matter and anti-matter, as they are the only two forms of matter possible, and what is possible seems to be obligatory.

This may be why dark matter and dark energy exist. They exist because they can exist. It's like the Law of the ants: "What is not forbidden is mandatory." This Law may also explain the existence of the universe.

Granted that we agree what will be will be, the end result seems anything but random. 

For choosing to give me a glimmering of your inner workings from time to time, thanks.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, aka CAT said:

How do you explain Dragonfly 44’s having a nearly equivalent mass to our galaxy in apparent absence of much matter?  Also, why is that smidgeon of matter moving so fast?

The theory says that gravity is both attracting one type of sub-atomic particle in the atom while repelling another. The attraction is very strong but once you calculate the resultant net force on the atom taking into consideration the repulsion then gravity appears to be weak. As the distance from the atom increases both the attraction and the repulsion lose strength but the repulsion does so at a slightly faster rate.  Leading to more powerful than expected gravity at greater distances.

I have taken a quick look at the Dragonfly 44 galaxy and its quite a diffuse one. So as its spread out that could indicate a correlation with what I have just written above. If its scattered stars are experiencing stronger gravity than relativity predicts (because of the above) then why do we need dark matter?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

The theory says that gravity is both attracting one type of sub-atomic particle in the atom while repelling another.

Interesting, I am not familiar with this theory.

Do you have a link to a website that provides some more details on this theory? Thanks!

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On ‎13‎/‎02‎/‎2017 at 1:22 PM, sepulchrave said:

Interesting, I am not familiar with this theory.

Do you have a link to a website that provides some more details on this theory? Thanks!

https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/cosmologists-prove-negative-mass-can-exist-in-our-universe-250a980320a7#.a48x6ibgw

The laws of physics allow ordinary matter, anti-matter, negative matter and negative anti-matter to exist.

You know what normal matter is as its all around you. Anti-matter is identical too it except the sub-atomic particles that make up its atoms have the opposite electrical charges on them. So for example you have electrons (negative charge) and its anti-matter equivalent which are positrons (positive charge). Negative matter and negative anti-matter are something far more exotic.

When people talk about a landmark being at sea-level there is a little lie buried in there because the sea isn't actually flat. It has waves which oscillate around what is often referred to as sea-level. The vacuum of space is exactly the same when we refer to a point in it as having zero energy or zero mass. Its a lie, there are oscillations around zero instead. So here comes the crazy exotic part. The dip in those oscillation waves below zero means for a time that point in space can have less mass or less energy than absolutely no mass or no energy. Having less than nothing makes exotic negative mass and energy particles come into existence.

To date there are several exotic negative particles which can be made in the laboratory referred to as virtual particles. There are many websites on the topic, here is one - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/. Exotic negative electrons are one of the most commonly made virtual particles. Quantum tunnelling uses them and because they mess with the maths of relativity it means you can:

1. Read music off a CD on one side of a room and encode it onto a laser.

2. Beam the laser across the room through prisms charged with the exotic negative energy.

3. Read the music off the laser at the far side of the room and play it on speakers.

4. And do all that so that the music gets played out of the speakers before it got read off the CD. Basically you got information from one side of the room to the other faster than the speed of light by moving the goal-posts in the relativity formula using exotic negative energy.

Other examples then can do are exotic negative laser beams. I call them freeze rays because they cool objects instead of melting holes through them. You can use exotic negative energy to even cool an object below absolute zero. And finally lets not forget that exotic negative particles have less than zero mass and energy. Less than zero mass means gravity is theorised to repel an exotic negative particle rather than attract it. This is a theory though, no one has come up with a way to test it yet.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245434140_Negative_matter_propulsion

Theories of this stuff lurking inside sub-atomic particles causing gravity to both attract the rest of the particles while repelling them exist, its not proved yet though. But it makes far more sense to me than dark matter or dark energy.

Edited by RabidMongoose
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On February 14, 2017 at 1:44 PM, RabidMongoose said:

https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/cosmologists-prove-negative-mass-can-exist-in-our-universe-250a980320a7#.a48x6ibgw

The laws of physics allow ordinary matter, anti-matter, negative matter and negative anti-matter to exist.

You know what normal matter is as its all around you. Anti-matter is identical too it except the sub-atomic particles that make up its atoms have the opposite electrical charges on them. So for example you have electrons (negative charge) and its anti-matter equivalent which are positrons (positive charge). Negative matter and negative anti-matter are something far more exotic.

When people talk about a landmark being at sea-level there is a little lie buried in there because the sea isn't actually flat. It has waves which oscillate around what is often referred to as sea-level. The vacuum of space is exactly the same when we refer to a point in it as having zero energy or zero mass. Its a lie, there are oscillations around zero instead. So here comes the crazy exotic part. The dip in those oscillation waves below zero means for a time that point in space can have less mass or less energy than absolutely no mass or no energy. Having less than nothing makes exotic negative mass and energy particles come into existence.

To date there are several exotic negative particles which can be made in the laboratory referred to as virtual particles. There are many websites on the topic, here is one - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/. Exotic negative electrons are one of the most commonly made virtual particles. Quantum tunnelling uses them and because they mess with the maths of relativity it means you can:

1. Read music off a CD on one side of a room and encode it onto a laser.

2. Beam the laser across the room through prisms charged with the exotic negative energy.

3. Read the music off the laser at the far side of the room and play it on speakers.

4. And do all that so that the music gets played out of the speakers before it got read off the CD. Basically you got information from one side of the room to the other faster than the speed of light by moving the goal-posts in the relativity formula using exotic negative energy.

Other examples then can do are exotic negative laser beams. I call them freeze rays because they cool objects instead of melting holes through them. You can use exotic negative energy to even cool an object below absolute zero. And finally lets not forget that exotic negative particles have less than zero mass and energy. Less than zero mass means gravity is theorised to repel an exotic negative particle rather than attract it. This is a theory though, no one has come up with a way to test it yet.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245434140_Negative_matter_propulsion

Theories of this stuff lurking inside sub-atomic particles causing gravity to both attract the rest of the particles while repelling them exist, its not proved yet though. But it makes far more sense to me than dark matter or dark energy.

Preliminarily, I like to check the dates of articles for reasons such as the following: 

  • Your first source, outdated, takes issue with gravitational waves’ not having been detected by then (2014).  Last year, they were in fact observed.  Chosen at random to evidence the fact is the article below:

    News | Gravitational Waves Detected 100 Years After Einstein's ...

     

    https://ligo.caltech.edu/news/ligo20160211Proxy  Highlight

    Feb 11, 2016 ... Physicists have concluded that the detected gravitational waves were ... The new LIGO discovery is the first observation of gravitational waves ...

  • The second article therein, as referenced by you, provides no date of publication.  Plus, contrary to your lead into and exit from it, there is no mention therein of either “exotic” nor “negative” matter.  More crucially, there is no mention of “dark” matter.
  • Worse, the last hypertext in your post leads to a phishing site-- all for an abstract, published way back in January 1990, that’s not about dark matter but about negative matter.

All in all, because post 20 is a follow-up on post 18 wherein Dragonfly 44 and dark matter are specifically mentioned, I can only deduce that you confused dark matter with negative matter.

 
 
Edited by aka CAT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

39 minutes ago, aka CAT said:

Preliminarily, I like to check the dates of articles for reasons such as the following: 

  • Your first source, outdated, takes issue with gravitational waves’ not having been detected by then (2014).  Last year, they were in fact observed.  Chosen at random to evidence the fact is the article below:

    News | Gravitational Waves Detected 100 Years After Einstein's ...

     

    https://ligo.caltech.edu/news/ligo20160211Proxy  Highlight

    Feb 11, 2016 ... Physicists have concluded that the detected gravitational waves were ... The new LIGO discovery is the first observation of gravitational waves ...

  • The second article therein, as referenced by you, provides no date of publication.  Plus, contrary to your lead into and exit from it, there is no mention therein of either “exotic” nor “negative” matter.  More crucially, there is no mention of “dark” matter.
  • Worse, the last hypertext in your post leads to a phishing site-- all for an abstract, published way back in January 1990, that’s not about dark matter but about negative matter.

All in all, because post 20 is a follow-up on post 18 wherein Dragonfly 44 and dark matter are specifically mentioned, I can only deduce that you confused dark matter with negative matter.

I dont see why gravity waves is at odds with anything I posted. If you want to learn about virtual particles I'm 100% sure you will find books by notable authors on the subject at your local library. This is a public forum. I provided those links for general interest not because I checked they were up to standard you would need to quote them in a university assignment. Saying that, yes the websites I linked you too are not academic and I only read the first few lines so I give you that.

A negative particle has negative mass meaning if you sit it in a gravity field it gets repelled. If you have a atom constructed in part out of negative particles the positive ones are attracted while the negative ones are repelled. Thats the concept I am trying to articulate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

Edited by RabidMongoose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, RabidMongoose said:

I dont see why gravity waves is at odds with anything I posted. If you want to learn about virtual particles I'm 100% sure you will find books by notable authors on the subject at your local library. This is a public forum. I provided those links for general interest not because I checked they were up to standard you would need to quote them in a university assignment. Saying that, yes the websites I linked you too are not academic and I only read the first few lines so I give you that.

A negative particle has negative mass meaning if you sit it in a gravity field it gets repelled. If you have a atom constructed in part out of negative particles the positive ones are attracted while the negative ones are repelled. Thats the concept I am trying to articulate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

Granted that I found the first couple of articles fairly interesting, they neither addressed the posts that you quoted nor supported your statements.  Therefore, your reply was confusing.  Perhaps you were distracted or tired?

The first sentence of your closing paragraph partly paraphrases what I initially wrote: 

[...] negative matter (hypothetically,

  • it has negative mass and negative energy
  • it has a negative gravitational charge and repels normal matter). 

The word hypothetically is important, because, conceded Dragonfly 44 is nearly all dark matter, the existence of negative matter remains speculative.  Isn't it what is unknown about the latter that you were addressing?   

Edited by aka CAT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, aka CAT said:

Granted that I found the first couple of articles fairly interesting, they neither addressed the posts that you quoted nor supported your statements.  Therefore, your reply was confusing.  Perhaps you were distracted or tired?

The first sentence of your closing paragraph partly paraphrases what I initially wrote: 

[...] negative matter (hypothetically,

  • it has negative mass and negative energy
  • it has a negative gravitational charge and repels normal matter). 

The word hypothetically is important, because, conceded Dragonfly 44 is nearly all dark matter, the existence of negative matter remains speculative.  Isn't it what is unknown about the latter that you were addressing?   

There is the odd situation in quantum physics where you have several camps of scientists all arguing over what it all means. You have many who refuse to even accept what is going on in the experiments because they cannot cope with the implications. But let me just say that negative particles absolutely do exist, can be made in the laboratory, can and are used in experiments, and the results are clear as day for all to see. It is not hypothetical matter.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

2 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

There is the odd situation in quantum physics where you have several camps of scientists all arguing over what it all means. You have many who refuse to even accept what is going on in the experiments because they cannot cope with the implications. But let me just say that negative particles absolutely do exist, can be made in the laboratory, can and are used in experiments, and the results are clear as day for all to see. It is not hypothetical matter.

Thanks for prompting me to double check whether or not the existence of negative matter had been confirmed.  Whereas your first source* in post #20 still claimed negative matter hypothetically can exist, my latest gatherings:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wikipedia - Exotic Matter

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exotic_matter

[of] Types of exotic matter:

Hypothetical particles that have "exotic" physical properties that would violate known laws of physics, such as a particle having a negative mass [...]

Negative mass would possess some strange properties, such as accelerating in the direction opposite of applied force. For example, an object with negative inertial mass and positive electric charge would accelerate away from objects with negative charge, and towards objects with positive charge, the opposite of the normal rule that like charges repel and opposite charges attract. This behaviour can produce bizarre results: for instance, a gas containing a mixture of positive and negative matter particles will have the positive matter portion increase in temperature without bound. However, the negative matter portion gains negative temperature at the same rate, again balancing out.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The article directly below, which makes no mention of negative matter, is writ in terms of quarks and anti-quarks, i.e. "particles with the same mass, but opposite charges."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Physicists confirm existence of new 'exotic' matter | SciTech | GMA ...

 

www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/356829/scitech/science/...Proxy  Highlight

Apr 14, 2014 ... Scientists at the Large Hadron Collider beauty (LHCb) Collaboration at

CERN in Geneva have successfully verified the existence of a new ...

 

"[...]it was the LHCb that was able to conclusively prove that the “ghost” particle was certainly no ghost, using data from both Belle and Babar.

"This experiment is the clincher, showing that particles made up of two quarks and two anti-quarks actually exist," said Skwarnicki, one of the lead authors of the LHCb's paper. "There used to be less-clear evidence for the existence of such a particle, with one experiment being questioned by another. Now we know this is an observed structure, instead of some reflection or special feature of the data." 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note, however, the persistent use of the word hypothetical in the opening of your article, published months later, along with the contradiction also underlined in the quote following: 

*

"Negative mass is the hypothetical idea that matter can exist with mass of the opposite sign to the ordinary stuff. Instead of 2 kg, a lump of negative mass would be -2 kg.

Nobody knows whether negative mass can exist but there have nevertheless been plenty of analyses to determine its properties."

https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/cosmologists-prove-negative-mass-can-exist-in-our-universe-250a980320a7#.9be1e99g0

                                                                                                                     

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CAT

Edited by aka CAT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.