Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Matter Matters


aka CAT

Recommended Posts

46 minutes ago, aka CAT said:

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

Negative particles are not a hypothetical idea. They have been and are quite easy to create in a laboratory. And depending on which type of virtual particles you are producing then they have negative mass. Virtual electrons as an example as they like ordinary electrons have mass. They are used in quantum tunnelling.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
8 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

Negative particles are not a hypothetical idea. They have been and are quite easy to create in a laboratory. And depending on which type of virtual particles you are producing then they have negative mass. Virtual electrons as an example as they like ordinary electrons have mass. They are used in quantum tunnelling.

Are you basing your conclusions on the virtual particle link that you posted?  If so, it's at the top of my reading list.  Meanwhile, I but wonder why there is so little current mention of negative matter/mass. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, aka CAT said:

Are you basing your conclusions on the virtual particle link that you posted?  If so, it's at the top of my reading list.  Meanwhile, I but wonder why there is so little current mention of negative matter/mass. 

No, I have an engineering degree, I have even seen some of the said experiments done. Negative energy states are used in many of the electronics making up your pc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

No, I have an engineering degree, I have even seen some of the said experiments done. Negative energy states are used in many of the electronics making up your pc.

I'm waiting for a computer with a negative weight to virtually double as a Mary Poppins' umbrella.

Edited by aka CAT
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

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.

As a professional physicist, I disagree with that statement. Even if you replace ``negative particles'' with ``virtual particles'', I still disagree with that statement.

There is certainly no clear evidence that any form of matter produces gravitational repulsion.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

No, I have an engineering degree, I have even seen some of the said experiments done. Negative energy states are used in many of the electronics making up your pc.

May I ask in what sense negative energy states are used in computers?  I must admit that I know nothing of "negative particles", whatever that means. 

Cheers,

Badeskov

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are they still holding with string crap for the actions within and around quarks?  the negative positive play, Interesting topic.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On February 17, 2017 at 0:17 PM, badeskov said:

May I ask [RabidMongoose] in what sense negative energy states are used in computers?  I must admit that I know nothing of "negative particles", whatever that means [...]

Yet requiring much clarification from RabidMongoose myself, I think he'd do well to define his terms and substantiate his claims with articles, both recent and related, in order to make more coherent the assertions he has made herein this thread.

On February 17, 2017 at 0:44 PM, MWoo7 said:

Are they still holding with string crap for the actions within and around quarks?  the negative positive play, Interesting topic.

Thank you for bringing up a favorite subject of mine.  A subject whereabout I'd like to read Physics World’s 2016 Book of the year, Why String Theory? by Joseph Conlon.  If you think of a quark as an elementary particle that is fundamental to matter, an answer to your question lies in the contextual use of the last two words of the book excerpt following:

"String theory is much more than just a candidate theory of quantum gravity – people can use it for all sorts of reasons[...] Whatever your interests in physics are, it gives you things to think about." To explain why [...] Conlon – a string theorist at the University of Oxford – begins the book by describing the origins of string theory and showing how it has changed over the years. Later chapters address the chief reasons why string theory continues to be a popular research topic. These include the theory's status as a candidate theory of quantum gravity and the interest it poses to mathematicians, but also its applications to quantum field theory, cosmology and particle physics--

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2016/dec/14/robust-defence-of-string-theory-wins-physics-world-2016-book-of-the-year

On February 17, 2017 at 7:45 AM, sepulchrave said:

As a professional physicist, I disagree with that statement. Even if you replace ``negative particles'' with ``virtual particles'', I still disagree with that statement.

There is certainly no clear evidence that any form of matter produces gravitational repulsion.

What an interesting profession.  Granted work is work-- I'd sooner do mine than talk about it, I'll try to refrain from asking you too many questions.  Nonetheless, I wonder: do you think much of the applicability of string theory due to the fact that strings can form many shapes?  For instance, spirals interest me in ways both physical and metaphysical.

 
Edited by aka CAT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 No I have not read that, so verily appreciated.003-funny-animal-gifs-funny-walrus.gif

Update::::: among many others that I haven't read HA! thanks for the link, undeniably premium reads I've no doubt.

Edited by MWoo7
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, MWoo7 said:

 No I have not read that, so verily appreciated.003-funny-animal-gifs-funny-walrus.gif

Update::::: among many others that I haven't read HA! thanks for the link, undeniably premium reads I've no doubt.

Cute a-v, MWoo7.

Though the book is one that I only discovered today, it's one that I plan to order and read--

sepulchrave et al, perhaps :-? I should read it and, then, post a separate thread.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cripes, if I was independently filthy and retired, PLEASE LET US KNOW ABOUT IT ! super!

Oh wait, is sepulchrave a Brit book?, hard reads for me, but well it will certainly be good to get a clear view on the' shooting from the hip' guessing of string theory esp. w/ quarks, bosons etc., like the quantum this that etc. that pops up, it would be nice to get a clear idea other than oh everything is here and there at the same time maybe HA!   Well, unless you look hahahahaha!  that's a cover your butt theory eh? hahahahhaha!

Edited by MWoo7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, aka CAT said:

What an interesting profession.  Granted work is work-- I'd sooner do mine than talk about it, I'll try to refrain from asking you too many questions.  Nonetheless, I wonder: do you think much of the applicability of string theory due to the fact that strings can form many shapes?  For instance, spirals interest me in ways both physical and metaphysical.

"Professional physicist" in this context means I am employed as a professor at a university, I teach undergraduate classes in physics (mostly quantum and material science), and I have a modestly funded research program.

My area is material science and solid state physics, and I am not very knowledgeable about string theory, so my comments in that regard should be taken with a large grain of salt.

I feel* that string theory is sort of rephrasing the problem. Instead of having a few theories (GR + standard model + QCD, etc.) to explain an observable universe (3+1 dimensions), string theory just shifts the problem to one theory (string theory) to explain a universe with several unobservable dimensions (10? 11? 22?).

I feel that the amount of complexity and unexplained issues is constant in both cases (i.e. ``why isn't GR compatible with QCD?'' vs ``why are the extra dimensions hidden?''), and I don't feel that ``one theory with a more complicated and unobservable universe'' is better than ``multiple theories, that we can't figure out how to connect together''.

It is clear that more experimental evidence is needed to confirm string theory (as well as dark matter/dark energy models). I feel that because each experiment thus far that is expected to find support for these has turned up negative, that our existing theories (GR + QCD) have the essence of truth, but our approach to combining and applying these theories (linearization, perturbation theory, etc.) is flawed.

* The verb is carefully chosen, as I can't provide much support for this position.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

With regard to aka CAT, Oh, you were addressing sepulchrave and others.

1 hour ago, aka CAT said:

et al, perhaps :-? I should read it and, then, post a separate thread.


Well hope the read is excellent! byebyenow

Edited by MWoo7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, sepulchrave said:

I feel* that string theory is sort of rephrasing the problem.   Instead of having a few theories (GR + standard model + QCD, etc.) to explain an observable universe (3+1 dimensions), string theory just shifts the problem to one theory (string theory) to explain a universe with several unobservable dimensions (10? 11? 22?).

I agree that string theory, despite "its applications to quantum field theory, cosmology and particle physics," falls short of being a theory of everything.

2 hours ago, sepulchrave said:

It is clear that more experimental evidence is needed to confirm string theory (as well as dark matter/dark energy models). I feel that[,] because each experiment thus far that is expected to find support for these has turned up negative, [...]

It was my understanding that Dragonfly 44 was deduced nearly all dark matter based upon a mathematical model, a set of 'if, then' stipulations whereby, based upon observation of the galaxy, a sufficient number of the determinants were satisfied.  Else wise, why would the team at Keck Observatory risk ridicule for baselessly estimating the galaxy all but "one hundredth of one percent" dark matter?  Supposing you've a plausible answer to that question, please answer the questions I asked RabidMongoose:

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MWoo7 said:

Cripes, if I was independently filthy and retired, PLEASE LET US KNOW ABOUT IT ! super!

Te-he.  Many are "independently filthy," while few are filthy rich.  Nevertheless, with both the availability and affordability of most used books, many of modest means could easily spend more time reading books... I looked up the cost of a used copy of the book.  Though it's not the cheapest of books to buy, ~20 bucks could be spent on worse things.

 

Edited by aka CAT
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, MWoo7 said:

[...] Oh, you were addressing sepulchrave and others.
Well hope the read is excellent! byebyenow

Yes.  Thank you.  

0:-) MGby.

Edited by aka CAT
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, aka CAT said:

It was my understanding that Dragonfly 44 was deduced nearly all dark matter based upon a mathematical model, a set of 'if, then' stipulations whereby, based upon observation of the galaxy, a sufficient number of the determinants were satisfied.  Else wise, why would the team at Keck Observatory risk ridicule for baselessly estimating the galaxy all but "one hundredth of one percent" dark matter?  Supposing you've a plausible answer to that question, please answer the questions I asked RabidMongoose:

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?

I wouldn't say the assessment of Dragonfly 44 is ``baseless''; as you know there are sufficient arguments in favour of dark matter that most of the astronomical community finds the dark matter model convincing.

I simply ``don't like'' dark matter; but I can't provide convincing arguments to the contrary.

I feel that requiring extra dimensions and insisting that the Universe is jam-packed with exotic particles that thus far have defied unambiguous detection is too extreme. We have collected a lot of data on distant galaxies, but have done so from a single point of perspective (our planet or at most our solar system) and for a relatively short period of time (50 years at most).

Galactic rotation is inferred from basically a static image exhibiting red/blue-shifting of stars. There are a lot of assumptions built into the conclusions about galactic rotation; the composition and luminosity of the stars, that the galaxy in question is stable, that Newton's law or at most linearized general relativity is sufficient to describe rotation, etc.

Individually these assumptions are all eminently reasonable. But when the sum conclusion of these assumptions is that every galaxy is chock-full of invisible mass, and all of our experiments that were expected to produce dark matter are turning out negative, it may be time to re-evaluate our assumptions.

****

So I would suggest that perhaps the smidgeon of matter comprising Dragonfly 44 is not moving ``so fast'', or if it is it is perhaps not rotating around any centre point. The team at Keck Observatory did not actually observe the stars in Dragonfly 44 move; they only observed the apparent colour and luminosity of those stars.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, sepulchrave said:

I wouldn't say the assessment of Dragonfly 44 is ``baseless''; as you know there are sufficient arguments in favour of dark matter that most of the astronomical community finds the dark matter model convincing.

I simply ``don't like'' dark matter; but I can't provide convincing arguments to the contrary.

I feel that requiring extra dimensions and insisting that the Universe is jam-packed with exotic particles that thus far have defied unambiguous detection is too extreme. We have collected a lot of data on distant galaxies, but have done so from a single point of perspective (our planet or at most our solar system) and for a relatively short period of time (50 years at most).

Galactic rotation is inferred from basically a static image exhibiting red/blue-shifting of stars. There are a lot of assumptions built into the conclusions about galactic rotation; the composition and luminosity of the stars, that the galaxy in question is stable, that Newton's law or at most linearized general relativity is sufficient to describe rotation, etc.

Individually these assumptions are all eminently reasonable. But when the sum conclusion of these assumptions is that every galaxy is chock-full of invisible mass, and all of our experiments that were expected to produce dark matter are turning out negative, it may be time to re-evaluate our assumptions.

****

So I would suggest that perhaps the smidgeon of matter comprising Dragonfly 44 is not moving ``so fast'', or if it is it is perhaps not rotating around any centre point. The team at Keck Observatory did not actually observe the stars in Dragonfly 44 move; they only observed the apparent colour and luminosity of those stars.

Our own world and galaxy are full of wonders.  Yet, different as is Earth compared to most planets, it wouldn't surprise me to learn galaxies vary greatly, too.  They might vary more than any of us can imagine.  But, while some won't like that idea, others are more prone to flights of fancy.

Personally, I found exciting the detection of gravitational waves a century after they were predicted.  That just a few years ago some people doubted the existence of anti-matter inclines me to think reasonable conclusions about dark matter will be more and more founded.  Too tired to surmise what might evidence negative matter, I cannot believe anything that's capable of defying gravity too bad-- spooky action, however, is another thing.

Incidentally, re:

On 2/17/2017 at 7:45 AM, sepulchrave said:

There is certainly no clear evidence that any form of matter produces gravitational repulsion.

I have recently, to others, pointed out the fact following:

When Helium is cooled to almost absolute zero (-460°F or -273°C), the lowest temperature possible,
it becomes a liquid with surprising properties:
it flows against gravity and will start running up and over the lip of a glass container!
http://www.zmescience.com/other/feature-post/10-quick-scientific-facts-will-blow-mind/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, aka CAT said:

I have recently, to others, pointed out the fact following:

When Helium is cooled to almost absolute zero (-460°F or -273°C), the lowest temperature possible,
it becomes a liquid with surprising properties:
it flows against gravity and will start running up and over the lip of a glass container!
http://www.zmescience.com/other/feature-post/10-quick-scientific-facts-will-blow-mind/

 

Superfluids, such as liquid 4He, do not repel gravity - neither does any other known liquid. (Or any other type of matter.)

All liquids form a meniscus based on the interplay between the weak chemical bonds between molecules in the liquid and between the liquid and the container. The meniscus so-formed can be convex or concave depending on which is stronger.

Both types of meniscus involve some part of the liquid being raised up against gravity, but this is due to chemical bonding.

Because superfluids have zero surface tension, they form a meniscus that is extremely - one might even say infinitely - concave.

A drop of liquid helium in a bucket will not float (as it would if it actually repelled gravity), rather it will spread out to cover the entire surface whatever it touches. The attractive chemical bonds between the helium atoms and the matter that comprises the surface, while very weak compared to other types of chemical bonds, are still many, many, times stronger than gravity.

The proof that liquid helium does not repel gravity is simple, and in fact is often done to showcase the surprising properties of superfluids: An open cup of liquid helium is suspended in a chamber, the helium slowly flows up the sides of the cup and condenses at the bottom, where a droplet forms and eventually falls to the bottom of the chamber. If liquid helium repelled gravity the droplet would not fall.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, aka CAT said:

Though it's not the cheapest of books to buy, ~20 bucks could be spent on worse things.

Oh thanks so much for reminding me, yeah! used , online but we don't use plastic, never touch the stuff(well emergencies only), but it might show up at the library or one of the used book stores in 10 years HA!

Edited by MWoo7
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, sepulchrave said:

Superfluids, such as liquid 4He, do not repel gravity - neither does any other known liquid. (Or any other type of matter.)

All liquids form a meniscus based on the interplay between the weak chemical bonds between molecules in the liquid and between the liquid and the container. The meniscus so-formed can be convex or concave depending on which is stronger.

Both types of meniscus involve some part of the liquid being raised up against gravity, but this is due to chemical bonding.

Because superfluids have zero surface tension, they form a meniscus that is extremely - one might even say infinitely - concave.

A drop of liquid helium in a bucket will not float (as it would if it actually repelled gravity), rather it will spread out to cover the entire surface whatever it touches. The attractive chemical bonds between the helium atoms and the matter that comprises the surface, while very weak compared to other types of chemical bonds, are still many, many, times stronger than gravity.

The proof that liquid helium does not repel gravity is simple, and in fact is often done to showcase the surprising properties of superfluids: An open cup of liquid helium is suspended in a chamber, the helium slowly flows up the sides of the cup and condenses at the bottom, where a droplet forms and eventually falls to the bottom of the chamber. If liquid helium repelled gravity the droplet would not fall.

"Flows against gravity" was a stretch, conceded that your explanation was really good compared to someone else's just saying, "Helium doesn't repel gravity!"

Edited by aka CAT
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MWoo7 said:

Oh thanks so much for reminding me, yeah! used , online but we don't use plastic, never touch the stuff(well emergencies only), but it might show up at the library or one of the used book stores in 10 years HA!

Call your library, and, if the book is neither checked-out nor on a shelf there, ask about an inter-library loan.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Construction begins on dark-matter detector

The US Department of Energy (DOE) has given the green light for construction of the LUX-ZEPLIN dark-matter detector to start. Located around 1.6 km underground at the Sanford Underground Research Facility in Lead, South Dakota, the experiment will search for weakly interacting massive particles – a leading dark-matter candidate – by using a tank filled with 10 tonnes of ultra-pure liquid xenon. If a dark-matter particle collides with a xenon atom, it will then produce a flash of light that is picked up by around the 500 light-amplifying tubes lining the tank. LUX-ZEPLIN is expected to be around 50 times more sensitive than its predecessor, the Large Underground Xenon experiment. The start of construction comes after the DOE granted the experiment "critical decision 3", which accepts the final design and allows building work to begin. The DOE's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is leading the construction of the facility, which includes around 220 participating scientists from 38 institutions around the world. LUX-ZEPLIN is expected to start operation in April 2020

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2017/feb/14/flash-physics-magnetizing-cockroaches-a-young-supernova-construction-begins-on-dark-matter-detector

Previously, "UK’s [high-priced*] Hinkley Point reactors [got] the go-ahead"

Flash Physics: Superfluid helium dark-matter detector, Hinkley C will go ahead, why nanotubes are different

Sep 15, 2016 2 comments

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2016/sep/15/flash-physics-superfluid-helium-dark-matter-detector-hinkley-c-will-go-ahead-why-nanotubes-are-different

*see comments therein

Edited by aka CAT
  • Like 1
Link to comment
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.