Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #582041

Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity?

Newsgroups sci.physics
Date 2016-05-31 19:01 -0700
References (16 earlier) <ni93o6$1q1m$1@gioia.aioe.org> <8f31fc69-b160-4965-9d56-02bc59b1a73a@googlegroups.com> <ni9vct$15i1$1@gioia.aioe.org> <99fc4b82-6686-48ff-bcd2-a82efef1f8a0@googlegroups.com> <nik8a3$q09$2@gioia.aioe.org>
Message-ID <09ad4ece-e1ba-46af-9d33-c28ab823eafc@googlegroups.com> (permalink)
Subject Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity?
From "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 7:49:44 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 5/30/2016 8:36 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 10:16:18 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 5/27/2016 11:47 AM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> >>> Oh, I'd heard Quantum Chromodynamics had the bit revived itself.
> >>>
> >>> One seems to recall that they found part of the Higgs Boson
> >>> on either side of where it was expected to be found, thus
> >>> through persistence-of-vision, of a sort, it was neatly
> >>> penciled in.
> >>
> >> I saw someone make that comment here, but it's kinda fulla shit.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> After all, they had no expectation that it would go to parts.
> >>
> >
> > I read it somewhere in the media and
> > saw a sketch on a diagram.
> 
> I'll just reiterate my opinion about that. If you don't remember where 
> you saw it, then you likely also don't remember clearly what it said.
> 
> >
> > Also it makes sense and has a bit of a
> > theoretical underpinning.  While you're
> > at it, why don't you explain why as the
> > energy increases as goes into the theory,
> > the "particle" "mass" diverges.
> 
> It doesn't.
> 
> >
> > The theory having "it goes to infinity
> > as you put in more energy", where, it
> > doesn't exactly seem to match experiment,
> > usually points to defect in the theory (or
> > here, the mathematics of the theory of the
> > "virtual" particle.)
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

The notion that the Higgs bump was too wide or 
slumped in the hump was read from a variety of 
sources and as of the data and what was used to 
form the data of the Large Hadron Collider results.


This quote isn't about the state of the Higgs "boson" 
per se as much as "why not Higgs field / not Higgs 
mechanism":

"The basic equations of the unified theory correctly 
describe the electroweak force and its associated 
force-carrying particles, namely the photon, and the 
W and Z bosons, except for a major glitch. All of these 
particles emerge without a mass. While this is true for 
the photon, we know that the W and Z have mass, nearly 
100 times that of a proton. Fortunately, theorists Robert 
Brout, François Englert and Peter Higgs made a proposal 
that was to solve this problem. What we now call the 
Brout-Englert-Higgs mechanism gives a mass to the W and Z 
when they interact with an invisible field, now called the 
“Higgs field”, which pervades the universe."


So, instead of W and Z bosons, which result from very 
highly energetic events as of imbuing mass to particles 
as eg via mass-energy equivalence, or otherwise as why 
those leptons are massive particles, take the rest away 
from matter (which it has and as gravity is in effect), 
this doesn't seem a reasonable give-and-take as much as 
a fake-and-take.  (Yes I mean leptons.)

Higgs' isn't a field.  Quarks, which Higgs is supposed to 
decay to, don't exist in isolation but only as the exploded 
hadron.  That's all just a collision (and a very high energy 
one at that).  Higgs aren't particles, they don't have mass 
as much as an energetic wave-front, and they "decay" to the 
particles that they were with the energy in them.

And, that is a "virtual" particle.  Just because as a "particle" 
it interacts with Bose statistics doesn't otherwise have it 
be a "boson".

The Standard Model would be right about that:  because that's 
how much energy/mass is in it.


Now, back to the bumps, and the lumps and the slump in the hump, 
add them up and collect them over time and you wouldn't be able 
to tell the difference between that and a dot.

But, it was noticed that the data collection was time-sensitive.

There's a lot more reading here on the CERN website.

Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-05-24 13:31 -0700
  Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 16:19 -0500
    Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 16:35 -0500
      Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 09:49 -0700
        Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 11:54 -0500
          Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 10:08 -0700
            Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 12:25 -0500
            Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 10:25 -0700
              Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-25 23:30 -0400
          Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 12:53 -0700
            Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 13:13 -0700
              Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 16:07 -0500
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 15:20 -0700
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 20:25 -0500
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-25 23:31 -0400
              Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-25 23:31 -0400
            Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 16:06 -0500
              Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 10:39 -0700
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 12:45 -0500
            Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-05-26 14:56 -0700
              Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 15:22 -0700
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 18:15 -0500
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 13:44 -0700
              Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 18:14 -0500
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-05-27 14:46 -0700
          Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 12:58 -0700
            Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 16:10 -0500
              Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 19:06 -0700
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 10:23 -0500
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 08:33 -0700
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 10:37 -0500
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 10:55 -0500
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 10:35 -0700
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 18:03 -0700
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-26 16:10 +0000
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 10:29 -0700
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 15:22 -0700
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 16:42 -0700
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 22:40 -0700
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 23:12 -0700
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 00:16 -0700
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 09:25 -0500
                Alfven waves are a) slow, b) medium and c) noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 13:06 -0700
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 04:24 -0500
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 08:15 -0700
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 10:39 -0500
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 09:57 -0700
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 13:26 -0700
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 09:47 -0700
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 12:16 -0500
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 11:11 -0700
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 15:04 -0500
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-05-30 18:36 -0700
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-05-30 18:46 -0700
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-05-30 20:37 -0700
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 09:49 -0500
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 19:01 -0700
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 21:08 -0500
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 20:24 -0700
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 08:22 -0500
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 09:36 -0500
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 19:11 -0700
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 10:23 -0500
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 18:03 -0700
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 18:23 -0700
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 20:16 -0700
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 06:59 -0500
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 05:47 -0700
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 07:49 -0500
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 06:08 -0700
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 08:47 -0500
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 10:42 -0400
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 08:07 -0700
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 11:27 -0500
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 10:07 -0700
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 14:25 -0400
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 12:32 -0500
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 08:12 -0700
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 08:24 -0700
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 08:50 -0700
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 14:21 -0400
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 09:39 -0700
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 14:20 -0400
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 10:45 -0500
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 10:18 -0700
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 10:25 -0700
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 12:44 -0500
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-03 17:55 +0000
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 13:07 -0500
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 11:17 -0700
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 13:27 -0500
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 14:45 -0700
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 16:59 -0500
                que noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 15:51 -0700
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 08:01 -0700
              Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 10:42 -0700
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 12:59 -0500
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-26 14:13 -0400
              Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-05-28 00:46 +0200
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 18:47 -0700
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-05-28 08:59 +0200
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 12:49 -0700
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 13:10 -0700
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-28 16:29 -0400
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 16:57 -0700
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-28 20:09 -0400
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-05-30 15:22 -0700
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-05-30 17:48 -0700
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 16:28 -0500
                antijohn cersus johnboy noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 15:22 -0700
                Re: antijohn cersus johnboy Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-05-29 12:46 +0200
                Re: antijohn cersus johnboy john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 07:36 -0700
                Re: antijohn cersus johnboy john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 09:10 -0700
                Re: antijohn cersus johnboy Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-05-30 20:21 +0200
                waves in anti-\matter noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 10:34 -0700
                Re: antijohn cersus johnboy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 09:20 -0500
                Re: antijohn cersus johnboy john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 07:58 -0700
                Re: antijohn cersus johnboy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 10:45 -0500
                Re: antijohn cersus johnboy john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 16:04 -0700
                Re: antijohn cersus johnboy moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-01 01:30 +0000
                Re: antijohn cersus johnboy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 09:37 -0500
                Re: antijohn cersus johnboy john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 09:25 -0700
                Re: antijohn cersus johnboy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 12:38 -0500
                Re: antijohn cersus johnboy noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 12:00 -0700
                Re: antijohn cersus johnboy Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-05-29 23:14 +0200
                Re: antijohn cersus johnboy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 09:16 -0500
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-05-29 03:39 +0200
                Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-05-29 03:29 +0200
  Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-05-30 21:09 +0200

csiph-web