It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
He was talking about a specific example, not speaking in generalities, if I recall correctly. I think he then gave a 1/r-cubed example as a counter example which didn't apply to the specific case he was discussing, so when you mention another counter-example I think you missed his point that he already provided one to show it didn't apply in general. I'd have to re-watch it to confirm, but that's what I remember right now, I could be wrong.
originally posted by: delbertlarson
a reply to: Arbitrageur
I watched the Feynmann video, and as usual he makes some good points. One objection that popped up was when he mentioned how things would only work for a 1/r-squared force, but not for other forces. I thought about the magnetic spin-spin force, which does exist in nature as well, but is not a 1/r-squared force.
That may be one (very non-intuitive) aspect, but I don't think it's simple because that's not the only implication. There are several papers talking about unlimited unidirectional runaway acceleration without any energy source if a positive mass and a negative mass are near each other. This paper talks about what a great propulsion method it might be, but there's nothing simple about runaway acceleration in my mind.
Negative mass simply means if you push on it in one direction it moves the opposite way.
They offer the primary dataset and a reduced dataset. The primary dataset is huge:
There should be a signature at 69.6 GeV that is nearly identical to the signature for the Z, just at lower energy. Now, it may be at a low enough cross section that it has not been pulled out from the background, or perhaps it has been seen and explained away as some kind of Z events. But it should be there. I would have no idea how to go through all the data to look.
negative mass repels all other types of matter, both positive and negative, whereas a positive mass attracts all other types of matter, including negative matter.
As I mentioned they have the primary dataset and reduced datasets. The primary dataset would take at least 125 x 8 terabyte hard drives to hold all the data, Wasn't it unthinkable to have that much data back when you were at the SSC? The primary dataset even includes data when the detector isn't "on", so part of their advice to have less data to work with is to only consider the data when the detector is "on", so it sounds to me like the primary dataset doesn't leave much out.
originally posted by: delbertlarson
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Thanks again. It is through discussion that ideas spread and improve.
I am appreciative of the links you sent regarding the data published by CERN. However, I suspect a difficulty. Back when I was at the SSC the overwhelming amount of data was never recorded at all. Since the machines produce such enormous quantities of data, in order to be useful, "data cuts" were made on the fly that only kept a minuscule percentage of what was actually produced. I suspect this is still the case.
The data are collected by the detector and processed through the HLT. From there, the HLT paths are designated to live inside a specific "Primary dataset" (PD). This is the "quantum" of the computing infrastructure. PD's are distributed in entirety to T1's and T2's, so accessing them is the primary mode that you will be using to access the data. The Primary Dataset Working Group (PDWG) is a good resource for you to keep up to speed with the PD's and their deployment.
There are quite a lot of random triggers that occur when the detector is not taking data, and so to account for this, the best practice is to only run on luminosity sections where the detector was "on". This webpage is constantly updated with "good run lists" in a JSON format that correspond to the "DCS bit" being on, and the detector taking data. By using this "good run list" in your CRAB jobs, you will alleviate strain on the resources and run only on the data that is interesting for you for physics analysis.
What about the interaction between negative mass and positive mass? Do you still predict runaway acceleration without any energy source as Bob Forward describes? I can imagine some bizarre things, but that's more bizarre than I can wrap my mind around.
My thoughts were more along the lines of just putting -m in the gravity law. If you do that, negative mass attracts negative mass.
I think many aether solutions people came up with had some kind of problems. The aether idea seemed to make sense in the days of Maxwell, if you didn't look at it too closely or try to define or measure its exact properties, it was when you got into the details that it was hard to make the idea work. Then there's Occam's razor and that's how it got the axe but as you say that's not proof it doesn't exist. Adding negative mass seems to make it even more complicated, so it doesn't exactly help with the Occam's razor issue. It's wise of you to have thoughts about dispensing with it.
I have long wanted to dispense with negative mass, and perhaps someone looking with fresh eyes could do so. The problem is this: ...
originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: delbertlarson
After the spectacular LIGO results, I think challenging relativity is 'singularly' unproductive.
originally posted by: delbertlarson
At that point, our departure is purely philosophical, not scientific. We interpret the evidence as rods and clocks changing, not a changing space and time,
and we restore much of the classical paradigm (absolutism, realism, a physical luminescent aether, and the primacy of space and time in our physics).
The one part of the classical paradigm that cannot be restored its lack of QM. Experiment is quite clear that we must accept QM as part of nature, and QM did not exist in the classical paradigm. (However, we are now open to a realist and absolutist QM.)
Of course, the above philosophical approach is just the beginning. Once we accept the premise that there can be another approach to physics, we can also look for a mechanistic underpinning (a real, absolute, physical model) for the GRT equations, with the hope that such an underpinning leads to close, but somewhat different (experimentally testable) equations. At such a future point, the philosophy would become science.
A return to absolutism and realism also leads to other physics possibilities as well, such as a new high velocity QM and real physical preons. (I believe there is already considerable evidence for preons, and further tests are already enumerated, making preon physics a scientific hypothesis, not just a philosophy.)
I hope you get a chance to think this over as I would welcome your further thoughts, as I do value them. For the moment we appear to disagree, and by fleshing out the origins of that disagreement we may both prosper. It is my opinion that challenging relativity could be enormously productive, and I strongly wish that other serious scientists would join in that challenge, as I believe it could result in a significant advance in our understanding of our world.
originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Masterjaden
I understand just fine.
You're obviously incapable of understanding.
I understand that you think spacetime and aether are the same thing.
The aether is not necessary to allow wave propagation. Space time works as the medium.
Yes I understand that the aether isn't necessary. It's being sold as solid science here. It isn't.
Aether theory was abandoned in the 1920s for a reason.
Spacetime is not equivalent to or synonymous with aether.
Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.
Rods and clocks changing is what it means to have changing space and time---how else is changing space and time measured?
This sounds a bit like teleparallel gravity...But it's still not classical.
In what way is GRT not mechanistic and a real physical model?
LIGO demonstrated exact and detailed match to observed time series and polarization of gravitational waves in extreme astrophysical events. It's an astonishing prediction and nailed exactly.
I am proposing a ponderable aether consisting of parts that can be tracked through time, a proposal that is much closer to the thinking of Maxwell.
Physics as it is today got out of control because the math it is based on has fundamental flaws and does a bad job of symbolically representing actual reality.
Specifically, math is terrible at representing distinct points of view, which is the fundamental way we all interface with existence. Math is generally done as if there is an external viewer / commenter looking at a scenario objectively from a distance. That is definitely not the way reality works.
Then they bring up long debunked garbage like the aether.