And robdegraves

Thanks for the kind words. And regarding the thread, Kudos for having such patience, and going way beyond the call of duty to explain things.

Guys,

Both of you are straying way off from being both quizzical or deductive. Come on folks, to be scientifically grounded you need to cite either scientific facts and then draw conclusions or take the premise that I have set forward and then use deduction to make predictions toward natural systems.

First robdegraves,
I think I overestimated your understanding of the storage of antiparticles. What does "largely motionless" mean? No, on this you are quite wrong. The penning trap does not make the particles motionless in any way. Rather it accelerates them away from hitting one wall or an other. Think of it as a contained racetrack, if you will.
Your second "point" exposes your misunderstandings. The "walls" of a penning trap are not actual solid walls, rather they are fields produced by the surrounding machine. The "penning trap" itself exists as an area within the vacuum within the heart of a much larger machine. Further, please re-read anything that I have written, never have I suggested that penning traps use/employ antigravitational (whatever that means) devices.

Also, I know there are now ways to hold anti-H from hitting walls. But no matter what, that is apllying an outside force to stop the system from acting as it would alone. This is not the case that you originally brought forward where the anti-H always inevitably annihilated against the solid walls of the surrouding machine.

To this is what I was responding when I offered a test of the hypothesis. I was referring to the many cases that anti-H was formed, no longer was affected by the fields of the penning trap, and drifted into one wall or another. It is from that data that a very interestinganalysis could be compiled. The test I proposed was to go back and troll through the data where no outside effort was input to save the anti-H from annihilation after inevitable collision with the extremely particle-dense walls of the machine housing the vacuum.

Lastly, I find it odd that you do not understand the importance of trying to find a method of testing a hypothesis. The hypothesis here is the Dominium premise: matter and antimatter gravitationally repel. How can you fault me for submitting a test of this hypothesis?

On the other hand robdegraves, I do congratulate you for attempting to look at this situation both deductively and to predict how observable phenomena might respond, i.e., penning trap repercussions. Though I do believe your misunderstandings caused you to oversimplify the situation.

As for "j cass," I truly have nothing to say. You have yet to say one thing that is based on either oberserved or experimental data, or that makes a deductive prediction as to how natural systems might respond given...

Sorry "j cass,"
But quoting formulae or popular (theoretical) assumptions is not part of a deductive analysis. Essentially, you are trying to prove a case without ever making the case itself. Remember: formulae are just a legacy of manmade qualitative descriptions of the natural world. They are not sacred scripture. The key to science is the tie-in to the natural world. Formulae that don't tie-in to the natural world (or that you don't understand the tie-in) are of no use to science or scientific discussion.

That said, perhaps you had a point or two that you could tie-in to something empirical but simply left it out because it seemed obvious to you. Okay, in that case, please expand your comments to tie-in how they apply to the naturally observed physical world.

Sigh...



Ok.. you want to discuss the scientific method then?

The first thing you have to do is start with data. You have none.

What you are doing is making an assumption then building a case around it. You claim that no one has ever seen antimatter/matter repulsion. Why then do you build an entire theory on a lack of data?

Next...



No.. actually you misunderstand my explanation instead. Of course, my explanation was a bit truncated since I was aiming at the idea rather than the details. Let me give you an explanation drawn from the CERN site on ATRAP. This is something you might want to learn about.. it's fun.

http://livefromcern.web.cern.ch/livefromcern/antimatter/factory/AM-factory04-b.html



The extremely low temperature means that most of the kinetic energy is already gone.




I am aware of what a penning trap is. I brought it up. Obviously I meant that the anti atom collides with the machine, not the magnetic fields.

BTW... you might not want to make the assumption that it is my comprehension that is lacking.



This is how the scientific method usually works...



Note that you have not done 1 nor 2 in this case... or if you have, I have not seen it. What was the question you are trying to answer? What information did you gather?

It looks to me like you made an assumption... ie that matter and antimatter repel each other (contrary to accepted science at this time)... and just rolled with it. You have no observations and no data. Yet you made an entire hypothesis that you think will overturn all of current science.

Does that sound scientific to you?

Anyway.. back to the main point.

You have yet to indicate any reason to believe that matter and anti matter repel each other. Is that the whole basis for your theory?

The inverse square law for electromagnetism and for gravity is very well understood since Isaac Newton! If it did not hold for gravity, then you would not exist. Stars could still exist, but there would be no stable orbits about them. As you approach something, the gravity increases as the inverse square of the distance.

It has been verified to extraordinary degrees of accuracy, enough to send probes to planets, that arriving years later, are only a few seconds/minutes early/late.

If you don't know that

F = k R^-2

is not the same as

F = ke^-R

then you have know business thinking that you have made a breakthrough discovery.

Exponential and inverse square are not the same at all.

I suggest a very intensive, and very long, immersion in

basic math
basic physics

I'd suggest about 10,000 hours of intensive study and practice.

Hello robdegraves,

Your last post seemed very emotional. There truly is no such need. I am glad that you have now shown that I did not overestimate your abilities. Though I do wish you would try to say what you mean from the get-go so we don’t have to go through all these “what-I-meant-to-say” clarifications.

Thank you also for giving a quick lesson on rudimentary inductive methods. However, the name of the game on this thread is not induction, but deduction. Very often folks confuse them as being one in the same, but they are quite different. This thread is meant to toy with one premise (the possibility of gravitational repulsion between matter and antimatter.) For the sake of this deductive argument, that one premise is accepted as “true.” The next step is to take undisputable truths from the scientific record, use those as premises to build upon, and then see what conclusions necessarily follow. That is one of the beauties of deduction: conclusions made are 100% categorical.

Now, if it were to be that our starting premise is “false,” then the categorical conclusions produced via deduction will be nonsensical, i.e., will not match what is actually observed in nature. However, if our starting premise is “true,” then all categorical conclusions that we might create will match 100% with what is empirically observed. There is no middle ground with deduction. Also, unlike induction, deductive conclusions possess zero margin of error (as long as the premises used are 100% categorical.)

We started our dialogue in an appropriate fashion. You brought up the FACT that in penning traps, all anti-H every produced eventually drifted into the walls of the vessel containing the vacuum, unless (you later added) prevented to do so by an outside intervention. Originally, you made this observation to falsely conclude the opposite of the premise on the table (universal attraction.) However, when I conclusively showed you that under the scenario of gravitational repulsion annihilation MUST occur, you quickly changed your tune. Not only did I deductive show that annihilation must occur given gravitational repulsion, but I presented a way to go back though established data, conduct simple statistical analyses, and potentially categorically prove the gravitational repulsion.

What is missing from your response is an assessment of the test of the hypothesis that I propose. Instead you question my “need” for attempting to prove the hypothesis. If there is a flaw with the proposed test of the hypothesis, that is one thing. However, that does not seem to be your stance, it appears that you wish to stifle discussion and question whether certain questions are allowed to be asked.

You summed up your argument by saying, “It looks to me like you made an assumption... ie that matter and antimatter repel each other (contrary to accepted science at this time)... and just rolled with it.” You are quite right. That is the deductive process. And, yes, it is scientific.

Now that we’ve established that we both know what we are talking about, let’s move on. I believe the penning trap discussion is just about exhausted, unless of course you wish to counter the deductive scenario I’ve presented showing why annihilation is inevitable, or the resulting test of the hypothesis using preexisting data.

Back to the Big Bang:
Next steps: Gravitational repulsion would be at its absolute highest magnitude because particles were at there absolute closest proximity. Hence this would be the period of maximum acceleration of expansion of the Universe.

Check to nature: According to the widely accepted approximation of Hubble expansion, immediately after the Big Bang was a period of hyperinflation

Come of “j cass”

What did you just say? I really must laugh; but no, I’m not laughing at you. I’m laughing because it seems like you really believe you have made a point. Sure, you’re pretty accusatory; you obviously believe you’re better than me; and with lots of pretty words you show personal contempt for a dunce like myself. However, you offer no evidence to support your statements; you make no attempt to link your bold words to anything being discussed; and although you appear to say a lot, you’ve concluded nothing.

Take a deep breath. As I said before, I don’t mind discussing any points that you’d like to bring up, but you need to make an actual point first.

Actually cass j made a number of very good points, but they are based on science rather than what it is you are trying to do.

OK... let's play then.

First of all, lets all agree that what we are doing is not science, it is a game of deduction starting with an arbitrary premise. Based on that, I am comfortable to continue.

1. Premise... matter and antimatter repel each other.
2. Premise... the big bang had equal amounts of matter and antimatter and the particles repelled each other.

Now what?

If you are illiterate in both physics and math, and are determined not to remedy the situation, why don't you study something else.

I don't think I am better than you. You are just as precious as me simply by virtue of the fact that you are a human being. I believe you have inalienable rights for example. Doesn't mean you know squat about what you are talking about. It is up to you to remedy that by appropriate action.

Hi robdegraves,

Actually what j,cass did what bring up quite a few scientific subjects, but never made a point or tied anything into what was on the table. Look back at the j,cass posts, how many times did he/she say “what about this…?’” or “what about that…?” My response all along have been “What about it; and what is your point?” But what do you care robdegraves? Are you two friends?

Oh well, who cares. Once j,cass begins logically laying out premises and making conclusions I will respond. Regardless, j,cass’s apparent inability to spell out his/her arguments is irrelevant to the discussion that you and I are having.

Whether or not you admit that we are talking about science, I hope you don’t deny that our little game is pure formal logic. Whether logic has a place within scientific discourse perhaps is a matter of opinion. Personally, I believe they are inseparable, but that is a tangential discussion. Thinking offline about the whole debate between induction and deduction, three profound things occurred to me:

#1: The test offered was inductive.
The test of the Dominium hypothesis (that you helped formulate) is pure induction, so what’s not to like about it? The test of that data that I offered “should” have been to your liking because it was a straightforward data analysis: compute the actual instantaneous velocity of the sample (relative to the Universe), use known concepts (Newton’s 1st, centripetal acceleration, and momentum) to predict the path of the anti-H given gravitational repulsion, repeat analysis for gravitational attraction, do a regression of the two simulated data sets against what really happened, and presto! Concrete experimental proof!

This type of test should have been to your liking because it is in the tradition of rudimentary induction (scientific method) which is a major and familiar method of scientific incremental advancement. There’d be a margin of error. There’d be empirically collected data that was analyzed. And there’d be quantitative statistical analysis. From your standpoint of traditional inductive methods, so what’s not to like?

#2: How deduction shows the flaws inherent in the notion of universal attraction. Remember I said that deduction is 100% categorical. Remember I said that the game being played on this thread is to toy w/ the Dominium premise (gravitation repulsion.) From nature categorically true statements are to be used to meld w/ the premise in question to form conclusions. Also, that those conclusions will be 100% categorical. The way to tell if it’s a flawed premise is if the conclusions become nonsensical, i.e., do not match what is actually observed in nature.

Okay, at the end of my last post to you, I took the next steps in this deductive game with regards to the Big Bang. The conclusion was that of hyper-expansion. This conclusion is backed by popular modeling of Hubble expansion. Here’s a recap of those steps:
a) During the first moment of the Big Bang matter and antimatter were created in equal parts from pure energy
b) At this moment in time all particles in nature were closer than they every will be
c) At this moment, gravitational repulsion between ALL particles will be at its all-time maximum
d) Therefore, because of this heightened gravitational repulsion, the Universe will experience its most rapid level of expansion
Nature check—match! The first moments were the time of hyperexpansion according to the widely accepted approximations of Hubble Expansion given accepted empirical data.

Now, let’s see what happens if we replace the notion of gravitational repulsion with gravitational attraction during the first moments of the Big Bang:
a) During the first moment of the Big Bang matter and antimatter were created in equal parts from pure energy
b) At this moment in time all particles in nature were closer than they every will be
c) At this moment, gravitational attraction between ALL particles will be at its all-time maximum
d) Therefore, because of this heightened universal gravitation the Universe will collapse or expand at a slow rate due to forces other than gravity.
Natue check—mismatch. This is a nonsensical conclusion. The first moments were the time of hyperexpansion according to the widely accepted approximations of Hubble Expansion given accepted empirical data.

See what I mean? The conclusion (line d) is nonsensical because it does not match the natural record. It does, however, follow deductively. Because the conclusion is flawed, is follows that at least one of the premises are flawed. Because the only premise to change is “c,” therefore … the notion of universal attraction appears to be the flawed premise and the Dominium hypothesis appears more correct.

#3: Support from the most worshiped modern physicist of them all.
Lastly in this debate between deduction and induction are the immortal saintly words of the fabulously great all-knowing exalted sage, Albert Einstein:


(Sorry, I got a bit carried away with Uncle Al’s introduction—he was just as puny and short-lived as the rest of us—but on this point, I believe he was 100% correct.)

Now the BIG QUESTION: can you take Einstein’s challenge, use your biased assumption of universal attraction, and deductively show how the first moments of theBig Bang began without being confounded by a nonsensical conclusion that conflicts with the established natural fact of hyperexpansion? And can you meet that challenge using a smaller number of hypotheses or axioms than I just did?

Wow... that was a remarkably arrogant sounding post. Seriously, you really need to check that, it's more than a bit off putting.

Let's deal with your bit on cass j first.

No.. we are not friends nor do I even know who he is. However, it is obvious to me that cass j knows a good deal of actual physics. I respect knowledge. I don't respect fakes.

I felt the same way about North of the North Pole, when he was still on this forum. I sometimes didn't like the way he argued, ie, he would swear fairly often which I find distasteful, but he knew what he was talking about and that was very obvious. I respected his opinion as coming from someone who had genuine knowledge. Real knowledge takes effort, time and commitment to obtain. You have to begin with humility, ie, the understanding that you don't know it all yet, and then slowly climb the ladder.

There are far too many people on these types of forum who believe they know more than those who have made that effort. They lack the humility that comes from understanding that others know more than they do. Without that, you will never learn anything.

Sorry, it's morning so I tend to wax philosophical.

As far as cass j 's posts, he makes points based on actual science and you are arguing using rhetoric or just ignoring the science. That is hardly.... scientific.


Now... I offered to play your game your way, just for fun. However, do keep in mind that while I like deduction, facts do have a place in science too.


Ok.. moving on.



This does not make any sense. Any particle created will share it's velocity with the Earth and all of us. We have no way to know our velocity relative to the "Universe"... only to the specific parts of it that we observe.




Agreed.




No.. it does not.

Your entire post is myopic in the extreme. You take gravitational attraction as being the dominant force in the Big Bang while it's obvious that it is not.

Let's take an easy example. Take a grenade and let it explode in space. The bits of the grenade, all being made of normal matter, are attracted to each other, but during the explosion they move away from each other at speed. Why? Because the chemical reaction in the grenade is many orders of magnitude stronger than it's gravity.

Same with the Big Bang. Though the particles were gravitationally attracted to each other, the force of the explosion was enormously greater.

This, by the way, is a a form of "false dilemma".



In your post, you present me with two choices.

1. If particles and anti particles do not repel each other, then the inflation could not have happened.
2. If particles and anti particles do repel each other, then inflation would have happened.

This is a fallacy because you ignore the fact that there could have been other causes than gravity for expansion.

In fact, gravity is the weakest of all the forces.