Jump to content
Science Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. There have been quite a large number of papers about the pioneer anomaly whereby it was found that pioneer 10 or 11 began to be recorded - from about Saturn distance - as not continuing to move away fast enough from the sun as predicted by Newton. As of yet, the fact has not been satisfactorily explained by various attempts dealing with the details of the probe itself. see pioneer anomaly wikipedia. The most interesting paper I saw suggested that incorporating the 'rotational doppler effect' reduces the remaining detected frequency discrepancy from pioneer transmission. I wonder if this cou
  2. Astonishing, apparently NASA's been reading 'The Dominium', by Hasanuddin!
  3. This gives a (slightly) more conventional view, involving annihilating positrons produced from primordial black hole Hawking radiation, these would aniilhilate with the electrons in the radiation. Milky Way's antimatter linked to exotic black holes - space - 22 January 2008 - New Scientist Some discussion is here of failures of direct primordial black hole radiation detection- Fermi: FAQ - "Mini" Black Hole Detection
  4. Hasanuddin: I can see how positrons within solar wind being gravitationally repelled out from the sun could explain how fast solar wind is, but I have trouble seeing how this metaphor can be relied on when the electromagnetic force surpasses the gravitational by an order of 10^36. How can such gravitational positron concentration/repulsion of matter be significant relative to that?
  5. There's a couple of important issues that have been left out of this. One is that duration for micro black holes under large extradimensional string theory cannot be obtained by using the classical formulae for power and duration of black holes given by CraigD (this page). Secondly, even the type of large extra dimensional string theory can effect the result. This latter occurs where the extra dimension calculation takes into account the effect of gravity upon the radiated particles. When this is done it is called the 'microcanonical interpretation', where - for a given black hole mass -
  6. Quite agreed. Why should taosim be untutored in the matter of mind? Are psychologies that disagree with Freud untotored? Was the mind only 'known' by the time of Freud? Is a non specialists opinion always less accurate? Freud has his interpretation of particular dreams or comments made in particular circumstances, I don't see how these must be the necessary or only truth whether for psychologists/psychotherapists or laypeople. I don't wish to discredit people for seeking help with problems of mind but I disagree with our being permeated by the dictums of mood x is problematic in i
  7. I think the problem is making a problem of worry. When we watch films wer'e expected to sympathise with characters, if they worry we understand why they worry, so we put it down to the context. Why should we pathologise some of the variety of emotions humans can have? Sure we can become dominated by worry for example. But so can we become dominated by happiness and miss the tragedies in the world that are ongoing. I don't go for Freud so much, as it seems part of a judgemental approach where i worry is a problem ii because it is a problem, then there is some other thing, some sort of pr
  8. Hasanuddin I think its upto moderators to suggest my wording style is inappriate, I was simply responding to the perception that you believed I was hoping to also test gravitational repulsion later at my flat. According to Theory: Antiparticles (SLAC VVC) 'force carrier particles cannot be classified as either matter or antimatter.' Force carrier particles are not listed under matter or antimatter in this link. The link you gave may not have responses by actual physicists - as a bulletin board system is referred to at the top. I don't see that my criticism about light re. gravity an
  9. Hasanuddin Can you clarify the following: From what I could remember, I get as far as MPP = Micellular, but P? P? (also CME ..).
  10. Hasanuddin I think you're implying I was thinking my sort of test could also check for gravitational deflection, but I thought you recognised that I was already aware of gravitational deflection of light (mercury's light for example). My argument is that specifically attractive gravitational deflection of light doesn't follow from your model. I also don't see why we should argue that light is the antiparticle of itself as opposed to 'a different kettle of fish'. On what basis should any charge based deflection be on the same level of that of gravity?: electromagnetic forces are 10^38 x s
  11. Hasanuddin I recognise the point about a photon reacting to a proton as it would to an antiproton. My difficulty is the issue of why the photon is attracted gravitationally in the same way as (non antimatter) matter is. By applying the idea of the photon as an antiparticle of its itself to this, it seems to leave a puzzle to me as to why the photon should follow the matter pattern for attraction to matter - as opposed to a repulsion or perhaps more predictably - non deflection pattern Of course the last doesn't apply in practice. I'm not really that clear that anti particle of itself
  12. Eric


    yes freeztar. Its useful to know the threads. Whether that's what Mootanman meant I don't know, but you'll understand that I may not agree with assurances.
  13. Eric


    Greetings pamela Mootanman - I'll have a look at whats on the CERN collider debates here. hashed out = covered, it seems. A new phrase for me, but seems like a good one.
  14. If you look at this you will see a suggestion of the sources for the highest energy cosmic rays arxiv:0711.2256. The cosmic ray expected range is thought to be about 75megaparsecs, so can reach into the next superclusters. I would assume that antimatter galaxies would emit antimatter cosmic rays as matter galaxys' emit matter cosmic rays. For the cosmic rays considered in the paper deflection is only around 5degrees even from interstellar magnetic fields. Presumably antimatter gravity wouldn't be able to restrict antimatter cosmic rays through gravitational capture otherwise we would pr
  15. I'm familiar with the formula Ea^2 = 2Mc^2Em + (2Mc^2)^2 + mc^2)^2 where Ea is total energy available for particle production in centre of momentum or mass frame of reference for the two particles Em is total energy of bombarding particle in lab/ earth frame M is target particle rest mass m is bombarding particle rest mass I'm aware that this is based on calculating the total kinetic energy in the frame of reference of the centre of momentum frame of both particles, but I haven't been able to find or work out - how this formula is derived. Can you help?
  • Create New...