CERN antigravity experiment / General Science and Electronics / Forums

Forums

4hv.org :: Forums :: General Science and Electronics

« Previous topic | Next topic »

CERN antigravity experiment

previous 1 2 3 next

Move Thread

LAN_403

Ash Small

Mon Dec 09 2013, 01:02PM

Registered Member #3414 Joined: Sun Nov 14 2010, 05:05PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4245

Uspring wrote ...

Ash Small wrote:

Well, my opinion is that if they have to look for extra 'energy', they should try measuring the electromagnetic energy stored in those massive swirling clouds of 'space plasma'. The cosmos is full of electromagnetic energy, why do we need to 'invent' more?

You'd need extreme amounts of energy to account for the missing mass needed to e.g. explain the rotational speed of the outer arms of galaxies. Energy is very light (m=E/c^2) and astronomers can't find it in the required amounts.

I agree, but I don't believe we've actually quantified the amount of possible electro-magnetic energy contained within those swirling clouds of plasma, etc.

The latest radio telescopes keep finding evidence of more and more electro-magnetic radiation. Until we have quantified it in some way, we won't know the full extent of electricity as a source of energy in the universe.

I'm trying not to speculate here, and just sticking to what is known. We keep finding evidence of more and more electromagnetic radiation every time we launch new telescopes.

Conundrum

Tue Dec 10 2013, 07:59AM

Registered Member #96 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 05:37PM
Location: CI, Earth
Posts: 4061

I agree with your analysis Uspring, which is why my hypothesis seems to make more sense.
There is a fascinating symmetry in the whole thing, if the equations are exactly balanced then the "missing" antimatter may just be too thinly spread to detect.
Gravitational lensing may not be out of the question, if enough antimatter was ejected from say a black hole then you would expect to see a slight defocussing effect on a distant galaxy in line with the jet.

Also it seems that antimatter may also behave differently away from strong electromagnetic fields much as radioactive isotopes change their half lives at extremes of velocity due to relativity.

Uspring

Tue Dec 10 2013, 01:53PM

Registered Member #3988 Joined: Thu Jul 07 2011, 03:25PM
Location:
Posts: 711

Conundrum:
It is general relativity that suggests the existence of dark energy. The assumption of antimatter having a negative gravitational mass questions the foundation of general relativity. So if you think general relativity is false, than you don't have to look for an effect like dark energy or antimatter to make GR consistent with astronomical observation.

Ash Small:
You can quantify the amount of energy contained e.g. in plasma to explain galaxy dynamics. The energy radiated by the sun e.g. in all of its lifetime of billions of years will be just a tiny fraction of its mass. If all that energy would somehow be stored in the plasma cloud it still couldn't account for the missing mass.

Conundrum

Tue Dec 17 2013, 06:42AM

Registered Member #96 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 05:37PM
Location: CI, Earth
Posts: 4061

Hi guys.
Sorry for not mentioning the 2011 article earlier, seems that my work predates this by two years.
I might not have published a paper on it but my hypothesis does hold some merit.

If the site admininstrator(s) feel that discussing antigravity in this context does not belong on 4HV then
please feel free to lock/etc this thread until such time as further results from CERN emerge.

-A

Ash Small

Tue Dec 17 2013, 12:01PM

Registered Member #3414 Joined: Sun Nov 14 2010, 05:05PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4245

Uspring wrote ...

Ash Small:
You can quantify the amount of energy contained e.g. in plasma to explain galaxy dynamics. The energy radiated by the sun e.g. in all of its lifetime of billions of years will be just a tiny fraction of its mass. If all that energy would somehow be stored in the plasma cloud it still couldn't account for the missing mass.

Udo, If you accept that GR 'may' be 'imperfect', then there is no need for dark energy. We know there are 'gaps' in the Standard Model.

I'm not suggesting that all the 'extra energy' is radiated by stars or anything. Assuming that the 'Big Bang' theory is correct, then, shortly after the big bang, everything was very high energy plasma (apparently protons and electrons). I'm just suggesting that a lot of that energy remains tied up in the spinning plasma clouds, etc. and that all the 'radio waves' we pick up with out radio telescopes are evidence of this.

I don't believe we've yet 'measured' the full extent of the 'effects' of electro-magnetic radiation and charge within the universe.

If we can never 'detect' dark matter or dark energy, then all we can do is to try to eliminate all of the alternatives that we can 'detect'.

Uspring

Wed Dec 18 2013, 10:44AM

Registered Member #3988 Joined: Thu Jul 07 2011, 03:25PM
Location:
Posts: 711

Ash Small wrote:

Udo, If you accept that GR 'may' be 'imperfect', then there is no need for dark energy. We know there are 'gaps' in the Standard Model.

Yes, basically that was the point I wanted to make about Conundrums statements.
Empirically GR has a good footing. It explains black holes, the mercury perihelion shift, lens effects of light around large masses, the dynamics of the big bang etc. Einstein himself proposed a "cosmological constant" as part of GR, which is pretty much the same as dark energy. Dark energy is not something new and perfectly in agreement with GR.
The big problem with GR is, that it is formally not a quantum theory.

I don't believe we've yet 'measured' the full extent of the 'effects' of electro-magnetic radiation and charge within the universe.

You might well be right. Dark matter just describes the difference in what has been seen by astronomers as visible mass and energy up to now and what is required to explain the galaxies rotational speed.

Wastrel

Wed Dec 18 2013, 12:37PM

Registered Member #4095 Joined: Thu Sept 15 2011, 03:19PM
Location: England.
Posts: 122

Einstein's constant wears thin. He introduced it so the maths would be compatible with the existing theory of a static universe and it acted in the opposite direction than is now needed. It was a fudge then and it's a fudge now.

Ash Small

Wed Dec 18 2013, 01:12PM

Registered Member #3414 Joined: Sun Nov 14 2010, 05:05PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4245

I've heard theories recently (I'm not saying I agree with them) that suggest that the reason the universe appears to be the size it is, and that we are 'roughly' at the centre of it, is because everything 'further out' is moving away from us so fast that no light ever reaches us from it. This 'sort of' fits in with 'dark matter', however I'm not sure I accept it as plausible.

The way I see it, is that the 'amount' of energy stored in a 'swirling cloud of plasma' depends upon the forces exerted upon it, ie, the strength of the electro-magnetic field surrounding it.

While, I believe, a recent experiment used a couple of 'probes' to measure the potential difference at two points between us and the sun, we have no 'real' idea of the voltages or potentials that exist in other parts of the universe.

While these forces can't act 'directly' on photons, they can act upon other 'charged particles', which can possibly 'indirectly' affect the gravitational interaction between these 'secondary charged particles' and photons, thus resulting in 'gravitational lensing'.

I appreciate that some of this is speculation, but then so is 'dark matter/energy theory'.

Bjørn

Wed Dec 18 2013, 09:11PM

Registered Member #27 Joined: Fri Feb 03 2006, 02:20AM
Location: Hyperborea
Posts: 2058

Maybe this will make it clearer:

"A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A scientific hypothesis is a proposed explanation of a phenomenon which still has to be rigorously tested. In contrast, a scientific theory has undergone extensive testing and is generally accepted to be the accurate explanation behind an observation. A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis proposed for further research."

Ash Small

Wed Dec 18 2013, 09:43PM

Registered Member #3414 Joined: Sun Nov 14 2010, 05:05PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4245

BjÃ¸rn wrote ...

Maybe this will make it clearer:

"A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A scientific hypothesis is a proposed explanation of a phenomenon which still has to be rigorously tested. In contrast, a scientific theory has undergone extensive testing and is generally accepted to be the accurate explanation behind an observation. A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis proposed for further research."

Thanks for clarifying that Bjorn. I should have used the word 'hypothesis' instead of 'theory' in several, if not all of the places above.

Wikipedia seems to accept that these two words are interchangable in many instances, though, which is probably where some of the confusion has arisen.

I'm just suggesting here that the 'rate of spin', say, of a galaxy that comprises a significant amount of plasma 'could' be influenced by external electro-magnetic fields, which we haven't yet attempted to 'measure', or that there 'could' be some similar interaction. I'm only suggesting this as an alternative to 'inventing' a whole new physics which, by definition, can never be proven.

I generally go by the 'layman's definition' that a theory remains a theory until it is proven beyond question, however I accept that hypothesis is the correct term to use here.

previous 1 2 3 next

Moderator(s): Chris Russell, Noelle, Alex, Tesladownunder, Dave Marshall, Dave Billington, Bjørn, Steve Conner, Wolfram, Kizmo, Mads Barnkob