4 ms·

For some reason I had a feeling you'd post that. That wikipedia page doesn't show anything except for, at best, an argument that the Standard Model is incompati

For some reason I had a feeling you'd post that. That wikipedia page doesn't show anything except for, at best, an argument that the Standard Model is incompatible with gravitational repulsion plus many statements of unsuccessful attempts to falsify repulsion of antimatter. Did you even read it?? By the way, it's old news by now that Standard Model is incomplete. But let's just go back to passive aggressively condescending to people we don't know on the internet by implying they've never studied so much as modern QFT because we're not prepared to understand their original argument.

eganist 8y ago
> But let's just go back to passive aggressively condescending to people we don't know on the internet Please stop accusing people of this; it's being observed as radiating from your own commentary by multiple people, which might explain why others are responding in kind. I called out the gaslighting elsewhere, and the fact that you're persisting with it against multiple parties hampers constructive discussion.
- blueprint 8y ago
  Are you not aware of his other comment to me? I've seen it many times before. We don't know each other so perhaps defer belief that you can tell whether that is true or not until you have some evidence. Gaslighting... lol
krastanov 8y ago
How was I passive aggressive or condescending? I do believe you are misunderstanding what the math says about all of this, but I am eager to suggest textbooks that explain my point of view. I am suggesting textbooks not because I am condescending, rather because I can not give a meaningful arguments in a comment. And you are misrepresenting the wiki page. There is a large number of "though experiments" and a few actual experimental observations that make antigravity look implausible. Yes, there are loopholes (like in virtually any statement about fundamental physics) and we should devise experiments to test the loopholes, but when these loopholes are already implausible it is not unreasonable to put the majority of your resources in more interesting experiments. P.S. None of my comments have anything to do with the Standard Model and I do not see why you are bringing it in this conversation.
- blueprint 8y ago
  Misunderstanding what math? If I'm misrepresenting that wiki page, then how about actually getting specific for once in your comments. It shouldn't be so hard to point out one example with actual details and questions if there such a large number of them. P.S. If you think your comments about what is considered likely and not likely to CERN have nothing to do with the Standard Model then you really do need to read that wiki page again. I don't see a single substantial and actually relevant argument in your comments so far. If I'm missing something, again, let's get specific so I have something that tells me you know what we're even talking about here. Are you representing "tensor interactions" as somehow capable of sufficiently explaining gravity and its interactions with antimatter? And are you saying that CERN is using constraints on "tensor interactions" as their reasoning to deprioritize such an experiment? What are your qualifications in physics, by the way?
  - krastanov 8y ago
    Specific example: the very first one from the wiki page, namely the equivalence principle, together with (also in that very first example) the fact that particles that are their own antiparticles have been heavily tested to obey ordinary gravity. The whole notion that energy has mass and that antiparticles gain their mass/energy through the same mechanisms that ordinary matter does. About the Standard Model: None of this has to do with the particularities of the Standard Model. Most quantum field theories have that structure. Tensor interactions: We have two unrelated arguments for why gravity is a tensor field: one comes from quantum field theory where to have a similar attractive force you need it to be a tensor one; the other one comes from general relativity (the premise of the theory). This is again not a proof, but all of physics is built on such cute "coincidences". (Edit to add: point being, the coincidence is that attraction as we have it requires a tensor force, which happens to be the case for completely unrelated reasons) Qualifications: Graduate student at the Yale Quantum Institute (through Yale's Physics Department). Hopefully I will be graduating this academic year :) (fingers crossed)

eganist 8y ago

> But let's just go back to passive aggressively condescending to people we don't know on the internet Please stop accusing people of this; it's being observed as radiating from your own commentary by multiple people, which might explain why others are responding in kind. I called out the gaslighting elsewhere, and the fact that you're persisting with it against multiple parties hampers constructive discussion.

blueprint 8y ago
Are you not aware of his other comment to me? I've seen it many times before. We don't know each other so perhaps defer belief that you can tell whether that is true or not until you have some evidence. Gaslighting... lol

krastanov 8y ago

How was I passive aggressive or condescending? I do believe you are misunderstanding what the math says about all of this, but I am eager to suggest textbooks that explain my point of view. I am suggesting textbooks not because I am condescending, rather because I can not give a meaningful arguments in a comment. And you are misrepresenting the wiki page. There is a large number of "though experiments" and a few actual experimental observations that make antigravity look implausible. Yes, there are loopholes (like in virtually any statement about fundamental physics) and we should devise experiments to test the loopholes, but when these loopholes are already implausible it is not unreasonable to put the majority of your resources in more interesting experiments. P.S. None of my comments have anything to do with the Standard Model and I do not see why you are bringing it in this conversation.

blueprint 8y ago
Misunderstanding what math? If I'm misrepresenting that wiki page, then how about actually getting specific for once in your comments. It shouldn't be so hard to point out one example with actual details and questions if there such a large number of them. P.S. If you think your comments about what is considered likely and not likely to CERN have nothing to do with the Standard Model then you really do need to read that wiki page again. I don't see a single substantial and actually relevant argument in your comments so far. If I'm missing something, again, let's get specific so I have something that tells me you know what we're even talking about here. Are you representing "tensor interactions" as somehow capable of sufficiently explaining gravity and its interactions with antimatter? And are you saying that CERN is using constraints on "tensor interactions" as their reasoning to deprioritize such an experiment? What are your qualifications in physics, by the way?
- krastanov 8y ago
  Specific example: the very first one from the wiki page, namely the equivalence principle, together with (also in that very first example) the fact that particles that are their own antiparticles have been heavily tested to obey ordinary gravity. The whole notion that energy has mass and that antiparticles gain their mass/energy through the same mechanisms that ordinary matter does. About the Standard Model: None of this has to do with the particularities of the Standard Model. Most quantum field theories have that structure. Tensor interactions: We have two unrelated arguments for why gravity is a tensor field: one comes from quantum field theory where to have a similar attractive force you need it to be a tensor one; the other one comes from general relativity (the premise of the theory). This is again not a proof, but all of physics is built on such cute "coincidences". (Edit to add: point being, the coincidence is that attraction as we have it requires a tensor force, which happens to be the case for completely unrelated reasons) Qualifications: Graduate student at the Yale Quantum Institute (through Yale's Physics Department). Hopefully I will be graduating this academic year :) (fingers crossed)