3 ms·

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

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)

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)