is it possible ? it seems so " in all probability ball lighting , which so fascinated both Gerlach and Kapica , can be indentified as so called plasma solitions - quite peculiar , magnetically isolated systems , vortices containing high temperature plasma " quoted from the magazine Flying Saucer Review , winter 2008 , vol. 53/4 , pg22 there is also a book from 1993 called " ELECTROGRAVITICS SYSTEMS any thoughts ? pro or con
it seems to me that any theory of anti-gravity would be based on the gluon since as apparently , the further out the gluon gets from a quark the stronger the gluon attractiveness gets and I would imagine that the gluon is the key , really , to understanding gravity query , is there an anti-gluon ?
Why? Where did you get that idea? What you say is that the force between two particles mediated by gluons get weaker when the particles are close to each other and stronger whwn they get far away. This does not seem a good description of gravity. The gluon are vector particles. Gravity is mediated by rank-2 tensor particles The gluons (like the photons) are their own anti-particles
Yes. To use Feynman's example: floors. Why does it seem so? Assuming you're not talking about floors. Which means absolutely nothing in terms of "anti gravity". But then again the vast majority of flying saucer magazine articles are pure woo woo. So what? The book itself is largely woo woo ("backed up" by technobabble). Just because a book exists doesn't make the subject real. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! PS the first edition is dated April 1994. 1100f has explained why not.
Not true, as the gluon is charged under the strong force, while the photon has no charge under any force. As the gluons transform under the adjoint rep of SU(3) you end up with there being 8 gluon charges, such as 'red-antigreen', whose antiparticle would have charge green-antired.
I agree with you but as far as I remember, the gluons states are combinations such as for example 1 over sqrt(2) * (|red>|antigreen> + |green>|antired>) which is its own antiparticle. Anyway, even if you don't call these combinations "gluons" but the combinations like those you gave, there are eight gluons, and their antiparticles belong to the same eight gluons (which is what I meant when I sid that the gluons are their own antiparticles. Not like, for example, the electrons and the neutrinos.
