Why is there matter in universe ?

So, can you explain me why scientists are actually doing some very expensive experimentation, trying to find out how matter and the antimatter react to gravity ?
They are testing how antimatter behaves in a gravitational field and they are doing it because there is a very strong prediction of general relativity that everything will fall the same way in a gravitational field and they've already tested that everything else they can find falls the same way. It isn't asking the questions that makes what you're doing pseudoscience it's that you don't have any real reason for any of the predictions you make you just want antimatter to have negative mass because you think it would be cool whereas the scientists expect all matter and antimatter to fall downwards because that's what general relativity predicts but general relativity has got to be wrong somewhere so they check where they can.
 
Last edited:
I'm not the one making the jokes.
You said the answer to matter is "obvious", and then literally told us a fanciful tale about a fight with a dog.
Is science a joke to you?

Ok, it is obvious you dident understand.

How do we know antimatter is real? Because we are making it in labs. Antiprotons are antimatter. Positrons are antimatter.

Dont try to fool me.
You said you know that gravity behavior is the same with matter and antimatter.
How do you know this when the physicist dont know and try to know using very expensive experiences ?
That was my question.

How do we know negative matter is pseudoscience? Because there is no evidence for it, either physical or theoretical. It is not explicitly ruled out by the physics we know, but then again, neither are other speculative particles such as tachyons.

You see.
You dont read what i write. Or your brain is deficient.
For the antimatter, Dirac has postulated the existence using the mathematic formulas (dirac was some genius in mathematic).
You can do the same for other things. Like negativ mass or negativ energy etc.
It is not pseudodcience, it is science trying to take in account what we actually know.
Is it reality ? Nobody knows, because we dont know how far the domain of application of some formulas can go.
But it is how science works. Modern science.
Perhaps you have heard about it ?

Wikipedia said:
The equation also implied the existence of a new form of matter, antimatter, previously unsuspected and unobserved and which was experimentally confirmed several years later. It also provided a theoretical justification for the introduction of several component wave functions in Pauli's phenomenological theory of spin. The wave functions in the Dirac theory are vectors of four complex numbers (known as bispinors), two of which resemble the Pauli wavefunction in the non-relativistic limit, in contrast to the Schrödinger equation which described wave functions of only one complex value. Moreover, in the limit of zero mass, the Dirac equation reduces to the Weyl equation.

Although Dirac did not at first fully appreciate the importance of his results, the entailed explanation of spin as a consequence of the union of quantum mechanics and relativity—and the eventual discovery of the positron—represents one of the great triumphs of theoretical physics. This accomplishment has been described as fully on a par with the works of Newton, Maxwell, and Einstein before him.[2] In the context of quantum field theory, the Dirac equation is reinterpreted to describe quantum fields corresponding to spin-1⁄2 particles.

The Dirac equation appears on the floor of Westminster Abbey on the plaque commemorating Paul Dirac's life, which was unveiled on 13 November 1995.[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_equation

CERN said:
In 1932 Carl Anderson, a young professor at the California Institute of Technology in the US, was studying showers of cosmic particles in a cloud chamber and saw a track left by "something positively charged, and with the same mass as an electron". After nearly a year of effort and observation, he decided the tracks were actually antielectrons, each produced alongside an electron from the impact of cosmic rays in the cloud chamber. He called the antielectron a "positron", for its positive charge and published his results in the journal Science, in a paper entitled The apparent existence of easily deflectable positives (1932). The discovery was confirmed soon after by Occhialini and Blacket, who in 1934 published Some photographs of the tracks of penetrating radiation in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society A. Anderson's observations proved the existence of the antiparticles predicted by Dirac. For discovering the positron, Anderson shared the 1936 Nobel prize in physics with Victor Hess. For years to come, cosmic rays remained the only source of high-energy particles. The next antiparticle physicists were looking for was the antiproton. Much heavier than the positron, the antiproton is the antipartner of the proton. It would not be confirmed experimentally for another 22 years.
https://timeline.web.cern.ch/timeline-header/86
 
You said you know that gravity behavior is the same with matter and antimatter.
How do you know this when the physicist dont know and try to know using very expensive experiences ?
The physicists do know it.

I would suggest you do your own research, but you won't. Here's a nice easy read for you:
"In the experiments, conducted over an 18 month period at CERN's antimatter factory ... the scientists found that matter and antimatter particles responded to gravity in the same way, with an accuracy of 97%."
https://www.space.com/matter-antima...ments, conducted over,with an accuracy of 97%.
 
Here's a nice easy read for you:
I'm afraid Dicart is just a run-of-the-mill anti-science troll. He just takes the opposite side from science, it is immaterial whether he understands the point or not. All his arguments are in bad faith, he doesn't care about learning, his goal is to argue and annoy, why he does this though is quite beyond my capacity...
 
I'm afraid Dicart is just a run-of-the-mill anti-science troll. He just takes the opposite side from science, it is immaterial whether he understands the point or not. All his arguments are in bad faith, he doesn't care about learning, his goal is to argue and annoy, why he does this though is quite beyond my capacity...
I am rapidly coming to the same conclusion myself, yes.
 
Dicart,

Ok.
If a have a big dog, as big as i am. [snip]
All this nonsense about a dog and so on obviously isn't an "obvious" answer. You shouldn't claim that an answer is obvious if to know what the answer is somebody has to know all about how your dog disappeared. Perhaps trying googling a definition of "obvious" before you use that word again.
 
Moderator note: This thread has been moved to a more appropriate subforum.
 
I found the video way too tedious to watch. I skipped forward a bit and he began talking about negative mass. Negative mass is pseudoscience so at that point I stopped watching. The guy is not a physicist he is an engineer, I'm an engineer too, so I can tell you if you want to understand physics listen to physicist, not engineers.

He was director of research at the CNRS.
And he is a very skilled engineer too.
The physicists do know it.

I would suggest you do your own research, but you won't. Here's a nice easy read for you:
"In the experiments, conducted over an 18 month period at CERN's antimatter factory ... the scientists found that matter and antimatter particles responded to gravity in the same way, with an accuracy of 97%."
https://www.space.com/matter-antimatter-same-response-to-gravity#:~:text=In the experiments, conducted over,with an accuracy of 97%.

Yes i know this experiment and i have studied it with lot of attention at the beginning, to be sure that what they try to demonstrate is consistent (i dont like to waste my time).
It found it is almost (i remember i found that there could be some minor flaws). So we can rely on the results with some good confidence.
And you will be surprised : This is exactly what Jean-Pierre Petit (the engineer...) predicted, according to his JANUS model in 2016.
You can read his interview on his site (7 octobed 2016), in french :
https://www.jp-petit.org/janus/janus_presentation.htm

Antimatter is attracted to matter like matter attract matter.
 
Dicart,


All this nonsense about a dog and so on obviously isn't an "obvious" answer. You shouldn't claim that an answer is obvious if to know what the answer is somebody has to know all about how your dog disappeared. Perhaps trying googling a definition of "obvious" before you use that word again.
It was just some metaphoric representation to enter into the subject.

Like here :
Jean-Pierre Petit said:
- C'est LE mustère numéro un de la cosmologie. En fait, on n'en sait rien. Il a subsisté une particule de matière sur un milliard.

- Et l'équivalent en antimatière.

- C'est le mystère numéro deux : cette antimatière, on ne la détecte pas.

- Comment se manifesterait-elle ?

- Toute particule d'antiumatière qui rencontrerait une particule de matière produirait aussitôt, par annihilation, des photons gamma, qui seraient aussitôt détectés. Historiquement, on a commencé par supposer que la matière et l'antimatière se seraient séparées, toujours pour une raison inconnue. Souriau avait émis l'hypothèse que ces deux entités se seraient séparées en bloc.

- En bloc ?

- Oui, et j'avais donné écho à cette idée dans ma bande dessinée Cosmic Story ( 1985, pages 58-60 ). Un album vieux de 32 ans ! Souriau avait pas mal voyagé au Moyen Orient et spécialement en Iran. Dans son modèle il s'inspirait du modèle cosmologique babylonien, selon lequel le seigneur du temps, Zurvan, aurait eu deux fils, Ormazd et Ahriman, "d'égale puissance", qui entreprirent aussitôt de se battre et de s'auto-détruire. Mais le dieu Mithra se plaça entre eux.

- Fantastique. Souriau avait construit son modèle cosmologique sur la base d'dées d'il y a quatre mille ans !

- Tout à fait. Souriau avait imaginé que notre univers était une hypersphère ( voir ma bande dessinée Le Geometricon, que j'ai faite paraître en 1980, il y a 37 ans ). Selon lui la matière aurait occupé la moitié de l'espace disponible, et l'antimatière l'autre moitié. Evidemment, il existerait une frontière entre les deux, une sorte de no-matter's land, où les annihilations auraient créé un vide. Et Souriau, en se fondant sur la détection de quasars, pensait avoir localisé ce vide.
https://www.jp-petit.org/janus/janus_presentation.htm

Dans son modèle il s'inspirait du modèle cosmologique babylonien, selon lequel le seigneur du temps, Zurvan, aurait eu deux fils, Ormazd et Ahriman, "d'égale puissance", qui entreprirent aussitôt de se battre et de s'auto-détruire. Mais le dieu Mithra se plaça entre eux.

Translated into :

In his model he was inspired by the Babylonian cosmological model, according to which the lord of time, Zurvan, had two sons, Ormazd and Ahriman, "of equal power", who immediately began to fight and destroy themselves. But the god Mithra came between them.
 
Dicart,


All this nonsense about a dog and so on obviously isn't an "obvious" answer. You shouldn't claim that an answer is obvious if to know what the answer is somebody has to know all about how your dog disappeared. Perhaps trying googling a definition of "obvious" before you use that word again.

I only say that if something disappear, the most obvious thinking is that it went far ago.
 
The detail of what you call pseudoscience...

https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03224868/document

An other "pseudoscience" work published here :
Sciencedirect said:
Abstract
In this review we present a thoroughly comprehensive survey of recent work on modified theories of gravity and their cosmological consequences. Amongst other things, we cover General Relativity, scalar–tensor, Einstein–æther, and Bimetric theories, as well as TeVeS, f(R)" role="presentation">

, general higher-order theories, Hořava–Lifschitz gravity, Galileons, Ghost Condensates, and models of extra dimensions including Kaluza–Klein, Randall–Sundrum, DGP, and higher co-dimension braneworlds. We also review attempts to construct a Parameterised Post-Friedmannian formalism, that can be used to constrain deviations from General Relativity in cosmology, and that is suitable for comparison with data on the largest scales. These subjects have been intensively studied over the past decade, largely motivated by rapid progress in the field of observational cosmology that now allows, for the first time, precision tests of fundamental physics on the scale of the observable Universe. The purpose of this review is to provide a reference tool for researchers and students in cosmology and gravitational physics, as well as a self-contained, comprehensive and up-to-date introduction to the subject as a whole.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370157312000105

And now for the "pseudoscientist" guru, the nobel prise Andrei Sakharov :
Wikipedia said:
Particle physics and cosmology
After 1965 Sakharov returned to fundamental science and began working on particle physics and physical cosmology.[18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27][28][29][30][31][32]



2D didactic image of Sakharov's model of the universe with reversal of the arrow of time
He tried to explain the baryon asymmetry of the universe; in that regard, he was the first to give a theoretical motivation for proton decay. Proton decay was suggested by Wigner in 1949 and 1952.[33]

Proton decay experiments had been performed since 1954 already.[34] Sakharov was the first to consider CPT-symmetric events occurring before the Big Bang:

We can visualize that neutral spinless maximons (or photons) are produced at ''t'' < 0 from contracting matter having an excess of antiquarks, that they pass "one through the other" at the instant ''t'' = 0 when the density is infinite, and decay with an excess of quarks when ''t'' > 0, realizing total CPT symmetry of the universe. All the phenomena at t < 0 are assumed in this hypothesis to be CPT reflections of the phenomena at t > 0.[20]

His legacy in this domain are the famous conditions named after him:[20] Baryon number violation, C-symmetry and CP-symmetry violation, and interactions out of thermal equilibrium.

Sakharov was also interested in explaining why the curvature of the universe is so small. This lead him to consider cyclic models, where the universe oscillates between contraction and expansion phases.[30][29] In those models, after a certain number of cycles the curvature naturally becomes infinite even if it had not started this way: Sakharov considered three starting points, a flat universe with a slightly negative cosmological constant, a universe with a positive curvature and a zero cosmological constant, and a universe with a negative curvature and a slightly negative cosmological constant. Those last two models feature what Sakharov calls a reversal of the time arrow, which can be summarized as follows: He considers times t > 0 after the initial Big Bang singularity at t = 0 (which he calls "Friedman singularity" and denotes Φ) as well as times t < 0 before that singularity. He then assumes that entropy increases when time increases for t > 0 as well as when time decreases for t < 0, which constitutes his reversal of time. Then he considers the case when the universe at t < 0 is the image of the universe at t > 0 under CPT symmetry but also the case when it is not so: the universe has a non-zero CPT charge at t = 0 in this case. Sakharov considers a variant of this model where the reversal of the time arrow occurs at a point of maximum entropy instead of happening at the singularity. In those models there is no dynamic interaction between the universe at t < 0 and t > 0.

In his first model the two universes did not interact, except via local matter accumulation whose density and pressure become high enough to connect the two sheets through a bridge without spacetime between them, but with a continuity of geodesics beyond the Schwarzschild radius with no singularity[citation needed], allowing an exchange of matter between the two conjugated sheets, based on an idea after Igor Dmitriyevich Novikov.[35] Novikov called such singularities a collapse and an anticollapse, which are an alternative to the couple black hole and white hole in the wormhole model. Sakharov also proposed the idea of induced gravity as an alternative theory of quantum gravity.[36]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Sakharov
 
If when someone, using what we know in science, elaborate some new hypothetical model (i have insisted on THIS WORD : MODEL, and NOT THEORY) it is what you call pseudoscience, then the whole research domain is pseudoscience.

Dicart said:
The one who pretend to have (perhaps) be in contact with some ET or at least have received some usefull informations that has permitted him to developp the JANUS univers Model (it is not a theory, it is a Model).

But i understand that some engineer can have this belief because i already met many of them having this point of view.
 
Last edited:
So what? There is no evidence of negative mass, so he is making stuff up.

Like there where no evidence of antimatter and like there where no evidence of highs particles etc etc etc.
This is how science work.

Wikipedia said:
In 1928, Paul Dirac's theory of elementary particles, now part of the Standard Model, already included negative solutions.[27] The Standard Model is a generalization of quantum electrodynamics (QED) and negative mass is already built into the theory.

Morris, Thorne and Yurtsever[28] pointed out that the quantum mechanics of the Casimir effect can be used to produce a locally mass-negative region of space–time. In this article, and subsequent work by others, they showed that negative matter could be used to stabilize a wormhole. Cramer et al. argue that such wormholes might have been created in the early universe, stabilized by negative-mass loops of cosmic string.[29] Stephen Hawking has argued that negative energy is a necessary condition for the creation of a closed timelike curve by manipulation of gravitational fields within a finite region of space;[30] this implies, for example, that a finite Tipler cylinder cannot be used as a time machine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_mass

Dave said:
That's not an answer.
Well, unless you're twelve years old.

Occam's razor.
Wikipedia said:
Occam's razor, Ockham's razor, Ocham's razor (Latin: novacula Occami), also known as the principle of parsimony or the law of parsimony (Latin: lex parsimoniae), is the problem-solving principle that "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity".[1][2] It is generally understood in the sense that with competing theories or explanations, the simpler one, for example a model with fewer parameters, is to be preferred. The idea is frequently attributed to English Franciscan friar William of Ockham (c.  1287–1347), a scholastic philosopher and theologian, although he never used these words. This philosophical razor advocates that when presented with competing hypotheses about the same prediction, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions,[3] and that this is not meant to be a way of choosing between hypotheses that make different predictions.

Similarly, in science, Occam's razor is used as an abductive heuristic in the development of theoretical models rather than as a rigorous arbiter between candidate models.[4][5] In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result; the preference for simplicity in the scientific method is based on the falsifiability criterion. For each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there may be an extremely large, perhaps even incomprehensible, number of possible and more complex alternatives. Since failing explanations can always be burdened with ad hoc hypotheses to prevent them from being falsified, simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones because they tend to be more testable.[6][7][8]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

So now you're going to apologize for bad-faith arguing, and wasting our time, right?

You really dont understand anything or are you trolling ?
 
You really dont understand anything or are you trolling ?

Here, you say "physicist dont know" that gravity affect antimatter the same as matter:
Dont try to fool me.
You said you know that gravity behavior is the same with matter and antimatter.
How do you know this when the physicist dont know
and try to know using very expensive experiences ?
That was my question.
And then, when I pointed out that they do know, you contradicted your own lie, admitting you had already studied the experiment and then you acknowledged that physicists do know:
Yes i know this experiment and i have studied it with lot of attention...
Antimatter is attracted to matter like matter attract matter.

So you lied. You knew the answer to the question. You wasted our time with bad faith arguing.


Guys. I'm callin' this.

Dicart isn't just ignorant of physics; he doesn't just make up stuff and spew word salad; he lies.
He denies things that he later admits he knows are true. And he does so in inflammatory language, designed to stoke the fires of argument.

Dicart is a troll, whose purpose is to waste the time of good people trying to do science. He's going on my ignore list.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top