Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Progress in Physics: Online Journal

  1. Aug 2, 2005 #1
    For those with a more mathematical bent, here is the link to a new online journal of theoretical physics--Progress in Physics:

    http://www.geocities.com/ptep_online/2005.html

    It would appear that any one of the papers could spark debate for this forum.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 3, 2005 #2

    ohwilleke

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    There are some interesting ones. One of the article proposes the idea of "unmatter" (i.e. atoms that have a mix of matter and anti-matter in them, for example, a proton and an anti-neutrino). I had hoped Castro's modified newtonian dynamics article would be good, but after a quick read I came away feeling like someone had tripped out on buzzwords and was going in seventeen directions at once.
     
  4. Aug 3, 2005 #3
    FYI, it has been suggested by a number of nuclear physicists at a site called 'MadSci' that "unmatter" is a nonsense concept as relates to physics--see this link:
    http://www.google.com/u/MadSciNet?q=unmatter&sa=Search&domains=madsci.org&sitesearch=madsci.org

    But I find this to be a strange point of view, rather narrow minded. For example, it is well known that pions meet the definition of matter + antimatter = unmatter (e.g., the (ud^, u^d, etc. where ^ = antimatter). Also, the pentaquark (qqqqq^), which is a type of unmatter, appears to exist when looked for at low energy reactions--see this link for updated pentaquark controversy (pro-con as of 2005).
    http://www.phy.ohiou.edu/~hicks/thplus.htm

    Plus, the recent paper "Antibaryons in Nuclei", published in Phys. Rev. C (71), 2005 confirms the existence of antimatter bound within matter, thus forming unmatter. I suspect that many other forms of "unmatter" exist, but I would appreciate hearing from others on this topic.
     
  5. Aug 4, 2005 #4

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    Is there a particular reason why you are emphasizing on this set of articles and journals (other than PRC)? This set of journals (which includes the dubious Physics Essays) that allign themselves with one another are very well-known as being unbashfully speculative. I mean, if you want "controversial" and "speculative" stuff but on more solid grounds, what's wrong with the more well-established journals? I'm curious as to why you pay this much attention to these journals?

    Zz.
     
  6. Aug 4, 2005 #5
    The two articles by S. J. Crothers are not fringe stuff. He shows that black
    holes are inconsistent with General Relativity. The reason he's publishing
    in a speculative journal is because this is such a controversial idea that
    the mainstream journals are shutting him out.

    His papers are worthy of peer review. As for much of the other stuff, its either
    speculative or just plain crack-pottery.
     
  7. Aug 4, 2005 #6

    ohwilleke

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I'm going to quote the mad scientist argument against unmatter at length to discuss it without misquoting:

    So far, not very convincing. It doesn't exist because I say so. Also, while anti-matter may be just as stable as matter, that doesn't mean that all anti-matter is stable, just as all matter is not stable.

    This sounds like a serious brain fart. We know that all sorts of mesons and baryons with lifetime of 10^-23 seconds mean lifetime exist, and even the proponents of "unmatter" make clear that it would be unstable. If we shouldn't have a label for stuff that is unstable, that we should also throw out the standard model, because we obvious don't need names for top, bottom, charm and strange quarks, for taus, for muons, for Ws and Zs. Most of the creatures in the particle zoo are unstable and there is nothing terribly odd about having unstable unmatter particles to the mix.

    Also, an anti-tau or anti-bottom quark isn't any more stable than "unmatter".

    OK, so pentaquarks may or may not have been discovered, but they are theoretically possible. This doesn't hurt or help the argument. You hardly have to be a speculative physicists to look for a high energy particle that accepted QCD says is possible, and early data is by it very nature inconclusive.

    Sounds like ad hominem here, not a real argument. Also, reading the article itself, the terminology is more set theory than philosophy, which is hardly anti-physics.
     
  8. Aug 4, 2005 #7
    Firstly, I am not a particle physisct.

    Having said that, if you had "unAlpha" or two protons bound to two anti-neutrons
    there might be trouble. Because there is a non-zero amplitude for protons to become
    neutrons and vice versa in a nucleus. This is a recipe for particle anhilation, no?

    Any actual particle physicists want to weigh in on this?
     
  9. Aug 4, 2005 #8
    I also am not a particle physicist--but if you reduce two protons [P] and two anti-neutrons [N^] to quark structure, where ^ = antimatter, allow them to interact, then your quark picture becomes:

    matter = (uud)(uud) + antimatter = (d^d^u^)(d^d^u^), which will yield pions (ud^) if we assume that [PN^]+[PN^] = Unalpha.

    But, what if the two [P] and two [N^] have isospin, and form two 6-quark bags and the Unalpha is thus [PP]+[N^N^], then we get (uuuudd) + (d^d^d^d^u^u^), which then must yield an exotic 4-quark type of unmatter "tetraquark" of the predicted form (ud^ud^). Now, this is not just speculation--see this link:

    http://www.answers.com/topic/exotic-meson

    where the (udu^d^) tetraquark is identified as the f0(600) meson, which is believed to follow chiral type mathematical models--thus, if we view (ud^ud^) as being two "diquarks" bound then the overall structure would be color neutral and it would seem to me that it would conform to quantum chromodynamics theory--but perhaps I error.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 4, 2005
  10. Aug 6, 2005 #9
    I'm not a real particle physicist yet either, but I will say that I've heard that the nucleus may be more complicated than that. Quarks may not stay well-confined inside nucleons in the nucleus-and if that's true (something I'm not sure about), then you could have quite a chance of individual quark annihilation upon interaction with their anti-particle.

    Does that work at all?
     
  11. Sep 13, 2005 #10
    The works of Stephen J. Crothers in Progress in Physics contain no relevant information.
    Crothers complains that Schwarzschild's solution (which describes a spherically
    symmetric black hole) cited in literature is not due to Schwarzschild, but to Hilbert.
    This is absolutely clear. Schwarzschild found a solution which is completely equivalent
    from the point of view of differential geometry to the simpler form given by Hilbert.
    Hilbert simplified the form of the result, but Schwarzschild was the first one who solved the
    free Einstein field equations.
    Additionally, he argues that the Hilbert solution is only valid for a radial parameter bigger
    than the Schwarzschild radius. This is also clear, unfortunately he doesn't realize that
    the discussion of continuations of the Schwarschild metric "inside" a black hole have a
    speculative character. Nonbody really claims that we know how the "inside" of a black hole
    looks like, but there are a lot of interesting papers which deal with this mind game.
    Finally, he insists on the "fact" that the solution given by Schwarzschild
    describes a "point mass", but he simply projects away the simple fact that the topology described
    by the Schwarzschild metric is that one of a sphere. This is pure math again.
    The problem is not the scientific comunity which tries to shut him down.
    The problem is that Crothers is not well acquainted with the
    axioms of differential geometry. Furthermore, he claims to work in an exact mathematical way, but physical
    models are never exact - combining aspects from quantum physics and general relativity makes it
    clear that we have no detailed knowledge about the true nature of supermassive objects.
    The work seems to be a typical example for a Don Quixote syndrome of somebody who is
    fighting against imaginary windmills.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Progress in Physics: Online Journal
  1. Hadron physics (Replies: 3)

Loading...