|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
 Posted - 07/11/2005 : 22:48:08
|
Antimatter is exotic stuff. Exactly the same as regular matter but with an opposite charge. It is exceedingly rare in the universe.
Or is it?
I was pondering the big bang and contemplating how the simplest version of the standard model predicts that an equal amounts of matter and antimatter would have been produced. And I got to thinking:
What if there were actually as much antimatter as ordinary matter in the universe? Were could it be hiding? And what could prevent it from interacting with normal matter?
I was wondering about these questions when the thought occurred to me, "What if antimatter generates antigravity?"
First a few questions. Has the gravitational attraction of any sort of electromagnetic radiation ever been measured? Has the gravitational attraction of antimatter ever been measured? To my knowledge the answer to these questions is 'no,' but if the answer to either of these questions is yes, and the answer is what would have been predicted by the standard model, then the following scenario is nothing but a curiosity.
(Note: I did a search on the net on this subject and could not find any material on this subject. Some sites claimed something about the possibility if antimatter having reverse gravity but when I examined them they seemed merely to theorize that antimatter may respond to gravity as if it were antigravity. This is very different from the idea I am presenting here.)
Assuming that anti-matter generates negative gravity or antigravity? What would the effects of this be? What scientific questions, would be impacted in this event?
Antimatter=>antigravity - Explanation
Let's consider the earth moon system. What is the total gravitational attraction between the earth and the moon? It would be the gravitational attraction of the earth on the moon, plus the gravitational attraction of the moon on the earth. Correct?
The original conjecture was that antimatter generates an anti-gravitational field, so here's a thought experiment. Let's suppose that the moon were made of antimatter (ignoring for the time being the fact that the moon is held together by gravity and would instantly fly apart under this scenario). What would the gravitational attraction between the earth and the moon be in this case? Well it seems logical that it would be the gravitational attraction of the earth on the moon, plus the gravitational attraction (which would be negative) of the moon on the earth.
Therefore there would still be an overall gravitational attraction between the earth and the moon because the earth (which is made of matter) is more massive than the moon (which in this thought experiment is made of antimatter). So it would still be possible for the moon to remain in orbit around the earth.
Now let's reverse things. Suppose that it were the earth that was made of antimatter and the moon were normal matter. Then the negative gravity of the earth would overpower the positive gravity of the moon and and the would be a net repulsion between the earth and the moon. Therefore it would be impossible for the moon to remain in orbit of the earth.
The purpose in outlining the above scenarios is to (hopefully) explain what is meant by antigravity. And that it is not a case of antimatter responding differently to gravity. It is only a case of antimatter generating an anti-gravitational field. In short: matter and antimatter respond identically to gravitational and anti-gravitational fields, but they generate opposite fields.
Too be clear, what is described above is emphatically not 'antimatter falls up'.
Antimatter=>antigravity - Practical Implications
Let's now look at some of the practical results of this scenario. No large scale objects like stars, planets or moons could be formed by antimatter in this scenario. Not only would there be no gravity to pull them together, but antigravity would work to push apart even those areas which did become slightly more dense than the average.
Of course collections of matter would form and matter and antimatter would be affected by the resulting gravitational fields. However antimatter would quickly run into matter and annihilate (and thus cease to exist) were it to approach a gravitational well too closely since areas where gravity dominates over antigravity are also areas where there is more matter than antimatter.
Suppose that we had a gram of antimatter. When exposed to the earths gravitational field, how would it respond?
For any small amount of antimatter it would be very difficult to detect a difference between matter and antimatter by observing how each responds to earths gravitational field. The gravitational field of, let's say one gram, of antimatter would be massively swamped by the gravitational field of the earth.
Hopefully scientist's will be able to devise methods of detecting the extremely weak gravitational or anti-gravitational fields associated with minute amounts of antimatter.
Antimatter=>antigravity - Theoretical Implications
There are some longstanding problems in physics that would be fundamentally affected by this conjecture. Here's a few.
The problem of the missing antimatter. After the big bang matter and antimatter were supposed to have been created in approximately equal amounts. Yet today matter is all that is left. What caused this imbalance, or if some antimatter survived, then where is it?
If antimatter generates antigravity then it would tend to spread out very thinly across the universe. Needless to say it would not form planets or stars or galaxies. It would be invisible to most methods of detection.
A prediction of this model then, is that antimatter is spread extremely thinly throughout the universe.
The problem of the missing mass. Most galaxies rotate faster than they should, given the amount of mass they contain.
If antimatter generates antigravity then the missing mass of the galaxies may not need to be within the galaxy itself but rather be a result of the push of antigravity from all around it.
The problem of the accelerating expansion of the universe. The standard model of the big bang theory predicts the expansion of the universe, but at an ever slowing rate. Gravity should slow this expansion. The fact that the rate of expansion of the universe is speeding up indicates that there is some unknown force pushing it apart, that this force acts over vast distances (like gravity), and that overall it is slightly stronger than gravity.
Antigravity generated by antimatter would do persisely that.
To understand why antigravity may be slightly stronger than gravity we must investigate an implication inherent in this scenario that runs counter to current theories. It is that the total gravity in the universe does not remain constant. Whenever matter is converted into energy the total gravity of the universe decreases by that amount.
Matter tends to clump together and form stars and undergo reactions which convert mass into energy. When this happens the total gravity of the universe is decreased. Antimatter, as noted above would tend not to engage in reactions which convert mass into energy (with the exception of matter antimatter annihilation which would convert both equally) and so the total negative gravity in the universe would remain constant. Resulting in a net increase in negative gravity and hence an accelerating pace of expansion.
Anyway, I'm no proffesional in any of this. I just had a bit to much time on my hands the last few days. 
I'd appreciate any thoughts, conjectures, or critisisms of these musings. 
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2005 : 23:30:32 [Permalink]
|
Just doing a google search, I found this website that says this about antimatter and gravity:
quote:
On Earth, gravity will sooner or
later pull any anti-matter into disastrous contact with
matter. Anti-matter has the opposite effect of gravity on
it, the anti-matter is 'pushed away' by the gravitational
force due to its opposite nature to that of matter.
Regarding why our Universe consists of more matter than antimatter:
quote:
Though anti-matter can be manufactured, slowly, natural
anti-matter has never been found. In theory, we should
expect equal amounts of matter and anti-matter to be formed
at the beginning of the universe - perhaps some far off
galaxies are made of anti-matter that somehow became
separated from matter long ago. A problem with that theory
is that cosmic rays that reach Earth from far-off parts are
often made up of protons or even nuclei, never of
anti-protons or antinuclei. There may be no natural
anti-matter anywhere.
In that case, what happened to it? The most obvious answer
is that, as predicted by theory, all the matter and
anti-matter underwent mutual annihilation in the first
seconds of creation; but why then do we still have matter?
It seems unlikely that more matter than anti-matter should
be formed. In this scenario, the matter would have to
exceed the anti-matter by one part in 1000 million.
An alternative theory expressed by the physicist M.
Goldhaber in 1956, is that the universe divided into two
parts after its formation - the universe that we live in,
and an alternate universe of anti-matter that cannot be
observed by us.
I've often thought, what if we are the antimatter Universe and only *think* we're the matter Universe? We've got everything backwards! But there are in fact some some clues as to why our Universe might exhibit a "matter bias." This site has a pretty good run down, but it's a long enough explanation that I really couldn't find a paragraph or two to quote that would get the entire concept across. Basically: quote:
It is as if Nature has its own biases, in this case toward more baryons. If this is true in laboratory experiments, no doubt this will also be true in the early universe. Making excess matter over antimatter is not as hard as it initially seemed to be.
But the answer is still far from settled. The author admits that "The simplest particle physics models we have do not generate the observed excess of matter over antimatter."
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 07/11/2005 23:38:04 |
 |
|
|
woolytoad
Skeptic Friend
313 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2005 : 23:43:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I've often thought, what if we are the antimatter Universe and only *think* we're the matter Universe? We've got everything backwards!
Doubt it would matter. All the signs would just change and we'd be asking, "why is there no matter?" |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2005 : 23:46:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by woolytoad
quote:
I've often thought, what if we are the antimatter Universe and only *think* we're the matter Universe? We've got everything backwards!
Doubt it would matter.
No, it would antimatter. 
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 07/11/2005 23:48:29 |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2005 : 00:49:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Just doing a google search, I found this website that says this about antimatter and gravity:
quote:
On Earth, gravity will sooner or
later pull any anti-matter into disastrous contact with
matter. Anti-matter has the opposite effect of gravity on
it, the anti-matter is 'pushed away' by the gravitational
force due to its opposite nature to that of matter.
Yeah, I found sites like this one too, but this is not exactly what I'm talking about.
I'm not talking about anti-matter being 'pushed away' by the gravitational force, rather I'm talking about anti-matter generating an anti-gravitational field.
To illustrate, suppose we had a one pound steel ball of anti-matter, ignoring for the moment the inevitable matter/anti-matter annihilation, how would this ball react to the presence of the earth's gravitational field?
The answer is that to the casual observer it would react the same as an identical steel ball made of ordinary matter. (It would fall towards the center of the earth until impeded by an obstacle such as the ground.)
The crucial difference is that the anti-matter ball would generate a small anti-gravitational field of its own. In the same way as a ball of ordinary matter generates a small gravitational field of its own.
quote:
But there are in fact some some clues as to why our Universe might exhibit a "matter bias." This site has a pretty good run down, but it's a long enough explanation that I really couldn't find a paragraph or two to quote that would get the entire concept across. Basically:quote:
It is as if Nature has its own biases, in this case toward more baryons. If this is true in laboratory experiments, no doubt this will also be true in the early universe. Making excess matter over antimatter is not as hard as it initially seemed to be.
But the answer is still far from settled. The author admits that "The simplest particle physics models we have do not generate the observed excess of matter over antimatter."
Yeah, I agree with what you're saying here. It's definitely premature to be talking about replacing the 'Standard Model'. |
|
|
|
Plyss
Skeptic Friend
Netherlands
231 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2005 : 01:04:12 [Permalink]
|
I seem to recall from high-school physics that anti-matter has a normal mass, it's just that the charge on the particles is reversed.
The (hypothetical) kind of matter that is repelled by gravity is called "negative matter" |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2005 : 05:07:13 [Permalink]
|
In the end we still have zero evidence for Pro-anti-matter/negative matter. If it still has mass, it would bend the light from behind it and there is no evidence as such.
Personally Im a fan of the repulsion as property of the vacuum. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2005 : 16:11:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Plyss
I seem to recall from high-school physics that anti-matter has a normal mass, it's just that the charge on the particles is reversed.
That's right. From your link:quote:
Virtually every modern physicist suspects that antimatter has positive mass and should fall down just like normal matter. That being said, it is thought that this view has not yet been conclusively empirically observed.
I don't dispute this. I'm not proposing that antimatter has negative mass. What I am proposing is that antimatter generates a negative gravitational field.quote:
The (hypothetical) kind of matter that is repelled by gravity is called "negative matter"
Thanks for the link. I found it very interesting. But I'm not proposing that antimatter is a form of negative matter.quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
In the end we still have zero evidence for Pro-anti-matter/negative matter.
If this were amended to say, "We have no direct or conclusive evidence that anti-matter generates anti-gravity." then I would completly agree with it, but I have presented theoretical, or indirect evidence in support of my conjecture.
quote:
If it still has mass, it would bend the light from behind it and there is no evidence as such.
It takes a massive concentration of mass to noticably bend light. The minute amounts of anti-matter so far produced in particle accelerators are not sufficient for us to reasonably expect such an observation might be possible.quote:
Personally Im a fan of the repulsion as property of the vacuum.
I like the idea of vaccuum energy too. As I understand it one of the current difficulties with this theory is that it predicts energies that are at least an order of magnitude higher than what is needed to account for the accelerating expansion of the universe. |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2005 : 23:17:20 [Permalink]
|
Intwesting theory Dv82matt. Your theory might be testable in this way: Since you posit that anti matter is spread out fairly uniformly in (the relatively empty) space between galaxies, there should be a collision front of gamma rays produced where the leading edge of a galaxy's halo hurdling through space encounters the anti matter diffused through empty space.
I'm surprised at something H Humbert quoted:
"There may be no natural anti-matter anywhere."
Anti matter is produced in signficant quantities in places like galaxy centres, the sun, and even Van Allen's Belt. All it takes is for a neutrino to hit some matter and voila a positron (the anti matter counterpart of an electron) is born. But it quickly collides with an electron (I think) and both dissappear into gamma ray energy (I think).
Anyways, my feelings are that even relatively empty intergalactic space has enough ordinary matter to ensure there is no antimatter buildup there, and hence not postulated anti gravity effects. Like the PappaSmurf I think the anti gravity effect may have more to do with a repulsive feature of space itself, or of it's negative vaccuum energy or whatever they're calling it.
You raised the question, quote:
Has the gravitational attraction of any sort of electromagnetic radiation ever been measured?
We know that electromagnetic energy is responsive to, say, a sun's gravity,and I would surmise then that due to Newton's equal and opposite reaction law, that EM energy would have it's own (infintesimally small) gravitational effect on the sun. Waaaay to small to measure however, assuming Newton's principle as true which I think it is.
*However*, on a related note, I would like to make a prediction, which is this: Einstein's equivalence principle - that inertial and gravitational mass is one and the same - is not true for certain classes of matter. For instance, although neutrinos apparently have mass, I think it will be found that they have inertial mass only and not gravitational mass. In other words, the path of neutrinos through space will be found to be unbent by gravity.
|
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 07/13/2005 : 01:18:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Intwesting theory Dv82matt. Your theory might be testable in this way: Since you posit that anti matter is spread out fairly uniformly in (the relatively empty) space between galaxies, there should be a collision front of gamma rays produced where the leading edge of a galaxy's halo hurdling through space encounters the anti matter diffused through empty space.
Very good point markie I think that that may be a viable way to test this conjecture.
If current gamma ray telescopes are not up to the task, then perhaps GLAST may provide some answers.
quote:
I'm surprised at something H Humbert quoted:
"There may be no natural anti-matter anywhere."
Anti matter is produced in signficant quantities in places like galaxy centres, the sun, and even Van Allen's Belt. All it takes is for a neutrino to hit some matter and voila a positron (the anti matter counterpart of an electron) is born. But it quickly collides with an electron (I think) and both dissappear into gamma ray energy (I think).
Ah well, the site probably meant that there may be no long-lived anti-matter anywhere.quote:
Anyways, my feelings are that even relatively empty intergalactic space has enough ordinary matter to ensure there is no antimatter buildup there, and hence not postulated anti gravity effects. Like the PappaSmurf I think the anti gravity effect may have more to do with a repulsive feature of space itself, or of it's negative vaccuum energy or whatever they're calling it.
That would be the way the smart money bets.quote:
You raised the question, quote:
Has the gravitational attraction of any sort of electromagnetic radiation ever been measured?
We know that electromagnetic energy is responsive to, say, a sun's gravity,and I would surmise then that due to Newton's equal and opposite reaction law, that EM energy would have it's own (infintesimally small) gravitational effect on the sun. Waaaay to small to measure however, assuming Newton's principle as true which I think it is.
Hmmm... you may be right here, but my understanding of EM radiation is that it is massless and that although it appears to bend it is actually following the shortest posible path through curved spacetime. I understand that E=MC2 means that matter and energy are, in some sense equivalent which makes me suspect that you're right, but if photons are massless, then how could they exert any pull whatsoever on the sun? Further, since they are massless, if they did exert a pull on the sun wouldn't that be a violation of Newton's equal and opposite reaction law?quote:
*However*, on a related note, I would like to make a prediction, which is this: Einstein's equivalence principle - that inertial and gravitational mass is one and the same - is not true for certain classes of matter. For instance, although neutrinos apparently have mass, I think it will be found that they have inertial mass only and not gravitational mass. In other words, the path of neutrinos through space will be found to be unbent by gravity.
A most interesting prediction. Would you care to share the reasoning behind it? |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 07/13/2005 : 06:43:04 [Permalink]
|
Scientific American has a great article about anti-matter and anti-matter traps. Scientist can actually trap relatively large numbers of anit-partcles and anti-hydrogen for quite awhile. I am puposely being vague because I do not have the artlcle in front of me. I think the article was in the issue before the current one.
The scientific community is quite clear that when it comes to gravity anti-matter and matter behave in identical manners. Anti-matter does not have 'anti-mass' or create 'anti-gravity'. Anti-particle differences are limited to charge, spin and the like.
There does appear to be dark matter and/or dark energy that is causing the universes expansion to increase but current thinking is that anti-matter is not the culprit.
Most of this is a bit over my head - so I am simply reporting what I have read.
Thanks...
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 07/13/2005 : 08:18:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82mattHmmm... you may be right here, but my understanding of EM radiation is that it is massless and that although it appears to bend it is actually following the shortest posible path through curved spacetime. I understand that E=MC2 means that matter and energy are, in some sense equivalent which makes me suspect that you're right, but if photons are massless, then how could they exert any pull whatsoever on the sun? Further, since they are massless, if they did exert a pull on the sun wouldn't that be a violation of Newton's equal and opposite reaction law?
Yeah photons are supposed to have zero "rest" mass, but since they travel at light speed they effectively do have mass; at least we say they have momentum. Now that I think about it, I wonder about the responsiveness of light -specifically light that has been slowed down to almost a standstill in certain environs - to gravitational forces. We know objects of various mass fall at the same rate, even light. Light that is crawling along 'should' fall as obviously as a stone thrown at the same speed. The problem I suppose is that the electromagnetic forces in the environment which is slowing down the light would about completely overwhelm the very, very, very weak gravitational force acting on the photon, so it may be impossible to tell.
quote:
Originally posted by markie: *However*, on a related note, I would like to make a prediction, which is this: Einstein's equivalence principle - that inertial and gravitational mass is one and the same - is not true for certain classes of matter. For instance, although neutrinos apparently have mass, I think it will be found that they have inertial mass only and not gravitational mass. In other words, the path of neutrinos through space will be found to be unbent by gravity. quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt: A most interesting prediction. Would you care to share the reasoning behind it?
It's mostly a inference of mine generated primarily from (of all things) a religious text I value, which essentially states that some types of sub atomic masses are not responsive to gravity. I'm guessing about the neutrino being one such particle, but it seems like a good candidate. If neutrinos were found to be emitted from the heart of so-called black holes (as opposed to the accretion disk), that might give the idea some credence I think.
|
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 07/13/2005 : 21:23:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Scientific American has a great article about anti-matter and anti-matter traps. Scientist can actually trap relatively large numbers of anit-partcles and anti-hydrogen for quite awhile. I am puposely being vague because I do not have the artlcle in front of me. I think the article was in the issue before the current one.
Yeah, I read it too. Great article.quote:
The scientific community is quite clear that when it comes to gravity anti-matter and matter behave in identical manners. Anti-matter does not have 'anti-mass' or create 'anti-gravity'. Anti-particle differences are limited to charge, spin and the like.
My conjectures are obviously nothing more than curiosities at this point. A 'what if?' senario if you will.quote:
There does appear to be dark matter and/or dark energy that is causing the universes expansion to increase but current thinking is that anti-matter is not the culprit.
Not the current thinking, you say?! Well no wonder they're having difficulty!
Seriously though, I do realize that these ideas fly in the face of a lot of well established science. So think of it as a mental exercise. Assuming that it is true (although we are almost certain that it's not) the idea is to try to work out what some of the consequences would be. Chances are that it won't match up with reality as well as the currently established theories do. But until someone figures it out, who knows?quote:
Most of this is a bit over my head - so I am simply reporting what I have read.
No problem. I'm in over my head as well.quote:
Originally posted by markie
Yeah photons are supposed to have zero "rest" mass, but since they travel at light speed they effectively do have mass; at least we say they have momentum.
It appears that you are correct here. In fact, I believe that this has been experimentally verified by detecting radiation pressure on thin reflective foils among other obsevations.quote:
quote:
A most interesting prediction. Would you care to share the reasoning behind it?
It's mostly a inference of mine generated primarily from (of all things) a religious text I value, which essentially states that some types of sub atomic masses are not responsive to gravity. I'm guessing about the neutrino being one such particle, but it seems like a good candidate.
I may be prying here, but what is the religious text, and what does it say exactly?quote:
If neutrinos were found to be emitted from the heart of so-called black holes (as opposed to the accretion disk), that might give the idea some credence I think.
Indeed, that would be powerful evidence.
|
|
|
|
woolytoad
Skeptic Friend
313 Posts |
Posted - 07/14/2005 : 00:49:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Yeah photons are supposed to have zero "rest" mass, but since they travel at light speed they effectively do have mass; at least we say they have momentum.
I don't think this is right. I queried one of my physics lecturers once about this. The short answer is mass is not required to have momentum. We redefine what momentum is. And relativistic mass is just another way to express energy with unfortunate units.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2005 : 07:45:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie: Yeah photons are supposed to have zero "rest" mass, but since they travel at light speed they effectively do have mass; at least we say they have momentum. quote:
Originally posted by woolytoad: I don't think this is right. I queried one of my physics lecturers once about this. The short answer is mass is not required to have momentum. We redefine what momentum is. And relativistic mass is just another way to express energy with unfortunate units.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html
Good read. Yeah, it all depends what one wants to define as "mass".
Here is an excerpt from the end of that article: quote:
The energy and momentum of light also generates curvature of space-time so according to theory it can attract objects gravitationally. This effect is far too weak to have been measured. The gravitational effect of photons does not have any cosmological effects either (except perhaps in the first instant after the big bang). There are far too few with too little energy to make up any noticeable proportion of dark matter.
So apparently the guy thinks that light itself would generate a (very weak)gravitational field. Anyways, I'm gathering that it would be a "given" in GR that neutrinos would be responsive to gravity (whether they have "mass" or are massless, like light). So if the day comes that it is found that neutrinos are not responsive to gravity, then that would be something for sure.
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2005 : 08:17:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt: It's mostly a inference of mine generated primarily from (of all things) a religious text I value, which essentially states that some types of sub atomic masses are not responsive to gravity. I'm guessing about the neutrino being one such particle, but it seems like a good candidate. quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt: I may be prying here, but what is the religious text, and what does it say exactly?
The (gigantic) text is about 60 years old, and I hesitate to mention it here because it might open up a can of worms which I don't have the time nor inclination to deal with right now. A hard-core skeptic would loathe it's presumed authoritativeness, and I don't want to cause undue consternation to some. Hey even *I* have problems with parts of the text, as amazing as it is (to me). If this was an eclectic religious board it would be different.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
