I really wish I understood all this stuff better. I have a high level understanding of what you folks do, but its hard to find any resources that go in more detail that dont require a degree in physics :-D
-
-
Replying to @ejpbruel @Astropartigirl
I agree it can get a bit jargony sometimes.. the main thing is that there are only a few properties that (anti) matter can have.. why? We measure (anti)matter all the time in the LHC.. as far as we can see, there are 3 fundamental forces (and hence 3 measurable properties)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @InertialObservr @Astropartigirl
Wait. Only three? I thought there were four! Electromagnetic, strong, weak, and gravity, right?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ejpbruel @Astropartigirl
Yes! And gravity but I left it out because it’s not a part of our fundamental particle theory.. but yes! It’s there haha
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @InertialObservr @Astropartigirl
I see what youre saying though. The fundamental forces are exactly those things we can measure to see what makes antimatter different from antimatter. If antimatter has some hidden property weve so far missed, thats akin to saying theres a fundamental force weve so far missed.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Which seems exceedingly unlikely! Im curious though: why exactly did you leave gravity out? Ive been told it doesnt really fit in the standard model, but in what sense?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ejpbruel @Astropartigirl
Well I left it out because I do a lot of particle physics haha.. But it doesn’t fit in the standard model because it is a Quantum Field Theory.. and it happens that when we follow our usual process to quantize a theory the equations become ill defined
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @InertialObservr @Astropartigirl
Ill defined in what way? Im a layman here, but are we talking about something like a division by zero?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ejpbruel @Astropartigirl
That’s not to say we can’t write down a theory of gravity as a “gauge theory” with a graviton etc like the other fundamental forces.. however we know that these equations should eventually predict Einstein’s field equations.. but they don’t
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @InertialObservr @Astropartigirl
As in, they predict something wildly different? But *both* theories are consistent with observations? Mind blown :-)
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
So in short our quantum theory isn’t consistent with observations, since we can’t make any sensible predictions!
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.