Bob_for_short

It may be called an atom deactivation (opposite to excitation). There are also processes called a radiative recombination.

So it is not a problem to learn this theory. Those who know GR, can easily understand RTG.

We know that the CE cannot explain atom stability. Falling electron radiates an infinite amount of energy in CE due to 1/r potential. Attempts to take into account the radiative friction lead to runaway solutions in CE. So there are some CE unphysical predictions. The linearized GR treatement is very similar to RTG. Factually Logunov has noted that the harmonicity conditions may be considered as field equations in a flat space-time (rather than coordinate conditions in the Riemann space-time) and then the reminder can be separated as a pure graviational field. There is no problem with the light bending, etc. Everything is described well. The theory was developed not so long ago, hence it is just much less spread. So far no flaws have been found in RTG.

In weak fields, to be exact. But how about singularities? Spin states are representations of Lorentz group which exist well in a flat space-time and do not exist in a curved space time. So the Minkowski space-time is an ideal for describing spin. In particular, the gravitons are spin-2 and spin-0 massless particles in RGT. Not obligatorily. In RTG the Minkowski's metric is separated from the gravitational field in the field equations - by construction. R=0. It is not so in GR where one cannot introduce a flat metric - there is no space-time for it in the Riemann geometry! Besides, in RTG the gravitational filed is a filed indeed - with energy-momentum, so the gravity is not completely "geometrized". The energy-momentum conservation laws are fulfilled due to 10 Killing vectors. On arXiv there are papers and books of Logunov's. His construction is kind of gauge gravity theory in a flat space-time. There is no black holes in his approach. Massive objects do not form singularities. Also the Universe evolution is represents oscillations.

Space and time are spaces of past and possible events. According to the past experience, the possibility of observing events remains so the space and time exist and taken as granted. Of course, it is an inclusive property of matter. Curved space-time or GR is just a model to describe gravity. It is not the only or ultimate model. There is a gravity theory in a flat space-time with the same tested predictions but free from singularities (A.A. Logunov's RTG). I personally prefer the latter.

Photons (real particles) in the Universe do not contain sufficient energy to be a dark matter/energy. There is no popping into existence pairs in vacuum. Vacuum is a state with a certain energy. Dark mass/energy is needed in some theories to make ends meet. It is not an experimental fact but an idea invented in order to save otherwise failed theories.

In a fermi-liquid the situation might be different due to quantum (Fermi-Dirac) statistics. There might be instant coupling at long distances. Some fermions in such a system "feel" others not due to electromagnetic interaction propagation but due to filled states forbidding certain transitions. I do not remember any specific example from my quantum liquid classes though.

Gravity is a particular physical phenomenon: attraction of neutral non magnetic masses to each other with a force proportional to their masses and decreasing with the distance as 1/r^2. It is not explained as a part or a residual of some other forces. That is why it is called a forth type of interaction (the strong, electromagnetic, and weak are the first three ones). As any fundamental force, it is not "explained" but only described quantitatively (modeled) in physics.

GR treats the gravity as a curvature of space-time. It is not a filed but a Riemann geometry effect. The curvature of such a space-time is not zero: R > 0. A theory of gravity in a flat (Minkowski) space-time was developed by A.A. Logunov, Russian academician: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0210005. No troubles on this way but advantages.

No, there is no such a fuel. It would violate the energy conservation law. In order to create a fuel from simple elements, you have to spend some energy. Not all of it will go into the fuel since there is no 100% efficient transformation processes. Some part will be lost in the environment. While transforming the fuel energy into mechanical one, there are also losses. So you cannot even recuperate the originally spent energy. This is a law of nature. Physics just describes this experimental fact.

Yes, on may have a complete quantum vacuum as the lowest energetic state. Quantum "particles" are just excited states, i.e., states with the energy superior to the lowest one. At low temperatures the energy level populations are depleted so on can have the ground (vacuum) state prepared and observed in many systems with excitation threshold.

One photon per second is too low for a laser. To produce one photon per second you do not need a laser with its amplification effect. Any cold body can produce a one-photon average flux in a certain spectral diapason. It can be obtained from a laser too but not due to the laser mechanism.

Electrodynamics of a point-like charge has a "self-action" problem. This particular problem is still under consideration. (A. Einstein had never worried about it, though.)

I do not think so. Numbers exist in mathematics which is an abstraction, simplification, and primitivization of nature in the human's mind. Example: you have N apples. It is an approximation to say so. In fact what is implied is that they are similar in all qualities - sizes, colour, etc., i.e., when one counts as an apple any particular apple regardless of difference. As soon as you try to describe the apples more precisely, it becomes insufficient to use only one number for it. Similarly for all physical laws - they are approximate and primitive. Extrapolated too much, they may bring singularities (which is just an evident discrepancy).

Some scientists use modestly a rig to sweep their garbage under, and some need parallel universes.

It is better to call this aquaplaning or hydroplaning. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI uploaded one more video on this subject:

No, there is no QM effect of course, it was a joke. The cups may turn depending on the torque due to friction asymmetry while moving. It is determined with the local surface quality and the cup asymmetry. Sometimes I observed as a cup makes a left turn and then a right one while moving.

Correct answer. Heating creates a gap. I call it super-fluidity of cups in the gravitational filed. A macroscopic QM effect. I admit also some water jet effect but cannot confirm it. Vladimir.

That's right but the slope is practically invisible. Yes, the table is not dry. I removed sugar spots and other obstacles. Correct. Yes, and I left this episode on purpose as a hint. No, it's a regular table, not laminated. It's a table in our coffee room at work where lots of people drink tea and coffee every day. Nobody before me has made this experiment. It looks like a miracle to everybody - so unusual it is to see it in the everyday circumstances. It does not work with cold water. Hot water or coffee is needed. What is the real mechanism of this effect?

There is some contradiction here between "fundamental" and free or independent. If quarks are always bound, i.e. come together with other quarks, who of them is more fundamental? At high transferred energies nothing looks confined (electrons in atoms, nuclei, etc.).

The notion of density makes sense if your theory needs it. Normally the fundamental theories do not operate with particle densities so it does not make any sense - it is just not involved anywhere. Another thing is that particles are always in interactions. Electron clouds determine the atomic sizes. We cannot say that the electron is smaller than that. Excited atoms are even larger. Ensembles of atoms (matter) can have mass and electron densities - they are involved in some calculations.

Today I filmed my coffee cap experiments (with hot water). Any comments?

No. The lower momentum, the higher the probability "to get captured" by any atom. Even a neutral atom polarizes and generally attracts a negative charge (electron or antiproton, whatever). Another thing is creating a bound state which is called a negative ion. But the antiproton, being heavy, gets to the lowest orbit and interacts with protons in atomic nucleus - annihilates. In this respect, it is quite different from an electron in atom - there is no Pauli excluding principle for it (no additional "repulsion", for short) and it replaces the electrons easily in atoms if its momentum is low. The negative and positive charge fields in atoms compensate each other outside of atoms. In this sense, an atom has a short-range interaction potential. In general, we see atoms as neutral. When a charged projectile moves through matter, it mostly "pushes aside" the light electrons. As a result, atoms get excited and thus the projectile energy is lost progressively. At the end of the trajectory a charged projectile stops and gets bound (sticks) to atoms with forming some ion. The antiproton will penetrate closer to the atomic nucleus due to mutual attraction and this is how it annihilates with a proton in the nucleus. Any atom is "dangerous" for a slow antiproton.

As any fast charged particle, the antiproton is decelerated in matter to low momenta, mostly by giving away its energy to electrons due to electrostatic interaction. H0 is a hydrogen neutral atom (p+e). H- is a negative ion (p+2e). As any long-range interacting charge the antiproton is isolated from matter with help of long-range electromagnetic forces. I do not know much about charged particle traps though to tell you more.

No, they do not. Take, for example, the Hydrogen atom H0. It can still attract an extra electron and form a negative ion H-. One electron in it is nearly in the same orbit as in H0, another one is much farther from the proton. If you replace one electron with antiproton, I am sure it will take the lowest orbit. Due to its huge mass, the antiproton in such a system will be much closer to proton and will annihilate quickly. It seems to me that the presence of electron in such a system only helps annihilation (a third body to carry away some energy-momentum while p-anti-p recombination). This is my feeling. I do not know anything more concrete about it.