Witam shape-univ,
There are a few arguments here about "mirror matter (Foot et al.)" on the wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mirror_matter
i haven't gone into them deeply, but editing this page, or the article itself, might be one way to have more confidence in understanding the issue, since any changes or comments you make may be read by anyone else with internet access...
A few comments *against* the Foot interpretation are at the level of what we might call "scientists' gossip" or rough intuition. The only serious response is to understand what Foot et al. says and also try to understand the comments.
pozdr boud
PS:
On Mon, 2 Jan 2006, Boud Roukema wrote:
we might call "scientists' gossip" or rough intuition. The only
Of course, these are two different things: (1) intuition from your own thinking about a physical problem, is different to (2) saying what another scientist says is his/her intuition about a physical problem, or even worse (2b) what someone says that a scientist says is his/her intuition about a physical problem.
Sometimes (2) is closer to the truth, because that other scientist understands the problem better. Sometimes (1) is closer to the truth. But certainly, (1) is more satisfying. And if everyone does (2), then everyone is likely to agree on the same errors...
Anyway, enough sociology of science...
pozdr boud
-
Boud Roukema