[Origin]

2 - @Origin when you say 'Antimatter has nothing to do with simple harmonic motion' you are wrong.

You don't know what you are talking about.

[Kartazion (OP)]

2 - @Origin when you say 'Antimatter has nothing to do with simple harmonic motion' you are wrong.

You don't know what you are talking about.

OK, agreed. How is the oscillation described in the official paper? Anharmonic as I said? Or is it a UFO type oscillation?

[Bored chemist]

2 - @Origin when you say 'Antimatter has nothing to do with simple harmonic motion' you are wrong.

Actually, he's right.

[Kartazion (OP)]

Interesting. There is indeed an oscillation between matter and antimatter and it has nothing to do with simple harmonic motion.

But why don't you answer my question?

How is the oscillation described in the official paper? Anharmonic as I said? Or is it a UFO type oscillation?

[Bored chemist]

But why don't you answer my question?

Because you can read the paper for yourself.

[Kartazion (OP)]

Because you can read the paper for yourself.

Once again you are unable to provide an answer. The oscillation is an anharmonic periodic fluctuation between matter and antimatter. @Origin wrongly.

[Bored chemist]

Once again you are unable to provide an answer.

In reality, I did provide an answer.
Here's a copy.

Because you can read the paper for yourself.

In your head, I didn't.
Does that not worry you?
Have you considered talking to a doctor about this disparity between what is true, and what you think?

[Origin]

@Origin when you say 'Antimatter has nothing to do with simple harmonic motion' you are wrong.

@Kartazion, you keep saying this but you cannot actually say how antimatter has anything to do with simply harmonic motion.  The reason you can't is because there is no connection.
The paper you are referring to discusses how a B meson can oscillate between its own antiparticle and back.  This not a surprising thing since the Standard Model predicted this behavior.  You make the absurd conjecture that since this oscillation occurs with the B Meson, it is true for electron / positron.  Why would you make this claim?  The answer is because you have no idea what you are talking about.
If you were to graph the oscillations of the meson to antimeson flipping by time you would get a sinusoidal result.  If you graph a pendulum swinging you would also get a sinusoidal result.  Does that mean simple harmonic motion and antimatter are related?  Of course not.  Why do you think this means they are related?  The answer is because you don't know what you are talking about. 

[Kartazion (OP)]

In your head, I didn't.
Does that not worry you?
Have you considered talking to a doctor about this disparity between what is true, and what you think?

The article talk about of oscillation as of a pendule. I'm right. I'm not fool as you assert. You on the other hand have a problem with me.

https://home.cern/news/news/physics/lhcb-sees-new-form-matter-antimatter-asymmetry-strange-beauty-particles

@Bored, when you talk about oscillation in quantum mechanics they are necessarily of type simple harmonic motion. Plus in quantum mechanics anything that can be considered as oscillations can be extended by the anharmonic oscillator to just about anything.

@Kartazion, you keep saying this but you cannot actually say how antimatter has anything to do with simply harmonic motion.  The reason you can't is because there is no connection.
The paper you are referring to discusses how a B meson can oscillate between its own antiparticle and back.  This not a surprising thing since the Standard Model predicted this behavior.  You make the absurd conjecture that since this oscillation occurs with the B Meson, it is true for electron / positron.  Why would you make this claim?  The answer is because you have no idea what you are talking about.
If you were to graph the oscillations of the meson to antimeson flipping by time you would get a sinusoidal result.  If you graph a pendulum swinging you would also get a sinusoidal result.  Does that mean simple harmonic motion and antimatter are related?  Of course not.  Why do you think this means they are related?  The answer is because you don't know what you are talking about.

@Origin learn to read some sources and try to learn physics.

[Bored chemist]

The article talk about of oscillation as of a pendule. I'm right.

Then it is clearly wrong.
With a pendulum, the bob moves slowly up and down. So half way through the swing, it is about half way up.
But an oscillating particle obviously can't do that.
It can't be "half way between a particle and an antiparticle", can it?

Incidentally, part of your confusion might be because you don't realise that the oscillation of a pendulum is anharmonic.

Try learning some science

I'm not fool as you assert.

Apparently you are more of a fool than I had asserted.

You on the other hand have a problem with me.

Don't flatter yourself.
I have a problem with people who post rubbish on science sites.
There's nothing special about you.

when you talk about oscillation in quantum mechanics they are necessarily of type simple harmonic motion

No; They are practically never simple harmonic motion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anharmonicity

[Origin]

@Origin learn to read some sources and try to learn physics.

You still don't know what you are talking about.

[Kartazion (OP)]

Then it is clearly wrong.
With a pendulum, the bob moves slowly up and down. So half way through the swing, it is about half way up.
But an oscillating particle obviously can't do that.
It can't be "half way between a particle and an antiparticle", can it?

I can see that you totally ignore the subject and the CP-symmetry. The movement is asymmetric due to the oscillation. The asymmetry is due to the fact that there is only one moving particle between matter and antimatter. Either it is on one side or the other, but never both at the same time. Hence the CP violation.

[Bored chemist]

I can see that you totally ignore the subject

You keep trying to say the "subject" is harmonic motion.
I pointed out that  the change from particles to antiparticles and back can not be harmonic motion.
I also pointed out some other mistakes you made.

[Kartazion (OP)]

You keep trying to say the "subject" is harmonic motion.
I pointed out that  the change from particles to antiparticles and back can not be harmonic motion.
I also pointed out some other mistakes you made.

What? This is what I said:

...The oscillation is an anharmonic periodic fluctuation between matter and antimatter.

[Bored chemist]

You keep trying to say the "subject" is harmonic motion.
I pointed out that  the change from particles to antiparticles and back can not be harmonic motion.
I also pointed out some other mistakes you made.

What? This is what I said:

...The oscillation is an anharmonic periodic fluctuation between matter and antimatter.

So is this

when you talk about oscillation in quantum mechanics they are necessarily of type simple harmonic motion.

You are arguing against yourself.

[Kartazion (OP)]

My guess:
Your gravitational oscillator is like a pendulum in that they both can represent simple harmonic motion.  You say electrons oscillate between matter and antimatter (electron - positron) and these oscillation can be represented by simple harmonic motion.  Is that a correct assessment of your position?

Yes exactly. But down to one detail. This is because the oscillator is anharmonic rather than harmonic. In fact, the speed of the particle varies according to the oscillation cycle. Another point. It is the pendulum. It does not oscillate in the direction of the gravity vector. Either vertically.

[Kartazion (OP)]

Hello.

The oscillation is indeed harmonic insofar as it is identical by symmetry of its movement. But in our case the particle experiences an acceleration as well as a reduction in its speed during its oscillation. In other words to be able to draw a sinusoid with x(t) the speed of the latter must be constant. This is not the case with the oscillator that I presented, because it implies a variation of its speed.

My question is isn't it more an anharmonic rather than a harmonic oscillation? We assume In your example of the earth that the density is constant.

Thanks.

[Origin]

In other words to be able to draw a sinusoid with x(t) the speed of the latter must be constant

What do you mean by this statement?  Do you think a pendulum moves at a constant speed?

[Kartazion (OP)]

What do you mean by this statement?  Do you think a pendulum moves at a constant speed?

First we agree that the entire statement of the sentence is:
"In other words to be able to draw a sinusoid with x(t) the speed of the latter must be constant. This is not the case with the oscillator that I presented, because it implies a variation of its speed."

Otherwise to answer the question:
A harmonic oscillator is an ideal (e.g. in the vacuum) oscillator whose evolution over time is described by a sinusoidal function, whose frequency depends only on the characteristics of the system and whose amplitude is constant. The motion of an undamped pendulum approximates to simple harmonic motion if oscillation is small.

[Origin]

"In other words to be able to draw a sinusoid with x(t) the speed of the latter must be constant. This is not the case with the oscillator that I presented, because it implies a variation of its speed."

What do you mean by this statement?  Do you think the gravitational oscillator would not have a sinusoidal plot of displacement VS time?
You aren't very good at answering questions.