Antimatter and Antigravity Connected ?

[Antonio Lao]

Antimatter and Antigravity Connected ?

The matter in our universe is controlled by gravity which is a long range force obeying the inverse square law. In the large, antimatter cannot be found by astrophysicists and cosmologists. So the assertation that the universe is dominated by matter only is a fact of all experimental verifications. But in the small, the existence of antiparticles were proved facts. The quantum world is dominated by three fundamental forces: EM force, strong force and weak force. Gravity force has no effect at all in the quantum world asides from the black hole singularity domain and relativistic mass where the concept of extremely large mass (matter) is concerned. But if it takes large neutral mass (matter) to make gravity effective, would it also takes large neutral antimatter to make antigravity effective to the point of being detectable? So if a Cavendish experiment is made entirely of antimatter, can the G be repulsive? Matter attracts but antimatter (in the large) repels.

 

[jcsd]

We can be fairly certain that the universe is dominated by matter, not antimatter, as though on the whole a large collection of antimatter looks almost exactly the same as a large lot of matter, if regions of matter and antimatter meet they anihilate each other emitting a copious amount of radiation. It is this radiation we would see if there was any large amoun tof antimatter in our universe.

The graviational force between matter-matter, antimatter-matter, antimatter-antimatter is always attractrive.

 

[Antonio Lao]

The graviational force between matter-matter, antimatter-matter, antimatter-antimatter is always attractrive.

Pardon me, is this an experimental fact? If it is, please let me know what experiments were done in the past that I am not aware of.

 

[jcsd]

Pardon me, is this an experimental fact? If it is, please let me know what experiments were done in the past that I am not aware of.

It's a clear result from the theory that predicted antimatter, to be honest I don't know if it's ever been tested, but if this were not the case I imagine that's the whole of relatistic quantum mechanics/quantum field theory out of the window.

 

[Antonio Lao]

but if this were not the case I imagine that's the whole of relatistic quantum mechanics/quantum field theory out of the window.

Not necessarily so, the quantum world of particles and antiparticles is dominated by other forces not gravity. But the symmetric general relativity equations does not take into account the antigravity force. The gravity force is replaced by the curvature of spacetime and the cause of curvature is ordinary matter not antimatter.

 

[jcsd]

Not necessarily so, the quantum world of particles and antiparticles is dominated by other forces not gravity. But the symmetric general relativity equations does not take into account the antigravity force. The gravity force is replaced by the curvature of spacetime and the cause of curvature is ordinary matter not antimatter.

No, it is a fairly basic feaure of particles that they have the same mass as their antiparticle.

 

[Antonio Lao]

No, it is a fairly basic feaure of particles that they have the same mass as their antiparticle.

I agree and that's the mystery of it! If they are the same mass and saying the other properties like charge and spin have nothing to do with the formation of neutral matter or neutral antimatter is an incorrect assumption.


edits: add experiments

Two related experiments: J. J. Thomson determination of the mass-to-charge ratio of the electron and Millikan's oil drop experiment. Both of these used the concept of the electric field and magnetic field to find the constants of mass-charge ratio and the unit of charge. Along with the electric and the magnetic force, the other implied bystander force of these experiments is the inertial force of Newton's 2nd law of motion. Newton's 2nd law of motion, $F=ma$, mentioned an acceleration. This might not be the absolute acceleration that physicists are looking for. Newton, Mach and Einstein were all looking for this absolute acceleration. I think a complete understanding of this specific acceleration and its relation to a generalized absolute acceleration can find the lost force of antigravity.

 

[Antonio Lao]

I think somehow this generalized absolute acceleration is related to a metric (a unit of length) with the following invariance between them.

$$\vec{a} \cdot \vec{r} = c^2$$

where $a$ is the generalized acceleration, $r$ is the metric, and $c$ is the speed of light in vacuum.

Edits:

So that gravity is an acceleration that spiral inward and antigravity is an acceleration that spiral outward. And that when these are in balance, the component of centripetal is equal to the component of centrifugal.

 

[Entropy]

Antimater produces a regualar gravitational field like normal matter. You're thinking of exotic matter which has negative mass and therefore produces antigravity.

 

[Antonio Lao]

Antimater produces a regualar gravitational field like normal matter.

Is this theory or experiment? I don't know of any experiment that verify what you said?
I am not talking about the EM deflection of positron by Carl Anderson. I am talking about something like an anti-earth which cannot form because antimatter are really repulsive in the bulk.

 

[Antonio Lao]

I would like to clearup what I mean when I say antimatter. Antimatter is made of anti-atoms: antiprotons, antineutrons, and positrons. In parts, the antiprotons and antineutrons are made of anti-up quarks and anti-down quarks. All I know is that these antiparticles don't live long enough to form anti-atom hence antimatter cannot be formed by current experiments at low energy.

 

[jcsd]

IIRC an anti-helium atom has been formed by experiment, but your sill barking up the wrong tree as for example if an antiparticle had negative mass it would completely chnage anihilation as the two rest masses would cancel each other out.

 

[Antonio Lao]

an anti-helium atom has been formed by experiment

Can I request from you more information on this or is it too much to ask?

I don't think there is such a thing as negative mass. The complete quantization of space does not allow it although there can be two kinds of mass: the kinetic and the potential. Both are positive from my calculations.

 

[jcsd]

Can I request from you more information on this or is it too much to ask?

I don't think there is such a thing as negative mass. The complete quantization of space does not allow it although there can be two kinds of mass: the kinetic and the potential. Both are positive from my calculations.

Sorry I menat anti-hydrogen, I'll see if I can find a link.

Yes but surely as the graviational attraction is proportioonal to the masses of the two objects in order for there to be repulsion there must have masses of opposite signs.

 

[jcsd]

Found a link:

http://www.nature.com/nsu/020916/020916-7.html

 

[Antonio Lao]

When an electron and a positron interact, the products are photons. This was what Martin Deutsch experiments on positroniums indicated.

But there are two type of products: (1) two photons and (2) three photons. The positronium that produces the three photons seems to have a longer lifetime than the positronium producing the two photons.

If electron is formed by 7 $H^{-}$ and 1 $H^{+}$ and the positron is formed by 7 $H^{+}$ and 1 $H^{-}$ and the photon is formed by 4 $H^{-}$ and 4 $H^{+}$ then this can account for the 1st interaction but the 2nd interaction can be accounted only if vacuum is taken into consideration. The vacuum is made of even and odd $H^{-}$ and even and odd $H^{+}$.

 

[jcsd]

AFAIK the only limit on the products of electron-positron anihilation are the various conservation laws, certainly photons are far from the only product that can be produced by electron-positron anihilation.

I know we mentioned antihydrogen earlier, but electrons and postirons are fundamehtal particle s certainly not made out of hydrogen ions.

 

[Antonio Lao]

certainly photons are far from the only product that can be produced by electron-positron anihilation.

I don't know of any other product? Are you talking about lepton number conservation? energy conservation? charge conjugation? parity? or baryon number conservation? strangeness conservation? Time symmetry?

 

[AWolf]

When an electron and a positron interact, the products are photons. This was what Martin Deutsch experiments on positroniums indicated.

Didn't this experiment merely prove that particles and anti-particles consist of the same basic component - energy (the photon).

Substituting Energy for Mass when calculating the gravitational force between matter and anti-matter, the result would be the same as if it were like with like.
This would imply that there is no difference between the mass of matter or antimatter and as such no difference in their gravitational field.

The only difference between a particle and an anti-particle is the configuration of the energy, all other properties would be the same.

 

[jcsd]

I don't know of any other product? Are you talking about lepton number conservation? energy conservation? charge conjugation? parity? or baryon number conservation? strangeness conservation? Time symmetry?

yep, conservation of 4-momantum and charge being the most obious conservation laws governing decay products.

electron-positron anihilation can and has been observed to produce baryons and mesons as products

 

[Antonio Lao]

This would imply that there is no difference between the mass of matter or antimatter and as such no difference in their gravitational field.

jcsd claims that anti-helium has been formed. He did not explain how this is done. I agree with the mass property being the same but some other properties must be involved in the formation of bulk antimatter otherwise if it just the mass then they should be abundantly populated in the universe.

In physics, there are only two equations that mass is found explicitly. Newton's 2nd law of motion and his law of universal gravitation. General relativity already took it for granted that they are the same mass ( principle of equivalence). My theory is that there must be another form of mass that give rise to repulsive gravity.

 

[AWolf]

My theory is that there must be another form of mass that give rise to repulsive gravity.

Why does there need to be anti-gravity ?

We know that gravitational force is directly proportional to mass. This means that gravity is an effect directly caused by mass.
As posted earlier, the gravitational force from anti-matter would be the same as normal matter.

Repulsive gravity is needed to explain the rate of expansion of the Universe.

What if Space is not the static medium that it is made out to be ? What if Space is a dynamic medium ?

Let me explain.
Assume that Space is similar to air or water. As an object moves through air it causes displacement and creates air currents.
As an object moves through Space, it causes compression of the Space around it due to its mass - Gravity Well. This Gravity Well is not stationary, but moves through Space accompanying the mass that created it.
As it moves, it effects the Space in front and behind it.
What you end up with is currents moving through Space caused by the gravitational fields traveling through it - the compression and decompression of space.

These Spacial Currents would explain the repulsion of objects in much the same way that anti-gravity theories do.

 

[Antonio Lao]

Why does there need to be anti-gravity ?

Because in my theory there are two different types of generalized accelerations. An inward spiral acceleration (gravity) and an outward spiral acceleration (antigravity).

 

[AWolf]

Because in my theory there are two different types of generalized accelerations. An inward spiral acceleration (gravity) and an outward spiral acceleration (antigravity).

Let me ask the question another way.

What purpose does anti-gravity (outward spiral acceleration) serve ?

Gravitational force is not too dissimilar to magnetic force, and with magnetism an attractive force can also be a repulsive force.

Are you suggesting that gravity/anti-gravity is similar to North/South pole of a magnet ?

 

[Antonio Lao]

What purpose does anti-gravity (outward spiral acceleration) serve ?

It balances the centripetal and the centrifugal component of acceleration to keep the electrons in orbits hence makes the formation of atoms possible and in turn the atoms give us our existence.

 

[AWolf]

It balances the centripetal and the centrifugal component of acceleration to keep the electrons in orbits hence makes the formation of atoms possible and in turn the atoms give us our existence.

The only thing keeping electrons in their orbits is the attraction from the protons. There's no repulsive force there.

An object will continue to travel in a straight line unless acted upon by a force.
The electron, with its mass, charge and velocity, will travel in a straight line, but for the attraction of the protons which is sufficient to maintain its orbit.

 

[Antonio Lao]

An object will continue to travel in a straight line unless acted upon by a force.

Aren't you forgetting something, Bohr's quantization of angular momentum? His idea was the beginning of the quantum revolution, remember?

Bohr did not answer the question why the angular momentum was quantized.
What he did was to demonstrate how it was quantized. This solved the ultraviolet catastrophe, a critical problem in classical electrodynamics.

 

[Entropy]

The only thing keeping electrons in their orbits is the attraction from the protons. There's no repulsive force there.

Yeah actually there is, its called the electroweak force. If there were no repulsive force then electrons would all spiril into the nucleus every time the atom bumped into another atom.

 

[Olias]

I would like to clearup what I mean when I say antimatter. Antimatter is made of anti-atoms: antiprotons, antineutrons, and positrons. In parts, the antiprotons and antineutrons are made of anti-up quarks and anti-down quarks. All I know is that these antiparticles don't live long enough to form anti-atom hence antimatter cannot be formed by current experiments at low energy.

Antonio, what you state here:So that gravity is an acceleration that spiral inward and antigravity is an acceleration that spiral outward. And that when these are in balance, the component of centripetal is equal to the component of centrifugal.

I fully understand how this is so, but the quote in this post:All I know is that these antiparticles don't live long enough to form anti-atom hence antimatter cannot be formed by current experiments at low energy

relative to your model, the "spiral inwards" can be viewed as E-M-V( Electro-Magnetic-Vacuum) CONTRACTION?..thus " anti-gravity" acceleration spiral outwards, can be viewed as an EXPANSION?

There is a model that predicts a number of of aspects of Gravitational, its called Sakharov Induced Gravity.

It may be of interest to you if you seek this out in pre-print arXchive sites?

PS Vacuum Lengths are dynamic in that they do have two parimiters, an Expansion Paramiter and a Contraction Paramiter..<->...>+< ..this is according to my model though!

another PS, in your model the reason you state of why particles of anti-matter do not form is you have a "free" unbounded anti-matter product which cannot combine to make anti-atoms, they are products of 'Expansion' lengths and move away fast in a short factor of time, they cannot couple thus in compact space, which ordinary matter does with relative ease, because ordinary matter is made from 'Contracting' positive Lengths!

 

[Antonio Lao]

There is a model that predicts a number of of aspects of Gravitational, its called Sakharov Induced Gravity.

Thanks again. I will look this up. I am also very much interested for more information about your model of the dynamic of vacuum, contracted-expanded lengths.

 

[Antonio Lao]

Retro-update on the confinement of anti-particle. Many years ago, Dehmelt was able to confine an anti-particle named Priscilla in a Penning trap for an indefinite time. Long enough to verify some of the constants of nature and for more precisions in their numerical values. Dehmelt and Wolfgang Paul, together with Ramsey, shared the 1989 Nobel Prize in physics for their works.

 

[Olias]

Exactly!

Good update, for now.

 

[Olias]

These recent papers may be of great interest Antonio:
http://uk.arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0407/0407081.pdf

http://uk.arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0312/0312312.pdf

 

[Chronos]

I fail to see how the Weeks et al paper breaks any new ground. All it does is arrive at the conclusion the observable universe is finite. That is not the same as saying the 'real' universe is finite. It only infers that our ability to observe is finite. Duh. We cannot 'prove' anything is 'true'. We can only prove that certain pairs of things cannot both be true simultaneously. Our inability to solve the 3 body problem of gravitational attraction illustrates how incompetent we are, not to mention our inability to solve the Dirac equation for anything more complex than a hydrogen atom. We have much to learn.

 

[Antonio Lao]

Our inability to solve the 3 body problem of gravitational attraction...

Could nature be simpler than what we want it to be? Newton's law of universal gravitation is a 2-body problem (though a mass disparity of very large and very small). Coulomb's law of electrostatic force is also a 2-body problem of electric charges.

But the n-body problem is solved using statistical mechanics which necessarily incorporate the theory of probability and random variables. Anything more than 3 bodies, probability is involved and the process becomes stochastic instead of deterministic. But when n is just a little bit greater than 2, perturbation theory can be used. In astrodynamics, the n-body problem is solved by taking the interaction of 2 bodies at a time and then add all the 2-body interactions together.