Antimatter gravity hypothesis-question

[orion24]

From what I've seen, the possibility of matter-antimatter to mutually repel each other is ruled out, but, can the following hypothesis be ruled out? :

Gravity --> A property of matter & antimatter (not of mass)
Matter gravity --> A "force" that pulls "everything"
Antimatter gravity --> A "force" that repels "everything"

If this is not ruled out, then:

In the beginning of the universe, a gravitational effect like this, would make the concetration of matter higher at the center of the tiny universe "globe", while antimatter would mainly concetrate far from it. Therefore there would be 3 types of reactions :

Energy ---> Matter + Antimatter
Matter + Antimatter ---> Energy
Mass ---> Energy

Since more matter than antimatter would be at the center (hotter area), the matter mass would disappear at higher rates than the antimatter mass and we would therefore have more antimatter than matter as a total. As matter kept decaying at higher rates into energy due to its gravitational effect, the "repel forces" of the antimatter gravity were becoming more dominant, pushing the universe to expand.

And so, the current situation would be:

1) Antimatter is more than matter.
2) Matter continuous to decay into energy due to its gravitational effect, and therefore antimatter keeps becoming increasingly dominant
3) We can't detect the antimatter because of its gravitational effect that makes it spread through the entire universe in the form of single individual particles
4) Dark Energy probably is the gravitational effect of this antimatter

What do you think of it?

 

[George Jones]

From what I've seen, the possibility of matter-antimatter to mutually repel each other is ruled out,

Electrons and anti-electron (positrons) repel each other electrically.

Antimatter gravity --> A "force" that repels "everything"

Gravity caused by anti-matter is attractive, just like for matter.

What do you think of it?

Sorry, it doesn't work.

Also, take a look at the the Physics Forums rules,

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5374,

which, in part, state

Overly Speculative Posts: One of the main goals of PF is to help students learn the current status of physics as practiced by the scientific community; accordingly, Physicsforums.com strives to maintain high standards of academic integrity. There are many open questions in physics, and we welcome discussion on those subjects provided the discussion remains intellectually sound. It is against our Posting Guidelines to discuss, in most of the PF forums, new or non-mainstream theories or ideas that have not been published in professional peer-reviewed journals or are not part of current professional mainstream scientific discussion. Posts deleted under this rule will be accompanied by a private message from a Staff member, and, if appropriate, an invitation to resubmit the post in accordance with our Independent Research Guidelines. Poorly formulated personal theories, unfounded challenges of mainstream science, and overt crackpottery will not be tolerated anywhere on the site.

 

[mathman]

Electrons and anti-electron (positrons) repel each other electrically.

You got that wrong. Being of opposite charge, they attract!

 

[orion24]

Electrons and anti-electron (positrons) repel each other electrically.

I was referring to gravitational "forces" only.

Gravity caused by anti-matter is attractive, just like for matter.

Your opinion. I fail to see any experimental evidence confirming this.

Also, take a look at the the Physics Forums rules,

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5374,

which, in part, state

I was unaware of such a rule. Since this is the case, sorry to bother your forum.

 

[George Jones]

You got that wrong. Being of opposite charge, they attract!

Of course! Anti-electrons and normal matter protons repel.

And anit-matter is still a source of attractive gravity.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Your opinion. I fail to see any experimental evidence confirming this.

A photon is it's own antiparticle. So if gravity is repulsive for antimatter, there should be no effect on photons. But photons are bent by gravity - this was first shown in 1919.

 

[orion24]

A photon is it's own antiparticle. So if gravity is repulsive for antimatter, there should be no effect on photons. But photons are bent by gravity - this was first shown in 1919.

I didn't say gravity is repulsive for antimatter. I said the antimatter gravity could be repulsive. I'll give some examples of what I mean:

- An antihydrogen atom created on Earth would fall downwards practically with the same g as ordinary matter, because the attractive gravitational effect of Earth is considerably higher than the repulsive effect it would create.
- A hydrogen atom and and an antihydrogen atom would neither attract nor repel, as their gravitational "forces" would cancel each other.
- 2 antihydrogen atoms would repel each other
- 2 hydrogen atoms would attract 1 antihydrogen atom with a force twice as great as the antihydrogen atom would repel them

 

[mathman]

- An antihydrogen atom created on Earth would fall downwards practically with the same g as ordinary matter, because the attractive gravitational effect of Earth is considerably higher than the repulsive effect it would create.
- A hydrogen atom and and an antihydrogen atom would neither attract nor repel, as their gravitational "forces" would cancel each other.
- 2 antihydrogen atoms would repel each other
- 2 hydrogen atoms would attract 1 antihydrogen atom with a force twice as great as the antihydrogen atom would repel them

I guess you made all this up. There is nothing in current physics theory to justify any of it.

 

[orion24]

I guess you made all this up. There is nothing in current physics theory to justify any of it.

I know there isn't. If you look at the topics title, I did post this "hypothetically" and my question was if there is any experimental data that rules it out, because I looked for it and failed to find any.

 

[Janus]

Locked due to over speculation.