1. Sep 16, 2005

Nekromancer

Hi all,

New member here, found the forum when lurking around the 'net last night.

A very brief disclaimer: I've a Chemistry degree, I work with computers in the IT security field, but I am NOT a Physics expert... far from that.
I've read a lot of "popular" literature, and from my humble lack of knowledge of the physics of gravity and the mathematics involved, a bizarre idea was born.

Will try to explain it. I apologize in advance if my English is not good, it's not my native language.

I understood from my readings that gravity is a property, or is generated by matter. The mass of matter is in direct relation to it, etc. That's what everyone already knows.

Some literature mentions some hypothetical particles named gravitons, that should be responsible to carry gravitational force (I don't know if "carry" is the correct term, I hope you understand).

I've also read that gravity is always attractive.

On the experimental side, and only as far as I know, lone gravitons are still to be detected in the lab, and it's my guess that measuring the gravitational force of single gravitons won't be feasible (too small).

OK... let's suppose that antimatter doesn't generate gravitons, but it generates antigravitons.

I hear you saying "So what? Photons are their own antiparticle as well".
Yes... but let's suppose that antigravitons differ on a radical basis from gravitons, they are repulsive instead of attractive, and imagine the consequences of that (again, from my lack of knowledge of the subject).

One of the potential consequences will be that we won't see big bunches of antimatter in the Universe, because it will never condensate.
So far, I guess that there's no experimental argument AGAINST that (nor in favour, I'm afraid).

That will lead to big bunches of condensated matter (galaxies), in a big and ultra-low density sea of antimatter.
Antimatter in that scenario can provide the large-scale repulsion needed to expand the Universe.

We won't be able to see radiation coming from anihilation matter-antimatter from the boundaries of galaxies because it'll happen only a particle at a time or so, and the very small radiation generated can contribute to send the other particles of antimatter even further from the gravitational attraction of the galaxy.

Can that bizarre idea verified in the lab? Experimental physics cientists can generate small amounts of antimatter, but it's my guess (again!) that it won't be enough to verify if antigravitons are generated (currently, I think that we can't even check for the presence of gravitons, even when we have big bunches of matter to experiment with).

Don't ask me questions. That's the idea. I tried to expose it several times to people that were supposed to be involved in Physics in one way or another, and I didn't even got an answer back. "The scientific pride", I guess

Just want to know the impression of people here.
I'm not stubborn, if good arguments prove me wrong, I'll drop the idea for good

Cheers,

Miguel
aka Nekromancer

2. Sep 16, 2005

ZapperZ

Staff Emeritus
The problem here is that you make SO many guesses on hypothetical situations, it is difficult to figure out what exactly you know, and what exactly you are simply speculating.

Secondly, based on what you told us of your background, don't you think it would be rather difficult to answer your question on a purely technical basis since there's a very good chance you might have trouble understanding the answer? If I tell you that these "carrier" particles such as photons, gluons, W&Z, and even gravitons, have to obey some gauge symmetries, would you know what that means and why? In other words, these particles simply do not have a "name" attach to them. They have a very strict and unambiguous mathematical descriptions of their properties.

Maybe those people in physics that you asked did not answer back NOT because of the "scientific pride" (whatever that is), but maybe we very seldom deal with ambiguous statements that you just made. EVERY (and I mean every single one of them) principle and ideas in physics MUST be based on some underlying mathematical descriptions. It doesn't mean physics is nothing more than math, but we use mathematics to make sure our description are accurate and unambiguous. To say that the force becomes smaller as one moves away from the source is VAGUE. To say that it drops as $$1/2 kr^{-2}$$ is more definite and TESTABLE!

If you wish to have an idea to be taken serious, especially in physics, you need to make a definitive description. Without that, you'll will always get the same response. And we haven't even talked about the concept of making sure you understand the things you are talking about or using.

Zz.

3. Sep 16, 2005

LURCH

Welcome to the Forums, Nekromancer. First let me say that I think your English was pretty darn good in that post (What is your first language, if I may ask?). Secondly, you'll be happy to hear that this idea of yours is not completely without merrit; I have read about it being discussed by some cosmologists as a possible model for the universe. It does have problems, and I've not read or heard anything about it recently, so it may no longer be considered a valid theory.

One problem (the biggest one, I'd say) is that antimatter almost certainly has the same gravitational properties as matter. You are correct in your understanding about the graviton; it has never been experimentally detected. I believe you are also correct in your understanding regarding the gravitational behavior of antimatter. As far as I know, there is currently no experimental way to measure the effect of gravity on antimatter. However, all of the mathematical models seem to indicate that antimatter is gravitationally attractive, just like normal matter. These are the same equations used to make all of the other predictions in the standard model. All of these predictions that could be measured experimentally have proven to be extremely accurate, so it is very unlikely that this one prediction is completely wrong.

Still, for any cosmological model to match current observation, that model must include some mechanism for the source of whatever force is driving the expansion of the universe. Many propose some exotic form of matter to fulfill the same role as the antimatter in your conceptualization.

4. Sep 16, 2005

OnTheCuttingEdge2005

Vacuum Balloons

Mass has gravity, Massless has less and or no gravity, why does a particle have Mass, Maybe because it is filled with mass, How can a massless particle have no mass, Maybe the Massless particle is hollow, Then by the simple nuclear vacuum alone could make a particle buoyant compared to a particle of Mass, If this was the case then a hollow particle shell without a nucleus would (seem) to be a substance that defies Gravity through Nuclear buoyancy but can still have mass as a shell structure.

For instance there are exotic air ship concepts that utilize a (Vacuum) to produce buoyancy in the Air to space, by realizing that a displaced vacuum with a rigid shell around it and if the ratio of shell to hollow vacuum is correct the shell will seek its displacement where it will become buoyant and rise to space where it can seek out an equallibrium of Vacuum.

But of course you would need shells made of diamond or an exotic Carbon to make Vacuum balloons practical.

Vacuum balloons would probabaly be closer to what you'd call a material that defies Gravity, Now bring down that size to the nuclear realm into particles and you've got yourself a story.

But of course proving that Massless particles are hollow is a very difficult thing to do and would only be a concept that could really never be proven except in the Macro world as rigid Vacuum Bubbles that seek space.

1. weak buocancy
2. semi buoyancy
3. extreme buoyancy

all dependant on the ratio of mass shell to vacuum displacement.

you can take an old vacuum tube from an old tv or radio set and put it in water and it will float.

All hypothetical as far as nuclear theory but is factual in the macro world, Vacuum balloons have been known for a very long, Negative displacement or positive displacement seems to have alot to do with Gravity.

If Vacuum balloons can be made practical by finding super materials for shells then putting things into orbit will become very easy because a vacuum balloon would seek its equalibrium of atmosphere which is space.

a fun experiment is to take a rather large plastic bag, Then put Helium balloons inside the bag, Then remove all the air from the bag until there is a vacuum between the balloons inside the bag, seal off the vacuumed bag and have fun researching your new experiment on Macro particle structures and materials, Get creative and a whole new world will open a door for you.

Gerald L. Blakley

Last edited: Sep 16, 2005
5. Sep 16, 2005

ZapperZ

Staff Emeritus
I think this is another example of not being aware of what is already known.

In condensed matter/solid state physics, we frequently deal with "holes". These are positive vacancies in a sea of electronic background. Via a straightfoward shift in gauge, one can consider such vacancies as if they are positive particles. They behave just like any other particles. They even have a "mass"! This is the origin of the "p" in p-type semiconductors, where the majority charge carriers are the positive holes.

Notice that even such "void" does not imply a zero mass. There is because there is a clear fundamental description on what we mean and measure as "mass". The effective mass of particles clearly can change when it is in a many-body type environment. And there are certainly theoretical indications, especially via the Higgs theorem, that the free-particle mass may even be due to some form of excitation out of the Higgs field.

So one can certainly "get creative", but if one does so without being aware of what we have already know, then one will have a tendency to make creatively wrong predictions.

Zz.

Last edited: Sep 16, 2005
6. Sep 16, 2005

OnTheCuttingEdge2005

Field does have its place, It may also determine the ratio of a nuclear vacumm shell by increasing its shell diameter to mass ratio thus making it more buoyant because the field expands its shell and has greater vacuum displacement.

By the way, Are you a firm believer that Gravity comes from a single particle that has a gravity byproduct?

Top Quarks have the most Gravitational attraction than any other particle.

Gravity is a displacement force. Old school.

Last edited: Sep 16, 2005
7. Sep 16, 2005

ZapperZ

Staff Emeritus
My bag of balloons are the bubbles in water.

Have you studied many-body physics yet?

Zz.

P.S. If you wish to SPECULATE on something BEYOND what we currently know, please read the PF guildeline that you have explictly agreed to before proceeding.

Last edited: Sep 16, 2005
8. Sep 16, 2005

OnTheCuttingEdge2005

Try it. The air in the balloon represents a field, The shell of the balloon represents a particle structure The outside Bag represents field tension.

Maybe you have implimented a rewording, What is many body physics?

Gerald L. Blakley

Last edited: Sep 16, 2005
9. Sep 16, 2005

ZapperZ

Staff Emeritus
This represents nothing. We do not have any idea, or are we able to measure the INSIDE of an elementary particle. What you have written isn't physics, but guesswork and speculation. You have provided no justification that this comparison is valid.

What I have described regarding holes in matter has been proven, even by YOU. By your use of modern solid-state electronics, you are proving this concept a gazillion times a second. Some of the clearest manifestation of the validity of physics comes not from some esoteric experiments, but in the materials that you are using.

That tells me all I need to know.

If you can "understand about mass displacement on an expert level", then maybe you can understand the PF Guidelines and why this thread is now closed. You may submit your speculation to the IR section.

Zz.