Matter and Antimatter - Gravity

Keijo
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Matter and Antimatter,

I have always wondered what happens with regard to the gravitational field when matter and antimatter annihilate each other.
Consensus among physicists is that matter and antimatter behave the same as far as gravitational potential is concerned, i.e., both will attract matter and antimatter, so that a particle of antimatter would fall toward the Earth and not fly off to space.
According to the currently accepted cosmological theory, essentially equal amounts of matter and antimatter were initially created in the big bang.
Matter and antimatter promptly annihilated each other but there was an imbalance in favor of matter by about one part in a billion. This imbalance is what was left and now constitutes all the matter in our universe.
The radiation that resulted from the annihilation is now dissipated with the expanding universe, and is now seen as the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation.

But what about the gravity?
In the Big Bang, was there briefly the gravitational field of a billion additional universes before the annihilation took place?

The possibilities seem to be:
No there was not. This means that after annihilation there was also no residual gravitational field, in which case, contrary to what we currently believe, maybe matter and antimatter do in fact have opposite gravitational potentials.
Yes there was. This would mean that after the annihilation the naked gravitational field was radiated away as gravity waves. Maybe those gravitational waves, fields/potentials are still out there somewhere and can be detected or measured similar to the CMB
The question is, what would this residue look like today and how would we go about looking for it?

Any clarifications from you physicists or cosmologists?

Thanks and cheers,
Keijo
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Keijo said:
But what about the gravity?
In the Big Bang, was there briefly the gravitational field of a billion additional universes before the annihilation took place?

By E=mc^2, the two (free energy and mass) are equivalent so the same gravitational effects would be observed regardless of whether or not it was particles or free energy.
 
Thanks Nabeshin.
I take it then, that the observed mass of stars,galaxies and dust, accounts for only a tiny fraction of the gravitational field holding back the expansion of the universe.
By far the strongest effect (by nine orders of magnitude) is the gravitational effect of the residual CMB radiation.
Is this what current accepted cosmolgical theory contends?
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
Back
Top