Antigravity could replace dark energy as cause of Universe's expansion

Apr 18, 2011 By Vanessa D'Amico
Illustration of Antimatter/Matter Annihilation. Credit: NASA/CXC/M. Weiss

Since the late 20th century, astronomers have been aware of data that suggest the universe is not only expanding, but expanding at an accelerating rate. According to the currently accepted model, this accelerated expansion is due to dark energy, a mysterious repulsive force that makes up about 73% of the energy density of the universe. Now, a new study reveals an alternative theory: that the expansion of the universe is actually due to the relationship between matter and antimatter. According to this study, matter and antimatter gravitationally repel each other and create a kind of “antigravity” that could do away with the need for dark energy in the universe.

Massimo Villata, a scientist from the Observatory of Turin in Italy, began the study with two major assumptions. First, he posited that both and antimatter have positive mass and . Traditionally, the gravitational influence of a particle is determined solely by its mass. A positive mass value indicates that the particle will attract other particles gravitationally. Under Villata’s assumption, this applies to antiparticles as well. So under the influence of gravity, particles attract other particles and antiparticles attract other antiparticles. But what kind of force occurs between particles and antiparticles?

To resolve this question, Villata needed to institute the second assumption – that general relativity is CPT invariant. This means that the laws governing an ordinary matter particle in an ordinary field in spacetime can be applied equally well to scenarios in which charge (electric charge and internal quantum numbers), parity (spatial coordinates) and time are reversed, as they are for antimatter. When you reverse the equations of general relativity in charge, parity and time for either the particle or the field the particle is traveling in, the result is a change of sign in the gravity term, implying so-called antigravity between the two.

Villata cited the quaint example of an apple falling on Isaac Newton’s head. If an anti-apple falls on an anti-Earth, the two will attract and the anti-apple will hit anti-Newton on the head; however, an anti-apple cannot “fall” on regular old Earth, which is made of regular old matter. Instead, the anti-apple will fly away from Earth because of gravity’s change in sign. In other words, if is, in fact, CPT invariant, antigravity would cause particles and antiparticles to mutually repel. On a much larger scale, Villata claims that the universe is expanding because of this powerful repulsion between matter and antimatter.

What about the fact that matter and antimatter are known to annihilate each other? Villata resolved this paradox by placing antimatter far away from matter, in the enormous voids between galaxy clusters. These voids are believed to have stemmed from tiny negative fluctuations in the primordial density field and do seem to possess a kind of antigravity, repelling all matter away from them. Of course, the reason don’t actually observe any in the voids is still up in the air. In Villata’s words, “There is more than one possible answer, which will be investigated elsewhere.” The research appears in this month’s edition of Europhysics Letters.

Explore further: New microscope collects dynamic images of the molecules that animate life

Related Stories

Antimatter gravity could explain Universe's expansion

Apr 13, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- In 1998, scientists discovered that the Universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. Currently, the most widely accepted explanation for this observation is the presence of an unidentified ...

UBC physicists make atoms and dark matter add up

Nov 29, 2010

Physicists at the University of British Columbia and TRIUMF have proposed a unified explanation for dark matter and the so-called baryon asymmetry -- the apparent imbalance of matter with positive baryon charge and antimatter ...

Signs of dark matter may point to mirror matter candidate

Apr 27, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- Dark matter, which contains the "missing mass" that's needed to explain why galaxies stay together, could take any number of forms. The main possible candidates include MACHOS and WIMPS, but there is no shortage ...

Could dark baryons explain dark matter?

Jul 20, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- "The prevailing belief about dark matter particles is that they should be about 100 or more times heavier than protons," Subir Sarkar tells PhysOrg.com. "However, we were thinking about the possibility of lig ...

Recommended for you

Cooling with molecules

Oct 22, 2014

An international team of scientists have become the first ever researchers to successfully reach temperatures below minus 272.15 degrees Celsius – only just above absolute zero – using magnetic molecules. ...

User comments : 177

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

shams
3.5 / 5 (2) Apr 18, 2011
interesting,but if the universe is expanding in an accelerating rate, is that rate constant since the birth of the universe, or increasing. if it is increasing then i would say the matter and antimatter theory does have a point
jscroft
3.1 / 5 (11) Apr 18, 2011
Why would antimatter be confined to the intergalactic void? Why might there not be antimatter regions that include galaxies, etc., but are BOUNDED by voids whose edges adjoin similar, MATTER voids enclosing MATTER regions?
d_robison
5 / 5 (3) Apr 18, 2011
interesting,but if the universe is expanding in an accelerating rate, is that rate constant since the birth of the universe, or increasing. if it is increasing then i would say the matter and antimatter theory does have a point


Correct me if I am misunderstanding this post, but I think the answer you are looking for is: the rate at which the universe is expanding has been observed to be increasing, and also increasing more rapidly the farther one looks from the Milky Way. I.E. the rate of expansion is not constant.
sstritt
3.8 / 5 (13) Apr 18, 2011
Of course, the reason astronomers dont actually observe any antimatter in the voids is still up in the air

Yes, wouldn't you expect to see antimatter galaxies? Then again,would antimatter galaxies look any different than matter galaxies?
Modernmystic
3.6 / 5 (19) Apr 18, 2011
If there were copious amounts of anti-matter in the universe we'd know.

Also it seems at first blush that if this theory were true we'd notice an non-uniformity to the expansion of the universe and be able to map it. After all anti-matter would repel matter here more than there based on densities etc.

Also wouldn't "anti-gravity" be affected by the inverse square law? In effect actually slowing down the expansion instead of speeding it up? That is to say as the matter and anti-matter got further apart the anti-gravity would be weaker and weaker.

Just thinking "out loud"...
sstritt
3.5 / 5 (8) Apr 18, 2011
If the voids are filled with antimatter, why don't we see antimatter galaxies? Then again, would they look the same as regular galaxies?
A glitch caused me to think my previous post did not appear.
ZephirAWT
Apr 18, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (6) Apr 18, 2011
interesting,but if the universe is expanding in an accelerating rate, is that rate constant since the birth of the universe, or increasing. if it is increasing then i would say the matter and antimatter theory does have a point


Correct me if I am misunderstanding this post, but I think the answer you are looking for is: the rate at which the universe is expanding has been observed to be increasing, and also increasing more rapidly the farther one looks from the Milky Way. I.E. the rate of expansion is not constant.
The word for that is accelerating,... expansion velocity is changing with time. The phrase (used by Shams) "Acceleration rate" is redundant in this case.
kevinrtrs
1.4 / 5 (43) Apr 18, 2011
I know most people would not agree with this but the bible clearly states that God stretched out the heavens like a tent. Multiple times this is repeated in Isaiah.

Since God is invisible and not detectable by us, if we don't believe what the bible says, it's going to be a long, long time to search for the cause. Oh, we might arrive at some conclusion as to the forces involved, but there will be a great mystery as to how those forces got to play the way they do.

Thrasymachus
4.8 / 5 (16) Apr 18, 2011
Did we really need another article about this? This one didn't add anything the other article didn't, and in fact, omitted that one of Villata's concerns regarding this idea is the publication of a novel in which it plays a prominent role.

http://www.physor...ion.html
Husky
4.8 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2011
if large densities of antimatter reside in what we regard as the voids, the voids should obscure light like gasclouds or even cause gravitational lensing, i don't think we have seen many of that yet, the antimatter would have to be finely dispersed and kept appart to be able to be there in large quantity and still getting unnoticed. Their theory is certainly interesting, allthough build on asumptions that might be worth as much as quicksand when laboratorytest can't give it solid footing. Assuming that there is indeed antigravity for a moment here, i propose that there was this big bang, but that it did not explode like a ball, but repelling directional jets creating in effect two spatially seperated universes, the darkenergy/expansion of the universe then could be thought of the jets, like plasma and lasers beams, losing coherence and widen, losing their selfinduced plasma-pinch effect, but again this like adding another card on this house of cards
Husky
3 / 5 (2) Apr 18, 2011
a remnant of such directional Jet Bang, might be the Dark Flow feature
Mahal_Kita
1.4 / 5 (12) Apr 18, 2011
The larger the Universe gets, the larger the force that pulls the Universe apart. Now that force is aproximately 0.7G. And no.. The Universe will not expand indefinately. At some point it will fold itself into the past due to acceleration of matter beyond C. I think this is already the case. My 'Mobius Universe' proposes that there is no need for anti-gravity or dark matter.
Mahal_Kita
1.9 / 5 (8) Apr 18, 2011
But also.. Let's assume Einstein had some clue. In that case these pockets of anti-matter would disperse light instead of focussing it.
El_Nose
1.7 / 5 (3) Apr 18, 2011
anyone remember that book 2.8 angstroms the unification of g and c == is this pointing in the same direction as that book was stating that the universe has been expanding by 2.8 angtroms per second per second and that right now that would be c or the speed of light and that basically this acceleration is constant and that the speed of light is always getting a little faster ... i don;t know if this was disproven with satellites technology

thoughts??
Modernmystic
3.4 / 5 (18) Apr 18, 2011
The Universe will not expand indefinately. At some point it will fold itself into the past due to acceleration of matter beyond C.


I could be wrong here, but it's not that matter is being accelerated, it's that the space the matter is in is being accelerated. This makes the matter appear to be moving away from us when it's really just space being "created"...

The matter itself isn't gaining momentum though IF I understand correctly.
Skultch
4.2 / 5 (15) Apr 18, 2011
ModernMystic,

Great point on your first post.

Kevinrtrs,

hahahaha What sets you apart from the other misologist cranks is that you have never once, not even accidentally, said anything valuable. I sometimes have a laugh and rate your comments a 1 before even reading them. It's just kinda fun. I still read them anyway; probably due to some latent masochistic tendency.
ZephirAWT
Apr 18, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Skultch
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 18, 2011
What would the gravitational lensing look like? If the antigalaxies repel instead of bend the light, would we see some distant objects as split up almost infinitely? Would some of the far galaxies light be refracted 180 degrees and we observe them in a drastically different position? Could this article's theory explain the geometry of cosmic filaments and super clusters? Like MM, I'm just thinking out loud.
WhiteJim
1.9 / 5 (7) Apr 18, 2011
Space Time is being created at an accelerating rate from every point in the universe at the same time. This looks to us as if it is flying apart in every direction looking forward and it looks to us as if it all was at a singularity at one point in the past (the Big Bang Theory)... It may be that it is a constant expansion and we perceive a big bang only because information is being diluted by the ever growing universe from every point at the same time. The universe may have always been infinite and only information is lost going back to the apparant singularity of our observable time line. Things that are farther away appear to be moving faster because the Space-time between us is larger and thus expands faster than for things closer together...
Gammakozy
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 18, 2011
Dark Flow, Multiple Universes, and Branes are simply fanciful attempts to insert something outside the universe to explain observed effects inside the universe. The most likely reality, however is that there is nothing beyond the "borders" of the universe. So expansion of the universe, and even hyperinflation could simply be what happens when something is subtituted for nothing. Unfortunately, there will never be a way for scientists to replicate such a scenario as we have never experienced, and cannot create, nothing.
ubavontuba
2.4 / 5 (14) Apr 18, 2011
interesting,but if the universe is expanding in an accelerating rate, is that rate constant since the birth of the universe, or increasing. if it is increasing then i would say the matter and antimatter theory does have a point

The problem here is that if it's expanding at a constantly accelerating rate, the antimatter hypothesis fails, as gravity decreases by the square of the distance - and so should the rate of acceleration.

Edit: Oops, I see Modernmystic already touched on this.
Yevgen
4.7 / 5 (3) Apr 18, 2011
Of course, the reason astronomers dont actually observe any antimatter in the voids is still up in the air

Yes, wouldn't you expect to see antimatter galaxies? Then again,would antimatter galaxies look any different than matter galaxies?


It all depends how light is treated - deflected or attracted?
If we consider transactional
interpretation of quantum mechanics where emitter - light - adsorber are treated as one entity, it could be argued that if emitter is from "normal matter",
the antimatter would gravitationaly deflect such light, and vice versa normal matter deflect light by emmited by antimatter. That would explain why we dont see antimatter galaxies - they deflect the light that come from matter galaxies so light goes around them (anti-lensing), while we (made of matter) deflect the light from antimatter galaxies so it never gets close to us.

Regards, Yevgen
Pyle
3.7 / 5 (12) Apr 18, 2011
NONSENSE!

How does an antimatter expansion universe account for red shift? Why is this ignored? Isn't red shift the primary evidence we use for determining that the universe is expanding in the first place?

All this nonsense about repulsion by anti-matter and nothing about red shift (or lensing effects). Somebody tell me what I missed.
ziprar
5 / 5 (4) Apr 18, 2011
This all good but how is this article different from another nearly identical article released last week??

http://www.physor...ion.html
...
maybe this is an update, although I dont see any new info...
Whatwhat
2 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2011
Space expansion between galaxies and within galaxies seems to be the most probable cause of the accelerating expansion. Couldn't this be accounted for not by antigravity but by less aggregate gravity in the Universe as time goes on? This could be explained by mass turning into energy through fusion and other nuclear and chemical reactions. As the sun burns of it's mass there will be less gravity in our solar system and the planets will expand out into space that would look like expansion but it is just less gravity. If matter to energy conversion in the universe is accelerating at the same rate as the expansion of the Universe than that would be a good fit.
Thrasymachus
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 18, 2011
Well, with normal matter and gravity, as light falls down the gravity well, it is blueshifted, as it climbs up the gravity well, it is redshifted. Supposing this phenomena described by Villata existed, with antimatter and inverted gravity, as light falls down on the antimatter body, it will be redshifted, as it climbs up away from the antimatter body, it will be blueshifted. Since Villata also claims that antimatter is self-attractive, then there should exist masses of antimatter between the matter galaxies that pour out high energy photons, beginning with low-energy vacuum fluctuation photons near the surface of the antimatter mass that gain energy as they climb away from that mass. If antimatter had inverted gravity and was found in large enough volumes between the matter galaxies to cause expansion, it should shine.

Further, we shouldn't be able see those other galaxies. Inverted gravity would deflect light away from the antimatter mass, back towards the original galaxy.
CSharpner
5 / 5 (10) Apr 18, 2011
Since God is invisible and not detectable by us

Here's the million dollar question Kevin: Then how do you know he exists? You just admitted that he's undetectable. I'm not saying he doesn't exist. I'm saying, what evidence do you have since you just admitted he's undetectable? Walk me through your logic.
Modernmystic
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 18, 2011
Further, we shouldn't be able see those other galaxies. Inverted gravity would deflect light away from the antimatter mass, back towards the original galaxy.


Please explain further. As I understand the concept the "inverted gravity" would only act on matter and anti-matter in an "inverted" way. As far as photons go (who are their own anti-particle if memory serves) they shouldn't act any differently no matter the make up of the galaxy.

Unless I'm missing something...
Raygunner
5 / 5 (2) Apr 18, 2011
Maybe during the early moments of the universe matter and antimatter went through a non-homogenous or uneven annihilation phase and, after everything was done, pockets of matter and antimatter remained. Is it possible that there was not complete annihilation and the reactions "burned out" around the edges (with ignition contact points gone), thus creating many of the voids we see? If this was the case, matter and antimatter galaxies might now exist a safe distance from each other, with like attracting and unlike repelling. So the chance of matter/antimatter stars or galaxies colliding would be exceedingly remote. With the right mix of the two, it might account for the movements we see, including the "great attractor" at the edge of our observable universe. There may be large chunks of matter and antimatter areas and, if so, should be great voids between the matter/antimatter that would cause a filament-like effect as forces push and pull. Thinking out loud, just a layman here.
MorganW
not rated yet Apr 18, 2011
How would one be able to tell the difference between an acceleration of space versus an acceleration of time? Maybe one is constant and the other isn't... I mean, if you think about it, it seems to me we're at the edge of the universe at this very moment - "now" (the present) is always changing, but the past gets stretched out behind.
Just the musings of an untrained but scientifically inquisitive mind.
Thrasymachus
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 18, 2011
I'm just considering the effects of an inversion of gravity. We have to remember that in GR, gravity is not a force, but a change in the metric of spacetime. It's the energy-momentum tensor that tells the spacetime metric how to bend. The energy-momentum tensor of a beam of light bends spacetime in the same direction as normal matter. The only sense I can make of the claim that antimatter gravity repels normal matter and attracts itself is if something in the energy-momentum tensor of a bit of antimatter switches the sign on the direction of bend in the spacetime metric.
Modernmystic
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 18, 2011
The only sense I can make of the claim that antimatter gravity repels normal matter and attracts itself is if something in the energy-momentum tensor of a bit of antimatter switches the sign on the direction of bend in the spacetime metric.


Indeed, and that's what I was missing. Goes to the heart of the matter though doesn't it? Especially since AFAICS they're saying that only matter and anti-matter are affected it seems to suggest a force carrier...but you CAN'T ignore GR either can you?

So are we talking bent space-time, or gravitons/anti-gravitons?
newsreader
not rated yet Apr 18, 2011

Interesting theory. I wonder how plausible it is? Repulsive antimatter seems more reasonable to me than dark energy. I wonder if this is something that could eventually be tested experimentally.
Fig1024
5 / 5 (4) Apr 18, 2011
Antigravity would be THE COOLEST THING EVER
I want -50 kg
MorituriMax
5 / 5 (2) Apr 18, 2011
Ummm, is there MORE matter and antimatter now than after the Big Bang? If not, why is the expansion accelerating?

If the amount of matter/antimatter is the same, shouldn't the expansion be tapering off to a standstill?
Thrasymachus
4 / 5 (8) Apr 18, 2011
As far as I'm aware, MM, both photons and gravitons are their own anti-particles. Perhaps the most conclusive argument I can think of that would suggest that antimatter gravitates normally is that it would violate the equivalence principle. Observation has shown that light behaves exactly as predicted by GR under the influence of gravity. That is, photons gravitate like normal matter. Experiment has shown that a gamma photon of sufficient energy can spontaneously decay into an electron-positron pair. Half the energy of the original photon resides in the mass of the electron, the other half resides in the positron. Nothing about the decay suggests that the energy of the positron should gravitate oppositely to how it did before the decay. Conservation considerations suggest that the electron should attract twice as strongly as the gamma photon if the positron repels at the same magnitude that the electron attracts. That's not observed.
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (10) Apr 18, 2011
All this nonsense about repulsion by anti-matter and nothing about red shift (or lensing effects). Somebody tell me what I missed.
If the article's hypothesis is correct, and antimatter is condensed in the voids, we should see divergent refraction. That is, things would appear farther away than they are.

Redshifts may be affected, but it depends on the antimatter distribution throughout the universe. If it's relatively evenly distributed, things should look pretty much like they do.

The universe should increase in clumpiness with time though (as antimatter finds antimatter and matter finds matter). So, I would expect the older (nearby) space to appear clumpier than the early universe. So far, it all looks pretty much the same.

It certainly might be interesting in regards to the big bang and initial matter distributions and condensation though.

But, I think it fails on so many levels that I think it's highly unlikely.

cont...
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 18, 2011
The most obvious failure to the hypothesis to me is in regards to cosmic ray particles. to whit:

"One interesting aspect of cosmic rays is that they are almost totally matter rather than antimatter. According to Carroll & Ostlie, only about 0.01% of cosmic rays are antimatter, so this sample of the particles of our galaxy provides evidence of the matter-antimatter asymmetry in our galaxy and presumably in the universe as a whole. The few antiparticles that are observed can be accounted for as the results of high energy particle collisions that produce particle-antiparticle pairs."

http://hyperphysi...mic.html

beelize54
1 / 5 (9) Apr 18, 2011
What I cannot understand is, if Big Bang theory is apparently missing the antimatter (compare the matter-antimatter asymmetry) and the dark matter is apparently redundant in general relativity (on which Big Bang theory is mostly based) - what actually prohibits the physicists to connect these two concepts together? They're apparently dancing around this idea whole years, but one proposed expressed it clearly so far. They're generating employment for yourself - or what?
CSharpner
5 / 5 (2) Apr 18, 2011
If general relativity is right and gravity is simply the warping of spacetime and as it predicts, /everything/ passing through the warped spacetime is affected, then if anti-matter produces anti-gravity, it seems it'd have to also affect spacetime and, as a result, /everything/ in it equally. If it produces "anti" gravity, and it produces it near an equivalent mass of gravity, they should simply cancel out.

If the article's theory is right, then in an anti-matter galaxy, light would HAVE to warp /away/ from mass, rather than /towards/ it.

In other words, I don't think the article's theory is correct. Either anti-matter is completely repulsive or it's completely attractive (it either causes spacetime to "suck" towards it or to "push" away from it... no in-between and everything should be affected in the same way by it's gravity (or anti-gravity).

If it's totally repulsive, that could explain why we don't observe it clumping up, but still, it can't explain expansion's /acceleration/
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2011
What I cannot understand is, if Big Bang theory is apparently missing the antimatter (compare the matter-antimatter asymmetry) and the dark matter is apparently redundant in general relativity (on which Big Bang theory is mostly based)
The asymetry problem was relieved when observational evidence of a measurable disparity in matter/antimatter creation in the Tevatron last year. You commented on it.
SteveL
5 / 5 (4) Apr 18, 2011
Since God is invisible and not detectable by us

Here's the million dollar question Kevin: Then how do you know he exists? You just admitted that he's undetectable. I'm not saying he doesn't exist. I'm saying, what evidence do you have since you just admitted he's undetectable? Walk me through your logic.

Or, please don't? I tire of threads being taken over by off topic posts. Surely there is another place for inquiring minds to discuss religion. This is decidedly not the topic for that.
SteveL
not rated yet Apr 18, 2011
Despite its relative rareness, if anti-matter were attractive we should detect its version of a black (white?) hole somewhere. Surely such a mass would provide some detectible lensing or warping. Or per the article localized variances in the universe's expansion direction and rate that can be analyzed.
Occupodies
5 / 5 (1) Apr 19, 2011
This article is full of bologna and so is this idea.
Occupodies
not rated yet Apr 19, 2011
Despite its relative rareness, if anti-matter were attractive we should detect its version of a black (white?) hole somewhere. Surely such a mass would provide some detectible lensing or warping. Or per the article localized variances in the universe's expansion direction and rate that can be analyzed.


we wouldn't be able to distinguish it from any other black hole because photons interact the same with antimatter
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (4) Apr 19, 2011
Since antiprotons can be trapped with electric and magnetic fields in the same way that protons can in a Penning Trap; and since photons are their own anti-particles (as pointed out a couple of times before) we can rule out any difference in the interaction of light with antiparticles. If that is the case, the comments above that are aimed at lensing or dispersion of light are off track. Since antiparticles can be trapped as well as anti-hydrogen (recently at CERN) it is not credible to me that the people trapping would not recognize the difference in force that has to be applied if the anti-hydrogen exhibited anti-gravity. The balance is incredibly hard to do to hold an atom stationary with magnetic fields. The fields are very precisely balanced and they have held up to a hundred anti-hydrogens.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (4) Apr 19, 2011
Does anti-hydrogen annihilate when in contact with anti-carbon? What are the residual components? These articles often refer to anti-matter as in a broad category.

DavidMcC
5 / 5 (2) Apr 19, 2011
As a few posters have mentioned already, the whole thesis of the OP is based on bad particle physics. Anti-particles not only have reversed charge, they also have reversed parity. That leaves no time reversal, so no reversal of gravity. QED.
Here's a reference if you don't believe it:
http://hep.physic...re34.htm
Whatwhat
1 / 5 (2) Apr 19, 2011
Since antiparticles can be trapped as well as anti-hydrogen (recently at CERN) it is not credible to me that the people trapping would not recognize the difference in force that has to be applied if the anti-hydrogen exhibited anti-gravity. The balance is incredibly hard to do to hold an atom stationary with magnetic fields. The fields are very precisely balanced and they have held up to a hundred anti-hydrogens.


There are currently no tests that that have shown that antimatter or anti-hydrogen exhibit anti-gravitation or normal gravitation. The AEGIS experiment might. It is very hard to do because magnetism is many many orders of magnitude stronger than gravity. Having to use a magnetic field would make measuring the effects of gravity very difficult. A specific experiment needs to be constructed to measure the gravitational/anti-gravitational properties of antimatter hence the AEGIS experiment.
Objectivist
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 19, 2011
What would the gravitational lensing look like? If the antigalaxies repel instead of bend the light, would we see some distant objects as split up almost infinitely? Would some of the far galaxies light be refracted 180 degrees and we observe them in a drastically different position? Could this article's theory explain the geometry of cosmic filaments and super clusters? Like MM, I'm just thinking out loud.

You're making an incorrect assumption. The photon is its own antiparticle. Gravitational lensing would appear the same.
DavidMcC
5 / 5 (2) Apr 19, 2011
The OP for this thread is almost as bad as the one claiming that dark matter was emitting light with the "wrong spin", forgeting that spin is just polarization, and polarized light is only undetectable if you have a polarizing filter(in the appropriate orientation) in front of the detector!
Unfortunately that thread died before I joined the site.
DavidMcC
5 / 5 (5) Apr 19, 2011
Does anti-hydrogen annihilate when in contact with anti-carbon? What are the residual components? These articles often refer to anti-matter as in a broad category.


That's an interesting question. I think it would, because the single positron would encounter an electron from the carbon, leaving a net positive carbon and the negative anti-proton. Coulomb forces would then pull it into the carbon nucleus, where it would annihilate with the first proton it encontered, leaving a boron atom and a lot of energy (which might or might not be enough to tear the boron apart!).
bluehigh
1 / 5 (4) Apr 19, 2011
High energy photon output and a residual element.

... so the detectable yields of Boron (observable in the UV with the Hubble Space Telescope) ...
Physics Reports, Volume 227, Issue 1-5, p. 27-35

What anti-elemental interaction would leave Beryllium as a residual?

In any case, just wanted to suggest that depending on the type of anti-matter the result is not always just complete annihilation.
Aristoteles
1 / 5 (3) Apr 19, 2011
MASS_imo: Matter and antimatter: the two arrows of time -
Don_Kichoterian heresy...
Mahal_Kita
1 / 5 (3) Apr 19, 2011
Antigravity would be THE COOLEST THING EVER
I want -50 kg


Just collect 50 kg of antimatter, Villata just told you..
Mahal_Kita
1 / 5 (5) Apr 19, 2011
The Universe will not expand indefinately. At some point it will fold itself into the past due to acceleration of matter beyond C.


I could be wrong here, but it's not that matter is being accelerated, it's that the space the matter is in is being accelerated. This makes the matter appear to be moving away from us when it's really just space being "created"...

The matter itself isn't gaining momentum though IF I understand correctly.


No you understand correctly. When the momentum relative to the existing Universe exeeds C then time inversion takes place and thus space and matter is reversed into the past.
SteveL
not rated yet Apr 19, 2011
Despite its relative rareness, if anti-matter were attractive we should detect its version of a black (white?) hole somewhere. Surely such a mass would provide some detectible lensing or warping. Or per the article localized variances in the universe's expansion direction and rate that can be analyzed.


we wouldn't be able to distinguish it from any other black hole because photons interact the same with antimatter
But we would be able to tell from the lensing due to the antimatter mass that "something" was there and if repulsive of baryonic matter that something unseen would be causing visible galaxies to move differently than the normal universal expansion?
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (8) Apr 19, 2011
So I've heard that one of the problems with maintaining an open wormhole is that it would need some kind of gravitationally repulsive matter threaded through it to "push" against the walls. I've heard it called "negative matter".

Would this qualify? It wouldn't seem to as I'm assuming it's "repulsiveness" is only directed at matter and not space-time itself.

See this is what I'm having trouble understanding here. Are they saying that anti-matter gravitationally repels matter only OR are they saying it's attractive only to itself and repels EVERYTHING else...including space-time? OR are they saying it's more of a "GR thing" and has an opposite effect on the space-time metric. OR.... :P
ubavontuba
2.1 / 5 (11) Apr 19, 2011
we can rule out any difference in the interaction of light with antiparticles. If that is the case, the comments above that are aimed at lensing or dispersion of light are off track.
I agree with this in principle, as I don't buy the central theme of the article (antimatter has negative gravity). But it's fun to think about, anyway...

Einstein discovered that light follows spacetime geodesics, and ergo, is gravitationally attractive.

If antimatter spacetime geodesics are opposite, light should be repulsed by antimatter.

Of course this would imply that all "relativistic mass" is gravitationally positive which would imply all sorts of particle interaction problems (some of the "fails on so many levels" I mentioned above). Essentially, antimatter would lose negative mass to every energy interaction and quickly evaporate.

Of course this might explain some aspects of cosmology, but it doesn't answer the question: What's causing the accelerating expansion?
Thrasymachus
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 19, 2011
There's no such thing as "momentum relative to the existing Universe." There's momentum relative to an inertial observer. When matter on the other side of the universe is accelerated away from us, as its relative velocity to us approaches c, its light is redshifted into nondetectability. It looks like it gets redder and dimmer until it disappears. Given the current rate of accelerated expansion stays constant, an event, say a supernova, that is occurring right now more than 16 billion light years away will never be detectable from Earth. The current size of the observable universe is a sphere with a diameter of about 96 billion light years.
ubavontuba
2.3 / 5 (12) Apr 19, 2011
The current size of the observable universe is a sphere with a diameter of about 96 billion light years.
That depends on how you interpret "observable."

The far reaches of what we observe were only a few billion light years away when the light we see now started on its journey. These same objects now are many more billions of light years away. To say they're still in the "observable" universe though is not exactly true, as they're too far away and moving away too quickly for light leaving now to ever be detected.

I found a great reference that explains this, and defines several points of view concerning it (if anyone's interested).

http://www.atlaso...ift.html

Thrasymachus
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 19, 2011
Well, we're observing them. As the universe ages, galaxies that are more distant than the ones we can observe now will, in principle, become observable, but by then, they will be so extremely redshifted and dimmed, as will the most distant galaxies we can observe now, that they will be all but nondetectable. The wiki on the size of the observable universe has a good discussion of it too.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (1) Apr 19, 2011
I would like to address the issue of expansion until the relative velocity of the Universe reaches C. If we believe Einstein (and I have no reason not to yet) it requires infinite force to reach C for any object with mass (which is why objects with mass cannot reach C). That does not prevent an object from approaching C to any differentially small difference but it does prevent mass from reaching C. In like manner, you can't just add velocities to say that one side of the Universe is at .9 C and the other is at .9 C so they add to 1.8C. Time dilation and distance changes compensate for that. The bottom line is that until Einstein is shown to be wrong the mass in the Universe cannot reach or exceed C.
Mahal_Kita
1 / 5 (4) Apr 19, 2011
I would like to address the issue of expansion until the relative velocity of the Universe reaches C. If we believe Einstein (and I have no reason not to yet) it requires infinite force to reach C for any object with mass (which is why objects with mass cannot reach C). That does not prevent an object from approaching C to any differentially small difference but it does prevent mass from reaching C. In like manner, you can't just add velocities to say that one side of the Universe is at .9 C and the other is at .9 C so they add to 1.8C. Time dilation and distance changes compensate for that. The bottom line is that until Einstein is shown to be wrong the mass in the Universe cannot reach or exceed C.


Exactly. But at the so called edge of the Universe space is created at an accelerating rate. Not unlike the event horizon of a black hole but inversed. This inversion makes my Mobius Universe plausible.
DavidMcC
not rated yet Apr 20, 2011
...In any case, just wanted to suggest that depending on the type of anti-matter the result is not always just complete annihilation.

That isn't valid, bluehigh, because further collisions continue the process as long as there are still anti-matter nuclei or atoms or ions around.
DavidMcC
not rated yet Apr 20, 2011

...But at the so called edge of the Universe space is created at an accelerating rate. Not unlike the event horizon of a black hole but inversed. This inversion makes my Mobius Universe plausible.

Sorry, what edge would that be? There are only distant and near galaxies, none are at or near any edge. The space we know is finite, yet unbounded.
IMO, the finiteness of space shows that what we know as space is not, in a sense, the "real McCoy", but a (probably quantized) space, embedded in an infinite 4D space-like continuum. It is only if you could step out of our space, into the hyperspace continuum that you would see any edges to the universe. (Of course, you never can do that, it is only a thought experiment.) This follows from a LQG-based black hole cosmology.
DavidMcC
not rated yet Apr 20, 2011
OK, perhaps by "edge", you meant "horizon"?
jumojack
not rated yet Apr 20, 2011
Supposing that it is true and antimatter repells matter... How much strong is antigravity amongst nuclear particles?
And can antigravity be detected by same expriments being used to detect gravitational waves?
bluehigh
1 / 5 (4) Apr 20, 2011
@DavidMcC
so you are suggesting that theres a significant imbalance in favour of anti-hydrogen (within the context of this limited example). I am proposing that unless the total atomic numbers of the anti-matter and matter that collide are equal then some residue will remain. Are you (and others) suggesting that the collisions always involve an equal amount of anti-matter and matter. I doubt it.

bluehigh
1 / 5 (4) Apr 20, 2011
.. furthermore spectographic analysis of the photon emission coupled with the residue should enable us to establish that such a reaction has occurred, including the mass(and/or anti-mass)of the consituents of the collision. In any case saying that when matter and anti-matter collide they annihilate is an over simplification.
DavidMcC
not rated yet Apr 20, 2011
@DavidMcC
so you are suggesting that theres a significant imbalance in favour of anti-hydrogen (within the context of this limited example). I am proposing that unless the total atomic numbers of the anti-matter and matter that collide are equal then some residue will remain. Are you (and others) suggesting that the collisions always involve an equal amount of anti-matter and matter. I doubt it.

No, bluehigh, as I've said on other threads, it has been generally agreed (until recent, apart from highly dubious papers discussed in other recent threads), that the universe was left with a net matter content after total annihilation of any anti-matter not already part of a black hole. This implies asymmetry in the laws of physics, which I attribute to us being in a second-hand, contaminated "little bang".
DavidMcC
not rated yet Apr 20, 2011
I think you must have drawn an incorrectg conclusion from my answer to your question regarding a specific collision - anti-hydrogen on carbon. I still stand by my answer to that, too.
Mahal_Kita
1 / 5 (3) Apr 20, 2011

...But at the so called edge of the Universe space is created at an accelerating rate. Not unlike the event horizon of a black hole but inversed. This inversion makes my Mobius Universe plausible.

Sorry, what edge would that be? There are only distant and near galaxies, none are at or near any edge. The space we know is finite, yet unbounded.
IMO, the finiteness of space shows that what we know as space is not, in a sense, the "real McCoy", but a (probably quantized) space, embedded in an infinite 4D space-like continuum. It is only if you could step out of our space, into the hyperspace continuum that you would see any edges to the universe. (Of course, you never can do that, it is only a thought experiment.) This follows from a LQG-based black hole cosmology.


We have no clue as to what is 'outside' our Universe.. We don't even really understand what space is inside our Universe. I use general relativity to postulate my theory of the 'Mobius Universe'.
Mahal_Kita
1 / 5 (3) Apr 20, 2011
I think you must have drawn an incorrectg conclusion from my answer to your question regarding a specific collision - anti-hydrogen on carbon. I still stand by my answer to that, too.


It's about the building blocks of atoms. Take the atoms of 2 different elements of matter and antimatter. So what happens when electron shells meet?
DavidMcC
not rated yet Apr 20, 2011
It isn't two electron shells, Mahal, its an electron shell and a positron shell, so they don't exclude each other, they attract and annihilate, as I mentioned before. It doesn't matter what the species of atom or anti-atom are.
PS, of course, gravity doesn't come into it, this is electromagnetic interaction.
Mahal_Kita
1 / 5 (3) Apr 20, 2011
It isn't two electron shells, Mahal, its an electron shell and a positron shell, so they don't exclude each other, they attract and annihilate, as I mentioned before. It doesn't matter what the species of atom or anti-atom are.
PS, of course, gravity doesn't come into it, this is electromagnetic interaction.


Yes of course, I goofed here by calling them both electron shells..
bluehigh
1 / 5 (4) Apr 20, 2011
@DavidMcC

Nah, you must have left your understanding of simple logic somewhere. To have a residual that exists now or an imbalance of anti vs matter now, then there must have always been an imbalance. The only other logical explanation is that a limit exists on complex anti-matter elements and that violates way to many physical assumptions. Your suggestion that an infinte supply of anti-matter at lower atomic weights exists and will completely annihilate all matter on contact is absurd.

Whatwhat
1 / 5 (2) Apr 20, 2011
Sorry, what edge would that be? There are only distant and near galaxies, none are at or near any edge. The space we know is finite, yet unbounded.
IMO, the finiteness of space shows that what we know as space is not, in a sense, the "real McCoy", but a (probably quantized) space, embedded in an infinite 4D space-like continuum. It is only if you could step out of our space, into the hyperspace continuum that you would see any edges to the universe. (Of course, you never can do that, it is only a thought experiment.) This follows from a LQG-based black hole cosmology.


Couldn't the so called "edge" of the Universe be a sphere of light/photons expanding outwards at c creating spacetime on the horizon. Since it would expand at the speed of light matter would be unable to observe it due to the limit of light speed. If that was the case the only thing able to abstractly "observe" the edge would be the photons that are expanding outwards and creating spacetime at the "edge".
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (4) Apr 20, 2011
If that was the case the only thing able to abstractly "observe" the edge would be the photons that are expanding outwards and creating spacetime at the "edge".


If you're on a balloon where's the edge?

It's not a perfect analogy because one could say the "skin" of the balloon is the edge, but in this case it's really not because the skin represents the space all around us...
Whatwhat
1 / 5 (2) Apr 20, 2011
If that was the case the only thing able to abstractly "observe" the edge would be the photons that are expanding outwards and creating spacetime at the "edge".


If you're on a balloon where's the edge?

It's not a perfect analogy because one could say the "skin" of the balloon is the edge, but in this case it's really not because the skin represents the space all around us...


I would say the edge would be the boundary between an expanse where no photon has ever traversed and spacetime in which photons have traversed. Oustside of the balloon in that case would be meaningless because there would be no way of getting information from there since it is completely empty. Taking that further the edge would also be meaningless because there would be no way of getting information from the leading edge of the Universe if it were a sphere of expanding photons. So in that sense it is nothing more than a conceptual idea. Just something I've wondered about.
DavidMcC
not rated yet Apr 21, 2011
@DavidMcC

Nah, you must have left your understanding of simple logic somewhere. To have a residual that exists now or an imbalance of anti vs matter now, then there must have always been an imbalance. The only other logical explanation is that a limit exists on complex anti-matter elements and that violates way to many physical assumptions. Your suggestion that an infinte supply of anti-matter at lower atomic weights exists and will completely annihilate all matter on contact is absurd.


OK, bluehigh, that is plain misrepresentation. You are the one spouting the nonsense.
ZephirAWT
Apr 21, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
DavidMcC
not rated yet Apr 21, 2011
Zephir, I take it that you think that the universe has a centre, but that we can't see far enough to see where it is. This would be incompatible with space having been created in a "big bang", unless it was an infinite big bang.
Mahal_Kita
1 / 5 (3) Apr 21, 2011
Zephir, I take it that you think that the universe has a centre, but that we can't see far enough to see where it is. This would be incompatible with space having been created in a "big bang", unless it was an infinite big bang.


That, or the Universe as we can now observe is just a portion of a much larger system. Like planets revolve around Suns, Galaxies revolve around a center etc. Perhaps a Big Bang is a local phenomenon and not the beginning of everything. Just thinking aloud :-)
ZephirAWT
Apr 21, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
DavidMcC
not rated yet Apr 21, 2011
Mahal, I agree that the big bang wasn't really "THE" big bang (for reasons I have detailed in other recent threads), but other big bangs cannot have simply been "somewhere else" in one huge space, unless you think that the big bang did not create space after all. But, if it didn't then what did?
DavidMcC
not rated yet Apr 21, 2011
Zephir, if space is an aether, how could Einstein's theory of relativity (special version, which applies where there is low matter density) work anywhere at all, because velocities would all be absolute, ie, relative to the aether in such a theory. Any cosmology has to show that an aether is either non-existent, or fundamentally hidden, and what caused the CMB to look like heat death.
My own view is that the aether exists in a sense, but is fundamentally undetectable. The reasoning is quite complex, so see my debate with "Modern Mystic" in the old "bonobos" thread! (In a nutshell, particles are excitations of "loops", but these excitations are not tied to one loop. That leads to Newton's 1st law and the vanishing aether.)
ZephirAWT
Apr 21, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ZephirAWT
Apr 21, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Mahal_Kita
1 / 5 (3) Apr 21, 2011
Mahal, I agree that the big bang wasn't really "THE" big bang (for reasons I have detailed in other recent threads), but other big bangs cannot have simply been "somewhere else" in one huge space, unless you think that the big bang did not create space after all. But, if it didn't then what did?


We don't understand what space is at the moment. Perhaps there even is anti-space. Schrödinger's cat could either exist in space, in anti-space or in both simultaniously. All states would be qually real, but cannot interact with each other.
Mahal_Kita
2 / 5 (4) Apr 21, 2011
My own view is that the aether exists in a sense, but is fundamentally undetectable.


The Michelson-Morley experiment showed that there is no such thing as aether. The results from further experiments were also always negative.
DavidMcC
2 / 5 (4) Apr 21, 2011
Mahal, what the Michelson-Morley experiment really shows is that any aether is hidden from us by the structure of space (if it has one). That is why I said to Zephir that a theory of space must show that. However, space is not necessarily simply what we measure as the vector difference bewteen two particles. Indeed, LQG space can be seen as just such a kind of space.
DavidMcC
1.5 / 5 (2) Apr 21, 2011
In other words, Mahal, existence and direct detectability are not necessarily the same thing. Unfortunately, the current dominant cosmological theory (string theory) is just particle physics. The structure of space is left an open question, with wild mathematical guesses filling the gap.
ZephirAWT
Apr 21, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ZephirAWT
Apr 21, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
DavidMcC
not rated yet Apr 21, 2011
Zephir, I agree to a large extent about detectability not being absolute. It does rely on having a theory to explain experimental results that also implies the existence of something, be it a given particle or a field, or whatever. However, I don't see the relevance of "dense gas" to aether - surely, you only need particles, at any density.
beelize54
Apr 21, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Maxter
1 / 5 (5) Apr 21, 2011
Villata is on to something but he should read previous work done on the subject. This would allow him to move more quickly in his research.

"What about the fact that matter and antimatter are known to annihilate each other? Villata resolved this paradox by placing antimatter far away from matter, in the enormous voids between galaxy clusters."

Yes the negative energy matter is though to be there, but it is also though that it can't intereact with us in any other way than graviational. That mean we can't see it and that also mean that it can't collide wiht positive energy particle (our known matter). A great illustration of this is the following:
-put some floating fabric on a surface of water
-place some steel ball on it. This will create some depressions in the fabric wich we can associate with gravity.
-now take some ping-pong ball and place them UNDER the fabric (so that they move up since they float). This will create some "spike" where gravity will look negative.
continued.
Maxter
1 / 5 (5) Apr 21, 2011
continued from above..

In this analogy, We see that steel balls and ping-pong balls can't touch each other but they can interact together with gravity only. This create a "2-fold" universe.

Edit: also, the fabric is actualy "spacetime" indeed.

Also both negative and positive energy matter have the same kind of particles (electrons, photons, anti-electron,anti-proton, etc..).
beelize54
1 / 5 (7) Apr 21, 2011
Personally I consider the discussions, whether aether exists or not as a sort of layman trolling.

The only question is, how the aether model can be defined/modeled in reproducible way, how such model fits the observable Universe, which testable predictions it provides and how it can be falsified.

Everything else is just a religious philosophy, which is lacking matter of facts arguments.
holoman
1 / 5 (2) Apr 21, 2011
colossal storage chief scientist filed a patent on
antimatter production used in an antigravity spaceship
that could reach superluminal speeds in 2008.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Apr 21, 2011
The only question is, how the aether model can be defined/modeled in reproducible way, how such model fits the observable Universe, which testable predictions it provides and how it can be falsified.

It isn't a question. It used to be a question, then we went into space and found no aether. It is no longer a question.
Pyle
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 21, 2011
@Zephir:
Personally I consider the discussions, whether aether exists or not as a sort of layman trolling.
The only question is, how the aether model can be defined/modeled in reproducible way, how such model fits the observable Universe, which testable predictions it provides and how it can be falsified.

So whether aether exists doesn't matter to you. Only whether an aether model can be falsified? Amazing. Tied quite the knot in that post.

Planetary orbits can be fit to epicycles if you tinker enough. They are still wrong.

Awesome that you link to Toth above, MOG!!!

@Maxter, anti-matter interacts with normal matter. What are you talking about? And "negative energy matter"? Making stuff up is fun, isn't it?
beelize54
Apr 21, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Apr 21, 2011
Existence of aether is a postulate in aether theory, it cannot be solved with using it in the same way, like the special relativity cannot decide, whether the speed of light is invariant - it simply assumes it.
No, time is variant, light speed is invariant.

So whether aether exists doesn't matter to you. Only whether an aether model can be falsified? Amazing.
No kidding, jsut look at this gem he gave us prior.
Everything else is just a religious philosophy, which is lacking matter of facts arguments.
Right.
Maxter
1 / 5 (5) Apr 21, 2011
@Pyle
You are confused. There is two type of anti-matter.
Anti-matter as in positron and anti-matter as in negative mass particle (wich also mean negative energy, but whatever).

Maybe you should go search about this before saying I make stuff up since the "anti-gravity" cosmological theory is at least 15 years old.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (5) Apr 21, 2011
You are confused. There is two type of anti-matter.
Certainly not.
Anti-matter as in positron and anti-matter as in negative mass particle (wich also mean negative energy, but whatever).
That isn't 'anti-matter', that would be 'exotic matter'.
Maybe you should go search about this before saying I make stuff up since the "anti-gravity" cosmological theory is at least 15 years old.
Anti-gravity cosmological theory is not new, but it never had any creedence.

Whatwhat
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 22, 2011
No, time is variant, light speed is invariant.

This is postulated. Thee is no way to prove that all light is slowing down at the same rate. There is also no way to prove all light remains at a constant speed. The only way to measure the speed of light is through radiation/light so it is a circular argument and must be postulated. It makes sense to say light is constant because we can measure it unlike aether which would be a once removed postulate. Aether without proof is philosophy as the above poster said.
DavidMcC
1 / 5 (3) Apr 22, 2011
Whatwhat (and others), an aether (a hidden one at that) can be the implication of a theory that predicts other, observable things. The only reason that LQG-based BH cosmology is rejected as "unfalsifiable" is that the proposer failed to make the predictions in time. Thus, they became "postdictions", which carry much less weight than a prediction.
frajo
5 / 5 (5) Apr 22, 2011
the current dominant cosmological theory (string theory) is just particle physics.
ST is not the current dominant cosmological theory.
ZephirAWT
Apr 22, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
DavidMcC
1 / 5 (4) Apr 22, 2011
Frajo, I meant that it has dominated mathematical effort, IMO, and, if you think that particle physics itself is the dominant cosmology in any case, then that is the same problem.
frajo
5 / 5 (3) Apr 22, 2011
an aether (a hidden one at that) can be the implication of a theory that predicts other, observable things
It makes no sense to discuss undefined things like "an aether". To postulate "something" as possible implication of "a theory" is meaningless generality.
beelize54
1 / 5 (7) Apr 22, 2011
It makes no sense to discuss undefined things like "an aether"
You cannot refute them as well. But modern physics is mostly based on very fuzzy concepts (landscapes of string theory, Higgs boson, gravitational waves). During time, Higgs boson mass was guessed from 109+-12 GeV to 760+-21 GeV, plus two unconventional theories with 1900 GeV and 10^{18} GeV. There are so many comparably likely models - most of which contain continuous parameters whose values aren't calculable right now - that the whole interval is covered almost uniformly.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0708.3344

Apparently it doesn't prohibit thousands of physicists to make money with it. 10+500 solutions of string theory? Who cares..
Mahal_Kita
3 / 5 (6) Apr 22, 2011
In other words, Mahal, existence and direct detectability are not necessarily the same thing. Unfortunately, the current dominant cosmological theory (string theory) is just particle physics. The structure of space is left an open question, with wild mathematical guesses filling the gap.


The lack of experimental proof for the existence of aether lead to an alternative theory; special theory of relativity. The consequences of special relativity are experimentally verified. Einstein proved there is no such thing as aether nor a state of absolute rest.

Or.. You would have to prove that Einstein was wrong with this proposal and also what consequences this would have for general relativity. Which seems to work quite well so far..

beelize54
1 / 5 (7) Apr 22, 2011
Einstein proved there is no such thing as aether nor a state of absolute rest.
Einstein never did a single experiment in his life. Actually, he just based his theory on the earlier interpretation of Michelson-Morley experiment, which allegedly refused the lack of reference frame.

But the question is, which physical environment actually allows to observe its reference frame with its own waves? This is virtually impossible. And this is what Einstein never understand. Anyway, it's interesting, how firmly just the rationally thinking physicists are believing in their blunders.
Skultch
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 22, 2011
And this is what Einstein never understand. Anyway, it's interesting, how firmly just the rationally thinking physicists are believing in their blunders.


WOW!!!! I am astounded by the arrogance and the lack of introspection here.

Here's a guy who not only thinks he is smarter than all(?) current physicists, but Einstein as well. Somehow, this incomparable genius thinks it's a good idea to spend hours per day trying to convince completely powerless people that his disproved theory is true. Yep, that's genius, folks.
beelize54
1 / 5 (7) Apr 22, 2011
only thinks he is smarter than all current physicists
Technically, Einstein believed in aether, too.

http://www.youtub...vAIdMqng

He just wasn't able to explain, why this idea is still relevant, despite it cannot be detected with its own waves. The problem is just in usage of its OWN waves.

You can be always smarter then the rest of world with some isolated idea - why not, if you're specialized to this problem. Many findings and solutions are way way clever, than the things which I'm explaining right here. It just happened, these things are 1) quite fundamental 2) subject of belief of many people.

But even fundamental ideas can be simple enough to be understood smoothly. Apparently, the Aether concept is not such an idea. It's understanding is still facing serious problems - even after seven years of its explanation at the many places of the whole web.
beelize54
1 / 5 (7) Apr 22, 2011
I am astounded by the arrogance and the lack of introspection here.
But my feeling can be exactly the same..;-) Every opponent of aether here is arrogantly parroting the foreign stance without any private introspection. The water surface apparently drags its wave, when being observed with waves of light. But can be this drag observed just with the waves of water? Can same object be used for its own observation? Did anyone of you think consequently about it?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Apr 22, 2011
No, time is variant, light speed is invariant.

This is postulated.
And proved.
Thee is no way to prove that all light is slowing down at the same rate.
Light wouldn't be slowing down at all. The rate at which time passes is proved to be variant based on local mass and referential velocity.
There is also no way to prove all light remains at a constant speed.
No but you can infer it as there are no places in the universe where the theories of light have failed.
The only way to measure the speed of light is through radiation/light so it is a circular argument and must be postulated.
No.
It makes sense to say light is constant because we can measure it unlike aether which would be a once removed postulate.
If you think I'm an aether proponent, you need to do some more reading.
ubavontuba
2.1 / 5 (11) Apr 22, 2011
Can same object be used for its own observation?
Yes. For instance, I can observe my own body.

The question you're actually asking here is: Can an in situ experiment act as an outside observer? The answer is yes. However, there has to be a disconnect between the action and the observation.

What I feel you don't understand is: If aether is real and is unobservable, so what? If it doesn't have specific properties which make it apparent in some way, then essentially, it doesn't exist to us.

So supposing aether is real, so what? Supposing it's not real, so what? Do you see? It simply doesn't matter.

What makes it real to you then is your emotional response to it. Ergo, it's a matter of faith for you. It's religion.

Far be it from me to knock anyone's religion, as I'll argue the merits of my own, but a science site isn't a good venue to win converts - even if your religion is pseudoscience and is explained in science-y sounding terms (a la: Scientology).

beelize54
1 / 5 (7) Apr 22, 2011
So supposing aether is real, so what? Supposing it's not real, so what? Do you see?
OK - at least you apparently accepted, that the absence of frame drag doesn't violate aether concept - if yes, we could falsify it with it immediately and you couldn't put such question at all. IMO it's the step in the constructive direction. Apparently, the concept of particle environment is still somehow unseizable for you. So we can put the question, what all particle environments have in common?

For example, they're enabling the propagation of energy in two kinds of waves: the longitudinal and transversal ones. If the vacuum is formed with particle environment, could we observe such waves in vacuum? If yes, it would serve as an undeniable evidence of aether concept.

In addition, every particle environment manifests with Brownian noise, a tiny density fluctuations, which are consequence of neverending mutual collisions of particles, which are forming it. Can we observe such noise in vacuum?
beelize54
1 / 5 (6) Apr 22, 2011
What else all particle environments have in common? Their density fluctuations lead into dispersion of energy waves, which are spreading trough them. The transverse waves are dispersing into longitudinal waves and the longitudinal waves are dispersing into omnidirectional thermal noise. If we would observe such dispersion in vacuum, it would serve as another evidence for particle model of it.

The another aspects of particle environment are more subtle, so they can serve not only for falsification of this model via postdictions (i.e. with experiments, whose results are well known already) - but we can use them for falsification with predictions, which are especially valued with community of physicists, because they're bringing them an opportunity of future jobs. The point is, the Brownian noise has its characteristic wavelength in particle environment and the transversal waves are dispersing in different way, depending on the ratio of their wavelength and Brownian noise wavelength.
beelize54
1 / 5 (7) Apr 22, 2011
Yes. For instance, I can observe my own body.
But your body as a whole cannot serve as an observer of itself. Does your foot or hair observe something? Does your gut feel your body? The observer in exact sense are just the subtle neuron waves, which are forming the consciousness inside of your brain. It has testable implications in dense aether model, which considers everything as a product of mutual interference of wave packets, which differ with their wavelengths. Because the probability of mutual interference of waves decreases with increasing difference in their wavelength, the observability of reality decreases the more, the more the dimensional scale of observer objects differs from wavelength of neural waves of observer. The wavelength of observer is always at the center of dimensional scale of the observable Universe. The neural waves of observer are at center of all observable reality and their wavelength defines the dimensional scale of observable reality.
George_Rodart
not rated yet Apr 22, 2011
Imagine 2 cubes, touching at one corner (xyz=0) One cube has negative xyz coordinates and contains antimatter. The other has positive xyz coordinates and contains our matter world. Rotate the negative xyz cube so it's congruent with our positive xyz cube. In a hyperspace the -x,-y,-z,-T space populated with antimatter would cause the matter in the +x,+y,+z,+T to reorganize itself into clumps away from antimatter. This is a result of the space deformations caused of gravity which is the only force which can cross the matter and antimatter boundaries in hyperspace.
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (10) Apr 22, 2011
at least you apparently accepted, that the absence of frame drag doesn't violate aether concept
To what "absence of frame drag" do you refer? Did you not know the Gravity Probe B team confirmed frame drag?

"Our lastest data analysis indicates clear observation of frame-dragging."

http://einstein.stanford.edu/

It's also been confirmed in observations of black holes.

Does your foot or hair observe something? Does your gut feel your body?
Your argument is easily falsified.

My foot has sensing mechanisms and therefore observations about my body can be obtained from my foot. And, it can send signals as well (like pain). My hair likewise has sensing mechanisms (at the roots) and likewise data from my hair can be used to make observations about my body. And lastly, my gut also contains sensor mechanisms and signaling mechanisms.

So what have you been trying to say all these years? Spit it out in one concise statement.
beelize54
1 / 5 (6) Apr 22, 2011
The problem with aether understanding is, the people are taking reality like unconscious creatures, i.e. in the same way, like the cow are considering the grass at the meadows. They're observing it, they're even using it and consuming it - but they're not realizing it. They know, physics has two teories, space is three-dimensional, massive bodies exhibit gravity, the vacuum is full of noise, the light is spreading in constant speed, the magnets are spreading magnetic fields - but they don't understand this phenomena more, then the medieval people ever did. They haven't these phenomena integrated into their logical system. The very first step of reality understanding is the reality realization, i.e. the acceptation of fact, we are observing something, which we don't understand.
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (10) Apr 22, 2011
The very first step of reality understanding is the reality realization, i.e. the acceptation of fact, we are observing something, which we don't understand.
Uh, did you not know, that's the very reason for science?

"Science (from Latin: scientia meaning "knowledge") is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world."

http://en.wikiped.../Science

beelize54
1 / 5 (6) Apr 22, 2011
To what "absence of frame drag" do you refer? Did you not know the Gravity Probe B team confirmed frame drag?
Absence of frame drag in Michelson-Morley experiment. Actually the Gravity Probe B frame drag violates the negative result of M-M experiment and it indicates, the weak fringe shifts observed (& generally neglected) in M-M experiments could have origin in linear frame drag.

http://en.wikiped...e_note-3

..My foot has sensing mechanisms and therefore observations about my body can be obtained from my foot...
Without your brain your foot cannot feel anything, observe the less. It's your brain, which feels the pain.
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (10) Apr 22, 2011
Absence of frame drag in Michelson-Morley experiment.
Supposing you're right, what experiment do you offer then, which confirms your assertions?

Actually the Gravity Probe B frame drag violates the negative result of M-M experiment and it indicates, the weak fringe shifts observed (& generally neglected) in M-M experiments could have origin in linear frame drag.
No, it confirms Einstein's predictiions about spacetime.

Without your brain your foot cannot feel anything, observe the less. It's your brain, which feels the pain.
That's just dumb. Any observation is going to require an interpretation. Are you suggesting then that all observations, using remote sensing devices, are invalid?

beelize54
1 / 5 (6) Apr 22, 2011
..did you not know, that's the very reason for science...
This is just, what I'm doing here - the explanation of observable reality with testable predictions and postdictions. Can you explain, why massive object are doing gravity, why vacuum contains noise, why light is spreading in waves with constant speed, etc. I'm proposing a single model, how to explain these experiments and observations in logically consistent way testable with another experiments and observations. Nothing less, nothing more - just pure science. You're not in position to learn me, what the science is.
beelize54
Apr 22, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (10) Apr 22, 2011
This is just, what I'm doing here - the explanation of observable reality with testable predictions
What testable predictions have you offered, and what experiments have you performed which confirm or deny your predictions?

Can you explain, why massive object are doing gravity, why vacuum contains noise, why light is spreading in waves with constant speed, etc.
By "noise" do you mean radio waves? Or is it literally noise, as in decibels of sound?

Anyway, SR, GR, and QM generally explain things quite nicely.

I'm proposing a single model, how to explain these experiments and observations in logically consistent way testable with another experiments and observations.
But what experiment do you offer who's results distinguishes your "theory" from another?
beelize54
1 / 5 (7) Apr 22, 2011
Are you suggesting then that all observations, using remote sensing devices, are invalid?
Nope, but they should be handled as such with care. For example, the gravitational lensing is generally considered as an evidence of general relativity and constant speed of light in vacuum. Which is apparent nonsense, because if light would be of constant speed, it couldn't curve it's path around massive objects. Proponents of relativity are trying to evade this problem with assumption, it's the space-time, what is curved there - not the path of light.

The only problem is, how to prove it. We never put the clock into gravitational lens to verify the space-time curvature there. If we would visit the center of gravity lens with clock, the gravitational lensing would disappear for us. So, as we can see, the gravitational lensing actually violates the concept of invariant speed of light - it's quantum mechanics phenomena instead, because we are projecting our local experience at the distance.
beelize54
Apr 22, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Skultch
4 / 5 (4) Apr 22, 2011
For example, the gravitational lensing is generally considered as an evidence of general relativity and constant speed of light in vacuum. Which is apparent nonsense, because if light would be of constant speed, it couldn't curve it's path around massive objects. Proponents of relativity are trying to evade this problem with assumption, it's the space-time, what is curved there - not the path of light.


What else would curve it? Gravitons reaching out and grabbing photons electromagnetically? Or is it the aether that warps? If so, how is that anything but semantics?

I want to give you a fair shot here, because I do respect your attitude of thinking outside the box. It's just that any time you try to support your theory, it gets knocked down quite easily by laypeople (very knowledgeable laypeople). You seem to suffer from the same stubbornness you deride in the mainstream community.
Skultch
5 / 5 (3) Apr 22, 2011
If we would visit the center of gravity lens with clock,


Someone mainstream correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems like a nonsense experiment. There isn't /A/ lens. Spacetime is one giant, dynamic, amorphous lens. I'm sure this will be pointed out more intelligently by uba or SH.
beelize54
Apr 22, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
beelize54
Apr 22, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Apr 22, 2011
If we would visit the center of gravity lens with clock,


Someone mainstream correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems like a nonsense experiment. There isn't /A/ lens. Spacetime is one giant, dynamic, amorphous lens. I'm sure this will be pointed out more intelligently by uba or SH.
It's nonsense. There is no center of a gravity lense. That'd be like trying to detect leprechauns are at the end of a rainbow.
ubavontuba
2.3 / 5 (12) Apr 23, 2011
if light would be of constant speed, it couldn't curve it's path around massive objects.
Why not?

Proponents of relativity are trying to evade this problem with assumption, it's the space-time, what is curved there - not the path of light.
They're one and the same. It's like trying to draw a straight line on a ball. It simply can't be done. The line will curve with the surface of the ball.

We never put the clock into gravitational lens to verify the space-time curvature there.
Sure we have. We've verified spacetime curvature with clocks on earth, and at altitude.

If we would visit the center of gravity lens with clock, the gravitational lensing would disappear for us.
Our frame of reference will have changed, but it does nothing to the path of light heading toward earth (except to add our mass to the lens effect).

So, as we can see, the gravitational lensing actually violates the concept of invariant speed of light.
How so?
ubavontuba
2.5 / 5 (13) Apr 23, 2011
So, as we can see, the gravitational lensing actually violates the concept of invariant speed of light
No it doesn't. Each observer will perceive the same speed of light. It's the rate at which their perception changed which is different (clock rate change).

- it's quantum mechanics phenomena instead,
No it's not. It's clearly predicted by GR, not QM.

because we are projecting our local experience at the distance.
All "experience" is relative.

The short-wavelength light should lead to weak positive fame drag, for microwaves it should be zero and for radio-waves it should be negative.

Is it testable prediction or not?
So perform an experiment and test it.

You've been espousing your "theory" for years. Why? What do you hope to gain?

If I believed you, what would I gain?

What's the point you're trying to make?

ubavontuba
2.3 / 5 (12) Apr 23, 2011
The explanation of gravity field is simply not a subject of relativity theory.
Obviously then, you've not read much about the theory.

only visible light is deflected with gravitational field. The microwaves are essentially fu*ing it and radiowaves should be deflected with it in the opposite way (if aether theory is right). What it the space-time after then?
Again, what experiments confirm your contentions?

As far as I can tell, even giving you the benefit of the doubt, you have nothing to offer.

So again: Why are you here? What are you hoping to gain? What might I gain if I believe you?

You've put so much effort into this, over such a long period of time, that it undoubtedly affects your personal life. Why? What's it all about?

ubavontuba
2.1 / 5 (11) Apr 23, 2011
The problem of explanation of gravitation lens with space-time curvature is, you must always stay outside of it
How's that a "problem?"

So whereas general relativity can actually predict this effect in quantitative way, it cannot explain it qualitatively
Wrong. It explains it exactly.

For example, the Goedel theorem implies, we can logically deduce the things, which are untestable with Peano algebra.
That's a fancy "science-y" sounding thing to say, but it's meaningless. Either your "theory" (mathematically based, or not) is testable and verifiable by physical experiment, or it's meaningless.

beelize54
1 / 5 (8) Apr 23, 2011
If I believed you, what would I gain?
Nothing. You should understand the aether model first - it's not another subject of religion.
ubavontuba
2.3 / 5 (12) Apr 23, 2011
If I believed you, what would I gain?
Nothing.
Then what's the point?

You should understand the aether model first - it's not another subject of religion.
Why? Why should I bother learning to understand something which (you admit) offers nothing of value? What's the point of doing that when there's SO much I can learn which is enriching and valued?
frajo
5 / 5 (4) Apr 23, 2011
For example, the Goedel theorem implies, we can logically deduce the things, which are untestable with Peano algebra.
"The" Goedel theorem? Which one of his two incompleteness theorems are you referring to?

Goedel never made a claim about the logical deducibility of general "things". His contributions are strictly mathematical. For instance he didn't claim that your language skills are logically deducibel. Although they are things "not testable by Peano algebra".

And: Goedel's theorems are not about Peano algebra but about Peano arithmetic. The more common name for Peano algebra is Dedekind algebra. Thus, Peano arithmetic is a special case of a Peano algebra. (See Wikipedia's "List of algebraic structures".)

And: Goedel's theorems are not only about Peano arithmetic but about "any self-consistent recursive axiomatic system powerful enough to describe the arithmetic of the natural numbers".
Callmewhatuwant
1 / 5 (1) Apr 23, 2011
Voids??? Now that's something to think about..........!!!
beelize54
1 / 5 (7) Apr 23, 2011
..why should I bother learning to understand something..
Do you know, 60% of people in USA still (i.e. after two hundreds of years) don't believe in evolution? It's nearly 200 mils. of people and it illustrates the true significance of so-called scientific theories for normal people...

Why I should waste my time with convincing of one provocateur, who refuses to understand the aether concept, after then? Be a more realistic, please - at least a single time.
ubavontuba
2.5 / 5 (13) Apr 23, 2011
Do you know, 60% of people in USA still (i.e. after two hundreds of years) don't believe in evolution? It's nearly 200 mils. of people and it illustrates the true significance of so-called scientific theories for normal people...
What's that got to do with the price of cabbage in China? ...or aether? ...or whatever?

Why I should waste my time with convincing of one provocateur, who refuses to understand the aether concept, after then?
That's what I'VE been asking YOU! Why do you do it? What's your point and purpose?

Be a more realistic, please - at least a single time.
What's unrealistic about trying to understand the value (or not) of what you've been trying to teach, all these years?

Realistically speaking, why should I (or anyone else) want to learn from or listen to you, when you freely express there's no value in it?

It seems your expectations are unrealistic. Is there more to it that I have missed?

beelize54
1 / 5 (7) Apr 23, 2011
Aether model doesn't force you to disbelieve in relativity - it's actually the general relativity (geometrodynamics) of huge amount of tiny space-time curvatures, which are forming geometry of vacuum fluctuations. If you can describe the path of light in one of them, you should be able to estimate the path of light in many of them.

http://www.aether...vity.gif

Apparently the formal math will not be the best approach for it in this moment - but I don't consider the aether model as something, which fundamentally violates the existing physics.
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (12) Apr 23, 2011
it's actually the general relativity (geometrodynamics) of huge amount of tiny space-time curvatures

"Geometrodynamics" is another nice "science-y" sounding term, but it's never been workable.

Stop trying to impress me with vocabulary, and explain the value (or not) of learning what you have to teach.

I don't consider the aether model as something, which fundamentally violates the existing physics.
Then why bother with it at all?

beelize54
1 / 5 (7) Apr 23, 2011
Antigravity could replace dark energy as cause of Universe's expansion
I presume, this model is wrong from simple reason: from aether model follows, the red shift, dark matter and dark energy are all dispersive phenomena, which result from traveling of light trough waste field of vacuum fluctuations. The dark energy would work so even if the space-time would be completely empty - only you and tiny distant source of light would be sufficient for such observation. It's somehow fantastic to believe, the alleged antigravity of just two insignificant body should be responsible for such effect at wast cosmological distances.

It's the analogy of Mach's hypothesis, in which the mass of all stars in the Universe is responsible for curved surface in rotating bucket. IMO the shape of surface in bucket is independent to the distance from stars and it would work so even in completely empty universe. It's not the mass of stars, but the mass of vacuum, which is responsible for this effect.
ubavontuba
2.1 / 5 (11) Apr 23, 2011
I presume, this model is wrong from simple reason: from aether model follows...
blah...blah...blah...

Okay I get it now. You're some sort of chatbot. Unable to answer direct questions and unable to learn anything new (even proper diction and grammar).

beelize54
1 / 5 (7) Apr 23, 2011
Then why bother with it at all?
Why the normal people should bother with quantum mechanics or relativity? Will it increase their salary in supermarket or office jobs?
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 23, 2011
Then why bother with it at all?
Why the normal people should bother with quantum mechanics or relativity? Will it increase their salary in supermarket or office jobs?

Yes it will. Technological progress yields innovation, the ability to complete greater workloads and eventually the total freedom from labor. Why are you so mad at education... ah that's right, you're a Newtonian creationist.
frajo
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 23, 2011
Why the normal people should bother with quantum mechanics or relativity? Will it increase their salary in supermarket or office jobs?
Nobody said normal people "should" bother with QM and relativity. Nobody even said non-normal people "should" bother with them.
But I understand all the people who are interested in QM and relativity. Not because they should be, but because they want to know something. They have demands and there is a wealth of supply.

You, however, don't want to know anything. You want people to demand your offer. You try to convince people that your offer is superior by disparaging everything else and by using salesman tricks like multiple accounts and references to subjects of general esteem you don't understand.

Your tragedy is that you are targeting a group of people who are sceptical by inclination and by profession and thus the garantors of your failure in having any success.
beelize54
Apr 23, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
beelize54
1 / 5 (6) Apr 23, 2011
..why are you so mad at education..
Dense aether model was proposed by Oliver Lodge before one hundred years already and from this time his arguments didn't lose their validity. Just the education will help you understand the aether model better. I could say easily, you're fighting against it just because you don't know about its motivations. And you don't know about them, because you're not educated enough.
Mahal_Kita
1 / 5 (3) Apr 23, 2011
And this is what Einstein never understand. Anyway, it's interesting, how firmly just the rationally thinking physicists are believing in their blunders.


WOW!!!! I am astounded by the arrogance and the lack of introspection here.

Here's a guy who not only thinks he is smarter than all(?) current physicists, but Einstein as well. Somehow, this incomparable genius thinks it's a good idea to spend hours per day trying to convince completely powerless people that his disproved theory is true. Yep, that's genius, folks.


Ah well.. Actually none of this matters. I am not getting into an Ad Hominem discussion. Sometime what people say indeed reflects mor on themselves that on the topic at hand. So, just say; "Nuf said."

beelize54
1 / 5 (7) Apr 23, 2011
in this paper we show that this gravitational repulsion (between matter and antimatter) can be found in the general theory of relativity without any modification to its standard formulation and with no new assumption.
Standard theory of relativity asserts that antimatter should fall in exactly the same manner as normal matter, because gravitons are their own antiparticles. Particles of negative rest mass would behave like the tachyons, which violates the observations. Such particles would therefore violate the equivalence principle, on which general relativity is based - their gravitational mass would be different from the inertial one. I'm not sure, if it's possible to derive from some theory the violation of its postulates...;-)

http://arxiv.org/...37v1.pdf
Mahal_Kita
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 23, 2011
Dense aether model was proposed by Oliver Lodge before one hundred years already and from this time his arguments didn't lose their validity. Just the education will help you understand the aether model better.


Being an old theory doen't make it a right theory..

Einstein did the math and other scientists verified his proposal by experiments. Still ongoing BTW. These experiments confirmed what Einstein proposed. Einstein proposed special relativity because no experiment showed the presence of eather, so his proposal was an alternative to that.

Now.. In your aether proposal c.q. theory you postulate the existence of aether. So, come up with the math and ways to confirm your proposal by experimentation. When I read your posts this should not be too hard for you.

And.. Disproving every proposal is not the way science works. I for one are quite happy to read and think about any valid proposal with some merit.
Mahal_Kita
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 23, 2011
Standard theory of relativity asserts that antimatter should fall in exactly the same manner as normal matter, because gravitons are their own antiparticles. Particles of negative rest mass would behave like the tachyons, which violates the observations. Such particles would therefore violate the equivalence principle, on which general relativity is based - their gravitational mass would be different from the inertial one. I'm not sure, if it's possible to derive from some theory the violation of its postulates...;-)

http://arxiv.org/...37v1.pdf


And more, while this proposal could have some merit when everything was at rest, we know that the Universe doesn't work that way. Because there is matter moving around in space with high velocities you would expect these antimatter voids to 'light up' like nothing else.. Simple and conclusive IMHO..
braindamage
1 / 5 (2) Apr 23, 2011
Maybe these huge voids are out there because this is an ancient battlefield where matter and anti-matter duked it out. Anti-matter just barely won so there isn't too much to detect, but enough to provide some anti-gravity push.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Apr 23, 2011
Standard theory of relativity asserts that antimatter should fall in exactly the same manner as normal matter, because gravitons are their own antiparticles.
No it doesn't. Relativity states that space time dictates the motion of energy and matter.
Particles of negative rest mass would behave like the tachyons
Why?
which violates the observations.
What?
Such particles would therefore violate the equivalence principle, on which general relativity is based - their gravitational mass would be different from the inertial one.
Basically you're talking a load of shit.
beelize54
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 23, 2011
Basically you're talking a load of shit.
Sorry, this is what the logic is called. Positron is known with its positive rest mass, so its gravity must be of the same sign, like the sign of all other particles with positive rest mass - or the principle of equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass simply doesn't work. It's the postulate of relativity theory - not the "load of shit". It's the whole basis of your religion, so to say...;-)
Mahal_Kita
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 23, 2011
Maybe these huge voids are out there because this is an ancient battlefield where matter and anti-matter duked it out. Anti-matter just barely won so there isn't too much to detect, but enough to provide some anti-gravity push.


In that case we would 'see' it. These voids are lightyears and lightyears across hence the volume of antimatter would be unimaginably large. So cosmic radiation would cause these voids to be gamma radiation sources.
ubavontuba
Apr 23, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Mahal_Kita
1 / 5 (2) Apr 23, 2011
Taking my - I admit, ad hoc - reasoning one step further, these voids could be remnants from what Villata proposes. That leads me to the question; has anyone wrote something about how much mass cosmic radiation in the Universe represents? Because 99% of cosmic rays represent mass (protons and alpha particles)..
Skeptic_Heretic
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 23, 2011
Basically you're talking a load of shit.
Sorry, this is what the logic is called.
No, logic is not called a load of shit. Logic is called logic. What you're spewing is a load of shit. In a Venn diagram, the circles would share no overlap.
Positron is known with its positive rest mass, so its gravity must be of the same sign like the sign of all other particles with positive rest mass - or the principle of equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass simply doesn't work. It's the postulate of relativity theory - not the "load of shit". It's the whole basis of your religion, so to say...;-)
Again with the religion, why are ignorant people always accusing others of religion?
William_Tobias
not rated yet Apr 23, 2011
what id it ends the same way it started the big bang
knowitall599
5 / 5 (1) Apr 23, 2011
I'm telling you guys. Scientists are no closer to figuring out the universe than I am to pooping out a cow. I kid you not.
beelize54
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 23, 2011
What you're spewing is a load of shit.
Why religious ignorant people "arguing" with "it's load of shit" tautologies? Because they've no better arguments.
trantor
3.5 / 5 (2) Apr 23, 2011
ok, let me see if I understand. Anti-matter and matter, at atomic level, attract each other because of the different charges, and then annihilate each other. Gravity (and anti-gravity) are too weak at atomic scales.

Of course, when talking at planetary or galactic scales, gravity is quite strong, and the effect becomes noticeable.

But even though gravity and anti-gravity would be so low at atomic scales, cant we measure the gravity/anti-gravity of an anti-particle?

we can create anti-particles. Wouldnt a proton and an anti-proton attract each other and annihilate, but the small force of their gravity repulsion still be measurable as a fraction of time longer for them to collide compared to what would be expected?
beelize54
1 / 5 (5) Apr 23, 2011
But even though gravity and anti-gravity would be so low at atomic scales, cant we measure the gravity/anti-gravity of an anti-particle?
We could, if this particles will be neutral electrically. Electromagnetism is 10E+41 stronger, than the gravity and it interferes the measurements of gravity effects reliably.
Kedas
not rated yet Apr 24, 2011
If you would mix up all matter and anti-matter wouldn't that mean that there is no gravity field.

Or can we even jump to the simple equation/assumption:
Total energy in the universe is zero. E=0
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 24, 2011
What you're spewing is a load of shit.
Why religious ignorant people "arguing" with "it's load of shit" tautologies? Because they've no better arguments.

One doesn't cite eruditic arguments when coaxing a child to forget about the monster in his closet. 'They simply say, there is no monster, go to bed.'

Zephir, there is no aether, go to bed.
beelize54
1 / 5 (7) Apr 24, 2011
..there is no aether, go to bed...
I'm not saying, "there" is an aether - I'm just saying, the aether model streamlines and simplifies our understanding of probabilistic reality at the corresponding level. It's quite possible, the very same model will become misleading at the even more general level (which I cannot imagine in this moment, but it doesn't play any importance) - in the same way, like the previous generations of physical theories. After all, the name of my theory is Aether Wave Theory - the concept of particle environment is just one of two limit interpretations of it. The second is completely abstract one: the wave in infinitely dimensional space.
beelize54
1 / 5 (7) Apr 24, 2011
If you would mix up all matter and anti-matter wouldn't that mean that there is no gravity field
The photons have their mass, too. During supernova explosions the substantial portion of their matter is evaporated in the form of gamma ray photons. These large blobs of photons have the mass of the whole Sun and they could propagate like single body through vacuum. For example, they could trap lightweight photons into itself, while growing gradually in size and to play an important role in aetheric cosmology. The residual gravity field corresponds the CMBR noise. It's subtle field, but not quite nonzero. The conceptual difference between this field and antimatter is quite fuzzy, though.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Apr 24, 2011
I'm just saying, the aether model streamlines and simplifies our understanding of probabilistic reality at the corresponding level
And saying that the universe is eternal and static makes it easier to understand as well, it's still incorrect.

If you want to be a scientist, stop waxing philosophy and assuming you have a fundamentally better understanding of reality when you refuse to live within it.
For example:
The photons have their mass, too
That's unknown and (currently) technologically unknowable.
Skultch
5 / 5 (5) Apr 24, 2011
I'm not saying, "there" is an aether - I'm just saying, the aether model streamlines and simplifies our understanding of probabilistic reality at the corresponding level.


This is analogous to the epicycles theory, is it not? If we use a model that is not derived from reality or can even describe reality as it actually is, we have not gained much of anything. I, for one, am after knowledge of how things actually work, not merely being able to make predictions more easily.
ubavontuba
2.3 / 5 (12) Apr 24, 2011
The conceptual difference between this field and antimatter is quite fuzzy,
Your whole "theory" is fuzzy. You've never explained how you use it to derive and predict anything. It's quite apparent you simply CLAIM everything is a result of the aether (only after the facts are established otherwise), without bothering to explain why and how your "theory" supposedly works.

The sad part is the less knowledgeable readers fall for your tricks and (at least for awhile) mistakenly believe you have some expertise, You are a fraud and a con artist, without conscience or shame.

"Anyone who thinks they're important is usually just a pompous moron who can't deal with his or her own pathetic insignificance and the fact that what they do is meaningless and inconsequential."
- William Thomas

Mahal_Kita
3 / 5 (4) Apr 24, 2011
I'm just saying, the aether model streamlines and simplifies our understanding of probabilistic reality at the corresponding level
And saying that the universe is eternal and static makes it easier to understand as well, it's still incorrect.

If you want to be a scientist, stop waxing philosophy and assuming you have a fundamentally better understanding of reality when you refuse to live within it.
For example:
The photons have their mass, too
That's unknown and (currently) technologically unknowable.


And so there is the fundamental flaw in his reasoning. When his theory c.q. proposal is riddled with false assumptions like this one, no wonder it's flawed....
Au-Pu
1 / 5 (3) Apr 24, 2011
Let us keep this simple.
If space were expanding at a constant rate of 1mm per second and we were to look at something 1meter away it would be receding at 1cm per second, whilst if we were to look at something 1000 meters away it would be receding at 1 meter per second and so on.
The rate of expansion is most probably constant, the degree of redshift we observe is a product of distance, i.e. the further away the greater is the accumulated volume of expansion and thus the observed speed of that expansion.
Au-Pu
1 / 5 (3) Apr 24, 2011
Correction to above.
It should have read if you looked at 1 meter you would observe an expansion of 1 mm per second, if you were to look at 10 meters you would observe an expansion of 1 cm per second.
The rest is OK.
Dingdongdog
1 / 5 (4) Apr 25, 2011
In other words, Mahal, existence and direct detectability are not necessarily the same thing. Unfortunately, the current dominant cosmological theory (string theory) is just particle physics. The structure of space is left an open question, with wild mathematical guesses filling the gap.


The lack of experimental proof for the existence of aether lead to an alternative theory; special theory of relativity. The consequences of special relativity are experimentally verified. Einstein proved there is no such thing as aether nor a state of absolute rest.

Or.. You would have to prove that Einstein was wrong with this proposal and also what consequences this would have for general relativity. Which seems to work quite well so far..



Maybe we should all read Einstein's 1920 Leyden lecture on the Aether before making all these wild guesses about it. See:
http://www.aether...vity.php
frajo
5 / 5 (2) Apr 26, 2011
Maybe we should all read Einstein's 1920 Leyden lecture on the Aether before making all these wild guesses about it.
Your link says "Address delivered on May 5th, 1920, at the University of Leyden, Germany". The Dutch town of Leyden never was in Germany.

Maybe we should not try to spread confusion.
Einstein was human and not free of fallacies. Karl Popper was 18 at that time and Einstein could not know the scientific postulate of falsifiability.
DavidMcC
1 / 5 (2) Apr 26, 2011
an aether (a hidden one at that) can be the implication of a theory that predicts other, observable things
It makes no sense to discuss undefined things like "an aether". To postulate "something" as possible implication of "a theory" is meaningless generality.

I was only pointing out that a cosmology that implies a hidden aether should not be ruled out on the basis that it does so. The "theory" is the loop quantum gravity-based black hole multiverse cosmology, inappropriately abandoned, IMO, because no other cosmology PROPERLY predicts dark energy, inflation, absence of anti-matter (which I still think is true, regardless of the OP). Thus, it is not just a "meaningless theory".
ZephirAWT
Apr 26, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ZephirAWT
Apr 26, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ZephirAWT
Apr 26, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Mahal_Kita
3 / 5 (4) Apr 26, 2011
Einstein was human and not free of fallacies.
Regarding Aether he was rather insightful. Particularly his Leyden lecture is nothing, what we should deny even after hundred years. What he didn't realize, was, that sentence "Aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it." can be applied to every massive environment, when observed by its own waves. We cannot detect motion of water just with water waves.


You are stuck my friend. Either you are too old to adopt newer c.q. other strategies, or you have some compulsive disorder. This aether thing is like a religion for you, I conclude. Nuf said.
VestaZ
Apr 26, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
VestaZ
Apr 26, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
frajo
5 / 5 (2) Apr 27, 2011
Aether model is just perfectly based on reality

Why do you use more than one account?
DavidMcC
5 / 5 (1) Apr 27, 2011
Frajo somewhere on this thread, I think you stated that it was "laughable" to extend the range of the law of gravity down to the Planck length from astronomic distances. I hope you realise that the inverses square law has been verified down to less than 10^-3m (http://www.npl.wa...sr.html)
I estimate that this makes its range of applicability cover at least 23 orders of magnitude. Thus, an extrapolation by another 30 orders downwards isn't really so "laughable, is it?
frajo
5 / 5 (1) Apr 27, 2011
I think you stated that it was "laughable" to extend the range of the law of gravity down to the Planck length from astronomic distances. I hope you realise that the inverses square law has been verified down to less than 10^-3m.
I estimate that this makes its range of applicability cover at least 23 orders of magnitude. Thus, an extrapolation by another 30 orders downwards isn't really so "laughable, is it?

Thanks for the very nice & nourishing link. No, I never used the word "laughable". It's not appropriate in a scientific context and I just don't like its sound. I did, however, mention that the inverse-square-law of gravity has been confirmed only in a certain finite interval of length, whereas its validity outside of this interval is just an extrapolation, an assumption. It may be right, but we don't know for sure.
And 23 orders of magnitude are a bit stressing. From 10**(-6)m to 10**17m? How did they measure the gravity over a distance of 10 LY?
DavidMcC
5 / 5 (1) Apr 27, 2011
Frajo, thatnks for replying. Maybe I was thinking of someone else'a reply in this very long thread! As to the numbers, I was thinking only of the upper and lower limits, not including a "mere" 10LY, for which there might not be any data, AFAIK. Also the cited paper mentioned 0.06mm as the lower limit of the experiment (which I accidentally listed as 10^-3m instead of 10^-4!) As for the upper limit, I was "guestimating" it by knowing that galaxy cluster collisions have been modelled on the basis of the inverse square law (presumably with a speed of propagation of c).