Four reasons why the quantum vacuum may explain dark matter

Nov 28, 2011 by Lisa Zyga report

(PhysOrg.com) -- Earlier this year, PhysOrg reported on a new idea that suggested that gravitational charges in the quantum vacuum could provide an alternative to dark matter. The idea rests on the hypothesis that particles and antiparticles have gravitational charges of opposite sign. As a consequence, virtual particle-antiparticle pairs in the quantum vacuum form gravitational dipoles (having both a positive and negative gravitational charge) that can interact with baryonic matter to produce phenomena usually attributed to dark matter. Although CERN physicist Dragan Slavkov Hajdukovic, who proposed the idea, mathematically demonstrated that these gravitational dipoles could explain the observed rotational curves of galaxies without dark matter in his initial study, he noted that much more work needed to be done.

Now with a new analysis, Hajdukovic has taken another step toward demonstrating the of this idea by showing that the gravitational polarization of the can explain four cosmological observations, only some of which can be explained by models or theories of modified . In his paper, which was recently published in Astrophysics and Space Science, he starts off with some background information.

Background

“Contemporary physics has two cornerstones: General Relativity and the Standard Model of Particle Physics,” he writes. “General Relativity is our best theory of gravitation. The Standard Model is a collection of Quantum Field Theories; according to the Standard Model, everything in the Universe is made from six quarks and six leptons (and their antiparticles) which interact through exchange of gauge bosons (photon for electromagnetic interactions, W and Z for weak interactions and eight gluons for strong interactions).”

He goes on to explain that these two theories do not fit with certain observations, one of which is that the gravitational field in the universe appears much stronger than it should be according to General Relativity and the existing amount of baryonic matter, which is composed of Standard Model . While thousands of scientists around the world are trying to figure out whether one of the two cornerstone theories needs modification, Hajdukovic’s idea does not require modifying gravity or invoking new matter. He summarizes it this way:

“In simple words, according to the Quantum Field Theory, all baryonic matter in the Universe is immersed in the quantum vacuum; popularly speaking, a ‘sea’ of short-living virtual particle-antiparticle pairs (like electron-positron pairs with the lifetime of about 10-22 seconds, or neutrino-antineutrino pairs with a lifetime of about 10-15 seconds, which is a record lifetime in the quantum vacuum). It is difficult to believe that the quantum vacuum does not interact gravitationally with the baryonic matter immersed in it. In spite of it, the quantum vacuum is ignored in astrophysics and cosmology; not because we are not aware of its importance but because no one has any idea what the gravitational properties of the quantum vacuum are. In absence of any knowledge, as a starting point, we have conjectured that particles and have the gravitational charge of opposite sign. An immediate consequence is the existence of the gravitational ; a virtual pair is a gravitational dipole (in the same way as a virtual electron-positron pair is an electric dipole), that allows the gravitational polarization of the quantum vacuum. The initial study has revealed the surprising possibility that the gravitational polarization of the quantum vacuum can produce phenomena usually attributed to dark matter.”

He said that the idea is not a full theory yet, and acknowledges that it conflicts with many of our basic human assumptions.

“I would say a theory in the early stage,” he told PhysOrg.com. “Thousands of scientists work on the development of the cold dark matter theory and the theories of modified gravity; I am working alone in this third direction. The involvement of the other scientists in the research is crucial but still uncertain. On one side I have obtained a few results in striking agreement with the measurements, but on the other side a huge majority of is ‘allergic’ to the idea of the gravitational repulsion between matter and antimatter; the most common experience of all humans is that everything falls down, and it is not easy to swallow the idea that antimatter may ‘fall up.’”

Four phenomena

In this study, Hajdukovic focuses on four other phenomena, all of which have been established by observations of . Neither the cold dark matter model (CDM) nor Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) - a theory of modified gravity - can explain all these , with CDM running into problems at small scales and MOND facing problems at large scales.

First, researchers (Donato, et al.) have observed that the dark matter haloes (or a strong gravitational field) that surround galaxies have a surface density that is nearly constant and independent of galaxy luminosity, mass, size, form, etc. Although the discovery of this universal property of galaxies is a surprise, Hajdukovic’s theory predicts a surface density that is in very good agreement with the measured density value of 140 solar masses per square parsec. The universality of the dark matter surface density of dark matter haloes can be explained by MOND, but not by CDM.

Second, the first direct measurements of dark matter distribution in two nearby dwarf galaxies, Fornax and Sculptor, were recently taken by Matt Walker and Jorge Peñarrubia. Surprisingly, the measurements revealed that (what appears to be) dark matter is evenly distributed within the central few hundred parsecs of each galaxy. Although even distribution is compatible with MOND, it contradicts predictions by CDM in which dark matter is located in a cusped halo.

“In the case of a dwarf spheroidal galaxy, the measurements show that there is a cored dark matter halo in the central part of the galaxy, while the cold dark matter model predicts a mass-density profile that diverges toward the center, forming a so-called ‘cusp,” Hajdukovic explained. “So CDM is in conflict with observations: there is a cored, not a cusped halo. In the framework of the gravitational polarization of the quantum vacuum, the cusped halo is impossible, and it is a good sign for my theory.”

Third, both CDM and MOND predict the existence of a hypothetical dark matter disk to surround our Milky Way Galaxy, positioned on the same place as the visible galactic disk but thicker. When researchers (Moni Biden, et al.) looked for a dark matter disk, they did not find evidence for the dark disk. In contrast, Hajdukovic found that when the gravitational polarization of the quantum vacuum is taken into consideration, there should be no gravitational disk.

Fourth, when scientists observed two galaxy clusters (e.g., the bullet cluster) collide, the galaxies within the clusters passed by each other without interacting due to the large distances between galaxies. However, the plasma clouds - which are made of baryonic matter - between the galaxies did interact, so much so that they slowed each other down. Currently, the plasma clouds are located between the two galaxy clusters, while the clusters are moving past and away from each other. During this collision, dark matter and baryonic matter must have separated, since dark matter is collisionless. While this separation is compatible with CDM, it contradicts the predictions of MOND, in which (the illusion of) dark matter should be centered on baryonic matter. Hajdukovic explains that this separation should be compatible with the gravitational polarization of the quantum vacuum, although simulations are needed for confirmation.

Future

Although the theory is in the very early stages, some other scientists are hopeful that it can explain the universe better than current theories. Theoretical physicist Massimo Villata of the Observatory of Turin in Italy is investigating whether the gravitational repulsion between matter and antimatter can explain the universe’s expansion without dark energy.

“I am confident that we are faced with an engaging explanation of the ‘dark matter’ phenomenon, especially now that gravitational repulsion between matter and antimatter has a theoretical basis and is no longer a mere, questionable assumption,” he said.

Astrophysicist Michael Dopita of the Australian University in Canberra, who is also editor-in-chief of Astrophysics and Space Science, thinks that Hajdukovic’s idea and others that have recently been proposed look promising.

“Unlike Milgrom's Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND), the distribution of vacuum will depend on the distribution of matter, so the apparent extra acceleration towards the center of mass will vary from one object to another, and as a function of position within the object,” he said. “This is an idea which can be tested. All in all, we might conclude that what is sorely needed is a true quantum gravitational theory with a quantum granulation of spacetime.”

In the future, Hajdukovic plans to further investigate another intriguing consequence that arises from his equations. When he extended one equation from describing the radius of a galactic dark matter halo to the radius of the entire observable universe (about 14 billion parsecs), the equation predicted the current dark matter content of the entire universe to be about 1.7 x 1023 solar masses, which is consistent with accepted estimates. However, Hajdukovic’s equation has one important difference from the accepted ratio of baryonic to dark matter, which is currently estimated at about 1:5.

“The contemporary cosmology is based on the assumption that the ratio of baryonic to dark matter is a constant, not changing with time,” he said. “If my theory is correct, this ratio decreases with the expansion of the universe. The solution of the cosmological equations must be different with a fixed and a variable ratio. It will be the subject of one of my future publications.”

Explore further: Uncovering the forbidden side of molecules

More information: Dragan Slavkov Hajdukovic. “Quantum vacuum and dark matter.” Astrophysics and Space Science. DOI: 10.1007/s10509-011-0938-9

Related Stories

Light from galaxy clusters confirms theory of relativity

Sep 28, 2011

All observations in astronomy are based on light emitted from stars and galaxies and, according to the general theory of relativity, the light will be affected by gravity. At the same time all interpretations ...

Dark matter mystery deepens

Oct 17, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Like all galaxies, our Milky Way is home to a strange substance called dark matter. Dark matter is invisible, betraying its presence only through its gravitational pull. Without dark matter ...

Missing Milky Way dark matter

Nov 09, 2010

Although dark matter is inherently difficult to observe, an understanding of its properties (even if not its nature) allows astronomers to predict where its effects should be felt. The current understanding ...

Recommended for you

Uncovering the forbidden side of molecules

17 hours ago

Researchers at the University of Basel in Switzerland have succeeded in observing the "forbidden" infrared spectrum of a charged molecule for the first time. These extremely weak spectra offer perspectives ...

How Paramecium protozoa claw their way to the top

Sep 19, 2014

The ability to swim upwards – towards the sun and food supplies – is vital for many aquatic microorganisms. Exactly how they are able to differentiate between above and below in often murky waters is ...

User comments : 124

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

rawa1
1 / 5 (12) Nov 28, 2011
The dragging effects of dark matter, which we can observe for example at the famous case of Bullet Cluster cannot be explained with quantum vacuum field so easily.

http://www.physor...245.html

In addition, Mr. Hajdukovic's theory will get into troubles when so-called the dark galaxies without observable matter are taken into account (.."no matter, no gravity field, no gravitational polarization of quantum vacuum, no dark matter"...)

http://www.space....ugh.html

The whole trick is, the dark matter is formed both with sparse fields, both with sparse but tiny particles which are interacting mutually and single formal model cannot reconcile both aspects of dark matter so easily.
Shootist
3.9 / 5 (11) Nov 28, 2011
There certainly has been a lot of hopes pinned recently on antimatter having negative gravity. And with no experimental evidence, that I know of, to suggest that any such thing is true.
rawa1
1 / 5 (11) Nov 28, 2011
There certainly has been a lot of hopes pinned recently on antimatter having negative gravity. And with no experimental evidence, that I know of, to suggest that any such thing is true.
The problem rather is, Mr. Hajdukovic theory predicts the highest density of dark matter just at the place, where the gravitational polarization of vacuum is highest too. At the case of massive black holes or even galaxies this place is at the center of object, not at the perimeter of it. Whereas the dark matter tend to concentrate OUTSIDE of galaxies, as the rotational curves of stars are indicating. The Newtonian dynamics isn't modified with dark matter at the center of galaxy. It's difficult to say, that the dark matter has a pronounced antigravity behaviour, because it's always concentrated around observable matter, not between galactic cluster - but this aspect of dark matter behaviour should be taken into account with every DM theory. I'm not sure, Hajdukovic's theory predicts it correctly.
rawa1
1 / 5 (12) Nov 28, 2011
So that the four reasons, why the Hajdukovic's theory cannot explain dark matter completely are:

1) the dark matter rings around rotating objects
2) the dragging and collision behaviour of dark matter clusters
3) the presence of massive particles within DM ("hot dark matter")
4) the distribution of DM outside of massive objects instead of inside
axemaster
5 / 5 (10) Nov 28, 2011
There certainly has been a lot of hopes pinned recently on antimatter having negative gravity. And with no experimental evidence, that I know of, to suggest that any such thing is true.

As far as I know, there have been no experiments on the gravitational force on antimatter yet. Keep in mind how hard it is to do that kind of measurement - you have to cool the antimatter down a lot, then try to account for electromagnetic stuff - it's very hard.
Crazy_council
1 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2011
If the universe has a fabric, ( not the higs ) and that fabric spins or ossilates, dark matter/energy/flow could be easly explainable. But then so could black holes, Gravity, etc etc.
shockr
5 / 5 (8) Nov 28, 2011
@Crazy_council
If the universe has a 'fabric'. I can see a lot of Aether supporters getting very excited.
Pyle
4.2 / 5 (10) Nov 28, 2011
Zephir:
So that the four reasons, why the Hajdukovic's theory cannot explain dark matter completely are:

1) the dark matter rings around rotating objects
Nah. The rings are part of CDM, but don't need to be there. The different MOND flavors explain spiral arms and galactic rotation. So does Moffat's MOG. Neither have DM rings outside of galaxies.

2) the dragging and collision behaviour of dark matter clusters
Again, MOG can explain galactic cluster collision behavior, specifically the Bullet cluster and Abell 520. Again, DM not needed.

3) the presence of massive particles within DM ("hot dark matter")
??? Huh? I don't get it. Why can't there be large massive "dark" particles in this new theory? Just because Hajdukovic's theory suggests that gravitation polarization of the vacuum might explain certain cosmological observations, doesn't necessarily exclude the existence of the particles you just made up.
Pyle
4 / 5 (8) Nov 28, 2011
4) the distribution of DM outside of massive objects instead of inside
Again, huh? This is exactly what his theory does. It removes the magical DM outside of massive objects and replaces it with a gravitational polarization of the vacuum surrounding the massive object. This polarization results in the increased strength of the field.

Your four reasons are nonsense. Almost as nonsensical as gravitational polarization if anti-matter isn't gravitationally repulsive. ;)
Isaacsname
1 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2011
So dangit, how much of the universe is really existing in a small fraction of a second ? How much is really here at one time ?
Crazy_council
1.3 / 5 (3) Nov 28, 2011
@Crazy_council
If the universe has a 'fabric'. I can see a lot of Aether supporters getting very excited.

yes i know but i dont see it as an aether, as an aether would still need a framework to travel upon. ( hope am being clear enough ).

I see it more likley to be tiny 2d bubles or brains trying to resolve themselves (mobious bubbles), and the 3d existing becuase there is more than one 2d bubble.

I think all the energy states of space time may be related to the ossilation of whatever the backround or fraime work to space is. What got me thinking this many years ago was me trying to understand what 2 dementions or 1 demention realy could be ( mathmaticaly and physicaly ) .When i started to think about 2d, i considered that if you had more than one 2d object, then the space between them would be the 3RD d.
Everything that we see spins, so it make more sence to me that the framework of spacetime must. If it does, it possible that all the energy come from it
Noumenon
4.3 / 5 (55) Nov 28, 2011
There certainly has been a lot of hopes pinned recently on antimatter having negative gravity. And with no experimental evidence, that I know of, to suggest that any such thing is true.

As far as I know, there have been no experiments on the gravitational force on antimatter yet. Keep in mind how hard it is to do that kind of measurement - you have to cool the antimatter down a lot, then try to account for electromagnetic stuff - it's very hard.


Plus gravitation is so weak, which leads me to wonder how the heck could such fleeting (10^-22 sec) virtual particles become polarized by such a weak field.
Callippo
2.5 / 5 (8) Nov 28, 2011
Hajdukovics paper .. is also an attempt to understand cosmological phenomena without assuming the existence of unknown forms of matter and energy, or of unknown mechanisms for inflation and matter-antimatter asymmetry

So he brings in unknown negative gravitational charge, thus basically giving another name to unknown machinery behind the observed phenomena.
Callippo
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 28, 2011
So that the five reasons, why the Hajdukovic's theory cannot explain dark matter are:
1) the dark matter rings around rotating objects
2) the dragging and collision behaviour of dark matter clusters
3) the presence of massive particles within DM ("hot dark matter")
4) the distribution of DM outside of massive objects instead of inside
I forget the existence of dark galaxies. So it's the fifth one - my excuse.
Callippo
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2011
but i dont see it as an aether

Aether model can explain easily the fabric of space-time, because the density fluctuations inside of dense fluid (the supercritical fluids in particular) really appear like the stringy mesh or "fabric".

http://www1.chem....co24.jpg

You may like the aether or not - but the dense aether model is still the only stuff, which can explain this "fabric".
MorituriMax
4.3 / 5 (3) Nov 28, 2011
demonstrated that these gravitational dipoles could explain the observed rotational curves of galaxies without dark matter in his initial study,
...color me stupid, but instead of saying it explains galaxies WITHOUT Dark Matter, couldn't we instead say that his finding explains what Dark Matter ! IS !? I mean, aren't scientists looking to discover what the heck Dark Matter actually is, not prove that it doesn't exist?
Aether model can explain easily[]..whatever you want it to, since it's pseudo science that has been debunked for a long time now.
MorituriMax
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2011
Aether model can explain easily

..whatever you want it to, since it's pseudo science that has been debunked for a long time now.
Callippo
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 28, 2011
we have conjectured that particles and antiparticles have the gravitational charge of opposite sign
In dense aether theory the particles are attracted to particles, the antiparticles are repulsing the antiparticles, but the mutual interaction of particles and antiparticles is way more complex. In general, particles are attracted to antiparticles, just in weaker extent, because for antiparticles the sign of gravity is reversed, but their time arrow is reversed too. The negative gravity in negative time is still positive one.
theon
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 28, 2011
Alas, no explanation for the 15 K temperature of cosmic microwave FOREgrounds, no explanation for long duration radio transients of which every second a new one starts in our neighborhood. No explanation of the Helium-3 and iron core problems. So no possible solution of the dark matter riddle.
flicktheswitch
5 / 5 (7) Nov 28, 2011
This is why I love science so much.
Even with all the current theories and the people working on them, one person can come up with an entirely new direction to explore. Whether it works out, or is ultimately dis-proven, the process is marvelous.
Callippo
2.2 / 5 (13) Nov 28, 2011
but instead of saying it explains galaxies WITHOUT Dark Matter, couldn't we instead say that his finding explains what Dark Matter !
The bigger problem is, Mr. Hajdukovic's theory cannot explain, the dark matter without galaxies, i.e. the dark galaxies (.."no matter, no gravity field, no gravitational polarization of quantum vacuum, no dark matter"...)
it's pseudo science that has been debunked for a long time now.
Dense Aether model of Oliver Lodge was ignored with mainstream physics in the same way, like the cold fusion, so it has been "debunked" with the same factual relevancy. It's actually the very same story of ignorance based on intersubjectively parroted religion.
Callippo
1.7 / 5 (7) Nov 28, 2011
This is why I love science so much.. Whether it works out, or is ultimately dis-proven, the process is marvelous.
It's simply trial and error evolution, which has nothing to do with science and it only serves as a salary generator for people involved - something like the art: nobody cares if it makes some progress, the people are just collecting new ideas and forgetting the old ones.. The planes and automobiles are improving with this principle gradually too and nobody calls it a science. You wouldn't be so impressed with this way of random evolution so much, if you would have to pay it from your pocket. For example, isn't it marvelous, how the socialistic ideas in China are improving every day, but can we forget the price of Mao's genocide just because of it?
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (54) Nov 28, 2011
demonstrated that these gravitational dipoles could explain the observed rotational curves of galaxies without dark matter in his initial study,
...color me stupid, but instead of saying it explains galaxies WITHOUT Dark Matter, couldn't we instead say that his finding explains what Dark Matter ! IS !? I mean, aren't scientists looking to discover what the heck Dark Matter actually is, not prove that it doesn't exist?


No, because if correct, it would make the concept of DM superfluous.

Callippo
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 28, 2011
because if correct, it would make the concept of DM superfluous.
DM is observational artifact. No one is saying, it's superfluid or not. Currently we are observing cold and warm DM, every serious theory must account into it, not just to explain one part of it and ignore the rest.

http://en.wikiped...k_matter
http://en.wikiped...k_matter

Feynman: "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong".
Callippo
2 / 5 (4) Nov 28, 2011
Alas, no explanation for the 15 K temperature of cosmic microwave FOREgrounds, no explanation for long duration radio transients of which every second a new one starts in our neighborhood. No explanation of the Helium-3 and iron core problems. So no possible solution of the dark matter riddle.
Why not, if you prove, these problems are really related to dark matter problem and they cannot be explained without dark matter explanation. Which I doubt seriously. Anyway, I'm interested about unsolved problems in physics - could you point me to the source of these artifacts? I do always prefer the analysis of findings, which aren't related to any known theory, because they're not affected with inter-subjective bias.
ziphead
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 28, 2011
I suppose using existing nothing to explain something is vastly preferred to inventing something in order to explain yet something else.

Noumenon
4.3 / 5 (54) Nov 28, 2011
because if correct, it would make the concept of DM superfluous.
DM is observational artifact. No one is saying, it's superfluid or not. Currently we are observing cold and warm DM, every serious theory must account into it, not just to explain one part of it and ignore the rest.

http://en.wikiped...k_matter

Feynman: "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong".


Perhaps it's language barrier,..what I meant by "superfluous",.... was to say "redundant", that is to say, DM wouldn't be required any longer if the above gravitational vacuum polarization is a epiphenomenon of exiting theories and fields.
Want to know
2.7 / 5 (3) Nov 28, 2011
Could this theory help explain nutrino moving faster than photon(if it turns out to be true). perhaps the photon is slowed by the virtual environment to a greater exent than is a nutrino.
Crazy_council
1 / 5 (1) Nov 28, 2011
just to make myself clear, i dont belive in dense aether theory, as whatever the eather is, it will still require a framwork/fabric, It would be detectable with the experiments done over the past 50 years. perhaps better than saying fabric/framework, i should say base gemetric shape and interaction in a 3d enviroment, of space.

i guess that all energy comes from 2d objects trying to exsist in a 3d enviroment ( spinning/ossilating trying to resolve themselves back to 2d )

The quantum vacuum would be the inside of the 2D shape/brane. Its the only place i can think that truly nothing could exsit but still have an affect on the 3d spacetime.

Its the only way i can think of to get all the energy we see without relying on God, Majic or infinity
( although i admit i have been struggling for years trying to understand the maths of 2d structures and bubbles or foulds of the brane. )
pauljpease
not rated yet Nov 28, 2011
I'm no expert on these things, so this is just a thought. If there is gravitational polarization of vacuum particles due to gravitational fields, are there any predictions for how this polarization would be affected by a rapidly moving gravitational field? As a massive object/particle approaches the speed of light, would there be any noticeable effects on this polarization?
Callippo
1 / 5 (7) Nov 28, 2011
i dont belive in dense aether theory, as whatever the aether is, it will still require a framework/fabric
AWT is random Universe model, the (density fluctuations of) particle gas are used for modeling the randomness of space-time curvatures only. Why to avoid this framework, when the recent experiments are pointing to the virtual particle nature of the vacuum too? Or better to ask, can something exist within absolutely nothing? It would violate the causality and without causality you can extrapolate whatever you want. So if we are real, then the aether must be real as well, at least a bit.
Callippo
1 / 5 (6) Nov 28, 2011
are there any predictions for how this polarization would be affected by a rapidly moving gravitational field
Nope, so far the Hajdukovics articles deal with stationary objects only. Such predictions would be necessary to explain the dark matter rings around rotating galactic clusters. Their field is stationary, but it exhibits the Lense-Thirring drag.
Seeker2
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 28, 2011
...we might conclude that what is sorely needed is a true quantum gravitational theory with a quantum granulation of spacetime.

I'll second that.

...on the other side a huge majority of physicists is allergic to the idea of the gravitational repulsion between matter and antimatter;

Sign me up. Let's start with the quantum gravitational theory. Say spacetime is the medium - the stuff we swim around in. Matter is heavy stuff, and anti-matter light stuff. Heavy stuff sinks, light stuff floats. Now take the stuff out of the water and suspend it on a pole or with a string. Do they interact gravitationally? Probably nothing we can observe. So matter and antimatter don't interact. However we do see antimatter trying to escape the medium so we think it's gravitational repulsion with matter, but I think it's just trying to surface.
unknownorgin
1 / 5 (1) Nov 28, 2011
This suggests anti gravity if there is polarity.
PaulRadcliff
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 28, 2011
This theory makes more sense than any Dark Matter crap I've ever seen, if it is even possible to substantiate. It may help to explain more strange phenomenon in the Universe. Quantum Entanglement may involve some virtual particle/antiparticle trade-offs. Gravity may be reversible, etc.... win, win, win.
RaphaelH
not rated yet Nov 28, 2011
Sign me up. Let's start with the quantum gravitational theory. Say spacetime is the medium - the stuff we swim around in. Matter is heavy stuff, and anti-matter light stuff. Heavy stuff sinks, light stuff floats. Now take the stuff out of the water and suspend it on a pole or with a string. Do they interact gravitationally? Probably nothing we can observe. So matter and antimatter don't interact. However we do see antimatter trying to escape the medium so we think it's gravitational repulsion with matter, but I think it's just trying to surface.


I like your analogy, very powerful
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (8) Nov 29, 2011
This is an interesting concept. I proposed something vaguely similar in 2004, but I went with the idea that gravitons are their own antiparticle (no polarization).

The problem I have with theories like this is the requirement that space be "granulized." Recent experiments suggest it's smooth.

Also, I don't like the idea that antimatter might have negative gravity, as it would stand to reason then that all forces (and maybe even the flow of time) must have negative antimatter equivalents. What a mess that would be!

But, I'm sure hoping someone captures enough antimatter soon to test its gravitational characteristics. If it is negative, that'll certainly toss a monkey-wrench into General Relativity.

Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Nov 29, 2011
...this is the requirement that space be "granulized." Recent experiments suggest it's smooth.

I guess water is smooth too. Slippery stuff though. Who knows maybe spacetime even freezes.
Crazy_council
1 / 5 (1) Nov 29, 2011
....The problem I have with theories like this is the requirement that space be "granulized." Recent experiments suggest it's smooth.
what experiments, you may be about to shatter my theory. I thought recent experiments ( like gravity wave detection, field theory ect ) was pointing towards it.

Who knows maybe spacetime even freezes.


see i was thinking that eistien boson condensate, and the affect it has on particals, that maybe the ossilation of the fabric of space time was being slowed down at absolute zero.

Or better to ask, can something exist within absolutely nothing? It would violate the causality ....


mmmm not necaserly , If, and i know its a big if, 2 dementions are stable , and can exists in a 3d relm ( i said it was a big if ). Then the 2d would be nothing to any one in a 3d realm.

Isnt big bang ( pre big bang ) all about somthing appearing in nothing. Pre big bang theory sounds like it was written by terry pratchet.
Anda
3 / 5 (4) Nov 29, 2011
@Rawa1, @Calippo, nonsense over nonsense
@crazycouncil, you can't write I can't read you

rawa1
2 / 5 (5) Nov 29, 2011
@Rawa1, @Calippo, nonsense over nonsense
Yep, like the cold fusion. The mainstream physics proponents have simple universal answer for everything uncomfortable. They used to think so: if they have no arguments, the simple labelling will solve all residual problems.
Anda
not rated yet Nov 29, 2011
Sign me up. Let's start with the quantum gravitational theory. Say spacetime is the medium - the stuff we swim around in. Matter is heavy stuff, and anti-matter light stuff. Heavy stuff sinks, light stuff floats. Now take the stuff out of the water and suspend it on a pole or with a string. Do they interact gravitationally? Probably nothing we can observe. So matter and antimatter don't interact. However we do see antimatter trying to escape the medium so we think it's gravitational repulsion with matter, but I think it's just trying to surface.


I like your analogy, very powerful


Bullshit, and if i suspend something that sinks to the same level of something that floats they will interact
Crazy_council
3.3 / 5 (3) Nov 29, 2011
@Rawa1, @crazycouncil, you can't write I can't read you


I can write, i just can not see mistakes untill there pointed out. My brain unscrables words without telling me ;>}. I have a decent IQ though, and i dont scramble maths, just writing.
MaxwellsDemon
5 / 5 (3) Nov 29, 2011
@ubavontuba
I'm sure hoping someone captures enough antimatter soon to test its gravitational characteristics. If it is negative, that'll certainly toss a monkey-wrench into General Relativity.

Villata claims that General Relativity *predicts* a repulsive matter/antimatter interaction, if CPT invariance applies: http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.4937 However, Cross wrote a compelling rebuttal here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.5117

Hajdukovic speaks as if he's the one lone voice howling in the forest about this notion, but he's really only one of a growing number of contemporary physicists exploring the theoretical basis of a matter/antimatter gravitational repulsion, including; Villata, Ting, Henry-Couannier, Chardin and Ripalda.

Fortunately, we should have experimental data from CERN, or from the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer, within about a year. It'll be good to put this question to rest: the definitive data is long overdue.
rawa1
1.4 / 5 (5) Nov 29, 2011
Villata claims that General Relativity *predicts* a repulsive matter/antimatter interaction, if CPT invariance applies
Relativity doesn't recognize neither antimatter, neither CPT symmetry concepts, so it cannot predict anything about it. The introduction of these concepts from quantum mechanics or quantum field theory always brings the risk of unphysical results, because quantum mechanics isn't consistent with general relativity (it predicts diametrically different results). You'll need a higher dimensional theory, than the current quantum mechanics or general relativity.

The space-time curvature around massive objects isn't always positive, when the higher dimensions are taken into account. At the certain distance from object the curvature of space-time becomes slightly negative and and the antiparticles are attracted right there.
http://www.aether...ion3.gif
It explains, why we are observing the elevated concentration of positrons around Earth.
rawa1
1 / 5 (4) Nov 29, 2011
The understanding of this negative curvature isn't difficult. It just requires to apply the mass-energy equivalence principle consequentially into general relativity. The point is, at the case of massive objects the highest space-time curvature isn't at the center, but at the surface of objects (the gravitational force is strongest here). Therefore the highest space-time curvature is highest at the surface of object and it has opposite curvature, than the space-time at the center of object. And because the space-time curvature corresponds the energy density, the energy density of gravitational field is higher there too.

Now we can apply the mass-equivalence principle and we can substitute the elevated energy density of space-time curvature at the surface of space-time for mass density of space-time. The curved space-time will behave like the finely distributed invisible mass, so-called the dark matter above the surface of massive object. And it will manifest like weak fifth force here
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Nov 29, 2011
...no one has any idea what the gravitational properties of the quantum vacuum are

Per http://www.physor...ark.html anti-matter (positrons and anti-protons) collect in the inner Van Allen belt at the south pole, causing lethal radiation. But we don't find lethal doses of radiation (electrons and protons) at the north pole. Apparently matter falls to earth whereas anti-matter tries to escape earth's gravity but is trapped by the magnetic field?
rawa1
1 / 5 (4) Nov 29, 2011
Apparently matter falls to earth whereas anti-matter tries to escape earth's gravity but is trapped by the magnetic field?
Basically yes, as the magnetic field is one of main of energetic fields above the massive objects and it brings the highest energy density (space-time with negative curvature). The recent observation of positrons around black holes at the Milky Way core is the finding of the same category.

http://www.esa.in...F_0.html

PermanentMarker
3 / 5 (2) Nov 29, 2011
i've always wondered this, as empty space isnt 'nothing'.
Maybe its now time to do casimir force testing and see how it behaves on langrasa points vs moon vs earth; heavy gravity space continiums would be a bit problematic i guess; but mybe built something to test on jupiter too.. empty space might be the most promissing area of research for future physics science.
Pyle
5 / 5 (3) Nov 29, 2011
Apparently matter falls to earth whereas anti-matter tries to escape earth's gravity but is trapped by the magnetic field?
Nope. Positrons (and electrons) activity is dominated by EM forces. Gravity doesn't come into play. No falling, too much charge.

Regarding excess positrons, there are lots of ideas to explain it. The paper Zephir linked and the recent article here http://www.physor...ark.html and here http://prd.aps.or.../e063005 . Basically, the excess positrons aren't positive confirmation of DM's existence.

Zephir, enough of your word salad. Curvature around and within a mass isn't changing direction when viewed from a constant frame. Your blather only makes partial sense with a shifting frame of reference. You are confusing the issue, as usual. Nonsense.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Nov 29, 2011
Pyle: No falling, too much charge.

Apparently for anti-matter. Strange what happened to its matter equivalent at the north pole.
YourNewDad
1 / 5 (1) Nov 29, 2011
There is no point in observable space that is a true vacuum. From any point in space stars can be seen. Therefore the space is filled with many photons moving in many directions. Photons make up the fabric of space.
faraday
3 / 5 (2) Nov 29, 2011
Shall we stop calling it a "vacuum"?
It is now apparent space is anything but empty. The capacity of a space has a magnitude, the volume, it is not zero. The capacity of what, has always been and still is, the pertinent question.

Quantum Aether? Energetic Background Potential? Evanescent Particle Medium?

The true vacuum lies deeper ...
Callippo
2 / 5 (3) Nov 29, 2011
In AWT the natural Universe state is not emptiness or zero state but a random state. The random number or state is the only one state, which doesn't bring any further questions, like the "why just zero?" "why not 3.14 or 9.27"? In particular, aether has no other ad-hoced attributes, like the "quantum" or "evanescent". Even the particle character of vacuum is caused with us, i.e. with fact we are much smaller than the rest of Universe, so we appear like spherically symmetric artifact in it, i.e. like the particle. The Universe appears particle-like, because we are particle-like too, "simillia similibus observentur".
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Nov 29, 2011
The particle character of Universe is typical just for quite limited dimensional scale: at the human observer distance scale of human observer the Universe appears rather like hyperdimensional fractal, at the very distant perspective it appears like random unparticle noise, similar to Perlin noise. The spherical objects are typical just for dimensional scale of atoms/atom nuclei and massive objects, mostly composed of atoms/atom nuclei, i.e. the large planets and small stars. The other objects violate the spherical symmetry in the larger extent, the more their size differs from this dimensional scale.

http://www.aether...cale.gif

This geometry is the result of the interaction of random object with its random background.
illuminated1
1 / 5 (2) Nov 29, 2011
So if gravity creates forward time, then - gravity must create reverse time.
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Nov 29, 2011
So if gravity creates forward time, then - gravity must create reverse time.
If the Universe is random at the very large or small scale, it means, it doesn't contain (entropic) time arrow: it's eternal and it simply IS.At the human observer scale the entropic time is symmetric - bellow the 2 cm scale all objects tend to disperse with pressure of radiation, but above this scale all object tend to condense with gravity. In AWT the entropy of observable Universe is constant and given with entropy of its observer. Bacteria will perceive their Universe more chaotic, than the human creatures. When you travel into gravity field, you're traveling across time dimension of space-time too. When you're expanding during this, then you're travel toward future, when you collapse during this, you're traveling toward past. Due the complementarity of black holes, both travels occur at the same moment: you're both shrinking in gravity field, both evaporating and dilating in it.
Seeker2
4 / 5 (1) Nov 29, 2011
faraday: Shall we stop calling it a "vacuum"?
Maybe spacetime?
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Nov 29, 2011
Callippo: ...both travels occur at the same moment: you're both shrinking in gravity field, both evaporating and dilating in it.

Maybe that's why they pay double overtime.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Nov 30, 2011
@MaxwellsDemon

Villata claims that General Relativity *predicts* a repulsive matter/antimatter interaction, if CPT invariance applies: http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.4937
I don't buy this simply because General Relativity isn't about particle physics. It's about energy/mass and spacetime, and antimatter is equivalent to matter in terms of energy/mass, and therefore should have the same effects on spacetime.

However, Cross wrote a compelling rebuttal here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.5117
This looks right to me.

Thanks for the references.

cont...

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Nov 30, 2011
Hajdukovic speaks as if he's the one lone voice howling in the forest about this notion, but he's really only one of a growing number of contemporary physicists exploring the theoretical basis of a matter/antimatter gravitational repulsion, including; Villata, Ting, Henry-Couannier, Chardin and Ripalda.
As I stated previously, I explored a vaguely similar notion myself (but one more consistent with GR). However, I'm not buying the quantum gravity (graviton) model anymore.

Fortunately, we should have experimental data from CERN, or from the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer, within about a year. It'll be good to put this question to rest: the definitive data is long overdue.
I'm not expecting any surprises, but we can always hope.

But as I also said above, negative gravity from antimatter would imply all sorts of nonsense. Imagine negative inertia, for instance.

ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (8) Nov 30, 2011
....The problem I have with theories like this is the requirement that space be "granulized." Recent experiments suggest it's smooth.
what experiments, you may be about to shatter my theory. I thought recent experiments ( like gravity wave detection, field theory ect ) was pointing towards it.


Here's an article about it:

http://www.physor...ein.html

aabiskar
not rated yet Nov 30, 2011
ok then forget about antimatter engines....
rawa1
2 / 5 (4) Nov 30, 2011
he's really only one of a growing number of contemporary physicists exploring the theoretical basis of a matter/antimatter gravitational repulsion
The more striking is in this connection, nobody attempted to replicate the twenty years old antigravity experiments of Podkletnov or five years old experiments of M. Tajmar. We has pile of theorists, but all experimentators waste money in Higgs boson search at LHC.
Crazy_council
3 / 5 (2) Nov 30, 2011
ubavontuba - thanks for the link, it seem tht they grains may be smaller than i had accounted for.

it was noise in the GEO600 experiment and some experiments with photons that convinced me that there is something to it.
Callippo
1 / 5 (1) Nov 30, 2011
I don't buy this simply because General Relativity isn't about particle physics. It's about energy/mass and spacetime, and antimatter is equivalent to matter in terms of energy/mass, and therefore should have the same effects on spacetime.
This is correct insight. Without deep corrections (introduction of additional dimensions) the general relativity can predict anything about photons, annihilation, dark matter, CP symmetry violation, CMBR noise and similar stuff.
Seeker2
not rated yet Dec 01, 2011
Anda: ...if i suspend something that sinks to the same level of something that floats they will interact

This is the basic thinking (or not thinking) mode of people who think there is gravitational interaction between matter and anti-matter. I think it requires a medium like spacetime (or water in the case of something that sinks) for there to be any interaction. It is a popular idea though.

Seeker2
2.5 / 5 (2) Dec 01, 2011
cont...
Another consequence of my idea is if you remove the medium there is no interaction between matter and other matter or anti-matter and other anti-matter. Add the medium though and matter becomes attracted to matter and anti-matter becomes repulsive to anti-matter. But adding the medium doesn't cause any interaction between matter and anti-matter itself when the energy density difference between matter and the medium is offset by the opposite energy density between anti-matter and the medium. And if matter and its anti-matter equivalent are forced to interact the energy density differential between the two is released as the particles annihilate.

But I think yes spacetime may explain dark matter as an energy density differential of spacetime on a macroscopic scale just as it does normal matter on any scale. Also anti-dark matter as an energy density differential of the opposite sign, or curvature, as Rawa1 says.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 01, 2011
cont...
Note it requires no force to counteract gravity or anti-gravity to get matter and anti-matter to interact. So handle with care <:-)

Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 01, 2011
Note Feynman's idea about anti-matter being a form of matter in time reversal appears to explain the opposite charge of anti-matter. Feynman would wave his hands around in a circle representing charged particles going around in a syncrotron, I think it was. Then he would wave his hands around in the reverse direction to show how charged anti-particles would move like they would move with normal particles of the opposite charge. He would say then that anti-matter is essentially matter running in time reversal.

If you treat anti-matter relativistically you have to treat time on an equal footing with space. So if you say the energy density differential of spacetime is opposite that for matter, the energy density of time must also be opposite. The way this happens is time reversal. So anti-matter appears to have opposite charge than matter but is actually running in reverse time.
Seeker2
not rated yet Dec 01, 2011
cont...
I think Dirac was the first one to come up with this idea. I remember something about a Dirac sea. So now we know. The Dirac sea is actually spacetime.
MaxwellsDemon
not rated yet Dec 01, 2011
@ubavontuba
I don't buy this simply because General Relativity isn't about particle physics.

But it is our model for gravity, so it applies here.
antimatter is equivalent to matter in terms of energy/mass, and therefore should have the same effects on spacetime.

"Should" being the operative word here. I think it's important to remember that nature isn't obligated to conform to our expectations. Experience teaches us that direct observation consistently trumps a really convincing theoretical argument.
But as I also said above, negative gravity from antimatter would imply all sorts of nonsense. Imagine negative inertia, for instance.

Nono - you're thinking of "negative mass" aka "exotic matter." This is about "gravitational charge" which is no more exotic than electrical charge. The hypothesis is that matter and antimatter both have positive inertial mass, they both attract themselves, but they repel each another. If true, it could answer a lot of big questions.
rawa1
1 / 5 (3) Dec 01, 2011
that matter and antimatter both have positive inertial mass, they both attract themselves, but they repel each another. If true, it could answer a lot of big questions
For antimatter the inertia has nothing to do with gravity force. Your model violates the equivalence principle anyway, so that there is no reason to expect, the particles of antimatter should attract themselves. From dense aether model follows, the blobs which are more dense that their environment attract mutually at large distance and repel at small one, the less dense ones (bubbles) repel mutually at large distance and attract at small one and the opposite blobs are attracted at large distances and repulse at smaller ones. Why? The floating objects at the water surface are behaving in the same way.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Dec 01, 2011
rawa1: ... the less dense ones (bubbles) repel mutually at large distance and attract at small one and the opposite blobs are attracted at large distances and repulse at smaller ones. Why? The floating objects at the water surface are behaving in the same way.

So I guess at some distance they don't attract or repel. What would this distance be?
ovidrg
1 / 5 (2) Dec 01, 2011
...we might conclude that what is sorely needed is a true quantum gravitational theory with a quantum granulation of spacetime.

I'll second that.

...on the other side a huge majority of physicists is allergic to the idea of the gravitational repulsion between matter and antimatter;

Sign me up. Let's start with the quantum gravitational theory. Say spacetime is the medium - the stuff we swim around in. Matter is heavy stuff, and anti-matter light stuff. Heavy stuff sinks, light stuff floats. Now take the stuff out of the water and suspend it on a pole or with a string. Do they interact gravitationally? Probably nothing we can observe. So matter and antimatter don't interact. However we do see antimatter trying to escape the medium so we think it's gravitational repulsion with matter, but I think it's just trying to surface.


Or mabye matter IS the wave of water. So you can`t take it out from water.
Seeker2
2 / 5 (4) Dec 01, 2011
Welcome to our venerable group of posters. Jump right in.
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Dec 01, 2011
at some distance they don't attract or repel. What would this distance be?
Comparable to the wavelength of CMBR (2 cm) and it makes the mixture of matter and antimatter unstable: it annihilates and the rest is separated with pressure of radiation formed..
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Dec 01, 2011
Strange, the radius of an electron being about one millionth of a nanometer.
ubavontuba
1.1 / 5 (7) Dec 01, 2011
@MaxwellsDemon

I don't buy this simply because General Relativity isn't about particle physics.

But it is our model for gravity, so it applies here.
I disagree. This hypothesis is a mishmash of QM and GR. Just because you WANT to use QM with GR doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Your second reference highlighted some of the problems with doing so rather well, I thought.

antimatter is equivalent to matter in terms of energy/mass, and therefore should have the same effects on spacetime.

"Should" being the operative word here. I think it's important to remember that nature isn't obligated to conform to our expectations. Experience teaches us that direct observation consistently trumps a really convincing theoretical argument.
I agree. But, as GR has repeatedly proven itself to be accurate to the extreme, the bar is set rather high. I'd place my money on GR, every time. But it's still important to test, just to be sure.

cont...
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Dec 01, 2011
Nono - you're thinking of "negative mass" aka "exotic matter." This is about "gravitational charge" which is no more exotic than electrical charge. The hypothesis is that matter and antimatter both have positive inertial mass, they both attract themselves, but they repel each another. If true, it could answer a lot of big questions.
I understand, but as described in your second reference, the line is drawn rather arbitrarily for this hypothesis. If, as your second reference suggests, you carry the hypothesis further, you get rather wacky results.

And, I would also argue that mass with negative gravity fits the very definition of "exotic matter."

"In physics, exotic matter is a term which refers to matter which would somehow deviate from the norm and have "exotic" properties."

http://en.wikiped...c_matter

Interestingly, this article has a link to:

"See also
Gravitational interaction of antimatter"

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Dec 01, 2011
Lastly, here's the link to the Wikipedia article on the "Gravitational interaction of antimatter"

http://en.wikiped...timatter

It's quite a good article. The debate section is particularly good. I tend to agree with; "The E=mc² argument."

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Dec 01, 2011
@Crazy_council

it was noise in the GEO600 experiment and some experiments with photons that convinced me that there is something to it.
Interesting. This made a splash a couple of years ago:

http://www.scienc...0708.htm

But since then:

"...some new estimates of the level of holographic noise in interferometry show that it must be much smaller in magnitude than was claimed by Hogan."

http://en.wikiped.../GEO_600

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Dec 01, 2011
The more striking is in this connection, nobody attempted to replicate the twenty years old antigravity experiments of Podkletnov or five years old experiments of M. Tajmar.
Not quite. Attempts were made, but most weren't funded to completion. Interestingly, the history of these attempts reads like a thriller spy novel about black ops and super top secret technologies:

http://en.wikiped...fication

...but, it could simply be that no one saw the point of trying.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 01, 2011
ubavontuba: ... I tend to agree with; "The E=mc² argument."

Same here. As to the question about photons being their own anti-particle, my guess is that they react to antimatter opposite to how they react to matter, but we'll never know unless we find some antimatter galaxies which I doubt. The idea here is that when interacting with matter, interact as matter, and when interacting with antimatter interact as antimatter. Or when in Rome do as the Romans do. Probably the smart thing to do.

Feynman's idea about antimatter being matter running in reverse time has an interesting effect here. Relative to an observer travelling with the photon time stands still so time reversal is meaningless.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 01, 2011
cont...
I should think Feynman's argument about positrons being electrons going backwards in time should have implications for the force of gravity as well as electromagnetic force. That is the antiproton reacts opposite to the the proton in an EM field so why shouldn't it react opposite to the proton in a gravitational field? So antimatter experiences antigravity with other antimatter as it runs in reverse time.

As pointed out in this argument antimatter energy is equal to its matter counterpart. We know matter attracts matter and if antimatter repels antimatter then I expect no gravitational interaction between matter and antimatter as that would be unsymmetrical unless you can come up with some new physics. Please mother nature no new physics, please.

Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 02, 2011
...Relative to an observer travelling with the photon time stands still so time reversal is meaningless.

Another way of looking at this is the photon just tracks spcetime in whatever direction it's heading and takes whatever curves it finds right along with spacetime.
ovidrg
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 02, 2011
I think that photons are waves that vibrate and move in space. matter are waves that vibrate and moves in time. lets think that space is a two-dimensional plane and the three dimension (up and down) is the time. matter would be a fold down and antimatter a fold up (of opposite spin). the two could not exist in the same place. smooth surface is empty space. photons in this case would be waves moving from left to right (for them up and down - time - does not exists).
Seeker2
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 02, 2011
Good points. Matter MAKES waves when it moves in spacetime. The waves heat up spacetime causing spacetime to heat up in something like a faint glow in the infrared. Friction also heats up the matter particles so their temperature also rises and they radiate heat. Lots of heated discussion about this too.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 02, 2011
Note this faint glow will most liely be buried in the CMBR.
ovidrg
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 02, 2011
I think matter IS the waves like photons are too. But they are vibrating in different dimensions.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 02, 2011
Sounds like thinking in different dimensions anyway.
Crazy_council
1 / 5 (1) Dec 02, 2011
ovidrg and seeker2

i think similar to you, i think matter is waves and mass is there affect on the fabric of spacetime. I think space is vibrating and all matter/photons ect slow it down, and its this slowing we see as mass

what makes spacetime spin, 2d inside the bubbles/grains, 3d outside. i think they are constatnly trying to rtesolve themselves

ubavontuba - thanks fo rthe link,
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 02, 2011
Actually you could say spacetime boils as the boundaries of its elements are subject to what they call quantum (random) fluctuations. This constant fluctuation sometimes falls into shapes that fit specific forms (quantum states) and as spacetime cools these forms are trapped by gluons/anti-gluons to form matter/antimatter. Note quantum fluctuations themselves don't change the overall volume or shape of spacetime but when they are separated by intervening undistorted elements the denser elements (matter) aggregate (gravity) and the lighter elements are dispersed (anti-gravity), like weights and balloons underwater. Note denser and lighter elements don't normally interact with each other. This is the big debate about gravity/antigravity between matter/antimatter. I think both sides are wrong on this argument. Hope this helps if you're interested in further study.

Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 02, 2011
For example during inflation after the BB the quantum fluctuations were much stronger than today. So was the rate of cooling as spacetime expands. Expansion means more opportunities for the gluons and anti-gluons fixed in elements of spacetime to lock in and create various forms of matter/antimatter.

If the DE runs out and the universe starts to collapse spacetime will heat up meaning no new opportunites for gluons and antigluons to lock in and form new matter. Actually matter/antimatter will dissolve as the temperature rises, the quantum fluctuations increase, and matter/antimatter is released from being locked in by the gluons/antigluons in their quantum states. Wow I'm getting really good at telling stories, don't you think?

Crazy_council
1 / 5 (1) Dec 02, 2011
I think the big bang was more like a big rip, 2D collapsing into 3d. I think the first few seconds of BB created 3D. I think it kept collapsing untill the 2d bubbles were small enough to be semmi stable. The third dimention simply exists becuase you can not have 2*2d objects, the outside of these object would be the 3D.

I think all the energy and known forces in the universe are caused by these 2d bubble occilatings. from Gr to mass. No need for majic forces, just very hard to understand maths.
Otto_Krog
1 / 5 (2) Dec 02, 2011
My take on dark matter is, that it is a miscalculating, stemming from our presumption that the speed of light is constant.

What if the speed of light varies through time and space?

That creates some interesting theory, at least I think so.

Antimatter is the mind and consciousness of all living entities.

You are your own universe.

Reality is where the minds (antimatter) meets the physical universe.

Interested? Then read my philosophical multiverse.

google crestroyer theory
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Dec 02, 2011
I made some statements about anti-gravity which don't sound right. The bottom line is regions of spacetime energy density seek regions of similar energy density. This minimizes variations in energy density and reduces turbulence. Anti-matter being less energy density is squeezed out of the neighborhoods with greater energy density. The gravitational field is a region of stretched spacetime (by matter). The closer you get to matter the greater the stretching force (gravity) and the denser spacetime will become. This repels anti-matter.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (3) Dec 03, 2011
Where there's matter there's gravity. Where there is no matter there is antigravity. Matter is gravitic while space is antigravitic.

Polarized gravity.

Matter experiences gravitational effects of itself and it experiences inverse effects of antigravity from space. Galaxies experience gravity from the matter within but also experience gravity from the space around them (inverse of antigravity that is forming space).

The space forming between galaxies is pushing the stars within into each other.

The dark energy of space (antigravity) is causing an increase in gravitational energy of galaxies.

-The matter in the galaxy is pulling itself together (gravity).
-The spacing between galaxies is pushing the matter in the galaxies together. This is antigravitic but from the frame of reference of the galaxy this adds gravitational energy. The antigravity of space translates to an increase in gravitational energy without addition of mass.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Dec 03, 2011
Here's some mumbo-jumbo for you. At the present time there are two states of present time - that for time running forward and for time running backward. So they both appear to exist simultaneously, just as up and down, north and south, and east and west. We really need to know both at the same time, strangely. Just ignore me and I promise I'll go away.
S Densley
3 / 5 (2) Dec 03, 2011
If Gravity is (according to Einstein I believe) just the curvature of spacetime, is it possible that matter creates 'wells' which attract all other things while antimatter produced 'hills' which repel all other things? Then matter and antimatter (a well and a hill) next to each other will neither attract nor repel as they cancel each other out. However it means matter will form lumps but antimatter (also repelling other antimatter) will spread out and form rings around lumps of matter as it tries to repel itself but is still attracted to the matter (in a galaxy for instance). It would help push the galaxy together at the same time, maybe explaining why Galaxies spin faster on the outside than would be expected. As the antimatter can never really coalesce it never forms lumps and so has no obvious observable effect at any specific points. It can orbit matter but the slightly lower attraction (than 1/d^2) would keep it from falling in...
Please go easy on me - this is my first posting.
ovidrg
1 / 5 (1) Dec 03, 2011
As I wrote above, matter IS (not is creating) the well and antimater is the hill. In this case, matter attracts matter, antimatter attracts antimatter and they are rejecting. Unlike energy (photons who vibrates in space), matter vibrates in time, and that hill is a vibration. We see only a vibration, because vibrations that travels in time (once with us), just as photons (energy) travels in space. Judging it .. means that for antimatter, time is moving backwards ...
Callippo
1 / 5 (1) Dec 03, 2011
is it possible that matter creates 'wells' which attract all other things while antimatter produced 'hills' which repel all other things?.
Yes, it's true - but only from perspective each kind of matter itself. Because the time arrow of antimatter particles is reversed, their repulsive gravity field is reversed too.

So that whereas the particles of matter condense mutually until their mutual distance isn't very low, the particles of antimatter tend to separate, until their mutual distance isn't very low. But the mutual interaction of particles and antiparticles is much more complex. These particles tend to repulse at short distance and to attract at the large ones.

This explains, why the positrons are concentrated inside of clouds of dark matter AROUND observable matter - although they're repulsing mutually.

http://www.aether...ion3.gif
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Dec 03, 2011
As a real life analogy of gravity field of matter and antimatter can serve the behaviour of social people and sociopaths. The social people tend to aggregate into larger groups and nothing very strange is about it. The sociopaths tend to hate everyone including themselves mutually, so that they remain dispersed. But because they hate the social behavior so much, we can observe their increased concentration just at the surface of crowds, because their hate can be applied in most easily there. From the same reason the opponents of aether theory are concentrated just around proponents of aether theory, the interest of millitant atheists like Dawkins is attracted to the large Christian communities and so on. But because the haters of aether or atheists have no common idea other than hate of the God, they can never form large organized community so that they're remain dispersed. They're just more frequent around compact communities of aetherists or Christians like the clouds of dark matter.
Turritopsis
5 / 5 (1) Dec 03, 2011
Antiprotons are created in atom smashers regularly. -2/3 -2/3 1/3 =-1. Their lifetimes before decay means they operate in regular, and not anti, time. If they worked in negative time they would be visible to us for less than a Planck, if at all.

So the antiproton follows our timeline and is exactly equal to a proton in everyway other than its charge.

But it is antigravitic?

Not buying it.

Strong reproducible experimental evidence first, talk later.

if the antiproton operated in reverse time it would be present so briefly that you couldn't measure its presence. This is not the case. In fact, the amount of time antiprotons are kept in containment is increasing. Antimatter operates in regular time.

Does antimatter repel instead of attract gravitationally?

Not likely.
Callippo
1 / 5 (1) Dec 03, 2011
Does antimatter repel instead of attract gravitationally?
From AWT follows, the complete antigravity applies just to the lightweight particles like the photons of the 2 cm wavelength, i.e. the particles of rest mass corresponding the energy of CMBR photons (6.34x10-4 eV). The heavier the particle is, the more subtle is their antigravity component in gravity field of Earth. For example, the neutrino rest mass is 10.000 higher, than the CMBR photons, so I guess, the antigravity of neutrino will differ from neutrino in the order of 10E-4 (CPT violation). The antigravity of heavier particles will be pronounced even less. This aspect just makes the detection of CPT violation difficult - the higher energy we will use, the less it is pronounced.
..strong reproducible experimental evidence first, talk later.
This is just what the theoretical physics is about - to predict the results of future experiments. After battle everyone is a general.
ovidrg
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 03, 2011
I am sorry, but an antiproton is not exactly equal to a proton in everyway other than its charge. That is what we see(measure). But antiproton consist of antiquarks when protons consists of quarks. It is different in EVERY ways than proton. Its not likely time operate reversal for antimater...it was just an hypothesis.What i say is that matter is a time-vibrating wave and antimater the same, just with oposite phase.
Callippo
1 / 5 (1) Dec 03, 2011
I am sorry, but an antiproton is not exactly equal to a proton in everyway other than its charge...blah blah... What i say is that matter is a time-vibrating wave and antimatter the same, just with opposite phase.
Did you realize, that the first sentence of your post violates the latest one? This is because you're just pilling tautologies without mutual logics.
ovidrg
1 / 5 (1) Dec 03, 2011
Did you realize, that the first sentence of your post violates the latest one? This is because you're just pilling tautologies without mutual logics.

I didn`t. I though everything is energy..so you and me are equal right?

For the latest sentente, please read the second phrase of this article.
Callippo
1 / 5 (1) Dec 03, 2011
I though everything is energy..so you and me are equal right?
Nope, this is just another pregnant example of the sloppy way of thinking. The fact the Sun is shinning for all of us doesn't mean, we are the same.
ovidrg
1 / 5 (1) Dec 03, 2011
You stop talking sloppy and re-read what I wrote:
But antiproton consist of antiquarks when protons consists of quarks. It is different in EVERY ways than proton.
Seeker2
not rated yet Dec 03, 2011
Callippo: ... the complete antigravity applies just to the lightweight particles like the photons

I understand photons are their own antiparticle. It seems they would just follow spacetime in whatever direction it is curved, either by matter or antimatter.
Callippo
1 / 5 (1) Dec 03, 2011
As with antimatter in general, antiquarks have the same mass, mean lifetime, and spin as their respective quarks, just their electric charge and other charges have opposite sign.

Briefly speaking, the antisymmetric model of particles cannot explain the difference in gravity behavior of particles and antiparticles. You'll need more advanced model of reality to understand it.

In addition, the difference between matter and antimatter manifests itself just in certain range of mass/energy density scales. AWT is using the space-time foam model to explain it. Both particles and antiparticles are formed with density gradients forming the surfaces of space-time foam, just the particles are formed with internal surfaces of foam bubbles, whereas the antiparticles with these opposite ones.

http://www.aether...ance.gif

This model appears quite symmetric, but it isn't, when the space-time foam becomes more dense, so that its bubbles aren't flat but spherical.
Callippo
1 / 5 (1) Dec 03, 2011
I understand photons are their own antiparticle. It seems they would just follow spacetime in whatever direction it is curved, either by matter or antimatter.
It isn't just true. At the case of rotating black holes the path of photons becomes separated heavily by their spin (Kerr's solution). We talked already here about electrons and heavier particles which are sucked into accretion disk and about the positrons which are ejected with central area of black holes, which is rotating in the opposite direction.
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Dec 03, 2011
We can compare the aether foam to the fractal landscape under the fog. The farther from human observer scale we are, the more the space-time appears random and fuzzy. At the case of very small or large objects it introduces bias into symmetry, because the interior of very small bubbles is more fuzzy, than their surface and the exterior of very large bubbles is more fuzzy, than their interior. So that despite the model of quantum foam is quite symmetric locally, from more distant perspective its symmetry is always broken.

The same phenomena we can observe at the human society. Whereas the opinion of common people remains quite balanced between republicans and democrats, the opinions of people from close communities becomes always biased. The smaller sample you'll take, the higher bias you can expect.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Dec 03, 2011
I understand photons are their own antiparticle. It seems they would just follow spacetime in whatever direction it is curved, either by matter or antimatter.
It isn't just true...


Meaning, I guess, that the photon is not its own antiparticle? It seems like photons could annihilate when they are 180 degrees out of phase. Per http://www.physic...t=374362 science advisor Meir Achuz says "Two photons can ( and do) annihilate into other particles in just the same way that an electron and a positron can." Now it appears to me that the guys at this site are way over our paygrade.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 03, 2011
cont.
An interesting consequence of this property is if the photon acts like an antiparticle, and we say antiparticles are repulsive, then photons are repulsed from the direction of antimatter. If the photons act like a matter particle they are attracted by matter as Einstein predicted. So either way we get the benefit of experiencing them more than antimatter people, if there was such a thing. It's like the dice are stacked in our favor. Thank you mother nature.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 03, 2011
I understand photons are their own antiparticle. It seems they would just follow spacetime in whatever direction it is curved, either by matter or antimatter.
It isn't just true...

Well maybe what you meant was it isn't just true but it's absolutely true. But then I do quibble.

PsiStar
not rated yet Dec 04, 2011
During the period 2005-2006 I wrote a series of three papers that addressed gravity as a feature of vacuum poloarization but was unable to get any of them published. Perhaps now others will pay some attention:

http://quantum.si...e/PV.pdf
http://quantum.si...d_RN.pdf
http://quantum.si...tion.pdf
dchris
5 / 5 (1) Dec 04, 2011
people like callipo and rawa and other AWT people are making physorg forums a joke. Stop spilling bullshit and claiming some unproven theories that dont stick to reality that every child could make up from their own imagination. Start learning real science you retards. The existence of aether has been excluded like more than 50 years ago. Your interpretations and analogies of water surfaces or other stuff are useless as they have nothing to do with spacetime or the universe. Your making up your theories and they have nothing to do with science. Using sophistacated language does not change anything. Everyone can make up any theory and believe they explained a mistery. But your theories are based on the aether, and its existence has been excluded a long time ago, and so all your claims are a total joke. Imagine how real scientists would laugh form your scribbles.
Callippo
1.7 / 5 (3) Dec 04, 2011
The existence of aether has been excluded like more than 50 years ago.
You just didn't get the whole difference. The first aether models were based on the concept of this sparse gas, pervading the space. Such sparse aether cannot mediate the transverse waves of light of arbitrary energy density. The dense aether is exactly the opposite model, it has been proposed with Oliver Lodge at the beginning of the last century (i.e. thirty years after refusal of sparse aether model with Michelson-Morley experiment) and it has been never analyzed seriously. The strength of dense aether model is exactly, where the weakness of sparse aether model is.
Voleure
3 / 5 (2) Dec 04, 2011
Radical elements consume roughly 70% of the space in this thread. They seem to spawn into existence around the more interesting articles.

Considering the significant time it takes to skip by them (and their quote echos) to the posts actually discussing the article, I could wish a new force into existence that would naturally repel them. Send them back to the dense aether please.

A lot of interesting experimental data coming out lately. Theorists may be entering a new golden era :)
ovidrg
1 / 5 (1) Dec 05, 2011
As with antimatter in general, antiquarks have the same mass, mean lifetime, and spin as their respective quarks, just their electric charge and other charges have opposite sign.


Quarks have color charge not electric charge.

What quarks charge is ? Maybe that charge is the gravitational polarisation.

The gravitational polarisation as cause of particle/antiparticle pair may explain why photon is its own antiparticle.

As I wrote above, matter is a wave that vibrate and moves in time. A fold up is matter, a fold down is antimater (or viceversa).
We can see only the fold up (or down) as WE ARE that fold up :) and we move in time along that fold up.

Energy(photons) is a wave vibrating in space, so (for us) they are folds up/folds down that anihilate eachother.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 05, 2011
As with antimatter in general, antiquarks have the same mass, mean lifetime, and spin as their respective quarks, just their electric charge and other charges have opposite sign.


Quarks have color charge not electric charge.

Quarks carry fractional electrical charges. Check it out.
ovidrg
1 / 5 (1) Dec 05, 2011
"Color charge has analogies with the notion of electric charge of particles, but because of the mathematical complications of QCD, there are many technical differences."
http://en.wikiped...r_charge