Repulsive gravity as an alternative to dark energy (Part 1: In voids)

Jan 31, 2012 by Lisa Zyga report
The Local Sheet, which includes the Local Galactic Group and other nearby galaxies, has a peculiar velocity that can theoretically be explained by the repulsive gravity of antimatter in a large void, among other components. Image credit: Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 3.0)

(PhysOrg.com) -- When scientists discovered in 1998 that the Universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, the possibility that dark energy could explain the observation was intriguing. But because there has been little progress in figuring out exactly what dark energy is, the idea has since become more of a problem than a solution for some scientists. One physicist, Massimo Villata of the National Institute for Astrophysics (INAF) in Pino Torinese, Italy, describes dark energy as “embarrassing,” saying that the concept is an ad hoc element to standard cosmology and is devoid of any physical meaning. Villata is one of many scientists who are looking for new explanations of the Universe’s accelerating expansion that involve some form of repulsive gravity. In this case, the repulsive gravity could stem from antimatter hiding in voids.

“Cosmic voids (and in particular the nearby Local Void) are observationally very well known and constitute the largest structures of which our Universe is composed,” Villata told PhysOrg.com. “The problem is whether they are really empty or contain the repulsive antimatter.”

In Villata’s paper, which will soon be published in and Space Science, he suggests that antimatter could be hiding in these large voids, separated from matter by mutual gravitational repulsion. As he explained previously, the gravitational repulsion between matter and antimatter is a prediction of general relativity. In this scenario, matter has a positive gravitational charge while antimatter has a (hypothetical) negative gravitational charge. As a result, both matter and antimatter are gravitationally self-attractive, yet mutually repulsive. The gravitational repulsion between matter and antimatter could be so powerful, in fact, that Villata has calculated that it could be responsible for the accelerated expansion of the Universe, eliminating the need for and possibly dark matter.

Repulsive gravity of this form could even theoretically explain some observations that dark energy cannot, even theoretically, explain. Recently, scientists observed an anomalous motion of the “Local Sheet,” the part of the Universe that includes the Milky Way and other nearby galaxies, which has its own peculiar velocity distinct from other parts of the Universe. Astronomers have identified three components that contribute to the velocity of the Local Sheet: one is due to the well-known attraction to the nearby dense Virgo Cluster; the second component, although its origin is less clear, is thought to be due to the attraction to the Centaurus Cluster; and the third component is what astronomers call the “local velocity anomaly” because the force is not directed toward any significant structure.

Unlike the first two components that are attractive, the third component could be repulsive, according to Villata. In support of this possibility, he notes that the Leo Spur galaxies, which would be located in between the Local Sheet and the attractive area, appear to be at rest with respect to this motion. Villata suggests that the origins of the third component may be on the opposite side, repelling the Local Sheet instead of attracting it. He calculates that a reasonable antimatter mass, located in a particular void, could account for the local velocity anomaly by the mechanism of repulsive gravity.

In this way, the antimatter would act like dark energy in our local neighborhood. On a large scale, numerous antimatter voids could drive the expansion of the Universe without the need for dark energy, and possibly even without the need for an explosive Big Bang (perhaps implying a cyclic Universe). The theory also implies that we live in a Universe with equal amounts of matter and antimatter, as expected by standard theories. To Villata, these results make repulsive gravity an alluring alternative to dark energy.

“Dark energy is thought to be uniformly permeating, so it can explain (formally, not physically) the global acceleration,” Villata said. “But it cannot explain either the strong repulsive effect on the Local Sheet nor the extreme emptiness of the Local Void and several other properties of our extragalactic neighborhood, while the proposed antimatter ‘dark repulsor’ in the Local Void can account for all these things and, at the global level, with antimatter hidden in all cosmic voids, can explain the overall accelerated expansion (and other features) without dark energy and the funny initial explosion.”

Villata hopes these ideas might be tested by experiments, although such tests would be difficult.

“Some people may think that my analysis of general relativity predicting antigravity is not correct or appropriate,” he added. “In this case, a further, definitive test is mentioned in my last paper: the antigravitational lensing effect. In principle, if we had a good 3D map of galaxy clusters lying beyond the voids, it would be relatively easy to analyze whether some of them have shapes squeezed around the line of sight, which would mean that they are aligned with large concentrations of in the intervening void. But the problem is that there is another concurrent effect, which strongly distorts the distribution of galaxies in the radial direction, due to the peculiar motions affecting the redshift measurements: the finger-of-god effect, which stretches the shape of clusters along the line of sight. It is thus very difficult to distinguish whether a cluster already severely stretched by this effect is further thinned by antigravitational lensing.”

Part 2: Repulsive gravity as an alternative to dark energy (In the quantum vacuum)

Explore further: The unifying framework of symmetry reveals properties of a broad range of physical systems

More information: Massimo Villata. “’Dark Energy’ in the Local Void.” Astrophysics and Space Science. DOI: 10.1007/s10509-012-0994-9 and arXiv:1201.3810v1 [astro-ph.CO]

Website of Massimo Villata (comments welcome): link

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 ...

Four reasons why the quantum vacuum may explain dark matter

Nov 28, 2011

(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 ...

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 ...

Recommended for you

What time is it in the universe?

Aug 29, 2014

Flavor Flav knows what time it is. At least he does for Flavor Flav. Even with all his moving and accelerating, with the planet, the solar system, getting on planes, taking elevators, and perhaps even some ...

Watching the structure of glass under pressure

Aug 28, 2014

Glass has many applications that call for different properties, such as resistance to thermal shock or to chemically harsh environments. Glassmakers commonly use additives such as boron oxide to tweak these ...

Inter-dependent networks stress test

Aug 28, 2014

Energy production systems are good examples of complex systems. Their infrastructure equipment requires ancillary sub-systems structured like a network—including water for cooling, transport to supply fuel, and ICT systems ...

User comments : 125

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

jalmy
3.4 / 5 (20) Jan 31, 2012
Ever read an article that just seems to make too much sense be wrong? This was one of those for me. It makes sense. Where as since the first time of hearing of dark mater and dark energy I just thought what a complete load of crap. Dark matter and dark energy to me have always been nothing more than science saying we have no idea what it is, but we can quantify how much we don't know with a number. This at least is someone putting an explanation out there of something we know is real, (antimatter). I hope they find a way to test it.
Deathclock
4 / 5 (23) Jan 31, 2012
Dark matter and dark energy to me have always been nothing more than science saying we have no idea what it is, but we can quantify how much we don't know with a number.


That's exactly what it means... is there a problem with that?

"Dark" refers to our current inability to detect it through direct methods, though we can indirectly detect it through its effects.
ccr5Delta32
4.5 / 5 (15) Jan 31, 2012
A couple of points
"both matter and antimatter are gravitationally self-attractive, yet mutually repulsive" I suppose this would imply we should see anti galaxy's and not voids . I'm not sure what an anti galaxy looks like but we do see voids
"gravitational repulsion between matter and antimatter is a prediction of general relativity." New to me
There are observations that could be done . Like measuring the acceleration in a direction that has more void and comparing it to another that has less to a certain distance .
Another thing would be to confirm if antimatter has indeed negative gravity
That's why we have astronomers
dtyarbrough
1.1 / 5 (44) Jan 31, 2012
The universe isn't expanding. Our view of the universe is dimming as solar wind particles build up within the solar system. Remember, Voyager didn't detect solar wind particles exiting the solar system. Anything that doesn't appear to be moving away(the Leo Spur galaxies) are moving toward us. No Big Bang. No Dark Matter. No antimatter.
jalmy
1.9 / 5 (17) Jan 31, 2012
Yes my problem with it is that it confuses people. Instead of saying the universe should fly appart but it doesn't and we have no idea why. and there should be this amount of antimatter in the universe but there isn't and we dont know why. They say oh it must be "darkmatter". They might as well just say there is a giant potato in space and make it big enough so that all the numbers fall in line. I just dont like when people make stuff up to fit the numbers together, and give it a name. It's the same as UFO's and ghosts. Someone sees something they can't explain and gives it a name. The name evolves into a thing that people believe in. When in fact the whole time it was something like headlights in the distance, a very real thing that can be tested.
dtyarbrough
1.2 / 5 (25) Jan 31, 2012
If matter can be contained within magnetic fields, how do they contain antimatter? With antimagnetic fields? Sure they do...
Jayded
2.6 / 5 (10) Jan 31, 2012
Sounded like much of the sameness to me. take one unknown force and replace it with another slightly less unknown force.
javjav
1.3 / 5 (14) Jan 31, 2012
Doest it mean that antimatter also experience repulsion with itself? In that case antigalaxies are not possible. And space expansion caused by antimatter would disperse it while also moving matter away, resulting in very few interaction with matter at the void frontiers. But what would happen when two voids connect creating an island of matter in the middle? The island space would be compressed and "packed", forcing matter to stay together with more force than its own gravity. Maybe this could also be and alternative to dark matter, not only to dark energy
nevermark
4.1 / 5 (14) Jan 31, 2012
"If matter can be contained within magnetic fields, how do they contain antimatter? With antimagnetic fields? Sure they do..."
(1) Pick up a magnet
(2) Rotate it 180 degrees

You have just created your "antimagnetic" field. It is just a magnetic field with north and south poles flipped. Trapping anti-electrons, i.e. positrons, is done the same way as trapping other positively charged particles such as protons or positive ions.

The biggest problem I see with the articles explanation is the lack of anti-matter galaxies. Instead of repulsive voids there should be repulsive anti-galaxies if antimatter attracts antimatter.

Wouldn't a better explanation be that antimatter repulses antimatter too? Then it would thin out in voids and the lack of anti-galaxies wouldn't be a problem for the conjecture.
Gawad
4 / 5 (21) Jan 31, 2012
The universe isn't expanding. Our view of the universe is dimming as solar wind particles build up within the solar system. Remember, Voyager didn't detect solar wind particles exiting the solar system. Anything that doesn't appear to be moving away(the Leo Spur galaxies) are moving toward us. No Big Bang. No Dark Matter. No antimatter.

And no Grey Matter either. Nor Gray Matter for that matter.
javjav
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 31, 2012
What I mean is, with this theory the space fabric between matter and antimatter would be experiencing double tension towards the matter point (from the point of view of the matter location) thus making matter to behave as if there where dark matter around producing an increased (apparent) gravity force. Meanwhile, antimatter can only reach matter if an additional force is added, (otherwise the antigravity repulsion force will prevent it) which would explain why they do not anhilate each other
Deadbolt
4.2 / 5 (11) Jan 31, 2012
There was already the suggestion that given the amount of time anti-atoms are able to be contained for now, that we can soon test the question of anti-matter's gravity.

This theory is actually testable.
brodix
1.4 / 5 (19) Jan 31, 2012
We are surrounded by antigravity. It's called light/radiation. Light expands out from the source, but we think of it as a particle/photon, because we measure its effect on mass, but what constrains a quantum of light in space? Wouldn't it expand and like bosons, be overlayed and entangled with similar photons, so that when our detectors/telescopes absorb this light, the quantum of light received is a sample of this expanded light, not a particular photon which traveled individually for billions of years? Einstein originally proposed the cosmological constant to balance gravity. Why not consider that is what is happening?Galaxies are are not just points in space, but gravity wells. Space effectively falls into them, just as it expands between them. Since measurements seem to be that these two effects are balanced, where is the overall expansion coming from and why do we need it?
rawa1
1 / 5 (8) Jan 31, 2012
as a result, both matter and antimatter are gravitationally self-attractive, yet mutually repulsive.
The antimatter lives in reversed time arrow, its attraction will be perceived as a repulsive from our perspective. From the same reason the attraction/repulsion of matter and antimatter is distance dependent. If the formal theory is logically wrong, then the all consequences of its math will be wrong too.
Gawad
4.4 / 5 (9) Jan 31, 2012
A couple of points "both matter and antimatter are gravitationally self-attractive, yet mutually repulsive" I suppose this would imply we should see anti galaxy's and not voids. I'm not sure what an anti galaxy looks like but we do see voids
I'll 2nd that. Villatas claim here contradicts observation.

"gravitational repulsion between matter and antimatter is a prediction of general relativity." New to me
I'd also like to 2nd this. Villata is completely out to lunch here. If antimatter has a positive energy/mass content it will warp space-time the same way matter does in GR. And there's no indication antimatter has a negative energy/mass content.
brodix
1 / 5 (8) Jan 31, 2012
Gravitational lensing doesn't mean the source is moving, only that the path of the light is distorted. Wouldn't a similar situation better explain what we see, than the current patchwork cosmology, where every observation that doesn't support theory just becomes a career path for some theorist to propose a patch?
If light really does expand and it is that expansion causing redshift, it would mean that light is essentially holographic, rather than pixelated.
rawa1
1 / 5 (10) Jan 31, 2012
Villata is completely out to lunch here. If antimatter has a positive energy/mass content it will warp space-time the same way matter does in GR.
You're completely right, but Willata is out in many other things. Maybe he just pretends, his model is conformal with mainstream theories to achieve better acceptance between physicists, because this community is extremely conservative, if not religious regarding the validity of mainstream theories.
dschlink
2 / 5 (4) Jan 31, 2012
The idea that matter and anti-matter would have mutual gravitational repulsion is one of the possibilities dropping out of CPT symmetry: charge changes therefor some other factor must change. Anti-matter would still attract anti-matter. Granted, anti-matter might have reversed time, but that is difficult to reconcile with increasing entropy.
GSwift7
3.3 / 5 (9) Jan 31, 2012
This isn't really a new idea, since Dirac suggested antigravity when he first proposed anitmatter. By the time his predictions of anti-protons were confirmed four years later, the idea of antigravity had been dismissed. You see, antimatter has mass just the same as normal matter does, so gravity would be the same (that's how current thinking goes anyway). There's a big cloud of antimatter near the center of the Milkyway, so testing this guy's theory shouldn't be too hard. According to NASA and other experts, an antimatter galaxy should look exactly like a normal galaxy. They are actually looking into whether some of the things we have assumed to be composed of normal matter might be antimatter in stead. Try reading the wiki page on antimatter at the very least before making up wild conjections.

I didn't know thunderstorms create antimatter. That's cool.
WhiteJim
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 31, 2012
I have always felt that dark mater, dark energy and the big bang theory are wrong, unnecessary artificial constructs to explain things that can't be explained this article and concept addresses all three errors and offers a way out of the madness while not founded on hocus pocus.
Sean_W
3 / 5 (6) Jan 31, 2012
Firstly, I thought there was some clever little suggestion that explained the acceleration of the universe as an illusion or some kind of miscalculation. I can't remember the exact theory but I remembered that it seemed impressive when I heard it. It would be nice to know if a mystery really exists before I accept the solution.

But then, there are other suggestions about antimatter with a repulsive interaction with matter so whether or not it is needed for dark energy, it still needs an answer.

So if an antimatter star collapses into a black hole and it smashes into a matter black hole will they form two hemispherical black holes before ricocheting away? Will there be a disk-shaped region of space between them where there would be no gravitational curvamawhatsit?
PosterusNeticus
3.8 / 5 (16) Jan 31, 2012
This is one of those times when I recommend people just skip the comment section completely; read the article and move on. Unfortunately, if you're reading this then it's already too late.
rawa1
1 / 5 (10) Jan 31, 2012
The repulsive gravity can be derived from relativity theory by introduction of mass energy equivalence, unfortunately this substitution violates the equivalence principle in its very consequences. Another way, how to violate it is the introduction of extra-dimensions into relativity theory - it leads into repulsive gravity too. As the result, Einstein's theory of gravity is actually more complex, than it appears - virtually every term of it is in fact linearized form of hyperdimensional expansion, which can be expressed with p-adic algebra in implicit form.
rawa1
1 / 5 (12) Jan 31, 2012
In general relativity theory every energy has its mass assigned by E=mc2 formula. This formula says, the energy of curved space-time is behaving like sparse matter, distributed around massive objects with space-time curved. Such additional mass will be therefore the source of another gravity, which acts from "outside" of massive bodies and it compensates their own gravity field a bit. This concept is apparently recursive, because even the curvature of the space caused with this additional gravity field would have its own mass and it leads into dark matter field around objects.
It's quite easy to understand, why this results violates equivalence principle in which the inertia is always equivalent to mass. The repulsive gravity appears more pronounced for more dense objects, then for these sparse ones, because its source is curvature of space-time, not the mass itself. So that the small objects will exhibit stronger repulsive gravity (Pioneer spaceprobe), than these large ones (planets)
rawa1
Jan 31, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Noumenon
2.9 / 5 (9) Jan 31, 2012
gravitational repulsion between matter and antimatter is a prediction of general relativity." New to me


I'd also like to 2nd this. Villata is completely out to lunch here. If antimatter has a positive energy/mass content it will warp space-time the same way matter does in GR. And there's no indication antimatter has a negative energy/mass content.


Correct, but I think that he is proposing that antimatter has negative gravitational mass or negative gravity "charge". Gravity is the only force (yes, GR says its not a force) which does not have plus/minus components. Why?

But accelerators show antimatter to have positive energy which all GR requires for gravitational attraction, so I don't get this idea at all.
PosterusNeticus
4.4 / 5 (13) Jan 31, 2012
In dense aether theory the notion of accelerated Universe expansion follows from dispersive character of light


Yes, but Dense Person Theory states that you are a cuckoo bird who believes that actual science is a global conspiracy, and that only crackpots without peer reviewed work tell us the 'truth'. How are we to reconcile the two?
GSwift7
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 31, 2012
I suggest taking a look at the wiki page for anti-gravity. There's a simple proof there that suggests that an object and an anti-object placed near each other should both move in the same direction, the object moving away from the anti-object and the anti-object chasing it, falling towards it.

By the way, you have to assume negative mass for general relativity to yield anti-gravity in the first place. Anti-matter doesn't seem to have negative mass according to particle experiments, so anti-gravity seems to be a moot discussion. We have measured the mass of positrons you know, and it's not negative.

http://en.wikiped...-gravity

Callippo
1 / 5 (9) Jan 31, 2012
Dense Person Theory states that you are a cuckoo bird
Look, in this article the physicists are modeling the gravity with surface tension forces between colloidal particles, nobody will explain you, why is it so, their money are going and everybody is happy.
http://www.physor...ish.html So what I'm doing is actually very common approach in contemporary physics. If nothing else, I'm not asking any money for development of such analogies from tax payers.

P.S.: Note that the surface tension model doesn't predict any gravitational repulsion - so it's apparently limited model in the context of dark energy.
Shinichi D_
5 / 5 (3) Jan 31, 2012


A few questions :
If antimatter is attractive to itself, why the voids seem to expand, instead of pulling together, forming antimatter galaxies?

"The theory also implies that we live in a Universe with equal amounts of matter and antimatter, as expected by standard theories." Well, we are not looking for equal amount. The supposed visible matter - dark energy ratio is not 50%-50%. Not even the visible dark matter to DE is.

What about black holes? Would matter and antimatter black holes distinguishable? I don't think so. They supposed to be "neutral" in this way. Yet they are gravitationaly attractive to matter. Would they repell antimatter?

This repulsive gravity, between matter and antimatter is supposed to decrease with distance, like the attractive force? Then why the expansion seems to accelerate?

And about ad hoc elements in theories. Why would antimatter be distributed just the right way to produce the desired effect?
typicalguy
5 / 5 (6) Jan 31, 2012
Problems I see with antimatter antigravity.
1. As previously mentioned by others, self attracting antimatter would have stars and galaxies in the voids. If it has true antigravity and we want to flip relativity, where are my antimatter antigravity white holes?
2. If antimatter repells itself in addition to regular matter, the galactic expansion should be slowing down as the antimatter is dilluted over more space. This is not what is happening.
Nathan314
1 / 5 (2) Jan 31, 2012
ok! then these guys are finally about to accept Nassim Haramein's theories on astrophysics and cosmology... well, even the accepting that "the void still has something" is a wide changing factor in the current mankind thoughts and "beliefs"...
Noumenon
3 / 5 (8) Jan 31, 2012
This repulsive gravity, between matter and antimatter is supposed to decrease with distance, like the attractive force? Then why the expansion seems to accelerate?


Exactly. The acceleration seems tied to increased space-time, so it makes more sense to say the cosmological constant represents vacuum energy, somehow.
Gawad
3.7 / 5 (7) Jan 31, 2012
If antimatter has a positive energy/mass content it will warp space-time the same way matter does in GR. And there's no indication antimatter has a negative energy/mass content.
Correct, but I think that he is proposing that antimatter has negative gravitational mass or negative gravity "charge". Gravity is the only force (yes, GR says its not a force) which does not have plus/minus components. Why?
To echo GSwift, I think it would be more appropriate to ask "why not?" as there's really no problem with negative gravity in GR. That is, you can work the math to generate positive (gravity) or negative (anti-gravity) space-time curvature at will. It just that in reality you need to generate that negative curvature with negative mass/energy and we don't know of any. And antimatter doesn't qualify for that.
But accelerators show antimatter to have positive energy which all GR requires for gravitational attraction, so I don't get this idea at all.
Eh. You and me both.
Callippo
1 / 5 (7) Jan 31, 2012
acceleration seems tied to increased space-time
What the "increased space-time" is supposed the mean? The space-time has no "height" quantity defined.
Gawad
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 31, 2012
acceleration seems tied to increased space-time
What the "increased space-time" is supposed the mean? The space-time has no "height" quantity defined.

Of fur christ's sake. But it does have VOLUME. So maybe, just maybe he must mean an increase in VOLUME.

Sheesh. Tell me, is the operative word in 'dense aether theory' actually the word 'DENSE'? 'Cause it sure can't be 'aether' and it such as Hell can't be 'theory'.
barakn
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 31, 2012
The antimatter lives in reversed time arrow, its attraction will be perceived as a repulsive from our perspective. -rawa1
Gravity works the same going backwards or forwards in time. It's always attractive. Hold a baked potato at arms length and drop it, and let it lie there on the ground. Then view the process backwards in time. At first we see the potato lying there, obviously held there by the force of gravity. Suddenly the potato shoots into the air, slowing down until it slips gently into a well-placed hand. Truly repulsive gravity would cause the potato to shoot into the sky at ever-increasing speed. If we watch this part in slow motion, we'd see some sound and ground waves and air currents as well as some random potato chunks converge on the grounded potato at just the right moment and with exactly the right magnitude and direction to pop the the potato into the air. Attractive gravity slows this initial speed until it is zero, right at the altitude of the hand.
Noumenon
2.7 / 5 (7) Jan 31, 2012
acceleration seems tied to increased space-time
What the "increased space-time" is supposed the mean? The space-time has no "height" quantity defined.

Of fur christ's sake. But it does have VOLUME. So maybe, just maybe he must mean an increase in VOLUME.

Sheesh. Tell me, is the operative word in 'dense aether theory' actually the word 'DENSE'? 'Cause it sure can't be 'aether' and it such as Hell can't be 'theory'.


No, I meant space-time gets chubby.
Shootist
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 31, 2012
Firstly, I thought there was some clever little suggestion that explained the acceleration of the universe as an illusion or some kind of miscalculation. I can't remember the exact theory but I remembered that it seemed impressive when I heard it. It would be nice to know if a mystery really exists before I accept the solution.

But then, there are other suggestions about antimatter with a repulsive interaction with matter so whether or not it is needed for dark energy, it still needs an answer.

So if an antimatter star collapses into a black hole and it smashes into a matter black hole will they form two hemispherical black holes before ricocheting away? Will there be a disk-shaped region of space between them where there would be no gravitational curvamawhatsit?


5 for the gedanken.
sandler
1 / 5 (2) Jan 31, 2012
All celestial objects are subjected to internal and external gravitational forces. Internally they compressed into spheres in order to support their weight via nuclear forces without collapsing. Externally they act onto each other like two people trying to pull single blanket their way without sharing. The blanket is thus stretched thinner creating new space in which they fall in.
Silverhill
5 / 5 (2) Jan 31, 2012
GSwift7:
There's a big cloud of antimatter near the center of the Milkyway
Source, please?
Callippo
1 / 5 (7) Jan 31, 2012
But it does have VOLUME. So maybe, just maybe he must mean an increase in VOLUME.
How the VOLUME of space-time is defined? We know about volume of space, but what the space-time volume is supposed to mean?
is the operative word in 'dense aether theory' actually the word 'DENSE'?
It servers as a distinguisher from sparse aether model of preeinsteinian era. The dense aether model has been proposed with Oliver Lodge in 1904, although this concept is way older.

Robert Hooke, 1687: "All space is filled with equally dense material. Gold fills only a small fraction of the space assigned to it, and yet has a big mass. How much greater must be the total mass filling that space."
Callippo
1 / 5 (8) Jan 31, 2012
self attracting antimatter would have stars and galaxies in the voids ..If antimatter repels itself in addition to regular matter, the galactic expansion should be slowing down as the antimatter is diluted over more space..
I'm not sure, if you're objecting self-attracting or self-repulsive dark matter model. IMO you're attacking both - is it true?
Callippo
1 / 5 (7) Jan 31, 2012
There's a big cloud of antimatter near the center of the Milkyway Source, please?
It's http://www.dailyg...y-.html. If I say, the Sun is shinning, will you ask me for evidence too? There is a question, where should be the threshold of evidence, required by denier of information instead of its supplier.
self-repulsive dark matter model
in my previous post, it should be "antimatter model".
julianpenrod
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 31, 2012
The fact is, though, that antimatter is matter!
Antimatter is simply the electrostatic mirror image of matter, particles with normal mass, but opposite charge or magnetic moment.
At least, that's what they were saying for a long time after the first announcement of antimatter!
Look at any textbook, or scientific report, for the Sixties to the Nineties and you'll see antimatter characterized as differing from matter only in having opposite electromagnetic properties.
And, no matter what Massimo Villata or any other claims, antimatter having negative gravity is not a prediction of Einstein's general relativity.
Now organs like Phys Org and such as suggesting that antimatter behaves differently from matter.
Depending on the legs this develops, it may take 75 to 100 years for this bubble to burs, and "scientists" then might do their best to keep it quiet, but it will stand as just another proof that "science" lies.
Callippo
1 / 5 (7) Jan 31, 2012
Antimatter is simply the electrostatic mirror image of matter, particles with normal mass, but opposite charge or magnetic moment.
Einstein: "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." What the hell the "simple electrostatic mirror image of matter" should be? Anyway, it's a nonsense, because the photons don't exhibit antimatter behavior in the same way, like the neutrinos (which don't have EM charge). The model, which you're talking about belongs into quite different concept, which you probably never heard of yet: http://en.wikiped...r_matter But this concept is not equivalent to antimatter at all.
WhiteJim
1 / 5 (3) Jan 31, 2012
Imagine the universe (space-time) is the skin of a rubber balloon... imagine that at the smallest distances space-time is seen a froth of virtual particles (matter and antimatter) spontaneously materialize out of nothing and annihilate each other as they make contact... imagine that some virtual particles dont make contact and therefore increase the volume of space-time assume that antimatter is exactly like matter only with negative gravity (with or t-without reverse time arrow) with the above assumptions in place, someone can do the math and place everything into perspective to 1) account for dark matter and dark energy and more importantly 2) eliminate the big bad bang theory.
The BBT singularity would therefore be nothing more than the point where all of the information of the current observable universe is wiped out due to the amount of new space-time created in the ensuing period of time.
Callippo
1 / 5 (6) Jan 31, 2012
and you'll see antimatter characterized as differing from matter only in having opposite electromagnetic properties
This is what the contemporary theory says. But there is an increasing evidence of matter-antimatter asymmetry.
http://www.fnal.g...518.html In particular, very lightweight particles (like the neutrinos) or very heavyweight (like the strange and top quarks) violate CP-symmetry heavily, in particular because their properties aren't determined with EM charge primarily (the mass of quarks consist mostly from color charge interactions, the neutrinos have weak leptonic charge only) and these charges violate CP-symmetry in lesser or greater extent. Actually just the electrons seems to follow the matter-antimatter symmetry exactly.
theon
1 / 5 (3) Jan 31, 2012
The idea is completely ruled out, because in voids they do find some galaxies. Or do we now have to see them as anti-galaxies??
Callippo
1 / 5 (8) Jan 31, 2012
The BBT singularity would therefore be nothing more than the point where all of the information of the current observable universe is wiped out due to the amount of new space-time created in the ensuing period of time.
This is quite relevant insight in context of AWT, in which the topological inversion of space-time occurs at the particle horizon of Universe. This is how it appears schematically and more realistically.
But it would be better if you could demonstrate your model with some evidence, if not testable predictions. Without it it's just one of many ideas, which do exist here.
The idea is completely ruled out, because in voids
Which idea are you referring to? An aquatic ape theory?
pauljpease
5 / 5 (3) Jan 31, 2012
Yes my problem with it is that it confuses people. Instead of saying the universe should fly appart but it doesn't and we have no idea why. and there should be this amount of antimatter in the universe but there isn't and we dont know why. They say oh it must be "darkmatter". They might as well just say there is a giant potato in space and make it big enough so that all the numbers fall in line. I just dont like when people make stuff up to fit the numbers together, and give it a name. It's the same as UFO's and ghosts. Someone sees something they can't explain and gives it a name. The name evolves into a thing that people believe in. When in fact the whole time it was something like headlights in the distance, a very real thing that can be tested.


At one time, not that long ago, atoms were something that people just invented because they made the numbers "fall in line." They were not observable and many people did not believe they were real. Huh.
Mercury_02
5 / 5 (2) Jan 31, 2012
What happened to all the scientific discussions that used to take place on this forum? All I see here are a bunch of moronic trolls, freaks of nature, and three intelligent people who don't bother anymore to contribute.
Callippo
1 / 5 (10) Jan 31, 2012
Instead of saying the universe should fly apart but it doesn't and we have no idea why
But "we" have this idea for five years already - but the religious people relying on the Big Bang model are ignore it from their fear of lost of money, jobs and social credit in the same way, like the cold fusion and another findings. Its as simple, as the denial of heliocentric model at the Galileo era - and nothing changed with people from this time.

At the water surface the 2D space expands from every place of it due the dispersion of waves with density fluctuation of underwater and the same models applies to spreading of light in vacuum. We even have these density fluctuations observed - they manifest with notoriously known CMBR noise. We have all pieces of this puzzle collected already.
Callippo
1 / 5 (9) Jan 31, 2012
I see here are a bunch of moronic trolls, freaks of nature, and three intelligent people who don't bother anymore to contribute.
Which intelligent people do you mean? You already contributed here.
javjav
1 / 5 (2) Jan 31, 2012
The fact is, though, that antimatter is matter!
Antimatter is simply the electrostatic mirror image of matter, particles with normal mass, but opposite charge or magnetic moment.


They do not seem to be exactly the same substance, with just a difference in the electrical charge as you say. At least for two reasons:

- Matter do not annihilate when it touch other matter with opposite charge (for example an electron does not annihilate in contact with a proton), it only happens between matter and antimatter. They seem to be different.

- There is also the usual golden question; if they are exactly the same substance, where all the antimatter has gone?...

These clues are not fully conclusive, but we can not ignore them, maybe matter and antimatter are not the same thing.
Turritopsis
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 31, 2012
Matter antimatter gravitational repulsion (the theory) directly violates the Big Bang hypothesis.

The Big Bang is said to have arisen energetically (through the universal singularity). Quantum fluctuations (virtual particles) ripped apart during this energetic event (see Hawking radiation).

The strong force must be considered seperate from electromagnetism. Strong force is quantum gravity. Further the colour force is a third order gravitational force. So: 1. Gravity, 2. Strong force, 3. Colour force.

Antimatter is matter of opposite charge.

If antimatter gravitationally repulsed matter, then the strong force and colour force between matter and anti would also cause repulsion.

Importance?

Virtual particles would not annihilate if matter repulsed antimatter. A quark antiquark pair, for instance, would diverge and never converge.

Hawking predicts this interaction (non-annihilative) only when the couplet is ripped apart by forces stronger than the couplets own.
Callippo
1 / 5 (9) Jan 31, 2012
In AWT the simplest antimatter particle is behaving like the Falaco soliton at the water surface. These underwater solitons deform the water surface in the same way, like the surface ones. So they have mass in general relativity sense. The relativistic mass cares just about curvature of space (stress energy tensor in particular). Both positively, both negatively curved space-time exhibits the same gravitational lensing and as such they're virtually indistinguishable each other at distance. But at the proximity their behavior is very different, as they exhibit opposite gravitational force to another curved space-times. The antiparticles play a role of antibubbles in the vacuum - they're still massive, but their total space-time curvature is negative. Whereas the particles of matter do behave rather like dense blobs with tiny bubble inside, i.e. with reversed order of energy density gradients.

http://en.wikiped...tibubble
Urgelt
5 / 5 (3) Jan 31, 2012
I'm feeling a sense of urgency regarding measurement of the effects of Earth's gravity on experimentally-created antimatter. I hope experimental physicists will get to it soon. It might clear up some fundamental questions.

There are a lot of "what-ifs" being bandied about in this article, all very interesting stuff. If the mass of antimatter equals the mass of matter in the universe, but we can't see visible antimatter galaxies, then the implication is that stellar fusion might be impossible with antimatter. How could we explain that with modern physics, if it seems to be true?
Moebius
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 31, 2012
This anti-matter anti-gravity theory is neat except for one thing. If anti-matter is gathered in the voids why is it just sitting there doing nothing in the dark? Why is it inactive when its regular matter twin that comprises the other half of the universe or so has formed the diversity of everything else including us?
Callippo
1 / 5 (9) Jan 31, 2012
If anti-matter is gathered in the voids why is it just sitting there doing nothing in the dark?
Because it's gravitationally repulsive at short distances. And it does something - it's a substantial portion of dark matter. http://aetherwave...ter.html
coryatjohn
1 / 5 (5) Jan 31, 2012
They say oh it must be "darkmatter". They might as well just say there is a giant potato in space and make it big enough so that all the numbers fall in line.


Dark Matter and Energy are just scientific usage of "God." An unknown entity that solves a real problem.
Callippo
1 / 5 (7) Jan 31, 2012
If anti-matter is gathered in the voids why is it just sitting there doing nothing in the dark?
Because it's gravitationally repulsive at short distances. And it does something - it's a substantial portion of dark matter. http://aetherwave...ter.html
How could we explain that with modern physics, if it seems to be true?
Currently only the supersymmetry theory is compatible with antimatter and repulsive gravity of it. But at the extremely high or extremely low energy densities the SUSY gets broken too and only dense aether model can explain it.
An unknown entity that solves a real problem
God cannot be measured, the dark energy (dark matter the more) can.
Seeker2
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 31, 2012
"The gravitational repulsion between matter and antimatter could be so powerful, in fact, that Villata has calculated that it could be responsible for the accelerated expansion of the Universe, eliminating the need for dark energy and possibly dark matter."

Well however powerful it is isn't powerful enough to repel positrons out of the inner Van Allen belt.
science_dan
1 / 5 (3) Jan 31, 2012

BLACK HOLES, EXPANSION, AND DARK ENERGY

In the continuum of space and time, exists the dichotomy of matter and energy. All things exist as both matter and energy, but are experienced as one or the other.
As energy, all things exist as wave patterns. Most wave patterns are interferences of simpler wave patterns. The simplest wave forms are those that do not interfere with other waves. These simplest wave forms hold their shape as they propagate. There are three such wave forms.
The first such wave form is seen in three dimensions as the spherical expansion wave of a bomb blast, and in two dimensions as the circular wave of expansion on the water where a rock was tossed in. The second wave form is seen in three dimensions as the cone of sonic boom following an aircraft traveling faster than sound, and in two dimensions as the V-wake on the water where the boat is traveling faster than the water wave. The third wave form is seen in three dimensions as the propagation torus of a smoke
Seeker2
1 / 5 (3) Jan 31, 2012
"He calculates that a reasonable antimatter mass, located in a particular void, could account for the local velocity anomaly by the mechanism of repulsive gravity."

I believe these voids are regions of low spacetime density which you could call anti-dark matter, as macroscopic regions of higher than normal spacetime density are actually dark matter. Spacetime being flat requires higher than normal density regions to be balanced by lower than normal regions (dark matter and voids). I believe anti-matter is attractive in backward time but as we observe forward time anti-matter appears to be repulsive. Anti-matter may be actually caught in a logical contradiction - as close as it gets in backwards time is where is was created - mostly inflation. Since it then proceeds in backwards time it separates. So anti-matter from our perspective begins at its final end (creation - inflation) and is now proceeding to its beginning, at least from its perspective.

Isaacsname
1 / 5 (1) Jan 31, 2012
Wow....you guys are having a VERY intense discussion. Very interesting, most of these things I have no clue about, but for some reason, I feel compelled to ask something, please don't hit me with the stick for asking.

Doesn't the " gravity " of an object = 0 at the center of the " mass " of an object comprised of " normal " matter ?

Wouldn't a large object of the same relative amount of " antimatter " have slightly different properties ?

Thanks ! Fascinating stuff you guys are discussing.
Anda
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 31, 2012
Callippo/Rawa1 thinks the universe is the surface of water and his brain is made of aether.
No one likes you Rawallippo.
cdt
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 31, 2012
Perhaps there are anti-matter galaxies in the voids but they give off anti-photons that we don't see, making anti-matter dark.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (3) Jan 31, 2012
If spacetime has expanded in 13.7 bly to say a diameter of 56 bly, that means anti-matter created during inflation has been moving backwards in time for 13.7 bly and has now retreated, perhaps to the same diameter of 56 bly.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Jan 31, 2012
Doesn't the " gravity " of an object = 0 at the center of the " mass " of an object comprised of " normal " matter ?

Wouldn't a large object of the same relative amount of " antimatter " have slightly different properties ?
So the antigravity at the center of an anti-matter object would be 0, or so it would seem.

jscroft
1 / 5 (4) Jan 31, 2012
I just dont like when people make stuff up to fit the numbers together, and give it a name.


I've got a name for THAT. It's called a "theory."
Seeker2
1 / 5 (3) Jan 31, 2012
Perhaps there are anti-matter galaxies in the voids but they give off anti-photons that we don't see, making anti-matter dark.
Anti-matter certainly is dark now but could have been luminous during its later times right after the BB. But it could have been deprived of stardom by the rapid expansion of matter, or the rapid compression of anti-matter, in the very early times of the BB.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Jan 31, 2012
If the mass of antimatter equals the mass of matter in the universe, but we can't see visible antimatter galaxies, then the implication is that stellar fusion might be impossible with antimatter. How could we explain that with modern physics, if it seems to be true?
Good example of my previous post about anti-matter being compressed too fast after the BB to achieve stardom before reaching its final end in the BB, at least from its perspective.
Cynical1
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 31, 2012
"He calculates that a reasonable antimatter mass, located in a particular void, could account for the local velocity anomaly by the mechanism of repulsive gravity."

I believe these voids are regions of low spacetime density which you could call anti-dark matter, as macroscopic regions of higher than normal spacetime density are actually dark matter. Spacetime being flat requires higher than normal density regions to be balanced by lower than normal regions (dark matter and voids).

SO it seems that you are saying spacetime clusters much the same as matter. On the atomic scale it is driven to do so by "Brownian Motion", which I believe is the same reason matter clusters together on the cosmic scale.
Anyway your postulation would then suggest that space-time is existant in these voids to a lesser degree than by a clump of mass...
Interesting...
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Jan 31, 2012
I believe these voids are regions of low spacetime density which you could call anti-dark matter, as macroscopic regions of higher than normal spacetime density are actually dark matter.
Actually I'm not quite sure what spacetime density means, so let's call it spacetime energy density.
MorituriMax
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 31, 2012
rawa1/callippo, why do you even bother posting? not saying you shouldn't as its not my place to tell anyone not to post, but really why do you bother, you kill yourself everytime you egurgitate "aether-blah blah"?
Cynical1
1 / 5 (2) Jan 31, 2012
[qActually I'm not quite sure what spacetime density means, so let's call it spacetime energy density.


Since mass is the "Visible Spectrum" of energy, I guess you could make the surmise that space-time exists only where there is large evidence of mass... Or at least more densely...
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Jan 31, 2012
"On a large scale, numerous antimatter voids could drive the expansion of the Universe without the need for dark energy, and possibly even without the need for an explosive Big Bang (perhaps implying a cyclic Universe)."

Actually the BB could be explained as a violent end to the existence of anti-matter, at least from its perspective.
eric96
1 / 5 (7) Jan 31, 2012
Good article, to me Dark Matter and Dark Energy started as "that which we cannot detect therefore that which must be the reason of" which is a load of BS, but scientist have been building on this BS and you now have a massive pile of shit that they honourably cough cough call knowledge. See the problem is, they couldn't test such a simple idea as proposed in the article, but they felt the need to explain it or BS, but without that BS they could not continue building a model. It is all very sad. The problem is we have never created stable anti-matter; has a very short life at least on earth. That to me should be Cern's focus; creating long life anti-matter. Once we create it, then we must learn to detect it, then we can study something real.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Jan 31, 2012
[qActually I'm not quite sure what spacetime density means, so let's call it spacetime energy density.

Since mass is the "Visible Spectrum" of energy, I guess you could make the surmise that space-time exists only where there is large evidence of mass... Or at least more densely...
Certainly spacetime can have a high or low energy density anywhere it exists (you might say it doesn't even exist without energy density).
Cynical1
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 31, 2012
Actually the BB could be explained as a violent end to the existence of anti-matter, at least from its perspective.

THIS is an interesting line of thought...

Seeker2
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 31, 2012
That to me should be Cern's focus; creating long life anti-matter. Once we create it, then we must learn to detect it, then we can study something real.
We certainly do detect it in the inner Van Allen belt. It's highly radioactive stuff and you don't want to hang out in that area of space for very long if you can help it.
Cynical1
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 31, 2012
[Certainly spacetime can have a high or low energy density anywhere it exists (you might say it doesn't even exist without energy density).

Which is exactly what I am suggesting. Meaning - our instruments can ONLY see matter and the lack of, or reduced, spacetime is somehow causing a misread of actual distances and acceleration. That could mean -- no DE..
Seeker2
1 / 5 (3) Jan 31, 2012
Virtual particles would not annihilate if matter repulsed antimatter. A quark antiquark pair, for instance, would diverge and never converge.

Hawking predicts this interaction (non-annihilative) only when the couplet is ripped apart by forces stronger than the couplets own.
Therefore, apparently Hawking thinks matter and anti-matter are attractive. But once they become real particles they go their separate ways in spacetime.
Isaacsname
1 / 5 (1) Jan 31, 2012
Call me crazy, but for some strange reason, something keeps telling me that the 5th lecture of Leonard Susskind's Modern Physics course concentrating on Quantum Mechanics covers something in regards to this all.

Naaaaw,...I'm crazy
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Jan 31, 2012
our instruments can ONLY see matter
Don't know about that.
and the lack of, or reduced, spacetime is somehow causing a misread of actual distances and acceleration.

So you think the speed of light is affected by the energy density of spacetime? Higher energy density means light is curved (gravitational lensing).

That could mean -- no DE..
Well you still have 73% of the total energy of the U to account for.

brodix
1 / 5 (3) Jan 31, 2012
My point got a lot of junks, but no one makes an argument against it.
If light has no mass, why would it remain constrained to a point in space?
In this interview from some years ago, http://freespace....ead.htm, Carver Mead makes a very similar argument for electrons expanding to fill their container. If electrons expand, why not photons?
Au-Pu
2 / 5 (6) Jan 31, 2012
It is a pity that most of those posting to this site do not read the article properly. It appears that they are more interested in airing their opinions than getting their facts right.
The author said near the start that his concept of negative gravity was HYPOTHETICAL.
He also said that some may think his analysis of general relativity predicting anti gravity is not correct or appropriate.
He also stated that he hopes these ideas might be tested by others.
Next time try to read the article properly and ensure that you understand what the author is actually saying.
The only posting I liked was that of WhiteJim.
At least it was original.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Jan 31, 2012
"Some people may think that my analysis of general relativity predicting antigravity is not correct or appropriate,

I think you get the right answer on a macroscopic scale but maybe not in the quantum realm. Like GR predicting singularities in black holes.
Cynical1
1 / 5 (2) Jan 31, 2012
Was a little quick on my remark. However, gravitational lensing of light is what I'm talking about. Additionally, it may actually affect the speed of light(we only really know it in our own vicinity).
As far as the other 73% - how do we know the lensing effect hasn't affected the measurement? Maybe our "yardsticks" need a little calibration...
sirchick
5 / 5 (4) Jan 31, 2012
rawa1/callippo i always wondered why you get low votes, now I think i see why.
Seeker2
2.3 / 5 (4) Jan 31, 2012
As far as the other 73% - how do we know the lensing effect hasn't affected the measurement? Maybe our "yardsticks" need a little calibration...
I believe the lensing effect with large scale sky surveys is actually used to measure the total dark energy/matter. It seems to all come out in the wash to make spacetime almost exactly flat so it's probably not too far off.
Andy C
4.2 / 5 (10) Feb 01, 2012
Personally myself, having obtained several advanced degrees in naturopathic healing from the online university of Phenoix, believe that the majority of theories relating to the CDM model are complete rubbish espoused by a bunch of dull-heads to get funding. You see, in my own theory which I call Supra-Galactic Smell theory, the universal fabric is 5 dimensional: 3 for space, one for time, and one for "smell" which is a characteristic of energy resulting from quark combinations that violate the 6th law of conservation (conservation of smell). Dark matter, therefore, can be seen as the interaction of strange-quark odd smells with the dense-aether flux field, best operationalized in a four-fold Lorentz invariant Minkowskian space intersected by six ox-carts of horseshit.
aabiskar
1 / 5 (1) Feb 01, 2012
then why do matter and antimatter annihilate? Is is that electromagnetic force wins over gravity at small distance? Then what separates matter and antimatter overwhelming electromagnetic force.
Parsec
5 / 5 (1) Feb 01, 2012
Why would anti-matter not be visible? That's one big flaw in this idea.

There is a lot of theoretical grounds to believe that its quite possible that anti-matter is in fact gravitationaly repulsive, and there are ongoing experiments that determine if this is true or not.

But even if it turns out to be so, its ludicrous to think that collections of anti-matter would not form luminous, visible structures like galaxies and the like if it was present in the universe in sufficient quantities to explain the expansion of the entire universe.
Eoprime
5 / 5 (2) Feb 01, 2012
But it would be better if you could demonstrate your model with some evidence, if not testable predictions. Without it it's just one of many ideas, which do exist here. - zephir


Those words out of YOUR mouth! Iam still waiting for you to fullfill those points.
TimESimmons
1 / 5 (4) Feb 01, 2012
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Feb 01, 2012
In Villatas paper, which will soon be published in Astrophysics and Space Science, he suggests that antimatter could be hiding in these large voids, separated from matter by mutual gravitational repulsion.

Another point which would possibly invalidate the antimatter-in-voids theory: Shouldn't we then see entire fronts of gamma rays coming from these regions as shockfronts of high speed particles from supernovae or the jets of galactic black holes pass through these voids and interact with the antimatter? Or is the anti-gravity so strong as to be able to stop them before they ever come into contact?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Feb 01, 2012
Is is that electromagnetic force wins over gravity at small distance? Then what separates matter and antimatter overwhelming electromagnetic force.

Yes. Electromagnetic forces are a lot stronger than gravitational forces at short distances by a factor of a million million million million million million - 36 orders of magnitude!
(Nuclear forces are even stronger, but they have even shorter ranges)

But antiMATTER atoms (i.e. whole atoms of antimaterial) are electrically neutral in their ground states (As is matter. All atoms have the exact same number of electrons as they do protons so at any distance to the atom the atom itself seems like an electrically neutral entity - unless you put a lot of energy into them to strip one or more electrons off (or add some) which is what are called ions. For antimatter atoms are made up of positrons and antiprotons (and antineutrons))

So matter and antimatter are not repulsed by electromagnetism.

rawa1
1 / 5 (5) Feb 01, 2012
Callippo/Rawa1 thinks the universe is the surface of water. No one likes you Rawallippo.
I don't think, the Universe is surface of water, it's just low-dimensional simplified model of it. Until you have no matter of facts objections, I do believe, I can live quite well without the deep intimate love of physorg trollz. The real problems would appear just after they would find the way, how to disprove this model.
why do you bother, you kill yourself everytime you egurgitate "aether-blah blah"
Because I'm enjoying it.
epsi00
1 / 5 (3) Feb 01, 2012
Here's another perfectly good explanation of the structure of the universe that does not rely on dark matter and dark energy. you know that thing that "we know is there but we can't see or touch".

http://msp.warwic...-gal.pdf

good reading. Go to the author site for more.
rawa1
1 / 5 (6) Feb 01, 2012
then why do matter and antimatter annihilate?
Because they're formed with vacuum foam membranes of the opposite helicity. Inside of foam a two types of surface always exist: inner and outer ones. The particles are formed with (standing waves of) inner surfaces, the antiparticles are formed with (standing waves of) outer surfaces. These surfaces collapse, when the particle of both type merge together. It's process conceptually similar the merging of oppositely rotating vortices.
Benni
3 / 5 (8) Feb 01, 2012
The real problems would appear just after they would find the way, how to disprove this model.


....sure, like trying to prove a negative? That's all AWT is about. First, it is up to you to prove the "infinities" you promote within your AWT theories can exist in a "finite" universe governed by the laws of thermodynamics, so until you can prove the "perpetual motion" of AWT, it is not up to the rest of us to disprove it, a concept you are not scientifically adept at comprehending.
rawa1
1 / 5 (6) Feb 01, 2012
it is up to you to prove the "infinities" you promote within your AWT theories can exist in a "finite" universe governed by the laws of thermodynamics
In some theories the observable Universe is formed with interior of black hole sitting in another Universe. Such a concept can be extended ad-infinitum easily and it doesn't prohibits the infinitely dense Universe at the highest level of this nested hierarchy. This infinite level is indeed not observable inside of our Universe in the same way, like we cannot observe infinite singularities of general relativity theory.
GSwift7
3.5 / 5 (10) Feb 01, 2012
Silverhill:

You asked for a source for my comment about the cloud of antimatter near the center of our galaxy. You could have googled it yourself, but here's an article about it from the European Space Administration's official site. Not only do we know that it exists, we actually know quite a bit about it.

http://www.esa.in...x_0.html

GSwift7
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 01, 2012
The all the quacks who are still talking about negative gravity, keep in mind that Newtonian physics would require an object with negative mass to have negative inertia and negative momentum. So if you push on something with negative mass it would move towards you in stead of away. It just doesn't really make sense.

It's the simple equation F=MA. If M is negative then A is opposite of any F.
GSwift7
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 01, 2012
To Isaacsname:

Doesn't the " gravity " of an object = 0 at the center of the " mass " of an object comprised of " normal " matter ?


No. The center of mass has gravity. By definition, the center of mass would have exactly equal gravity pulling in all directions, so the net result of all the forces would be zero, but it would be technically incorrect to say that there isn't any gravity there. Of course, this only works in an idealized imaginary place without external gravity fields. In reality, the entire universe has some gravity, so the center of gravity in an object will be slightly off center from the center of mass in that object, in the direction opposite to the local field of external gravity.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Feb 01, 2012
but it would be technically incorrect to say that there isn't any gravity there

If we go by gravity as 'exchange of gravitons' then there would be gravity there. If we go by gravity as a measure of how warped space is at that point then there would be no gravity there (as spacetime would be completely 'flat' at that point).
GSwift7
2.9 / 5 (7) Feb 01, 2012
antialias_physorg:

If we go by gravity as 'exchange of gravitons' then there would be gravity there. If we go by gravity as a measure of how warped space is at that point then there would be no gravity there (as spacetime would be completely 'flat' at that point).


That's exactly opposite of the truth. Space-time is warped the most at the center of gravity, not zero at all. You really need to stop making stuff up off the top of your head and do some reading first. You'll confuse people who are making an honest effort to understand, because they don't know that you never bother to do any research before you post. I can list sources to back me up if want, but I shouldn't have to. If you're too lazy to look it up yourself, then let me know and I'll spoon feed the info to you like a little baby. Try google or wiki.
Benni
1 / 5 (2) Feb 01, 2012
To Isaacsname:

Doesn't the " gravity " of an object = 0 at the center of the " mass " of an object comprised of " normal " matter ?


No. The center of mass has gravity. By definition, the center of mass would have exactly equal gravity pulling in all directions, so the net result of all the forces would be zero, but it would be technically incorrect to say that there isn't any gravity there. Of course, this only works in an idealized imaginary place without external gravity fields. In reality, the entire universe has some gravity, so the center of gravity in an object will be slightly off center from the center of mass in that object, in the direction opposite to the local field of external gravity.


I think he misconstrued "weight" with gravity. He simply should have substituted "weight" in the place of "gravity".
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Feb 01, 2012
That's exactly opposite of the truth.

You're right. I was thinking about the tangential component, not the curvature (which is, of course, the second derivative).

So while there is maximum curvature there is also 'flat' space (i.e. no gradient) because the tangent is zero (and hence no gravitational acceleration happens for something resting at the center of the Earth - excluding gravitational forces from outside sources.)
Callippo
1 / 5 (6) Feb 01, 2012
The all the quacks who are still talking about negative gravity, keep in mind that Newtonian physics would require an object with negative mass to have negative inertia and negative momentum.
It's essentially true: in AWT most of dark matter is formed with antimatter and this antimatter is mostly formed with anti-neutrinos - the particles which can never stay at rest and which tend to move in superluminal speed. Of course, Newtonian mechanics is violated with antimatter behavior in the same way, like the general relativity. This violation is constrained to most lightweight particles, though. AWT itself violates the Newtonian mechanics too due the concept of extra dimensions. After all - do you believe, that the density fluctuations of water are moving in accordance with Newtonian mechanics? Of course not, despite they're all formed with particles, which are following the Newtonian mechanics well by itself.

http://en.wikiped...an_fluid
Silverhill
not rated yet Feb 01, 2012
GSwift7:
You asked for a source for my comment about the cloud of antimatter near the center of our galaxy. You could have googled it yourself, but here's an article about it from the European Space Administration's official site. Not only do we know that it exists, we actually know quite a bit about it.
Thanks for the link -- when I posted, I was about to have to be away from computers for a day or so [Oh! the horror! ;-) ] and didn't have time then to search for it.
Be assured, I wasn't saying "Hah! Prove it!"; I was intrigued, as I hadn't seen that announcement before.
Graeme
not rated yet Feb 03, 2012
Another idea that contributes to missing mass would be gravitational wave (GW) energy. Each time black holes merge they give off about 3% of their mass as graviational radiation. If there is heirarchical merger going on to make super massive black holes, the 3% losses will accumulate. For example if 1024 solar mass black holes merge heriarchiacally you would end up with a 737 solar mass black hole and 262 solar masses in gravitational radiation. In making a SGR A* massed black hole heriarchially it would lose about 50% of its mass-energy as gravitational radiation. The voids should contain most of this energy, which would show up like dark energy.

Other ways to make GW are far less efficient, eg EM radiation with about 10^-38 fraction of GW. If a photon is transmitted and absorbed 10^24 times in a star before ecaping, it will only lose 10^-14 fraction to GW which is not significant
Graeme
not rated yet Feb 03, 2012
Related to this black hole merger "waste of energy" is a potential "kick" whereby a coalesced black hole can shoot off in a direction due to gravitational waves emitted assymetrically. This can eject black holes from galaxies at speeds of hundreds of kilometers per second. So these voids could also contain billions of blackholes travelling at high speeds. The ejected black holes would also behave like dark energy since they would not interact very much because of their speed. Another way to think of them could be as a hot but extremely thin gas. The concentration would still be greater around galaxies and clusters because this where they start from, and some would be lower speed, not enough to have escape velocity.
rawa1
1 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2012
Another idea that contributes to missing mass would be gravitational wave (GW) energy
Why not, but with respect of contemporary 4D relativity this energy applies in extradimensions. The classical GR cannot account into it, because the gravitational wave itself defines the reference frame in 4D space-time. All these concepts (gravitational charge, energy of gravitational field, various scalar and tensor extensions of GR) do apply in higher dimensional models of gravity. And they all indeed violate the equivalence principle in 4D space-time.
So these voids could also contain billions of blackholes travelling at high speeds.
Why not if you consider the common atom nuclei as such black holes.
Otto_Krog
1 / 5 (3) Feb 03, 2012
My take on dark energy 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?

What if spacetime expresses gravity "behind" the orbit of the electron, and "beyond" spacetime expresses expansion.

That would create som interesting theory. At least I think so.

Antimatter becomes the mind, awareness 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 theory.

Google crestroyer theory, and find it instantly.

http://crestroyer...-theory/
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2012
What if the speed of light varies through time and space?
It's just dual view to space-time deforms. What is curving here: the path of light or the space-time itself?

http://www.aether...vity.gif
Rohitasch
1 / 5 (1) Feb 04, 2012
If matter can be contained within magnetic fields, how do they contain antimatter? With antimagnetic fields? Sure they do...

Anti-magnetic fields are the same as magnetic fields with reversed polarity. Wakey wakey!
BNana
1 / 5 (1) Feb 17, 2012
Gravitation Repulsion -Plus merging the existing physic theories.
(Neg Force)Black Holes matter we see flows into them, is ex-spelled as Antimatter which we do not see as it disappears out the other side which is Dark Matter. Located in Dark Void.
(Pos Force)the Gravitation attraction forces from our neighboring galaxys. Dark Matter located in Dark Void
The Dark Energy is the space and area physicist calculate exists, are the other dimensions beyond our 4. Located in Dark Void.
The Universal Balance
Iourii Gribov
1 / 5 (3) Mar 12, 2012
If to try to predict, what will give the so delicate antihydrogen experiment: The spectral data could be very similar to the hydrogen, but if the antihydrogen gravity will present us a pure antigravity(?), as predicted Massimo Villata Dark Energy in the Local Void. and corresponding periodical matter-antimatter (gravity-antigravity) concept (see Gribov periodical Multiverse). This kind of matter-antimatter antigravity was even forbidden to discuss, but Perlmutter discovered the universe DE-accelerating expansion . Fortunately, physics is experimental science.
Kinedryl
1 / 5 (2) Mar 12, 2012
The spectral data aren't related to gravity of antimatter, but the gravity between antimatter and antimatter. This gravity is attractive from perspective of antimatter but because the antiparticles are living at inverse time, we can expect the weak repulsive behaviour at the very end. But this repulsion will not compensate even the gravitational attraction of antiproton and positron, the coulombic attraction the less. IMO the difference in spectral lines observed would be well bellow the experimental limit achievable.
Iourii Gribov
1 / 5 (3) Mar 12, 2012
The corresponding Periodical Multiverse contains equal quantity of matter-antimatter, with theoretically estimated DE / (DM OM).. ratio ~74%/26%. Matter and antimatter clusters are placed along 2D-bubble's surfaces, voids are empty. Composite weightless Diracian-like superfluid vacuum has the (e-/e ) composite-ghost supersymmetry. The Higgs bosons are excluded by the 3D-waveguided rest-mass creation mechanism. It contains plenty of physically equal, overlapped dark Universes, with enormous density of hyper-civilizations (placed proximately near 10 -100 light minutes in a R4-distance around via Milky Way galaxy).
Iourii Gribov
1 / 5 (3) Mar 12, 2012
The corresponding Periodical Multiverse contains equal quantity of matter-antimatter, with theoretically estimated DE / (DM OM).. ratio ~74%/26%. Matter and antimatter clusters are placed along 2D-bubble's surfaces, voids are empty. Composite-weightless Diracian-like superfluid vacuum has the (e-/e ) is composite-ghost with ghostly supersymmetry without need in elementary sparticles. The Higgs bosons are excluded by the 3D-waveguided rest-mass creation mechanism. Equal Periodical Universes/Untiuniverses have the same SM-particles and physics. There are plenty of physically equal, overlapped dark Universes, with enormous density of similar hyper-civilizations (placed proximately near 10 -100 light minutes in a R4-distance around via Milky Way galaxy).
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 14, 2012
There are plenty of physically equal, overlapped dark Universes, with enormous density of similar hyper-civilizations (placed proximately near 10 -100 light minutes in a R4-distance around via Milky Way galaxy).


It is rather hard to parse all of that but it looks like it is either from a different language or it is word wuze. I suspect both considering that claim of 'hyper civilizations' is written as if we knew of their existence via actual contact with alien civilizations.

Try rewriting that. Perhaps a link to a site in English would help. Of course if you actually have evidence of the Culture existing then, please, do produce it.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 14, 2012
Never mind. He has the same post on multiple threads.

It is almost certainly word wuze from a spamming Crank.

I would be pleased to find I am wrong so please to reply if you are serious. But spamming like that isn't a good sign.

Ethelred