February 1, 2012 report
Repulsive gravity as an alternative to dark energy (Part 2: In the quantum vacuum)
(PhysOrg.com) -- During the past few years, CERN physicist Dragan Hajdukovic has been investigating what he thinks may be a widely overlooked part of the cosmos: the quantum vacuum. He suggests that the quantum vacuum has a gravitational charge stemming from the gravitational repulsion of virtual particles and antiparticles. Previously, he has theoretically shown that this repulsive gravity can explain several observations, including effects usually attributed to dark matter. Additionally, this additional gravity suggests that we live in a cyclic Universe (with no Big Bang) and may provide insight into the nature of black holes and an estimate of the neutrino mass. In his most recent paper, published in Astrophysics and Space Science, he shows that the quantum vacuum could explain one more observation: the Universe’s accelerating expansion, without the need for dark energy.
“The quantum vacuum was predicted theoretically more than 60 years ago,” Hajdukovic told PhysOrg.com. “Today, there is significant experimental evidence that the quantum vacuum exists. I have decided to combine one reality (the quantum vacuum) with one hypothesis (the negative gravitational charge of antiparticles) and to study the consequences. The hypothesis of the gravitational repulsion between matter and antimatter is older than half a century, but before me no one has used it in the combination with the quantum vacuum. ... The results are surprising; there is potential to explain [the Universe’s accelerating expansion] in the framework of the quantum vacuum enriched with the gravitational repulsion between matter and antimatter.”
According to Hajdukovic, gravity in the quantum vacuum arises from the gravitational repulsion between the positive gravitational charge of matter and the (hypothetical) negative gravitational charge of antimatter. While matter and antimatter are gravitationally self-attractive, they are mutually repulsive. (This part is similar to Massimo Villata’s theory from part 1, in which negatively charged antimatter exists in voids rather than in the quantum vacuum.) Although the quantum vacuum does not contain real matter and antimatter, short-lived virtual particles and virtual antiparticles could momentarily appear and form pairs, becoming gravitational dipoles.
“If particles and antiparticles have gravitational charges of the opposite sign, a sufficiently strong gravitational field can convert a virtual pair into a real one,” Hajdukovic explained. “It is not a new hypothesis but a consequence of the Schwinger mechanism, well known in quantum field theories.”
In the new paper, Hajdukovic calculates that the energy density of the gravitational dipoles in the quantum vacuum is the correct order of magnitude to act as the cosmological constant, or the force causing the Universe’s accelerating expansion. While this agreement may not seem that remarkable at first, it becomes impressive in the context of the much less agreeable predictions of quantum field theory, which predicts the energy density of the quantum vacuum to be at least 30 - and up to 120 - orders of magnitude larger than the observed dark energy density. Hajdukovic’s calculations also estimate that the Universe’s expansion began accelerating when the Universe was about half of its present size, which is only slightly earlier than the prediction of standard cosmology.
Interestingly, one significant difference between Hajdukovic’s quantum vacuum model and standard cosmology is that the former predicts that the acceleration is decreasing, while the latter predicts it is increasing. Very different predictions for the fate of the Universe result from these differences.
“The series of publications shows that the quantum vacuum, enriched with the hypothesis of the negative gravitational charge for antiparticles, has the potential to explain the observed phenomena in astrophysics and cosmology without invoking dark matter and dark energy and mysterious mechanisms for inflation and matter-antimatter asymmetry,” Hajdukovic said. “If antimatter really has negative gravitational charge (which could be revealed by the AEGIS experiment at CERN), the above papers have started a new scientific revolution. But the papers are important even if antimatter has no negative gravitational charge, because they encourage reconsidering the quantum vacuum as a key for the understanding of the Universe.”
In addition to the AEGIS experiment in CERN, which is designed to reveal the gravitational properties of antihydrogen, Hajdukovic said that other experiments are also investigating the gravitational properties of antimatter. For instance, physicists at the University of California, Riverside, have recently begun studying the gravitational properties of positronium (an electron-positron pair).
Part 1. Repulsive gravity as an alternative to dark energy (In voids)
Explore further
© 2011 PhysOrg.com
User comments
http://www.presto...ndex.htm
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 Torus is a particle of discrete exchange, from one point to another. The object exchanges position and momentum. While the spherical wave shows position, and the conic wave shows momentum, the torus shows both at the same time, and has a dynamic finite unbounded reality. The volumes of the cone, sphere, and torus are mathematically related as static objects.
The Universe is a local density fluctuation. (a wave pulse) On this local density fluctuation wave, lesser wave forms may exist. All simple wave forms are also local density fluctuations, and as such are indeed universes in their own right, where other waves may exist.
The rubber sheet model of gravity and curved space translates directly to the propagating torus with angular acceleration. Acceleration is downward on the rubber sheet and outward on the torus. The tension field that separates the inside of the torus from the outside holds its shape as a simple two dimensional field of space and time just as the rubber sheet does.
Counterquestion:
If there is no universe (of any kind) - and hence no spacetime: How long does such a non-state persist? No 'time' at all. Existence is not so much a creation as a tautology - there is just no alternative to it.*
(* logically. Though I'd be the first to admit that the concept of logic is not necessarily applicable to non-states)
Much better scientifically founded explanation than the BBT and DM and DE artificial constructs.
ugliest. website. ever
http://www.presto...ndex.htm
Therefore the ideas, such artefact physically doesn't exist physically are both unsubstantial, both they lack the new testable predictions in which they could be validated. Instead of it, the ignorance of space-time concept in contemporary physics would cause a lot of conceptual and practical problems.
Also are you saying that only at a medium distance antimatter tends to stablize universal expansion? Do you have an explaination for this mechanism? Because to me it would seem that this same stablization would be "universal", not just local. Per this theory is this what stabelizes expantion at near galactic scales?
http://www.aether...ion3.gif
These gradients indeed repulse mutually, being of negative space-time curvature. It manifests itself with kick of black holes during their mutual collisions and coalesce.
http://www.scienc...0541.htm
Man, I feel a disturbance in the 'tard today.
This guy is even farther out from mainstream than that Villas guy from Part 1. The Schwinger model has a couple of big problems. It predicts magnetic monopoles at scales where we have not yet found them to exist, and it failes to predict one type of boson that we know exists.
To say that the Schwinger model is "well known in particle physics" without mentioning that it isn't used any more is kinda disengenuous. It's like making a new theory based on the idea that the Earth is flat and saying "the flat earth theory is well-known amongst cartographers".
I'll say the same thing I said in Part 1: He's talking about negative mass. That's the only way to get negative gravity. We know the mass of anti-particles. We have measured them many times. We know their mass is not negative. His negative gravity theory ends there.
If the density of virtual fermion anti-fermion pairs exceeds that of virtual bosons you have an attractive dark matter field that mimics w = 0 CDM. Repulsive dark energy is the opposite. For more details see stardrive.org website.
And are two of these particle-antiparticle pairs gravitationaly neurtal to each other? Then how can the voids themselves expand?
I still think the quantum vacuum is a (significant) portion of the answer. And DE haters: no one said that DE is not somthing known. Its not like we have to find something very exotic in space, with a label reading: Dark Energy.
The exact same way that gravitational attraction did not result in a giant black hole out of the whole universe. At small scales the repulsion is the same strength as attraction and insignificant to the motion required for particle anniliation and impacts
http://wwwscienti...cal.html
http://en.wikiped...esonator
http://en.wikiped...c_mirror
http://en.wikiped...volution
http://en.wikiped...t_method
http://en.wikiped...l_matrix
http://en.wikiped...solution
Good point. If the starting point is "nothing", only entities that can appear "from nothing" will appear. And if they can exist they will appear into existence, and virtual particles could be an example of it. The "total nothingness" is just a concept invented by humans, it seems intuitive but it is not a physical possibility. The quantum void can create what we perceive as "space-time", just as virtual particles seem to appear "from nothing".
A slight paradigm shift, so to say:
Max Tegmark, a MIT teacher: The Mathematical Universe
http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0646
versus
Alan P. Lightman, a MIT teacher: We are living in a universe uncalculable by science.
http://www.harper.../0083720
I'm not sure a "Big Bang" is precluded by this quantum vacuum hypothesis. What's precluded by accelerating expansion is a "Big Crunch."
Here's an idea (probably not original): imagine an expanding universe. Somewhere within it, a "Big Bang" happens, and within the old expanding universe, you now have a smaller universe, also expanding. Wash, rinse, repeat. There, we've got a cycle. (Not saying we *understand* the cycle, but we've got one.)
With this model, you'd perhaps expect to find echoes of previous "Big Bangs" in the cosmological background radiation, hmm?
How far we can see out into the fringes of older universes is limited by red-shift, probably. Past where we can see, there may be old fringes racing away from us at nearly the speed of light and red-shifted to undetectability.
It's just fun thought-experiment, though. I'll let the experts (I'm not one) sort out what's true.
As I pointed out in the other thread, I don't think he's talking about "negative mass" (neither guy), I think it's mass with negative gravitational charge. Not that I can make much sense of this, though it makes a little more sense than part 1, with the vacuum and cosmological constant. IOW, gravity would have /- charge like EM. People don't think of gravity in terms of charge because it is only positive,... but it is a "charge".
Interesting take, if a little stilted toward a semantic argument - how long does a non-existent state persist?
An alternative take, since we're getting philosophical, might be that the BB wasn't the singular source of spacetime, but an event which occurred in an overarching and infinite spacetime manifold. In this hypothetical scenario, you could very well ask the question how long it took for our BB to occur (assuming there are similar events to compare them to from a privileged perspective). This is a different take to a (single) cyclic universe - more like a bubble universe model in which spacetime always exists.
Anyway, it's all fun speculation which we'll likely never know the answer to.
Edit: I see Urgelt has posted a similar concept during my post :)
And for people, who like dark energy and dark matter, please try Dark energy is in front of your eyes
http://www.vacuum...id=14=en
At the sub-atomic level particles cannot be picked up and put on to a scale to get an exertion force. You can't weigh sub-atomic particles wrt earths gravitational field to find their mass.
It is more complex than you realize.
Sub-atomic particles are quantized, their energy levels are measured and relativistically converted to mass from the equivalence principle.
The amount of mass for antiparticles has been derived but whether it is positive or negative can only be evaluated by getting a substantial amount of antimatter together and weighing it. If the weight is negative in earths gravitational field then so is the mass.
Antiparticle experiments have given us the energy levels from which we've derived mass levels, whether the mass is negative or positive hasn't been experimentally confirmed.
No mate it doesn't say that. Read again.
http://www.presto...ndex.htm
Like mentioned before in the comments, I'd think that repulsive gravity would indeed imply negative or imaginairy mass which is not a know property of antimatter. What is even worse, it would show tachyonic (faster than light) behaviour and that's not what we're seeing with antimatter at all. It has mass and it does keep to our speeds.
The problem is that then you move the goalpoast simply to the larger structure. Because then you have to say how long THAT superstructure exists and where it came from. (or, if we don't postulate it as having a temporal dimension we need to ask how big it is - which is basically the same problem)
That is why I said 'universe of any kind'. This includes any overarching structures...or WSOGMM (Whole Sort Of General Mish Mash) as Douglas Adams put it.
I perceive the problem of "something ex nihilo" as the erroneous notion that 'nothingnes' has an existence of its own. It's like the number zero. There exists no ENTITY that represents zero elephants. It has no reality. Zero is just a (helpful) concept. Much like infinity.
Would we see the difference between pos.<>neg. mass in those experiments?
No. No serious theory includes true infinities. That leads to all sorts of problems. If you have no infinities then 'everything' is not possible.
Note that these thnigs are expressed as limits - not actually possible values in these theories.
The speed of a massive object is limited because it takes energy to accelerate an object. The energy in the universe is limited. So even if you converted all, except for one most fundamental massive particle, into energy and used it toaccelerate that particle the mass would not reach infinity.
Same with black holes. The crushing of the interior mass does not (presumably) stop as there is no counterforce large enough. But that does not mean that an infinity is instantaneously achieved. The compacting process takes time. even if we waited for the entire lifetime of the universe (the time until the last black hole evaporates) there wold not be an infinity.
huh? There's no such thing as anti-gravity matter, as far as we know. Where do you propose that anti-gravity matter has been observed?
Antimatter, on the other hand, has been observed in many places. It looks just like normal matter and has the same electrical, magnetic and visual properties as it's normal matter counterparts. This has been confirmed many times through observations of antimatter found in nature and in particle accelerators. We know that antimatter does not have anti-gravity or negative mass.
Rawa1: There's no such thing as antigravity, so stop talking about it as if you know anything about it. It's like bigfoot, okay?
When you're talking about things that happen inside our Universe, then you can talk about things like the quantum void, spacetime, and events.
On the other hand, when you are talking about things outside our Universe, or "before" our Universe, all those notions go out the window. There's no quantum void without a Universe. The entire notion of an "event", as you know it, is a non-entity. There's not even "nothing" without a Universe for the "nothing" to not exist in.
It is a mistake to think that quantum theory applies in that case.
Your idea of an object with normal mass but negative gravity doesn't make any sense. By the definitions of mass and gravity as we know them, that isn't possible. No mathematically consistent theory shows negative gravity without having negative mass. String theory, general relativity, etc. They all require negative mass to produce negative gravity, and we know that antiparticles do not have negative mass.
To the moron who tried to tell me that we can't measure the mass of subatomic particles on page 2:
good lord dude, try reading!@! I just googled it and was able to find good info in three of the first five links that came up. Here's a good page from the University of Illinois:
http://van.physic...?id=1209
They describe a few different methods that are used to get extremely accurate mass measurements.
That takes us back to Neumonon. We would DEFINITELY know if antiparticles had negative momentum (product of negative gravity)
Gary, I think the crackpots are starting to get to you. We have to tell the foul from the fair...and from the fowl and pick our battles: only a few crackpots are truly worthy of having the righteous rip them a new one. And the Neutron Revulsion Guy--let not his blasphemous name be spoken in these unworthy halls!--has appartently imploded into a singularity, thereby invalidating his own theory...so that's one less crackpot already. Deep breath, man! Deep breath! ;^)
Ah, but yes, the idea that we can't measure the mass of particles as negative or positive was indeed pretty moronic. Aw, what the hell...go ahead, rip 'em a new one!
G.
But when I say, the general relativity theory of black holes is BS because it cannot lead into infinities predicted, I'll get downvoted in the same way. Now suddenly the same infinities would be expected if not required with religious trolls.
Antimatter floats up in Earths gravity.
This is experimental evidence. All other forces removed; gravity isolated; antimatter falling away from source of gravity.
This proves matter to be gravitationally repulsive to antimatter.
-Feynman would call it confirmed.
This moron has not seen antimatter fall up down left or right or in any opposite polar direction available around a point of incidence (of which there are literally infinite of).
I suspect the mass is not negative. There is a lot of supporting evidence of this but no conclusive experimental data.
If this happened to be the case then all of the current data would fall out of place math wise so a theoretical reworking would take place. This has happened many a times over in my experience.
How do you "know?"
Maybe you're privy to data I'm not, if so please share.
-hypothetical situation
Says the guy can't produce any evidence, only vague analogies (wave on water surface, anyone?), borks up the math (but draws pretty doodles), dismisses physical evidence and expert observations out of hand, and thinks the whole of the scientific community is one big cash grab conspiracy that's plotting againt his big idea and cold fusion! Way to go Jigga! So yes, just in case you missed it...you ARE worthy.
Interesting article, BTW. But you know what, even if reason did evolve to win arguments, it can only do that because REASON WORKS. You should give it a try sometime.
That's a logical question with a very simple answer. Are you familiar with the equation F=MA (force=mass*acceleration)? If you do like the guy from University of Illinois said, and shoot an antiparticle through a field, there is a force applied to the antiparticle. If the mass is normal then the antiparticle will move in a predictable direction. If the mass is negative (which is necessary for anti-gravity) then the antiparticle will move in the opposite direction expected due to the force. If you rewrite the F=MA equation as F/M=A and you make the M negative then the acceleration changes direction. Using the same equation, you can also see why negative gravity gives negative mass. F/A=M. So, if gravity F is negative and acceleration is positive then mass is negative. I stole that from wiki. You can look it up under the wiki entry on antimater. Thats a really old math proof.
Go look up the difference between dark matter and dark energy and you'll see where your mistake was in the lines I just quoted.
Of course Galileo faced a conspiracy, sometimes conspiracies actually occur. But that's not really your problem is it?
Can you tell the difference between conspiracy and personal failure? Your problem is of the latter sort.
Tell us Jigga, What results can you derive from DAWT (rhymes with TWAT)? What are it's postulates? What PRECISE predictions can it make? What PARTICLES does it predict, what are their properties and how do you derive those mathematically from the theory. What physical system can it model with experimentally verifiable results? TELL US GIGGER, TELL US!!! SHOW US GIGGER, SHOW US!!!
Cal, I'm really seriously interested in knowing how many credit hours in college you had in THERMODYNAMICS. You sling this "infinity" stuff around as you know there is some point beyond Earth's solar orbit whereby all the laws of Thermodynamics breaks down, which may mean you really do know something because you've apparently been there.....or Einstein & a lot of the rest of us are just not shmart enough to get to your level of intellect.
OK, I'll start, 10 credit hours of Thermodynamics after 14 in Chemistry & 10 hours physics....your turn
Generally speaking, this speaks to your competence, so to speak. What Benni is kindly trying to point out is that you have none. Capiche?
It's NOT my idea, nor I'm I not defending this guys theory at all. I pointing out to you now for the 3rd time that the above article speaks of "negative gravitational charge", not negative gravitational mass.
Please see the link below in the section on Villata where it explicitly says "there is no need to change the sign of the gravitational mass of antimatter",...
http://en.wikiped...igravity
Again this does not mean that I can make sense of this idea.
Again, from Villata's web site,.. it is stated explicitly, "Villata poses a new theory which assumes that both matter and antimatter have positive mass and energy density"
http://iopscience...ulltext/
Seriously, questions of this nature are highly unlikely to be settled on this forum or by this auditorium. Let us all instead wait and see what the real smart people will come up with few years from now.
http://www.aether...arge.gif
This gravitational charge apparently doesn't belong into 4D general relativity, as it's five-dimensional concept. It plays well with water surface model of space-time. The idea is, if you deform this space-time upward or downward, it becomes expanded and it slows down the surface waves spreading in this place like gravitational lens - no matter in which direction the space-time is deformed. But the gravitational interaction of both deforms will still differ - the deforms of the same orientation will repulse mutually like the equally charged bodies in electrostatic.
@Cal: You are neither "sanely" or "scientifically" opposing anything. It is not scientific to squeeze something with infinite dimensions (AWT) into something with proven finite dimensions (our Universe).
If you'd have ever had a course in Thermodynamics, you would understand energy systems can function only inside a closed boundary, our Universe is that energy system. Just because we're unable to see the boundaries with present day optics, doesn't give anyone license to declare they don't exist, but that's what you'd like for us to believe.
We know the Universe is finite because we can measure the total strength of its' gravitational field, thereby calculating its total mass, and it isn't infinity or gravity would be immeasurable.
However there is a possibility that space is full of gravitational waves at high frequencies that cannot be observed. Any created close to the big bang would have energy comparable to the CMB, and not make up much missing mass at all. Perhaps there are other ways to produce them. If space is foamy like at quantum scales then I agree there would be too much energy tied up in it, so this option can be ruled out. But may be there is an element of truth.
http://aetherwave...ves.html
The two halves of the pair may repell each other, but two (or more) such pairs would neither repell other pairs, nor normal visible matter. Not because of antigravity anyway.
And even if that would be the case, the expansion should then occur around the edges of the voids, where they interact with the filaments of normal matter, and not generaly throughout the voids.
Because the density fluctuations of Brownian noise always manifest itself like the mixture of more and less dense places with positive and negative curvature of water surface, the Hajdukovic model has a close connection to LeSage theory too.
What if there is just quantum field and it's producing phenomena we refer to as gravity, dark energy, dark matter?
It's a force. It has an effect. Whether it is fundamental (i.e. whether it is independent of all other forces or cannot be broken down further into partial forces) is dubious. There seem to be no truly independent 'parts' to this universe - this is why so many people are looking at ways to unify the forces we know of.
36 orders of magnitude. Which is a bit more than a million billion (it's a million million million million million million...or a billon billion billion billion ....take your pick)
However, there seems to be no reason why the dfference in magnitude between force types should be small (or of any one particular magnitude)
Where in the Universe (the one we presently live in) has anything been measured moving at a speed that is "superluminal"? How was that mesurement made?
Let me caution you, you's better be good with your answer because I already have a comeback prepared.
http://www.nature...038.html
http://www.physik...20Vanner
I've noticed that also and to me the words negative gravitational charge are just that three words . It makes sense in a sentence like "The Pink Elephant " does ,at least there's a bar with that name.
The thing is ,the phrase "gravitational charge" is more or less assumed like an intuition .While I think it's fun to play with ideas is there any bases such a phrase ?
I seek the counsel of the community here . TX
He can say that as many times as he likes, but it violates the equivalency principle, along with several other basic tenates of modern theory. I believe the first law of thermodynamics is another one he can't get past, but the reason for that is a little tricky. The reasoning is like this: If he says that both matter and anti-matter both have positive mass, but opposite sign of gravity, then the matter will be attracted to the antimatter, but the antimatter will be driven away from the matter. You end up with a perpetual motion machine where the matter and antimatter pair will self-accelerate in the direction of the antimatter forever. If you hooked them both up to a wheel, you would have unlimited energy. That violates the first law of thermodynamics. Impossible.
All right, so let's stick to the subject at hand: GRAVITY
No. No information is transmitted in quantum entanglement. Not superluminal nor subluminal. Read up on it.
There's no real point in arguing with you until you get some basic scientific education. And the definition of information is THE most basic part which all other sciences rely on.
Yes, there is a perfectly valid theoretical basis for the phrase "gravitational charge": gravitomagnetism (aka the Lense-Thirring effect aka frame dragging). In the weak field limit a body in motion exhibits secondary field characteristics which can be mathematically expressed *precisely analogous to a moving electrical charge*, except with a sign inversion on the force vectors (i.e. like gravitational charges attract, not repel). This means that there are valid gravitational analogues to electromagnetic induction, and the phrase "gravitational charge" is as supportable as the phrase "electrical charge".
Actually, based on our current data set, it's perfectly possible that "the equivalence principle" may require a slight edit like this: inertial mass is equivalent to the [absolute] magnitude of the gravitational mass of a body.
In fact -all- of your arguments against this concept are based on the same theoretical underpinnings that this theory is challenging, so your argument is circular. None of the current -data- refutes the idea that antimatter may gravitationally oppose ordinary matter. Also, this proposed concept does not violate any of the "basic tenets" of modern physics (because even the concept of "exotic matter" that you keep incorrectly equating to this proposal preserves all of the customary conservation laws, see R. Forward, H. Bondi).
So the only truly scientific (skeptical) position to take is to wait for the experimental evidence to settle the question
Note that gravitational charge induced with quantum noise in vacuum is selfrepulsive, it's formed AROUND massive bodies and it prohibits their ultimate gravitational collapse into singularities in the same way, like the quantum noise prohibits the expansion of quantum wave packets into infinity.
A magic sphere with a barrier preventing any energy from escaping including blackbody radiation. Within the sphere
anti-matter is created. As a result the "weight" of the sphere decreases. Once anti-matter container is full the "lighter" sphere is then rolled up a hill.
Once at the top of the hill the magnetic container is switched off converting matter to energy. The sphere is then rolled back down the hill where it origionally started out. While the "mass" of the sphere never changed (e=mc^2) its "weight" did resulting in a change of potential energy atop the hill. What happened?
Potential energy for the anti-matter would have to be defined as inversely to the height; 1/h, so creating the anti-matter at the bottom of the hill would be like creating matter at the top of the hill; conserved.
1/h^2
Oh, now I understand. They're proposing an idea with zero observational support, which requires that several key concepts of modern theory be rewritten, and I'm being circular for pointing out that they are crackpots? I've looked at their work and they are using a mathematical trick that I find highly dubious and ignoring the implications in regard to other parts of physical theory. Additionally, as I've pointed out before, observational evidence is really solid in this regard. The implications of what they are suggesting would be observable in particle experiments already carried out. We create and observe antimatter frequently in colliders. It acts exactly as predicted by current theory, and not as it would if this crackpot was right. He's a bigfoot tracker, or a loch ness photographer.
I don't mean to be rude GSwift but not only do you not understand, but you also are being very rude in your demeanor. I've tried to explain to you that weight is not measured in particle colliders, energy levels are. From the energy levels we deduce the mass.
To get gravitational info you need to measure the weight.
Read what Maxwell wrote again and send him a pm. He seems to know what he is talking about very well. Maybe he can help you out because you clearly are confused about what data is out there, and why you can't state with any degree of certainty the things you state.
BTW to say, some wave is "charged" sounds strange for me. Literally every 2nd word connection in your post is used out of its usual context and it manifests incoherent way of thinking. Not to say about factual nonsenses like the "that moon's gravity is much stronger towards the earth". Du you really believe, you could jump higher at the opposite side of Moon?
illustr. 1 cube with a thousand particles inside grows by 1 cube in each direction (3 cubes high from every direction). Now you have 27 cubes with 1000 particles inside the whole available volume - means about 37 individual particles inside each individual cube.
As distance increases dispersion takes place.
Gravity works the same way. As distance increases gravitational energy disperses. The further away you get from an object the less gravitational energy is available in each cube of space.
If you create a sphere of 1cm thickness at a uniform distance from Earth within that sphere the total gravitational energy is the same no matter what that distance is. The sphere radius is not significant when tabulating the total gravitational energy..
Actually you can jump higher on the closer side than you can on the farside. Just like the moon pulls the water causing tides, so does earth pull on the moon. Earths gravity pulls you further off the moon when you jump on the close side, when you jump on the far side the Earth actually pulls you as well making your jump shorter. (assuming equal force is exerted in the jump phase)
A massive body emits gravitational energy into space.
This means space is attracting the gravitational energy of that massive body.
Space is receiving gravitational energy a massive body radiates therefore space has antigravitational properties. A massive body radiates gravity into surrounding space, surrounding space antiradiates gravitational energy at the massive body.
Without connecting space information cannot travel from one object to another, therefore space attracts energy from objects. Space is a conduit from one point to another. Space pulls information from the object it surrounds.
If there were no space a body would have nothing to radiate electromagnetic energy into, therefore space is antielectromagnetic.
If there were no space a body would have nothing to radiate gravitational energy into, therefore space is antigravitic.
Antimatter may have inversed forces to that of matter. Antimatter may act exactly opposite when subjected to a matter dominant field.
If antimatter is emitting antigravity towards matter then the effect felt from matters standpoint is negative antigravity, or just gravity. So antimatter sending antigravity towards matter is received as an increase in gravity from the matters standpoint.
From what I can tell, the techniques used to measure mass of antimatter appear to be sign independent. For example, measuring the amount of energy required to change an anti-proton orbital in antiprotonic helium would only measure the absolute value of mass.
Antimatter repulsing matter causes an increase in pressure upon the matter.
It is possible that antimatter is pushing matter together while the matter is attracting itself. Two opposing forces acting in unison upon each other.
Matter is helping antimatter stay together while antimatter is helping matter stay together.
It is only theory though until experiments on antimatter can take the necessary measurements.
A final attempt. A momentary detour to Wonderland should do it.
We begin in the Wonderland universe with two large metal spheres, in a remote region of space. You observe that the spheres appear to be electrically charged, because they're accelerating away from each other, and you know that like charges repel. Note that no conservation laws are being violated, and the momentum and energy add up as long as you account for the potential energy field that's driving the two metal spheres apart.
Then a queer voice crackles in over the intercom:
Our visible universe (matter shell abound antimatter sphere) is ripping virtual particles apart pulling matter in while repelling antimatter away.
(1.Antimatter Sphere 2.matter shell 3.antimatter shell 4.matter shell 5.antimatter shell.....infinity)
Continual growth (addition of energy) without breakage of conservation laws.
Universes stemming from universes.
The boundary, or the meeting point between counter-universes, has a line that sets the universal barrier. When a virtual particle pair finds itself divided by the line the virtual pair gets pulled into reality.
The boundary line breaks the connection of the virtual pair rendering both real in their respective universes.
Both universes grow in size.
The shell surrounding our shell is also pushing our shell towards the central sphere. (dark matter)
So the antimatter sphere that our shell surrounds is dark energy.
The shells could be separated by as little as a Planck length.
A survivable one another universe away.
Crossing 1 border line leaves you in an unsurvivable field (or universe).
Crossing 2 borders places you in a survivable field (universe)
http://www.mpi-hd...tter.htm
The AEGIS consortium building this experiment (a vastly superior successor to the ATHENA experiment that was too noisy to be decisive) is creating cold antihydrogen atoms and attempting to detect the tiny signal of the gravitational interaction between the atoms and the Earth. It is, of course, an outrageously difficult observation to achieve: forming antihydrogen is dicey enough without having to cool it down before it commits suicide with some enticing atom of ubiquitous matter, but also precisely-controlled conditions must prevail to eliminate any stray influences on the infinitesimal momentum of the antihydrogen.
I think this work is even more exciting than the search for the Higgs particle, honestly.
Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more