origin of the universe. matter/antimatter

[granpa]

If we suppose that

1. matter and antimatter gravitationally repel

2. gravitational time dilation is proportional to the intensity of the gravitational field (i.e. an event horizon never forms)

3. gravitational collapse to denser and denser states of matter continues almost indefinitely. (i.e. a singularity never forms)

3. the universe began with a single star that was so big that pair production was occurring in its core.

 

As the neutral antimatter in the star made its way to the surface and was expelled

the pressure at the center of the star would increase.

This would cause more gravitational collapse which would create more energy

which would produce still more antimatter.

This would result in a runaway vicious circle as the star expelled billions of galaxies worth of neutral antimatter.

It would only stop when it finally underwent some kind of big bang.

 

edit:Could the universe have begun with a single particle?

if in addition to baryons (lets call them class 1 particles) and leptons (lets call them class 2 particles)

there are also higher classes of particles (class 3, 4 , 5...)

each with less mass and larger size (some might be as big as planets or even bigger) than the class below it

then its conceivable that the universe may have begun with a single huge class X particle

that was unstable and collapsed and began spewing out class X-1 particles.

Later its core would collapse and it would spew out class X-2 particles.

Still later its core would collapse again and it would spew out class X-3 particles.

This would continue till eventually it destroyed itself in a big bang.

 

if there are class 0, -1, -2... particles then they might constitute

the manifold that resulted from the big bang that forms our 3D universe.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/34107-manifoldslong-range-forces

 

of course, matter and antimatter repelling gravitationally would also explain (or rather do away with) the matter antimatter asymmetry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_interaction_of_antimatter#Motivations_for_antigravity

Supporters argue that antimatter antigravity would explain several important physics questions. Besides the already mentioned prediction of CP violation, they argue that it explains two cosmological paradoxes. The first is the apparent local lack of antimatter: by theory antimatter and matter would repel each other gravitationally, forming separate matter and antimatter galaxies. These galaxies would also tend to repel one another, thereby preventing possible collisions and annihilations.

 

This same galactic repulsion is also endorsed as a potential explanation to the observation of a flatly accelerating universe. If gravity was always attractive, the expansion of the universe might be expected to decelerate and eventually contract into a big crunch. Using redshift observations, astronomers and physicists estimate that instead, the size of the universe is expanding and the rate of expansion is accelerating at an approximately constant rate. Several theories have been proposed to explain this observation within the context of an always-attractive gravity. On the other hand, supporters of antigravity argue that if mutually repulsive, equal amounts of matter and antimatter would precisely offset any attraction

 

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/9412/9412234v1.pdf

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/antimatter_fall.html

In theory, antimatter dropped over the surface of the Earth should fall down. However,

the issue has never been successfully experimentally tested

. The theoretical grounds for expecting antimatter to fall down are very strong, so virtually all physicists expect antimatter to fall down -- however, some physicists believe that antimatter might fall down with a different acceleration than that of ordinary matter. Since this has never been experimentally tested, it's important to keep an open mind...

So what we would really like to have is a laboratory experiment where we simply drop some antimatter in a lab, and see how fast it falls. This has not yet been done...

Most people expect that antiatoms will fall down. But it is important to keep an open mind -- we have never directly observed the effect of gravity on antiparticles on Earth. This experiment, if successful, will definitely be "one for the textbooks."

 

I think its important to point out that light would still be bent by gravity due to the gravitational time dilation.

Energy would have inertial mass but could not have any gravitational mass.

The equivalence principle would be explained by:

F

₂

=-G*M

_g1

M

_i2

/ r

²

F

₂

=M

_i2

a

₂

which gives a

₂

=-G*M

_g1

/ r

²

(acceleration of Mass

₂

is independent of the mass of Mass

₂

regardless of whether M

_i2

= M

_g2

)

 

If M

_i2

and M

_g2

differed by only a very small amount

(for instance by the binding energy of the nucleus) then how would we know?

F

₁

would not be equal to F

₂

but the net force would be so small that i can see no way of testing it.

 

Life in the universe:

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/34380-interstellar-dust-grainsliving-molecules/page__view__findpost__p__439137

 

Pre-space existence:

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/34418-existence-without-space/page__view__findpost__p__439686

Edited January 18, 2011 by granpa
multiple post merged

[Klaynos]

1. Seems to be fundamentally flawed.

 

A positron and an electron as an example are strongly attracted to each other.

[granpa]

sorry. I've editted the original post. it now reads:

 

1. matter and antimatter gravitationally repel

[Klaynos]

sorry. I've editted the original post. it now reads:

 

1. matter and antimatter gravitationally repel

 

Again, this is not true.

 

They gravitationally attract.

[granpa]

and obviously it would do away with the matter antimatter asymmetry since they would exist in equal amounts in the universe.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=36878

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=36881

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=36879

Edited December 17, 2008 by granpa

[mooeypoo]

and obviously it would do away with the matter antimatter asymmetry since they would exist in equal amounts in the universe.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=36878

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=36881

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=36879

Referencing your own posts that contain no other references does not constitute proper substantiation.

[Klaynos]

Again, this is not true.

 

They gravitationally attract.

 

You NEED to address this.

[granpa]

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=35850&highlight=antimatter+gravity

[Klaynos]

yes? your point?

 

You have failed to address the problem.

[mooeypoo]

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=35850&highlight=antimatter+gravity

In case it wasn't clear, referencing ANY non-peer reviewed work (specifically one that has no OTHER external references) does not constitute substantiation. Even more so when it is a post in the Pseudoscience and Speculation forum.

 

Do you have ANY valid resources to back your statements up?

[granpa]

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/antimatter_fall.html

[Klaynos]

Which clearly states the theoretial argument is strongly in matter antimatter attraction.

[granpa]

it clearly states:

 

In theory, antimatter dropped over the surface of the Earth should fall down. However, the issue has never been successfully experimentally tested. The theoretical grounds for expecting antimatter to fall down are very strong, so virtually all physicists expect antimatter to fall down -- however, some physicists believe that antimatter might fall down with a different acceleration than that of ordinary matter. Since this has never been experimentally tested, it's important to keep an open mind...

 

So what we would really like to have is a laboratory experiment where we simply drop some antimatter in a lab, and see how fast it falls. This has not yet been done...

 

Most people expect that antiatoms will fall down. But it is important to keep an open mind -- we have never directly observed the effect of gravity on antiparticles on Earth. This experiment, if successful, will definitely be "one for the textbooks."

 

 

 

we wont know till the actual experiment is done. this is speculation. my speculation makes the testable prediction that antimatter wall fall upwards.

 

speculations policy:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/announcement.php?f=59&a=13

 

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/9412234

Edited December 18, 2008 by granpa

[mooeypoo]

And as the speculation policy CLEARLY states:

 

Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure.

[granpa]

my speculation makes the testable prediction that antimatter wall fall upwards.

[mooeypoo]

my speculation makes the testable prediction that antimatter wall fall upwards.

But it's based on no factual data.

 

I predict that unicorns eat cookies.

That's a testable prediction. At least it is theoretically, for when we find unicorns.

 

It's also unbased - I need to prove unicorns exist, and I need to base my prediction on *SOMETHING* realistic, something physical, something that will transform the prediction from pure hypothetical mythology to a relevant discussion topic.

[Klaynos]

my speculation makes the testable prediction that antimatter wall fall upwards.

 

No, your speculation requires the assumption that it would fall up. Not the other way around.

[Riogho]

This is a novel idea. Citing yourself! I'll have to try that in class sometime.

[iNow]

This is a novel idea. Citing yourself! I'll have to try that in class sometime.

 

Actually, there's nothing new about that at all, and it happens all of the time. The difference, however, is that you must cite something which was published in a peer-reviewed journal. Citing yourself, I guess, is not the same as citing a work which you've had published after peer-review.

 

My evolutionary psych professor did it all of the time. He had numerous works which referenced previous works he'd done.

[granpa]

it predicts that dents wil be found in the manifold probably containing the burnt out remains of supermassive stars. these stars were the first to form. globular clusters probably formed around them so we should have a pretty good idea of how many to look for. (obviously the clusters eventually moved away from the dents but the central star would still be there)

 

it also predicts that these might be found:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=453726&postcount=3

 

it might also explain the lack of smoothness of the cmb.

 

what does string theory predict?

Edited December 20, 2008 by granpa
multiple post merged

[Klaynos]

You've still not addressed my issue with you (probably) flawed assumption.

[granpa]

the only assumption I made in producing this theory was the assumption that the simplest explanation for the big bang and for the (supposed) matter antimatter imbalance was probably right. everything else was inferred. you can call the idea that antimatter falls upward an assumption since we dont really know but then you have to call the idea that it falls downward an assumption too.

Edited December 20, 2008 by granpa

[Klaynos]

So how did you derive that antimatter is gravitationally repelled by matter? There's no experimental evidence so this derivation must be mathematical from first principles. If it's not it's an assumption. All the theoretical backing I've seen has been for matter antimatter attraction (gravitationally), so that implies the assumption (and any results) are invalid.

[thedarkshade]

granpa, gravity is always attractive, always!

 

A positron and an electron as an example are strongly attracted to each other.

But that is not due to gravitational 'non-repulsion'. Even if they gravitationaly repelled, the attractive electrostaic force would win over repulsive gravitational force.

[Klaynos]

But that is not due to gravitational 'non-repulsion'. Even if they gravitationaly repelled, the attractive electrostaic force would win over repulsive gravitational force.

 

This is of course true (if the repulsive gravity has the same force, who said it should?), but I didn't know we were exclusively talking about gravitation at the time