granpa Posted December 21, 2008 Author Share Posted December 21, 2008 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. besides all the reasons given here: http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/9412234 because it is the simplest explanation for the supposed matter antimatter imbalance which woud otherwise require new and bizzare physics. what could be simpler than 'there is no imbalance'? it does mean that energy isnt conserved but that in turn explains where all the matter/energy of the big bang came from. and gravity becomes exactly like the electric force having 2 charges. the only difference being the direction of the resulting force. again, what could be simpler? now I'm sure this wont convince you and you will have some response ready for this and I'm sure we could go on like this forever. so unless you have something truely though provoking to say then I have nothing more to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted December 21, 2008 Share Posted December 21, 2008 besides all the reasons given here:http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/9412234 Indeed they make some valid points, although I'm sceptical of some of them (MOND seems to now be a little more than controversial with several sets of experimental evidence that it just can't explain). On balance, I feel that most of the theoretical evidence points towards a normal gravitational response of anti-gravity. But we wont know until there is experimental evidence. because it is the simplest explanation for the supposed matter antimatter imbalance which woud otherwise require new and bizzare physics. what could be simpler than 'there is no imbalance'? it does mean that energy isnt conserved but that in turn explains where all the matter/energy of the big bang came from. Simple and correct is good in science, but simple and wrong is not. And I'm not sure this would deal with the imbalance, during the early(ish) universe everything was ionised, during this period why would the EM attraction not overcome the gravitational repulsion, as the repulsion (assuming a similar strength) would be tiny. and gravity becomes exactly like the electric force having 2 charges. the only difference being the direction of the resulting force. again, what could be simpler? See my comment about simplicity above. The standard model points towards gravitons being spin 2 particles which would remove the possibility of repulsive gravity, but I'm not entirely sure where this result comes from, so can't really comment any more. now I'm sure this wont convince you and you will have some response ready for this and I'm sure we could go on like this forever. so unless you have something truely though provoking to say then I have nothing more to say. Science is by fire, the burden of proof is on YOU, as it's your idea, and no one else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
granpa Posted December 21, 2008 Author Share Posted December 21, 2008 ionized or not it was neutral when averaged over any but the tiniest distances. I'm not trying to prove anything. its a hypothesis. the proof will come later when they measure the gravitational effect on antimatter directly and when they observe the center of this or some other galaxy with sufficient resolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted December 21, 2008 Share Posted December 21, 2008 OK, it was neutral overall, but all the negative particles would be attracted to the positive ones and repelled by the positive ones, there would be massive amounts of annihilation, at the very least we would be able to see evidence for this massive increase in photons... Have you seen the recent stuff about measuring stars near the centre of our galaxy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
granpa Posted December 21, 2008 Author Share Posted December 21, 2008 not if it all took place early enough. before the universe became transparent. yes. its fascinating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted December 21, 2008 Share Posted December 21, 2008 But the photons would still be here, just look at the CMBR... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
granpa Posted December 21, 2008 Author Share Posted December 21, 2008 that comes from after the universe became transparent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted December 21, 2008 Share Posted December 21, 2008 Darkages: 1-2Billion years. CMBR: 400 000 years. (After the big bang) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
granpa Posted December 21, 2008 Author Share Posted December 21, 2008 http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=com.ubuntu%3Aen-US%3Aunofficial&hs=nPW&q=cmbr+transparent&btnG=Search Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted December 21, 2008 Share Posted December 21, 2008 We see the Universe at z ~ 1,000 when we observe the CMBR corresponding to a time 379,000 years after the start of the expansion of the Universe when the Universe had T ~ 3,000 K. Which is the top link from that google. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
granpa Posted December 21, 2008 Author Share Posted December 21, 2008 yes. I assume that T=3000 k has some meaning to you that you think that I should understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted December 21, 2008 Share Posted December 21, 2008 No, the time is what I was commenting on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
granpa Posted December 21, 2008 Author Share Posted December 21, 2008 ???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted December 21, 2008 Share Posted December 21, 2008 You said the CMBR happened after the darkages. From memory it didn't I quoted your first link in your google search which I am assuming was your defence post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
granpa Posted December 21, 2008 Author Share Posted December 21, 2008 I said it was emitted after the universe cooled enough to become transparent. it clearly states as much several times right on the google search results page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted December 21, 2008 Share Posted December 21, 2008 Sorry I was getting confused with the non-transparent stage and the dark ages. So you are correct on the CMBR front not being an example. But if we return to my oritinal argument, that in an ionised universe we would get significant anihilation, the dark ages (after CMBR) was an ionised stage and we see no evidence for this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted December 21, 2008 Share Posted December 21, 2008 http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=com.ubuntu%3Aen-US%3Aunofficial&hs=nPW&q=cmbr+transparent&btnG=Search I think you need to be more specific in citing. An entire Google search? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
granpa Posted December 21, 2008 Author Share Posted December 21, 2008 (edited) I dont follow. ionization does not equal annihilation. why would simply ionizing a cloud of matter result in annihilation? you need matter and antimatter together in one place to get annihilation. I think you need to be more specific in citing. An entire Google search? I was citing this: Results 1 - 10 of about 44,700 for cmbr transparent. (0.23 seconds) Search Results 1. CMBR What are we looking at when we look at the CMBR? We see the Universe when it first became transparent to light OK, it was neutral overall, but all the negative particles would be attracted to the positive ones and repelled by the positive ones, perhaps you should explain what you meant by this. did you mean repelled by the negative ones? I suppose neutrons would be the first to separate. then protons would follow. as charge built up electrons would be electrically attracted to the protons. Edited December 21, 2008 by granpa multiple post merged Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted December 21, 2008 Share Posted December 21, 2008 I wrote a reply which I seem to have lost :$ You wouldn't need a bit build up of charge, certainly early on, as locally it'd be isotropic. I supposed by the time of the CMBR (and the darkages which just follow it which I KNOW was an ionised stage) gravitation might have had a big enough effect. But early on just as everything starts forming massive matter you'd get equal amounts, at this point you'd get ALOT of antimatter very close to matter so you;d only need local charge differences, so why would any matter or anti-matter escape this? I think I should make it clear I'm mostly playing devils advocate here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
granpa Posted December 21, 2008 Author Share Posted December 21, 2008 escape what? you mean as the protons and antiprotons try to separate the charge buildup should have stopped it? why would the charge buildup stop the protons. why not just attract electrons to balance the charge. its easier to attract electrons than to repel the protons. the charge buildup probably slowed it down but I see no reason to think it would stop it. the back button can sometimes retrieve lost messages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 escape what? you mean as the protons and antiprotons try to separate the charge buildup should have stopped it? why would the charge buildup stop the protons. why not just attract electrons to balance the charge. its easier to attract electrons than to repel the protons. the charge buildup probably slowed it down but I see no reason to think it would stop it. the back button can sometimes retrieve lost messages. Just because it's attracting one type of charge doesn't mean it can't attract the other. I'm not saying it'd slow it down, I'm asking how any matter (or any antimatter assuming it's there and we just can't see it) actually managed to escape this initial annihilation... Yeah the back button was no hope, I thought I'd posted it but it seems I just started using the tab for something else without hitting submit lol! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
granpa Posted December 22, 2008 Author Share Posted December 22, 2008 (edited) the energy density at that time was so great that matter and antimatter were being continually created and destroyed. it would attract both. but the mass to charge ratio is different for protons and electrons. protons would win out. Edited December 22, 2008 by granpa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 There has to have been a point though where matter was stable and there was attraction... I can't honestly remember but which were stable first protons, neutrons or electrons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
granpa Posted December 22, 2008 Author Share Posted December 22, 2008 by that time they were already separated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 by that time they were already separated. I'm wondering if tehre is a mathematical derivation of this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now