Anti-Space

[æτhεr φ]

if anti-matter exists, then does anti-space exist. This would kind of explain what nothing is composed of, and maybe combined with my morality belief explain why the universe is expanding. If something is composed of space/matter, then wouldn't nothing be composed of anti-space/anti-matter? If you picture an expanding universe, what exactly is it expanding unto? Think of the universe (vacuum w/e), and outside of it just white (being the anti-space, normal space is black or at least to us it is). The anti-S&M produces a kind of attraction with the normal S&M. If not, could you explain to me why exactly anti-space cannot exist or why it is improbable. Cheers!

[Mr Skeptic]

Antimatter is not the opposite of matter.

[ajb]

The origin of antimatter comes from the mass-shell condition [math]E^{2} - p^{2} = m^{2}[/math] and in particular the presence of the taking the square.

 

This all means we have positive and negative frequency solutions in the quantum field theory: particles and antiparticles.

 

Anti-space-time would require something similar. The closest I can think of is the graviton and the antigravition, but as these are identified. Taking the square root of the metric is roughly defining a spin-structure, very well studied.

 

Maybe you could do something else with the metric and cook-up a notion of anti-space-time. However, I do not know of anything like this.

[ydoaPs]

The origin of antimatter comes from the mass-shell condition [math]E^{2} - p^{2} = m^{2}[/math] and in particular the presence of the taking the square.

Units in which c=1 ?

[ajb]

Units in which c=1 ?

 

 

Yes.

[T.M]

This is an interesting concept. After pondering what an anti-space environment would be. I concluded Anti-space and Anti-time go hand in hand and would be paradoxal. The way I perceive it, in an anti space/time environment distances between objects would be non existent. Without the dimension of distance time would also cease to exist. If one could build an anti space/time device and survive. One could enter the device and be at every point in the past, present and future in the entire Universe simultaneously. Creating a paradox.

[Moontanman]

Anti space time is an interesting concept, at the big bang two expansions, one into + space time and another into - space time, mirror images of each other. In each the flow of time would seem + since they expand away from each other in opposite time directions.... Maybe? Maybe not?

Edited February 13, 2014 by Moontanman

[ajb]

But no-one here has given any kind of description of anti-space and so how can anyone have any idea what this concept is? This is well before we decide if nature realises such things.

[hoola]

Within an anti-matter universe an anti-space could consist of particle/antiparticle pairs, just as our universe does. It could have predominate anti-particle matter behaving as our matter particles do in a functional sense, to the extent that antimatter can form relationships similar to matter. Time, however would behave as normal, as I define time as any change of the informational state within a given region, so there is no reason to think a universe of predominate anti-matter would have any bearing on that issue. I don't know the specifics, but venture a guess that anti-matter has enough difference to regular matter to cause a proposed anti-universe to not mirror our universe, but that doesn't mean one couldn't exist. There could be other commonalities, such as gravity. Perhaps dark matter effects are from other universes with elsewise incompatible parameters, of either matter or antimatter. And photons are another possible commonality. I thought I read that they are their own anti-particle...(?)

Edited February 13, 2014 by hoola

[Endercreeper01]

The curvature of space-time is regardless of if it is antimatter or regular matter. Space-time is curved by mass and momentum, so I don't see how antimatter space-time and matter space-time would differ.

[imatfaal]

The curvature of space-time is regardless of if it is antimatter or regular matter. Space-time is curved by mass and momentum, so I don't see how antimatter space-time and matter space-time would differ.

 

We are pretty sure that anti-matter behaves the same as matter when it comes to gravity - but as of yet we haven't had enough to test it. There is no reason to believe it will not - but the relationship between gravitational mass and inertial mass is not settled. The LHCb at Cern is gathering anti-hydrogen (or is it anti-protons) and soon hope to have enough test.

[studiot]

 

But no-one here has given any kind of description of anti-space and so how can anyone have any idea what this concept is? This is well before we decide if nature realises such things.

 

 

I agree,

 

Doe anti mean in some way inverted?

A mirror image perhaps?

 

Take a simple plane mirror.

It appears to 'invert', left to right but not top to bottom

 

Of opposite 'sign'?

mass has no sign

 

Some version of chirality perhaps?

Just as we cannot assign an absolute coordinate system to space we cannot then assign a chiral structure either.

[hoola]

if our space is composed of particle/antiparticle pairs popping in and out of existence, then a 50-50 equality of our space's component halves seems the kind of symmetry that would point to an equal chance that an anti-matter universe would have it's space composed of indentical parts...

I see the "curving" of space-time as distortions in the paths of the virtual particles pairs after they appear, while in trajectory towards each other with resulting mutual destruction, allowing a weak leftover energy flux called dark energy. That distortion, taken to a violent degree as at the event horizon of a black hole, would separate the pair with enough distortion of the normal trajectory, they fly apart instead of re-converging, thus allowing hawking radiation...I understand this as reasonably accepted, but I see the virtual particle pairs as composing space itself, which is probably not an widely accepted view...(?)

Edited February 14, 2014 by hoola

[ajb]

I understand this as reasonably accepted, but I see the virtual particle pairs as composing space itself, which is probably not an widely accepted view...(?)

That is not the standard view. But more importantly, do you have a theory that allows such an interpretation? How is space-time a derived or emergent phenomena from quantum fluctuations of fields? Do you have an understanding of fields without a background space-time? These seem vital questions.

[hoola]

as far as saying that virtual particle pairs are the "substance" of space goes, I only say that they seem to be real, as demonstrated by the casimir effect, have a possible physical effect upon the universe in a macro sense with dark energy expansion of the universe, and on a micro scale with allowing charge phenomena to modify the appearance/disappearances of the particle trajectories as a way of transporting phenomena information across space, whether that information be EM or G. I see a complication, with the necessary allowance needed by the dimensions to allow the process a volume to appear in, since the information would otherwise still be sequestered within the singularity. Therefore I see space as the particles doing the actual work of space in conjunction with the dimensions as "stretching" the singularity out to a universe sized volume to allow a macroscopic expression of the information that was previously developed within the microscopic singularity...

Edited February 14, 2014 by hoola

[ajb]

as far as saying that virtual particle pairs are the "substance" of space goes, I only say that they seem to be real, as demonstrated by the casimir effect, have a possible physical effect upon the universe in a macro sense with dark energy expansion of the universe...

Okay sure if dark emergy is "simply" the cosmological constant then it is strongly tied to virtual partices. As for the rest of your post I have no idea what you are trying to say.

[hoola]

I am seeing a possible transmission of force information via the "froth" of virtual particles as a carrier of light and gravity forces, and allowing physical material movement. In other words, virtual particles make up space, which allow anything to move within it. The particles "hand off" to each other these things via mathematical descriptions being inputted-outputted during their brief appearances in the universe with influences upon their individual mathematical algorithms, as transmitted forces subtly alter their informational content. I see them as possible candidates, since they seem to be the smallest, most fine-grained "quasi-substance" known, and the "strings" of string theory as the information that gets shuttled around. Since my thinking revolves around the "everything is math" concept, it seems easy to see this, as a methodology of information transport, moving through the only thing smaller, lighter and more delicately composed than information itself, namely information that has a more fleeting existence...virtual particles...I see the strings of string theory as "strings of numbers" or math algorithms, and each "bit" of information of the algorithm being the smallest division within an informational set...which describes a particular force or particle...

[ajb]

But can any of this really be placed into a mathematical model? Right now you have some vague ideas, but not much else as far as I can tell.

[Airbrush]

"An anti-de Sitter space, in contrast, is a general relativity-like spacetime, where in the absence of matter or energy, the curvature of spacetime is naturally hyperbolic.

 

"In the common analogy of an object causing a dip in a flat cloth, anti-de Sitter space has a curvature analogous to a flat cloth sitting on a saddle, with a very slight curvature because it is so large. This would correspond to a negative cosmological constant (something not observed in the real life cosmos). Anti-de Sitter space can also be thought of as a general relativity like spacetime in which empty space itself has negative energy, which causes this spacetime (i.e. the universe) to collapse in on itself at an ever greater rate.

 

"In an anti-de Sitter space, as in a de Sitter space, the extent of inherent spacetime curvature corresponds to the magnitude of the negative cosmological constant to which it is equivalent."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-de_Sitter_space

 

This is what I found by googling "anti spacetime". Can anyone explain this in English?

Edited February 16, 2014 by Airbrush

[hoola]

while I cannot place my vague ideas within a mathematical model, the logic seems to hold for now of the main structures. To me, they are least ridiculous explanation of "why anything", and will be happy to modify or replace them with a better explanation which seem less ridiculous than mine, and have math to support them...

Edited February 16, 2014 by hoola

[ajb]

This is what I found by googling "anti spacetime". Can anyone explain this in English?

Anti de Sitter is not an example of "anti-space" (not sure what that is) as it is a standard classical pseudo-Riemannian manifold. The important thing from a physics perspective is that it is a vacuum solution (no matter of fields other than gravity) with a negative cosmological constant.

 

Mathematically it is a generalisation of a hyperbolic manifold.

while I cannot place my vague ideas within a mathematical model, the logic seems to hold for now of the main structures.

Without some kind of model how can these ideas be seen as logical at all?

 

I don't mean to be too dismissive here but no-one here has given any indication of what "anti-space" means and you virtual particle froth sound close to ideas found in noncommutative geometric approaches to quantum gravity. However, I think one thinks of space-time as "boiling" rather than the field of the standard model as generating space-time via their fluctuations. I don't know how one can describe fields without some background space-time.

Edited February 17, 2014 by ajb

[Schneibster]

There's no anti-gravity because there's no anti-space.

 

The opposite of one gravity field is another gravity field, and since we can't shape gravity fields it's only "anti" at a particular location. For instance, you could exactly cancel Earth's gravity at a point on its surface by poising another (anti-?)Earth exactly above that point. That would exactly cancel the gravity at that point on Earth.

 

That's "anti-gravity." The lesson is that since gravity is curvature of space "anti-gravity" is "anti-curvature" which is curvature. Therefore anti-gravity is gravity.

 

Physicists have a method for proving this mathematically and I'm certain there's someone here who can do it; it's based on the fact that gravity interacts with spacetime, not the other six dimensions. It's why there aren't anti-gravitons.

Edited February 18, 2014 by Schneibster

[ajb]

Therefore anti-gravity is gravity.

Anti-gravity is usually thought of as repulsive gravity. Such situations are actually okay in general relativity, provided we have exotic matter and in particular we need violation of the strong energy conditions.

 

It's why there aren't anti-gravitons.

Gravitons and anti-gravitons are identified, just as the photon is identified with the anti-photon.

[Schneibster]

Anti-gravity is usually thought of as repulsive gravity. Such situations are actually okay in general relativity, provided we have exotic matter and in particular we need violation of the strong energy conditions.

 

 

Gravitons and anti-gravitons are identified, just as the photon is identified with the anti-photon.

 

Hmmm, I guess I usually think of gravity as just gravity, since the opposite of a gravity field is another gravity field. What your talking about sounds more like the cosmological term:

 

G_μν + Λg_μν = (8πG/c⁴)T_μν

 

that's the Λ.

 

And I'm used to thinking of photons and antiphotons as degenerate; for most purposes it's just as easy to say there are no antiphotons. Same with gravitons. But you're of course technically correct.

[ajb]

... that's the Λ.

That is one example where we can have repulsive gravity, but there are other exotic situations that are not immediately outlawed.

 

And I'm used to thinking of photons and antiphotons as degenerate; for most purposes it's just as easy to say there are no antiphotons. Same with gravitons. But you're of course technically correct.

Okay for most purposes until you really look at the solutions to the equations.