Curvature caused by Photons too ?

[Widdekind]

In his book 4th Dimension, Rudy Rucker says that matter & antimatter, induce (hyperspatial) curvatures, in spacetime, in "opposite" (hyperspatial) directions. From a Flatland perspective, if matter causes the rubber sheet to "sag down", then antimatter would cause an equal-but-opposite curvature "up". This is so, that when matter & antimatter combine, the resulting curvatures cancel, back into flat spacetime fabric.

 

However, photons are their own anti-particles. Thus, any curvatures caused by the mass-energy-equivalent in photons, must be able to "self-cancel". Does that imply, that, whereas matter & antimatter cause curvatures of constant "sign" (hyper-spatially "out" or "in"), photons cause "oscillating curvatures" (hyper-spatially "out" and "in") ??? To wit, massive matter has a "frozen in" curvature (always "out" or "in"), whereas light has a "flexible & varying" curvature (alternating "out" & "in") ???

 

[swansont]

In his book 4th Dimension, Rudy Rucker says that matter & antimatter, induce (hyperspatial) curvatures, in spacetime, in "opposite" (hyperspatial) directions. From a Flatland perspective, if matter causes the rubber sheet to "sag down", then antimatter would cause an equal-but-opposite curvature "up". This is so, that when matter & antimatter combine, the resulting curvatures cancel, back into flat spacetime fabric.

 

 

That sounds wrong to me. They both have mass, and so would induce the same curvature. Photons would, too.

[Airbrush]

That sounds wrong to me. They both have mass, and so would induce the same curvature. Photons would, too.

 

Does matter and antimatter both have positive mass?

 

Do atoms of antimatter combined to form molecules and solid objects? Or just exist as a cloud of antihydrogen?

 

I think he is proposing that an object composed of antimatter has "anti-gravity".

 

Photons have no mass, so they don't induce any curvature.

Edited January 3, 2011 by Airbrush

[swansont]

Does matter and antimatter both have positive mass?

 

Do atoms of antimatter combined to form molecules and solid objects? Or just exist as a cloud of antihydrogen?

 

I think he is proposing that an object composed of antimatter has "anti-gravity".

 

Photons have no mass, so they don't induce any curvature.

 

As far as we know, antimatter has positive mass; this is something that has yet to be tested on the atomic level.

 

Spacetime is curved by energy, so photons do contribute to it.

[Widdekind]

That sounds wrong to me. They both have mass, and so would induce the same curvature. Photons would, too.

 

To try to clarify, while using the standard 'rubber sheet' analogy, if one person puts a bowling ball on a rubber sheet on Earth's North Pole, and another person puts an 'identical' bowling ball, on an 'identical' rubber sheet, on Earth's South Pole, the curvatures caused would both produce identical 'gravity forces' locally... yet, from a 'global big picture', one curvature would be "up" (hyperspatially "out"), whilst the other would be "down" (hyperspatially "in"). I understand Rucker to say, that equal masses of matter / antimatter, cause equal amounts of curvature in spacetime, only that the one "pushes" spacetime "out", and the other "pulls" spacetime "in", but by the same amounts, to the same degrees, producing the same "shapes" of curvature, etc.

[swansont]

AFAIK, one uses concave or convex to describe it, so it's from a local perspective. Curvature from both particles is concave. It does not cancel.

[imatfaal]

Widdekind - to describe something as 'out' or 'in', or from a global perspective you need a more general viewpoint and reference, ie you step out of the local and reappraise from a universal viewpoint - surely to attempt to step outside of spacetime is a large leap of faith.

[Widdekind]

AFAIK, one uses concave or convex to describe it, so it's from a local perspective. Curvature from both particles is concave. It does not cancel.

 

Can you prove that, by an appeal, to 'local' vs. 'global', in Cosmic spacetime ? If matter & antimatter 'bulged' in opposite directions, then local matter would be 'anti-matter-like', to remote matter, 'on the other side of space':

 

[Widdekind]

What about Z⁰ bosons, described as 'heavy light', with masses ~90 GeV, but apparently being their own anti-particle... how could they have a mass, curving spacetime 'one way', whilst being their own anti-particle, requiring them to curve spacetime 'the other way' ?

 

---

 

I really want to ask, can any modern human, honestly scientifically certify -- be absolutely 100.00% certain -- that matter & anti-matter actually attract each other ?? First off, does that really even sound correct, "matter & anti-matter... attract" ?? Secondly, one way or the other, the magnitude of the gravity force, between an electron & positron, is 42 powers of ten less, than their over-whelmingly dominant EM attraction. So, what human experiment, has ever measured the behavior of electron-positron pairs, to 42 decimal points ?? If, in the hypothetical absence of charge interactions, matter really repelled anti-matter ('levitation, anti-gravity'), how would any human have ever known that fact? Only by investigating large, electrically neutral blobs of 'anti-mass', would we know for sure... yes??? Am I really missing something, that obvious?? Anti-matter cannot have anti-mass... b/c... ?!

Edited February 6, 2011 by Widdekind

[swansont]

Antimatter does not curve space the "other way."

[steevey]

Space is suppose to be warped because of mass. Photons have no mass so they shouldn't warp space and both matter and anti matter should be able to warp space the same if they had the same mass and density.

[swansont]

Space is suppose to be warped because of mass. Photons have no mass so they shouldn't warp space and both matter and anti matter should be able to warp space the same if they had the same mass and density.

 

No, it's warped by energy.

[steevey]

No, it's warped by energy.

 

Then why doesn't light warp the fabric of space time? And how do you know that? What about that graviton theory? Why don't things warp the fabric of space more as they gain more energy instead of mass? Why would black holes form from gamma-ray bursts? How come an atom of hydrogen with the temperature equal to 72 degrees F has the same gravity as a hydrogen atom with a temperature of -275 degrees F? I don't see temperature anywhere when calculating the gravitational effects of an atom?

 

Unless are you trying to say something about density since generally objects with more energy are less dense?

 

Or are you assuming the Gauge Boson theory is true (which would make sense, but then there would be no fabric of space that's being warped)?

 

I'm not trying to say your wrong, it's just that these are the questions I have that arise from your statement.

Edited February 6, 2011 by steevey

[swansont]

Then why doesn't light warp the fabric of space time?

 

It does. There are a bunch of threads that discuss this.

[steevey]

It does. There are a bunch of threads that discuss this.

 

What experiments have proven this?

[Widdekind]

Antimatter does not curve space the "other way."

 

I'm not convinced that it does. But, can you confirm, with absolute crushing certainty, that anti-matter (anti-mass) does not repel matter (mass) ? If mass & anti-mass really did repel each other, what human experiments would have been able to notice the fact, swamped by 42 O-o-M, by the EM charge interaction ?

[swansont]

I'm not convinced that it does. But, can you confirm, with absolute crushing certainty, that anti-matter (anti-mass) does not repel matter (mass) ? If mass & anti-mass really did repel each other, what human experiments would have been able to notice the fact, swamped by 42 O-o-M, by the EM charge interaction ?

 

AFAIK the anti-Hydrogen experiments at CERN are aimed at testing this. ATRAP and ATHENA

[imatfaal]

I'm not convinced that it does. But, can you confirm, with absolute crushing certainty, that anti-matter (anti-mass) does not repel matter (mass) ? If mass & anti-mass really did repel each other, what human experiments would have been able to notice the fact, swamped by 42 O-o-M, by the EM charge interaction ?

 

As SwansonT said the experiments on antihydrogen at cern indicate this is not the case. The anti-hydrogen (ie anti-matter that was not electrically charged) created at CERN had to be maintained within a huge magnetic field - if matter repelled anti-matter it could have been easily constrained within any system made of normal matter. the link to the nature article that describes the containment of anti-hydrogen is here. Anti-matter is opposite charge - not opposite mass.

[alpha2cen]

As SwansonT said the experiments on antihydrogen at cern indicate this is not the case. The anti-hydrogen (ie anti-matter that was not electrically charged) created at CERN had to be maintained within a huge magnetic field - if matter repelled anti-matter it could have been easily constrained within any system made of normal matter. the link to the nature article that describes the containment of anti-hydrogen is here. Anti-matter is opposite charge - not opposite mass.

 

Anti-hydrogen primal mass is opposite, but inertia mass is plus. According to higgs boson concept, inertia mass value is not depend on mass polarity.

Inertia mass is like this. If you attach spheres top and down of the rubber plate, and draw the rubber plate, the total fore to draw the plate is depend on the sphere number, not on the position of spheres.

In this case the sphere which are attached on the top of the plate is matter and the sphere which are attached below the rubber plate are anti-matter.

[swansont]

Anti-hydrogen primal mass is opposite, but inertia mass is plus. According to higgs boson concept, inertia mass value is not depend on mass polarity.

Inertia mass is like this. If you attach spheres top and down of the rubber plate, and draw the rubber plate, the total fore to draw the plate is depend on the sphere number, not on the position of spheres.

In this case the sphere which are attached on the top of the plate is matter and the sphere which are attached below the rubber plate are anti-matter.

 

Primal mass? Never heard of it. Topics not part of accepted physics belong in speculations.

[alpha2cen]

Primal mass? Never heard of it. Topics not part of accepted physics belong in speculations.

 

But this concept is useful to describe this phenomena easily.

Dirac states us vacuum is the state of full of energy.

So, matter is the some of the energy, and anti-matter is energy empty space.

Edited February 9, 2011 by alpha2cen

[swansont]

But this concept is useful to describe this phenomena easily.

Dirac states us vacuum is the state of full of energy.

So, matter is the some of the energy, and anti-matter is energy empty space.

 

Non-standard physics or interpretations of physics belong in speculations. Antimatter is not generally regarded as being energy of empty space. If you want to attempt to explain why this concept might be useful and/or valid, please do it in speculations.

[alpha2cen]

Non-standard physics or interpretations of physics belong in speculations. Antimatter is not generally regarded as being energy of empty space. If you want to attempt to explain why this concept might be useful and/or valid, please do it in speculations.

 

This site states you vacuum and anti-matter concept.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_sea

The concept comes from Dirac's theory.

[imatfaal]

Positron were initially conceived of as gaps in the dirac sea - this is a long way from being just simple vacuum.

 

it was thought that for every positive energy state that a corresponding negative state should exist - but what stopped an electron shedding energy, emitting a photon, and dropping to a lower energy state to below zero and onwards. the dirac sea is the model/conception in which all negative energy states are filled - this theoretical model stops an electron from being able to drop down a state because it is already filled and the pauli exckusion forbids more than one electron in the same state.

 

in some interactions one of these theoretical electrons in a negative energy state is removed - leaving a "hole" in the dirac sea. but a missing negative energy particle can be seen as a present positive energy particle. This present positive energy particle must have same mass and opposite charge to the missing negative energy particle - it is now thought of as the positron.

[swansont]

There's a difference in saying that you are taking a concept from a theory and what the theory actually states. Now, can we get back to the topic being discussed?