======

2. A similar "gravitational segregation" argument has been used before to try to explain the matter-antimatter asymmetry in the observable universe. (I mention this briefly in my essay here On the Foundational Assumptions of Modern Physics.) ~

======

I am glad to see your essay and greatly enjoyed reading your essay

There are two ways on antigravitation.

-------

Model-1 :

Inertial mass < 0, (Active and Passive) Gravitational mass < 0.

The principle of equivalence is valid. My model is a model-1.

In my article, I show that negative mass(energy) provides an explanation for dark matter and dark energy.

Model-2 :

Inertial mass > 0, (Active and Passive) Gravitational mass < 0.

The principle of equivalence is not valid. Some people have speculated that antimatter itself may have an anti-gravity effect.

Model-2 has a merit. Model-2 can also explain anti-gravitational effect(accelerating expansion). And it explains asymmetry between matter and antimatter.

-------

In the model-1,

At the Earth, negative mass will fall the Earth.

If negative mass and positive mass were born together at the beginning of universe, positive mass has attractive effect each other, so it forms star and galaxy structure now, but negative mass has repulsive effect each other and nuclear force cannot form nucleons by binding negative mass, so they cannot make massive mass structure like star or galaxy.

The current structure of the galaxy is a structure that survived in the pair-annihilation of positive mass and negative mass and, since negative mass existed outside of this galaxy structure, therefore it has not been observed.

In the model-2

Antimatter will grow away from the Earth.

If matter and antimatter were born together at the beginning of universe, matter has attractive effect each other, so it forms star and galaxy structure now, and antimatter has attractive effect each other, so it forms star and galaxy structure now. And antigravity exist between the galaxy and anti-galaxy.

However, if we considering the random creation, uniformly distribution and dark energy effect, anti-galaxy(or anti-galaxy cluster) must be existed at neighborhood. So, maybe, we must observe it(anti-galaxy or pair annihilation in large scale).

=====

Do you think it's possible that the negative-mass particles you are proposing might be ordinary antimatter?

=====

In my opinion, model-1(original negative mass) is pessimistic. Model-2 is affirmative than model-1!

On the asymmetry of matter and antimatter,

[ My conjecture ]

Positive energy(mass) and negative energy(mass) was pair-created in zero energy state. -->

Positive energy creates the matter and antimatter with same amount.-->

Negative energy(mass) prefer to the antimatter than matter. Because that antimatter has a little different physics quantity(it is a secret.^^") -->

Pair annihilation of negative energy and antimatter > Pair annihilation of negative energy and matter -->

Therefore, matter and antimatter have an asymmetry.

Have a nice day!

--- Hyoyoung Choi

Hyoyoung,

Thanks for the detailed reply! In particular, I'm glad you raised the point that inertial mass could be either negative or positive in this context. I hadn't even considered the possibility of negative inertial mass. Take care,

Ben

Thank you very much!

I wish you good luck in the contest.

--- Hyoyoung Choi

6 days later

Thank you very much!

I enjoyed reading your essay(THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY). I will think more about your point of view.

Good luck in the contest.

--- Hyoyoung Choi

6 days later

Dear Hyoyoung,

The force in the second Newton law is [math]F = ma [/math] where mass of a body m > 0, a is acceleration of the mass. This force is acting to mass m from the source of force. According to third Newton law there is the force of inertia [math]F_i = -F =- ma [/math] which is acting to the source of force. The reason for the force of inertia is action of fluxes of gravitons to the mass substance during of acceleration of the mass. We see that the force of inertia and the acceleration are opposite. Then we have [math]F_i = -F =- ma= m_i a [/math] where [math]m_i =-m[/math] is the negative mass of the body. So negative mass is a property of inertial forces.

Sergey Fedosin

4 days later

After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.

Cood luck.

Sergey Fedosin

If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

a month later

In the essay by Choi I am finding some very interesting and possibly important points. But one has to bear in mind that negative energies are usually considered as unphysical. An interaction between positive energy and negative energy states can make transitions between those states, so that positive energies increase to plus infinity, and negative energy fall to minus infinity, while the system's total energy remains constant. Such an instability is generally considered as very problematic, and people have good reasons for rejecting any theory that involves negative energies.

A treatment of negative energies must be carried out with great care. As a toy model, I have studied the 2-dimensional harmonic oscillator whose x-component has positive, and y-component has negative kinetic plus potential energy. There is no problem with stability in the absence of an interaction that mixes the x and the y component. Such a system is analogous to the Choi's system with negative mass that is stable on the top of the potential. Instability can arise in the presence of an interaction. I have found that for some interactions between x and y, the system can be stable, which means that the trajectory remains confined within a finite region of the (x,y)-space. This is shown in slides http://www-f1.ijs.si/~pavsic/IARD2012.pdf and paper http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1210.6820 , where I also considered the cases of the quantum oscillator, the scalar field theory, and the Dirac field theory.

The Dirac equation describes a spinor with positive and negative energy states. It can be generalized so that it describes not only one, but four such spinors. I will not go into details here. Let me only mention that this is related to the description of spinors as objects embedded in the Clifford algebra Cl(1,3). Since the latter algebra has 16 dimensions, also a generalized spinors is a 16-component object. Eight of those components have positive and the remaining eight components have negative energies.

Can such a theory make sense? First recall that the occurrence of negative energy states was puzzling in the time when Dirac proposed his equation. In 1932, Fermi in wrote:

"It is well known that the most serious difficulty in Dirac's relativistic wave equations lies in the fact that it yields besides the normal positive states also negative one, which have no physical significance. This would do no harm if no transition between positive and negative state were possible (as are, e.g., transition between states with symmetrical and antisymmetrical wave function). But this is unfortunately not the case: Klein has shown by a very simple example that electrons impinging against a very high potential barrier have a finite probability of going over in a negative state." [E. Fermi, Rev. Mod. Phys. Vol. 4, 87 (1932) ].

Thus, Dirac' relativistic wave equation could have been put aside and ignored. Fortunately, this did not happen. The problem was solved by the Dirac sea of negative energy states.

With the generalized Dirac equation the situation is analogous to that in 1932. Within the Clifford algebra framework, besides the negative energy states of the first 4-component spinor, we have also negative energy states of the second, third and forth spinor. Here one could also cure the problem by the sea of negative energies of all four types of quantized spinor fields. Alternatively, one can assume that there is the negative energy sea associated with two spinor fields, and the positive energy sea associated with the remaining spinor fields. The vacuum energy density of such 16-component field is zero. In such a setup we have positive energy states that are not filled, and also the negative energy state that are not filled. Such a system is unstable. The vacuum can instantly decay into an infinite number of positive and negative energy states particles.

In the paper http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1210.6820 we argue that such a catastrophic instantaneous explosion does not happen in a finite (closed) universe, with a minimal (e.g., Planck) distance. Then there exists a maximal absolute value of a particle's energy, and the momentum eigenvalues are discrete. The number of possible fermionic states is finite in such a universe. The vacuum then decays in a finite time into a finite number of positive and negative energy particles. This is reminiscent of Big Bang, and perhaps this could be an explanation of the origin of Big Bang.

In Choi's essay there are classical considerations only. But it is known that the main problems with negative energies arise in quantum theory. In my paper "Quantum Field Theories in Spaces with Neutral Signature", http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1210.6820, I address how such difficulties could be circumvented.

    • [deleted]

    • Post #30

    The links that stay in my previous post do not work properly.

    After having read the link help page more carefully, I am trying to insert the links again. Hopefully, the following links are correct:

    My talk at the IARD2012 conference in Florence, Italy:

    www-f1.ijs.si/~pavsic/IARD2012.pdf

    Paper "Quantum Field Theories in Spaces with Neutral Signature":

    arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1210.6820

    Matej Pavsic

    www-f1.ijs.si/~pavsic

    10 months later
    Write a Reply...