Essay Abstract

Although it is widely assumed that gravitation is attraction only, the existence of gravitational repulsion cannot be excluded. In a recent study, for the first time non-classical physical principles underlying an assumed matter-antimatter gravitational repulsion have been positively identified. This dialectic essay focusses on the all-determining first cycle of thesis, antithesis and synthesis of that study, and explains why these principles - together called: the Elementary Process Theory (EPT) - are outside the framework of contemporary physical theories. A Cartesian analysis of the assumption on gravitational repulsion yields the unquestionable thesis that antimatter then must have positive rest mass and negative gravitational mass. The antithesis to this thesis is then that this combination of properties is impossible from the perspective of established theories. The synthesis is then that this combination of properties has to be underlied by a fundamentally new physical principle, which is that rest-mass-having particles alternate between a particlelike state and a wavelike state. The final section addresses the question of correctness and completeness of the EPT.

Author Bio

After a master study Chemical Engineering at Eindhoven University of Technology (Netherlands), Marcoen Cabbolet has conducted a PhD research in the foundations of physics on his own initiative. The project started at the Kharkov Physico-Technological Institute (Ukraine), where the main physical results were obtained. After severe illness of the supervisor, the project was relocated to the Netherlands, where the mathematical formalization was fine-tuned. However, the unorthodoxy of the results led to hostilities at Tilburg University and Eindhoven University of Technology. But after yet another relocation, the 15-year project was concluded in 2011 with great honor at Brussels Free University (Belgium).

Download Essay PDF File

The questions you raise are very interesting and contribute to the discussion about the nature of gravity.

I have been working on an hypothetical universe in which gravity is an emergent composite force. Within that universe, which I can the quantum-geometrical universe (QGU), the negative gravity you refer to is a particular solution of a general equation that describes gravitational interactions.

Also, you conclude your essay with the following:

"[...] the upcoming years the prediction of the EPT will be investigated that in individual processes space is formed as a substance {that is, the EPT predicts the existence of `elements of physical reality' that constitute space itself. The idea is then to model this mechanism quantitatively, and to investigate whether this yields a solution to the dark energy problem in physical cosmology."

That space is made of "elements of physical reality" is one of two axioms from the quantum-geometrical universe's physics emerge. Interestingly, an effect similar to the dark energy effect emerges naturally from the two axioms of the QGU and is, like gravity, a particular solution of the equation that describes within it gravitation interactions.

That said, though a theory cannot be understood within the framework of another theory that uses a different axiom set, I have found we share some interesting insights.

    Marcoen,

    Your argument and discussion cover some of the same territory as mine but is more substantive.

    Jim

      • [deleted]

      • Post #4

      Hello to both of you,

      I like these words:... "That said, though a theory cannot be understood within the framework of another theory that uses a different axiom set, I have found we share some interesting insights."

      Indeed , we must be sure that the axiomatizations and superimposings are rational.If not ; we have pseudo sciences full of irrationalties.

      A set of axioms is rational if and only if all axioms are rational.

      How can we approach our foundamentals if we do not superimpose with the biggest determinism.

      All roads do not go to Roma !

      Best Regards

      • [deleted]

      • Post #5

      Marcoen,

      Excellent essay!

      Good luck with the contest.

      Larisa

        • [deleted]

        • Post #6

        Dear Marcoen,

        Great essay!

        Thank you,

        Alex

          • [deleted]

          • Post #7

          Marcoen,

          Very modern and original view on the interaction of the matter with antimatter. It is worth to look into it in more detail and perform an experiment to see how it works in real.

          I wish you good luck with continuation of this research and bringing even more interesting results!

          Best regards,

          Evgeny

            • [deleted]

            • Post #8

            Dear Marcoen,

            I am glad to see your essay and ideas on gravity being a repulsive force in the perspective of anti matter. Also I am glad to see a chemical engineer working in theoritical physics concepts, as I did my MS in chemical engineering as well from university of south western Louisiana but took to software engineering as a profession.

            In the quest to understand the true nature of universe, I have realized that our conscience is the key to understanding this puzzle. Physical reality is the work of the universal soul, mind and body. S = BM^2. To be (matter) or not to be (antimatter) is the ongoin process of the cosmos, and is reflected in an individual being. We are the individual cosmic prototype.

            For every action there is equal and opposite reaction, there is also inaction at the point of their interaction. It is this inaction (singualrity or coscience or soul) that is in all of us that causes all the actions and consequent reactions. Positive numbers on the number scale are like the matter particles, and negative numbers on the number scale are like antimatter particles. If we were to sum all the numbers from negative infinity to postitive infinity the sum would be absolute zero. The answer lies in zero, and hence zero divided by zero equals everything including nothing, which means the relativity we percieve in the physical universe is non existent or an illusion and the universe is just an absolute singularity.

            Please see the essay Conscience is the cosmological constant.

            Love,

            Sridattadev.

              Hello Daniel, Steve,

              @Daniel: thanks for commenting on my essay.

              Am I correct that you obtain a quantum-theoretical formulation of the physics of gravitational repulsion from just two assumptions?

              That would be quite spectacular, given that e.g. non-relativistic quantum mechanics has already more than two axioms.

              Are your two assumptions (or axioms) all of the assumptions of the entire theory, or are these assumptions that are added to the assumptions of the quantum framework?

              I found it impossible to describe gravitational repulsion in the framework of quantum mechanics, mainly for the reasons mentioned in the essay. Another (philosophical) point is that in the (standard) framework of quantum theory a particle only has the property "gravitational mass" if it is in the eigenstate of the corresponding operator, and it is only in that eigenstate when the gravitational mass is observed, or when the spectrum of the operator has only one value (so that the particle is always in the eigenstate). So, Daniel, how do you cope with that in your theory?

              @Steve: I agree with you that not all roads lead to Rome.

              What do you mean when you write that an axiomatization has to be rational? What are the criteria for rationality of an axiomatization? Is it possible to give an irrational axiomatization of a theory?

              Regards, Marcoen

              Hello Evgeny,

              Thanks for commenting on my essay.

              The most important experiment -- in this context, that is! -- will be done by the AEGIS-collaboration at CERN. If the outcome is positive for my research then I can use astronmical data for another empirical test of the theory. This has the advantage that it is not necessary to perform an expensive experiment: the data are already there.

              Regards, Marcoen

              • [deleted]

              • Post #13

              Hi Marcoen,

              Splendid stuff. You have my vote!

              Goodluck and with kind regards,

              Sándor

                • [deleted]

                • Post #15

                Hello Marcoen,

                This would be indeed very interesting to test your theory with astonomical data. As far as I remember, there have been discovered some antiparticles in the Earth radiation belt, with a hypothesis that the charged antimatter is caught by the Earh's magnetic field. I wonder if your theory could also explain the existense of this belt?

                Dear Marcoen:

                I enjoyed your nicely written essay describing the possible matter-antimatter gravitational repulsion or anti-gravity mechanism. However, in order to explain a sustainable antigravity mechanism, as in the cosmological constant, one must prove a sustainable amount of antimatter in the same amount as the classical matter observed in the universe. Since, such large amount of sustainable stable antimatter has not been seen, a sustained antigravity cannot be supported by the arguments made in the paper.

                As described in my posted paper - " From Absurd to Elegant Universe", an alternative mechanism for antigravity is proposed based on the observed spontaneous decay of particles or mass-energy equivalence principle, wherein mass-energy transformation can be expressed in physical dynamical terms via a relativistic Gravity Nullification Model (GNM) based on the top-down conservation of the relativistic mass-energy-space-time continuum. GNM based antigravity driven universe expansion accurately predicts the observed universe accelerated expansion, dark energy or cosmological constant, and galactic star velocities without the concept of dark matter. It also predicts the dilation and creation of mass without any anti-matter and eliminates black hole singularity without the need for any super luminous inflation. The model also explains/predicts the inner workings of quantum mechanics and resolves paradoxes of the measurement problem, quantum gravity and time, and inconsistencies with relativity theory.

                I would greatly appreciate your comments on my paper.

                Sincerely,

                Avtar Singh

                  Hi Sridattadev,

                  I indeed first studied chemistry but it required quite some additional study to be able to work in the foundations of physics. I have noticed that there are those who think that "a chemist" has no bussiness in theoretical physics, but I consider that nothing but pigeonholing: the fact that I once chose a chemistry education doesn't mean that I am confined to chemistry for the rest of my life. But I agree with them that a chemistry education alone does not provide enough background for a career in theoretical physics.

                  Now about your comment. I agree with you that an understanding of the true nature of the universe is intertwined with an understanding of conscience. Or to put it in other words: I sincerely believe that the fundamental questions of physics are intertwined with the mind-body problem in philosophy. My point of view is the same as that of the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead: a new ontology for physics means nothing if it doesn't provide new insight into the mind-body problem. I have investigated the implications of my Elementary Process Theory for the mind-body problem, but that is off topic here.

                  I have read your essay, but I must say that it raises some serious questions. For example, you write that "if 0 x 0 = 0 is true, then 0 / 0 = 0 is also true". Aren't you going against (mathematical) field theory here? The expression "0/0 = 0" is just a notation for the expression "0 x 0-1 = 0", where 0-1 is the multiplicative reverse of the number 0 (the additive unit). That, however, does not exist: in field theory the number 0 has no multiplicative reverse. That is to say: there is no such thing as division by 0. So from that point of view, it is not true that 0/0 = 0.

                  Another point in your essay that I find difficult to understand is your equation on page 2, "s = bm2". Is this a relation between numbers, or are the soul, the body and the mind substances (things)? If these are numbers, then the question is: isn't the concept of a number too simple to represent something complex as a soul? And if these are substances, then immediately the question comes to mind: don't you get in troubles with the dimensions? What is the body times the mind times the mind dimension-wise? These are just some of the questions that come to mind.

                  Regards, Marcoen

                  • [deleted]

                  • Post #18

                  Hello Marcoen,

                  I say simply that it depends of what we want to interpret. An axiom in my line of reasoning must be rational when we speak about our rational sciences.

                  The criteria for this rationality are numerous and in all centers of analyzes, physics,maths, biology, chemistry,technology,computing even,....

                  You know I am not a fan of anti-thesis. I prefer the objective and deterministic road. The criteria are like the domains or limits or this or that, they are always rational if they want to explain our pure physics and its laws. It is like for the time.Let's take its irreversibility on the entropical arrow of time.We cannot say that this time is reversible.That, it is rational. The time travel is irrational, the space travel is rational.

                  Lifes inside our Universe everywhere inside this universal sphere,it is rational.

                  Harry Potter is irrational. The taxonomy of plants and animals and fungis is rational. The micro Black Holes are irrational. The centers of galaxies are spheres, BH ,it is rational. Our Universe is a sphere, it is rational. The extradimensions are irrational. The photosynthesis is rational. the rotations are rational, the spheres are rational. The irrational algeberas are irrational.a cell is rational like is rational a H or a C or a N or O .....amino acids ....adn EVOLUTION is rational .....this earth becomes irrational.....a music of Mozart is rational.....a hybiscus syriacus blue bird blue sky is rational.... avatar is rational and irrational ....euler was rational...borh also ...Newtom also...time machine is irrational....arms , weapons,monney,...are irrational.....in fact the list is so long.we can make a list of actual scientists if you want but perhaps it is not a good idea. The vanity is so important inside this international sciences community.What a world :)

                  Regards

                  @Marcoen,

                  "@Daniel: thanks for commenting on my essay.

                  Am I correct that you obtain a quantum-theoretical formulation of the physics of gravitational repulsion from just two assumptions?"

                  Yes. This is correct.

                  "Are your two assumptions (or axioms) all of the assumptions of the entire theory, or are these assumptions that are added to the assumptions of the quantum framework?"

                  Yes, the two axioms are the only assumptions. The rest of the theory is directly derived from them. For a brief introduction the main ideas, you can read my recent entry in the FQXi contest. If after reader questions remain, and you're interested to see an exposition of the entire framework, I'd be happy to direct you to a larger document (120 pages), which is the first part of an introductory work to the concepts.

                  Hi Marcoen,

                  In answer to your questions

                  "Am I correct that you obtain a quantum-theoretical formulation of the physics of gravitational repulsion from just two assumptions?" and "Are your two assumptions (or axioms) all of the assumptions of the entire theory, or are these assumptions that are added to the assumptions of the quantum framework?"

                  Yes, I do get gravitational repulsion from only two basic assumptions or axioms. The entire theory is directly derived from only two axioms. You can get an idea how this is achieve from my entry in the FQXi contest titled "Questioning the Assumption that Space is Continuous."

                  And should you want to see the entire framework, I would be happy to direct you to my introduction to the subject; the first part of which is only 120 pages.

                  You work and mine would certainly provide a basis for some interesting discussions, to say the least.

                  Daniel