The Law of Conservation of Baryon Number, Antimatter Anitigravity, and the Experiment That Never Gets Done by Steven Dinowitz

That was a fascinating read.

I have to admit that, as a lay person I had difficulty following your essay, but I ave two questions:

1. Since the effect of gravity is proportional to an object's mass, wouldn't an anti-gravity effect require that objects be composed of elements with negative mass? I presume that the masses of antimatter particles have been experimentally determined and confirmed to be identical to their material counterparts.

2. Since hydrogen rises within the Earth's gravitational field (generally because of its low mass), wouldn't an identicaly massive anti-hydrogen be expected to rise at the same rate (ignoring annihilation probabilities). If hydrogen sinks in a Earth bound vacuum chamber but anti-hydrogen rises, you could have a point...

Thanks in advance.

Steven,

Reading the various essays has brought to light many of the assumptions that are centuries old that have resulted in contemporary "generally accepted" theories.

Top of pg 6. "Rather, it was the observation, made during a solar eclipse in 1919, that the gravitational field of the Sun deflected light by twice the amount Newton had predicted that gave experimental confirmation to Einstein's theory of gravity, his General Theory of Relativity, published in 1916, that made Einstein a household name."

Newton was unaware the light had an electromagnetic (EM) basis, nor that these EM fields were transverse to the axis of propagation. Newton died 159 years before Heinrich Hertz demonstrated that EM waves propagated through air. I am sure Newton was unaware of the terms permittivity and permeability as applied to the EM phenomenon.

Georgina Parry's essay, 1316, used the term "incomplete information" when referring to assumptions. If the validity of Einstein's theory of gravity is based upon an error in a Newton prediction, which was made upon assumption(s) that were in vogue before 1727, it begins to make sense how all the contemporary weird explanations and assumptions used to explain observed characteristics of the universe are readily accepted by the "scientific authority structure" (Prof. Kuhn term).

Dear Steven Dinowitz,

I have a similar model on antigravity or repulsive gravity. In my article, I show that negative mass(energy) provides an explanation for dark matter and dark energy.

Please view to my article and simulation video.

Article 1309 - Negative mass and Negative energy

Have a good time!

---Hyoyoung Choi

Thank you Anonymous.

1) Experiments clearly show that antimatter, like matter, has positive inertial mass. While under General Relativity gravitational and inertial mass are identical, this need not be the case in reality. There is no experimental evidence for negative inertial mass, nor do I believe in its existence. A gravitational repulsion between bulk matter and antimatter does not mean that antimatter has negative inertial mass. Nor can I make the flat statement that antimatter has negative gravitational mass: Under the hypothesis I put forward in the essay I proposed 3 types of gravitational mass as denoted by c, c-bar, and w. (See 'New Rules' in the Essay). I wanted complete symmetry between matter and antimatter so I proposed that c-bar,c-bar and c-bar,w gravitational interactions are also gravitationally attractive. Only c,c-bar is gravitationally repulsive. Because we have only tested cc, cw, and ww gravitational interactions, it currently appears that gravitational mass is strictly positive.

2) Hydrogen rises in air because it is less dense than air, and antihydrogen would rise in air for the same reason (ignoring, as you say, the annihilation). Yes, I am proposing that antihydrogen will fall up in a vacuum chamber due to gravitational repulsion with the Earth.

Frank,

I agree of course that Newton was unaware of many of the more modern concepts of electromagnetic radiation. However, utilizing his theory of gravity (with its single potential) results in a displacement of stars at the Sun's limb of 2GM/rc2 radians compared to Einstein's prediction of 4GM/rc2 (based on ten potentials). You can find a nice description of this in: "The physical foundations of General Relativity" by D.W. Sciama (Doubleday & Company, Inc., Garden City, New York, 1969) p. 67-73.

I have not had a chance yet to read Georgina Parry's essay yet, but I will.

Steven,

Thanks very much for the helpful explanation - and sorry for being slow. I also must belatedly commend you on your very clearly written essay - I tend to obsess on the sticking points...

I also agree that the planned experiment will be most enlightening.

In regards to anti-gravity, I've had difficulty comprehending how a gravitational mechanism (I hold on to the idea that there must be some undescribed physical process or mechanism that produces the very well described effects of gravitation) could distinguish between particles and anti-particles of identical mass - which is fundamentally addressed in your essay.

However, it occurs to me that the baryon number/color charge 'properties' are merely an abstract index of quark combinatorial behavior. IMO, theses properties are most likely proxies for some physical attribute of various types of quarks, such as structural geometry or topology, or a combination thereof, that produce the observed combinatorial behavior.

As such, I strongly suspect that color charge or baryon number has nothing to do with gravitation, and that the gravitational effect will be confirmed to be proportional to the physical property of mass alone. After all, that understanding of gravity is the reason why most physicists would expect that the AEGIS experiment's anti-hydrogen beam will curve towards the Earth.

I certainly hope that AEGIS is carried out. Moreover, I hope that it is also conducted using a beam of hydrogen particles to confirm its predicted behavior in the specific conditions imposed by the experimental apparatus, regardless of any anti-hydrogen results...

Thanks very much for your fine essay!

Steven,

There are two ways in which antimatter could antigravitate. The first way is that it has a negative mass. The Dirac theory has particles in the lower portion of the momentum-energy light cone as negative in mass. These pack in to form the Dirac sea. The positive portion of the cone contains positive mass particles. The standard idea is that by giving a particle in the bottom portion of the cone sufficient energy that it assume a positive mass, but with opposite values of the other quantum numbers. If we assume however that anti-particles have anti-mass, -m, or negative mass, then gravitational interaction with ordinary mass M is

Ma1 = -GM(-m)/r^2

-ma2 = -GM(-m)/r^2

so the accelerations of mass and antimass are

a1 = Gm/r^2

a2 = -GM/r^2

so the mass is repelled by anti-mass, but anti-mass is attracted to mass.

There is a problem with this that connects to Dirac theory. An electron e plus e^= gives photons with positive energy. However if the positron has negative mass then the m(e) m(e^) = 0, which would produce nothing.

Another way is that we would have a parity change with m_i = m_g. We might suppose that that while antimatter mass is positive, that Gm is negative. Then m_i = m_g for matter, but m_g = m_i for antimatter The gravitational constant is somehow sensitive to the matter or antimatter state of a particle. The gravitation equation would be

Ma1 = -GM(-m)/r^2

ma2 = -GM(-m)/r^2

so the accelerations of mass and antimass are

a1 = Gm/r^2

a2 = GM/r^2

In this case matter and antimatter repel each other.

This runs into some funny issues with black holes. Hawking radiation from a Schwarzschild black hole produces an equal number of particles and antiparticles due to the "no hair" theorem. A neutral black hole will produce an equal number of particles and antiparticles. The black hole is then a reservoir of possible particle-antiparticle pairs, but yet it has gravitation or a horizon at r = GM/c^2. Suppose we place a Gaussian sphere around the black hole to contain particles and radiation emitted. This would mean that while there are e-e^ pairs not annihilated that the gravity measured across the Gaussian surface would change. That would be a bit odd.

This experiment or one like it would be worth doing. However, I suspect it will largely confirm what we already know.

Cheers LC

Hi Hyoyoung,

As I noted in a reply to James Dwyer: "Experiments clearly show that antimatter, like matter, has positive inertial mass. There is no experimental evidence for negative inertial mass, nor do I believe in its existence. A gravitational repulsion between bulk matter and antimatter does not mean that antimatter has negative inertial mass." So I don't think I would add anything constructive to your work but I will read your essay. Years ago, Isaac Asimov wrote some amazing speculations on negative energy in his book "Science, Numbers, And I" Good Luck.

Dear Steven Dinowitz,

I am sorry. I apologize for my poor English.

I agree that "Experiments clearly show that antimatter, like matter, has positive inertial mass." And I do not consider that antimatter is a negative mass.

In my article,

=========

~

However, we determined that total energy could not exist at a negative state and abandoned the solution(of relativistic total energy) of negative energy. Only the great physicist, Dirac was able to connect a solution of negative energy to antimatter.

But, despite how Dirac reached his discovery on antimatter, antimatter still has positive energy. In other words, it is less likely that antimatter is the true owner of a negative energy solution.

==========

For the observation or evidence of negative mass(energy)

In 1998, an observation by both the HSS team and SCP team obtained a negative mass density from inspected field equations over 70years.(Field eq. has a Lamda=0)

SCP(Supernova Cosmology Project) team : If Lamda=0, Omega_M= - 0.4(±0.1)

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9805201 refer to 7P

HSS(The High-z Supernova Search) team : If Lamda=0, Omega_M = - 0.38(±0.22)

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9805201 refer to 14P

However, the two teams which judged that negative mass and negative energy level could not exist in our universe based on "the problem of the transition of the energy level of minus infinity" and they instead revised the field equation by inserting the cosmological constant.

Moreover, we considered vacuum energy as the source of cosmological constant Lamda, but the current result of calculation shows 10120, which is unprecedented even in the history of Physics.

However, if "the problem of the transition of the energy level of minus infinity" does not occur, and thus negative and positive mass can coexist, what would happen?

It is well known that a cosmological constant can respond to the negative mass density.

peff = -Lamda/4piG

Lamda is positive, so peff is negative.

Please view to my article and simulation video

Computer Simulation on negative mass

Again, I'm sorry. Have a nice day!

--- Hyoyoung, Choi

Lawrence,

If you are suggesting that those are the only two ways that matter may gravitationally repel antimatter, I simply disagree - See New Rules in my essay if you haven't already. The first way you suggest is, as I'm sure you are aware, a nonstarter since we already know by experiment that antimatter has positive energy and positive inertial mass. The second way you mention is to simply say that antimatter has negative gravitational mass. This indeed has yet to be tested experimentally - and is part of what the AEGIS experiment is about. Until the experiment is actually conducted we are both free to suspect what we wish. At least we agree that such an experiment is worth doing. In 2012 we know the mating habits of shrimp in low Earth orbit, but we don't know if antimatter falls up or down!

That is of course the state of affairs. The difficulty of course is that gravity is such a weak force and acquiring antimatter is technically difficult. I would say that if you had antimatter in orbit around the Earth, say observed on the International Space Station, that if it is repelled it moves to a larger radius. Ordinarily gravitation determines orbital velocity and frequency by

mω^2r = GMm/r^2

leading to ω = sqrt{GM/r}. If you have Gm negative for antimatter, but m is positive, then

mω^2r = -GMm/r^2

then ω = sqrt{-GM/r} = i sqrt{GM/r}. This means frequency is not defined and the particle is on an escape trajectory. With regards to energy

E = 1/2mv^2 - GMm/r

We assume E is constant and then

v = sqrt{2E/m - 2GM/r}

where the sign of 2GM/r is due to the negative sign of Gm. The velocity increases as r -- > ∞ and eventually E_∞ = 1/2mv_∞. This would then suggest the energy involved with preparing antimatter and matter is different. Matter has a negative potential energy while antimatter would be negative

It would certainly be an odd development. I agree it would be worth testing to make sure nature is not quite as odd, if not pathological, as this.

Cheers LC

Dear Steven,

It seems that the idea of Antimatter Antigravity is not compatible with the Theory of Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter which is considered in my essay. In the theory the substance of all the particles is the same similar to substance for planets and stars. Antiparticles have opposite charge only. And quarks are not real particles but quasiparticles.

Sergey Fedosin

Dear Sergey,

Well needless to say I find the Infinite Hierarchical approach to the nature of reality rather matter-centric. Though I agree that we may not be at the limit with quarks, leptons, etc., I do believe there is a limit. Also, I think the experimental evidence for the existence of quarks is substantial. I think Gell-mann's initial quark theory (early 1960's), and Greenberg's notion of color charge (early 1970's) were notions of shear genius. Also, I wonder how the approach you take would handle dark matter and dark energy. These two 'substances' are very different than the substances of planets and stars. I guess if you don't recognize the existence of quarks, you would surely deny the existence of these as well - and at this stage of our ignorance you could probably still make the argument. However, even the argument that both dark matter and dark energy are previously unsuspected properties of gravity itself conflicts with the Hierarchical approach as these theories inevitably introduce new properties of gravity tied to some specific, or even multiple, distance parameter(s).

As to antimatter antigravity, I don't want to spend another 50 years debating it. You have a theory which is not compatible with antimatter antigravity, and I have one that is. Experiments to determine the gravitational acceleration of antimatter are long overdue.

Dear Steven

I think that quarks are quasiparticles. The model of quark quasiparticles is described in §12 of the book: The physical theories and infinite nesting of matter. Perm: S.G. Fedosin, 2009-2012, 858 p. ISBN 978-5-9901951-1-0. And dark matter is explained in the paper: Fedosin S.G. Cosmic Red Shift, Microwave Background, and New Particles. Galilean Electrodynamics, Spring 2012, Vol. 23, Special Issues No. 1, P. 3 - 13.

Sergey Fedosin

Hello Steven,

In your essay you write that the main reason why the coupling of antimatter with the gravitational field of "ordinary" matter hasn't been established so far, is that physicists think they already "know" the outcome.

While I agree with you that group pressure is a factor - it certainly explains why the AEGIS project is a smaller enterprise than the Higgs project - I think, however, that the main reason the experiment hasn´t been done is technological. For example, on paper it sounds very simple that you only have to inject slow antiprotons horizontally into a Faraday cage to measure their gravitational acceleration. But in reality, the process is simply not feasible technically - e.g. no ideal Faraday cage exists. Therefore they know try the experiments with neutral antimatter, and these are at the forefront of technology.

Your proposal of the sign of your six possible gravitational interactions raises some philosophical questions. For example, on page 8 you imply with (3) that protons and positrons interact attractive, while you imply with (6) that protons and antiprotons interact repulsive. So positrons must have a property that antiprotons do not have. Thus, there is no general symmetry between matter particles and their antimatter counterparts, such as the C-inversion of the current Standard Model (which is, thus, false in your model). Then you get to ontological questions as what mass and energy actually are. Have you thought about this?

Best regards, Marcoen