of insulators, diamagnetics and antigravity

[bwanaaa]

I had a tough time explaining these things to my 12 year old but something hit me. That mass has a property that is universally attractive towards other mass (gravity) boils down to 'like attracts like'. Unlike electrical and magnetic fields where 'like repels like' , that has an interesting corollary on the distribution of mass (matter) and antimatter. In the early stages of the universe, when the plasma congealed and clumped, electrical neutrality was maintained as opposite charges paired off with each other or clumped in groups to maintain net zero charge. We live on a world where we can tease these opposites apart. and find negatively and positively charged particles provided we provide enough energy to permit the separation of the particles. Matter ,though, would have clumped together and squeezed any anti matter away-like oil and water. we live in a world where all the matter attracts all other matter. We cannot find any antimatter here because it would be repellent to our matter. There must be a part of the universe made of antimatter where all the laws of physics are identical to those we observe-but made of antimatter. The boundary between these two subsets would be like the interface of oil and water. There would be no crossing over from one to the other. Energy though would freely travel through. As a piece of such antimatter passes near a black hole, it would bend space the 'opposite way' that graviy does. The blackness of a black hole would 'temporarily' decrease and the diameter of its event horizon would shrink.

Has any such phenomenon been observed?

Am I crazy?

 

[f95toli]

Eh?

Both matter and antimatter reacts to gravity the same way. There is nothing "strange" with antimatter. it is basically particles with opposite charge.

If you bring a particle and its antiparticle together they will annihilate and the resutling energy willbe proportional to the sum of their masses (2*mc^2).

Antimatter is very common and is also used in some applications. PET-scanner which you can find in hospitals uses positrons (the anti-electron), PET=positron emission tomography.

 

[DrPizza]

Also, even if it was true that gravitationally, they repelled each other, the electromagnetic force is many orders of magnitude stronger than the gravitational force. Thus, the repelling force would be a very very small fraction of the attractive force, in the case of an electron and positron, proton and anti-proton, etc. Very early in the universe, there wouldn't have yet been neutral atoms as it was much too hot.

 

[bwanaaa]

f95toli

your reply is based on the usual definition of antimatter- 'matter that has the oposite charge' as exemplified by the positron. And yes i do know that matter and antimatter will annihilate each other, as well as the fact that positron electron pairs spontaneously appear from sufficiently high energy gamma rays.

However, I was describing 'antimatter' purely from an 'antigravitic' definition. Although gravity is orders of magnitude weaker than electromagnetism, it is a force. A constantly applied force, no matter how small will ultimately lead to enormous velocities. Thus, 'antimatter' az I have defined it would be ejected from a puddle of normal matter towars a puddle of 'antimatter'. Based on the fact that matter attracts other matter and repels 'antimatter'.

I suggest that such puddles of 'antimatter' exist in our universe and their only effect would be that they repel matter with a force consistent with the gravitational constant .


My corrollary is that such 'antimatter' and its antigravitic effects can be observed.

 

[DrPizza]

Although gravity is orders of magnitude weaker than electromagnetism, it is a force. A constantly applied force, no matter how small will ultimately lead to enormous velocities.

Actually, it is a *net force* which leads to acceleration. You can't ignore the electromagnetic force. Thus, the net force would be attractive, not repelling. Early in the universe, there wouldn't have been atoms yet, as it was much too hot. The existing positrons and electrons; protons and antiprotons, would have attracted each other and annihilated each other. That there is matter left over shows that the birth of the universe was assymetrical. Why, is still a mystery.

Hmmm... Neutrons and anti-neutrons...
They wouldn't have attracted each other....
Now, you've got me thinking about this. I don't know for certain that antimatter exhibits the same gravitational characteristics as matter. I think they do, but can't say with 100% certainty.

 

[f95toli]

Eh?
OK, so you just re-defined a well establishd concept. Wouldn't it be better to give it another name?
And since gravity is a property of spece-time I do not think such particles can exist.

We know there is dark matter (and dark energy) but it reacts to gravity in the usual way (Even though we do not know what it is).

 

[DrPizza]

Searched... didn't take long.
With the simple assumption that energy is conserved, proof that antimatter would fall toward the earth, rather than away.
(and mention that some theories conclude that antimatter would be accelerated TOWARD the earth at a higher acceleration than regular matter)
ucr.edu

Also, neutrinos and anti-neutrinos have been observed reacting the same way to gravity...
So, my initial thoughts were correct... gravity does effect antimatter the same way.

Then again, if they're experimenting at CERN and elsewhere to create anti-hydrogen atoms, and are attempting to analyze their gravitational behavior, I'd have to say that the physicists aren't 100% certain... but the majority believe antimatter would behave the same way.

 

[AsiLuc]

Conclusion: forget anti-gravity. So far, I haven't heard of it in either quantummechanics or cosmology, and I study physics. Gravity is a purely attractive force.

 

[bwanaaa]

Originally posted by: AsiLuc
Conclusion: forget anti-gravity. So far, I haven't heard of it in either quantummechanics or cosmology, and I study physics. Gravity is a purely attractive force.

indeed, i wish i could forget about it, but i continue to write hoping that i can at least forge a new name for the concept i am trying to communicate. Can you prove that early in the universe there was NOT A class of matter that repelled the matter we are familar with?

in the wonderfully lucid explanation and data presented at http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/antimatterFall.html

thank you Dr. Pizza

specifically, "The only direct experimental result on antimatter and gravity comes from Supernova 1987A. This supernova in the Large Magellanic Cloud emitted both neutrinos and antineutrinos, some of which were eventually detected on Earth" and they arrived siamltaneously. Yes, I agree that shows antimatter falls down.

but the class of mater i am describing would never have reached earth. it would have fallen away.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: bwanaaa
indeed, i wish i could forget about it, but i continue to write hoping that i can at least forge a new name for the concept i am trying to communicate. Can you prove that early in the universe there was NOT A class of matter that repelled the matter we are familar with?

The term you're looking for is "exotic matter." We have no experimental evidence that objects with negative mass exist, but general relativity doesn't prohibit their existence. Theorists have written quite a bit about exotic matter. One of its most interesting properties is that wormholes immediately collapse if you send mass energy through them, but you could use exotic matter, if it exists, to stabilize them and prevent such collapses.

 

[bwanaaa]

Exotic matter. i love it.


so, exotic matter has gravitational attraction towards other exotic matter. Exotic matter is made of elementary particles identical in all respects to ours except that their particles would have a gravitational repulsion towards ours. Somewhere in our universe is a puddle of exotic matter- like a drop of oil in water. If someone made of exotic matter came to our world, she would feel gravitational pressure and just float off the planet (unless she was wearing electrically or magnetically charged boots ).

My next question is-how would photons behave at the boundary of matter and exotic matter? In the thought experiment i outlined above, the passage of a black hole near an exotic matter puddle would result in an increase in the radius of the event horizon of the black hole and he black hole would be repelled away from the exotic matter. Such abnormal trajectories and changes in the size of the black hole could be observed if you watched for a long enough time.

The converse postulation would be the existence of an exotic black hole whose passage into our nonexotic puddle of the unverse would be manifested by abnormal trajectories of known stars away from the exotic black hole.

I wonder how phtons would behave in exotic matter. Since optical refraction is density dependent, photons should obey the same laws in exotic matter as they do in our matter. We could not distinguish photons from an exotic puddle or a regular puddle of matter.

In the birth of the universe, the separation of exotic and regualr matter would occur after electrically neutral matter was achieved because the electrostatic force is so much greater then gravitational force.
Perhaps some exotic matter was captured inside of atoms in our puddle of regular matter. In a tokomak, the achievement of the plasma state should release this captured exotic matter and it would be floating at the top of the toroid, like cream on milk.

Or would these exotic neutrons just float right out the top of the tokomak?

 

[bwanaaa]

oops...neutrons would not be contained as they are electrically neutral. exotic protons might be contained in the nucleus by the strong force and released in the plasma state.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: bwanaaa
I wonder how phtons would behave in exotic matter. Since optical refraction is density dependent, photons should obey the same laws in exotic matter as they do in our matter. We could not distinguish photons from an exotic puddle or a regular puddle of matter.

I admit relativistic physics is not my strongest suit, but since light can be refracted gravitationally, wouldn't it be bent *away* from such exotic matter (which would, I think, be a good way to find it)? Although, if photons actually *hit* exotic matter, it might still refract the same way, assuming such matter interacts with the other fundamental forces in a manner similar to regular matter.

 

[AsiLuc]

Just for the record, this is fantasy..
It's fun, but it's sci-fi.

 

[futuristicmonkey]

Sci-fi may be all lies (fiction), but even lies are based upon some truth.

 

[bwanaaa]

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: bwanaaa
I wonder how phtons would behave in exotic matter. Since optical refraction is density dependent, photons should obey the same laws in exotic matter as they do in our matter. We could not distinguish photons from an exotic puddle or a regular puddle of matter.

I admit relativistic physics is not my strongest suit, but since light can be refracted gravitationally, wouldn't it be bent *away* from such exotic matter (which would, I think, be a good way to find it)? Although, if photons actually *hit* exotic matter, it might still refract the same way, assuming such matter interacts with the other fundamental forces in a manner similar to regular matter.

yes, that's what I was trying to communicate when i said the event horizon of a black hole would expand if exotic matter passed close to it. and yes, i would think a puddle of exotic matter would deflect light away, if the exotic gravity was strong enough.