• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Repulsive gravity as an alternative to dark energy

Status
Not open for further replies.

Analog

Lifer
virgosupercl.jpg


(PhysOrg.com) -- When scientists discovered in 1998 that the Universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, the possibility that dark energy could explain the observation was intriguing. But because there has been little progress in figuring out exactly what dark energy is, the idea has since become more of a problem than a solution for some scientists. One physicist, Massimo Villata of the National Institute for Astrophysics (INAF) in Pino Torinese, Italy, describes dark energy as “embarrassing,” saying that the concept is an ad hoc element to standard cosmology and is devoid of any physical meaning. Villata is one of many scientists who are looking for new explanations of the Universe’s accelerating expansion that involve some form of repulsive gravity. In this case, the repulsive gravity could stem from antimatter hiding in voids.

In Villata’s paper, which will soon be published in Astrophysics and Space Science, he suggests that antimatter could be hiding in these large voids, separated from matter by mutual gravitational repulsion. As he explained previously, the gravitational repulsion between matter and antimatter is a prediction of general relativity. In this scenario, matter has a positive gravitational charge while antimatter has a (hypothetical) negative gravitational charge. As a result, both matter and antimatter are gravitationally self-attractive, yet mutually repulsive. The gravitational repulsion between matter and antimatter could be so powerful, in fact, that Villata has calculated that it could be responsible for the accelerated expansion of the Universe, eliminating the need for dark energy and possibly dark matter.
Repulsive gravity of this form could even theoretically explain some observations that dark energy cannot, even theoretically, explain. Recently, scientists observed an anomalous motion of the “Local Sheet,” the part of the Universe that includes the Milky Way and other nearby galaxies, which has its own peculiar velocity distinct from other parts of the Universe. Astronomers have identified three components that contribute to the velocity of the Local Sheet: one is due to the well-known attraction to the nearby dense Virgo Cluster; the second component, although its origin is less clear, is thought to be due to the attraction to the Centaurus Cluster; and the third component is what astronomers call the “local velocity anomaly” because the force is not directed toward any significant structure.

In this way, the antimatter would act like dark energy in our local neighborhood. On a large scale, numerous antimatter voids could drive the expansion of the Universe without the need for dark energy, and possibly even without the need for an explosive Big Bang (perhaps implying a cyclic Universe). The theory also implies that we live in a Universe with equal amounts of matter and antimatter, as expected by standard theories. To Villata, these results make repulsive gravity an alluring alternative to dark energy.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-01-repulsive-gravity-alternative-dark-energy.html
 
It's funny because the entire point of dark energy is that we have no idea what it is. The very definition itself already assumes that its devoid of meaning and scientists are working to figure out an actual theory to fill in for dark energy. I think these guys completely missed the point.
 
Dark Energy has always been a kind of placeholder. Basically a name given to something we can barely even describe, let alone understand... we figure something is there, doing something to cause something that results in what is seen - hopefully they can actually detail the as of yet unknowns that actually comprise Dark Energy.


Would antimatter provide for the gravitational lensing that is witnessed, and is currently pegged as the result of dark matter?


And this theory that states, as of this moment in time, matter and antimatter comprise an equal percentage of the universe... it's intriguing. I don't recall it being the popular opinion... not that that makes it any more or less likely to be the truth, it is simply, in science, that which goes against the grain is more often wrong than right (but when right, absolutely game-changing).

Some big names have thought dark matter could simply be clumps of antimatter, yes? In other words, matter and antimatter being repulsive (ugly ass bastards that they are) might be the biggest point of this theory.

This seems to throw the entire history of our understanding (of matter/antimatter) out the window. That is, from the two popping into and out of existence, banging into each other, and generally not making much sense in the first place... and changing it to "they've always co-existed from the moment they appeared, and they cannot stand close proximity with the other half of the pair.

As for cyclical, hmm.... I wonder how all this, including a cyclical Universe, would match up with the CMB/CBR (cosmic microwave background / background radiation) and the picture different analyses have painted of the spread of matter and "dark matter"/antimatter. Matter was more likely to evenly disperse whereas dark matter appeared (based on research and animated models) to remain in fairly massive clumps throughout the universe. So much so, it appeared to drive the evolution of galactic clusters... because it appeared matter was attracted to the massive gravity of these huge seas of dark matter.

Thus, why I ask about gravitational lensing. Though that whole thing still causes a compatibility issue (w/theory) as such "clumps" of antimatter would repel matter, not cause it to coalesce into galaxies and galaxy clusters.

The only way I could see this really panning out (if antimatter repels matter) is if galaxies, or at the least galaxy clusters, are surrounded by massive "bubbles" of antimatter.
 
We've made antimatter in the lab. So does it have this "negative gravitational" property or not? Less guesswork and more experimental evidence please. Thanks.
 
Could be quite interesting depending on what is actually written in the paper. I didn't see a link to it yet, so going to wait till I see the actual paper. I never take what is written in news articles about science too seriously, as many times it's far from what is actually published.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top