anti-matter has anti-gravity, shower of positrons is the result

Negative energy is indeed possible, but it is not associated with anti-matter. As you've stated, anti-matter, with all its negative connotations, is at heart positive (both mass and energy wise).

Negative energy is not only possible, it is quite common. Gravitational potential energy is negative. There may be enough negative energy in the universe to exactly balance all forms of positive energy. Incidentally, if anti-matter has anti-gravity, it will still have positive inertia, thus positive mass. It will also have positive energy, since the annhilation of an electron and a positron produce two 511 KEV photons, and photons always have positive energy.

Hello Cebrakon.

TWO THINGS...

1) We are all agreed that matter/anti-matter is irrelevant insofar as Gravity/Anti-gravity is involved. Incidently, if NEGAtively charged electronic MATTER annihilates with POSItively charged positronic ANTI-MATTER to produce NEUTRALLY charged photonic (Gamma Ray) energy/matter-------which STILL represents ‘positive presence’ of energy/matter rather than any ‘negative absence’ of energy/matter.

2) As to the convention concerning the labelling of gravitational potential as ‘negative’, THIS IS NOT A PHYSICAL QUANTITY TERM, BUT A ‘MATHEMATICAL-PHYSICIST’ CONVENTION FOR INCLUSION OF SUCH CONCEPT IN EQUATIONS...NOT IN ACTUAL CONCRETE PHYSICAL ENTITY MANIPULATIONS.


Now to give an analogy to explain something about the nature of ‘gravitational pressure’:

Imagine you take a party balloon with you when you climb Mount Everest....you blow and inflate it at that elevation where the air pressure against the expansion of the balloon is lower than the pressure at sea level....you tie off the balloon and bring it back down to sea level with you, by which time your balloon (which you had so proudly inflated to ‘lovely roundness’ at higher elevation) is now a limp and sorry ‘half-deflated’ bladder instead of a balloon. WHAT HAS HAPPENED, DEMONSTRATES THAT GRAVITY PRESSURE MAY BE MORE OR LESS I’NSIDE’ pushing out, or ‘OUTSIDE’ pushing in depending on the DIFFERENT LOCATION/DIRECTION of that PRESSURE FORCE outside/inside any particular mass-space DISTRIBUTION/ CONFIGURATION situation. It is the ‘difference’ in the balance of such force that gives the phenomena, not the force per se...which force is ALWAYS POISTIVE IN THE SENS THAT IT IS PRESENT TO SOME DEGREE OR OTHER, from zero quantity to ‘infinite’ quantity, or somewhere in-between. In any case, the absence (or zero quantity) of such a force IS NOT A ‘NEGATIVE’ FORCE PER SE, BUT ONLY THAT...AN ABSENCE (mathematicians represent it in equations with a ‘negatuve’ sign, but that has nothing to do with the nature of the force itself, only its acting-direction of more/less pressure.


I hope this helps in us avoiding discussing at cross-purposes.


Best regards from: RealityCheck.

Hi RealityCheck,

I meant to reply to this sooner, but anyway, here it is. If anti-matter has anti-gravity (a question to be answered by observation of the spectra of quasar jets), then Einstein is wrong, and INERTIA terms and GRAVITY terms do not coincide. The equivalence principle would be broken. Matter and anti-matter would have to be handled separately in a new version of General Relativity.

There is another paradox in GR that I forgot to mention. It allows time travel. Kurt Goedel, Einstein's friend in his old age, found that solution to the GR equations. It requires a rotating universe.

Hi Cebrakon. Good to speak with you again.

1) Now, those quasar jets and the question of MATTER/ANTI-MATTER:

- Have you considered the possibility that the spin-twist properties of the crunched/recycled ‘stuff’ spewed out of one pole of a spinning astronomical structure/body (quasars/black holes/pulsars) is in opposite arrangement to that spewed out of the other pole? An analogy close to home (although it’s not a strict analogy) is what happens when cold air from our planet’s north and south poles flows towards the equator, forming CYCLONES (clock-wise spinning air-mass ‘solitons’) in the SOUTHERN hemisphere; and ANTI-CYCLONES (anti-clock-wise spinning air-mass ‘solitons’) in the NORTHERN hemisphere.

- And have you considered that any pre-existing ‘localised’ environment filled with one king or other of these clock-wise or anti-clock-wise solitons will automatically allow SAME type swirls to persist (and even ‘combine’ with them to produce ‘bigger’ swirls (such as maybe what happens with photons-->electrons-->nucleons etc.); while at the same time NOT-SAME type swirls are ‘cancelled out’ with hardly a murmur by the preponderance of OPPOSITE-SPIN swirls? Jupiter’s atmosphere is an even more dramatic demonstration of this: there, north and south hemisphere are filled with swirls/anti-swirls forming, cancelling, aggregating etc.

2) About Goedel and the requirement for a rotating universe. Now, while a planet-in-a-universal-space may rotate RELATIVE TO THAT SPACE, what would the universe itself rotate relative to...especially if that universe is eternal/infinite/unbounded...take your pick(s)? So you see, any such ‘solutions’ to any such ‘equations’ are themselves ‘artificial abstractions’ having no basis in an objective reality, only a basis in arbitrary/relative ‘localised and bounded’ assumptions/axioms for the physical/mathematical ‘systems’ constructed by the various schools of mathematical-physicist cosmologists. There is nothing yet to say they are ‘valid’, only ‘useful’ as ‘stepping stones’ to more ‘complete’ constructs. But that is for you to come to realise for yourself as you research this field. I shall only caution you to not accept all assumptions of ANY current theorem/theory or postulate/hypothesis.

3) Again, there is a perfectly good and demonstrable reason why being ELECTRONIC ‘MATTER’ or being POSITRONIC ‘ANTI-MATTER’ has NOTHING to do with the nature of their respective GRAVITATIONAL behaviour. If it did, then their respective INERTIAL behaviour would also be different---and it isn’t. anti-matter is GRAVITATIONALLY AND INERTIALLY accelerated/decelerated in laboratories in exactly the same way, only the ELECTRO-MAGNETIC POLARITIES of the ELECTRO-MAGNETIC SET-UPS are REVERSED, that is, the usual GRAVITATIONAL/INERTIAL POTENTIALS in the lab or the planet are NOT in any way changed as to ‘polarity’. Which leads to the perfectly logical suggestion that whatever causes GRAVITY and INERTIA forces is FUNDAMENTALLY more ‘pervasive’/ubiquitous ‘global’ than any electro-magnetic forces, be these latter forces ‘anti-’ or not. Which in turn leads to the reasonable observation that gravity/inertia has to do with the false-vacuum pseudo-bulk ‘stuff’ ALL AROUND, whereas the ‘stuff’ of electro/magnetism is more ‘localised’ in-around the structures/particles/waves THEMSELVES. Which is why electro-magnetic matter/antimatter can interact between themselves in TWO ways while they BOTH act in ONLY ONE way with gravity/inertia (where any SEEMING’ ANTI-EFFECTS ARE MERELY THE RESULT OF MASS-SPACE DISTRIBUTION/ARRANGEMENT SITUATIONS rather than any ‘intrinsic’ properties.


Well, I hope I haven’t shell-shocked you too much. By the way, have you read and tried to understand those papers at www.earthlingclub.com? I'd be interested to know what you make of them, roughly. Anyhow, good luck with your researches wherever they take you.


Best of good-thinking regards from: RealityCheck.

Hi RealityCheck. I have taken a look at the papers at earthlingclub, however, I should tell you something about myself. I am not interested in theories of everything. I would like to understand just one thing at a time, beginning with that fountain of positrons in our galactic center. I want to stick close to the facts, and construct the simplest testable theory that will account for those facts, e.g., "anti-matter has anti-gravity."

There are other interesting and unexplained facts like that, being ignored because everybody (but me) wants to build a theory of everything. For instance, did you know that there are occasional abrupt changes in the Earth's spin vector on the order of 10 milliarcseconds in direction, or 10 milliarcseconds/second in rotation speed? I look at this, and I see the absorption or emission of a graviton. If I am right, a graviton is not at all like the thing predicted by the field theory (GR), just as a photon turns out not to be at all like the thing predicted by EM field theory (Maxwell's equations). It seems that gravitons are only absorbed and emitted by planet sized objects, and each graviton carries a great deal of energy.

Best wishes, Cebrakon

Hi Cebrakon and RealityCheck,

A rotating Universe is the only way to gp... to understand it you must think about the "big picture" and possibly a TOE.

I hope everyone has seen that paper on the photon/electron. That is "brilliant".

PhysOrg link to interesting paper... A;peman.

http://members.chello.nl/~n.benschop/electron.pdf) the paper itself. I have "fed" this to some "smart" buddies of mine and they think it is "swell" too. It is simple but "transparent". Just needs extra dimensions... eh! Yeah I know... not now but later... much later.

Cheers

Hello Cebrakon & Good Elf.

CEBRAKON:... As I've posted to Zephir and others, I'm working on a comprehensive 'conventionalisation' of the stuff @

................www.earthlingclub.com.

So I'll get back to you when I've finished.

In the meantime, both you and Good Elf be 'careful what you wish for' (a 'rotating universe')...because that route will take you straight to the nearest 'chasm' in the necessary logic/mathematics across which it has ALREADY BEEN SEEN BY OTHERS that it is not 'bridgeable' using such a concept.

But you don't have to take my word for it...you can find that out for yourself. Good luck until I come back with the 'complete' conventionalised TOE!


Best oh-too-conceited-sounding-for-my-own-good! regards from: RealityCheck.

I quite agree. there's as much anti-matter in the universe as matter but its all spread out in deep space (because of the anti gravity). And its responsible for the more rapid than expected creation of galaxies, galaxy clustering, galaxy orbit velocity profiles and galaxy extra mass. Here's my paper http://www.preston.u-net.com/AGMatter/Index.htm

Hi, by my opinion the antimatter can be spread into the neutrinos and dark matter fluctuations of vacuum, as they're doesn't interact with the matter significantly.
The antimatter should have the same gravity behavior, like the common matter (well, some minor shift can occur in the complex system due the CP asymmetry).

In my visualization, matter is produced by a hypertoroidal wave envelope creating particle & antiparticle, being the resultant bi-spherical "common" interdimensional space.

Everyday elementary particles, because of the hypertoroid "field", should possess counterparts, as a ring passing 90 degrees through a 2-D Plane would show up as two circles. As they clearly don't, I propose these elementary particles are produced by hypertoroids that only partially intersect our lower dimensional space (a bit like an ear-ring). Whether the "outer" part of the ring is in intersection with another continuum...who knows, but I'd like to think there's an anti-universe
where positrons orbit anti-protons.

......Dream on 'Doughnut

Hi Zephir. I can't believe it has been 2 years since I last visited this forum. I visited the url you gave me, but I couldn't understand the material. I need pictures or something.

I still believe that antimatter has antigravity, and I have seen no better explanation for the fountain of positrons in the center of the Milky Way. I do not think I need to construct a theory of everything just to add this one line to the theories of physics. All that counts is the data. If someone has a better explanation of the fountain of positrons in the Milky Way's center, I would like to hear it.

If I am forced to give a theoretical account, I would say that a negative curvature of space (like a saddle) is certainly possible, even confined to a small part of the universe.

And where is this explanation for the jets we see coming out of quasars (and several other places)? I believe I can tear apart any such explanation.

Chris Humphrey