Despite of interesting perspectives suggested by recent works, GR bans any introduction of negative masses in the Universe, unless giving up the equivalence principle itself.
A first solution was suggested in 1994 by J-P. Petit, and later by Henry-Couannier and S. Hossenfelder. All are based on a new description of the Universe considered as a manifold M4 coupled to two metrics instead of a single one.
In short, on purely geometrical grounds, negative mass structures could be invisible for a positive mass observer (and vice-versa). Is it a way to explain the negative energy effect, the acceleration of the universe, without dark matter ?
I don't think it's actually true that "GR bans [...] negative mass". GR is a theory of spacetime and gravity, not a theory of matter. The only thing we need to know about matter is that it couples universally and minimally to the metric tensor. There is no reason why you could not introduce, in principle, matter with negative mass density through a suitable Lagrangian or stress-energy tensor. The problem with such a theory is not due to the equivalence principle, but due to the fact that such negative mass states would have lower energy than empty Minkowski space, so the vacuum itself would be unstable.
I think you may be referring to another possibility, namely that antimatter may have negative (gravitational) mass. This would indeed violate the principle of equivalence, since chunks of antimatter (e.g., antiparticles produced in an accelerator) still have positive energy.
Petit's bimetric "bigravity theory" is again something else: it is aimed at explaining the primordial imbalance (among other things) between matter and antimatter by postulating two parallel universes, each with its own metric.
Of course, GR is not a theory of matter and deals with fields, continuous functions. But in GR Newtonian approximation provides newtonian law. From Schwarzschild solution one derives quasi Keplerian trajectories. So that the link between field and particles can be suggested. We observe light. We handle optics. Null-geodesics fits light rays paths. So that we tend to say that "photons cruise along this null geodesics". But in GR photons do no exist. There are only null-geodesics and, in general nothing but geodesics lines, as derived from a metric. Nothing else.
Particles dot not emerge from GR.
In 1957 when H.Bondi tried to put some negative content in the Universe he had a very disagreeable surprise. The field was assumed to be the result of two contributions. One came from positive mass density and the other from negative mass density. Newtonian approximation then gives interaction laws and a very preposterous paradox arises. As pointed out by Bondi, as positive material attracts anything and negative material repels anything, when two "mass concentrations" encounter, the positive one escapes, and the negative one runs after it, in continuously accelerated motion. But as the second corresponded to negative mass, the kinetic energy is conserved !
This is called "runaway phenomenon".
Considering the universe as a M4 manifold, plus a single Riemanian metric obeying Einstein's equation the conclusion was that dealing with positive and negative contents was absolutely impossible.
This schema is drastically modified in a bimetric description of the universe. It is assumed that the universe is a M4 manifold, plus two metrics g(+)an d g(-), the first is supposed to describe the positive material, through its geodesics family and the second the negative matter also throught its own geodesic family. Of course those two metrics are coupled. The coupling mechanism is introduced through a suggested coupled field equations system. This fits GR observational verifications. Newtonian approximation provides a fully different schema : the undesirable runaway phenomenon disappears.
- Matters with same signs mutually attract through Newton's law.
- Matters with opposite signs mutually repel through anti-newton's law.
So that where we find any positive matter concentration, negative matter is expelled from. As a conclusion this bimetric model (which has nothing to do with other so-called bimetric models in which the second metric refers to massive gravitons) fits local observational GR's verification.
In effect the first equation tends to Einstein's equation which becomes a local approximation when negative material can be neglected.
Mathematicians, specialists in geometry, perfectly admit that a manifold M4 could be linked with two metrics. In addition as the two matters follow distinct geodesic systems, the don't encounter, on pure geometric grounds, for example through electromagnetic force. Nothing but "anti-gravitational force", so that "annihilations" cannot occur.
- Positive energy photons, emitted (and captured) by positive matter follow positive null geodesics, as derived from the metric g(+).
- Negative energy photons, emitted (and captured) by negative matter follow "negative geodesics", as derived from the metric g(-).
So that negative matter is geometrically invisible to us (we are made of positive matter). And vice-versa.
As a crude didactic model we can consider a sheet of white paper. Without any squaring, if this sheet is perfectly white, clean, it is a good image of a manifold, without any tool to measure distance between distinct points A and B. But we can draw two different squaring, one on the recto of the sheet, the other on the verso. So that, if we look at the recto we find a certain distance, and if we look at the verso we find a different one. It is a primitive image of a bimetric model (there involving two euclidean metrics). So that, if distances are different, if measured with one or the other squaring system, the geodesic systems are identical. A geodesics AB, figured of the recto is the perfect image of the geodesic AB, point to point, if we draw it on the other side of the sheet.
We cannot figure easily a more refined 2D bimetric configuration. To be as close as possible to the model, we should consider that Universe, space-time, is an hyper surface with "two sides", a "recto" and a "verso". So that, between two distant points A and B the positive geodesic AB, as derived from metric g(+) and the negative geodesics AB, as derived from metric g(-) do not coincide, point to point and the distances, as derived from the two metrics g(+) and g(-) are different. But we have no available mental image to deal with.
One could suggest "to parallel universes", as F.T.Toth mentioned. But I think it is a source of confusion. I definitively prefer "one single universe with two metrics".
If we think of "parallel universe" a question arises :
- Where is this mysterious second universe ?
It is among us. In the room where I write this message there are very few negative mass particles. They can cross me without damage. They interact with atoms I am made of only through gravitation.
F.T.Toth arises the problem of the stability of vacuum. As far as I see this is a concept which comes from Quantum Mechanics and so-called quantum gravity. I just recall that no one has produced a model of graviton. So that quantum gravity is nothing but a transposition of a mechanism from Quantum Theory of Field to gravitational field.
Is it lawful, permissible ? I ask the question.
About negative energy content ( firstly presented by Andrei Linde in 1988) a debate should take place. If one looks to the book of S.Weinberg, page 76, entitled "The quantum Theory of Fields" we find that negative energies were a priori banned, due to the choice of an anti-linear and anti-unitary T-operator. Weinberg himself writes "we are obliged to do that, in order to avoid negative energy states".
Hic jacet lepus. He writes "we cannot consider states whose energy is lower that the energy of void". I am not a specialist of quantum mechanics, I confess. How those states of energy appears ? Is it through the loss of energy of an electron, emitting a photon ( by bremsstrahlung), so that it goes down to energy levels lower and lower ?
In the schema, some people imagines an electron, fallen in the negative energy sector ( Dirac's sea) which would continue to loose energy, infinitely, emitting new photons.
Question : what kind of photon an electron in negative state does emit ?
It seems logical that an electron in negative state would emit a negative energy photon, which "belongs to the same sector". So that it would come up towards positive energy sector.
I ask this question to specialists of QTF. How such electron could emit a ... negative energy photon if one considers that the existence of such negative energy photon would be a priori impossible ?
All the should be cleared up, don't you agree ?
My works are based on Dynamic Groups Theory ( Souriau's works, 1972). Then the T-operator is real. All the symmetry operators ( C , P , T ) are basically real. There is no more distinction between unitary and anti-unitary operators. So that T-symmetry gives automatically energy and mass inversion, directly issued from the structure of complete Poincaré group, not "restricted Poincaré group", limited to its orthochron connex components, which do not reverse time (the one which is ordinary which used by physicists). In my paper " Geometrization of antimatter", I combine T , P and C symmetries. In Dynamic group theory all are real operators.
The game field is then splitted into two "sectors", two kinds of "movements" (because, in Dynamic groups theory, different contents are classified through their movements, with their associated parameters : energy, momentum, spin, elements of the "momentum").
( The so-called "momentum" is the dual of the Lie algebra of the group ).
Adding C symmetry transforms (complete) Poincaré group into an extension. Then C-symmetry holds in the two sectors ( positive and negative energy).
Consider "an ordinary particle" with positive mass, positive energy and some electric charge q ( positive, negative or zero).
- Its P-symmetric corresponds to mirror particle, enantiomorphy. As an example in this positive energy sector we find right and left photons, which corresponds to polarization phenomenon.
- Its C-symmetric is the corresponding anti-particle of a massive particle (photon is identical "antiproton"). It owns positive energy and positive mass. We observe such antimatter in "our sector". I predict that experiments focussed on the determination of the mass of such antimatter will never evidence negative mass.
- Its T-symmetric is the same particle, whose mass and energy have been reversed.
From dynamic groups theory we find a quite puzzling result. If based on dynamic groups theory, the CPT-symmetric of a particle is no longer identical to the particle. It corresponds to negative energy sector (due to the fact that the T-operator is real : energy inversion cannot be avoided ).
- From dynamic groups theory the CPT symmetric of a particle is the same, with reversed energy and mass.
So that the classical, famous CPT theorem becomes ... questionable. Souriau (deceased) called it "a theorem from physicists". A theorem brings a conclusion, from basic axioms. If we look back to the basic assumption of QFT : the nature of the T-operator, negative energy is a priori banned, just because it is considered as "impossible".
It seems to me that the conclusion of the classical CPT theorem is enclosed in the hypothesis. Am I right ?
All that should be cleared up.
- C-symmetry holds in the negative sector and corresponds to matter-antimatter duality among negative energy particles. Let's do :
C x CPT = PT
- The PT symmetrical of an "ordinary particle" (whose mass and energy are positive ) corresponds to antimatter of the negative sector.
Feynman suggested that the PT-symmetrical of a particle was its antiparticles. But in Dynamic groups Theory , due to the T-symmetry, it is an antiparticle with negative energy and negative mass.
So that the universe should contain four kinds of components.
- Matter with positive energy and mass
- Antimatter with positive energy and mass, but reversed electric charge.
That we can observe, through electromagnetic effects (optics, electromagnetism) and through positive gravitational lensing effects.
- Matter with negative energy and negative mass
- Antimatter with negative energy and mass.
That we cannot observe through electromagnetic effects (optics, electromagnetism). This negative matter is optically invisible. Il only reveals its presence through negative lensing effects.
For an example the big spheroidal clusters of negative mass located at the centers of "voids" shaping the VLS reduce the magnitude of light coming from high redshift galaxies, so that the look as dwarfs.
About the planned experiments I conjecture that observed antimatter will fall down in the gravitational field of the Earth. About the proposed experiments to "weight antimatter" we cannot handle such negative mass antimatter and make measurements on it. So that people will loose their time and money, I think.
Where is negative matter ? It's repelled by our (positive mass) matter. It is located between galaxies and inside the big voids forming the Very Large Structure of the Universe. This negative matter shapes this VLS and ensures galaxies'confinement. As I will show soon it is also responsible of the spiral structure of galaxies, du ti "dynamical friction" ( like the coffee is a cup).
Positive mass dark matter does not exist. Negative gravitational lensing effect explains the observed lensing effects.
Acceleration of the universe is caused by such negative content, which drives the expansion process.
People who try to evidence "astroparticles", "exotic particles" , in deep mines, loose money and time, for such particles are located ... between galaxies, I think. This missing content of the universe is nothing that all kinds of particles, protons, electrons, neutrons, and so on, with reversed energies (and mass if the own one).
By the way, this goes with the basic idea of Andrei Sakharov ( 1967). He introduced two "twin universes", with reversed arrows of time. A quite puzzling idea. But from dynamic group theory, time-inversion is identical to energy and mass inversion.
Sakharov suggested that, for sake of global symmetry, the rate of synthesis of baryons from quarks could have been slighty higher than the rate of anti baryon from anti-quarks. So that "in our sector" ( Sakharov wrote "in our universe ) we would find some excess of baryons an anti-quarks.
Situation reversed in the second sector ( The so-called Sakharov's twin universe ).
I know I suggest a big paradigmatic change, so that I would appreciate any comments and critics from colleagues, specially from people of QFT.
QUESTION : Is it possible to introduce negative energy state, negative energies, negative mass particles in QFT , splitted into two sectors, if we decide to choose unitary an linear T-operator ?
I really would like to have the answer.
Yes, I am familiar with the runaway phenomenon. I agree with you that a bimetric theory can lead to a different resolution of this issue. Regarding point particles, GR of course is a field theory; but as such, I can still introduce a matter field in the form of a function similar to exp(-r^2/a^2), take the a=0 limit, integrate over all space, and end up with a point particle Lagrangian and a corresponding equation of motion. So the point particle picture is valid as a limit, just as the ultrarelativistic point particle limit is valid as a means to investigate "photons" even though, as you say, photons (that is, excitations of the quantized EM field) have nothing to do with what is a classical theory of fields.
"Does antimatter have positive or negative mass?"
While the consensus of physicists seems to be that antiparticles' masses are identical to their ordinary counterparts, it has been considered to be an open question, that hasn’t yet been definitively determined. There are quite a few physicists that entertain alternative theories, mostly centered on the idea that antiparticles might have negative mass. If that were the case, gravitation should effectively repel antimatter rather than attract it like regular matter. So when CERN’s ALPHA Collaboration developed a way to trap antihydrogen atoms (composed of a negatively charged antiproton and a positron, or anti-electron) using a magnetic field, they realized that if they then turn the confining field off the antihydrogen atoms would tend to fall under the influence of gravity acting on their small mass. Unless, of course, antimatter had negative mass and was repelled by gravity, in which case it should 'fall' _up_ – away from Earth!
See the announcement at http://home.web.cern.ch/about/updates/2013/04/alpha-novel-investigation-gravity-and-antimatter. It contains a link to the full research report, but there’s also two good news reports at: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2013/apr/30/alpha-weighs-in-on-antimatter and http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/aerospace/astrophysics/does-antimatter-fall-up.
The initial results required some additional constraints, so upgraded ALPHA-2 equipment upgrades are being installed to further cool the trapped antihydrogen to improve future results.
The specific question being address by the ALPHA Collaboration is whether antimatter has negative _gravitational_ mass. There is already compelling evidence that antimatter has _positive_ _inertial_ mass.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positronium - which states:
"Positronium (Ps) is a system consisting of an electron and its anti-particle, a positron, bound together into an "exotic atom". The system is unstable: the two particles annihilate each other to produce two gamma ray photons after an average lifetime of 125 picoseconds or three gamma ray photons after 142 nanoseconds in vacuum, depending on the relative spin states of the positron and electron."
The caption of an inset illustration states: "An electron and positron orbiting around their common centre of mass. This is a bound quantum state known as positronium." The illustration represents the electron and positron in a common circular orbit. If this is an accurate representation, the two would have to have identical masses (as has been expected) – moreover, the positron’s mass could not possibly be negative...
Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muonium - which states:
"Muonium is an exotic atom made up of an antimuon and an electron… Due to the mass difference between the antimuon and the electron, muonium (μ+e−) is more similar to atomic hydrogen (p+e−) than positronium (e+e−). Its Bohr radius and ionization energy are within 0.5% of hydrogen, deuterium, and tritium."
Thus, in muonium, an electron effectively orbits the much more massive antimuon – much like an electron orbits a massive proton in an ordinary hydrogen atom. If the antimuon had negative mass, the heavier electron should assume the role of the central quasi-nucleus while the antimuon orbited it.
That these exotic atoms can form even temporarily provides compelling evidence that antimatter inertial mass is positive. This includes the rest mass of the antiparticles - it would be difficult to construct a scenario in which rest mass is positive, inertial mass is positive, but gravitational mass is negative! The CERN ALPHA-2 experiment is expected to verify that antihydrogen atoms have positive gravitational mass...
I have worked during years with P. J.M.Souriau ( Structure of dynamical systems, Birkhauser ed), until he died, recently.
Dynamic groups theory gives a peculiar vision of matter (and antimatter). It does not deal with particles but with "movements". A dynamical group (Poincaré's group) acts on Minkowski space points. But as shown by Kostant and Souriau it also acts on the dual of its Lie algebra, a vectorial space also called "moment", whose dimension is equal to the dimension of the group ( 10 for Poincaré ). A powerful tool.
Then what one usually considers as attributes of a particle ( energy, impulsion, spin ) is considered as parameters defining peculiar movements, ou classes of movements.
Those attributes become pure geometric quantities. I like the idea.
Joined : my vision of antimatters.
Aged 77, I try as as can to publish this work somewhere. But it has been refused in many Journals , without submission to referee (...), or refused with silly arguments.
About antimatters, I mention plural because, in my mind, they are two matters and two antimatters.
In dynamic groups theory the operators are real.
- P-symmetry
- C - symmetry
- T - symmetry
Through a dynamical group a movement can be transformed into another movement.
Then the T-symmetry is at the center of the question.
In QFT, T operator reverses time but not energy, because an immediate ad hoc choice. In order to avoid unstandable negative energy states one chooses an anti-linear and anti-unitary. See the book of Weinberg page 76.
Is it a way you can't get away from ? I ask the question.
In dynamic groups theory T operator is real, so that T-symmetry reverses energy (and mass).
Consider an ordinary particle, with mass m, electric charge q.
According to dynamic groups theory, C-symmetry reverses electric charge. We get the first kind of antimatter.
CPT-symmetry reverses energy; so that the CPT symmetric of a particle is... the same particle, with opposite energy and mass.
Notice it contradicts the classical CPT theorem. Souriau called it a "theorem for physicists", a " bootstrap theorem". In a way, its conclusion lies in the hypothesis about T-operator, it seems. No ?
C x CPT = PT is its antimatter, the second one, with negative energy and mass.
So that negative mass antimatter does exist. It is the second one, which belongs to the "second sector", the one of negative energies.
How could the physicist deal with such negative energy and negative energy mass ?
He must change his vision of the universe, shifting to a manifold M4 plus TWO metrics g(+) and g(-). It is a bimetric model ( nothing to do with that others call "bimetric", where the second metric refers to massive gravitons ).
This idea is very simple for a mathematician-geometer, but physicists have difficulty to grasp on.
Each metric produces its own geodesic family. The two families, the one fort positive energy and mass and the second for negative energy and mass are disjoint. They cannot cross each other. In particular, we have two families of null geodesics ( photons ). So that no measurements based on electromagnetism can be operated on negative mass particles of matter or antimatter. They interact with our matter through (anti) gravitation, nothing else.
By the way + m and - m particles cannot mutually annihilate because they cannot ... encounter. Conversely there are not creation of pairs (+m , -m ) and void instability.
My paper was reviewed by two referees in General relativity and Gravitation. After two months booths rejected my paper, just saying :
- This idea that + m and - m particles cannot encounter is absurd, for the live in the same space-time !
I will try to read the mentioned papers. Thanks for your reply.
Jean-Pierre Petit
To answer your question Yes! Everywhere I look I find that there is a negative and a positive, + or -, 1's & 0's, north and south poles or + and -, etc. So naturally there has to be a negative to a positive. We have many unexplained things in the universe and things we cannot see because we simply haven't developed the tools or means to see it. I have always believed that we live in a positive mass universe and that there is negative mass that we cannot see. Just like dark energy we suspect it is there but as of yet we have no real proof.
Does Antimatter have positive or negative mass? Good question.... Yes Negative mass since we live in a positive mass universe and of course it would be the opposite if we lived in a negative type universe.
Because we have these +'s and -'s I am inclined to believe that the same is true for matter and antimatter or dark energy or dark matter. Whatever is true in our universe the opposite is true in an opposite universe. I also believe that like in magnetics opposites attract so like poles or repel.
Just speculation here on my part.
But I will do the math later as I continue my theory on how all of this works which I will publish at a later date.
The question of antimatter mass can be determined experimentally...
In theoretical terms, I am intrigued that the condensation of mass-energy, especially in the macro-scale accretion of massive objects, necessarily involves an equal and opposite _reaction_ - the extraction of mass-energy density from the surrounding vacuum.
Perhaps it is this reaction to accretion that produces the dimensional contraction of local spacetime described by general relativity. In this sense, massive objects can be considered to exhibit a positive mass-energy 'charge' state, while the depleted vacuum represents a 'negative' mass-energy charge state.
I have to wonder whether it is this mass-energy charge state interaction between macro-scale condensed masses and dimensional spacetime that physically produces an emergent, macro-scale only effect of gravitation - rather than any fundamental interaction of quantum particles..
1.Movement of negative mass : Computer simulation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZtS7cBMIc4
2.It is stable at a low energy state in the case of positive mass(energy), whereas, it is stable at a high energy state in the case of negative mass(energy). Due to this, “the problem of transition to minus infinite energy level" does not occur, therefore negative energy and positive energy can coexist.
Refer to the linked figure.
a=F/(-m)= - F/m
(m>0)
The acceleration of negative mass is opposite to the direction of force. Therefore, the negative mass has harmonic oscillation at the maximum point and it is also stable at the maximum point.
3.Negative energy (mass) provides an explanation for dark matter and dark energy, which are the biggest issues posed to cosmology at the present.
Article : Is the State of Low Energy Stable? Negative Energy, Dark Energy and Dark Matter
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263468413_Is_the_State_of_Low_Energy_Stable_Negative_Energy_Dark_Energy_and_Dark_Matter
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-fCUBOuqQNhU/UAM7xswWAMI/AAAAAAAAAV0/grClV9ZMCVM/s320/negative+mass.jpg
Article Is the State of Low Energy Stable? Negative Energy, Dark Ene...
The mentioned video is an illustration of Bondi's schema, with runaway effect. I suggest you look at bimetric description. Then masses with same signs mutually attract. Masses with opposite signs mutuelly repel.
Completely different
Disregarding any video illustrating simulated imaginary negative gravitational mass effects, the concept is not consistent with available observations to the extent that gravitational mass has any relation to rest mass and intertial mass. Please see the earlier discussion of positronium and muonium (or their Wikipedia entries) - which could not be observed to (briefly) exist if antiparticles exhibited negative rest mass or inertial mass effects.
Experimental programs intended to definitively determine whether anti-hydrogen atoms exhibit negative gravitational effects are in progress. IMO, the only remaining question, then, is how could the demonstrated poitive rest mass and inirtial mass of antiparticles be distinguished from those of ordinary particles - to produce anti-gravity effects?
James,
You speculated "Perhaps it is this reaction to accretion that produces the dimensional contraction of local spacetime described by general relativity. In this sense, massive objects can be considered to exhibit a positive mass-energy 'charge' state, while the depleted vacuum represents a 'negative' mass-energy charge state.."
This is below your level.
Tsvi Piràn also consider that depleted vacuum is equivalent to negative mass-energy charge state. He uses that to explain lacunar VLS, as joint bubble-soap structure, as I did in 1995 ( Astrophysics and Space Science ).
Personnally I cross the Rubicon and think about solid negative masses, as derived from dynamic groups theory. This is against Quantum Theory of Fields which asserts that such negative states are basically impossble.
But if you look at Wainberg's book, page 76 we can see that this comes from a priori , ad hoc choice for T-operator : anti-linear and anti-unitary operator, which makes possible ti avoid disastrous negative states, considered as a priori impossible. The adjectives are from Weinberg.
Jean-Pierre,
You then choose to ignore solid established theory, replacing it with your private ideas. This is not how science progresses.
From Matts Roos ( Norvégien, spécialiste dark matter, à la retraite, Emeritus )
James,
You speculated "Perhaps it is this reaction to accretion that produces the dimensional contraction of local spacetime described by general relativity. In this sense, massive objects can be considered to exhibit a positive mass-energy 'charge' state, while the depleted vacuum represents a 'negative' mass-energy charge state.."
This is below your level.
From J.P.PETIT :
Tsvi Piràn also consider that depleted vacuum is equivalent to negative mass-energy charge state. He uses that to explain lacunar VLS, as joint bubble-soap structure, as I did in 1995 ( Astrophysics and Space Science ).
Personnally I cross the Rubicon and think about solid negative masses, as derived from dynamic groups theory. This is against Quantum Theory of Fields which asserts that such negative states are basically impossible.
But if you look at Wainberg's book, page 76 we can see that this comes from a priori , ad hoc choice for T-operator : anti-linear and anti-unitary operator, which makes possible ti avoid disastrous negative states, considered as a priori impossible. The adjectives are from Weinberg.
From Matts Roos :
Jean-Pierre,
You then choose to ignore solid established theory, replacing it with your private ideas. This is not how science progresses.
From J.P.PETIT
Matts
I don't choose to ignore solid established theory and to "replace" it. I say it must be extended to negative states. Nothing obliges to ban negative states from phyics.
Read the passage from Weinberg's book, page 76 and give me your personal opinion.
In 1957 H.Bondi tried to include negative masses in GR. But this created the undesirable runaway phenomenon : when a positive and a negative mass encounter, the positive escapes, while the negative runs after it. .
I have extended ( a personal idea ...) GR to bimetric description of the universe. Then the runaway phenomenon disappears. The interaction laws become :
- Positive masses attract positive masses through Newton
- Negative mass attract negative masse through Newton
- Masses with opposite masses repel each other through Newton.
Positive and negative masses cruise along distinct geodesics. The only interact through (anti) gravitational forces.
Negative mass particles emit negative energy photons. So, on simple geometrical grounds, we cannot observe negative structures.
Gravitational instability produces negative clumps, located at the center of the big voids of VLS.
Negative mass induces negative gravitational lensing effect, so that it replaces the speculative dark matter. I offered you to debat about it, but you refused. Too bad. I could explain how to derive observational phenomena from (geometrically invisible) negative matter, instead from unknown dark matter.
By the way, dynamic groups theory provides the nature of negative energy particles. They are ... negative protons, negatove neutrons, negative electrons, and so on.
As such matter is repelled by ours, and interact only through (anti) gravitational force, searching such particles in the solar system would be loosing time and money.
Matter antimatter duality holds in this "negative sector", so that antimatter with negative mass exists, but :
- Its is mainly located between galaxies
- It is invisible to us, like negative matter.
- We can't make measurements on it, beacause it does not interact with our matter through electromagnetic forces.
By the way, negative matter content means negative pressure, so that such dominating content drives the evolution of the universe and explain acceleration. But it is a personal idea. Perhaps you prefer to believe is some mysterious dark energy ?
Keeping systematically scientific activity inside the mainstream is not how science progress.
Science progress through personal ideas. They must be submitted to the verict of observation.
Always ready to debate with you.
J.P.PETIT
We would like to suggest another
mechamsm, based on what we will call the antipodal
symmetry. Maybe the idea is too crazy, but
it is very simple, and xt may deserve further investigation.
....... Too bad. I could explain how to derive observational phenomena from (geometrically invisible) negative matter, instead from unknown dark matter.
By the way, dynamic groups theory provides the nature of negative energy particles. They are ... negative protons, negative neutrons, negative electrons, and so on.
As such matter is repelled by ours, and interact only through (anti) gravitational force, searching such particles in the solar system would be loosing time and money.
Matter antimatter duality holds in this "negative sector", so that antimatter with negative mass exists, but :
- Its is mainly located between galaxies
- It is invisible to us, like negative matter.
- We can't make measurements on it, beacause it does not interact with our matter through electromagnetic forces.
By the way, negative matter content means negative pressure, so that such dominating content drives the evolution of the universe and explain acceleration. But it is a personal idea. Perhaps you prefer to believe is some mysterious dark energy ?
Keeping systematically scientific activity inside the mainstream is not how science progress.
Science progress through personal ideas. They must be submitted to the verict of observation.
Always ready to debate with you.
J.P.PETIT
Matts,
You speculated "Perhaps it is this reaction to accretion that produces the dimensional contraction of local spacetime described by general relativity. In this sense, massive objects can be considered to exhibit a positive mass-energy 'charge' state, while the depleted vacuum represents a 'negative' mass-energy charge state..
This is below your level.
Thanks - you do make a valid point. Also - thanks for the 'complement' - however, as a lay person my 'level' can be pretty low!
Matts says :
You then choose to ignore solid established theory, replacing it with your private ideas. This is not how science progresses.
Do you consider dark matter, dark energy, and perhaps even multiuniverse, as solid estblished theories ? It would be difficult to see any progress in "well established theories" since 50 years. So perhaps a fresh view would be necessary, and better than invent new mysteries every ten yeras
Dark matter is not understood, but it corresponds to astrophysical observations. Several participants in this discussion then conclude that the observations must be wrong because they don't support their private ideas.
Dark energy is just a term used for the astronomical observation of an accelerated cosmic expansion. Several participants in this discussion then conclude that the observations must be wrong because they don't support their private ideas.
Matts,
Many years ago astronomers was obliged to conclude that some observations of light deviation could not be explained by observed matter, around galaxies and clusters of galaxies. The mass default was very large. In addition the measured rotation velocity of gas was too large at periphery and could not be explained by the distribution of observed matter. Decades ago it was named "the missing mass effect".
Then one suggested that a certain kind of "dark matter", with positive mass, could explain such effects. Men like you consider that this is an absolute proof of existence of such dark matter, whatever is its nature.
In 1995 ( Astrophysics and Space Science ) I suggested that the universe could be a mixture of positive masses and negative masses. From my bimetric model of the universe , positive matter would follow geodesics built from a first metric g(+). Negative matter would follow geodesics built from metric g(-). I assumed that the two metric would be solution of a system of two coupled field equations, that I presented first in 1994 ( Nuevo Cimento ).
The interaction laws, deduced from subsequent Newtonian approximation are the following :
- Matter whose masses have same signs mutually attract
- Matters whose signs are opposite repel each other.
It explains a lot of things, like VLS, spiral structure, and so on.
In 1995 I showed that negative matter produced negative gravitational lensing effect on positive energy photons. So that the anomalous strong light bending observed could be interpreted differently : due to the negative matter surrounding galaxies and cluster of galaxies, that would focus the light rays.
It is not the negation of observational facts, but a different decoding of available data. So that I don't belong to the group, evoked by Matts, of guys whom conclude the observations "must be wrong". I only suggest a different cause.
I hope Matts will confirm that point.
My model predicts that negative mass clumps, geometrically invisible, would be present at the centers of the big voids, associated to VLS. Decades ago, a referee said "if such clumps exist, they should produce some observable phenomenon". I answered that light emitted by distant galaxies should be scattered by negative lensing effect, so that their magnitude would be weakened.
In effect, astronomers observe "dwarf galaxies" at large redshift.
- Either they are dwarf
- Either their luminosity is weakened by negative gravitational lensing effect.
Here again I would like to know if Matts includes me among the guys who "conclude that the observation must be wrong because they don't support their private ideas".
I don't conclude those observation are wrong. My model provides an explanation of this observed acceleration. In our universe, negative matter, associated to negative pressure, dominates and is responsible of such phenomenon. By the way, positive matter obeys Bonnor's equation, while negative matter obeys Friedman equation.
I recall negative matter is self-attractive. As it has a large effect on the general comic dynamics, it ignores positive matter action and obeys Friedman.
I offered to Matts to debate about my "personal ideas". But he answered he had no time to do it. If he could spent some time, I would be pleased to explain that to him.
Negative matter (with negative energy, emoting negative energy photons ) takes account of observed large light bending. It explains the observed acceleration of the universe. It explains why the distant galaxies look like dwarfs. If produce good looking barred spiral galaxies, stable over 20 turns (simulations 1992 ). According to this idea : galaxies surrounded by repelling negative matter, such spirals are produced by the interaction between the galaxy and the negative surrounding material (dynamical friction). Like the cream of coffee in a cup... This is the only model which provides long duration spiral patterns, non "transient".
Quantum Theory of Fields bans negative energy states. In Weinberg famous book anyone can read, page 76, that it comes from an a priori choice of peculiar T-operator (anti linear and anti-unitary), an ad hoc choice which a priori eliminates negative energy states, considered as a priori impossible ( "disastrous", "to be avoided").
Matts concludes that I refused a well established theory and that I wanter to replace it by my "private ideas".
Non. I just think that QTF in incomplete. I think it could be, and should be extended.
I asked Matts about this question, but he did nor answer. I hope specialists of QTF will bring light to us. Are negative energy states definitively impossible, and why ?
J.P.Petit
In Periodic quantum gravity and cosmology theory, particles and anti-particles have a different defination than matter and anti-matter. The former pair have opposite velocity vector and the latter pair have both, the opposite velocity vector as well as opposite charge. But all these particles have only positive mass. The accelerated expansion occurs due to the opposing velocity vectors pointing away from each other and the decelerated contraction occurs due to the opposing velocity vectors pointing towards each other. The process is perfectly reversible and depends on whether the kinetic energy dominates the potential energy or the potential energy dominates the kinetic energy.
Article Periodic quantum gravity and cosmology
In a particle reaction, CPT symmetry implies that a left-handed particle entering the interaction region from the x-direction is equivalent to a right-handed antiparticle leaving the region in the x-direction. One consequence of this is that particles and antiparticles must have exactly the same mass. Antiparticles are just particles traveling backwards in time.
CPT invariance then implies that antimatter is attracted by antimatter in exactly the same way as matter is attracted by matter, but it is not obvious what the interaction between matter and antimatter is.
As I understand, CPT symmetry applies only to EM charge interactions. However, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_interaction_of_antimatter#Arguments_against_a_gravitational_repulsion_of_matter_and_antimatter - especially http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_interaction_of_antimatter#CPT_theorem - and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_interaction_of_antimatter#Theories_of_gravitational_repulsion.
Yes James,
you are right that In comparison with electrodynamics, the gravitational field possesses no charge. However, the four-momentum for a particle of mass $m$
p^{\mu}=m dx^{\mu}/d\tau, takes the role of a charge.This can be seen from the geodesic equation which describes the four-acceleration:
d^2x^{\mu}/d\tau^2=-\Gamma^{\mu}_{\sigma\nu} d x^{\sigma}/d\tau d x^{\nu}/d\tau.
Under (C)PT this is even because the product of the four-momenta
p^{\sigma}=d x^{\sigma}/d\tau and p^{\nu}=d x^{\nu}/d\tau of two particles is even, the product of the four-momenta of two antiparticles is even, the affine connection \Gamma^{\mu}_{\sigma\nu} is odd, and there is a minus-sign on the right.
On the other hand, if one of the momenta refers to a particle and the other one to an antiparticle, the momentum vector of the antiparticle must be (C)PT-transformed, thus acquiring a minus-sign. This then reverses the sign of the four-acceleration so that it becomes repulsive.
The answer will not be known until one can produce enough anti-hydrogen to study its collisions with hydrogen.
James
I note your set of references to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_interaction_of_antimatter#Arguments_against_a_gravitational_repulsion_of_matter_and_antimatter)
I get very scared about Wikipedia in some situations. In this case, if you read the 'talk' section you find a tone of 'We know what the answer will be when the experiment is done.' I suspect, what I have seen in several Wikipedia articles, that the lead author keeps a very tight hold on seeing his perspective taking the lead. There is another article on antigravity in antimatter where this is also obvious. I prefer the actual papers that have been fully refereed. The series by Villata are where my money lies. He does believe that there is anti-gravity.
Be careful of wikipedia, I have seen wars occurring on software design techniques, and at some point one side gives up, so that the other side gets 100% of the publicity.
Gilbert,
Certainly Wikipedia entries are not definitive references, but they are convenient and freely available to everyone - and often contain a quick source of more rigorous research reports. Even published, refereed research, of course, is not definitive and often conflicts with and is conflicted by other reports... I agree that it's best to maintain some skepticism of all information!
I was just noticed this morning that our paper about negative mass and dark energy has been accepted by Astrophysics and Space Science. See joined file. I would be grateful to have your opinion about the top of page 2, refering to QFT.
Our paper introduces a negative sector, with negative masses and negative energy photons. Introducing dynamic group (15) the coadjoint action of this dynamic group on the dual of its Lie algebra provides (16). So that matter-antimatter duality holds in the negative sector.
Matt wrote "antiparticles are just particles traveling backwards in time". From dynamic groups theory this is no longer true for T-symmetry goes with mass (and energy) inversion. I know that this questions QFT. Depends on the arbitrary choice for the T-operator. As pointed out in my paper, page 2, if this operator is considered as anti-linear and anti-unitary, negative energies and negative masses are simply banned.
If we shift to an unitary and linear T-operator, T-symmetry goes with energy and mass inversion.
So that we have two distinct sectors. In each of them matter-amtimatter duality holds. So that they are two kinds of antimatters :
- One C-symmetric with respect to ou ordinary matter, with positive mass
- The other, PT-symmetric, with negative mass ( if we follow this new vision, T-symmetry goes with mass-inversion ).
I confess this is new. But the referee of the Journal accepted the paper. So that it will have to be discussed among the scientific community.
Somebody could argue "why such alternative choice ? Where is the profit ? "
If you read my paper you will see that, as negative mass goes with negative pressure, it explains the observed acceleration of "our sector", the one composed by positive masses. Conversely the negative sector is slowed down.
The have different " scale factors" a(+) and a(-). In a further paper I will show that the two speeds of light c(+) and c(-) are also different, with c(-) >> c(+).
Positive and negative sectors interact only through (anti) gravitational force. Positive masses emit positive energy photons. Negative masses emit negative energy photons. Encounters between those two population are geometrically impossible, for they cruise on distinct geodesics families ( corresponding to metrics g(+) and g(-).
GR was based on a manifold, plus a single metric ( call it g(+ ) ). This metric referred to positive masses and positive energy particles.
When H.Bondi tried, in 1957 to introduce negative masses in the model, the unique field equation produced the "runaway phenomenon" : the Newtonian approximation said : positive masses attract everything. Negative masses repel everything.
To that if a positive mass encounters a negative mass, it escapes, and the negative mass runs after it.
In 1994 ( Nuevo Cimento ) I introduced a different model : a manifold M4 plus two metrics g(+) and g(-), solution of the system of two coupled field equations (11a) and (11b). Then the dynamics drastically changes and the preposterous runaway phenomenon disappears.
- Particles whose masses own same sign mutually attract through Newton's law
- Particles whose masses are opposite, mutually repel through "anti-Newton's law".
A.Sakharov called it " twin universes". Milgrom (arXiv 2010) refund the same interaction law and talk about " TM" ( Twin matter, with negative mass ). He suggests to calla that stuff : BIMOND (Bimetric Modified Newton Dynamics).
Why not ?
I predict that such stuff will modify our vision of the Universe. Dark matter will ... disappear ( Sorry, Matt... ). Look at my paper. Tsvi Pirân analysis shows that positive matter (our galaxies ) could form a lacunar structure around big voids where negative masses would lie.
It would explain the very large structure, provide a model for galaxies' birth. Negative gravitational lensing effect would make distant galaxies to resemble dwarfs.
Sourrounding negative mass ensures galaxies'confinement, explain the flatness of rotation curves.
Dynamical friction creates spiral structure. See the joined image, obtained by 2D simulation, in ... 1992 ( impossible to publish such work, considered as "speculative". This galaxy survived, with its two arms during 30 turns.
.My own answer to the question about antimatter :
- We can make measurements only on positive mass antimatter. What we will observe : this kind of antimatter is self attractive. Our matter and this antimatter mutually attract. If we can make measurements, I predict that the conclusion will be that "antimatter has a positive mass".
This antimatter, yes.
Negative mass antimatter does exists, which "cruises backwards in time", but we cannot perform any measurement on it.
It could be interesting to evaluate the relativistic momentum energy relations to determine the possibility of the energy value for real particles. According to the quadratic relativistic momentum energy equations: E^2 - (pc)^2 =(mc^2)^2 (for real particles, m≠0) and E^2 - (pc)^2 = 0 (for real photons, m=0), the energy (E) could have positive and negative values for real particles and real photons. However, the negative energy value has not been detected for real particles, but the same time, it is assumed that one component of virtual particle pair has negative energy value to explain the Hawking radiation. In addition, the solution of the E^2 - (pc)^2 =(mc^2)^2 equation provides the possibility of positive and negative mass (m) values for real particles, and, as I am aware, the particles with the negative mass values have not yet been detected experimentally.
Zoltan,
There is a lower bound to the energy, E=0. Without that bound there is no limit to how negative the energy could be. In that case physics loses all predictability.
Jean-Pierre:
Permit me to address the last part of your question, "Is it a way to explain … the acceleration of the universe, without dark matter?"
I think I found a possible affirmative answer to that question. Permit me to attach an extract from my book "Physics Math Correlations." You might want to look at sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 2.1.
More generally, my attempted research correlates some solutions to some math (quantum isotropic harmonic oscillator math) with all known elementary particles (plus their fields, some particle properties, and some interactions in which the particles partake). Other solutions to the same math may correlate with yet-to-be-found elementary particles.
One family of the total collection of solutions would include photons, gravitons, and other zero-mass bosons. Section 2.1 indicates possibilities that some of these particles govern the rate of expansion of the universe.
JP Petit asked me to publish here the argument according to which i claim that his differential equtions are inconsistent because they lead to contradictory predictions as for the emission of gravitational waves. Here it is
I proposed a self consistent and stable theoretical alternative. It's also on researchgate
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316134420_The_Dark_Side_of_Gravity_vs_MONDDM
Article The Dark Side of Gravity vs MOND/DM
If we stay in a framework that we can consider as reasonably safe (that is 4 dimensions, 1 metric, no mysterious particle or matter), mass is part of the kinematic representation of matter : it accounts for the momentum, the relation between motion and the "forces" - whatever they are - imparted to matter. However motion is not limited to translational motion. In Newton Mechanics one introduces torques, rotational motion and a tensor. Over all the kinetic characteristics of a material body are not represented by a single scalar (the mass), but by 7 scalars (mass + 1 symmetric tensor). As all material bodies (and this seems true also for particles) show a motion combining a translation and a rotation, we need in GR : a representation of the motion (translation + rotation) and the kinematic characteristics of material bodies. And of course we can expect that more than 1 scalar are necessary.
Reviewing all the concepts, one finds that actually, in GR, 6 parameters are necessary to represent the motion, and 7 to represent the kinematic characteristics. However it requires the distinction between matter and antimatter. Mass is then defined conventionnaly : particles and antiparticles have opposite behavior.
It is clear that the antimatter we observe has positive mass, because it has positive energy.
This can be measured when annihilation between a particle (with positive energy) and an antiparticle results in an energy released with the value of the sum of both energies of the particles. If the antiparticle had negative energy, the result would be zero energy released after the annihilation.
"private theory" This made my day. So a wrong collective theory would be better than a right private theory? All theories have been private at their beginning. A collective rubbish remains rubbish.
- Badges
- Science topic