Yes, an uncharged scalar particle is its antiparticle and during a collision we would have an interaction; an annihilation in the S channel or a scattering in the T and U channels. 

Dear Piero,

 “What is the antiparticle of an uncharged spinless scalar particle? the particle itself? So in a collision, we have a scattering or an annihilation?”

Fundamental elementary particles are some closed-loop algorithms and so every of them has a spin. The particles that have rest masses are obligatorily fermions; so, e.g. neutrino has a non-zero rest mass. Non-fundamental particles, e.g. mesons, can have zero spins, but seems they all have different structures and so there aren’t those, which constitute a pair “particle/antiparticle”, where  components are identical. 

 The forces mediators are restmassless particles, i.e., move in the 3D space only, and so have integer spins, but  for them the notions “antiparticle” isn’t applicable in standard sense, including they interact without “annihilation”.

 But even for pairs of usual particles/antiparticle both, scattering and annihilation are possible/really happen.

 “…What additional quantum number has the antiparticle that annihilate it? The sign of its Ricci scalar curvature in the non-Euclidean space-time?…”

 The Matter’s spacetime is absolute [5]4D Euclidian manifold [in physical theory]; and [5]4D Euclidian empty container, where Matter exists and uninterruptedly changes [in the reality].

 In the reality there cannot be  any “curvature of  the non-Euclidean space-time” fundamentally. Besides  all particles quantum numbers hasn’t, and cannot have, relation to the spacetime directly, besides the fact, that the numbers realize itself at particles interactions, which happen always in the  spacetime; which is empty container; when an emptiness hasn’t some properties.

 And the fact that Matter’s spacetime is observed as  being Euclidian, even “Cartesian”,  isn’t an inherent property of the spacetime,  that, including the number of dimensions, is  the consequence of that in fundamental depth material objects have  independent degrees of freedom at changes of their states [so the dimensions are observed as orthogonal] and because of in the depth the changes happen as symmetrical and “equal footing” interactions/steps [so the spacetime is observed as uniform, isotropic, etc].

More see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics

Cheers

Article The Informational Conception and Basic Physics

Thank you Faical, can you suggest  a reading to deep the question?

Thanks

Many thanks Sergey,  I agree with you about  the forces mediators that are restmassless, one simple example is the photon, but the photon has also a zero scalar curvature in the spacetime, so it does not exist a anti-photon that can annihilate with it.

I aslo agree that the ricci scalar curvature cannot be considered a quantum number, nevertheless is a property generated by its quantum field on the spacetime (I understand that in the Euclidean treatment we cannot establish any relationship between the quantum fields of elementary particles and spacetime curvature, but my question refers to quantum gravity. Actually, in a quantum-gravitational problem the fields of particles can be treated to the zero order of gravitational  theory (i.e., in the  Euclidean limit, since their mass is very much smaller than the Planck one), the problem is the effect of the quantum fields on the coupled quantum Einstein equation.

For the photon, whose equation is also classic, we have the answer: the Ricci scalar curvature is null.

Thanks for the reference, I will read it with much interest.

piero chiarelli

Excuse me, but, taking advantage of the matter, I want to ask you a question. As far as I know, in the known nature the only uncharged scalar fundamental particle is the Higgs particle. In your question you include particles that are not elementary?

Hi Juan, the question is not simple in the quantum gravitational framework, since a non elementary particle can have multiple type of interacting forces and hence its description is not given just by a scalar uncharged field.

So, actually, I am thinking just to elementary particles.

About this is very interesting what Sergey said. elementary articles with restmass are fermions, or, (if  not elementary) they have an internal structure that allow to  distinguish them. In any case, antiparticle can be distinguishable, since for fermions has opposed spin and charge.

The uncharged spinless bosons, whose antiparticle is constituted by the particle itself (like the photon). IF the scalar curvature of the antiparticle has opposite signe of the antiparticle, and if the particle and antiparticle coincide, the only solution is that they have a null scalar curvature. The question becomes more intriguing for the uncharged scalar Higgs boson that has a rest mass.

Obviously, uncharged means without any type of charge (not only electromagnetic).

Dear Piero,

Again, there cannot be any “curvature of the non-Euclidean space-time” [and there cannot be any of  non-Euclidian spacetime as well] fundamentally [why? - see the SS post above]; and, relating to

“…Obviously, uncharged means without any type of charge (not only electromagnetic)…”

- though any “curvature” doesn’t exist, the gravity exists evidently, it is simply 4-th fundamental Nature force, which has corresponding charge [gravitational mass] and mediator [graviton]; and which doesn’t made something with the spacetime – as any other fundamental Nature force does.

And this force is completely universal, in contrast to other 3 forces; every particle has the gravity charge. Thus in Matter there aren’t particles “without any type of charge”-  see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265509276_The_informational_model_-_gravity  and Sec. 3.3 “Planck mass particles”  in the paper linked in the SS post above

As to “…scalar fundamental particle is the Higgs particle…”

From that Higgs boson[s] have integer spin[s] and quite non-zero rest mass[s] with a large probability follows that they aren’t fundamental; more see S posts in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Do_non-integral_spin_particles_exist_that_travel_at_the_speed_of_light

 Cheers

Article The informational model – gravity

Correct, but I understand that when it is said that the Higgs may not be a fundamental particle we are manifesting what for now is only a suppose (grounded, of course). It is also a suppose (by Dirac) that the electron could have an internal structure (recently its electrical dipole moment was measured and found, contrary to the prediction of electrodynamics, that it is not null, although with very small value, which could be indicating the presence of some internal structure.

Dear Sergey, I do not want to make any controversy but just to understand things that I do not have clear.

I have the feeling that we start form different basic theories: I take the General gravity and its approach to gravity as a starting point, you make a different assumption: the gravity is not originated by spacetime curvature but it is an informational phenomenon. isn't it?

Dear Piero,

 “…you make a different assumption: the gravity is not originated by spacetime curvature but it is an informational phenomenon. isn't it?…”

 -  the GR postulate that gravity is a realization of  that (i) – a “gravitational mass” by some magic [in the theory there is no any explanations – what is this way?] way “curves” Matter’s 4D pseudo Riemannian spacetime [which, besides is imaginary spacetime with imaginary either space or time and with imaginary distances between “spacelike intervals” points, what seems as rather questionable also; nobody till now observed either imaginary spacetime dimensions or imaginary distances in the real spacetime], and (ii) -  this curved spacetime by some again magic way forces other masses to move along “geodesics”. All that evidently seems as rather strange, moreover, with a large probability [see the paper linked in the last SS post] the GR, as that follows from the Pound-Rebka-Snyder results, predicts incorrect value of  the gravitational slowing down of the rate of internal processes in bodies that are in a gravity field [which indeed exists, but not because of a “spacetime curvature”, that is real material result of action of real material force “Gravity” on real material body].

Thus it seems evidently much more probable that in the reality Gravity, again, is simply 4-th [besides EM, strong and weak fundamental forces in Matter] fundamental force in Matter. The fact that all/every object in Matter is an informational pattern in an informational system “Matter”, including that gravity is an informational phenomenon is, of course, correct – that is proven in the “The Information as Absolute” conception. But, at that, in this case this fact is inessential.

Nonetheless, though we don’t know  - what are logical chains in closed-loop algorithms, which we observe as particles and  “language” by which every particle transmits to other particles the command “come here”, but (i) – just because of all that is/are some informational processes, we can to describe them adequately by using information, and, what is more important here, (ii) - in the conception becomes be clear – what are the notions/phenomena “Space” and “Time”, and from corresponding “ontological” definitions of these phenomena follows that Matter’s spacetime is the absolute [5]4D Euclidian manifold in physical theory and [5]4D Euclidian “empty container”, where Matter exists and changes in the reality.

 Emptiness fundamentally cannot be impacted/curved/contracted/dilated, etc.; and just because of the authors of the SR/GR didn’t understand  - what are space/time/spacetime and so these notions/phenomena aren’t defined in the theories, it turned out to be possible to postulate for undefined things rather fantastic properties.

 Cheers

Dear Sergey,

I understand that the meta-analysis of the physical theories is an essential base for the comprehension of the reality, but here the objective is to obtain a correct formulation of quantum-gravity: that is the general relativity generalized for including the quantum aspect of physics.

To this end I need a model to start from: that is the general relativity. I do not take it as the truth theory of the world, but just as a model that works: And we cannot say that it is completely wrong since it has brought to new and very important understanding of physical phenomena such as black holes, and others.

To make a step forward, I just assumed that the general theory is (even approximately at certain level) a working model.

I do not think that it is possible to generalize a theory (general relativity) and in the meanwhile criticise its foundations.

No mind can do this contemporarely.

I do not criticise your approach and what you belive, simply I cannot and do not want to take a position on what I have not deeply analyzed.

It is just an order rule for proceding .

Dear Piero,

“…I cannot and do not want to take a position on what I have not deeply analyzed…”

I cannot, of course, force you not to attempt

“to obtain a correct formulation of quantum-gravity: that is the general relativity generalized for including the quantum aspect of physics”;

and, moreover, force you to adopt the informational approach/ model. You can understand it and adopt or don’t understand and not adopt.

 All, what I attempt to explain you here, is that the formulation of quantum gravity basing on the GR is an incorrect idea principally: the Matter’s spacetime fundamentally cannot - and don’t interact with material objects. In absence of interactions here is no some physical parameters, say energy, what could be quantized.

 It doesn’t obligatorily mean that, when there are some model has some fundamental flaws, this model cannot be applied in physics; the example is the recent/standard version of the SR. Till it is applied in rigid systems, the Minkowski formalism, in spite of that the Minkowski space isn’t, of course, the real Matter’s space, is very convenient tool at elaborating of many physical problems, though it is nothing more then a re-formulation of the Lorentz transformations, when application of the transformations directly can be rather cumbersome process.

 But it doesn’t work in free systems; and, for example, in the Bell paradox in evidently inertial reference frame the space evidently doesn’t want “to contract” and the time doesn’t want “to dilate correctly”, it “dilates” without the notorious “relativity of simultaneity”, when “dilates simply simultaneously”. I.e. simply in this case the Lorentz transformations don’t work completely.

But  the GR is simply wrong. Including the assertion “it has brought to new and very important understanding of physical phenomena such as black holes, and others” isn’t correct, the Matter’s spacetime is simply empty container, in emptiness there cannot be any holes – “black”, “white”, “worm”, etc.; as well some “bubbles”, “foams”, etc. – when all this fantastic trash is possible in the GR, moreover, there exist a huge number of corresponding publications in rather respectable official journals.

But the GR is wrong not only at “singularities” [which cannot be in the reality], it is incorrect rather evidently in weak gravity field case also, what follows, for example, from the Pound-Rebka-Snyder experiments, since predicts “gravitational time dilation” [again, there cannot be any “dilation” of the fundamental phenomenon “time”] be equal to gћ/c2, but it “forgets” at that, that in the interaction [at least] two bodies take part, and the other body is equally “time dilated” as the first one. From what follow that corresponding gravitational mass defect value that follows from the RG is two times larger then its real value – see the links in SS posts above.

 Etc., but, again, I cannot, and isn’t going, to force you to do something that you don’t want to do.

 Cheers

Dear Sergey,

thanks for the discussing.

Recently I have published a paper with the hydrodynamic approach to quantum gravity. Here the problem of quantizing the geometrical background (GB) is solved: there is no GB to quantize, just fields udergo to quantization.

But, the central point of your discussion is something more deep: it is about the physical reality of the vacuum. The vacuum is not actually, an empty entity like a container: the vacuum is not empty but it is more like a physical mean. it has its own elasticity and other properties, and, moreover it has an implicit scale (see the attached paper) so that the classical self-similarity is a broken symmetry on small scale and the quantm behavir appears. So quantum mechanics come from the properties of vacuum.

Moreover, if the vcuum is not empty, we cannot see it like  the "nothigness".

It is a mean with its degrees of freedom, part of which appears as coordinates, and others (internal one) as fields (quantum). So massive particles are not entity disconnected to vacuum but the representation of its exicted states.

If the vacuum generates massive particles, how mass cannot be correlated to it?

piero