The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Time reversal invariance and Antigravitational Forces  (Read 2025 times)

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Time reversal invariance and Antigravitational Forces

A symmetry of the fundamental equations of motion for a system; if it holds, the time reversal of any motion of a system is also a motion of the system. With one exception (KL meson decay), all observations are consistent with time reversal invariance (T invariance).

If a movie is taken of a phenomenon, the corresponding time-reversed motion can be exhibited by running the movie backward. The result is usually strange.

Take for instence a jar with gas. Let us suppose that there is a billion billion billion gas atoms confined. As time passes, the atoms will displace more, and they will become more chaotic. The chances of the atoms (in time) to ever going back into their original placements is astronomical.
However, if the system is sufficiently well observed, the direction of time is not obvious. For instance, a movie which showed the motion of the planets would look just as right run backward or forward. The apparent irreversibility of everyday phenomena results from the combination of imprecise observation and starting from an improbable situation (a state of low entropy, to use the terminology of statistical mechanics). The Cosmological Arrow of Time, ''due to very low entropy'', shows us that if the arrow had been pointing in the oposite direction, due to Hawkings calculations, would have resulted in a universe thriving in antimatter. This reversal property shows us that the arrow of time depends, not on mass, but rather the state and type of mass depended on the arrow.

If time reversal invariance holds, no particle (a physical system with a definite mass and spin) can have an electric dipole moment. A polar body, for example, a water (H2O) molecule, has an electric dipole moment, but its energy and spin eigenstates (which are particles) do not. No particle has been observed to have an electric dipole moment; for instance, the present experimental upper limit on the electric moment of the neutron is approximately 10-25 cm times e, where e is the charge of the proton. Even smaller upper limits have been reported for the electric moment of some nuclei.

The electron however is said to have a magnetic dipole moment. This is because it generates a magnetic field which is mirror-symmetrical to very small current loop that are generated. But as far as i know, the electron's magnetic moment is not due to such a loop, but is rather an intrinsic property... A bit like how spin is an intrinsic property.

If time reversibility holds, then by the CPT theorem CP invariance must hold, that is, invariance of the fundamental equations under the combined operations of charge conjugation C and space inversion P (parity). Conversely, violation of CP invariance implies violation of T (time reversal invariance). In 1964, Croner discovered CP violation. The decay of the long-lived neutral K meson out lived its antiKaon. Though, i would like to state, even though they recieved a Nobel for their discovery, i am not sure it is what it means; afterall, the antiKaon is still the mirror image of its neutral partner is it not? There we will find always very small quantum changes, some we find even in physics, relationships between particles that seem to have quite a few differences, but we can still link them together with counterpart relationships.
From this it was deduced that the interactions which violate CP are very weak and are evident in KL Meson decay only because there are two neutral K-mesons that have practically the same mass and are therefore easily mixed.

The Antimatter Paradox

According to some calculations i am about to perform, i will show how its easy to approximate the general amount of energy for big bang. If my memory serves me correctly, the big bang surpressed energy into a completely compactified and infinite state of density, is not best work from, but rather how much energy is released from such a singular state, if indeed singularitaries exsit.

E=mc^2

The energy in joules in the visible universe is in the order of 1x10^24 x 2x10^30 x 3x10^8 x 3x108 = 18x10^70 joules

It is said by some physicists that visible matter account for only about 4% of the matter in the physical universe.
Therefore, the figure for energy now is multiplied by 25= 4.5x 10^72 joules

(Some mathematicians might consider the smaller number 10^65 to be infinity for all practical purposes)

If we divide the above figure by 5 x 10^9 , this will result in the number of tonnes of (TNT equivalent), which is roughly 1 x 10^63 Tonnes of TNT.

And with all this energy, there seems to be more matter and antimatter, and which raises this initial paradox.

When dealing with negative energy, we can state these terms from the Hamilonian Expression of the Conservational Energy-Mass Equation.


The positive-negative solution to (E \pm Mc^2). This means that this is also used for when dealing with virtual negative energy particles, of the
form E^2=M^2c^4.

Now supposing the special mathematics that conclude the usual metric equations. The photon has what’s called a 4-momentum p^{\mu} and a 3-momentum P_i. The photon in relativity is said to move along a null trajectory so p^{\mu}p_{\mu}=0, but in considering the energy, traditionally given as E and the 3-momentum this is -E^2+|p|^2=0. The path it moves through space from an observers point of view is completely different to that of a photons however. In usual metric structures, you have p^{\mu}p_{\mu}=-M^2=+E^2-(p^1)^2+p^{2}_{j} with a perpendicular component given as j in
this case.

So an antimatter solution for a rest energy is given as (-E=Mc^2) whilst a positive particle has the description of the energy-equivalance without the need of ''adding'' the negativo sign - and by mathematical law,

(-E=Mc^2)+(E=Mc^2)=1022Kev

Inertia and Relativistic Mass

Inertia is a property of matter which opposes changes in velocity, and relativistic mass is a change in energy as matter increases with velocity, so there may indeed be a relation. I state, that the inertia of a system is the resistance to an increase of energy due to the acceleration of a system.

And the resistance to change is related to the system not willing to use up energy unless acted upon by some external force. So inertia is also the resistance to a deceleration due to reserving the energy of its local system.

For Antiparticles

It would also have negative energy and tension, and negative quantum wavelength; but I am not sure how that would manifest itself. I have even proposed an anti-inertia. This principle inerests me most, and the reason why is that when not being disturbed by some external force, an anti-inertia would be an effect that is opposite: i.e. instead of the particle finding it hard to accelerate and decelerate becomes much more easier for them.


Axioms

1. Gravitational bodies are made of mass
2. Gravitational bodies either attract or do not attract according to their signs
3. Gravitational bodies create a quantum field or distortion caused by frame-dragging mediated long distences by the hypothetical graviton


2 Axioms

1 Antigravitational bodies are made of mass
2.AntiGravitational bodies repel positive mass (which may be indestinguishable on the fundamental level as an effect similar to matter-antimatter interaction and inexorable repulsion.
3.AntiGravitational bodies create a quantum field or distortion caused by frame-dragging mediated long distances by the hypothetical graviton


Concentrating on the last axiom, assuming none of the symmetries between the two axioms can be disputed, (but you truely can't refute the deduction when its clearly being balanced
within what effects each axiom point makes for both -Mc^2 and Mc^2. But there is one missing link, and that is that the description of the antigravitationally-warped spacetime will radiate antigravitations.

Final Thoughts so Far:

There is certainly a strange appearence of particles and antiparticles, with the latter being few, or far between. I refer you to:http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070823_huge_hole.html , and in this reference to a news physics-related article, a hole in spacetime was detected not so long ago which defied all odds predicted by the standard model.

If mass creates field respectively associate to their fudnamental vibrations whith an attractive force of gravity, radiating gravitons, then those with antimatter properties will almost certainly posit the existence of such a particle. Afteralll, concluding the axioms, the symmetry worked unfifyingly-well that was, until the potulation that a body in space composed of gravitationally-radiating matter would not produce an antigraviton, becuase by the time it reach another antigraviationally-charged body, the particle will remain stable, and continue to communicate ''their'' attractive forces on each other.

(Why i made the theory? Becuase the Higgs Field is now becoming more and more less of a defence for mass-production of particles. Mass is generated from a Yukawa coupling to the higgs field, but the fields added to make this work seems to be more work than what the theory should have.

The respective couplings resultant from this depend more or less on the idea that CPT is understood to full degree. You cannot make the arguement solid that this is the only way to model mass' and how they are obtained.)

But how did the early movements of anti/normal particles avoid collision? I made an arguement that perhaps antiparicles where not created in such small amount, but rather a result quite large, however, it may be that the standard model is on top form. If there are any chances that CPT-violation occurred to produce the ratio of matter/antimatter, then another possibility is that there could have undergone some drastic early on-matter-antimatter collisions. To support this contention i would like you to read http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070823_huge_hole.html - where the scientist admit, the big bang theory does not allow for holes in space at this monstrous scale. I beleieve this hole was in fact as early collision between ordinary matter and antimatter
« Last Edit: 03/12/2009 18:59:38 by Mr. Scientist »


 

Offline cyberphlak

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 23
    • View Profile
Time reversal invariance and Antigravitational Forces
« Reply #1 on: 13/12/2009 01:28:16 »
That is quite the long question and it is unclear exactly what answer you are looking for. In the simplest terms, I do not support conclusions of "anti matter". The natural opposite of matter is not an anti matter but rather no matter at all. The statements made and questions posed are very dependent upon theories of anti particles, gravitons and so on. It is my opinion and understanding that these largely ideas born of correcting a flawed gravity theory. From the opening, you mentioned the irreversible condition as compared to running a movie backwards. Once a series of events have taken place, a review of that series will always be the same. To see a different result is a matter of mistake not phenomena. 
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Time reversal invariance and Antigravitational Forces
« Reply #2 on: 13/12/2009 07:08:55 »
It's ok. This thread was more of a tester to myself rather than any general questions. Though, thanks for the interest. :)
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Time reversal invariance and Antigravitational Forces
« Reply #2 on: 13/12/2009 07:08:55 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums