The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Poll

Could gravity be repulsive for antiparticles as some scientist are suggesting?

Yes
1 (25%)
No
3 (75%)
Maybe
0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 4

Voting closed: 13/01/2015 23:08:03

Author Topic: Could this person have really come up with a Theory of Everything?  (Read 4582 times)

Offline ISPManSys

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
At this Google Solve for X event a Theory of Everything was presented.

What do you think?  Could it be right? 

And if not, are there any specific reasons why not?  There are a lot of consistencies between what is presented and this article by Dragan Slavkov Hajdukovic from CERN.  newbielink:http://arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/1106/1106.0847v1.pdf [nonactive]


 

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
My hypothesis is that anyone who has come up with a ToE would not be presenting it on youtube. This hypothesis has been validated by multiple instances to date, with no exceptions. Therefore, I suspect the answer is no.
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1802
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Assuming that a particle and its antiparticle have the gravitational charge of the opposite sign...

Why would one base a theory on an assumption for which there is no physical or experimental evidence?

If we make this assumption, does that not leave photons in a difficult state?  Would they not have to be attracted and repelled at the same time?  If that were the case, wouldn't all the measurements of the gravitational deflection of light be wrong?

You can almost hear Eddington turning in his grave!
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3905
  • Thanked: 52 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
This is to do with the hypothesis that anti-matter may be repelled by gravity. I don't think anyone has tested this yet. As there is assumed to be more matter than anti-matter the effects on light would likely be negligible anyway. Personally I don't believe that anti-matter will react any differently to matter in a gravitational field. The sign of charge of the proton and electron don't cause any difference. iF anti-matter were repulsed by gravity, however, it may answer the question as to why matter won out in the annihilation process. There would also have to be another force that acted in the opposite manner to gravity but attracted anti-matter. If this were dark energy then that seems to accumulate over time, unlike gravity, which may diminish over time.
 

Offline JohnDuffield

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 488
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
This is to do with the hypothesis that anti-matter may be repelled by gravity. I don't think anyone has tested this yet.
It's a pop-science canard, Jeffrey, intended to garner interest and support. But it's woo. Because energy causes gravity. Matter causes gravity because of the energy content, and so does antimatter. If you had a box containing matter and antimatter, that box contains energy, so it causes gravity. If all the matter annihilates with the antimatter to become gamma photons, the box still contains energy, and causes the same gravity. 

As there is assumed to be more matter than anti-matter the effects on light would likely be negligible anyway. Personally I don't believe that anti-matter will react any differently to matter in a gravitational field. The sign of charge of the proton and electron don't cause any difference.
And guess what? See this. Positronium is like "light" hydrogen. How do you know the proton isn't the antimatter?

If anti-matter were repulsed by gravity, however, it may answer the question as to why matter won out in the annihilation process.
IMHO that's another popscience canard. It's like you're watching a game of mixed-doubles tennis on TV, and I come in and tell you the men won.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Sorry, as soon as I see a utube presentation I become suspicious. Argue is cool, and it will invite people knowing. Utube is like watching disney :)
 

Offline Brian T. Johnston

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
This does not seem to fit the observed distribution of dark matter in the solar system. It can be seen that dark matter is denser in the inner solar system and there are density peaks associated with the inner planets. It seems more like WIMPS to me.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3905
  • Thanked: 52 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
This does not seem to fit the observed distribution of dark matter in the solar system. It can be seen that dark matter is denser in the inner solar system and there are density peaks associated with the inner planets. It seems more like WIMPS to me.

I have found nothing about evidence of dark matter in the solar system. Where did you find this and how valid is it?
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3905
  • Thanked: 52 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
An article in Nature from 2012 seems to tentatively indicate less dark matter than expected.

http://www.nature.com/news/survey-finds-no-hint-of-dark-matter-near-solar-system-1.10494

"The researchers found that at most, only about one-tenth the amount of dark matter predicted by models could exist in the volume of space they examined, Moni Bidin says.

Only if dark matter has a highly unlikely arrangement — squeezed into a shape like that of an upright rugby ball rather than a round soccer ball — could the team’s results be consistent with the dark matter that other researchers have, since the 1970s, said must exist to account for the rapid rotation of the outskirts of the Milky Way."

The rest of the article argues that the distribution of matter that they chose may have given erroneous results.

ADDITIONAL: This page only makes the position a bigger mystery.

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/516681/the-incredible-dark-matter-mystery-why-astronomers-say-it-is-missing-in-action/

[Pitjev and Pitjeva have compiled an impressive data set consisting of some 677,000 measurements of planetary positions taken since 1910. These include optical measurements from observatories on Earth, ranging measurements from various spacecraft such as Cassini at Saturn and the Mars and Venus Express missions plus various Russian radar measurements of planetary positions taken between 1961 and 1995.

This data has become increasingly accurate in recent years. For example, the data from Cassini gives its distance at Saturn to within a metre or so.

Astrophysicists have used these measurements to model the behaviour of the solar system, taking into account the perturbations caused by the major planets, the Moon, the 301 largest asteroids, the other asteroids modelled as a uniform ring, the 21 largest trans-Neptunian objects and so on.

Having taken all this into account, Pitjev and Pitjeva looked for anomalous gravitational effects that might be the result of dark matter. “If dark matter is present in the Solar system, then it should lead to some additional gravitational influence on all bodies,” they say.

The puzzling news is that Pitjev and Pitjeva find no evidence of this stuff in their analysis. If it is there, its effect must be smaller than the errors in the data.]
« Last Edit: 25/01/2015 00:47:17 by jeffreyH »
 

Offline Atomic-S

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 928
  • Thanked: 18 times
    • View Profile
A major problem with the theory in the video is the assumption that antimatter is gravitationally repulsive. As noted above, that does not agree with our current knowledge. Another is his exposition of the phenomenon of time as it pertains to an incoming asteroid. I think he has a false understanding as to how time works. It is unclear to me that the reversal of dynamical time in antimatter, pursuant to the theory of its subatomic structure and associated with its reversed charge and certain other properties, is the same thing as a reversal of observational time, the way an observer would reckon the motion of a celestial body, and the reason is that the latter involves a macroscopic observer. A macroscopic observer is limited by the laws of information transfer, which are controlled by the phenomenon of entropy. Entropy is a macroscopic, not microscopic, phenomenon; and therefore would not appear to be inevitably constrained by microscopic structure. Therefor, to speak of time as going backwards in antimatter is more complex than simply saying we reverse a sign in everything.  His argument does not stand on firm ground unless this issue is cleared up.  Another problem is that  his analysis of the gravitation of the hypothetical antimatter shell is Newtonian, in a situation in which it is unclear that the Newtonian concept of gravity can be validly used, due to the great distances involved and the great speed at which the antimatter is presumably moving, and the curious fact that it has not been detected by observation through spectroscopy. Of course, if it is moving at the speed of light, it presumably would not be,  but that in itself creates other problems in terms of how you analyze its gravity.  So, in my opinion, his theory of everything has some significant problems.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length