If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American*

Previous Contests

**Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest**

*December 24, 2019 - March 16, 2020*

Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

read/discuss

**What Is “Fundamental”**

*October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018*

*Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation*

read/discuss • winners

**Wandering Towards a Goal**

How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

*December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017*

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

**Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics**

*Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation*

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

**How Should Humanity Steer the Future?**

*January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014*

*Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**It From Bit or Bit From It**

*March 25 - June 28, 2013*

*Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**Questioning the Foundations**

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

*May 24 - August 31, 2012*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**Is Reality Digital or Analog?**

*November 2010 - February 2011*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?**

*May - October 2009*

*Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams*

read/discuss • winners

**The Nature of Time**

*August - December 2008*

read/discuss • winners

Current Essay Contest

Previous Contests

Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

read/discuss

read/discuss • winners

How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Forum Home

Introduction

Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

*Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.*

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

**Marcoen Cabbolet**: *on* 10/8/12 at 10:21am UTC, wrote Dear Vladimir, Thanks for your kind words. Your essay mentions...

**Vladimir Tamari**: *on* 10/5/12 at 11:10am UTC, wrote Dear Marcoen Congratulations for posting this very interesting essay, and...

**Sergey Fedosin**: *on* 10/4/12 at 8:22am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

**Marcoen Cabbolet**: *on* 10/2/12 at 23:13pm UTC, wrote Dear Gary, Thanks for your kind words on my essay. I have looked at your...

**Anonymous**: *on* 10/2/12 at 22:33pm UTC, wrote Dear Sergey, Thanks for reading and commenting on my essay. Not only the...

**Steven Dinowitz**: *on* 10/2/12 at 18:52pm UTC, wrote Hi Marcoen, I think I made an interesting discovery, please check out my...

**Sergey Fedosin**: *on* 10/2/12 at 17:11pm UTC, wrote After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I...

**Gary Simpson**: *on* 10/2/12 at 0:57am UTC, wrote A very interesting idea and a pretty good read. Thanks for thinking outside...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**Robert McEachern**: ""At least that's the premise." That's the problem. "the theorems that..."
*in* Alternative Models of...

**Malcolm Riddoch**: "@Robert: ""This latter, Ψ(U), can't describe a 'drug test' can it?" For..."
*in* Alternative Models of...

**John Cox**: "Lorraine, I briefly described the relationship of mass to inertia..."
*in* Emergent Reality: Markus...

**Lorraine Ford**: "John, I would say that you need to think what you mean by “physical..."
*in* Emergent Reality: Markus...

**Lorraine Ford**: "Re "I tend to speed-read then review before scoring after reading a good..."
*in* Undecidability,...

**John Cox**: "George, We shouldn't conflate contradiction with inconsistency. QM has a..."
*in* Watching the Watchmen:...

**John Cox**: "Georgi, by and large I agree. Near the end of the discussion panel,..."
*in* Watching the Watchmen:...

RECENT ARTICLES

*click titles to read articles*

**First Things First: The Physics of Causality**

Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

**Can Time Be Saved From Physics?**

Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

**Thermo-Demonics**

A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

**Gravity's Residue**

An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

**Could Mind Forge the Universe?**

Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

FQXi FORUM

January 24, 2020

CATEGORY:
Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012)
[back]

TOPIC: Meditations on First Principles Underlying an Assumed Matter-Antimatter Gravitational Repulsion: A Dialectic Essay by Marcoen J.T.F. Cabbolet [refresh]

TOPIC: Meditations on First Principles Underlying an Assumed Matter-Antimatter Gravitational Repulsion: A Dialectic Essay by Marcoen J.T.F. Cabbolet [refresh]

Although it is widely assumed that gravitation is attraction only, the existence of gravitational repulsion cannot be excluded. In a recent study, for the first time non-classical physical principles underlying an assumed matter-antimatter gravitational repulsion have been positively identified. This dialectic essay focusses on the all-determining first cycle of thesis, antithesis and synthesis of that study, and explains why these principles - together called: the Elementary Process Theory (EPT) - are outside the framework of contemporary physical theories. A Cartesian analysis of the assumption on gravitational repulsion yields the unquestionable thesis that antimatter then must have positive rest mass and negative gravitational mass. The antithesis to this thesis is then that this combination of properties is impossible from the perspective of established theories. The synthesis is then that this combination of properties has to be underlied by a fundamentally new physical principle, which is that rest-mass-having particles alternate between a particlelike state and a wavelike state. The final section addresses the question of correctness and completeness of the EPT.

After a master study Chemical Engineering at Eindhoven University of Technology (Netherlands), Marcoen Cabbolet has conducted a PhD research in the foundations of physics on his own initiative. The project started at the Kharkov Physico-Technological Institute (Ukraine), where the main physical results were obtained. After severe illness of the supervisor, the project was relocated to the Netherlands, where the mathematical formalization was fine-tuned. However, the unorthodoxy of the results led to hostilities at Tilburg University and Eindhoven University of Technology. But after yet another relocation, the 15-year project was concluded in 2011 with great honor at Brussels Free University (Belgium).

The questions you raise are very interesting and contribute to the discussion about the nature of gravity.

I have been working on an hypothetical universe in which gravity is an emergent composite force. Within that universe, which I can the quantum-geometrical universe (QGU), the negative gravity you refer to is a particular solution of a general equation that describes gravitational interactions.

Also, you conclude your essay with the following:

"[...] the upcoming years the prediction of the EPT will be investigated that in individual processes space is formed as a substance {that is, the EPT predicts the existence of `elements of physical reality' that constitute space itself. The idea is then to model this mechanism quantitatively, and to investigate whether this yields a solution to the dark energy problem in physical cosmology."

That space is made of "elements of physical reality" is one of two axioms from the quantum-geometrical universe's physics emerge. Interestingly, an effect similar to the dark energy effect emerges naturally from the two axioms of the QGU and is, like gravity, a particular solution of the equation that describes within it gravitation interactions.

That said, though a theory cannot be understood within the framework of another theory that uses a different axiom set, I have found we share some interesting insights.

report post as inappropriate

I have been working on an hypothetical universe in which gravity is an emergent composite force. Within that universe, which I can the quantum-geometrical universe (QGU), the negative gravity you refer to is a particular solution of a general equation that describes gravitational interactions.

Also, you conclude your essay with the following:

"[...] the upcoming years the prediction of the EPT will be investigated that in individual processes space is formed as a substance {that is, the EPT predicts the existence of `elements of physical reality' that constitute space itself. The idea is then to model this mechanism quantitatively, and to investigate whether this yields a solution to the dark energy problem in physical cosmology."

That space is made of "elements of physical reality" is one of two axioms from the quantum-geometrical universe's physics emerge. Interestingly, an effect similar to the dark energy effect emerges naturally from the two axioms of the QGU and is, like gravity, a particular solution of the equation that describes within it gravitation interactions.

That said, though a theory cannot be understood within the framework of another theory that uses a different axiom set, I have found we share some interesting insights.

report post as inappropriate

Hello to both of you,

I like these words:... "That said, though a theory cannot be understood within the framework of another theory that uses a different axiom set, I have found we share some interesting insights."

Indeed , we must be sure that the axiomatizations and superimposings are rational.If not ; we have pseudo sciences full of irrationalties.

A set of axioms is rational if and only if all axioms are rational.

How can we approach our foundamentals if we do not superimpose with the biggest determinism.

All roads do not go to Roma !

Best Regards

report post as inappropriate

I like these words:... "That said, though a theory cannot be understood within the framework of another theory that uses a different axiom set, I have found we share some interesting insights."

Indeed , we must be sure that the axiomatizations and superimposings are rational.If not ; we have pseudo sciences full of irrationalties.

A set of axioms is rational if and only if all axioms are rational.

How can we approach our foundamentals if we do not superimpose with the biggest determinism.

All roads do not go to Roma !

Best Regards

report post as inappropriate

Hello Daniel, Steve,

@Daniel: thanks for commenting on my essay.

Am I correct that you obtain a quantum-theoretical formulation of the physics of gravitational repulsion from just two assumptions?

That would be quite spectacular, given that e.g. non-relativistic quantum mechanics has already more than two axioms.

Are your two assumptions (or axioms) all of the assumptions of the entire theory, or are these assumptions that are added to the assumptions of the quantum framework?

I found it impossible to describe gravitational repulsion in the framework of quantum mechanics, mainly for the reasons mentioned in the essay. Another (philosophical) point is that in the (standard) framework of quantum theory a particle only has the property "gravitational mass" if it is in the eigenstate of the corresponding operator, and it is only in that eigenstate when the gravitational mass is observed, or when the spectrum of the operator has only one value (so that the particle is always in the eigenstate). So, Daniel, how do you cope with that in your theory?

@Steve: I agree with you that not all roads lead to Rome.

What do you mean when you write that an axiomatization has to be rational? What are the criteria for rationality of an axiomatization? Is it possible to give an irrational axiomatization of a theory?

Regards, Marcoen

@Daniel: thanks for commenting on my essay.

Am I correct that you obtain a quantum-theoretical formulation of the physics of gravitational repulsion from just two assumptions?

That would be quite spectacular, given that e.g. non-relativistic quantum mechanics has already more than two axioms.

Are your two assumptions (or axioms) all of the assumptions of the entire theory, or are these assumptions that are added to the assumptions of the quantum framework?

I found it impossible to describe gravitational repulsion in the framework of quantum mechanics, mainly for the reasons mentioned in the essay. Another (philosophical) point is that in the (standard) framework of quantum theory a particle only has the property "gravitational mass" if it is in the eigenstate of the corresponding operator, and it is only in that eigenstate when the gravitational mass is observed, or when the spectrum of the operator has only one value (so that the particle is always in the eigenstate). So, Daniel, how do you cope with that in your theory?

@Steve: I agree with you that not all roads lead to Rome.

What do you mean when you write that an axiomatization has to be rational? What are the criteria for rationality of an axiomatization? Is it possible to give an irrational axiomatization of a theory?

Regards, Marcoen

Hello Marcoen,

I say simply that it depends of what we want to interpret. An axiom in my line of reasoning must be rational when we speak about our rational sciences.

The criteria for this rationality are numerous and in all centers of analyzes, physics,maths, biology, chemistry,technology,computing even,....

You know I am not a fan of anti-thesis. I prefer the objective and deterministic road. The criteria are like the domains or limits or this or that, they are always rational if they want to explain our pure physics and its laws. It is like for the time.Let's take its irreversibility on the entropical arrow of time.We cannot say that this time is reversible.That, it is rational. The time travel is irrational, the space travel is rational.

Lifes inside our Universe everywhere inside this universal sphere,it is rational.

Harry Potter is irrational. The taxonomy of plants and animals and fungis is rational. The micro Black Holes are irrational. The centers of galaxies are spheres, BH ,it is rational. Our Universe is a sphere, it is rational. The extradimensions are irrational. The photosynthesis is rational. the rotations are rational, the spheres are rational. The irrational algeberas are irrational.a cell is rational like is rational a H or a C or a N or O .....amino acids ....adn EVOLUTION is rational .....this earth becomes irrational.....a music of Mozart is rational.....a hybiscus syriacus blue bird blue sky is rational.... avatar is rational and irrational ....euler was rational...borh also ...Newtom also...time machine is irrational....arms , weapons,monney,...are irrational.....in fact the list is so long.we can make a list of actual scientists if you want but perhaps it is not a good idea. The vanity is so important inside this international sciences community.What a world :)

Regards

report post as inappropriate

I say simply that it depends of what we want to interpret. An axiom in my line of reasoning must be rational when we speak about our rational sciences.

The criteria for this rationality are numerous and in all centers of analyzes, physics,maths, biology, chemistry,technology,computing even,....

You know I am not a fan of anti-thesis. I prefer the objective and deterministic road. The criteria are like the domains or limits or this or that, they are always rational if they want to explain our pure physics and its laws. It is like for the time.Let's take its irreversibility on the entropical arrow of time.We cannot say that this time is reversible.That, it is rational. The time travel is irrational, the space travel is rational.

Lifes inside our Universe everywhere inside this universal sphere,it is rational.

Harry Potter is irrational. The taxonomy of plants and animals and fungis is rational. The micro Black Holes are irrational. The centers of galaxies are spheres, BH ,it is rational. Our Universe is a sphere, it is rational. The extradimensions are irrational. The photosynthesis is rational. the rotations are rational, the spheres are rational. The irrational algeberas are irrational.a cell is rational like is rational a H or a C or a N or O .....amino acids ....adn EVOLUTION is rational .....this earth becomes irrational.....a music of Mozart is rational.....a hybiscus syriacus blue bird blue sky is rational.... avatar is rational and irrational ....euler was rational...borh also ...Newtom also...time machine is irrational....arms , weapons,monney,...are irrational.....in fact the list is so long.we can make a list of actual scientists if you want but perhaps it is not a good idea. The vanity is so important inside this international sciences community.What a world :)

Regards

report post as inappropriate

Marcoen,

Your argument and discussion cover some of the same territory as mine but is more substantive.

Jim

report post as inappropriate

Your argument and discussion cover some of the same territory as mine but is more substantive.

Jim

report post as inappropriate

Jim,

Having looked into your essay, my conclusion is that our essays have a different objective. My essay intends to present a part of the development of one particular theory in detail, while your essay is clearly intended to give a broad overview of various theoretical and practical ideas in the realm of gravitation. Of course, that leaves less room for detail. But that isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Regards, Marcoen

Having looked into your essay, my conclusion is that our essays have a different objective. My essay intends to present a part of the development of one particular theory in detail, while your essay is clearly intended to give a broad overview of various theoretical and practical ideas in the realm of gravitation. Of course, that leaves less room for detail. But that isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Regards, Marcoen

Marcoen,

Very modern and original view on the interaction of the matter with antimatter. It is worth to look into it in more detail and perform an experiment to see how it works in real.

I wish you good luck with continuation of this research and bringing even more interesting results!

Best regards,

Evgeny

report post as inappropriate

Very modern and original view on the interaction of the matter with antimatter. It is worth to look into it in more detail and perform an experiment to see how it works in real.

I wish you good luck with continuation of this research and bringing even more interesting results!

Best regards,

Evgeny

report post as inappropriate

Hello Evgeny,

Thanks for commenting on my essay.

The most important experiment -- in this context, that is! -- will be done by the AEGIS-collaboration at CERN. If the outcome is positive for my research then I can use astronmical data for another empirical test of the theory. This has the advantage that it is not necessary to perform an expensive experiment: the data are already there.

Regards, Marcoen

Thanks for commenting on my essay.

The most important experiment -- in this context, that is! -- will be done by the AEGIS-collaboration at CERN. If the outcome is positive for my research then I can use astronmical data for another empirical test of the theory. This has the advantage that it is not necessary to perform an expensive experiment: the data are already there.

Regards, Marcoen

Hello Marcoen,

This would be indeed very interesting to test your theory with astonomical data. As far as I remember, there have been discovered some antiparticles in the Earth radiation belt, with a hypothesis that the charged antimatter is caught by the Earh's magnetic field. I wonder if your theory could also explain the existense of this belt?

report post as inappropriate

This would be indeed very interesting to test your theory with astonomical data. As far as I remember, there have been discovered some antiparticles in the Earth radiation belt, with a hypothesis that the charged antimatter is caught by the Earh's magnetic field. I wonder if your theory could also explain the existense of this belt?

report post as inappropriate

Evgeny,

Thanks for this suggestion. It is, however, impossible to answer your question here and now.

The radiation belt is a macroscopic phenomenon: it is quite an enterprise to explain that with a theory of the Planck scale. It might be an idea to investigate whether a concrete mathematical model of the theory (i.e. the EPT) is consistent with the radiation belt, that is, whether the model does not exclude the existence of the belt. That requires, however, that a model of the theory is at hand; currently this is not the case. So for the moment we have to shelve the idea, but it remains an interesting suggestion.

Regards, Marcoen

Thanks for this suggestion. It is, however, impossible to answer your question here and now.

The radiation belt is a macroscopic phenomenon: it is quite an enterprise to explain that with a theory of the Planck scale. It might be an idea to investigate whether a concrete mathematical model of the theory (i.e. the EPT) is consistent with the radiation belt, that is, whether the model does not exclude the existence of the belt. That requires, however, that a model of the theory is at hand; currently this is not the case. So for the moment we have to shelve the idea, but it remains an interesting suggestion.

Regards, Marcoen

Dear Marcoen,

I am glad to see your essay and ideas on gravity being a repulsive force in the perspective of anti matter. Also I am glad to see a chemical engineer working in theoritical physics concepts, as I did my MS in chemical engineering as well from university of south western Louisiana but took to software engineering as a profession.

In the quest to understand the true nature of universe, I have realized that our conscience is the key to understanding this puzzle. Physical reality is the work of the universal soul, mind and body. S = BM^2. To be (matter) or not to be (antimatter) is the ongoin process of the cosmos, and is reflected in an individual being. We are the individual cosmic prototype.

For every action there is equal and opposite reaction, there is also inaction at the point of their interaction. It is this inaction (singualrity or coscience or soul) that is in all of us that causes all the actions and consequent reactions. Positive numbers on the number scale are like the matter particles, and negative numbers on the number scale are like antimatter particles. If we were to sum all the numbers from negative infinity to postitive infinity the sum would be absolute zero. The answer lies in zero, and hence zero divided by zero equals everything including nothing, which means the relativity we percieve in the physical universe is non existent or an illusion and the universe is just an absolute singularity.

Please see the essay Conscience is the cosmological constant.

Love,

Sridattadev.

report post as inappropriate

I am glad to see your essay and ideas on gravity being a repulsive force in the perspective of anti matter. Also I am glad to see a chemical engineer working in theoritical physics concepts, as I did my MS in chemical engineering as well from university of south western Louisiana but took to software engineering as a profession.

In the quest to understand the true nature of universe, I have realized that our conscience is the key to understanding this puzzle. Physical reality is the work of the universal soul, mind and body. S = BM^2. To be (matter) or not to be (antimatter) is the ongoin process of the cosmos, and is reflected in an individual being. We are the individual cosmic prototype.

For every action there is equal and opposite reaction, there is also inaction at the point of their interaction. It is this inaction (singualrity or coscience or soul) that is in all of us that causes all the actions and consequent reactions. Positive numbers on the number scale are like the matter particles, and negative numbers on the number scale are like antimatter particles. If we were to sum all the numbers from negative infinity to postitive infinity the sum would be absolute zero. The answer lies in zero, and hence zero divided by zero equals everything including nothing, which means the relativity we percieve in the physical universe is non existent or an illusion and the universe is just an absolute singularity.

Please see the essay Conscience is the cosmological constant.

Love,

Sridattadev.

report post as inappropriate

Hi Sridattadev,

I indeed first studied chemistry but it required quite some additional study to be able to work in the foundations of physics. I have noticed that there are those who think that "a chemist" has no bussiness in theoretical physics, but I consider that nothing but pigeonholing: the fact that I once chose a chemistry education doesn't mean that I am confined to chemistry for the rest of my life. But I agree with them that a chemistry education alone does not provide enough background for a career in theoretical physics.

Now about your comment. I agree with you that an understanding of the true nature of the universe is intertwined with an understanding of conscience. Or to put it in other words: I sincerely believe that the fundamental questions of physics are intertwined with the mind-body problem in philosophy. My point of view is the same as that of the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead: a new ontology for physics means nothing if it doesn't provide new insight into the mind-body problem. I have investigated the implications of my Elementary Process Theory for the mind-body problem, but that is off topic here.

I have read your essay, but I must say that it raises some serious questions. For example, you write that "if 0 x 0 = 0 is true, then 0 / 0 = 0 is also true". Aren't you going against (mathematical) field theory here? The expression "0/0 = 0" is just a notation for the expression "0 x 0^{-1} = 0", where 0^{-1} is the multiplicative reverse of the number 0 (the additive unit). That, however, does not exist: in field theory the number 0 has no multiplicative reverse. That is to say: there is no such thing as division by 0. So from that point of view, it is not true that 0/0 = 0.

Another point in your essay that I find difficult to understand is your equation on page 2, "s = bm^{2}". Is this a relation between numbers, or are the soul, the body and the mind substances (things)? If these are numbers, then the question is: isn't the concept of a number too simple to represent something complex as a soul? And if these are substances, then immediately the question comes to mind: don't you get in troubles with the dimensions? What is the body times the mind times the mind dimension-wise? These are just some of the questions that come to mind.

Regards, Marcoen

I indeed first studied chemistry but it required quite some additional study to be able to work in the foundations of physics. I have noticed that there are those who think that "a chemist" has no bussiness in theoretical physics, but I consider that nothing but pigeonholing: the fact that I once chose a chemistry education doesn't mean that I am confined to chemistry for the rest of my life. But I agree with them that a chemistry education alone does not provide enough background for a career in theoretical physics.

Now about your comment. I agree with you that an understanding of the true nature of the universe is intertwined with an understanding of conscience. Or to put it in other words: I sincerely believe that the fundamental questions of physics are intertwined with the mind-body problem in philosophy. My point of view is the same as that of the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead: a new ontology for physics means nothing if it doesn't provide new insight into the mind-body problem. I have investigated the implications of my Elementary Process Theory for the mind-body problem, but that is off topic here.

I have read your essay, but I must say that it raises some serious questions. For example, you write that "if 0 x 0 = 0 is true, then 0 / 0 = 0 is also true". Aren't you going against (mathematical) field theory here? The expression "0/0 = 0" is just a notation for the expression "0 x 0

Another point in your essay that I find difficult to understand is your equation on page 2, "s = bm

Regards, Marcoen

Dear Marcoen,

Thanks for reading the essay and trying to understand what I am trying to convey. The point I am trying to make with 0/0 = 0 to infinity is that the division we percieve in relativity is non existent. To put in words "when nothing is divided by nothing you can get anything including nothing".

In the representation S=BM^2, 2 is not just an exponential number, it is the duality of our mind, to be or not to be the matter or body.

We can just know what the universe is, if we only know our self.

Love,

Sridattadev.

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for reading the essay and trying to understand what I am trying to convey. The point I am trying to make with 0/0 = 0 to infinity is that the division we percieve in relativity is non existent. To put in words "when nothing is divided by nothing you can get anything including nothing".

In the representation S=BM^2, 2 is not just an exponential number, it is the duality of our mind, to be or not to be the matter or body.

We can just know what the universe is, if we only know our self.

Love,

Sridattadev.

report post as inappropriate

Hi Sridattadev,

I see that you give a very unusual interpretation to the expression S = BM^{2}. Usually M^{2} is just the element that is produced by applying the binary operation multiplication to the elements M and M; in Polish notation M^{2} = *(M, M). With all due respect, I think you give the expression a meaning that is not represented by the mathematics in the expression: you might want to think it over to use this expression to represent your idea on soul, body and mind. I would advise you to first develop the idea further and write it out in words. When it then is in its final stage, you could search for a suitable symbolic representation - if that is more preferable than a formulation in just words.

Best regards, Marcoen

I see that you give a very unusual interpretation to the expression S = BM

Best regards, Marcoen

Hi Marcoen,

Splendid stuff. You have my vote!

Goodluck and with kind regards,

Sándor

report post as inappropriate

Splendid stuff. You have my vote!

Goodluck and with kind regards,

Sándor

report post as inappropriate

Dear Marcoen:

I enjoyed your nicely written essay describing the possible matter-antimatter gravitational repulsion or anti-gravity mechanism. However, in order to explain a sustainable antigravity mechanism, as in the cosmological constant, one must prove a sustainable amount of antimatter in the same amount as the classical matter observed in the universe. Since, such large amount of sustainable stable antimatter has not been seen, a sustained antigravity cannot be supported by the arguments made in the paper.

As described in my posted paper – “ From Absurd to Elegant Universe”, an alternative mechanism for antigravity is proposed based on the observed spontaneous decay of particles or mass-energy equivalence principle, wherein mass-energy transformation can be expressed in physical dynamical terms via a relativistic Gravity Nullification Model (GNM) based on the top-down conservation of the relativistic mass-energy-space-time continuum. GNM based antigravity driven universe expansion accurately predicts the observed universe accelerated expansion, dark energy or cosmological constant, and galactic star velocities without the concept of dark matter. It also predicts the dilation and creation of mass without any anti-matter and eliminates black hole singularity without the need for any super luminous inflation. The model also explains/predicts the inner workings of quantum mechanics and resolves paradoxes of the measurement problem, quantum gravity and time, and inconsistencies with relativity theory.

I would greatly appreciate your comments on my paper.

Sincerely,

Avtar Singh

report post as inappropriate

I enjoyed your nicely written essay describing the possible matter-antimatter gravitational repulsion or anti-gravity mechanism. However, in order to explain a sustainable antigravity mechanism, as in the cosmological constant, one must prove a sustainable amount of antimatter in the same amount as the classical matter observed in the universe. Since, such large amount of sustainable stable antimatter has not been seen, a sustained antigravity cannot be supported by the arguments made in the paper.

As described in my posted paper – “ From Absurd to Elegant Universe”, an alternative mechanism for antigravity is proposed based on the observed spontaneous decay of particles or mass-energy equivalence principle, wherein mass-energy transformation can be expressed in physical dynamical terms via a relativistic Gravity Nullification Model (GNM) based on the top-down conservation of the relativistic mass-energy-space-time continuum. GNM based antigravity driven universe expansion accurately predicts the observed universe accelerated expansion, dark energy or cosmological constant, and galactic star velocities without the concept of dark matter. It also predicts the dilation and creation of mass without any anti-matter and eliminates black hole singularity without the need for any super luminous inflation. The model also explains/predicts the inner workings of quantum mechanics and resolves paradoxes of the measurement problem, quantum gravity and time, and inconsistencies with relativity theory.

I would greatly appreciate your comments on my paper.

Sincerely,

Avtar Singh

report post as inappropriate

Hello Avtar,

Thanks for reading my essay and sharing your opinion about it.

My essay does indeed not argue in favor of an equal abundance of matter and antimatter: it purely deals with gravitational repulsion - the nature of the interaction between matter and antimatter does not depend on their relative abundance. It is not true, however, that the dark energy problem has necessarily to be solved by an antigravity mechanism that requires equal amounts of matter and antimatter.

The observed acceleration of the universe gives the idea that there is something that counters the effect of gravity, but that does not necessarily mean that this something is an antigravitational force at cosmic scale. Simply put, the approach that I take is that an aggregration of individual processes, which take place at Planck scale, leads to the formation of space: that is then the reason that the universe expands. So objects do not move away from each other because of some repulsive force, they merely appear to move away from each other because there is space formed inbetween them.

I have looked at your paper. To start with, I have a question about the main equation of your model. How do you get the value of the integral in formula (5)? The integral in (5) is, namely, syntactically incorrect: it lacks a variable of integration. If I assume that the value of integration is dr (and from the context that is likely), then the value of the integral becomes Gmm*(ln R - ln0). But this doesn't exist, so it cannot be the stated value 3Gm^{2}/5R. But this is an important equation, because you use that value 3Gm^{2}/5R in your master equation (6), on which your entire paper is based. So how did you get the value 3Gm^{2}/5R?? Furthermore, you make some strong claims; since you asked for my comments, I must say that I think that your model is mathematically too simple to back up some of those claims. Your model consists of a few equations in real calculus; yet you claim on page 9 that it gives a mechanistic description of the collapse of the wave function. This raises imediately a question: how can that be when the wave function is not a term of your theory (your theory only uses numbers, while the wave function is an element of a complex Hilbert space)? As I see it, you have an idea for a simple model for the developement of the universe as a whole, and perhaps you should focus you attention at that, that is, at showing that it gives good predictions for atronomical data.

Regards, Marcoen

Thanks for reading my essay and sharing your opinion about it.

My essay does indeed not argue in favor of an equal abundance of matter and antimatter: it purely deals with gravitational repulsion - the nature of the interaction between matter and antimatter does not depend on their relative abundance. It is not true, however, that the dark energy problem has necessarily to be solved by an antigravity mechanism that requires equal amounts of matter and antimatter.

The observed acceleration of the universe gives the idea that there is something that counters the effect of gravity, but that does not necessarily mean that this something is an antigravitational force at cosmic scale. Simply put, the approach that I take is that an aggregration of individual processes, which take place at Planck scale, leads to the formation of space: that is then the reason that the universe expands. So objects do not move away from each other because of some repulsive force, they merely appear to move away from each other because there is space formed inbetween them.

I have looked at your paper. To start with, I have a question about the main equation of your model. How do you get the value of the integral in formula (5)? The integral in (5) is, namely, syntactically incorrect: it lacks a variable of integration. If I assume that the value of integration is dr (and from the context that is likely), then the value of the integral becomes Gmm*(ln R - ln0). But this doesn't exist, so it cannot be the stated value 3Gm

Regards, Marcoen

Dear Marcoen:

Thanks for reading my paper and providing comments. Below are answers to your questions/comments:

The basic approach in the EPT – “.. an aggregation of individual processes, which take place at Planck scale, leads to the formation of space: that is then the reason that the universe expands. So objects do not move away from each other because of some repulsive force, they merely appear to move away from each other because there is space formed in between them.” needs to be validated against the observed universe expansion data from Supernova. Until then, the completeness or correctness of the EPT remains unsubstantiated.

You have misinterpreted the integral form of the Gravitation Potential Energy term -3Gm2/5R. The exact derivation is provided in my book, ref [15], and also excerpted in the attached PDF file herewith. Also, detailed model of the extended wave-particle model, wave-function collapse, Heisenberg uncertainty, and inner workings of quantum mechanics resolving its paradoxes such as the measurement problem, multiverses, antimatter, quantum gravity etc. are described in detail with complete mathematical derivations in Chapter 4 thru 7 (see attached Pdf for Contents of the book). Obviously, you have not have had a chance to read these detailed model descriptions and hence, prematurely labeled them too simplistic based on a quick reading the abbreviated (11 pages) paper only.

Best Regards

Avtar Singh

attachments: Gravitation_Potential_Drivation__Excerpts_from_my_book.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for reading my paper and providing comments. Below are answers to your questions/comments:

The basic approach in the EPT – “.. an aggregation of individual processes, which take place at Planck scale, leads to the formation of space: that is then the reason that the universe expands. So objects do not move away from each other because of some repulsive force, they merely appear to move away from each other because there is space formed in between them.” needs to be validated against the observed universe expansion data from Supernova. Until then, the completeness or correctness of the EPT remains unsubstantiated.

You have misinterpreted the integral form of the Gravitation Potential Energy term -3Gm2/5R. The exact derivation is provided in my book, ref [15], and also excerpted in the attached PDF file herewith. Also, detailed model of the extended wave-particle model, wave-function collapse, Heisenberg uncertainty, and inner workings of quantum mechanics resolving its paradoxes such as the measurement problem, multiverses, antimatter, quantum gravity etc. are described in detail with complete mathematical derivations in Chapter 4 thru 7 (see attached Pdf for Contents of the book). Obviously, you have not have had a chance to read these detailed model descriptions and hence, prematurely labeled them too simplistic based on a quick reading the abbreviated (11 pages) paper only.

Best Regards

Avtar Singh

attachments: Gravitation_Potential_Drivation__Excerpts_from_my_book.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Dear Avatar,

You are correct in your assessment that a necessary condition for a claim of correctness of the EPT is that the empirical data about the expansion of the universe have to be explained on the basis of the EPT. This will be the topic of my postdoc research project.

Then about your formula. In your essay, the terms m and m* in equation (5) are not defined. You refer to figure 2, but - with all due respect - a figure is an illustration, not a definition. But alas, let us consider this issue solved by your additional information. Another question then arises, however. In the document that was attached to your last post, the factor r in formula (5.14) is the distance between two separated masses M and m. But in figure 2 in your essay, m and m* seem to be adjacent, not separated. Isn't the distance r between them then not 0, as in r = 0? In other words: how do you get from that equation (5.14) to equation (5) in your essay? Is in both cases the interpretation of r the same? I hope you can elaborate on this.

With best regards, Marcoen

You are correct in your assessment that a necessary condition for a claim of correctness of the EPT is that the empirical data about the expansion of the universe have to be explained on the basis of the EPT. This will be the topic of my postdoc research project.

Then about your formula. In your essay, the terms m and m* in equation (5) are not defined. You refer to figure 2, but - with all due respect - a figure is an illustration, not a definition. But alas, let us consider this issue solved by your additional information. Another question then arises, however. In the document that was attached to your last post, the factor r in formula (5.14) is the distance between two separated masses M and m. But in figure 2 in your essay, m and m* seem to be adjacent, not separated. Isn't the distance r between them then not 0, as in r = 0? In other words: how do you get from that equation (5.14) to equation (5) in your essay? Is in both cases the interpretation of r the same? I hope you can elaborate on this.

With best regards, Marcoen

Hi Marcoen,

In answer to your questions

"Am I correct that you obtain a quantum-theoretical formulation of the physics of gravitational repulsion from just two assumptions?" and "Are your two assumptions (or axioms) all of the assumptions of the entire theory, or are these assumptions that are added to the assumptions of the quantum framework?"

Yes, I do get gravitational repulsion from only two basic assumptions or axioms. The entire theory is directly derived from only two axioms. You can get an idea how this is achieve from my entry in the FQXi contest titled "Questioning the Assumption that Space is Continuous."

And should you want to see the entire framework, I would be happy to direct you to my introduction to the subject; the first part of which is only 120 pages.

You work and mine would certainly provide a basis for some interesting discussions, to say the least.

Daniel

report post as inappropriate

In answer to your questions

"Am I correct that you obtain a quantum-theoretical formulation of the physics of gravitational repulsion from just two assumptions?" and "Are your two assumptions (or axioms) all of the assumptions of the entire theory, or are these assumptions that are added to the assumptions of the quantum framework?"

Yes, I do get gravitational repulsion from only two basic assumptions or axioms. The entire theory is directly derived from only two axioms. You can get an idea how this is achieve from my entry in the FQXi contest titled "Questioning the Assumption that Space is Continuous."

And should you want to see the entire framework, I would be happy to direct you to my introduction to the subject; the first part of which is only 120 pages.

You work and mine would certainly provide a basis for some interesting discussions, to say the least.

Daniel

report post as inappropriate

Dear Daniel,

Having looked at your essay, I see that we share the idea that gravitation can be repulsive and that space is not fundamentally continuous. Our views on what underlies all that are, however, radically different. I do not believe that space is continuous, but neither do I believe that it is discrete. In my upcoming postdoc project I intend to develop the (mathematical) notion of a semi-continuum: this is a (semi-topologiocal) space that at macroscopic space has some properties of a continuum, but the continuum structure breaks down at small scale (e.g. at Planck level).

I have some questions about your claim that your system rests on only two axioms from which everything else follows. I will focus at three things, one logics-related, one mathematics-related, and one physics-related:

1) The definition on page 1 of the notion "fundamental" is a so-called if-statement, that is, a statement of the form

This has a consequence: if an object is fundamental, then it does not follow from the definition that it is invariant.

The point is, namely, that the reasoning

is known to be not logically valid.

On page 2 you write that "Per our definition of what is fundamental, preons(-) and preons(+) never change." This statement is, thus, incorrect from the point of view of formal logics: with your definition, something can be fundamental but not invariant. Did you perhaps have an if-and-only-if-statement in mind when you formulated your definition of the concept "fundamental"?

2) Furthermore, your axiom about the discreteness of space is merely about the qualitative composition of your quantum-geometrical space: apart from the fact that there is no definition of the concept "distance", by no means it follows directly from this axiom that there is a smallest possible distance, as you claim on page 1 just below the axiom. The axiom does not exclude that there are infinitely many preons(-) located at different distances from each other: there might be a positive distance between any two preons(-), but a smallest possible distance has not necessarily to exist. That is to say: isn't the statement that there is a smallest possible distance an extra assumption (axiom) in your theory?

3) In your axiom of the discreteness of space, you mention that there is a repulsive force between preons(-). Yet on page 2 you write that the preons(-) are static: they don't move. Apart from the fact that the notion "force" is not defined in your framework, the question rises: how does the repulsive force manifests itself? How can we prove that it exists at all?

I would appreciate it if you could elaborate specifically on these three topics.

With best regards, Marcoen

Having looked at your essay, I see that we share the idea that gravitation can be repulsive and that space is not fundamentally continuous. Our views on what underlies all that are, however, radically different. I do not believe that space is continuous, but neither do I believe that it is discrete. In my upcoming postdoc project I intend to develop the (mathematical) notion of a semi-continuum: this is a (semi-topologiocal) space that at macroscopic space has some properties of a continuum, but the continuum structure breaks down at small scale (e.g. at Planck level).

I have some questions about your claim that your system rests on only two axioms from which everything else follows. I will focus at three things, one logics-related, one mathematics-related, and one physics-related:

1) The definition on page 1 of the notion "fundamental" is a so-called if-statement, that is, a statement of the form

This has a consequence: if an object is fundamental, then it does not follow from the definition that it is invariant.

The point is, namely, that the reasoning

is known to be not logically valid.

On page 2 you write that "Per our definition of what is fundamental, preons(-) and preons(+) never change." This statement is, thus, incorrect from the point of view of formal logics: with your definition, something can be fundamental but not invariant. Did you perhaps have an if-and-only-if-statement in mind when you formulated your definition of the concept "fundamental"?

2) Furthermore, your axiom about the discreteness of space is merely about the qualitative composition of your quantum-geometrical space: apart from the fact that there is no definition of the concept "distance", by no means it follows directly from this axiom that there is a smallest possible distance, as you claim on page 1 just below the axiom. The axiom does not exclude that there are infinitely many preons(-) located at different distances from each other: there might be a positive distance between any two preons(-), but a smallest possible distance has not necessarily to exist. That is to say: isn't the statement that there is a smallest possible distance an extra assumption (axiom) in your theory?

3) In your axiom of the discreteness of space, you mention that there is a repulsive force between preons(-). Yet on page 2 you write that the preons(-) are static: they don't move. Apart from the fact that the notion "force" is not defined in your framework, the question rises: how does the repulsive force manifests itself? How can we prove that it exists at all?

I would appreciate it if you could elaborate specifically on these three topics.

With best regards, Marcoen

Hi Marcoen,

Yours are valid questions and show that perhaps, some clarifications are needed. See numbered answers corresponding to your questions below.

1) Yes, it is and if and only if reflexive. It is fundamental if it is absolutely invariant and if it is absolutely invariant, it is fundamental.

2) Not really. One has to remember how distance is defined. Distance is not what exists between any two preons(-). That would imply that there may be space between preons(-) when, as explained, there exist nothing between preons(-) but the n-gravity field that keeps them apart.

Distance between any two preons(-) is defined as the number of preonic leaps it takes for a preons(+) to move from one to the other. This definition of distance is a consequence of the axioms that define preons(-) and preons(+). Since it can be derived from the, the notion of distance is a theorem.

3) For preons(+) to move, they would need to move through space, hence, be able to transitorily couple with other preons(-) along their path. They can’t do that since by definition, they carry n-gravity charges which keeps them apart. Since there is nothing between preons(-) except the n-gravity field, there isn’t even space (preons(-) are space), there is no way for them to move. Thus they are virtually static. Therefore, space, according to the model I propose, has a definite structure. Though this is not absolutely correct, quantum-geometrical space may be understood as an absolute frame of reference.

Since quantum-geometrical space and matter are defined as being particles and since they are defined as absolutely invariant, then preons cannot be transformed, created or destroyed. They must then obey the law of conservation. Since space is made of preons(-), it must then be finite. By definition, a preon(+) an only transitorily couple with one preon(-). Hence, there cannot be an infinite number of preons(-) that can occupy any regions of quantum-geometrical space. And since space is not infinitesimal, that is, it does not contain an infinite number of preons(+), their can’t be an infinite number of preons(+) in any given region of quantum-geometrical space.

I hope that helps clarity the subject. As I mentioned, my essay is taken from a much larger work, the first volume of which is available here

report post as inappropriate

Yours are valid questions and show that perhaps, some clarifications are needed. See numbered answers corresponding to your questions below.

1) Yes, it is and if and only if reflexive. It is fundamental if it is absolutely invariant and if it is absolutely invariant, it is fundamental.

2) Not really. One has to remember how distance is defined. Distance is not what exists between any two preons(-). That would imply that there may be space between preons(-) when, as explained, there exist nothing between preons(-) but the n-gravity field that keeps them apart.

Distance between any two preons(-) is defined as the number of preonic leaps it takes for a preons(+) to move from one to the other. This definition of distance is a consequence of the axioms that define preons(-) and preons(+). Since it can be derived from the, the notion of distance is a theorem.

3) For preons(+) to move, they would need to move through space, hence, be able to transitorily couple with other preons(-) along their path. They can’t do that since by definition, they carry n-gravity charges which keeps them apart. Since there is nothing between preons(-) except the n-gravity field, there isn’t even space (preons(-) are space), there is no way for them to move. Thus they are virtually static. Therefore, space, according to the model I propose, has a definite structure. Though this is not absolutely correct, quantum-geometrical space may be understood as an absolute frame of reference.

Since quantum-geometrical space and matter are defined as being particles and since they are defined as absolutely invariant, then preons cannot be transformed, created or destroyed. They must then obey the law of conservation. Since space is made of preons(-), it must then be finite. By definition, a preon(+) an only transitorily couple with one preon(-). Hence, there cannot be an infinite number of preons(-) that can occupy any regions of quantum-geometrical space. And since space is not infinitesimal, that is, it does not contain an infinite number of preons(+), their can’t be an infinite number of preons(+) in any given region of quantum-geometrical space.

I hope that helps clarity the subject. As I mentioned, my essay is taken from a much larger work, the first volume of which is available here

report post as inappropriate

Hello Daniel,

I like the enthousiasm with which you participate in the discussion on the foundations of physics.

That being said, I have looked at your larger work to which you refer in the above post. I see that you have some outspoken ideas, but - with all due respect - the system that you present is not a formal axiomatic system that allows rigorous proofs.

The derivations that you present are not based on logical schemes: yours are informal Toulmin schemes. That means that the argumentation contains tacit assumptions that are not implied by the premises. An example is your concept of distance: on p. 76 you call this a corollary but there is no way that this concept can be formally deduced from your set of axioms. In addition, the definition seems ambiguous. Let us assume that the distance between two preons(-) is identical to the number of preon leaps between them. What if there are several trajectories to get from one preon(-) to another, whereby these trajectories differ in the number of leaps? Then according to your definition, there are several different distances between these two preons(-).

Furthermore, you seem to have troubles in separating object level from metalevel. Your axioms 1 - 11 are at object level, but axiom 12 is at metalevel. This axiom 12 is a proposition that you have to prove starting from the axioms at object level.

But even apart from the way how your ideas are presented, the ideas themselves raise questions. You haven´t really answered my third question in my previous post: how can we detect the repulsive force between preons(-)? In other words: what is the difference between assuming that there is such a force, and simply assuming that space is discrete and made up of static particles but without the additional assumption that there is some force active between the constituents of space?

If you really want to make your point about a universe consisting of preons(-) and preons(+), then my advice would be that you develop a publishable representation of your theory in symbolic logic.

With best regards, Marcoen

I like the enthousiasm with which you participate in the discussion on the foundations of physics.

That being said, I have looked at your larger work to which you refer in the above post. I see that you have some outspoken ideas, but - with all due respect - the system that you present is not a formal axiomatic system that allows rigorous proofs.

The derivations that you present are not based on logical schemes: yours are informal Toulmin schemes. That means that the argumentation contains tacit assumptions that are not implied by the premises. An example is your concept of distance: on p. 76 you call this a corollary but there is no way that this concept can be formally deduced from your set of axioms. In addition, the definition seems ambiguous. Let us assume that the distance between two preons(-) is identical to the number of preon leaps between them. What if there are several trajectories to get from one preon(-) to another, whereby these trajectories differ in the number of leaps? Then according to your definition, there are several different distances between these two preons(-).

Furthermore, you seem to have troubles in separating object level from metalevel. Your axioms 1 - 11 are at object level, but axiom 12 is at metalevel. This axiom 12 is a proposition that you have to prove starting from the axioms at object level.

But even apart from the way how your ideas are presented, the ideas themselves raise questions. You haven´t really answered my third question in my previous post: how can we detect the repulsive force between preons(-)? In other words: what is the difference between assuming that there is such a force, and simply assuming that space is discrete and made up of static particles but without the additional assumption that there is some force active between the constituents of space?

If you really want to make your point about a universe consisting of preons(-) and preons(+), then my advice would be that you develop a publishable representation of your theory in symbolic logic.

With best regards, Marcoen

Dear Marcoen,

I have a similar model on antigravity or repulsive gravity. In generally, the concept of negative mass(energy) has two models.

Model-1 is

Inertial mass > 0, (Active and Passive) Gravitational mass < 0.

The principle of equivalence is not valid. Your model is a model-1.

Model-2 is

Inertial mass < 0, (Active and Passive) Gravitational mass < 0.

The principle of equivalence is valid. My model is a model-2.

In my article, I show that negative mass provides a qualitative explanation for dark matter and dark energy.

Please view to my article and simulation video.

Article topic 1309

Computer Simulation on negative mass

Have a good time!

---Hyoyoung Choi

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

I have a similar model on antigravity or repulsive gravity. In generally, the concept of negative mass(energy) has two models.

Model-1 is

Inertial mass > 0, (Active and Passive) Gravitational mass < 0.

The principle of equivalence is not valid. Your model is a model-1.

Model-2 is

Inertial mass < 0, (Active and Passive) Gravitational mass < 0.

The principle of equivalence is valid. My model is a model-2.

In my article, I show that negative mass provides a qualitative explanation for dark matter and dark energy.

Please view to my article and simulation video.

Article topic 1309

Computer Simulation on negative mass

Have a good time!

---Hyoyoung Choi

report post as inappropriate

Hello Hyoyoung Choi,

Thank you for reading my essay.

You use the term similar for our ideas, but in the framework of my theory there is no such thing as negative inertial mass: if this would be detected, then my theory would have to be discarded.

You may be able to develop a mathematically consistent framework in which negative inertial mass is possible. But it raises some serious questions from a physical point of view. For example, if one would apply contact forces to a body with negative inertial mass (assuming there is such a thing in a world where also positive inertial mass exists). If I would push such a body away from me, it would accelerate towards me, or not? Doesn't this sound so implausible that we can dismiss the idea of negative inertial mass? I would be interested in your thoughts about this.

In your essay you write that "negative mass has repulsive effects towards each other so it cannot form any structure". However, two bodies with negative inertial mass and like electrical charges would attract each other: the Coulomb force on the first charged particle, exerted by the second equally charged particle, is directed away from the second particle, so the first particle would accelerate towards the second because of its negative inertial mass. So why would atomic structures (e.g. hydrogen-like) be impossible in a universe where negative inertial mass exists? Also, objects with negative inertial mass and negative gravitational mass would be attracted gravitationally towards objects with positive gravitational mass. If small particles with negative inertial mass would exist everywhere in the universe, wouldn't we then observe a constant incoming flow of these particles on earth?

That brings me to another question: how can we in principle detect a particle with negative inertial mass? In other words: how can we prove its existence?

I myself do not believe in the existence of objects with negative mass, but the thoughts about it are interesting!

With best regards, Marcoen

Thank you for reading my essay.

You use the term similar for our ideas, but in the framework of my theory there is no such thing as negative inertial mass: if this would be detected, then my theory would have to be discarded.

You may be able to develop a mathematically consistent framework in which negative inertial mass is possible. But it raises some serious questions from a physical point of view. For example, if one would apply contact forces to a body with negative inertial mass (assuming there is such a thing in a world where also positive inertial mass exists). If I would push such a body away from me, it would accelerate towards me, or not? Doesn't this sound so implausible that we can dismiss the idea of negative inertial mass? I would be interested in your thoughts about this.

In your essay you write that "negative mass has repulsive effects towards each other so it cannot form any structure". However, two bodies with negative inertial mass and like electrical charges would attract each other: the Coulomb force on the first charged particle, exerted by the second equally charged particle, is directed away from the second particle, so the first particle would accelerate towards the second because of its negative inertial mass. So why would atomic structures (e.g. hydrogen-like) be impossible in a universe where negative inertial mass exists? Also, objects with negative inertial mass and negative gravitational mass would be attracted gravitationally towards objects with positive gravitational mass. If small particles with negative inertial mass would exist everywhere in the universe, wouldn't we then observe a constant incoming flow of these particles on earth?

That brings me to another question: how can we in principle detect a particle with negative inertial mass? In other words: how can we prove its existence?

I myself do not believe in the existence of objects with negative mass, but the thoughts about it are interesting!

With best regards, Marcoen

Dear Marcoen,

Thank you for your reply.

I am sorry. I apologize for my poor English.

=========

For example, if one would apply contact forces to a body with negative inertial mass (assuming there is such a thing in a world where also positive inertial mass exists). If I would push such a body away from me, it would accelerate towards me, or not? Doesn't this sound so...

view entire post

Thank you for your reply.

I am sorry. I apologize for my poor English.

=========

For example, if one would apply contact forces to a body with negative inertial mass (assuming there is such a thing in a world where also positive inertial mass exists). If I would push such a body away from me, it would accelerate towards me, or not? Doesn't this sound so...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

========

how can we in principle detect a particle with negative inertial mass? In other words: how can we prove its existence?

========

1. Theoretical calculation

After making new Friedmann eq., on the assumption that negative mass and positive mass coexist, we have to explain dark matters and dark energy using it, predict new phenomena and compare them with one...

view entire post

how can we in principle detect a particle with negative inertial mass? In other words: how can we prove its existence?

========

1. Theoretical calculation

After making new Friedmann eq., on the assumption that negative mass and positive mass coexist, we have to explain dark matters and dark energy using it, predict new phenomena and compare them with one...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Marcoen

Very interesting and original essay and theory. I'm not entirely clear if this may be thought of in terms of the gravitational force replicating the repulsive element of the strong nuclear force. Or the latter balancing the former.

My essay pulls up at discussion of this as it was already too desne, but I hope you'll give your views on it anyway, and I'd comment you following Vladimir Tamari's web link including work in a similar area.

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Very interesting and original essay and theory. I'm not entirely clear if this may be thought of in terms of the gravitational force replicating the repulsive element of the strong nuclear force. Or the latter balancing the former.

My essay pulls up at discussion of this as it was already too desne, but I hope you'll give your views on it anyway, and I'd comment you following Vladimir Tamari's web link including work in a similar area.

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Hello Peter,

My essay focusses purely on gravitation as the predominant force. In other words, my essay focusses on a situation in which the strong nuclear interaction plays no role. The main finding of my research, however, applies to all interactions - although that is yet to be proven.

I started looking for fundamental principles that would allow a matter-antimatter gravitational repulsion; during the research it turned out, however, that generalized principles could be formulated that apply regardless which interaction is predominant. That is to say: what I found in my PhD research was that if a matter-antimatter gravitational repulsion is a fact of nature, then all individual processes are essentially the same. So it doesnt´t matter whether we consider a gravitational interaction or a strong nuclear interaction or an electromagnetic interaction of a microsystem: the individual process in which this interaction takes place is in principle the same. My theory, the Elementary Process Theory (EPT), is a collection of formulas expressing what happens in the indivudual processes. In my paper in Annalen der Physik I have demonstrated that a variety of observed phenomena can be described in the formal language (and with the physical principles) of the EPT. The current essay is more or less a prequel of this Annalen paper: it zooms in on the first considerations in the development of the EPT. These are not dealt with in the Annalen paper, although there is some overlap.

I will give a responds to your essay as soon as time allows.

With best regards, Marcoen

My essay focusses purely on gravitation as the predominant force. In other words, my essay focusses on a situation in which the strong nuclear interaction plays no role. The main finding of my research, however, applies to all interactions - although that is yet to be proven.

I started looking for fundamental principles that would allow a matter-antimatter gravitational repulsion; during the research it turned out, however, that generalized principles could be formulated that apply regardless which interaction is predominant. That is to say: what I found in my PhD research was that if a matter-antimatter gravitational repulsion is a fact of nature, then all individual processes are essentially the same. So it doesnt´t matter whether we consider a gravitational interaction or a strong nuclear interaction or an electromagnetic interaction of a microsystem: the individual process in which this interaction takes place is in principle the same. My theory, the Elementary Process Theory (EPT), is a collection of formulas expressing what happens in the indivudual processes. In my paper in Annalen der Physik I have demonstrated that a variety of observed phenomena can be described in the formal language (and with the physical principles) of the EPT. The current essay is more or less a prequel of this Annalen paper: it zooms in on the first considerations in the development of the EPT. These are not dealt with in the Annalen paper, although there is some overlap.

I will give a responds to your essay as soon as time allows.

With best regards, Marcoen

Hi Marcoen. While I applaude your [relatively] broad-minded approach, you will not find a fundamental and true unification of physics. Here is the clear proof of this.

Fundamentally, inertia and gravity both involve balanced attraction and repulsion.

The key is, at bottom, to establish space that is in between (and in the middle of) visible, invisible, and not visible space -- DREAMS DO THIS. You don't see from the ground or from the black space of the eye/body.(This has remarkable similarities with the electromagnetic spectrum.)

Inertia and gravity have to be balanced and equivalent (both at half strength force/energy); and the fact that gravity cannot be shielded weighs in too. Instantaneity must be fundamentally accounted for, and there you have it. Dreams do all of this. They are our growth and our becoming other than we are. FACT!

You physicists ignore the physics of the body. See the black space of the eye? That is basically [full] inertia. The ground is full gravity, isn't it? GRAVITY CANNOT BE SHIELDED. Gravity begins at the top of the head because the space there is invisible IN KEEPING WITH THE FACT that vision ALSO begins invisibly in the sye/body. (Dreams are a linked center of body experience too.)

Gravity is key to distance in/of space.

Seen and felt are unified in dreams. This is your final and ultimate understanding of physics in rough outline -- BUT I HAVE MUCH, MUCH MORE.

Let's start telling truth in physics FQXi.org.

report post as inappropriate

Fundamentally, inertia and gravity both involve balanced attraction and repulsion.

The key is, at bottom, to establish space that is in between (and in the middle of) visible, invisible, and not visible space -- DREAMS DO THIS. You don't see from the ground or from the black space of the eye/body.(This has remarkable similarities with the electromagnetic spectrum.)

Inertia and gravity have to be balanced and equivalent (both at half strength force/energy); and the fact that gravity cannot be shielded weighs in too. Instantaneity must be fundamentally accounted for, and there you have it. Dreams do all of this. They are our growth and our becoming other than we are. FACT!

You physicists ignore the physics of the body. See the black space of the eye? That is basically [full] inertia. The ground is full gravity, isn't it? GRAVITY CANNOT BE SHIELDED. Gravity begins at the top of the head because the space there is invisible IN KEEPING WITH THE FACT that vision ALSO begins invisibly in the sye/body. (Dreams are a linked center of body experience too.)

Gravity is key to distance in/of space.

Seen and felt are unified in dreams. This is your final and ultimate understanding of physics in rough outline -- BUT I HAVE MUCH, MUCH MORE.

Let's start telling truth in physics FQXi.org.

report post as inappropriate

Marcoen

Well written hypothesis, my question to you is matter and antimatter falls down how does exactly your hypothesis handle that?

report post as inappropriate

Well written hypothesis, my question to you is matter and antimatter falls down how does exactly your hypothesis handle that?

report post as inappropriate

Hello,

You wrote "matter and antimatter falls down".

Can you briefly specify what you mean by that?

Do you perhaps mean that matter and antimatter fall down on earth?

Regards, Marcoen

You wrote "matter and antimatter falls down".

Can you briefly specify what you mean by that?

Do you perhaps mean that matter and antimatter fall down on earth?

Regards, Marcoen

Let's assume that you meant that matter and antimatter both fall down on earth; please say so when you meant something else.

Before answering your question, I would then have to say that it is true that the overwhelming majority of physicists believes that antimatter falls down on earth just like "ordinary" matter, but this is a believe: it is not something that is known. Currently, it is not known whether antimatter falls down on earth, or up. The AEGIS project at CERN is aimed to establish which one of these is the case.

Now to answer your question: if the AEGIS project would establish (measure) that antimatter falls down on earth, then my theory would have to be discarded - or more precisely: it would have to be discarded as developed from a falsehood. In that case, the theory mathematically describes a universe which has no relation with the physical universe we live in.

Best regards, Marcoen

Before answering your question, I would then have to say that it is true that the overwhelming majority of physicists believes that antimatter falls down on earth just like "ordinary" matter, but this is a believe: it is not something that is known. Currently, it is not known whether antimatter falls down on earth, or up. The AEGIS project at CERN is aimed to establish which one of these is the case.

Now to answer your question: if the AEGIS project would establish (measure) that antimatter falls down on earth, then my theory would have to be discarded - or more precisely: it would have to be discarded as developed from a falsehood. In that case, the theory mathematically describes a universe which has no relation with the physical universe we live in.

Best regards, Marcoen

Dear Mr Marcoen,

Human urge to understand all possible aspects of nature is clearly seen in your essay. Intuition, Speculation & Abstraction plays an important role in advancement of human knowledge. As Pico Physicist I have speculated as well on the topics of matter, antimatter, gravitation. I give below my understanding as a Pico Physicist of the same;

Gravitational Repulsion: Gravitation is a phenomenon resulting from Non-Konservation of space. The consumption of space by contained Knergy. Conventional energy is a measure of the rate of consumption of space. With this reading of reason for existence of phenomenon of gravitation only attraction is envisaged between objects. Existence of gravitational repulsion can be speculated based on non-availability of space ready to replace consumed space. The affinity of space to possess Knergy helps in making space available to replace, but due to geometrical reasons it has a limiting value. This limiting value explains the non-existence of elements with higher atomic number. Possibly, it is at the root of some astronomical observations - that forbids collapse of matter into a point object.

However, the speculation in PicoPhysics still does not foresee repulsion between objects possessing energy.

Matter & Antimatter is relative to each other, and both are Space contained Knergy ( Five Dimensions of universe ) identities. When they combine, matter as we know (with inertial property) is lost and Knergy is set free in natural unit objects (Photons). Thus matter and anti-matter are dealt differently than gravitation in PicoPhysics. As a Pico physicist I speculate the similar situation prevailed in the recent experiment that resulted in confirmation of existence of Higgs-Bosons to mainstream physicists. So the annihilation is not necessarily an interaction between matter and anti-matter, it can occur as a multi-step process in high energy interactions.

So, In PicoPhysics, we have similar ideas, but none leads to conclusion of observing repulsion between objects as a result of gravitation.

Thanks and Best Regards,

Vijay Gupta

report post as inappropriate

Human urge to understand all possible aspects of nature is clearly seen in your essay. Intuition, Speculation & Abstraction plays an important role in advancement of human knowledge. As Pico Physicist I have speculated as well on the topics of matter, antimatter, gravitation. I give below my understanding as a Pico Physicist of the same;

Gravitational Repulsion: Gravitation is a phenomenon resulting from Non-Konservation of space. The consumption of space by contained Knergy. Conventional energy is a measure of the rate of consumption of space. With this reading of reason for existence of phenomenon of gravitation only attraction is envisaged between objects. Existence of gravitational repulsion can be speculated based on non-availability of space ready to replace consumed space. The affinity of space to possess Knergy helps in making space available to replace, but due to geometrical reasons it has a limiting value. This limiting value explains the non-existence of elements with higher atomic number. Possibly, it is at the root of some astronomical observations - that forbids collapse of matter into a point object.

However, the speculation in PicoPhysics still does not foresee repulsion between objects possessing energy.

Matter & Antimatter is relative to each other, and both are Space contained Knergy ( Five Dimensions of universe ) identities. When they combine, matter as we know (with inertial property) is lost and Knergy is set free in natural unit objects (Photons). Thus matter and anti-matter are dealt differently than gravitation in PicoPhysics. As a Pico physicist I speculate the similar situation prevailed in the recent experiment that resulted in confirmation of existence of Higgs-Bosons to mainstream physicists. So the annihilation is not necessarily an interaction between matter and anti-matter, it can occur as a multi-step process in high energy interactions.

So, In PicoPhysics, we have similar ideas, but none leads to conclusion of observing repulsion between objects as a result of gravitation.

Thanks and Best Regards,

Vijay Gupta

report post as inappropriate

Hello Vijay,

Thanks for reading my essay and sharing your views.

I agree with you that speculation plays an important role in the advancement of human knowledge; in general I think science progresses by testing rigorous speculation.

In your post you wrote about the confirmation of the existence of the Higgs-boson. I have seen the press conference of CERN where they made that claim that they have observed a new boson. That, however, is an overstatement. The point is, namely, that one cannot possibly observe a boson (or a fermion, for that matter). One can at most observe properties of microsystems: the microsystem itself cannot be observed. In other words: CERN can at most claim that they have observed a new pattern in the measurement outcome, and that the Higgs mechanism may explain this pattern. They haven't convinced me so far.

About your own theory, you write that your picophysics does not foresee any repulsion between objects possessing energy. I would like to ask you a question: if gravitational repulsion were observed, then what does that mean for your theory?

Best regards, Marcoen

Thanks for reading my essay and sharing your views.

I agree with you that speculation plays an important role in the advancement of human knowledge; in general I think science progresses by testing rigorous speculation.

In your post you wrote about the confirmation of the existence of the Higgs-boson. I have seen the press conference of CERN where they made that claim that they have observed a new boson. That, however, is an overstatement. The point is, namely, that one cannot possibly observe a boson (or a fermion, for that matter). One can at most observe properties of microsystems: the microsystem itself cannot be observed. In other words: CERN can at most claim that they have observed a new pattern in the measurement outcome, and that the Higgs mechanism may explain this pattern. They haven't convinced me so far.

About your own theory, you write that your picophysics does not foresee any repulsion between objects possessing energy. I would like to ask you a question: if gravitational repulsion were observed, then what does that mean for your theory?

Best regards, Marcoen

Hi Marcoen,

I know the extremely difficult path you had to travel to get the attention for the scientific work you produced. The current scientific paradigms do not tolerate criticism and well formulated, sound new approaches to the embarrassingly obvious impcompatibity of quantum physics and the general theory of relativity do not receive a warm welcome.

Science seem to have lost its root cause and purpose: how does the world really work ? This paper tries to answer that, still free of incompatibility of known experimental data, unlike the almost sacred excepted theories.

Your essay eloquently describes in layman's terms the beauty of the theory. Even more, you clearly stress multiple times which experiment would falsify your theory. If he could, Karl Popper would give you a standing ovation.

I wonder how many scientific papers are written like this nowadays, especially in the field of Physics. therefore this theory and its approach should be applauded by the whole community. A+ !

report post as inappropriate

I know the extremely difficult path you had to travel to get the attention for the scientific work you produced. The current scientific paradigms do not tolerate criticism and well formulated, sound new approaches to the embarrassingly obvious impcompatibity of quantum physics and the general theory of relativity do not receive a warm welcome.

Science seem to have lost its root cause and purpose: how does the world really work ? This paper tries to answer that, still free of incompatibility of known experimental data, unlike the almost sacred excepted theories.

Your essay eloquently describes in layman's terms the beauty of the theory. Even more, you clearly stress multiple times which experiment would falsify your theory. If he could, Karl Popper would give you a standing ovation.

I wonder how many scientific papers are written like this nowadays, especially in the field of Physics. therefore this theory and its approach should be applauded by the whole community. A+ !

report post as inappropriate

Hello Jeroen,

Yes, I had a few bumps on the road. And yes, these are difficult times for acadmic freedom in physics. But this hostility towards new ideas is a problem of all times, and one of science in general (not just physics). Let me illustrate that with two striking examples. The first is the moment when the greatest philosopher in the history of the Netherlands, Spinoza, presented his ideas: it then became simply a new genre in literature to write a refutation of Spinoza. Interestingly, this initial reaction has accomplished the opposite, in the sense that it can be seen as experimental support for Spinoza´s Ethics (which they tried to refute). And if you go back somewhat further in time, a second example can be found in the Bible: apart from the discussion about the merit of Jezus' teachings, the Bible gives an excellent description of how the rulers of that time reacted to a new idea.

Motivated by my own experience, I have done some research into this - the sociology of science is practically as interesting as science itself. What you then see is that throughout history the same tactics are used when new ideas are attacked. That is to say: we talk of "modern" science, but sociologically the community hasn't evolved at all - these days new ideas are attacked with the same unethical methods as two millenia ago. It was very kind of you to write that my theory should be applauded by the whole community, but I cannot imagine that anyone who has has acquired this purely pragmatic attitude towards physics - and I do mean this "shut-up-and-calculate!"-attitude - will ever support anything that deviates from quantum theory. You mentioned Popper: he described this community as a "cult of narrowness", and unfortunately I have to agree. But luckily they do not form the entire physics community, so I trust that I get the possibility to do further research in this direction.

Best regards, Marcoen

Yes, I had a few bumps on the road. And yes, these are difficult times for acadmic freedom in physics. But this hostility towards new ideas is a problem of all times, and one of science in general (not just physics). Let me illustrate that with two striking examples. The first is the moment when the greatest philosopher in the history of the Netherlands, Spinoza, presented his ideas: it then became simply a new genre in literature to write a refutation of Spinoza. Interestingly, this initial reaction has accomplished the opposite, in the sense that it can be seen as experimental support for Spinoza´s Ethics (which they tried to refute). And if you go back somewhat further in time, a second example can be found in the Bible: apart from the discussion about the merit of Jezus' teachings, the Bible gives an excellent description of how the rulers of that time reacted to a new idea.

Motivated by my own experience, I have done some research into this - the sociology of science is practically as interesting as science itself. What you then see is that throughout history the same tactics are used when new ideas are attacked. That is to say: we talk of "modern" science, but sociologically the community hasn't evolved at all - these days new ideas are attacked with the same unethical methods as two millenia ago. It was very kind of you to write that my theory should be applauded by the whole community, but I cannot imagine that anyone who has has acquired this purely pragmatic attitude towards physics - and I do mean this "shut-up-and-calculate!"-attitude - will ever support anything that deviates from quantum theory. You mentioned Popper: he described this community as a "cult of narrowness", and unfortunately I have to agree. But luckily they do not form the entire physics community, so I trust that I get the possibility to do further research in this direction.

Best regards, Marcoen

We all still wait on the day that mankind takes a step forward by each scientist taking a step back and reflect on whether he seeks the truth, or personal short-term glory.

I hope that at least some will allow you a windows of opportunity to further test and enhance your theories. That is true science.

report post as inappropriate

I hope that at least some will allow you a windows of opportunity to further test and enhance your theories. That is true science.

report post as inappropriate

Jeroen,

I see that we are on the same line here. I'm all for a more self-reflective attitude in science, and I'm not the only one. The ideal is that every student, who has finished his university education, has acquired such a self-reflective attitude. Now there are universities where this is the case, but to reach this ideal on a global scale would require a worldwide change in the university curriculum, opposite to the general trend of ever narrowing down the education to the bare minimum required for working within some prevailing paradigm. Therefore I don't see it happen any time soon on a worldwide scale. What is needed is an event (a scandal perhaps) that makes it plain for all to see that this narrowing down the curriculum for decades in a row was not such a good idea: maybe then something changes. Untill then, we're stuck in the current situation where you have to expect that those who review your work simply lack the basic skills to do anything but comment on it from their own personal perspective.

Best regards, Marcoen

I see that we are on the same line here. I'm all for a more self-reflective attitude in science, and I'm not the only one. The ideal is that every student, who has finished his university education, has acquired such a self-reflective attitude. Now there are universities where this is the case, but to reach this ideal on a global scale would require a worldwide change in the university curriculum, opposite to the general trend of ever narrowing down the education to the bare minimum required for working within some prevailing paradigm. Therefore I don't see it happen any time soon on a worldwide scale. What is needed is an event (a scandal perhaps) that makes it plain for all to see that this narrowing down the curriculum for decades in a row was not such a good idea: maybe then something changes. Untill then, we're stuck in the current situation where you have to expect that those who review your work simply lack the basic skills to do anything but comment on it from their own personal perspective.

Best regards, Marcoen

Hello Marcoen,

I sympathize with your struggle against the prevailing opinion in science and admire your courage for persisting and fighting against the opposition for so long. I noticed that in this context you have written about the subject of "scientific misconduct to the disadvantage of others" (cf. the attached paper). I have linked your paper in another blog (the so-called "Disproof" blog). I found your paper on the Internet, so I presume you would not mind my linking it here on these pages.

Unfortunately I too have been a victim of scientific misconduct of the kind you talk about in your paper. Some people (including a couple of FQXi members) have chosen to attack my work (as well as me personally) rather than actually read and understand what I have written. They have made patently false claims about my work in public without reading a single line of it, and create aggressively negative blogs about it with intentions to defame me, discredit my work, and starve my research of all financial and academic support.

Well, you seem to know all about such shameful tactics of the dogmatic, unimaginative, and closed-minded. I just wanted to take my hats off to you for your courageous struggle against them.

With best wishes for the essay contest,

Joy Christian

this post has been edited by the forum administrator

report post as inappropriate

I sympathize with your struggle against the prevailing opinion in science and admire your courage for persisting and fighting against the opposition for so long. I noticed that in this context you have written about the subject of "scientific misconduct to the disadvantage of others" (cf. the attached paper). I have linked your paper in another blog (the so-called "Disproof" blog). I found your paper on the Internet, so I presume you would not mind my linking it here on these pages.

Unfortunately I too have been a victim of scientific misconduct of the kind you talk about in your paper. Some people (including a couple of FQXi members) have chosen to attack my work (as well as me personally) rather than actually read and understand what I have written. They have made patently false claims about my work in public without reading a single line of it, and create aggressively negative blogs about it with intentions to defame me, discredit my work, and starve my research of all financial and academic support.

Well, you seem to know all about such shameful tactics of the dogmatic, unimaginative, and closed-minded. I just wanted to take my hats off to you for your courageous struggle against them.

With best wishes for the essay contest,

Joy Christian

this post has been edited by the forum administrator

report post as inappropriate

I like that you have rejected QM and explored Schroedinger's real matter wave. I have done similarly, but developed the concept. More importantly, I have real experiments to show the nature of the matter wave, and also the particle-like nature of light. The theory I developed identifies inertial mass as the envelope of psi. The inner psi wave within an envelope, at opposite phase is taken as the identity of antimatter. The model lets you see how the psi wave cancels while modulating its envelope to convert to gamma-rays in pair annihilation. It is good that you have attempted to resolve the wave-particle paradox in your quest to understand gravity, but you should see how I have handled the wave-particle problem with experiments that defy predictions of QM. If you need to show the flaw of QM to advance your theory, you should see how I have defied QM. These seem to be the only experiments that challenge QM:

A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory

I do not think antimatter gravity would push, and I think your team would be better off reformulating QM and gravity theory from the demonstrations and points made in my essay before going through all the trouble to see if antimatter falls up.

Thank you, Eric Reiter

report post as inappropriate

A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory

I do not think antimatter gravity would push, and I think your team would be better off reformulating QM and gravity theory from the demonstrations and points made in my essay before going through all the trouble to see if antimatter falls up.

Thank you, Eric Reiter

report post as inappropriate

Hi Eric,

Thanks for reading my essay and proposing suggestions for another line of research.

For now I'll continue the current line of research. If, however, the AEGIS collaboration demonstrates that there is no matter-antimatter gravitational repulsion, then this research program has to be terminated. Then the research group has to be dissolved and I'll have to consider other options - if I at all would like to stay in academic circles, that is. Research aimed at a quantum theory of gravitation, as you suggested, is then one of the options.

I believe that nature is fundamentally discrete, which excludes continuous absorption. However, loading theory, which you mentioned in your essay, is interesting. Perhaps loading theory, or a form thereof, plays a role in radioactivity. A nucleus then gradually absorps energy from its surroundings (which can happen in discrete steps) and when a treshold is reached it disintegrates. But this is just speculation.

About your experiment: can't you get some university interested in reproducing the results? If you can really produce a result that contradicts quantum theory on the premises of a university, then this should be publishable in a letter journal. You have to do some politics too: my advice is to publish it as a falsification of quantum theory, not as a confirmation of loading theory. Good luck!

Best regards, Marcoen

Thanks for reading my essay and proposing suggestions for another line of research.

For now I'll continue the current line of research. If, however, the AEGIS collaboration demonstrates that there is no matter-antimatter gravitational repulsion, then this research program has to be terminated. Then the research group has to be dissolved and I'll have to consider other options - if I at all would like to stay in academic circles, that is. Research aimed at a quantum theory of gravitation, as you suggested, is then one of the options.

I believe that nature is fundamentally discrete, which excludes continuous absorption. However, loading theory, which you mentioned in your essay, is interesting. Perhaps loading theory, or a form thereof, plays a role in radioactivity. A nucleus then gradually absorps energy from its surroundings (which can happen in discrete steps) and when a treshold is reached it disintegrates. But this is just speculation.

About your experiment: can't you get some university interested in reproducing the results? If you can really produce a result that contradicts quantum theory on the premises of a university, then this should be publishable in a letter journal. You have to do some politics too: my advice is to publish it as a falsification of quantum theory, not as a confirmation of loading theory. Good luck!

Best regards, Marcoen

Marcoen,

I am going to make the argument that a mass exhibiting anti gravity cannot exist because it would then be possible to do an experiment that violated the conservation of momentum. Gravitational waves generated by ordinary matter are quadrupole waves in spacetime which distort a spherical volume so that it becomes an oscillating ellipsoid. One transverse dimension elongates while the orthogonal transverse dimension contracts and vice versa. Most important, there is no displacement of the center of mass of an object when a quadrupole gravitational wave passes.

If antimatter exhibited antigravity, then it would be hypothetically possible to generate a "dipole gravitational wave". A dipole gravitational wave could be made by oscillating an antimatter mass coupled to an ordinary matter mass. A dipole gravitational wave would affect the rate of time and cause the center of mass of objects to undergo an oscillating displacement as the wave passed the object. This is a violation of the conservation of momentum unless the displacement is so small that it is allowed by the uncertainty principle. Given a large enough mass exhibiting antigravity, it would be possible to do an experiment that violated the conservation of momentum by producing a macroscopic displacement of the center of mass of a massive object. Therefore, it is argued that nothing, even antimatter, can exhibit antigravity.

report post as inappropriate

I am going to make the argument that a mass exhibiting anti gravity cannot exist because it would then be possible to do an experiment that violated the conservation of momentum. Gravitational waves generated by ordinary matter are quadrupole waves in spacetime which distort a spherical volume so that it becomes an oscillating ellipsoid. One transverse dimension elongates while the orthogonal transverse dimension contracts and vice versa. Most important, there is no displacement of the center of mass of an object when a quadrupole gravitational wave passes.

If antimatter exhibited antigravity, then it would be hypothetically possible to generate a "dipole gravitational wave". A dipole gravitational wave could be made by oscillating an antimatter mass coupled to an ordinary matter mass. A dipole gravitational wave would affect the rate of time and cause the center of mass of objects to undergo an oscillating displacement as the wave passed the object. This is a violation of the conservation of momentum unless the displacement is so small that it is allowed by the uncertainty principle. Given a large enough mass exhibiting antigravity, it would be possible to do an experiment that violated the conservation of momentum by producing a macroscopic displacement of the center of mass of a massive object. Therefore, it is argued that nothing, even antimatter, can exhibit antigravity.

report post as inappropriate

Hello John,

Thanks for commenting on my essay.

I have seen quite some theoretical arguments against a matter-antimatter gravitational repulsion, but your argument is new for me. Clearly, your argument is formulated within the paradigm of General Relativity (GR); within this paradigm there is already an argument against said repulsion, namely the equivalence principle. But let's look at your argument now.

First of all, your argument uses the notion of a gravitational wave. You write that "gravitational waves generated by ordinary matter are quadrupole waves in spacetime which distort a spherical volume so that it becomes an oscillating ellipsoid." I know the picture. Theoretically this may be so, but there is not a shred of evidence that this happens in the real world. That is to say: there is no empirical proof for the existence of gravitational waves as described by GR. In other words: this part of your argument is a theoretical assumption (which doesn't mean that it is bad!).

Second, you state that in case of a matter-antimatter gravitational repulsion, it is possible to create a special gravitational wave that you call a "dipole gravitational wave". But is that so? This part of your argument requires further clarification. Apart from the fact that you "derive" a phenomenon by adding an object to GR that can not possibly exist in that paradigm, you have to describe this phenomenon, the dipole gravitational wave, more precisely. In the language of GR, in the case of a matter-antimatter gravitational repulsion, an accelerating body of antimatter would produce a gravitational wave analoguous to a decelerating body of matter. Perhaps the dipole wave can then also be produced by two bodies of matter???

Third, you state that a dipole gravitational wave can cause a violation of the law of conservation of momentum, if the masses causing the wave are large enough. Your post does not adequately describe why this is the case: you would have to elaborate on that. Merely stating that this is the case is not enough. The burden of proof lies with you: you have to give a full proof of this step of your reasoning.

Summarizing, your argument has some shortcomings. But these might be repairable. If you can develop your argument into a full proof, then you might want to publish this in a physics journal as a new theoretical argument against gravitational repulsion. As your argument leans heavily on the notion of a gravitational wave, it might in the end turn out that a matter-antimatter gravitational repulsion and gravitational waves as described by GR are mutually exclusive, so that observation of the one is a refutation of the other. Who knows? In the theory that I envision, such gravitational waves, i.e. the ones occuring in the framework of GR, do not exist. An accelerating body - in so far as we can speak of that in the context of stepwise motion - does influence the curvature of space, but the phenomenon is nonlocal.

Best regards, Marcoen

Thanks for commenting on my essay.

I have seen quite some theoretical arguments against a matter-antimatter gravitational repulsion, but your argument is new for me. Clearly, your argument is formulated within the paradigm of General Relativity (GR); within this paradigm there is already an argument against said repulsion, namely the equivalence principle. But let's look at your argument now.

First of all, your argument uses the notion of a gravitational wave. You write that "gravitational waves generated by ordinary matter are quadrupole waves in spacetime which distort a spherical volume so that it becomes an oscillating ellipsoid." I know the picture. Theoretically this may be so, but there is not a shred of evidence that this happens in the real world. That is to say: there is no empirical proof for the existence of gravitational waves as described by GR. In other words: this part of your argument is a theoretical assumption (which doesn't mean that it is bad!).

Second, you state that in case of a matter-antimatter gravitational repulsion, it is possible to create a special gravitational wave that you call a "dipole gravitational wave". But is that so? This part of your argument requires further clarification. Apart from the fact that you "derive" a phenomenon by adding an object to GR that can not possibly exist in that paradigm, you have to describe this phenomenon, the dipole gravitational wave, more precisely. In the language of GR, in the case of a matter-antimatter gravitational repulsion, an accelerating body of antimatter would produce a gravitational wave analoguous to a decelerating body of matter. Perhaps the dipole wave can then also be produced by two bodies of matter???

Third, you state that a dipole gravitational wave can cause a violation of the law of conservation of momentum, if the masses causing the wave are large enough. Your post does not adequately describe why this is the case: you would have to elaborate on that. Merely stating that this is the case is not enough. The burden of proof lies with you: you have to give a full proof of this step of your reasoning.

Summarizing, your argument has some shortcomings. But these might be repairable. If you can develop your argument into a full proof, then you might want to publish this in a physics journal as a new theoretical argument against gravitational repulsion. As your argument leans heavily on the notion of a gravitational wave, it might in the end turn out that a matter-antimatter gravitational repulsion and gravitational waves as described by GR are mutually exclusive, so that observation of the one is a refutation of the other. Who knows? In the theory that I envision, such gravitational waves, i.e. the ones occuring in the framework of GR, do not exist. An accelerating body - in so far as we can speak of that in the context of stepwise motion - does influence the curvature of space, but the phenomenon is nonlocal.

Best regards, Marcoen

Hi Marcoen,

My essay here also concludes that gravity is better thought of as repulsive than attractive, although through a mathematical argument concerning the Einstein tensor. I have not yet considered repercussions of anti-matter, although I think our thought processes may be similar.

A simple way of looking at my argument states that G_{uv} represents attractive gravity, and of course is the correct tensor in GR for when R_{uv}=0. If the condition on R_{uv} is not relaxed, then it is not mathematically possible to add a multiple of the metric g_{uv} to the Einstein tensor. It is, however, just as equivalent to instead let G_{uv}=Omega g_{uv}-L_{uv}. Thus G_{uv} represents and equates to attractive gravity, however if we need a cosmological constant then the equation must be Omega g_{uv}-L_{uv} so that the condition R_{uv}=0 still holds. This is a classical gauge theory equivalence to repulsive gravity. Any comments you have would be appreciated.

Regards,

Jeff Baugher

report post as inappropriate

My essay here also concludes that gravity is better thought of as repulsive than attractive, although through a mathematical argument concerning the Einstein tensor. I have not yet considered repercussions of anti-matter, although I think our thought processes may be similar.

A simple way of looking at my argument states that G

Regards,

Jeff Baugher

report post as inappropriate

Marcoen,

There are many parallels between your essay and mine. Please take a look at the two dimensional gradient plots in how to construct a Newtonian gradient that is equivalently attractive or repulsive.

I agree with your Fig. 2, in that if we only view a "particle" in its own rest frame we are seeing a smeared out wavefunction that has collapsed into what is perceived as a stable symmetric "particle". Thus no observation of the wave nature that would be in between your spheres that you show.

Regards,

Jeff

report post as inappropriate

There are many parallels between your essay and mine. Please take a look at the two dimensional gradient plots in how to construct a Newtonian gradient that is equivalently attractive or repulsive.

I agree with your Fig. 2, in that if we only view a "particle" in its own rest frame we are seeing a smeared out wavefunction that has collapsed into what is perceived as a stable symmetric "particle". Thus no observation of the wave nature that would be in between your spheres that you show.

Regards,

Jeff

report post as inappropriate

Marcoen,

One more thought on your Fig. 2. Instead of using spheres, I may adopt your picture to show a spherical "hole", in that for the hole to travel it has a wave nature in between. This is akin to GS Sandhu's traveling wave packets of stress.

Let me know if it is ok to continue this discussion on your thread or if you would prefer me to use my own.

Regards,

Jeff Baugher

report post as inappropriate

One more thought on your Fig. 2. Instead of using spheres, I may adopt your picture to show a spherical "hole", in that for the hole to travel it has a wave nature in between. This is akin to GS Sandhu's traveling wave packets of stress.

Let me know if it is ok to continue this discussion on your thread or if you would prefer me to use my own.

Regards,

Jeff Baugher

report post as inappropriate

Interesting, interesting, insert all the spheres in your models.

I am happy that people focus on my theory of spherization, QUANTUM SPHERES.....COSMOLOGICAL SPHERES....UNIVERSAL SPHERE.

don't forget! THEY TURN SO THEY ARE !!!

:) REVOLUTION SPHERIZATION my friends.

report post as inappropriate

I am happy that people focus on my theory of spherization, QUANTUM SPHERES.....COSMOLOGICAL SPHERES....UNIVERSAL SPHERE.

don't forget! THEY TURN SO THEY ARE !!!

:) REVOLUTION SPHERIZATION my friends.

report post as inappropriate

Is your PhD thesis available online? All I could find through a quick search was an abstract.

Thank you.

report post as inappropriate

Thank you.

report post as inappropriate

Hello,

The PhD thesis is indeed not online, only the abstract is. I signed a contract with a publisher (Eburon).

If you live in Belgium, Netherlands or Germany then it should be no problem to get a copy from the library.

In other countries you can aks a local library to rent a book from a library from one of the above countries, but I guess that takes somewhat longer.

Regards, Marcoen

The PhD thesis is indeed not online, only the abstract is. I signed a contract with a publisher (Eburon).

If you live in Belgium, Netherlands or Germany then it should be no problem to get a copy from the library.

In other countries you can aks a local library to rent a book from a library from one of the above countries, but I guess that takes somewhat longer.

Regards, Marcoen

Hi Marcoen,

Very professional essay - congratulations! As a lay person I may not be able to follow your explanations (although they were quite straightforward) entirely. I would like to point out that it should not be presumed that, if anti-hydrogen rises in relation to the Earth's gravitational field within its confinement apparatus it would be a demonstration of anti-gravitation. That could only be determined if it contradicted hydrogen in identical conditions of confinement - that normal hydrogen falls to Earth. I'm sure this is already understood, but confirmation is necessary.

Fundamentally, I don't understand how a positive rest mass could physically produce a negative 'gravitational mass'. Aren't both inertial mass and 'gravitational mass' both directly derived from particle rest mass?

What mechanism producing the effect of gravitation could possibly distinguish between the positive rest mass of hydrogen and the positive rest mass of anti-hydrogen to produce opposite effects?

While it may not be directly related, you might find my 3 page systems analysis-essay, Inappropriate Application of Kepler's Empirical Laws of Planetary Motion to Spiral Galaxies Created the Perceived Galaxy Rotation Problem - Thereby Establishing a Galactic Presence for the Elusive, Inferred Dark Matter, interesting...

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Very professional essay - congratulations! As a lay person I may not be able to follow your explanations (although they were quite straightforward) entirely. I would like to point out that it should not be presumed that, if anti-hydrogen rises in relation to the Earth's gravitational field within its confinement apparatus it would be a demonstration of anti-gravitation. That could only be determined if it contradicted hydrogen in identical conditions of confinement - that normal hydrogen falls to Earth. I'm sure this is already understood, but confirmation is necessary.

Fundamentally, I don't understand how a positive rest mass could physically produce a negative 'gravitational mass'. Aren't both inertial mass and 'gravitational mass' both directly derived from particle rest mass?

What mechanism producing the effect of gravitation could possibly distinguish between the positive rest mass of hydrogen and the positive rest mass of anti-hydrogen to produce opposite effects?

While it may not be directly related, you might find my 3 page systems analysis-essay, Inappropriate Application of Kepler's Empirical Laws of Planetary Motion to Spiral Galaxies Created the Perceived Galaxy Rotation Problem - Thereby Establishing a Galactic Presence for the Elusive, Inferred Dark Matter, interesting...

report post as inappropriate

Hello James,

Thanks for reading my essay and for commenting on it which such kind words.

In the currently accepted theory of gravitation, General Relativity (GR), inertial mass m_{i} and gravitational mass m_{g} indeed derive from rest mass m_{0}. GR uses the classical notion of a particle, which is an object that moves on a continuous trajectory through space and time: if we look at a particle two times in a row, then the second time we see the same object only later in time. At every point in time the particle has inertial mass (with m_{i} = m_{0} if the particle doesn't move relative to the observer) and the principle of equivalence then postulates that its gravitational mass (its "charge" for the gravitational force) is simply the same - as in m_{g} = m_{i}.

In the framework of my theory, the Elementary process Theory (EPT), this whole classical world view, in particular the notion of a particle, is rejected. In the framework of the EPT electrons, protons, neutrons and their antimatter counterparts alternate between particlelike and wavelike states. Consider that an electron is in a particlelike state at a certain position: by a discrete state transition, the particlelike state then ceases to exist and the electron gets in a wavelike state. After a (short) period of time, this wavelike state collapses (and thus ceases to exist) and the electron again gets in a particle like state at a new position (that way, displacement is accomplished). This new particlelike state is a new object: it is not the previous particlelike state later in time (see fig. 2 in the essay). To get to gravitation: the particle states are devoid of motion: displacement is accomplished in the wavelike states. Rest mass is a property of the particlelike states, gravitational mass a property of the wavelike states. Hydrogen and anti-hydrogen have both particle states with positive rest mass, but their wavelike states differ in sign qua gravitational mass. The wavelike state of "ordinary" hydrogen has the tendency to accomplish a displacement towards a stronger gravitational field (i.e. towards earth), while the wavelike state of anti-hydrogen has the tendency to accomplish a displacement towards a weaker gravitational field (i.e. away from earth). So the difference in sign in m_{g} is because of a difference in action, in what the wavelike state does.

I hope that this clears things up a little bit. For a more elaborate description, see my Annalen paper (ref [2] in the essay).

I'm rather pressed for time, but I'll read your essay as soon as possible. I'll post my comments, if any, on your thread.

Best regards, Marcoen

Thanks for reading my essay and for commenting on it which such kind words.

In the currently accepted theory of gravitation, General Relativity (GR), inertial mass m

In the framework of my theory, the Elementary process Theory (EPT), this whole classical world view, in particular the notion of a particle, is rejected. In the framework of the EPT electrons, protons, neutrons and their antimatter counterparts alternate between particlelike and wavelike states. Consider that an electron is in a particlelike state at a certain position: by a discrete state transition, the particlelike state then ceases to exist and the electron gets in a wavelike state. After a (short) period of time, this wavelike state collapses (and thus ceases to exist) and the electron again gets in a particle like state at a new position (that way, displacement is accomplished). This new particlelike state is a new object: it is not the previous particlelike state later in time (see fig. 2 in the essay). To get to gravitation: the particle states are devoid of motion: displacement is accomplished in the wavelike states. Rest mass is a property of the particlelike states, gravitational mass a property of the wavelike states. Hydrogen and anti-hydrogen have both particle states with positive rest mass, but their wavelike states differ in sign qua gravitational mass. The wavelike state of "ordinary" hydrogen has the tendency to accomplish a displacement towards a stronger gravitational field (i.e. towards earth), while the wavelike state of anti-hydrogen has the tendency to accomplish a displacement towards a weaker gravitational field (i.e. away from earth). So the difference in sign in m

I hope that this clears things up a little bit. For a more elaborate description, see my Annalen paper (ref [2] in the essay).

I'm rather pressed for time, but I'll read your essay as soon as possible. I'll post my comments, if any, on your thread.

Best regards, Marcoen

HI Marcoen,

I appreciate your time, but I'm compelled to comment by the harmonious chord struck by you overview of EPT! I'm not likely to refer to your reference simply because it's unlikely that I cold reasonably follow your more detailed descriptions. However, your summary is remarkably similar to my own loosely conceptual model of quantum gravity. I really don't wish to waste your...

view entire post

I appreciate your time, but I'm compelled to comment by the harmonious chord struck by you overview of EPT! I'm not likely to refer to your reference simply because it's unlikely that I cold reasonably follow your more detailed descriptions. However, your summary is remarkably similar to my own loosely conceptual model of quantum gravity. I really don't wish to waste your...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Hi Jim,

First of all, I must say the following. Yes, I'm pressed for time but I'm sincerely interested in reading the comments (and in general, in finding the truth about the foundations of physics), so please do not ever think that you waste my time with it.

The terminology in your comment is very difficult to understand. I would have to read your essay to get a grasp of the concepts. For example, take the sentence "their emission energy was reconfigured from its directionally propagating wave state to a localized particle state". Do you mean that emitted photons turned into rest-mass-having particles?

In the framework of my theory there are two kinds of wavelike matter. As a result, photons are a fundamentally different type of matter than the matter waves that occur in the process of alternation of electrons, protons and the likes. So in this framework, photons cannot turn into rest-mass-having particles.

Best regards, Marcoen

First of all, I must say the following. Yes, I'm pressed for time but I'm sincerely interested in reading the comments (and in general, in finding the truth about the foundations of physics), so please do not ever think that you waste my time with it.

The terminology in your comment is very difficult to understand. I would have to read your essay to get a grasp of the concepts. For example, take the sentence "their emission energy was reconfigured from its directionally propagating wave state to a localized particle state". Do you mean that emitted photons turned into rest-mass-having particles?

In the framework of my theory there are two kinds of wavelike matter. As a result, photons are a fundamentally different type of matter than the matter waves that occur in the process of alternation of electrons, protons and the likes. So in this framework, photons cannot turn into rest-mass-having particles.

Best regards, Marcoen

Hi Marcoen,

Well it seems that by very different routes we have come to similar – though not exactly the same - conclusions (see my essay: “The Law of Conservation of Baryon Number, Antimatter Antigravity, and the Experiment that Never Gets Done”). Also, we have both crossed paths with M. Villata over his paper “CPT symmetry and antimatter gravity in general relativity”. It seems that our thought processes are the same with regard to his 'reasoning' as well. As you well know he comes to the same conclusion we have, but does so by the untenable assumption that “antiparticles are nothing else than the corresponding particles traveling backwards in time”. Decades ago – before antimatter in the lab had anything but a fleeting existence , Isaac Asimov, in one of his many science speculation books: “Science, Numbers, and I”, used the same assumption to separate a matter and an antimatter universe - “one moving forward in time and the other backward, so that the two are out of reach of each other before the can interact.” At least, given the assumption that antiparticles are nothing else than the corresponding particles traveling backwards in time, that made sense. But other than citing references from the 1940's, how does Villata justify such an assumption in an age where antimatter has been confined for several minutes – clearly moving forward in time?

And yet Villata's paper has gotten a lot of traction. How can this be? What are your thoughts on this?

Regards,

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Well it seems that by very different routes we have come to similar – though not exactly the same - conclusions (see my essay: “The Law of Conservation of Baryon Number, Antimatter Antigravity, and the Experiment that Never Gets Done”). Also, we have both crossed paths with M. Villata over his paper “CPT symmetry and antimatter gravity in general relativity”. It seems that our thought processes are the same with regard to his 'reasoning' as well. As you well know he comes to the same conclusion we have, but does so by the untenable assumption that “antiparticles are nothing else than the corresponding particles traveling backwards in time”. Decades ago – before antimatter in the lab had anything but a fleeting existence , Isaac Asimov, in one of his many science speculation books: “Science, Numbers, and I”, used the same assumption to separate a matter and an antimatter universe - “one moving forward in time and the other backward, so that the two are out of reach of each other before the can interact.” At least, given the assumption that antiparticles are nothing else than the corresponding particles traveling backwards in time, that made sense. But other than citing references from the 1940's, how does Villata justify such an assumption in an age where antimatter has been confined for several minutes – clearly moving forward in time?

And yet Villata's paper has gotten a lot of traction. How can this be? What are your thoughts on this?

Regards,

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Hello Steven,

Villata derived an equation that describes the behavior (antigravity) of antimatter particles moving in the gravitational field of matter. His intention was (and is) to use that equation at astronomical scale, where one can model a planet as a particle. I think he has a point, as his equation is a relation between observable parameters (so if there really is matter-antimatter gravitational repulsion, then you can verify this equation by measurement).

Another thing is when you extrapolate the area of applicability of Villata's equation to the microcosmos. Then you get to the fundamental questions. For the reasons mentioned in my comment to Villata's paper in Astrophys. Space Sc. (also accessible on the arxiv) I believe Villata's extension of GR is untenable as a foundational framework. But I do agree with Villata that it has merit as an emergent theory (under the condition that gravitational repulsion exists).

Villata's paper has gotten a lot of attention because it is both accessible and controversial. The material falls within the area of competence of every professional theoretical physicist, so you get a lot of opinions and thus a lot of discussion.

For contrast, consider my paper in Ann. Phys.: with regard to the fundamental questions it is far more elaborate than Villata's paper, it is at least as controversial, yet it received far less attention. The point is that the material is inaccessible for the average Joe the Physicist, as the standard physics curriculum does not provide any education in formal axiomatic systems (logic). So the average Joe the Physicist would first have to do courses in logic, and even then the Annalen paper is no easy reading material. As a result, at the moment there are less than ten people who understand the theory at object level (my estimate).

To conclude my post, let me make a general statement: for a paper in a peer-reviewed journal to receive lots of attention, a necessary and sufficient condition is that the material must be both controversial and accessible to a large audience. Villata's paper satisfies this condition, mine doesn''t. Luckily, it is not my goal to get lots of attention.

Best regards, Marcoen

Villata derived an equation that describes the behavior (antigravity) of antimatter particles moving in the gravitational field of matter. His intention was (and is) to use that equation at astronomical scale, where one can model a planet as a particle. I think he has a point, as his equation is a relation between observable parameters (so if there really is matter-antimatter gravitational repulsion, then you can verify this equation by measurement).

Another thing is when you extrapolate the area of applicability of Villata's equation to the microcosmos. Then you get to the fundamental questions. For the reasons mentioned in my comment to Villata's paper in Astrophys. Space Sc. (also accessible on the arxiv) I believe Villata's extension of GR is untenable as a foundational framework. But I do agree with Villata that it has merit as an emergent theory (under the condition that gravitational repulsion exists).

Villata's paper has gotten a lot of attention because it is both accessible and controversial. The material falls within the area of competence of every professional theoretical physicist, so you get a lot of opinions and thus a lot of discussion.

For contrast, consider my paper in Ann. Phys.: with regard to the fundamental questions it is far more elaborate than Villata's paper, it is at least as controversial, yet it received far less attention. The point is that the material is inaccessible for the average Joe the Physicist, as the standard physics curriculum does not provide any education in formal axiomatic systems (logic). So the average Joe the Physicist would first have to do courses in logic, and even then the Annalen paper is no easy reading material. As a result, at the moment there are less than ten people who understand the theory at object level (my estimate).

To conclude my post, let me make a general statement: for a paper in a peer-reviewed journal to receive lots of attention, a necessary and sufficient condition is that the material must be both controversial and accessible to a large audience. Villata's paper satisfies this condition, mine doesn''t. Luckily, it is not my goal to get lots of attention.

Best regards, Marcoen

Dear

Very interesting to see your essay.

Perhaps all of us are convinced that: the choice of yourself is right!That of course is reasonable.

So may be we should work together to let's the consider clearly defined for the basis foundations theoretical as the most challenging with intellectual of all of us.

Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close...

view entire post

Very interesting to see your essay.

Perhaps all of us are convinced that: the choice of yourself is right!That of course is reasonable.

So may be we should work together to let's the consider clearly defined for the basis foundations theoretical as the most challenging with intellectual of all of us.

Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Marcoen,

It seems that the idea of Antimatter Antigravity is not compatible with the Theory of Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter which is considered in my essay. In the theory the substance of all the particles is the same similar to substance for planets and stars. Antiparticles have opposite charge only. And quarks are not real particles but quasiparticles.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

It seems that the idea of Antimatter Antigravity is not compatible with the Theory of Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter which is considered in my essay. In the theory the substance of all the particles is the same similar to substance for planets and stars. Antiparticles have opposite charge only. And quarks are not real particles but quasiparticles.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Dear Sergey,

Thanks for reading and commenting on my essay.

Not only the idea of a matter-antimatter gravitational repulsion is incompatible with your theory: also the ontology of my theory, the EPT, is incompatible with any "infinitely deep" ontology that implies the negation of the assumption of indivisible constituents. The point is that the universe of the EPT contains pointparticle-like objects (this is not mentioned in the essay): it is then of course nonsense to suggest that these are made up of yet "smaller" constituents. But that is, of course, not an argument against a non-atomic ontology in general.

I know that the assumption of indivisible constituents and the negation of that assumption form one of Kant's antinomies: Kant considered that it is not possible to know for sure whether or not the universe has ultimate constituents. An epistemological problem of theories without elementary (i.e. indivisible) particles seems to be that it is not even theoretically possible for us humans to test certain predictions of those theories: those predictions, namely, that are about layers of reality that are experimentally inaccessible to us cannot be tested, not even in principle. If e.g. an electron is an entire universe, then how can we test predictions about constituents of planets in that universe? I don't see it. One surely can belief in such a theory, but knowledge is justified true belief; as there is no way to demonstrate that these theorems, these predictions about inaccessible layers of reality, contain knowledge about the physical world, such a theory - even if true - can at most form a belief system. At least, that is how I see it. What is your opinion?

C uvazheniyem, Marcoen

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for reading and commenting on my essay.

Not only the idea of a matter-antimatter gravitational repulsion is incompatible with your theory: also the ontology of my theory, the EPT, is incompatible with any "infinitely deep" ontology that implies the negation of the assumption of indivisible constituents. The point is that the universe of the EPT contains pointparticle-like objects (this is not mentioned in the essay): it is then of course nonsense to suggest that these are made up of yet "smaller" constituents. But that is, of course, not an argument against a non-atomic ontology in general.

I know that the assumption of indivisible constituents and the negation of that assumption form one of Kant's antinomies: Kant considered that it is not possible to know for sure whether or not the universe has ultimate constituents. An epistemological problem of theories without elementary (i.e. indivisible) particles seems to be that it is not even theoretically possible for us humans to test certain predictions of those theories: those predictions, namely, that are about layers of reality that are experimentally inaccessible to us cannot be tested, not even in principle. If e.g. an electron is an entire universe, then how can we test predictions about constituents of planets in that universe? I don't see it. One surely can belief in such a theory, but knowledge is justified true belief; as there is no way to demonstrate that these theorems, these predictions about inaccessible layers of reality, contain knowledge about the physical world, such a theory - even if true - can at most form a belief system. At least, that is how I see it. What is your opinion?

C uvazheniyem, Marcoen

report post as inappropriate

A very interesting idea and a pretty good read. Thanks for thinking outside the box.

I think you might enjoy the works of Milo Wolff. Also, I have posted a paper on viXra.org titled "The Wave Equation and Rotation". I think you might be interested in equations 18.1 and 18.2. I speculated that matter and anti-matter will experience a repulsive gravitational force.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

Houston, Tx

report post as inappropriate

I think you might enjoy the works of Milo Wolff. Also, I have posted a paper on viXra.org titled "The Wave Equation and Rotation". I think you might be interested in equations 18.1 and 18.2. I speculated that matter and anti-matter will experience a repulsive gravitational force.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

Houston, Tx

report post as inappropriate

Dear Gary,

Thanks for your kind words on my essay.

I have looked at your paper "The Wave Equation and Rotation" to which you refer in your post. I am familiar with the quaternions, and also with the Euler equation. It is an interesting idea to use Euler-type equations for quaternions; however, it leads to contradiction. I will demonstrate this below.

From the pages 2 and 3 in your paper it is obvious that you want to add the following three equations to the quaternions:

Using (1) and (2), we get

However, since addition is commutative for quaternions, we get

Thus, from (4) - (6) we get

For the quaternions, however, we have

That proves the contradiction. The equations (1) - (3) can thus not be added to the (theory of the) quaternions. I would advise you to reconsider this aspect of your theory.

Best regards, Marcoen

Thanks for your kind words on my essay.

I have looked at your paper "The Wave Equation and Rotation" to which you refer in your post. I am familiar with the quaternions, and also with the Euler equation. It is an interesting idea to use Euler-type equations for quaternions; however, it leads to contradiction. I will demonstrate this below.

From the pages 2 and 3 in your paper it is obvious that you want to add the following three equations to the quaternions:

Using (1) and (2), we get

However, since addition is commutative for quaternions, we get

Thus, from (4) - (6) we get

For the quaternions, however, we have

That proves the contradiction. The equations (1) - (3) can thus not be added to the (theory of the) quaternions. I would advise you to reconsider this aspect of your theory.

Best regards, Marcoen

After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.

Cood luck.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Cood luck.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Hi Marcoen,

I think I made an interesting discovery, please check out my post of 9/19/12. Let me know what you think!

Regards,

Steve

report post as inappropriate

I think I made an interesting discovery, please check out my post of 9/19/12. Let me know what you think!

Regards,

Steve

report post as inappropriate

If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is and was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have of points. After it anyone give you of points so you have of points and is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: or or In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points then the participant`s rating was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Dear Marcoen

Congratulations for posting this very interesting essay, and for persisting with your project over many years. It is people like you who bring new ideas to physics and stubbornly follow them up to introduce the breakthroughs.

In my 2005 Beautiful Universe Theory (BU) upon which I based my fqxi essay Fix Physics! all matter, radiation and space itself is made of just of one type of ether lattice node which rotates as a magnetic dipole. When neighboring nodes are aligned with their like poles facing they repulse each other.

That is how I explain both dark energy and dark matter. (GR) has no provision for such polarity (and local chirality) in the universe, but (BU) provides a physical basis for such notions as antimatter. The details of course have to be worked out before proceeding further, but here is what I just thought of, based on the (BU) concepts::

Because all matter nodes spin in the same same direction i.e. have the same chirality, (which explains the right-hand rule of electromagnetism) there is gravitational attraction between two particles of ordinary matter. A matter particle facing an antimatter particle will repel each other. An anti-matter particle facing another anti-matter particle will be attracted to it.

I was not aware of the experiments planned to test anti-matter gravitation. Fascinating!

Please read Eric Reiter's essay about the photon.

I wish you the best of luck.

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Congratulations for posting this very interesting essay, and for persisting with your project over many years. It is people like you who bring new ideas to physics and stubbornly follow them up to introduce the breakthroughs.

In my 2005 Beautiful Universe Theory (BU) upon which I based my fqxi essay Fix Physics! all matter, radiation and space itself is made of just of one type of ether lattice node which rotates as a magnetic dipole. When neighboring nodes are aligned with their like poles facing they repulse each other.

That is how I explain both dark energy and dark matter. (GR) has no provision for such polarity (and local chirality) in the universe, but (BU) provides a physical basis for such notions as antimatter. The details of course have to be worked out before proceeding further, but here is what I just thought of, based on the (BU) concepts::

Because all matter nodes spin in the same same direction i.e. have the same chirality, (which explains the right-hand rule of electromagnetism) there is gravitational attraction between two particles of ordinary matter. A matter particle facing an antimatter particle will repel each other. An anti-matter particle facing another anti-matter particle will be attracted to it.

I was not aware of the experiments planned to test anti-matter gravitation. Fascinating!

Please read Eric Reiter's essay about the photon.

I wish you the best of luck.

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Dear Vladimir,

Thanks for your kind words.

Your essay mentions interesting questions. Your BU Theory is difficult to assess. The paper to which you refer contains illustrations, but no mathematical formulation of the basic principles or concepts. If you want to have your theory evaluated, you should work on that. In Australia there is another group (the Process Physics group) that investigates a view of the universe as a network; perhaps you can get some valuable feedback from them.

Best regards, Marcoen

Thanks for your kind words.

Your essay mentions interesting questions. Your BU Theory is difficult to assess. The paper to which you refer contains illustrations, but no mathematical formulation of the basic principles or concepts. If you want to have your theory evaluated, you should work on that. In Australia there is another group (the Process Physics group) that investigates a view of the universe as a network; perhaps you can get some valuable feedback from them.

Best regards, Marcoen

Login or create account to post reply or comment.