Search FQXi


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.

Contests Home


Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

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/discusswinners

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/discusswinners

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/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

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/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Allise Bromfield: on 10/29/14 at 2:33am UTC, wrote Dear Steven, Would really like to catch up with you and talk about what...

Steven Dinowitz: on 10/28/12 at 15:34pm UTC, wrote Also, the value of 8.9 ± 2.7 m/s[sup]2[/sup] given as the gravitational...

Steven Dinowitz: on 10/19/12 at 17:48pm UTC, wrote By the way, if you want to calculate the mass ratio of the s-quark to...

Steven Dinowitz: on 10/16/12 at 15:36pm UTC, wrote Hi Julian, I don't have an answer as to why no one has previously applied...

Julian Taylor: on 10/15/12 at 16:49pm UTC, wrote Steven, I am at a loss as to why those of us (including myself) who hold...

Steven Dinowitz: on 10/7/12 at 21:14pm UTC, wrote Dear Concerned Public, Yes I know. My essay plummeted from the top third...

Concerned Public: on 10/6/12 at 8:32am UTC, wrote Sergey G Fedosin is bombing entrants' boards with the same "why your...

Steven Dinowitz: on 10/4/12 at 17:45pm UTC, wrote Sergey, I was simply going to ignore your first post with regard to...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "Yes. The estimate of age of the visible universe, and age of stars, other..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

akash hasan: "Some students have an interest in researching and space exploration. I..." in Announcing Physics of the...

Jorma Seppaenen: "I find this very interesting topic. I am just a amateur enthusiast of..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

Michael Jordan: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Anonymous: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..." in Constructing a Theory of...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Hanvi jobs: "Yes i am totally agreed with this article and i just want say that this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Robert McEachern: ""all experiments have pointed towards this and there is no way to avoid..." in Review of "Foundations of...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

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.

Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes
The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.


FQXi FORUM
May 24, 2019

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: The Law of Conservation of Baryon Number, Antimatter Anitigravity, and the Experiment That Never Gets Done by Steven Dinowitz [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Steven Dinowitz wrote on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 13:27 GMT
Essay Abstract

The current view of how the universe came to consist of matter is based on a breakdown of the Law of Conservation of Baryon Number. However, there is no experimental evidence for such a conjecture. Gravitational repulsion between bulk matter and antimatter does not violate Conservation of Baryon Number, preserves perfect symmetry between matter and antimatter and provides a mechanism for their long range separation. The author attempts to find an answer as to why, over the last 50 years, physicists have failed to conduct an experiment to determine the gravitational acceleration of antimatter. The answer has less to do with technical limitations than with human nature. Finally, the author puts forth the hypothesis that the gravitational interaction is linked to color charge. It is predicted that antihydrogen will fall up in the Earth's gravitational field.

Author Bio

The author has a Bachelors Degree in both Physics and Philosophy from Syracuse University. Publications include:"Super-Relativistic Dynamics" Galilean Electrodynamics, Vol.2,No.6,p.114-117(1991), "Field Distortion Theory" Physics Essays, Vol.9,No.3,p.393-418(1996) and "Michelson-Morley on the Space Shuttle: A possible Experiment to Test Dinowitz's Field Distortion Theory" NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Workshop Proceedings, NASA/CP-1999-208694,p.175-183(1999). One of 84 invited to attend and participate at NASA's Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Workshop (1997). Acknowledged "for fascinating insights into Relativity and possible alternatives" in James P. Hogan's scifi novel "The Legend That Was Earth"(2000). Field Distotion Theory discussed in James P. Hogans "Kicking the Sacred Cow: Questioning the Unquestionable"(2004).

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Anonymous wrote on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 18:59 GMT
That was a fascinating read.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steven Dinowitz replied on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 13:31 GMT
Thank you Anonymous.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James T. Dwyer wrote on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 20:22 GMT
I have to admit that, as a lay person I had difficulty following your essay, but I ave two questions:

1. Since the effect of gravity is proportional to an object's mass, wouldn't an anti-gravity effect require that objects be composed of elements with negative mass? I presume that the masses of antimatter particles have been experimentally determined and confirmed to be identical to their...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steven Dinowitz replied on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 14:30 GMT
1) Experiments clearly show that antimatter, like matter, has positive inertial mass. While under General Relativity gravitational and inertial mass are identical, this need not be the case in reality. There is no experimental evidence for negative inertial mass, nor do I believe in its existence. A gravitational repulsion between bulk matter and antimatter does not mean that antimatter has negative inertial mass. Nor can I make the flat statement that antimatter has negative gravitational mass: Under the hypothesis I put forward in the essay I proposed 3 types of gravitational mass as denoted by c, c-bar, and w. (See ‘New Rules’ in the Essay). I wanted complete symmetry between matter and antimatter so I proposed that c-bar,c-bar and c-bar,w gravitational interactions are also gravitationally attractive. Only c,c-bar is gravitationally repulsive. Because we have only tested cc, cw, and ww gravitational interactions, it currently appears that gravitational mass is strictly positive.

2) Hydrogen rises in air because it is less dense than air, and antihydrogen would rise in air for the same reason (ignoring, as you say, the annihilation). Yes, I am proposing that antihydrogen will fall up in a vacuum chamber due to gravitational repulsion with the Earth.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James T. Dwyer replied on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 20:29 GMT
Steven,

Thanks very much for the helpful explanation - and sorry for being slow. I also must belatedly commend you on your very clearly written essay - I tend to obsess on the sticking points...

I also agree that the planned experiment will be most enlightening.

In regards to anti-gravity, I've had difficulty comprehending how a gravitational mechanism (I hold on to the idea...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Frank Makinson wrote on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 23:29 GMT
Steven,

Reading the various essays has brought to light many of the assumptions that are centuries old that have resulted in contemporary "generally accepted" theories.

Top of pg 6. "Rather, it was the observation, made during a solar eclipse in 1919, that the gravitational field of the Sun deflected light by twice the amount Newton had predicted that gave experimental confirmation...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 17:51 GMT
Frank,

I agree of course that Newton was unaware of many of the more modern concepts of electromagnetic radiation. However, utilizing his theory of gravity (with its single potential) results in a displacement of stars at the Sun's limb of 2GM/rc2 radians compared to Einstein's prediction of 4GM/rc2 (based on ten potentials). You can find a nice description of this in: "The physical foundations of General Relativity" by D.W. Sciama (Doubleday & Company, Inc., Garden City, New York, 1969) p. 67-73.

I have not had a chance yet to read Georgina Parry's essay yet, but I will.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hyoyoung Choi wrote on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 06:51 GMT
Dear Steven Dinowitz,

I have a similar model on antigravity or repulsive gravity. In my article, I show that negative mass(energy) provides an explanation for dark matter and dark energy.

Please view to my article and simulation video.

Article 1309 - Negative mass and Negative energy

Have a good time!

---Hyoyoung Choi

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steven Dinowitz replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 06:31 GMT
Hi Hyoyoung,

As I noted in a reply to James Dwyer: "Experiments clearly show that antimatter, like matter, has positive inertial mass. There is no experimental evidence for negative inertial mass, nor do I believe in its existence. A gravitational repulsion between bulk matter and antimatter does not mean that antimatter has negative inertial mass." So I don't think I would add anything constructive to your work but I will read your essay. Years ago, Isaac Asimov wrote some amazing speculations on negative energy in his book "Science, Numbers, And I" Good Luck.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Hyoyoung Choi replied on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 01:34 GMT
Dear Steven Dinowitz,

I am sorry. I apologize for my poor English.

I agree that "Experiments clearly show that antimatter, like matter, has positive inertial mass." And I do not consider that antimatter is a negative mass.

In my article,

=========

~

However, we determined that total energy could not exist at a negative state and abandoned the solution(of...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B Crowell wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 00:27 GMT
Steven,

There are two ways in which antimatter could antigravitate. The first way is that it has a negative mass. The Dirac theory has particles in the lower portion of the momentum-energy light cone as negative in mass. These pack in to form the Dirac sea. The positive portion of the cone contains positive mass particles. The standard idea is that by giving a particle in the bottom...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steven Dinowitz replied on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 23:06 GMT
Lawrence,

If you are suggesting that those are the only two ways that matter may gravitationally repel antimatter, I simply disagree – See New Rules in my essay if you haven't already. The first way you suggest is, as I'm sure you are aware, a nonstarter since we already know by experiment that antimatter has positive energy and positive inertial mass. The second way you mention is to simply say that antimatter has negative gravitational mass. This indeed has yet to be tested experimentally – and is part of what the AEGIS experiment is about. Until the experiment is actually conducted we are both free to suspect what we wish. At least we agree that such an experiment is worth doing. In 2012 we know the mating habits of shrimp in low Earth orbit, but we don't know if antimatter falls up or down!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 17:17 GMT
That is of course the state of affairs. The difficulty of course is that gravity is such a weak force and acquiring antimatter is technically difficult. I would say that if you had antimatter in orbit around the Earth, say observed on the International Space Station, that if it is repelled it moves to a larger radius. Ordinarily gravitation determines orbital velocity and frequency...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 13:33 GMT
Dear Steven,

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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steven Dinowitz wrote on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 19:03 GMT
Dear Sergey,

Well needless to say I find the Infinite Hierarchical approach to the nature of reality rather matter-centric. Though I agree that we may not be at the limit with quarks, leptons, etc., I do believe there is a limit. Also, I think the experimental evidence for the existence of quarks is substantial. I think Gell-mann’s initial quark theory (early 1960’s), and Greenberg’s notion of color charge (early 1970’s) were notions of shear genius. Also, I wonder how the approach you take would handle dark matter and dark energy. These two ‘substances’ are very different than the substances of planets and stars. I guess if you don’t recognize the existence of quarks, you would surely deny the existence of these as well – and at this stage of our ignorance you could probably still make the argument. However, even the argument that both dark matter and dark energy are previously unsuspected properties of gravity itself conflicts with the Hierarchical approach as these theories inevitably introduce new properties of gravity tied to some specific, or even multiple, distance parameter(s).

As to antimatter antigravity, I don’t want to spend another 50 years debating it. You have a theory which is not compatible with antimatter antigravity, and I have one that is. Experiments to determine the gravitational acceleration of antimatter are long overdue.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin replied on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 08:47 GMT
Dear Steven

I think that quarks are quasiparticles. The model of quark quasiparticles is described in §12 of the book: The physical theories and infinite nesting of matter. Perm: S.G. Fedosin, 2009-2012, 858 p. ISBN 978-5-9901951-1-0. And dark matter is explained in the paper: Fedosin S.G. Cosmic Red Shift, Microwave Background, and New Particles. Galilean Electrodynamics, Spring 2012, Vol. 23, Special Issues No. 1, P. 3 - 13.

Sergey Fedosin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Steven Dinowitz wrote on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 04:45 GMT
In a private communication, I have been asked if the presence of gluons within the proton and antiproton would affect the gravitational force between them under the hypothesis I put forth in the essay (See 'New Rules' in the essay). A very good question.

Quarks can change color through the exchange of gluons. So, for example, a quark with a blue color charge can become a quark with a red color charge by emitting a blue/anti-red gluon which can then be absorbed by a neighboring quark with a red color charge changing it to a quark with a blue color charge. Thus the two quarks have exchanged color charge. Gluons, like photons, are believed to be spin 1 particles with zero rest mass. Gluons have a baryon number of zero and do not themselves consist of quarks and so under the hypothesis set forth in the essay have a gravitational mass denoted by 'w' just as does every other fundamental particle with zero baryon number.

This being the case, the presence of gluons within both the proton and antiproton would have to be taken into account when calculating the gravitational force between them. Thus the gravitational force between a proton and antiproton is:

F = -G/r2(-mcmc-bar + mwmc + mwmc-bar +mwmw)

where mc is colored gravitational mass of the proton, mc-bar is the anti-colored mass of the antiproton, and mw is the gravitational mass due to gluons.

Since mw = m - mc = m - mc-bar where m is the mass of the proton we find if mc = m/sqrt2 then F = 0. So if the quarks within the proton contribute over 71% the total mass of the proton the there will be a net gravitational repulsion between proton and antiproton. Indeed, if AEGIS finds antiprotons fall up at a value between 0g and 1g we can take that value and easily calculate the gluonic component of the proton mass.

Bookmark and Share



Marcoen Cabbolet wrote on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 13:45 GMT
Hello Steven,

In your essay you write that the main reason why the coupling of antimatter with the gravitational field of "ordinary" matter hasn't been established so far, is that physicists think they already "know" the outcome.

While I agree with you that group pressure is a factor - it certainly explains why the AEGIS project is a smaller enterprise than the Higgs project - I think, however, that the main reason the experiment hasn´t been done is technological. For example, on paper it sounds very simple that you only have to inject slow antiprotons horizontally into a Faraday cage to measure their gravitational acceleration. But in reality, the process is simply not feasible technically - e.g. no ideal Faraday cage exists. Therefore they know try the experiments with neutral antimatter, and these are at the forefront of technology.

Your proposal of the sign of your six possible gravitational interactions raises some philosophical questions. For example, on page 8 you imply with (3) that protons and positrons interact attractive, while you imply with (6) that protons and antiprotons interact repulsive. So positrons must have a property that antiprotons do not have. Thus, there is no general symmetry between matter particles and their antimatter counterparts, such as the C-inversion of the current Standard Model (which is, thus, false in your model). Then you get to ontological questions as what mass and energy actually are. Have you thought about this?

Best regards, Marcoen

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Steven Dinowitz replied on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 20:26 GMT
Hi Marcoen,

As I noted in the essay, back in 1967 Fairbank and Witteborn managed to isolate electrons from external forces without undue difficulty. The problem they faced was the then puzzling absence of much larger forces which had been detected in other experiments. (Later they found that those larger forces are temperature dependent, which explained their absence in the low temperature...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 17:51 GMT
Dear Steven,

I appreciate this timely essay. It's astonishing that the physics community has been so careless about this issue. I was aware that the gravitational behavior of antimatter had not been experimentally determined, but I thought this was principally because of technical issues involving difficulty of production of large quantities of antimatter and the weakness of the gravitational interaction. It's heartening to read that a potentially definitive experiment is just around the corner. Take care,

Ben Dribus

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Yeheshea Mayer wrote on Sep. 16, 2012 @ 16:31 GMT
Steven:

Thank you for such an insightful and well written essay. Considering the number of gedanken experiments regarding baryon number conservation violation at high-energies in the standard model, it is refreshing to ponder the hypothesis you present as an alternative to matter anti-matter separation in the early universe. Very thought provoking..

Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Steven Dinowitz wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 01:33 GMT
Dear Reader,

I came across a very interesting paper entitled: "Testing CP Conservation at KLOE" (arXiv:hep-ex/0007004v1) in which the authors attempt to retrieve CP conservation by introducing the 'heterodox' assumption that neutral kaons (consisting of a d-quark and an anti-s-quark) and neutral antikaons (consisting of an s-quark and an anti-d-quark) are acted on in opposite ways by the Earth's gravitational field. Using the best available data they calculated that kaons and antikaons experienced gravitational acceleration (in opposite directions) of 8.9 m/s2 (plus/minus 2.7 m/s2).

Suppose we take that value as valid. Let's suppose the neutral kaons fall up at 8.9 m/s2 = -.91g and the neutral antikaons fall down at .91g. Let's start with the neutral antikaon. Under the hypothesis I proposed in my essay, to get an acceleration of .91g the s-quark would need to contribute .955 the gravitational mass of the neutral antikaon and the anti-d-quark would contibute the other -.045 the neutral antikaons gravitational mass. Thus, under my proposal, the gravitational mass of the neutral antikaon is .955 - .045 = .91 of the neutral antikaons inertial mass. Just the opposite would be true for the neutral kaon; its gravitational mass would be -.91 of its inertial mass. Simple enough.

But here is where things really get interesting. If this is true then the ratio of the mass of the s quark to the mass of the d quark should be .955/.045 = 21.2. Is it? See for yourself...

May I direct the reader to the Particle Data Group, 2012 Particle Listings, Quarks, Note on Quark Masses, p.18 see Figure: s/d mass ratio.

Regards

Bookmark and Share


Lawrence B Crowell replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 01:33 GMT
I will take a look at this paper. The matter of CP violation is of course interesting, and it is important to understand how this discrete symmetry is violated, presumably at lower energy. I do think that solving the problem of CP violations by breaking the equivalence between inertial mass and gravitational mass is at best converting the problem from one form to another. Think of it from a Gauss law perspective. Consider a large mass M made with matter and a smaller mass made of antimatter m. If I were to put a Gaussian surface around the two of them the gravitation at the surface would be that of a mass M - m. Now force the small mass m into M, and BOOM you are left with a mass M - m in the center and a shell of photons of mass 2m approaching the Gaussian surface. The observer on the Gaussian surface would detect this huge pulse of radiation E = 2m and from gravity would now detect a gravitating mass M - m. Now suppose this Gaussian surface is a perfect mirror that reflects the light back to the mass M - m. The Gaussian surface measure of gravity would then have a mass M + m. The interaction between matter and antimatter would increase the amount of gravitational mass.

Solving the CP violation issue with this seems to be a rather odd solution. Of course nature could turn out to be strange. Performing this experiment would be of interest, and I suspect or at least hope that nature does not turn out to be this crazy.

Cheers LC

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Steven Dinowitz replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 14:43 GMT
Lawrence,

Even stranger, under the hypothesis I put forth in the essay, what the observer on the Gaussian surface experiences gravitationally as the situation within the surface to begin with depends upon the compositional nature of the observer itself. For example, if the observer were a photon, or an electron it would not experience the internal situation you set up as M - m, but as M + m. Such an observer would record no change in the gravitational force throughout the process of pair annihilation and photon reflection. Yet an observer made up of quarks (or antiquarks) would. But as I noted, this may only illustrate the fact that the gravitational force depends on the compositional nature of the observer.

I am still taken with the notion that by making use of the assumption that antiquarks exhibit antigravity a simple relationship between the mass ratio of the quark and antiquark in any given meson and the gravitational acceleration that the meson experiences can be derived that may (I repeat, may) reflect reality.

Regards,

Steve

Bookmark and Share


Julian Taylor replied on Oct. 15, 2012 @ 16:49 GMT
Steven,

I am at a loss as to why those of us (including myself) who hold unto the hope of gravitational repulsion between matter and antimatter never got around to asking how this might apply to quarks and anti-quarks! You do, and it seems that you have been justly rewarded. It's like gravitational-spectroscopy (new word: gravitroscopy?) with kaons! A stunning bit of detective work.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Daniel Reed wrote on Sep. 21, 2012 @ 19:30 GMT
Steven,

I have to admit your essay has really got me thinking. Until now, I have dismissed antimatter antigravity theories from the start because they have been unable to explain certain experimental facts. First, the photon, as its own antiparticle, should not be affected by gravity. But we know it is. Second, both neutrinos and antineutrinos from Supernova 1987A arrived at earth at the same time and could only do so if gravity affected them in the same manner. Third, despite your claim to the contrary, I'm pretty sure physicists have done gravity tests on positrons and found that they fall like everything else. Regardless, your idea naturally fits these facts. That's impressive.

But what really blows me away is your post of 9/19 where you calculate the ratio of the mass of the strange quark to the mass of the down quark. The math is so simple and seems so obvious - after the fact. Yet it's magical! How did you come up with that? I suppose it could be a coincidence, but if so it is one hell of a coincidence.

Honestly, until now I thought this AEGIS experiment was basically a waste of time and money. Now I'm not at all sure...

Best,

Daniel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Steven Dinowitz replied on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 19:23 GMT
Daniel,

I'm glad to hear my essay really got you thinking and I appreciate your kind words regarding my post of 9/19/12. More about that post later. While you are correct that the hypothesis I put forth in 'New Rules' in my essay naturally explains 1) the deflection of light in the Sun's gravitational field, 2) the simultaneous arrival of neutrinos and antineutrinos from Super Nova 1987A, and 3) the fall of positrons, I don't think these three examples make for a 'case closed' against the more 'traditional' antimatter antigravity theories. Let me explain...

Light doesn't need to be attracted by a gravitational field in order for it to be deflected by one. Nor is falling into a gravitational field the only way that light may increase its frequency. It is possible that the gravitational field has an index of refraction. Picture a light source surrounded by a solid glass sphere that increases in density as you approach its center. A light beam shot through the glass will be seen to curve about the light source at the center as though it were attracted by the light source. So too, light moving toward the light source will experience an increase in its frequency not because it is gaining kinetic energy as it falls towards the central source, but simply because it's moving through a medium of increasing density. Indeed, if the gravitational field is assigned an index of refraction n = 1+2GM/rc2 it will exactly mimic the effects that gravity has on light as predicted by General Relativity. Thus light does not have to be attracted by gravity in order to be affected by a gravitational field.

Your example involving neutrinos and antineutrinos from Super Nova 1987A is more weighty (excuse the pun) but still not decisive. The current view of neutrinos has evolved rapidly over the last 20 years. From what I understand there are three different mass eigenstates (v1,v2,v3), and each eigenstate contains varying degrees of the three known neutrino 'flavors' (electron, muon, tau) that change depending on environment and distance of travel. At this point in time we do not know the values of the three mass eigenstates and the only requirement is that they have different values. Thus it is possible that the smallest one is zero. So it is possible that the neutrinos and antineutrinos detected from SN 1987A all had, like the photon, zero rest mass and were affected equally by gravity. I will grant you that most physicists today believe that all the neutrino mass eigenstates are greater than zero. However, experimentally, the only established fact is that the sum of all three neutrino masses is less than .3eV.

Unfortunately you are not alone in your belief that the gravitational acceleration of the positron has been measured. Over the years I would guess that one in three (maybe more) people who are interested in the subject are under the impression that the experiment has been done, the results were as expected, and this is settled science. I'm not sure why people have this impression. It may have to do with the fact that the original Fairbank/Witteborn experiment was planned, designed, built and actually conducted - though only using electrons. Perhaps people just assume that it must have also been conducted using positrons with the expected results. I have even heard more than one person tell me that of course the experiment was repeated with positrons and the results were so stunning that they have been kept Top Secret!

Then there is the fact that there are many more papers out there that put forth theoretical arguments as to why positrons should fall down as opposed to just a handful that speculate otherwise. For example, in a very recent paper entitled:"Why We Already Know that Antihydrogen is Almost Certainly NOT Going to Fall Up" author Scott Menary notes that the deflection of light by the Sun...

"shows experimentally that antimatter is attracted to matter. Recall from QED that the photon isn't really a point particle but is more like a cloud of e+e- pairs. This really illustrates the point that it is equal amounts particle and antiparticle. So there is no other conclusion that can be reached - matter and antimatter attract gravitationally."

Never mind whether this argument is valid (I don't believe it is), it is papers like this, and there are many, that could easily be interpreted as: "Scientists have shown experimentally that positrons fall down." (By the way, I sent Dr. Menary an e-mail inviting him to comment on my essay, but I have not yet received a response).

Then there are simple misstatements of the facts. For example, in an article on gravity entitled: "The Light Stuff" in the 11/20/04 issue of New Scientist magazine physicist Paul Wesson wrote:

"In a recent series of experiments, most notably at the Stanford Linear Accelerator in California, researchers looked to see if positrons, the antimatter partners of electrons, fell upwards in the Earth's gravitational field. But like balls, people, and all the other matter that we know about, they fall towards the center of the Earth."

This is simply not true. The 'recent' experiment he refers to took place 37 years prior to his article and never tested positrons! Articles like this, in magazines and on the internet feed on themselves as people take information from them and write additional articles without investigating the validity of the original source.

Thank you for your kind words in regard to my post of 9/19/12. I agree, it is almost magical. You ask how I came up with it. Well I knew any meson is a quark/antiquark pair and by the hypothesis I put forth in the essay I would expect that all mesons would fall at less than 1g in the Earth's gravitational field. Then I remembered that the authors of the paper on neutral kaons had calculated that they fell at .91 g. That value seemed reasonable, so I decided to take it seriously. Under the hypothesis I put forth in the essay I knew that ms/m = 1/2(1 mg/m) where ms is the mass of the s-quark, m is the mass of the neutral kaon and mg is the gravitational mass of the neutral kaon. Thus ms/m = 1/2(1.91) = .955 which left md/m = 1 - .955 = .045 for the ratio of the mass of the d-quark to the mass of the neutral kaon. It naturally followed that if this is true the ratio of the mass of the s-quark to the mass of the d-quark, s/d = .955/.045 = 21.2.

I had no idea that the value I calculated would match reality. When it did I was in shock and beside myself with joy. It was truly one of those rare 'eureka' moments. And I'm still in shock. Now of course, I smack myself in the head for not thinking of it sooner. It's so simple, how did we all miss it? (And we did miss it - I cannot find such a calculation anywhere).

And of course we can work it the other way; we can start off with the mass ratio of the quark and antiquark in any meson and calculate its gravitational acceleration. For example, in the Particle Data Group, 2012 Particle Listings, Quarks, Note on Quark Masses, p.7 the mass ratio of the u-quark to the mass ratio of the d-quark, u/d = .56. A pion+ consists of a u-quark and an anti-d-quark. Using the hypothesis I set forth in 'New Rules' in my essay, we find that the ratio of the u-quark mass to the mass of the pion is mu/m = (u/d)/(1 + (u/d)) = .56/1.56 = .36. That means that the ratio of the mass of the anti-d-quark to the mass of the pion = 1 - .36 = .64. Thus the gravitational acceleration of the pion+ is = g(.36 - .64) = -.28g. Thus a pion+ will fall up in the Earth's gravitational field at .28g. A pion- will fall down in the Earth's gravitational field at .28g. You heard it here first!

Bookmark and Share


Author Steven Dinowitz replied on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 17:18 GMT
The equation in the third paragraph up from the bottom, 7th line should read: ms/m = 1/2(1 + mg/m)

Bookmark and Share


Author Steven Dinowitz replied on Oct. 19, 2012 @ 17:48 GMT
By the way, if you want to calculate the mass ratio of the s-quark to d-quark directly it is simply: s/d = (1 + mg/m)/(1 - mg/m) = (1 + .91)/(1 - .91) = 1.91/.09 = 21.2

Recall that the value of 8.9 m/s2 ~ .91g for the gravitational acceleration of the neutral kaon and antikaon was experimentally determined in the paper: "Testing CP Conservation at KLOE" by G. Mambriani and L. Trentadue (arXiv:hep-ex/0007004v1, 3 Jul 2000) and that the s/d mass ratio is given in the Particle Data Group under Particle Listings, Quarks, Note on the Quark Masses, s/d mass ratio p. 18.

Bookmark and Share



Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 06:35 GMT
Dear Steven Dinowitz

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...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Steven Dinowitz replied on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 16:36 GMT
I see that you have posted this exact wording for just about every essay I looked at - regardless of topic. If the intent was to get me to view your essay you were successful. However, I will not comment on your essay, neither will I, other than this, reply to your post.

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 17:56 GMT
Steven,

Fascinating essay. Will we be able to make anything durable from antiprotons to make use of antigravity?

I was also interested in your discussion above about the cause of the gravitational curvature of light, or 'spacetime'. I think you may like my own essay. I hope it's entertaining as well as deriving SR and curved space time direct from the quantum mechanism of focussed absorption and scattering by electrons with temporal evolution of interaction. I seem to be a bit out on a limb suggesting real new physics but I forgot physics is all sorted and unfamiliar things must be wrong. Just got a bit carried away.

Yours is very well written and pertinent. Perhaps stretching the theme, but so nice to read I don't care a jot. I can't understand why it's down so low and it certainly deserves a big boost. Mine is a bit more difficult to assimilate as it's a kit of new views which build to an ontological construction.

I wish you well.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Steven Dinowitz replied on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 05:21 GMT
Peter,

Thanks for your kind words.

Before I discuss what use we might make of antimatter antigravity, we need to do the experiment. We need to drop some antihydrogen and see how it falls. If the AEGIS experiment is completed (2015?) and we find that antihydrogen falls up we will have the makings of a Scientific Revolution on our hands the likes of which we have not seen since the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 08:19 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 05:31 GMT
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 [equation] and [equation] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [equation] of points. After it anyone give you [equation] of points so you have [equation] of points and [equation] is the common quantity of the people which gave...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Steven Dinowitz replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 17:45 GMT
Sergey,

I was simply going to ignore your first post with regard to rating, but after the monstrosity you just left me, may I respectfully ask you not to post me a third time on this matter. Look, it's just an essay contest, it's not the noble prize. At the same time I don't want to give you the impression that I'm beyond it all, I'm not - I would like to win as much as the next person. However, I did not enter thinking that I would win. I was happy to have simply entered before the deadline. Also I had the very good fortune of possibly making an actual discovery (see my post of 9/19/12) that I'm still in shock over. I would much rather discuss that than FQXi ranking procedures!

Regards,

Steve

Bookmark and Share


Allise Bromfield replied on Oct. 29, 2014 @ 02:33 GMT
Dear Steven,

Would really like to catch up with you and talk about what you are up to now. Can we connect?

Allise

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Concerned Public wrote on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 08:32 GMT
Sergey G Fedosin is bombing entrants' boards with the same "why your rating has dropped" message. They are all dated Oct. 4... same message.

WTH? I've seen one fine essay drop 89 (eighty-nine) positions, in "Community Rating" in the past 24 hours, and “Sergey’s note” came BEFORE it plummeted. Hmm.

The vote/scaling of this contest is quite nebulous.

"Hackers Rule!", I suppose!

Well??? What else is one to think? The General Public is... Watching…

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Steven Dinowitz replied on Oct. 7, 2012 @ 21:14 GMT
Dear Concerned Public,

Yes I know. My essay plummeted from the top third in ranking to the bottom third in ranking (~90 positions) after I received Sergey's post. Why Sergey felt obliged to let people know that it was he who dragged down their ranking is any ones guess! Ego? It reminded me of one of Khan's lines from 'Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan' - "I have deprived your ship of power,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.