Re: A hypothesis for antimatter that explains everything

On May 19, 10:21 pm, sollet...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On May 19, 5:19 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



<sollet...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:daf707e1-a5d6-4310-bb35-6381cb772f6f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On May 19, 1:47 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Jim Black" <trams...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:6d9228d9-d2a2-4059-801a-48c6f5d8abbd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

sollet...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Let antimatter have positive energy/inertial mass but have its
gravitational mass* (as denoted by its innate gravitational field) be
the NEGATIVE of its inertial mass (generating a repulsive, rather than
attractive field).

(* - NOTE: this is not the same thing as the gravitational mass as
measured by an object's acceleration due to gravity, which according
to GR, is the same as its inertial mass. I'm referring specifically
to its mass as denoted by a*d^2/G, where is a is the acceleration due
to gravity as measured a distance d from the object)

Put a piece of antimatter next to a piece of matter. What are the
accelerations of the two bodies by your hypothesis? Do you not see a
problem with this?

--
Jim E. Black

The positive mass attracts, the negative mass repels.
The two bodies perpetually accelerate out of the
known universe.
Antimatter (such as the positron) has opposite charge to
matter, not opposite mass.

The inertial (and gravitational masses) of the two are the same.
============================================
Ok. So antimatter doesn't have antimass, it only has anticharge. <shrug>

============================================
However, there's no reason to pre-suppose that the innate
gravitational fields of matter and antimatter are the same or equal in
polarity, and my hypothesis claims that they're opposites.

Then again, there is no evidence for electrons having mass.

===========================================

Like poles repel, unlike poles attract.
The Earth weighs 85 kg in my gravitational field, it is overweight.
If it did not fall toward me it would be weightless.
As it is it does not fall into the Sun or Moon, so it is weightless.

There is every reason to pre-suppose that the only way to detect
or measure mass is by its gravitational field.
To put it another way, you can't have mass without it having a
gravitational field.

Do not confuse volume with mass.

Hypothesis: Inertia of an apple is a measure of the force needed
getting the large volume of the apple's gravitational field moving.

Axiom: All movement is relative.

Conclusion: An antiapple still has positive inertia.

Actually the issue is one of mathematics, mass (and time) is not
a vector.
 http://mathworld.wolfram.com/VectorSpace.html
If you wish to advance hypotheses, I advise you to be aware
of the nature of vectors. Distance is a vector, velocity is a
vector, force is a vector. Vectors have both magnitude and
direction, scalars lack direction.

I think you're missing the point. I ALREADY KNOW that antimatter, like
matter, has a positive energy and POSITIVE inertial mass (and positive
gravitational mass as a consequence of GR which states that G-mass and
I-mass are always identical).

And all one would have to do to verify antimatter's positive inertial
mass is measure the positron's acceleration within a magnetic field
using F = qv X B.  If the positron had negative inertial mass, it
would accelerate in the opposite direction.

And immediately after posting this, I knew there were going to be some
posters who would jump up and down immediately thinking I was
postulating that antimatter has negative inertial mass or that it
FALLS UP, which I never claimed.  It falls DOWN on Earth, just like
matter.

The question is how to do an experiment that can measure the
GRAVITATIONAL FIELD surrounding antimatter (i. e. how does antimatter
shape the spacetime around it?).  Keep in mind that even if a
positron's or antiproton's innate gravitational field were repulsive,
it would STILL FALL DOWN on Earth.

Newton's equation a = GM/r^2 predicts it would (as acceleration only
depends on the field of the LARGE object, the Earth), and so does GR,
because all matter and light (regardless of its innate G-field) has to
follow the same geodesic paths.

I spose I'll have to work out the masses for beta+ decay and see if it
confirms my hypothesis. Outside of that, I can't think of any other
way to check it. One piece of evidence is not enough.
.

Relevant Pages