Antimatter black-holes: possibilities/consequences

[Hasanuddin]

Antimatter Black-holes: what is their nature?

 

This new thread is spun off of “Smallest stable black-holes” because the question of antimatter black-holes (AMBH) is exceedingly interesting, it is not actually 100% connected to the notion of the requirements of creating that smallest-sized black-holes.

 

Antimatter does not have anti-mass, it will act gravitationally just like any normal matter. Therefore I would not expect an AMBH to be repulsive.

This statement commits two mistakes. The first mistake is to liken the human-assigned prefix “anti” to the mathematical concept of negative-numbers. This equivocation lead to the truly wrong assignment of negative-mass. Although matter and antimatter are opposites, not all opposites a numeric-sign opposites. Just consider ♂ vs ♀, these are opposites of one another & they are the same genus of being, yet neither (sophomoric jokes aside) is truly “negative.”

 

The second mistake is to assume that the gravitational relationship between matter and antimatter is known. Although I agree that antimatter “will act gravitationally” and I expect this interaction to be “normal,” that does not preclude the possibility of gravitational-repulsion. There are two threads dedicated to the modern Dominium model that you will enjoy: http://hypography.com/forums/alternative-theories/18910-the-dominium-model-by-hasanuddin.html

http://hypography.com/forums/alternative-theories/19536-the-dominium-model-part-2-a.html

 

Currently the exact gravitational relationship between matter and antimatter is completely unknown. It is arguably one of the greatest unknowns of the frontiers of physical understanding. Fortunately, CERN is about to conduct a simple, but pivotal, experiment that will answer this question (hopefully) once and for all. WELCOME TO AEgIS

 

Further confusion of the Dominium notion of gravitational-repulsion is shown with the comment

Besides, if anti-matter were gravitationally repulsive, they would never fall together to fall a black hole in the first place.

No. Gravitational-repulsion is only displayed between matter and antimatter. Between antimatter and antimatter, gravitational attraction would occur just as it does between matter and matter. In other words, it’s the inverse relationship seen in electrostatics: Likes attract; opposites repel.

 

Therefore AMBH could form; therefore parity between AMBH and MBH would be maintained.

 

I wholeheartedly agree when it was said:

This is indeed very interesting, and definitely worthy of its own thread. (Sorry for thread-jackin', by the way)

No problems. Having topics being too interesting is much better than the alternative. I’m going to post this now in hopes of tying up the other thread… I am supremely interested in CraigD’s response… please continue any/all conversations of AMBH here. Thanks

 

Note: This thread is open to all aspects of the probable nature of AMBH. Although this opening answers the questions of Jay-qu and Boerseun re the gravitational-repulsion option, there is also the option of universal-attraction as discussed at:

...

[Boerseun]

Hasanuddin, if you were presented with a piece of matter or a piece of antimatter, there is no way in which to tell which it is, unless you touch it or throw something it it.

 

All other properties will be identical, save the switch in charge. It's electrons are positive, and its protons are negative. That's the totality of the difference between the two.

 

An antimatter planet will orbit our sun completely unaware of the fact that the one is matter and the other antimatter. It's mass characteristics and its response to other mass in gravitational interaction is identical to that of normal matter.

 

There is no difference in dimensions, weight, colour, smell, or anything whatsoever - only reversed charges.

[Hasanuddin]

if you were presented with a piece of matter or a piece of antimatter, there is no way in which to tell which it is, unless you touch it or throw something it it.

I agree(ish). If you were just looking at a chunk of something that is contained within a vacuum, I agree that you would not be able to know whether it is matter or antimatter. Matter and antimatter should both interact identically with light (because light is the antiparticle of itself and would therefore have as much in common with matter as it does antimatter.) Therefore, what you are viewing would “look” identical in either case.

 

However when that post goes on to say:

An antimatter planet will orbit our sun completely unaware of the fact that the one is matter and the other antimatter. It's mass characteristics and its response to other mass in gravitational interaction is identical to that of normal matter.

I totally disagree that you have any basis to make such claims with the absolute certainty that is conveyed. There is no evidence to support such opinions. The only way an antimatter planet would orbit a matter-based star is if there were mutual attraction between the two. Understand that the exact gravitational nature between matter and antimatter is currently a complete unknown. Hopefully, soon that question will be answered by AEgIS. Please refer to this link (2nd time posted): WELCOME TO AEgIS

 

Also, it is an oversimplification to say

There is no difference in dimensions, weight, colour, smell, or anything whatsoever - only reversed charges.

On some levels I agree that parity and symmetry will cause mirror similarities between the two. However or a structural level (quark vs antiquark) matter and antimatter have more than just a charge inverse relationship.

[lawcat]

Since matter and antimatter are so similar, is there anti matter Mendeleyev's periodic table?

[Hasanuddin]

Replying to unsettled questions from the other thread:

 

The question of AMBH vs. MBH annihilating was answered here by an Astronomer.

 

Curious About Astronomy: What happens when an antimatter black hole collides with a matter blackhole?

I disagree. The site provided does not answer this particular question. In fact, this article ultimately twists the question around to conclude that the question can’t be asked. Saying

Thus we can't really talk about a black hole created by a matter star versus a black hole created by an antimatter star, let alone what would happen if they were to collide.

The reasoning for this non-answer evasion is given by human-sampling limitations

When a black hole is formed, since no information can leave the black hole due to its intense gravity, there is no way for us to tell what exact process or type of star created the black hole. We can only measure a black hole's mass, electrical charge, and angular momentum.

Problem: Although “no information” appears leaves a black-hole (for us to record other than mass, charge, and angular momentum), does that mean that no other information exists? No. Past failure to detect information does not mean that no other info exists. Also, even if markers are not outwardly displayed, does that mean that info is lost? Again, not necessarily.

 

I agree later with:

It would seem to me that a collision would cause anhilation which would produce lots of gamma rays. These gamma rays would be unable to escape and would be trapped. So, in essence, the resultant mass should simply be the mass of BH#1 plus BH#2.[/

I agree that this is the expected outcome under conditions of universal-attraction. Yes, that would make sense.

 

However, under the equally plausible conditions of gravitational-repulsion (assuming that AMBH retain a signature of being antimatter) then a collision of AMBH with MBH would be an impossibility given the powerful repulsive forces deterring such an interaction.

 

Finally, to this new thread it was posted

Since matter and antimatter are so similar, is there anti matter Mendeleyev's periodic table?

If parity and symmetry hold, then the answer to that question is categorically "yes." Antimatter is the mirror equivalent to matter. Therefore, systems comprised solely of antimatter should behave in mirror identical fashion to systems made of matter.

[lawcat]

 

 

If parity and symmetry hold, then the answer to that question is categorically "yes." Antimatter is the mirror equivalent to matter. Therefore, systems comprised solely of antimatter should behave in mirror identical fashion to systems made of matter.

 

Then, if that is true, then the laws of strong, to weaker, to weak force interactions would hold true for antimatter. And, molecules would form to creates antimatter molecules. And, molecules would converge to form antimatter planets. And planets would burn energy. And, all these interactions would give off radiations which would indicate their presence in the universe. And we would see no difference between matter and antimatter as detected by radiation?

[modest]

When a black hole is formed, since no information can leave the black hole due to its intense gravity, there is no way for us to tell what exact process or type of star created the black hole. We can only measure a black hole's mass, electrical charge, and angular momentum.

Problem: Although “no information” appears leaves a black-hole (for us to record other than mass, charge, and angular momentum), does that mean that no other information exists? No. Past failure to detect information does not mean that no other info exists. Also, even if markers are not outwardly displayed, does that mean that info is lost? Again, not necessarily.

 

It's nothing to do with "failure to detect information". It's a logical conclusion of the Einstein-Maxwell equations of gravitation and electromagnetism in general relativity that's called the no hair theorem.

 

No hair theorem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

According to the no hair theorem, a matter black hole and an antimatter black hole cannot be distinguished by *any* method from outside the event horizon (including tests of attraction/repulsion.

 

~modest

[Hasanuddin]

Hi lawcat,

 

The quick answer to your observation is, “yes, again.”

Then, if that is true, then the laws of strong, to weaker, to weak force interactions would hold true for antimatter. And, molecules would form to creates antimatter molecules. And, molecules would converge to form antimatter planets. And planets would burn energy. And, all these interactions would give off radiations, which would indicate their presence in the universe. And we would see no difference between matter and antimatter as detected by radiation?

Yes, as long as symmetry and parity hold then all things possible in matter based chemistry should be possible in antimatter based chemistry. In our sun the process of fusion is converting a net four hydrogens at a time into one helium-4, two positrons, and energy. Similarly an antimatter star would be expected to undergo a process of antifusion where four antihydrogens is converted into one antihelium-4, two electrons, and energy. The photonic energy between the two cases would be identical because light is the antiparticle of itself. Therefore, an Earth observatory measuring the light-signature of a distant star and/or galaxy would have no methodology of being able to distinguish whether the source was composed of matter or antimatter.

 

*Remember, there exists no direct sampling evidence of any place in the Universe that is not appallingly close to Earth. Literally, humanity has only directly sampled from this one infinitesimal and insignificant solar system. We’ve barely scratched the surface with our own galaxy. The Dominium model asserts that other galaxies are made of antimatter. Now, try to remember the size of a galaxy. The distance between galaxies make the size of them individually seem hardly noticeable. The scales we are discussion are quite large. Which loops back to the original point, the scales in question are huge; we only have photonic data. The fact that antimatter systems are predicted to undergo identical mirror dynamics, photonic data generated would be indistinguishable from data from our own matter-based Milky Way galaxy.

[Hasanuddin]

Hi Modest,

 

Sorry, I believe I didn’t explain myself well enough. I know of this audacious hypothesis. I just don't have much respect for this particular theory. First off on what grounds/evidence/priority does one assert a hypothesis as a “Theorem.” Furthermore, I have never had much faith in this particular scenario because the structure of the argument is a classic example of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: everything is based on no-recorded-data pointing in one particular direction.

 

Yes yes, I know, this hypothesis comes from an interpretation of Maxwell and Einstein’s theories. That fact is of trivial intrigue, but that endorsement does not constitute actual physical evidence. There is no evidence backing this assertion, because the “assertion” is of no evidence. Do you see how that logic creates a circle? In other words, the “No-hair theorem” essentially non-falsifiable (and therefore not meeting scientific rigor) given current physical knowledge.

[modest]

I know of this audacious hypothesis. I just don't have much respect for this particular theory.

It's not an hypothesis or a theory, it is a theorem.

First off on what grounds/evidence/priority does one assert a hypothesis as a “Theorem.”

A theorem is a logical conclusion given certain postulates or axioms. In this case, if the Einstein-Maxwell equations of gravitation and electromagnetism in general relativity are correct then the no hair theorem logically follows. For the theorem to be wrong, the axioms on which it is built must be wrong.

 

~modest

[Hasanuddin]

Hi again Modest,

 

According to Theorem Definition | Definition of Theorem at Dictionary.com

the⋅o⋅rem  [thee-er-uhm, theer-uhm]

–noun

1. Mathematics. a theoretical proposition, statement, or formula embodying something to be proved from other propositions or formulas.

2. a rule or law, esp. one expressed by an equation or formula.

3. Logic. a proposition that can be deduced from the premises or assumptions of a system.

4. an idea, belief, method, or statement generally accepted as true or worthwhile without proof.

 

The no-hair theorem only fits (barely) the first definition. I find it very hard to consider “no-hair” to be proved when its whole “basis” is lack of data. No, the equations may appear to be tight, but that does not prove truth. Such proof can only come in the form of evidence; and lack of evidence does not constitute evidence.

 

Consider the other definitions of “theorem” and see how such a description is a blatant overstatement when applied to no-hair.

 

Def #2: The no-hair notion cannot be considered “law” without evidentiary support. How also could it be considered a “rule” if there is no actual physical evidence that is examined.

 

Def #3: Logic. There is no possible one can say that this argument necessarily reaches its conclusions. As mentioned, the no-hair assumption commits one of the most established of all informal fallacies, Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. By definition, the conclusions of this argument cannot to be reached deductively because of the presence of a very well understood fallacious construct.

 

Def #4: It’s hard to say that no-hair is “generally accepted as true,” because the only people who know about it are only a tiny portion of the national population. Even if you poll all people who consider themselves scientists, only a select few know much about it.

 

The number of close-up or long-term monitoring of a black-hole is essentially nil. Yes, our ability to obtain direct samples of black-hole dynamics is nonexistent. Without the ability to directly observe, it is only natural that there is very little data. How can anyone be surprised (let alone draw conclusions from) this lack of actual data?

 

It's not an hypothesis or a theory, it is a theorem.

Question Modest, does the list of options you gave for naming things encompass all options? No, it doesn’t, does it? The problem with the word “theorem” is carries a degree of high-certainty with it. But no model based on no observations can be accepted without skepticism. I’d be much happier had they called it the no-hair model or the no-hair indication. Both are correctly descriptive, yet needs lets the horse leave the stable before scrutiny by the scientific community. Actually, the audacity of the model comes from the fact that its original authors slapped themselves with the moniker “theorem” before the scientific community was allotted time to digest it.

 

The tenuous nature of no hair is evidenced by the "strength" of its Wikipedia entry: No hair theorem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This article shows just how obscure and non-embraced by the scientific community. Only two listed supporting note and only one reference. How can a notion with only one reference be considered a “law,” “rule,” or embraced by the majority? Add on to that question that there is no supporting evidence and no way to falsify this assertion experimentally. (Without, of course, creating a synthetic black-hole in the lab and see what happens… but it’d be stupid to do that wouldn’t it?)

[freeztar]

The photonic energy between the two cases would be identical because light is the antiparticle of itself. Therefore, an Earth observatory measuring the light-signature of a distant star and/or galaxy would have no methodology of being able to distinguish whether the source was composed of matter or antimatter.

 

GLAST, now the Fermi telescope, is able to look for signatures of antimatter by examining cosmic ray interactions with interstellar medium. The fact that they are even seeing signatures of matter/anti-matter annihilation in the interstellar medium does not give much credence to the Dominion Model. But that's for a different thread...

 

http://people.roma2.infn.it/~glast/DM_Workshop05/Gary_DM_WorkshopGLAST2.pdf

[Moontanman]

Ok, here is a thought....Since photons are their own antiparticles, they are attracted to both matter and antimatter. Doesn't it follow that both matter and antimatter are attractive to each other?

 

And since a strong electromagnetic field (which is composed of photons) has a gravitational field doesn't this mean that gravity is the same for matter and antimatter?

 

And if indeed an antimatter black hole and a matter black holes were to merge all the mass would be come photons which would still have the same gravity field so the BH would not change from the view point of an outside observer?

[modest]

Hi again Modest,

 

According to Theorem Definition | Definition of Theorem at Dictionary.com

 

the⋅o⋅rem  [thee-er-uhm, theer-uhm]

–noun

1. Mathematics. a theoretical proposition, statement, or formula embodying something to be proved from other propositions or formulas.

2. a rule or law, esp. one expressed by an equation or formula.

3. Logic. a proposition that can be deduced from the premises or assumptions of a system.

4. an idea, belief, method, or statement generally accepted as true or worthwhile without proof.

 

The no-hair theorem only fits (barely) the first definition.

 

I'm not trying to debate you. You genuinly seem to be unfamiliar with theorems and I'm trying to explain. They are the conclusions that are reached when one applies logic to axioms. Axioms are like postulates. They are something that is assumed to be true. A theorem is nothing more than the logical consequences of some given basic premises. The Pythagorean theorem is a good example.

 

The definitions 1-3 above apply, but the link I gave you to wikipedia does far better at explaining:

 

Theorem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

I find it very hard to consider “no-hair” to be proved when its whole “basis” is lack of data.

 

It is neither proved nor based on lack of data. It's a theorem. It is a logical consequence of the Einstein-Maxwell equations of gravitation and electromagnetism in general relativity. It is simply a consequence of the Maxwell-Einstein field equations. If they are correct then the theorem must logically be correct as well. If they are found incorrect then so would the theorem.

 

The no hair theorem is similar to Birkhoff's theorem.

 

Question Modest, does the list of options you gave for naming things encompass all options? No, it doesn’t, does it? The problem with the word “theorem” is carries a degree of high-certainty with it.

 

A theorem requires proof that it is logically deduced from the postulates (or axioms). It is not proved to be true by evidence or by experiment, but rather: proved by logic to be true *if* the postulates are true. Any evidence that supports the postulates also supports the theorem, and any evidence contradicting the postulates also contradicts the theorem. In this case, again, the postulates are the Maxwell-Einstein field equations which are extremely well tested.

 

But no model based on no observations can be accepted without skepticism. I’d be much happier had they called it the no-hair model or the no-hair indication. Both are correctly descriptive, yet needs lets the horse leave the stable before scrutiny by the scientific community.

 

It's nothing like a scientific model. A model is a simplified representation of a complex thing such as the solar system model of the atom. A model is very different from a theorem.

 

Actually, the audacity of the model comes from the fact that its original authors slapped themselves with the moniker “theorem” before the scientific community was allotted time to digest it.

 

The only thing a theorem requires is a logical deductive proof which follows from certain postulates. For example, I can use the rules of Euclidean geometry to prove that the sum of the squares of two sides of a triangle equals the square of the third side (the Pythagorean theorem). I can prove this using only the 5 postulates of Euclidean geometry and without measuring any sides of any triangles. It would then be possible to say: "If Euclidean geometry is correct then the Pythagorean theorem is true".

 

There's no audacity involved in finding a theorem.

 

~modest

[Jay-qu]

Ok let me just get some things straight. I posted this in the other thread and will repeat it here.

 

Matter has the opposite charges to normal matter, charges are quantum numbers - the electric charge is the most physically accessible quantum number to our intellect. Other charges are also reversed when swapping from matter to antimatter.

 

Black holes are said to destroy information, ie they only keep the bare minimum of information of what they have sucked in. To stop our conservation laws from been violated, the black hole would have to at least take on the (net) basic quantum numbers of the particles it sucks in.

AFAIK this has not been proven, electrically charged black hole solutions have been found (but are horrendously complex) but extending this to other fundamental charges has not been realised mathematically.

It would be very elegant if this could be done (and I dont see why it couldnt be), so far the only hairy black hole solutions I have heard of are formulated in anti-desitter space or higher dimensional space.

FYI a hairy black hole is one that has physical properties other than the basic ones stated in the no hair theorem.

[Hasanuddin]

Let me spell this out a little bit: Black holes will suck in all sorts of matter like electrons and protons, if it sucks in more electrons the black hole will have a net negative charge. An antimatter black hole may have sucked in positrons and negatrons, if it sucked in more positrons the black hole will have a net positive charge. These two black holes with opposing charges would attract each other - but this does not mean they annihilate when they collide, as a black hole made of electrons and one made of protons certainly wouldnt annihilate.

Sorry, but I only truly agree with only one sentence here. It is also the only sentence that was presented categorically, “Black holes will suck in all sorts of matter like electrons and protons, if it sucks in more electrons the black hole will have a net negative charge.” Ya, but so what? Under what conditions would a black-hole be sucking up more electrons than protons? Where does such a charge imbalanced section of the galaxy or Universe exist. Sorry, but I am not partial to hypotheticals that do not exist in nature or could not be reproduced.

 

After that point, I agree with nothing, again because the conditions do not fit with what anyone would expect from nature. “An antimatter black hole may have sucked in positrons and negatrons, if it sucked in more positrons the black hole will have a net positive charge.” {First, by negatrons you mean “antiprotons,” correct? Let’s just stay with traditional definitions for everyone following along.} Secondly, again, why should there be a charge imbalance to set this hypothetical up in the first place?

 

The last part of this post is pure fantasy. You take you two charge-imbalanced black-holes that you fancifully created in two exotic unknown and unspecified regions of the Universe. Now, suddenly, you move these to objects within range of each other? How? We can’t consider your conclusions until you can show us why/how conditions are set.

[Hasanuddin]

Hi freeztar,

 

GLAST, now the Fermi telescope, is able to look for signatures of antimatter by examining cosmic ray interactions with interstellar medium. The fact that they are even seeing signatures of matter/anti-matter annihilation in the interstellar medium does not give much credence to the Dominion Model. But that's for a different thread...

 

http://people.roma2.infn.it/~glast/D...shopGLAST2.pdf

Just a quick note, and apologies that I can’t reply to all the others (I’m on the road to Chicago—Maumee, Ohio to be exact—I’m attending the American Library Association Book Show) But I will try to reply at night.

 

Actually freetzar, low levels of background matter/antimatter annihilation signatures are expected by the Dominium model. Remember the MAC formation at the center of the Milky Way. We only see that structure because of the annihilation signatures of high energy particles colliding with its matrix. The original Dominium model’s conclusions 17 and 19 categorically deduced that a cloud structure of AMBH must be surrounding how supermassive black-hole, thereby preventing the collapse of the galaxy. So the question could be, how could annihilation happen at MAC when the Dominium model predicts immiscibility. Well, the MAC structure is a bit queer. True it is predicted to be made of higher repulsive AMBH, but it shaped as a spheroid shell. On one side of the wall of the shell is the supermassive black-hole; on the other is the bulk of the “galaxy proper.” Because of this destructive interference offered by these competing forces, annihilation events become possible.

 

The Dominium model predicts that all galaxies will have MAC structures. Therefore, annihilation events should be occurring at all MAC structures just has been observed and mapped by the Integral mission. ESA - Space Science - Integral discovers the galaxy’s antimatter cloud is lopsided

Therefore one would categorically expect to see low-levels of annihilation event signatures detected by missions like GLAST