Jump to content
Science Forums

Antimatter black-holes: possibilities/consequences


Recommended Posts

On this thread I have actually only attempted to present two lines of thought:

RE: AMBH and no-hair

A: No-hair theorem predicts that the only information retain from material compacted into black-hole material are mass, charge, and angular-momentum

You should specify that you mean electric charge.

B: Charge comes in two different expressions

Again you should specify that you are talking about electric charge - a counter example: colour charge comes in three different 'expressions'

C: Therefore, scientists believe that a black-hole consuming an imbalance of charge, say “positive,” will result in a black-hole retains that information and would exhibit dynamics of being net “positive.”

Yes this was my line of thought earlier in the thread, not yours, you actually disagreed earlier by saying that this was an un-physical scenario.

D: Mass is displayed via two different expressions

I am guessing that you take this as a fundamental assumption, as you have not provided a physical origin for this hypothesis.

 

I take it that this different expression for anti-mass would be negative. Taking the gravitational force law:

[math]F=\frac{m_1m_2G}{r^2}[/math]

A negative mass for m1 or m2 would provide a repulsive force rather than an attractive on. And if m1 and m2 are both negative masses (both antimatter) they would then attract each other.

 

This seems to fit well with all you have stated. But it brings up some other problems, given E=mc^2 you can quickly see the particles rest mass must be negative. This means that upon annihilation with matter 0 net energy would be produced.

 

So presumable your different 'expression' of mass do not use negative mass. So please tell me how are your different 'expressions' of mass expressed mathematically.

E: Therefore, given “C” we should believe that a black-hole consuming an imbalance of one expression of mass, say antimatter, will exhibit dynamics of being net antimatter.

This 'therefore' is entirely hinged on the assumption of D, but taking D as given I approve of your deduction.

RE: Light interaction with AMBH

A: Light is the antiparticle of itself

true

B: Therefore photons have as much in common with particles as they do with their equivalent antiparticles

Lets talk a little more scientifically shall we? what does this mean 'photons have as much in common..' what properties do they have (or not have) in common?

C: Light has been observed to bend (attractively) as a result of the influence of matter-based black-hole

Actually I dont think this has been directly observed - BUT astronomers have observed our sun, galaxies and galaxy clusters (composed mostly of dark matter) bending light.

D: Therefore, light would be expected to bend (attractively) as a result of the influence of AMBH

Sorry you are going to have to spell out your line of reasoning to me. I dont see how you deduced this. Should not (under your theory) an AMBH provide the opposite (in direction) force on any particle.

RE: Potential gravitational dynamics of AMBH[/b]

A: No understanding exists for the actual gravitational interaction between matter and antimatter (the AEgIS experiment will be the first to weigh in on this question, but results are not yet out.)

Agreed, ultimately there is not yet any direct experimental evidence. BUT I will point you to this paper http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0808/0808.3929v1.pdf it says that indirect experimental evidence already says gravity acts the same way for matter and antimatter.

B: Therefore, when considering questions where matter, antimatter, and gravity all play roles, then we must consider both paths (gravitational repulsion & universal attraction.)

Do you propose that all of physics must be done two ways until we know which approach is correct?

This is done sometimes in physics - when the unknown quantity can be used to explain something else. For example supersymmetry has no experimental evidence, but if it was true it is a solution to many problems in particle physics, thus much research is done testing out its different paths (and there are essentially infinite for SUSY so lucky your hypothesis only has 2 outcomes!).

C: AMBH, theoretically, have the potential of interacting with matter

D: Therefore, when discussion such potential interactions, both paths (gravitational-repulsion & universal attraction) need to both be considered and discussed.

Yes, I do not question this, we only question how they will interact. One approach that would be useful is searching for an apparent contradiction that would arise is one of the paths of potential interactions is used. So at this point I turn back to Qfwfq's example of photons paths near strong gravitational sources. I would like you to logically rectify this apparent contradiction.

 

I also want to pose a question, if gravity from normal matter distorts time in some sense - would you say that gravity from antimatter distorts time in the opposite sense?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 41
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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

Imagine some source is spewing out ions and the process involves a magnetic field that separates them into a positive and negative jet. A highly massive object somewhere in the neighbourhood might be

With regards to photon interaction to black-holes (AMBH or matter-based) the following discussion was asserted. The problem is that a reductio ad absurdum is not actually reached because prevailing t

RE: Light interaction with AMBH[/b]

A: Light is the antiparticle of itself

B: Therefore photons have as much in common with particles as they do with their equivalent antiparticles

C: Light has been observed to bend (attractively) as a result of the influence of matter-based black-hole

D: Therefore, light would be expected to bend (attractively) as a result of the influence of AMBH

 

I believe you are avoiding a major problem with your model as it has been presented.

 

Assuming for the moment that what you say is true, the effects of gravity are such that: matter attracts matter, antimatter attracts antimatter, matter repels antimatter, both matter and antimatter attract particles which are their own antiparticle (e.g. photons and gluons), and photons/gluons attract both matter and antimatter.

 

Now assume you have an atom made of matter in the vicinity of a black hole made of antimatter. You expect the atom to be repelled gravitationally from the antimatter black hole—your dominium model needs this assumption so that mass can segregate in the early universe. But, consider the composition of the atom itself. Most of its mass is in the form of gluons. Very little of the mass comes from the baryonic matter. By necessity you admit that gluons should be attracted to antimatter just as they are attracted to matter.

 

Therefore, some 97% (or more) of the mass of an atom of matter is attracted to the antimatter black hole while its quarks and electrons (3% or less of the mass) is repelled from the hole.

 

From the link Jay-qu gave, section 1.3:

An observation has been made [19] that even if ¯g/g = −1, the antiproton would not “fall up” with acceleration g. This is because a large fraction of the inertial mass of a proton or antiproton comes from its binding energy (the gluon field). While it is unclear whether to use the low momentum current-quark masses or some other quantity (perhaps a chiral mass) as the component which distinguishes between matter and antimatter, if we say that the current-quark mass is critical, then the mass in question is only about 1% of the overall antiproton mass. Taking that viewpoint, the 1% level represents a maximum plausible effect.

 

So, how can photons and quarks be attracted to both matter and antimatter if you want atoms which are made out of these things to repel one another? While I haven't been following your other thread, I haven't seen you address this. Do you propose we reject the standard model completely?

 

~modest

Link to post
Share on other sites

Morning Modest,

 

You appear to have misinterpreted what has been presented:

Assuming for the moment that what you say is true, the effects of gravity are such that: matter attracts matter, antimatter attracts antimatter, matter repels antimatter, both matter and antimatter attract particles which are their own antiparticle (e.g. photons and gluons), and photons/gluons attract both matter and antimatter.

Call it “avoiding,” if you will, but never have I meant to imply anything regarding the gravitational interaction/dynamics of gluons. True, both photon and gluons are both their own antiparticle, but that similarity does not mean that their dynamics are similar. To generalize that all particles that are their own antiparticles possess identical (or even similar) dynamics, would be an unjustifiable accident. We only have a working understanding of the gravitational characteristics of photons, therefore I was able to fashion a categorical statement regarding photons. We have no understanding of the actual gravitational dynamics of gluons, therefore I have never included gluons in any syllogism. No, that is not to say that gluons are unimportant, but because nothing can yet be stated categorically, nothing can yet be deduced.

 

You go on to then start a line of reasoning based on the fact that both matter and antimatter are composed of gluons

But, consider the composition of the atom itself. Most of its mass is in the form of gluons. Very little of the mass comes from the baryonic matter. By necessity you admit that gluons should be attracted to antimatter just as they are attracted to matter.

Boiling down and simplifying this argument, if I may, essentially you are saying that matter and antimatter should have the same characteristics because they are essentially made of the same stuff. (I believe CraigD presented this argumentation earlier.) Essentially this line of reasoning violates the Composition Fallacy: to assume that the dynamics of the whole are the same as the dynamics of its parts; or as in this case, with an extension that both wholes (a particle and its equivalent antiparticle) possess the same characteristics because they are made from the same parts. But, as I said, this reasoning is fallacious and is proven incorrect by multiple natural systems. Probably the best and clearest example disproving this conjecture comes in the form of organic molecules. Organic molecules are made up from carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen as their parts. However, assembled whole molecules can have extreme variation in actual dynamic depending on assemblage. This is true even when the ratios of those four atoms are identical. Therefore, it is assemblage that is important in determining ultimate dynamics.

 

For example, going back to what you originally asserted regarding back to the gravitational dynamics of gluons, let me insert one possibility. {Let it be noted that this is only a possible scenario.} It is possible that a lone gluon possesses no gravitational influence, and that gravitational influence is only achieved through the assemblage. If this were true, then it would explain differences in two expressions of mass (this assertion would apply to either Dominium asserted gravitational-repulsion or traditional universal-attraction paths.)

 

As far as the quote from the Fischler/Lykken/Roberts paper is concerned, that entire line of reasoning that you quoted hinges on the remarks made by Kayser in 1989 at a PAC meeting. I’m sorry, but I hardly consider that “observation” to be either strong or even current evidence. I would actually even go one step further to assert that Kayser’s remarks of 20 years-ago commit the same Composition Fallacy that you appear to be repeating today. Although an explicit assertion was not stated, the composition fallacy does appear to be implicitly within this line

“This is because a large fraction of the inertial mass of a proton or antiproton comes from its binding energy (the gluon field).”

Although this assertion may be true, it does not necessarily follow that the manifest gravitational dynamics need be the same between these two types of particles.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem is that a reductio ad absurdum is not actually reached because prevailing truths are ignored. Specifically, the line it (photons) must be repelled by both because it is the opposite of both. This is an absurd premise, not an absurd conclusion.
It was not my premise, it's a consequence of your premise, that matter and antimatter repel each other. If you yourself recognize it as contrary to fact and call it absurd then I did not need to go further; it was already an absurdum, ad which I reductio your premise.

 

Your syllogism only shows one side of the matter, the factual side, it ignores the counterfactual side which just as easily follows. Jay-Qu provides yet another excellent example; anihilation would produce zero net energy if the masses were of opposite sign. I could add that, since a photon or gluon is equivalent to a fermion-antifermion pair, then it would follow in this manner too, that the boson could be neither attracted nor repelled.

 

Folks, please let us focus on the science and logic.
Yes, let's get the logic straight.
Link to post
Share on other sites

You go on to then start a line of reasoning based on the fact that both matter and antimatter are composed of gluons

Boiling down and simplifying this argument, if I may, essentially you are saying that matter and antimatter should have the same characteristics because they are essentially made of the same stuff. (I believe CraigD presented this argumentation earlier.) Essentially this line of reasoning violates the Composition Fallacy: to assume that the dynamics of the whole are the same as the dynamics of its parts; or as in this case, with an extension that both wholes (a particle and its equivalent antiparticle) possess the same characteristics because they are made from the same parts. But, as I said, this reasoning is fallacious and is proven incorrect by multiple natural systems. Probably the best and clearest example disproving this conjecture comes in the form of organic molecules. Organic molecules are made up from carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen as their parts. However, assembled whole molecules can have extreme variation in actual dynamic depending on assemblage. This is true even when the ratios of those four atoms are identical. Therefore, it is assemblage that is important in determining ultimate dynamics.

 

You are abusing this so called Composition Fallacy - it surely applies to chemistry where the dynamics of the entire system are dependent on the configuration, but you cant then just extend this deduction to physics. It simply does not apply to this physical situation as you have stated. As said earlier gluons contribute most of the rest mass to the overall atoms mass. I may also add that inside the proton there are hundreds of particle antiparticle pairs being brought into existence and annihilated, all of these component particles add to the mass of the atom - since you cant mask gravity or change its influence in any way it doesnt matter how any of this is arraged, the atoms mass is the sum of its component pieces.

 

So here I think we have a major dilemma, quantum fluctuations can change the nature of particles. Consider pair production from a photon that is mediating a force between an orbital electron and nucleus of an atom. This photon represents some binding energy of that atom. Since you say photons are attracted to matter and antimatter they must be adding to the 'normal' matter mass of the atom, but what happens when this photon splits into an electron and a positron - suddenly now the electron has a positive (attractive) influence on the atoms gravitation and the positron has a negative (repulsive) influence on the atoms gravitation. Since these particles have the same amount of mass (Im allowing for different 'expressions' of mass, but the size of this must still be the same) then I would assume that the overall gravity felt from a positron/electron pair must cancel out. This means that suddenly, due to pair production the atom appears to 'lose' some mass. This seems pretty absurd to me and Im pretty sure it hasnt been observed in nature.

 

Now if you do not address this issue, Qfwfq's photon issue and all the issues I raised in my previous post, this thread will be closed - it is far enough off topic already and you have failed to provide us any evidence why your hypothesis is a better one that the current physical understanding.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the term anti-matter is misleading. When one thinks of the term "anti", one pictures the complete opposite. But anti-matter is not the complete opposite of matter, since anti-matter uses the same mass as matter. We need a better term to reflect reality so we don't extrapolate based on a misnomer.

 

Since both matter and anti-matter have a common link, via common mass, and are not complete opposites, if mass formed first, this common precursor of matter and anti-matter could coexist without any annihilation. If we then formed charge, say from neutron density, the most stable arrangement will have selective advantage. Mutant anti-matter may still form, but will become a minor by-product.

 

Instead of looking at the hard data of our dominant matter universe, the anti term makes us want to speculate based on a tiny amount of lab and physical observation and make that the rule. For example, a positron is anti-matter. This is used by matter based nuclei to add or subtract positive charge.

 

Atomic nuclei higher than iron are endothermic during formation. The question is why don't all positrons within matter based nuclei beyond iron, try to annihilate, since this is exothermic. Instead they take the endothermic path. This seems to imply the matter arrangement is the preferred arrangement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Qfwfq, let me understand you a bit more clearly.

Your syllogism only shows one side of the matter, the factual side, it ignores the counterfactual side which just as easily follows.

Now, just for the record, your are referring to this syllogism, correct?

RE: Light interaction with AMBH

A: Light is the antiparticle of itself

B: Therefore photons have as much in common with particles as they do with their equivalent antiparticles

C: Light has been observed to bend (attractively) as a result of the influence of matter-based black-hole

D: Therefore, light would be expected to bend (attractively) as a result of the influence of AMBH

Now, you claim that the “counterfactual side” follows just as easily. Okay, that is an interesting claim. So please, just as I have done, show syllogistically how the “counterfactual side” is just as easy to draw.

 

Sorry but the last part of your post is disjointed and needs more elaboration before any agreement/rebuttal can be made. Specifically, there appear to be two, possibly three lines of reason that appear to be packed into your last words. Please elaborate and, if possible cite supporting evidence to back up these unfinished thoughts

anihilation would produce zero net energy if the masses were of opposite sign. I could add that, since a photon or gluon is equivalent to a fermion-antifermion pair, then it would follow in this manner too, that the boson could be neither attracted nor repelled.

I have no problem responding to your points, but I would just request that you spell them out a bit further so that I know what to respond to.

 

=====

 

Jay-qu, on what grounds do you accuse me of “abusing” the Composition Fallacy?

You are abusing this so called Composition Fallacy - it surely applies to chemistry where the dynamics of the entire system are dependent on the configuration, but you cant then just extend this deduction to physics. It simply does not apply to this physical situation as you have stated.

First of all, fallacies are not situation-specific. Fallacies are the result of flawed argumentation structure. Therefore, they would not be (as is suggested) applicable to one situation (chem) but non-applicable to another (physics.) Also, Composition fallacies are not “so-called” I was actually referring to descriptions of this informal fallacy from Copi’s Introduction to Logic 6th edition pages 124-126. Now, you have just made a huge claim: Compostion fallacies cannot apply to this physical situations. That is truly huge. Why? Why can Composition fallacies apply to flawed chemical-arguments, but when speaking physics there is no flaw?

 

The last part of this paragraph is disjointed from the conversation. Let me remind you, the conversation was about the dynamics of gluons, gravitational influences of matter, and possible expressions of antimatter. Although the words following regarding Composition fallacies may actually link in to the line of conversation, no actual linkage appears visible:

As said earlier gluons contribute most of the rest mass to the overall atoms mass. I may also add that inside the proton there are hundreds of particle antiparticle pairs being brought into existence and annihilated, all of these component particles add to the mass of the atom - since you cant mask gravity or change its influence in any way it doesnt matter how any of this is arraged, the atoms mass is the sum of its component pieces.

*Just a side note: Your unlined ending is a bit misleading and borderline incorrect. In nuclear operations there is commonly a mass-defect. To say that an atom’s mass is the sum of its parts gives the impression that there is no mass-defect. (I know, surely you meant to include the energy involved, I just wouldn’t want silent reader to become confused.)

 

The last paragraph of this post hinges around the concept of pair production. I’m not quite sure I follow your narrative. Perhaps you are referring to a different form of pair production of which I am not yet aware. Let me spell out my understanding of pair-production in a simple clean manner so that you might correct/add nuances that I might be missing. My goal is to ultimately build a working syllogism to which we can both agree. Once we have a working syllogism that we both agree represents the scientific principles and flows logically, then we can advance further.

 

A: Pair-production is a manifestation of energy conversion into mass, E=mc^2

B: Pair-production produces a positron (antimatter; positive charge) and an electron (matter; negative charge)

C: In the process of pair-production net increase in charge produced is zero

D: In the process of pair-production net increase mass produced is zero

E: If an electron and a positron happen to be at the same place at the same time the annihilate, through the reverse process, mc^2=E

F: For the entire process, pair-production/annihilation, conservation of energy, charge, and mass holds.

 

That is my understanding. From the truths associated with pair-production, I don’t see how you can reach the conclusion that the atom loses mass. Perhaps there is a different type of pair-production of which I am currently unaware that you are referring to. If so, please be kind enough to supply a link so that you might enlighten me. Regardless, please use the skeletal syllogism provided and revise it so that it meets your intended message.

Link to post
Share on other sites

=====

Jay-qu, on what grounds do you accuse me of “abusing” the Composition Fallacy?

First of all, fallacies are not situation-specific. Fallacies are the result of flawed argumentation structure. Therefore, they would not be (as is suggested) applicable to one situation (chem) but non-applicable to another (physics.)

This is just absurd, there is absolutely no logical reason why the you can take an argument from chemistry and apply it to physics. Chemistry also supposes that mass is conserved in all reactions - not so in physics.

 

Like I said before gravity acts on each individual part of the atom, it doesnt care what the arragement is (as in your chemistry example). A free gluon and a gluon inside an atom are one in the same and would both act the same gravitationally.

A: Pair-production is a manifestation of energy conversion into mass, E=mc^2

B: Pair-production produces a positron (antimatter; positive charge) and an electron (matter; negative charge)

C: In the process of pair-production net increase in charge produced is zero

D: In the process of pair-production net increase mass produced is zero

Wrong. Pair production starts with a photon (massless) and produces a positron electron pair (both have mass). Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production. So the rest of my argument holds just fine.

 

I am closing this thread as it has gone off topic and Hasanuddin has been unable to provide counter arguments to the problems arising from antimatter possessing some kind of 'anti-mass'. If you want to continue the discussion please PM me or start a new thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...