I wish this to be a quizzical discussion on the ramifications of a single premise: What if matter and antimatter gravitationally repel one another. Then what?

Although such a starting point seems like a sci-fi type of statement, it is actually conservative and grounded. Despite the mundane pervasiveness of gravity, there has never been an actual measurement of the gravitational effects between the subatomic samples of matter vs antimatter that have been tested in labs to date. Therefore, in the complete absence of verifying data, one could use either position (gravitational repulsion or attraction between matter and antimatter) to begin a construct to explain the workings of the Universe, i.e., during the Big Bang, modern-day, in the future, and not only celestially, but implications would also extend to occurrences here on Earth.

True, I have already followed the path that extends from this reasoning point and that does ultimately form a cohesive model, the Dominium. This new model is without apparent anomalous contradiction from the scientific record; however, I could have made a mistake. This discussion is meant to uncover such mistakes by beginning at ground zero of the construct an in this thread see where ramifications truly follow. Either a fatal flaw will be found and the new model can be discarded, or this thread will add new supports and evidence to a model that is more correct than the currently held models that are plagued by contradictory phenomena in nature that are completely anomalous to the predictions of these popular theories and hypotheses.

So why am I posting this discussion on this LHC watchdog website? Well, at first glance this does look a bit odd. But when I extended this model out, a glaring conclusion popped out: that mini and micro black-holes WILL be stable. This would be extremely bad news if the folks at LHC accidentally push the envelope a bit too far and create man’s first mini black-hole. Note: I, and the new model, do not say nor conclude that LHC will produce a black-hole; just what would happen in that event that they do. Actually, it is the hypothesis of Hawking Radiation at which the Dominium model takes aim. However, please do not discuss this portion of the model until this thread reaches that point (if it does.) Perhaps the Dominium model is flawed early on; in that case this thread might not ever reach relevant reason to discuss the stability requirements of black-holes.

Before we begin, let me just request that this discussion remain unemotional, scientific, and polite. Please also adhere to the deductive process. Also, remember scope: in comparison to the Universe we are all much more puny and more short-lived than microbes. The starting premise I present will be expected to have natural ramifications as a result. In a way, this will be like a game of checkers or chess. We each will attempt to take moves





I will take the first move. I will present the first obvious ramification. You—everyone in blogland—either try to find a reason why I cannot make that move, make a counter-move that negates mine, or add-in the next ramification that you see. Although my own completed model, the Dominium by Hasanuddin, is published and available at online booksellers, you will not need it for this thread. Hopefully, if everyone adheres to using data to justify their deductions then all the evidence needed for understanding this thread should be contained within.


Move #1: If matter and antimatter repel, then affects/effect would strongest during the beginning moments of the Big Bang.

Supporting evidence:
1. Electric charge (the other “big,” known, and understood field force) exponentially increases in magnitude when place at decreasing distances.

2. Initial stages of the Big Bang coincides with the time when distances between particles were closest together

**Alternative to reading through the banter on this thread, go to my "knol" summarization of these discussions at http://knol.google.com/k/hasanuddin-has ... qf6gddc/1#

OK.. I am willing to play for a short bit.. assuming you can stay rational for the length of it.

1. If matter and anti-matter repel each other, why do we see them mutually annihilate each other anytime they are allowed to touch. This happens all the time in experiments and is quite well established. If they repel each other, one would expect the effect to scale up as they approach and make it impossible for them to touch, ergo you should not get any annihilation.

Let's start there.

True matter and antimatter do annihilate when forced into the same local at the same time. Regardless of the truth of that statement, no evidence is given supporting/countering either starting point (Gravitational repulsion or gravitational attraction.) For Earth-generated antimatter, there is a statistical certainty that it must, eventually, encounter a collision with matter whether there is a propensity to steer towards or away from it … the density of particles is just too high.

Now, let me examine your conjecture: “If they repel each other, one would expect the effect to scale up as they approach and make it impossible for them to touch.” I agree that you would be correct under extremely low particle densities, such as the space existing between the planets. However, compare an area of space there to an area of space near the Earth’s surface, e.g., the inside of a lab building—I haven’t tried to make this calculation, but I know the density difference is severe.

Let me note: I wholeheartedly agree that we would expect the effect to scale-up as they approach. But again, given conditions of high particle density of the opposite-type material, collision will become inevitable.

Let’s get back to the Big Bang:
During the initial moments of the Big Bang particle density of an area of space would be at its all-time maximum, correct. Therefore, if gravitational repulsion is displayed, then its effects/affects would be at a maximum… correct?

Before we move on to the Big Bang we still need to establish your first point conclusively, which you have yet to do.

You may not realize how antimatter is stored, but it is usually contained in something called a Penning Trap. This uses a combination of electric and magnetic fields to trap charged antimatter... in a vacuum.

You did catch that last bit about the vacuum. Now, more importantly there have been a number of anti atoms built. An anti atom being neutral in charge is no longer trapped...



Note again that this is all done in a vacuum. ATRAP has been doing a lot of that lately with extremely interesting results, from what I read.

Based on your theory, antimatter in a vacuum would never hit the walls of it's containment. This is obviously false.

Though I would like to move onto the Big Bang I understand the need to dwell a little in this area.

First, I actually do understand how antimatter is created cooled and stored. What I believe that you are leaving out of consideration is that low energy does not mean no energy. True the penning trap is a semi-contained area, but the antiparticles stored within do have KE and momentum.

Yes, I did catch the bit about a vacuum—you are quite correct. That is why antiparticles have been successfully stored in this manner for months at a time. But your observation feeds into my last point: high particle density of an opposite type (e.g., the matter of the solid containment wall) is what forces a collision to occur despite proposed gravitational repulsion. Combined that with a preexisting KE/momentum of the positron and antiproton forming the anti-H and annihilation, which necessarily also possesses KE/momentum, and again annihilation becomes inevitable.

Also, I daresay, the last conclusion of your post is also flawed. I agree that given the notion of gravitational repulsion an antiparticle with zero KE in a symmetric containment vessel would never annihilate; however, if and only if, the vessel itself was under zero-gravity conditions, like deep space. Because these experiments are done on Earth, gravitational fields would highly skewed and not be due to the containment vessel alone. However, such an opportunity has not yet existed. Therefore, one cannot say with any degree of certainty whether or not it is hypothetically possible to prevent an annihilation event in a lab on Earth without any external containment.

(Please excuse the fact that for the next week it will be difficult for me to respond promptly, I’m leaving right now to go out of state, but I will check in as much as possible.)

Actually, the particles that annihilate are oppositely charged, such as electron positron annihilation. Therefore, since the electromagnetic force of attraction between them is dozens of orders of magnitude larger than any theorized gravitational repulsion, they would in fact still annihilate!

Of course, since the mass energy of the positron is exactly the same as that of the electron, and is not negative, then according to General Relativity, they will not repel ordinary matter at all, but will attract exactly the same as an electron. The effect is still vanishingly small compared to the electromagnetic force.

Then the antimatter would have negative mass. So the total energy for positron electron annihilation would be zero. So we wouldn't observe ANY gamma rays from such interactions.

Since we do, even on a cosmic scale, I'd say your idea is totally dead in the water. Hell, even the Starship Enterprise wouldn't be able to switch on its warp engines. The annihilation energy available from the matter/antimatter fuel would be ZERO.










They couldn't. See above.



It doesn't. It increases according to the "inverse square law", which is not the same mathematically as an exponential increase.

F = kR^-2

is not the same as

F = ke^-R



Actually initially there were none of the familiar fundamental particles whatsoever, whether particle or antiparticle.

Back to the drawing board.

Now if you can find or create some negative matter then you could have real antigravity. If the quantities were as small as the tiny quantities of antiparticles created in particle accelerators, then I wouldn't expect practical application to construction, transport, spaceflight etc anytime soon.

Now that's a pity, because I was raised on science fiction, and had great expectations inspired by same in my youth.

This was written to robdegraves:

Happy Valentine’s Day! While offline, I realized that there is another, very profound, reason why (given the premise of gravitational repulsion) all past observations of antiparticles show them “drifting” into the walls of the containment vessels: Newton’s 1st Law, the Earth’s actual momentum due to wobble, rotation, and journey around the Sun, and also gravitational affects that would be opposite of those needed to sustain centripetal acceleration. Depending on the locations of the Earth, Moon, and Sun relative to the sample and depending on the direction of its “true” momentum at that given moment, the sample could literately be hurled toward any sector of the containment vessels walls. Although the resulting spray pattern of positions annihilated might appear to be randomly distributed, it would not change the fact that they were inevitable (perhaps even predictable,) given very old and grounded laws of Physics.

You site a fact: No containment facility has every sustained an antiparticle within a vacuum once the fields are ineffective without it “drifting” into the containment walls. I find this fact is actually extreme intriguing! Think about it: theoretically, given enough time, someone somewhere must be able to cool and combine a positron and antiproton such that upon conception the anti-H possess zero KE, right? Just consider the sheer number of chances researchers have had up until now; there must be reams of data. Every antihydrogen ever produced had a chance of born with zero KE—but that statistic hasn’t seemed to have happen yet, correct? I am now suggesting that maybe some of these past experiments were more successful than technicians originally realized. It would be VERY interesting to go back and look at occasions when the created anti-H first “appeared” to have zero KE, but subsequently drifted into one particular wall or another. The exact time, date, and GPS location of this occurrence would need to be known so that the position of the Sun and Moon (Earth is known, of course) to calculate the directions of (reversed) gravitational force vectors. More importantly, the exact direction of velocity of all objects in that lab would need to be calculated (relative to the Universe, not relative to Earth, as we always oversimplify.) I would be extremely interested to see such an analysis. If the spray pattern still appears to be random, nothing is resolved. However, given the assumption of gravitational repulsion—and once Newton’s 1st and actual velocities relative to the Universe are taken into account—if the pattern is no longer random, then the basement premise of the Dominium model would be conclusively proven.

*Note: You realize this is a high stakes game: many, but certainly not all, current popular hypothetical models rest on a foundation of gravitational attraction between matter and antimatter. If the new model is correct, then all those based on the flawed premise are necessarily incorrect. This game of deduction that you and I are now playing is not meant to dis’ anyone. Personally, I just enjoy thinking about science, logic, and nature; that’s really all I’m in it for. Besides, is it a “bad” or “strange” thing if popular beliefs concerning natural events turn out to be flawed? How many times has a new model come along that turns the tables on the perceived understanding of the data, but not the data itself? Not too many, right?…so it would be “strange” if this new model is more correct; but would it be “bad?” Quite the opposite, such historic moments are profound leading to great advancements for individuals, the scientific community, and of society itself (i.e., increased money, fame, new directions of fruitful exploration and new consumer product/services.) However, during all such advancements, there have been preexisting individuals who had based their lives, reputations, and livelihoods on those flawed previously-popular hypotheses; and, hence resisted (sometimes violently) against the adoption of the newly proposed lens for viewing data. Over the past year and a half, I have received threats and abuse from folks who basically said they hated me. I even lost a best friend and most respected mentor, who is now irate that “my” model dare challenge “his,” and therefore somehow I am attempting to ruin his life. Without finding a flaw within it, he threw the model back in my face and told me to never talk to him again, nor to ever voice his name in connection to his inadvertent contribution to the model’s formulation. I was dumbfounded; his reaction was the polar opposite of my intention. The fact is: originally, I was trying to give this model to him; better he be the one to go through the bother/hassle of promoting it. Truly, if this Dominium model is correct, I honestly hope/believe that people other than myself will find benefit. For instance, I just suggested a concrete and straightforward method of taking existing data; reexamine it while taking into account Newton’s 1st and “actual” instantaneous velocities. I would also suggest running two sets of regression: one regression to compare it against conditions of assumed gravitation attraction and one under the assumption of gravitational repulsion. Such an analysis could easily end this argument once and for all. Personally, I have neither the data nor the facilities to run such a test, though to whomever who does, I wish Godspeed.

**Note to any researcher who did read the last paragraph and who does the suggested analysis: Once you’ve completed, PLEASE and ASAP, begin a new thread on this Cosmological board so that you may present your data (and link to your Arxiv pre-published article, when possible.) If you do get results that confirm the predictions I just made, then the likelihood rises that all/other parts of the Dominium model are correct. Such results would have important implications with regard to the safety/danger of LHC. Therefore, they would need to be made known quickly.

OK.. I am going to stick to the science. The last part of your post makes you actually sound like you might have a genuine problem. In this one statement you have managed to include both messianic and persecution complex type statements...



Have you ever wondered why you need to prove this model? It's really none of my business though.

So... back to the science.


First of all... I never made this statement at all...



In fact this would be false. There are other ways of holding an anti atom in place. One of those ways is with lasers. Using the pressure from the coherent light, multiple lasers can hold a single atom in place. This is often used to "cool" atoms.

Secondly... this statement makes no sense.



1. The anti atom would likely have a very low KE to begin with since the particles it is made from were being held largely motionless by the Penning Trap.
2. In a vacuum, what force do you expect the walls of the trap to exert? If it was an anti gravitational one, like you suggest, one would expect the anti atom to be held in place.

Lastly... Cass J makes a number of excellent points and I think some of those should be answered before we make our way forward.

From Cass J...

Dear Hasanuddin

Surely you have heard of relativity. And I'm not just talking about Einstein's Special theory, and General theory.

Even before Newton, Galileo figured that you couldn't tell you were moving in a ship if the motion was "smooth" enough, ie if you were not subject to accelerations that you noticed.

Long before Einstein, as a result of observation, the consensus of generations of Natural Philosophers(whom we would now call physicists), was that the laws of physics are the same for any unaccelerated reference frames. This became one of the postulates of Special Relativity, along with the other one, the speed of light(in vacuo of course) being the same for all observers.

You certainly don't have to worry much about your exact latitude(unless you were playing with a Foucault Pendulum or whatever), the position of say Jupiter, or the exact time of day, or the velocity of the Earth relative to the Sun, or the Solar System in the Milky Way or whatever, if you have charged particles in magnetic containment.