Friday, November 30, 2012

Does anti-matter matter?

Does anti-matter matter?
Tom J. Chalko
Mt Best Observatory, Mt Best, Vic 3960, Australia
Scientific Engineering Research P/L
Submitted on 10 November 2011, revised 13 November 2011
© Tom J Chalko 2011.

 This article can be freely distributed, providing that no content is altered or removed

 Inability to explain the exact nature of gravity has been puzzling scientists and
engineers on Earth since the times of Galileo and Newton. We clarify the definition of “mass”
and consider the basic integral properties of matter together with anti-matter in the context of the
entire Universe. We demonstrate a practical way of generating repulsive gravity force by
imitating the integral properties of anti-atom in the macroscopic form. Experimental verification
of presented gravity generation technique is obtained by explaining the expansion of the Universe
that has been observed by astronomers2.

It is universally agreed that in the early Universe amounts of matter and anti-matter were similar1.
The apparent dominance of matter over anti-matter in the observable Universe today is one of the
greatest and most fundamental unsolved problems in physics. Here we show that the observed
expansion of the Universe2 is a clear sign that the amounts of matter and anti-matter in the
Universe are and always have been similar. By exploring basic integral properties of anti-matter
we show that stable anti-matter in the Universe can only exist as anti-hydrogen in the
intergalactic space.

Everything in the Universe is in essence electromagnetic. Despite this quite obvious hint that the
force of gravity should also originate in electromagnetism, centuries of research has failed to
establish any sensible link between gravity and the electromagnetic reality of matter. As strange
as it seems, laws of gravity today remain totally independent of universally observed
electromagnetic reality of the Universe.
All forces in Nature have their opposites – they can be either attractive or repulsive. In many
centuries of research on Earth no one has ever observed repulsive gravity. What could be a reason
for this?

Let’s begin with examining a definition of “mass”.
“Mass” has been defined by Newton as a “measure of inertia” – a coefficient of proportionality
between applied force and resulting kinematic acceleration in an inertial frame of reference. Mass
defined in this way turned out to be a convenient way to measure the “amount of matter” in wide
range of situations and helped to reinforce the separation between mechanics and
electromagnetism. Some cosmological models distinguish between “inertial mass” and
“gravitational mass”, which only amplifies the confusion.

Let’s try to consider “mass” as one of the integral properties of electromagnetic oscillation
reality. We can actually consider mass as the ”energy integral” of electromagnetic oscillations - a
measure of their total embedded energy. Einstein has demonstrated3 that mass is indeed a good
measure of embedded electromagnetic energy. As energy integral contains only positive terms,
result of integration can only be positive.

Adopting an embedded energy approach, we can predict that the amount of energy embedded in
an anti-atom of anti-hydrogen should in essence be very similar to the amount of energy
NU Journal of Discovery Vol 7, Nov 2011,
embedded in atom of hydrogen and therefore “mass” of anti-hydrogen, understood as a measure
of its embedded electromagnetic energy required to maintain the structure, should be similar to
“mass” of hydrogen.

However, other integral properties of anti-hydrogen and hydrogen may differ due to the fact that
electromagnetic oscillations in anti-matter are arranged differently: in anti-matter positively
charged positrons oscillate around negatively charged anti-proton nuclei.
Specifically, when we integrate the force of interaction between two distant atoms and antiatoms,
we can expect that residual (resultant) force between two distant anti-hydrogen (aH) antiatoms
will be opposite to that between two distant hydrogen (H) atoms - simply on the basis of
general properties of integrals in mathematics.

So, if two distant atoms of H attract one another due to residual electromagnetic force, two
distant anti-atoms of aH should be expected to repel one another with a similar force.
Decades of research and astronomic observations have failed to find an anti-matter star or even a
single anti-atom of anti-helium. In view of the above considerations, this is to be expected. Antiatoms
of anti-hydrogen (aH) actually repel one another “gravitationally” so that they cannot form
a star. It becomes clear, that if anti-matter exists in the Universe in a stable form – it should exist
mainly as anti-hydrogen, because conditions for synthesis of heavier anti-matter nuclei are
unlikely to arise too often.

Could optical distortions (lensing) of astronomical objects be caused clouds of intergalactic antihydrogen?
Anti-hydrogen is likely to delay light that travels through it and hence its edges should
refract light, forming suspiciously transparent “lenses”.

Let’s try to consider residual electromagnetic force interaction between matter and anti-matter
based on the limited information available on Earth today.

If there existed an attraction force between atoms of hydrogen (H) and anti-hydrogen (aH), they
would have annihilated one another in the early Universe. A repulsive force between H and aH,
however, can explain the observed expansion of the Universe from its earliest stages of existence
until today.

If repulsive force between H and aH exists - all residual attraction and repulsion forces in the
entire Universe do not cancel out to zero if the amounts of matter and anti-matter in the Universe
are similar. The global result is repulsive and hence a young Universe in which amounts of matter
and anti-matter are similar is expected to accelerate its expansion at a constant rate.
Have we found an alternative to mysterious “dark matter” and even more enigmatic “dark
energy” that dominate current cosmological models? Could intergalactic space be filled by
sparsely distributed anti-hydrogen atoms that repel one another as well as matter and hence cause
the observable expansion of the Universe?
What experiment can we do on Earth to verify the above considerations? Can we mimic
configuration of anti-atom in laboratory conditions? Imagine two coaxial cyclotrons, moving
positive ions, such as 8-particles for example, in opposite directions.
NU Journal of Discovery Vol 7, Nov 2011,
particles This is the simplest possible “macroscopic model of anti-atom” that pro duces no magnetic field if
operating parameters of each cyclotron ring are the same, just like an anti-atom. However, in
contrast to statistically isotropic electromagnetic oscillations in anti-atom, oscillations in the
above system are anisotropic. For this reason, our experiment should create “gravitational
anisotropy” detectable along the axis of cyclotrons and proportional to the amount of energy
embedded in oscillations of positive charges. Cyclotrons about 1 meter in diameter should be
sufficient to demonstrate the effect.
Other strategies for investigating interaction between matter and antimatter are:
1. Study “gravitational” perturbations along axes of existing cyclotrons on Earth that carry
positively charged particles

2. Find “cyclotron objects” in the Universe that eject large amount of matter along their axes
of rotation and study them. For example, consider the process of star formation and the
observed fact that during specific stage of star ignition the associated star-forming
cyclotron ejects huge jets of matter along its axis of rotation, even though star-forming
gravity compression is so strong that atoms of hydrogen are forced to fuse into atoms of
helium. Could a presence of sufficient number of Helium nuclei (alpha particles, the
simplest positive ions in the world of matter) cycling sufficiently far away from the axis
of the cyclotron explain the ejection of mass in two jets both larger than our Solar
System? Can the ejection of mass along the axis of star-forming cyclotron be explained
any other way?

3. Detect and measure “gravity” acceleration of cold aH atoms created by large particle
colliders. In essence this experiment is an “inverse” of the experiment of Galileo: use a
vertical vacuum tower and introduce cold aH anti-atoms at the bottom of the chamber. If
considerations presented above are reasonable, aH should aim to leave Earth (and then the
Solar System) with constant acceleration before colliding at speed with some obstacle
composed from atoms and annihilating. Acceleration of aH before collision with matter
should be observable in a vacuum tower.

Our conclusions about the electromagnetic Universe that we are part of are based on perceiving
and interpreting a very limited set of integral properties of a limited number of components of
this Universe.
Integration, like averaging, inevitably leads to huge information loss. However, we should have
in mind that lack of information is also information and that even in situations when we do not
know all details of the processes being integrated - we can still rely on properties of the
integration process itself.
NU Journal of Discovery Vol 7, Nov 2011,
Adopting such an approach we can investigate possible properties of gravity force, even if we do
not fully understand its origin. We cannot directly integrate electromagnetic interaction forces
between two distant atoms to find a resultant (residual) force simply because our models of
electromagnetic oscillations in atoms or our equations of electromagnetism are not yet good

However, Nature performs this integration in real time and puts the result in front of our eyes: we
all experience gravity force in every moment of our lives. Gravitational attraction between
systems comprising many atoms is cumulative, simply because of fundamental properties of an
integration process.

Currently unexplained expansion of the Universe with constant acceleration may be a
consequence of basic integral properties of anti-matter and matter that co-exist in similar
quantities in the Universe, but in different locations. While matter is concentrated in galaxies -
anti-hydrogen occupies the intergalactic space.

From considerations presented above it becomes obvious that the Universe should have its
Center. Since coalescing matter gradually squeezes anti-hydrogen away from the Center, in a
middle-aged Universe the Center should become distinguishable by not expanding, but
gravitationally contracting locally, simply because of depleted quantity of locally available
intergalactic anti-hydrogen. Can we identify a zone on the Universe that contracts even though
“on average” the Universe continues its expansion? As anti-hydrogen is squeezed away from the
Center, all matter in the “ageing” Universe will eventually collect in the Center to provide the
energy for the next Big Bang. It is possible that our Universe is a result of evolution that took
many Bangs that gradually become larger and produced longer lasting and more interesting

The matter-anti-matter spherically expanding model of the Universe suggests that the background
radiation could be originating from decaying anti-hydrogen that exists beyond what we can call
an “edge of matter”. Observer located away from the Center would perceive the space expanding
in all directions, but should be able to detect ‘anisotropy” in space expansion along the direction
defined by his location and the location of the Center.
It seems that anti-hydrogen delay and anti-hydrogen lensing need to be considered in
interpretation of astronomical observations.

1. Sarkar, Utpal (2007). Particle and astroparticle physics. CRC Press. pp. 429. ISBN 1-58488-931-4.
2. Riess, A. et al. (1998). "Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a
Cosmological Constant". The Astronomical Journal 116 (3): 1009–1038
3. Einstein, A. (1905), "Ist die Trägheit eines Körpers von seinem Energieinhalt abhängig?", Annalen der
Physik 18: 639–643
4. Chalko T. J. (2001) “Is chance or choice the essence of Nature?” NU Journal of Discovery Vol 2, March
I wish to express my gratitude to Dr Barbara Hoare and Dr Greg Bull for revising and correcting the manuscript and
inspiring me to improve the clarity of my explanations.
Correspondence should be addressed to Tom Chalko

1 comment: