Contact

9 Comments

Adam G. Freeman
Sep 05, 2011 @ 03:34:32

Dear Mr. Villata,
I read your paper and I was very intrigued. For a few years now, I have been thinking that anti-matter is the key to space travel since it must exist in a pseudo-spherical, hyperbolic spacetime.

Using the GR equations in Maple 14 for a pseudo-spherical spacetime point mass, I was able to derive the GR equations for anti-matter here (although I did not explicitly refer to it as anti-matter that was my intention):
http://vixra.org/abs/1101.0074

I wrote a book on the subject here:
http://www.amazon.com/Anti-Matter-Black-Holes-Adam-Freeman/dp/0595430937

Please let me know your thoughts because I think that maybe if you could talk to people at CERN (or wherever they are capable of performing anti-matter experiments) and let them know about my theories in conjunction with your CPT results, this could be huge for mankind.
Thank you,
Adam G. Freeman

Reply
- Massimo Villata
  Sep 13, 2011 @ 09:52:46
  
  Dear Adam,
  thanks for this information. Although I have not now the time to look at it in detail, I’ll keep it in mind.
  Cheers, massimo
  
  Reply
Julian Mann
Sep 18, 2011 @ 00:05:37

Dear Massimo, I read with great interest your paper (25.3.2011.) showing that matter/antimatter repulsion can be derived fron General Relativity. This has been my view for some time as a likely explanation for Dark Energy. As far as Dark Matter is concerned I regard this as being antimatter held in an alternate quantum state and that there was no large scale annihilation with matter at Big Bang. This alternative explanation for Big Bang should also have a number of useful consequences for Quantum Mechanics, including explanations for it’s statistical nature and possibly lead to an explanation for the derivation of mass which is not based on the Higgs. What are your views on these? Also Can you explain the final paragraphs of your paper in more detail about why antimatter is not visible in regions thought to accommodate it. My own explanation for this would be that Dark Matter(consisting of partitioned antimatter) is subject to the other direction of time(assuming that time is bi-directional) and that we cannot observe motion in that form of time from our classical observer standpoint.

Reply
- Massimo Villata
  Sep 19, 2011 @ 11:35:06
  
  Dear Julian,
  thanks for your message and for sharing your views. You can find some answers in the recent paper at http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.1201.
  Best regards,
  massimo
  
  Reply
Julian Mann
Sep 19, 2011 @ 13:41:25

Dear Massimo, thanks for the link to your latest article, which is excellent and explains a number of the issues I raised. With regard to the discussion as to whether antimatter follows FIT or BIT, I think that when Matter split from(Partitioned) Antimatter at Big Bang, Matter became subject to FIT at the Macroscopic level and BIT at the Quantum level, whilst Antimatter became subject to BIT at the Macroscopic level and FIT at the Quantum Level. Thus there was very likely a form of Entanglement which connected and still connects both parts of the universe. This may explain the origin of mass and if Gravity travels in BIT, could explain why we cannot detect it’s waves or particles.Also Entropy in the universe as a whole (matter and antimatter parts) may be conserved.

Reply
- Massimo Villata
  Sep 20, 2011 @ 14:14:29
  
  Dear Julian,
  thanks again for exposing your ideas. Some of these resemble some of my insights, while on other issues I have not yet reflected. The problem, as always, is to pass from the speculative level to theoretical construction.
  All the best,
  massimo
  
  Reply
Mike Lampton
Nov 23, 2011 @ 02:12:10

Two beginner’s questions about the Backwards In Time concept:
1. If we have an antihydrogen atom, quietly suspended in a usual
“forward in time” lab vacuum chamber, and then apply a gentle force,
would we see our usual causal behavior: motion begins with the force?
Indeed what does causal mean in this context?
2. I had thought that photons and antiphotons are the same particle.
Photons/antiphotons are both “attracted” to the sun, in the sense
that their geodesics bend sunward. Doesn’t this suggest that particles
and antiparticles are also both attracted to the sun, in the sense of their
equation of motion? Or have I missed the point here.
Thanks in advance!
-Mike Lampton

Reply
- Massimo Villata
  Nov 23, 2011 @ 11:18:48
  
  Dear Mike,
  you are referring to the paper at http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.1201v2, which is now accepted for publication as a Letter to the Editor in Astrophysics and Space Science, while the main paper on the antigravity theory is at http://iopscience.iop.org/0295-5075/94/2/20001/.
  You can not distinguish whether antiatoms are going forward or backward in time, as long as you are dealing with interactions that are (CP)T invariant, so nothing changes in terms of causality. If you apply a force that sets in motion something, from the opposite time direction you would see the same force stopping the object, but the causal sequence does not depend on the intrinsic time direction of the object, but from the observer one.
  Photons and antiphotons are the same thing as regards the C operation. But if you apply the CPT transformation, you get advanced photons, which are predicted by the equation of motion to be repelled by a matter-generated gravitational field, as happens to antiparticles, just in the hypothesis that antimatter is CPT-transformed matter, that is in agreement with its traveling backwards in time.
  
  Reply
Tim Simmons
Feb 01, 2012 @ 10:20:32

Hi Massimon

Plenty of evidence for anti-gravity here http://www.preston.u-net.com/AGMatter/Index.htm

Reply

Contact

9 Comments

Leave a Reply Cancel

Astronomy News