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):
I wrote a book on the subject here:
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.
Adam G. Freeman
Sep 13, 2011 @ 09:52:46
thanks for this information. Although I have not now the time to look at it in detail, I’ll keep it in mind.
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.
Sep 19, 2011 @ 11:35:06
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.
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.
Sep 20, 2011 @ 14:14:29
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,
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!
Nov 23, 2011 @ 11:18:48
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.
Feb 01, 2012 @ 10:20:32
Plenty of evidence for anti-gravity here http://www.preston.u-net.com/AGMatter/Index.htm
May 19, 2012 @ 02:33:13
according to your theory on anti-matter and QED, couldn’t the theoretical white holes be black holes made of anti-matter where time and parity are reversed? This way we would not be violating the laws of thermodynamics.
Enlighten me, professor.
May 22, 2012 @ 09:39:29
Yes, it could be something like this. However, I have never investigated this issue, so that I cannot give details at the moment.
May 22, 2012 @ 00:31:28
Dear Mr. Villata,
My name is Alain Pascal. I am a high school student that attends Brooklyn College Academy. In the near future, I want to become a physicist. For a school assignment I need to interview 2 physicists with brief questions. I have researched you and have chosen you. I know your career is time consuming so I have decided to send you the questions through email. I do need proof that I have done the assignment so if possible please send me an image of a business card or anything else to prove that I have done the work. Thank you for your cooperation and time.
1. Briefly describe the work that you do-
2. When/how did you decide to take this job?
3. Do you enjoy your work? Why or Why Not?
4. What kind of training/education did you need for this job?
5. Who do you feel benefits from this work?
6. What was your inspiration to become a physicists
7. What are the financial benefits or implications of your job.
8. Describe the hardest choices you have made concerning your job
9. If you could have any other job, what would it be
10. What is the worst part about your job
11. What is the best part about your job.
thank you once again
May 22, 2012 @ 09:45:43
I’ll answer you privately.
May 31, 2012 @ 02:44:03
I am an aspiring film-maker and I’ve been tasked to come up with a concept for a film, and I’ve decided to focus on the science-fiction genre based around the many-worlds theory and was wondering if you could provide me with some facts regarding this theory and it’s implications and whether, however minute the possibility that we could conceivably travel between these universes? I am looking for inspiration as well as facts, so my concept will have the basic underpinnings of physics as well as exploring it from a philosophical point of view. Understandably, some films out there play around with science, most of the time bending or even breaking the rules of physics to appease dramatic structure, but I would like to look at it from a grounded point of view so my concept will at least be some-what original in its premise.
Thank you for your time.
May 31, 2012 @ 10:27:49
I did something like this in my novel you can (partially) find on this website. Unfortunately it is only in Italian, but maybe you can find help in translating it, or you can use an automatic translator.
Let me know if you are interested in the subject.
Adam G. Freeman
Oct 27, 2012 @ 00:15:01
I thought I would list a recent exchange between myself and Policarpo Ulianov the author of Ulianov string theory. Policarpo brings up some good points in relation to anti-matter and general relativity such as what does happen to a mass after it becomes a black hole. I have a theory for what happens to the mass in that the spacetime just changes in geometry.
These are good points … But the mass of the black hole is going to be exactly the same as the mass of the original star. That is why the geometry changes from spherical to pseudo-spherical. The geometry changes not the amount of mass present. As the speed of light is approached the mass does become larger and larger as it is exchanged for energy until it reaches infinite and the mass is no longer mass but pure energy (light.) But in a black hole, the speed is in fact greater than the speed of light and the mass is again mass (hence a space-like spacetime.) This all makes perfect sense if you think about it and you think about the polarity and symmetry of things in physics. Everything that is positive has a negative and an inverse. Positive and negative electricity. So positive and negative gravity.
You do bring up a really good point. According to general relativity and experimental evidence, light that is near a spherical mass is going to be red shifted. But light that is near a pseudo-spherical mass according to my theory should be blue shifted. So there may already be proof out there if we can look at the light from a star that was behind a black hole and compare it to the light from the same star that is no longer behind a black hole. According to my theory it should be shifted in the opposite direction than it would be if it were “red shifted” so “blue shifted.”
Check this simple illustration of how redshift occurs out =====> http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node100.html
Near a black hole, blue shift should occur in exactly the same fashion and in the same proportion but in the opposite direction of redshift.
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Policarpo Yoshin Ulianov wrote:
In Special Relativity one body at a velocity v will experience a time dilation,
shortening the length (in moving direction) and so mass increases:
L = L0 (1 – v2/c2)0.5
T = T0 /(1 – v2/c2)0.5
M = T0 /(1 – v2/c2)0.5
On the other hand, in general relativity we have the Schwarzschild equation that also points to an expansion
in time and space contraction as we approach the events horizon:
Thus accelerate to high speeds and similar to fall into a black hole …
In both cases the clocks will “run” more slow and the distances is more short in the
movement direction (or in direction to the center of the hole black) …
But the mass of the body?
By analogy should also grow …
But then the value of M in Schwarzschild equation would be greater after a star to become a black hole …
And so, when a photon of high energy passes near a black hole, its increases the wavelength (reed shift)
and therefore its energy decreases. In this case the rest mass of photon also falls …
Besides if we get a example where a body in a planet is launched into space to achieve a zero speed.
When body rises its receiving power (from a rocket) and how it is in the space at zero speed, this energy will be converted into mass.
Thus the final mass in space is greater than the mass on the planete surface.
Likewise when a body stationary in space falls into a pit gavitacional he acquires speed
and considering the total energy could be constant, we can think that kinetic energy comes from a decrease in body mass…
Finally, within the GR can say that mass produces distortion in space time, and turn the distortion in space-time generates mass …
Thus the final mass function observed is a dynamic process that depends on characteristics of the space-time …
Thus depending on how the particle mass distorts the spacetime fall into the hole black it can
take another configuration generating a mass greater or less than the original mass…
Dec 22, 2012 @ 21:20:07
I have read your work with great interest, and am particularly pleased to see you make reference to the excellent work of Gabriel Chardin, who has come to similar conclusions to yourself from a slightly different perspective.
I thought that you might be interested in a paper that I wrote some time ago, which cites many of the same references that you do, and also comes to the conclusion that matter and anti-matter repel – again for a rather different reason (i.e. it explains why classical electrodynamics follows from classical gravity if we assume the existence of a double-sheeted spacetime, one sheet being the CPT-transformed version of the other). Please see http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0607102.
Anyway, please keep up the great work, and I look forward to reading your future work!
With warm regards,
Jan 09, 2013 @ 15:26:48
thanks for your kind message and information on your work.
Jun 07, 2013 @ 01:38:20
I was thinking that since the universe which is the biggest structure of all is expanding and the smaller structures like galaxies, planets etc are not expanding, maybe the dominant force is not gravity but anti-gravity. In fact gravity don´t even exists as a force, just as an effect. What happens is that mass shields anti gravity so antigravity levels decrease with the presence of mass.
If dust clouds form “rocks” then the shielding may not even be inherent only to large masses but probably a characteristic of any particle and since there is so much empty space between atoms and even inside atoms the shielding may be a charge, a state or a… well my deductions don´t led me further.
Well, just my 2 cents.
Jun 19, 2013 @ 00:51:08
My name is Tony Lund and I’m a producer of the show “Through the Wormhole: With Morgan Freeman.” I’m currently developing an episode that asks questions about the fundamental nature of gravity.
I would love to talk to you about your work and possibility of featuring you on our show. Please drop me a line, and perhaps we can schedule a 45-60 minute phone call?
Writer / Producer
Through the Wormhole: With Morgan Freeman
Jun 21, 2013 @ 09:43:52
OK Tony, thank you very much. I sent you an e-mail message.
Dr. Robert C. Stirbl
Jul 15, 2014 @ 21:20:06
I would like to ask you a favor. I am trying to track down an article/paper reference or email for a “Dr. Herod Toof”? (I don’t know how his name is spelled) who was mentioned & interviewed on one of Anthony Lund’s “Through the Wormhole” Season 4 Episode 9 ‘Do we have free will’? (or Episode 8 ‘Is reality real?). “Dr. Herod Toof” was explicitly referred to by Morgan Freeman as a mathematician of Sub-Planck length deterministic physics at non-accessible scales ( an approach supporting a Einstein-quote view of quantum physics “G-d doesn’t play dice with the Universe” vs the Standard Model’s generally accepted quantum probability description of Hamiltonians that just assigns probabilities to transitions and states. “Dr. Herod Toof”? (I don’t know how his name is spelled) was interviewed on camera during the show.
As you have Dr. Anthony Lund’s email or contact information, could forward my email to him so I might get the email of or reference article for “Dr. Herod Toof” (I don’t know how his name is spelled)? who was interviewed on one of Anthony Lund’s “Through the Wormhole” Season 4 Episode 9 Episode 9 ‘Do we have free will’?
Thank you so much in advance for your time.
Dr. Robert C Stirbl,
Program Manager Navy, Marines & Other DoD Agencies
National Space Tech. Applications
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
California institute of Technology
4800 Oak Grove Dr., MS: 321-123
Pasadena, CA 91109
(818) 635-6793 (m), (818) 354-5436 (I)
Jul 23, 2014 @ 12:29:56
OK, I’ll try to contact Tony Lund for you.
Aug 13, 2013 @ 17:14:44
Dear Mr Villata.
I am very pleased with your work and would be glad if you could help me.Sir ,what really happens to antimatter as it approaches a black hole? I have heard some saying that it loses its distinction as matter or antimatter, but how far true is that? The other thing is I also realized that the concept of anti gravity can also be deduced from comparing the analogy between charge and matter i.e. matter attracts while positive charges repel, anti matter attracts while negative charges repel and then what happens to matter and antimatter since positive and negative charges attract? no doubt they repel. This can only be true if the analogy between charge and matter is perfect and I think it is.
Aug 22, 2013 @ 11:20:18
antimatter should be repelled by a matter black hole and attracted by an antimatter one, but black hole physics is very tricky and I’m just trying to explore it in depth now. It is very difficult to understand what happens beyond the event horizon, and the loss of identity as matter or antimatter is a real possibility that I had already thought. May I ask where you heard about this? With regard to the fact that like electric charges repel each other while like gravitational charges attract, this seems to depend on the spin of the field that mediates the interaction, see one of the last paragraphs of my 2011 paper at http://iopscience.iop.org/0295-5075/94/2/20001/.
Thank you for your interest, cheers,
Jerry Lee Coleman Jr.
Aug 29, 2013 @ 07:19:39
Dear Massimo Villata,
I am hoping you can help me. I asked myself one day, “What happens when a black hole gets cold?” The answer was “The space comes back out.” This was just a gut reaction I came up with the next morning. I have been making myself crazy for a few years since thinking about all the mysterious questions in physics today. Quantum and astral physics have discovered that the vacuum is not empty at all, gravity just will not fit into the standard model, there is stuff call dark matter gravitation that Einstein general relativity won’t explain, and the weirdest thing of all is dark energy causing the expansion of the universe to expand faster. Everyone still refuses to re-consider that maybe the Æther is real, and Lorentz was on the right track in the first place. I liken this to a fool who lost his keys in a dark alley, but has everyone helping to find them under the main street lamp post because the light is better there.
I may be just an ignorant fool, but I think I have a possible theory. I would appreciate it if you could provide me any obvious flaw in my reasoning to shoot this whole concept down so I can move on quit thinking I am right. I am considering tackling the math, but I would like to start by picking my theory apart. I could spend years trying to make the math fit my idea, missing the immediate negation of the concept. I don’t like to think my self delusional, and this must have already been considered, and dismissed by greater minds before now. I would like to understand why?
Jerry Lee Coleman Jr.
After re-reading Hawking’s “A Brief History of Time”
I’ve got it all figured out. (Oh boy! Another idiot?)
I’ve decided that the rate of time is constant. Space itself is the fundamental unified field, and is a flowing medium. At distance equals zero from the event horizon of black holes space flows at the speed of light (the terminal velocity of the medium) into the center. Particle motion itself slows down, at right angles to the direction of travel, or in the dense regions of space (same difference because the densest regions have maximum flow) causing the illusion of time dilation. Particle motion stops at the speed of light (maximum density) because the Lorentz contractions cause the particles to flatten completely in the direction of travel, becoming two dimensional. All fundamental particles are the miniature black holes created in the early moments of the big bang. All of the fundamental massless field spins are the signature black body radiation emanating from these individual flavors of internally stabilized black hole formations. Gravity doesn’t fit into quantum mechanics definitions, because gravity is not a field, but a symptom of space itself flowing into all matter, causing distance between all materialistic bodies to decrease. Apparent gravitational lensing is literal lensing caused by density changes in the flowing medium of space itself. There is no spectral separation because photons of any frequency propagate through a massless medium at the same rate.
Space is the zero sum field of equilibrium and is both the sync and source of all other fields. Thus all fields arise in pairs, of equal and opposite energy.
Using the electro-magnetic field as an example; if a single photon is the only thing in a universe it is a massless hole in space of definite energies in both the electric field and the magnetic field at right angles to each other. Before it exists, there is no time because space is at equilibrium. Nothing is flowing, and nothing is measurable. All of space is at the same density everywhere, existing only as potential (I call this eternity). The instant our photon comes in to existence (little bang) space begins to flow from distance equal zero from the event to distance equals infinity. This is also the beginning of time because we can now measure space against itself, and every point in space is different from every other point in speed and direction. When measuring anything against itself, we measure it through time. Space returns to its natural state of equilibrium by filling this hole in space from the center and distributing the energy outward, now a tear in space, in a single spherical pulse of electro-magnetic radiation diminishing its energy through time. At time equal infinity the electro-magnetic energy is reduced to zero, returning space to the original equilibrium. The photon is gone, time ends, and eternity awaits any other event.
Now consider a single point source electric charge, a single electron. The electron radiates its negative electric field. But wait! Where is the equal and opposite field energy. By definition, it must exist. We know that an electric charge in motion causes a circulation in the magnetic field at a right angle to the direction of travel in our current universe. However, our electron exists in the universe by itself, so where is the magnetic field. From time equal zero, as the electric field radiates in an ever expanding sphere at the speed of light, the associated magnetic field exists only on the edge of the growing sphere, and charges in energy equal to the overall energy of the growing electric field. The source of this energy is space itself flowing in toward the center of the point source charge transforming into the electro-magnetic fields. As the electric field flows outward it presses against the magnetic field causing back pressure from all direction of equal force, thus motion of the point source charge remains zero.
Applying particle field theory to the growing electrical field, these electrical field particles cannot cause circulation to the magnetic field because of adjacent field particles counter balancing the forces of circulation, but adding energy nonetheless. This magnetic field therefore is mono-polar in nature (neither north nor south). Let’s call it “west” for a negative electric charge and “east” for a positive electric charge keeping to the common metaphor.
Now let’s allow for two electrons to come in to existence simultaneously, some distance apart. At time equal zero; these two point sources will have relative motion toward one another (gravitational illusion), because space is flowing into each of them, thus diminishing distance. Until the spheres grow large enough for the magnetic fields to come in contact with one another there is actually no real motion of either particle. They are remaining stationary within their own spheres of backpressure at equilibrium. Both particles are just being carried along with the point of space in which they originated (dark matter).
At some point in time, each sphere grows large enough to come in contact with the other sphere at some point in space. Each sphere now has a point on their surface at twice the “west” magnetic field energy, disrupting the backpressure equilibrium imparting real motion in space. As each sphere continues to grow, this point on each sphere grows as a circle of more intense “west” magnetic field energy, increasing the speed of real motion caused by the increasing disruption of backpressure equilibriums. Eventually, the real motion in the opposite direction of the relative motion will reduce apparent motion to zero. However, the spheres will continue to grow, so the apparent motion changes in the same direction as real motion and continues to increase in speed.
In a universe containing two positrons instead of electrons, the electric fields are now positive, the magnetic fields are “east” in nature. The results of real, relative, and apparent motion are the same.
Now let’s look at a universe replacing only one charge with its opposite. When the spheres grow to the point at which they come in contact what happens? A single point on each sphere now results in equal and opposite field energies of “west” and “east” magnetism as well as positive and negative electricity that cancel and change back into space (dark energy). New space is actually being returned to the universe at this point. This causes the relative motion to decrease in speed by injecting new space between the original points of space in which the particles originated. The point of contact on each sphere grows to the circle of new space. The backpressure equilibriums of each sphere however causes apparent and real motion toward the new space overcoming the inverse relative motion (dark energy) in runaway fashion until the distance between the particles becomes zero and they annihilate each other. Thus returning the universe to its natural state of equilibrium as the remainder of the electro-magnetic fields dissipate again at time equal infinity, similar to the original photon example this theory presented.
All of the other materialistic particles in the standard quantum model obey these same laws.
All we need now is a mathematician grad student willing to re-write all of the current particle physics equations of quantum mechanics without prejudice. This will result in a grand unified ætheral theory of the universe, along the lines of Hendrik Lorentz’s train of thought I imagine he had when he came up with the exact same transformation equations Einstein did.
JERRY LEE COLEMAN JR.
Jerry Lee Coleman Jr.
Aug 29, 2013 @ 07:43:05
If Einstein can take a single observational concept and twist the entire math around until it fits, convincing everyone that space warps and time dilates to fit the knowledge of his time, why can’t we go back to where Lorentz actually lost his keys? Maybe we can use them to unlock all of the know mysteries of our time. Just because you cannot measure something, does not mean it does not exist. We are spending tremendous effort with our mathematical theories that we can never test. Let’s spend some effort on this theory I set forth here to twist some math to fit the possibility I may be on to something here. Time is the constant, and particle motion is variable in a flowing medium.
Jerry Lee Coleman Jr.
Sep 04, 2013 @ 13:14:32
the only advice I can give is to provide your conjectures with a mathematical form, so that they can become a theory to be compared with other theories in explaining the observational evidence. But only you can do it, because the idea is yours.
Stacey E. Giacomelli
Aug 30, 2013 @ 05:42:25
I simply have a High School diploma, but still theoretical physics interest me because I don’t look at it from equation theorems but from more of a common sense theory, and I would like to better understand how it is I view many theories (with your assistance, if you would indulge).
First question: As an electron can be in two places at once, does that prove only the theory of time, and not more than that?
Second question: The Big Bang Theory, I am fighting in my head as to what that as a theory proves. By that, I mean, if Big Bang Theory works, that would most certainly prove the existence of more universes, simply for the fact that the energy for that to occur must come from somewhere correct. For example, take Black Hole Theory, well then maybe in some form or another there exist a Black Hole that transferred energy from one universe, and then spit it out the other side into a completely different universe. Is that possible? Thank you for any response.
Sep 04, 2013 @ 15:30:51
unfortunately, modern physics has nothing to do with common sense, and trying to interpret it so can be very misleading. Theories are made of equations, neither more nor less, we cannot extrapolate from them by common sense. For example, the so-called Big Bang, or black holes, are impassable boundaries of the respective theories, and thus current theories cannot tell us anything about what possibly lies beyond, nor can we infer it by common sense.
Sep 04, 2013 @ 10:52:55
I’m Sagar Gorijala from India and I’m here sending you a message requesting you to help me out the possible way you can. This is why I’m here… FTOE. FTOE stands for “Fundamental Theory Of Existence”. I’ve a mind disorder known as Schizophrenia and I’m 33 year old, single, male who has been a loser ever since I was born! This theory is what I end up with and this is my only hope for attaining success. This is my blog, where I’ve posted the theory… [ http://sagargorijala.blogspot.in/ ]. If you think it is worth anything to you as a physicist then please help me by letting rest of the World to know of it. I don’t know what else to say. If you think it is correct help otherwise just forget it. I’m sure my theory is correct. Please read out the entire blog before concluding its validity. Thanks.
Mar 16, 2014 @ 11:41:15
Dear Dr Villata
Has anyone considered a proposal similar to yours in the context of Brans-Dicke and scalar-tensor theories? I am interested in possible propulsion applications and I have had a minot contribution in the below publications
Mar 18, 2014 @ 14:55:36
not to my knowledge. Best wishes for your research.
Apr 20, 2014 @ 14:50:40
SIR MASSIMO VILLATA,
I don’t know anything much equational or mathematical about universe but the beauty of the universe has fascinated me since i saw the universe in my first encyclopedia.That feeling was magical.
As i am a very little grown up mind i do not know much about nature, but i have a believe that nature has to be similar. I was comparing universe with earth when i realized that there might be a similarity like earth has tectonic plates universe might also have some tectonic field which might create some kind of tectonic force which might have some relation with gravitational force and moreover these two forces might be like electricity and magnetism. one might effect the other and for this reason only we might not be able to understand gravitation fully.
SIR THANKYOU FOR YOUR TIME.
May 12, 2014 @ 19:17:51
Have you come across a paper by Gallo and Feng (Journal of Cosmology, 2010, Vol 6, 1373-1380 / Cosmology, March 25, 2010) and successive papers since then.
This paper gives an extremely plausible description of the origins of Dark matter as resulting from some loose wording in Newton’s Principia, plus a little manipulation (‘improvement’) of the mass distribution in disk galaxies.
I feel that it gives an excellent companion to yours.
Jun 26, 2014 @ 19:20:57
Dear Mr. Villata,
I noticed you are working on repulsive gravity and anti-gravity. I’m a High School Senior who has been working on the same thing and was interested in your work. I’ve noticed a lot of your work seems aligned with mine, I just don’t exactly have the education you do. I also noticed you have unique ideas on Dark Energy. You said something in one of your papers about it being the result of actions possibly in higher dimensions, which is really close to something I hypothesized too. Have you considered repulsive gravity at a particle level, but a particle existing outside of time? I’ve been working on a theory about such a particle for 2.5 years. I was wondering if you would take a look at it after I compile it into a book. I’d honestly like to trade research eventually.
Oct 08, 2014 @ 01:01:32
Hello, here is a theory I came up with several years ago. I would love to know what you think.
The Cypher Space Theory
By Michael D. Michaud
A simple explanation for why the universe is expanding at an accelerated, rather than reducing (as previously expected), rate.
Before reading this, ask yourself this question: How often has it turned out that the simplest explanation for a problem turned out to be the correct one?
For my hypothesis to work requires two fundamental assumptions:
1. The universe is expanding in every direction at the same (increasing) rate.
2. The area or region that the universe is currently over-taking, or expanding through, is completely identical in every way to the area or region that existed and contained the singularity that begat the “Big Bang”.
On a side note, it astounds me that there still appears to be no official designation for this area or region. Imagine that, the only thing larger than our universe is the area or region that it occupies and is currently expanding through. Thus, I have taken it upon myself to assign the title of “Cypher Space”, or Zero Space (which lends itself to my theory).
Cypher Space – (my) Definition; Space that is entirely void of all matter and or energy, except for the universe that is presently expanding through it.
To understand why the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate we must first understand the Big Bang which, as I understand it, explains that the universe, including all of the matter contained within, begat from the explosion of a single point in (Cypher) space around fourteen billion years ago.
With this knowledge, we then need to understand the mechanics of an explosion. Any explosion is the process of matter being converted into energy. The result is the disbursal of that energy which expands in every direction until friction slows it down. On July 20th 1944, but for the friction caused by a heavy wooden table, an expanding disbursal of energy would have successfully ended the career of the worst person in history.
It really is, in my opinion, a simple matter of deductive reasoning; If you have an explosion that is continuing to expand without slowing down, then it makes sense to me that we should at least consider that there is nothing to resist said explosion.
If we accept that all matter in the universe is derived from the Big Bang, then we can also accept that all matter is contained within the expanding boundaries of the universe. Thus, Cypher Space contains no matter (not even one atom) which can provide friction to slow down or even act upon the original disbursal of energy, or Big Bang. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that the universe should always expand in every direction at an accelerated rate.
Nothing is Perfect
So what does this mean for the average everyday theoretical or astro physicist on the street? By accepting that no internal energy is required to effectively push the outter limits of the universe at an every increasing rate, this serves as fortification for Einstein’s principal that energy can not be created, only converted. I believe, if you use your imagination a little bit, this theory can also provide a convenient explanation for a substantial mystery, that being, where does gravity come from?
Try to imagine absolute nothing-ness; the complete absence of everything and anything. An endless expanse of perfection in the form of zero. Now, all of a sudden, an event occurs whereby some universe just appears and replaces the blissfully perfect empty with stuff. All manner of stuff, including you and me and all the stars and everything else. Where ever universe contacts cypher space you have an immediate propencity to resist. This change is sudden, and as I like to think of it, results in a sort of scorching effect which leaves behind a sort of residue which we refer to as gravity.
Just like nothing is perfect, nothingness is perfection, and it naturally wants to remain, or at least return to its perfect state. This is evident in the way scorched cypher space (or gravity) behaves. Gravity is the ultimate manifestation of resistence and this universal constant translates all the way down to life itself where resistance to change is something that we, as humans, are at least aware of. So, just as gravity keeps pushing us away (eww! get it off me!), the process of cypher space being overtaken by universe keeps resulting in gravity, and so on, faster and faster, as long as cypher space is perfectly nothing.
Apr 17, 2016 @ 10:51:27
For years now Seti is searching the skies for signs of extraterrestrial life. One of the biggest problems with that is the limitations of the speed of light.
Now with quantum entanglement it seems that information can be send with speeds much faster than light.
Is it not a good idea to look for quantum entangled photons who are entangled bij aliens? It seems only logic that aliens who are scientifically ahead of us discovered quantum entanglement and are using this for communication purposes.
I know that a quantum entangled photon at this moment is not recognizable as such, but it seems to me that this is worth the research……
Huub van den Broek
Apr 24, 2016 @ 13:51:13
Dear Dr Villata.
Yesterday I woke up with the idea that antimatter operates on the ‘other side’ of spacetime and that a big mass of antimatter would curve spacetime upwards.
If after the Big Bang, all (or most) of the antimatter has collapsed on itself, then this would result in a supermassive antimatter ‘black mountain’ in the middle of our universe.
Without knowing the math or quantum-mechanics to back it up, this theory could elegantly explain:
- Early Big Bang cosmic inflation
- Accelerated cosmic expansion (dark energy)
- Assymetry between observable matter and antimatter
After searching for similar theories on the internet I found your interesting page and papers. Please let me know what you think of the central supermassive black mountain theory…
How could this be checked / measured / falsified?
Thanks in advance,
Huub van den Broek
Jun 09, 2016 @ 10:10:42
I do think that the cosmic expansion and acceleration are due to a repulsive gravitational interaction between matter and antimatter, while both of them are self-attractive. What seems to be not consistent in your view is the different behavior of matter and antimatter: why should antimatter collapse and matter expand in the early Universe? I would expect the same behavior.
Huub van den Broek
Jul 04, 2016 @ 11:29:49
Dear Dr Villata,
Thanks for your response.
Good to hear that you agree on the repulsive gravitational interacttion between matter and antimatter, while both of them are self-attractive. See also the picture I made to support this view…
(the ‘black mountain’ is the antimatter counterpart of a black hole)
You are right that the behaviour of matter and antimatter should be consistent and symmetrical. But in my view they are…
Right after the big bang, matter and antimatter co-exist in (almost?) equal amounts. They both are self attractive and want to collapse on itself (big crunch).
In my theory, a large mass of antimatter will repel all the surrounding matter. You seem to share this view.
So whichever type of matter collapses first, will “win”. And all the opposite type of matter is pushed out into spacetime with a positive acceleration. At first this will be very rapid ( cosmic inflation ). But, with my analogy of a supermassive black ‘mountain’ of antimatter, the slope of the mountain becomes less steep and so the acceleration of matter should decrease towards zero. But it stays positive, which explains dark energy.
Again, I do not know the mathematics or quantum mechanics to back this up with a solid formula..
But how can this theory be checked / measured / falsified?
Shouldn’t this leave some marks in cosmic background radiation?
Is it possible to detect the ‘black mountain’, which will work as a negative lens?
I really appreciate your comments on this!
Thanks in advance,
Huub van den Broek
Jul 13, 2016 @ 15:54:24
the observation of the early Universe is represented by the cosmic microwave background, dated to about 400,000 years after the Big Bang: there is no trace of such an asymmetrical situation. Rather, the most evident anisotropy, that of the order of 1 degree, could reveal the typical size of clusters of matter alternated with those of antimatter. The latter would correspond today to what we observe as vast voids between galaxy superclusters. A cosmological model of this type is developed in my paper at http://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10509-013-1388-3
Sep 19, 2016 @ 17:16:41
Dear Dr. Villata,
Sorry to disturb you again…
But recently I read this article about positron gravitational mass.
Their experiment seems to disprove our hypothesis that matter and antimatter are gravitationally repulsive.
Any thoughts on this?
Oct 28, 2016 @ 10:58:47
thanks for pointing this article.
I will read it with interest as soon as I have a bit of time.
Oct 28, 2016 @ 12:42:21
After a quick look at the paper, I see that the method adopted is strongly model-dependent, so that it cannot provide a definitive answer, which will only be achieved by a direct measure.
Your Name *
Your Email *