[Moderator's note: This posting is on the edge of discussing "personal
theories", because according to standard physics anti-particles have
positive mass and also positive energy. It's the very reason, why there
are anti-particles at all: To make physical sense of the
negative-frequency modes in the mode decomposition of quantum fields,
leading to local microcausal QFT and the corresponding realizations of
the proper orthochronous Poincare group, upon which the utmost
successful Standard Model of elementary particles is based, one has to
introduce anti-particles (Feynman-Stueckelberg trick). HvH.]
On Friday, August 17, 2018 at 8:07:39 AM UTC+1, Phillip Helbig (undress to
reply) wrote:
> In article <2c0366cf-d2b2-4d5e-ad1b-47cd027030e5@googlegroups.com>,
> writes:
>
> > > If you had two negative masses they would attract. Because with the
> > > negative mass acceleration is towards a positive mass this experiment
> > > may not be able to determine if antimatter is really negative mass.
>
> If I recall correctly, not long ago Steve Carlip pointed out here that
> positive mass attracts everything, including negative mass, and negative
> mass repels everything.
>
Sorry, I missed that post. But that information is also in a wiki web page
called 'negative mass' which I have based my work on.
> > In which case, whatever the findings of Aegis, antimatter could
> > have negatively signed mass. That would allow antimatter to cause
> > dark energy/matter. The instant reaction to that is that antimatter
> > cannot be dark matter as dark matter does not interact with EM.
> >
> > However, my suggestion is that any antimatter with EM properties
> > will have long ago annihilated with EM matter. Leaving only the
> > neutrinos and antineutrinos to act as DE and DM.
>
> This is then independent of whether negative-mass antimatter previously
> annihilated.
>
Yes, it is independent point, but I was trying to use negative mass as a
reason why there is still some matter left in the universe. Also, not all
negative mass annihilated else there would be no negative mass left over to
cause DE and DM.
> > IMO this does not
> > disagree with what Susskind described in his online Stamford course
> > on Cosmology.
>
> Neutrinos cannot be cold dark matter, because a) they are not cold and
> b) their mass is not large enough. You have to postulate some sort of
> "neutrino" beyond the standard model.
>
Several possibilities here.
1. If negative mass is DM then it may not be located where DM is calculated
to be. For example a negative mass could sit around a volume (and repel it
inwards) while its imaginary positive-mass doppleganger would be thought to
sit inside the volume. That might affect the properties expected of the DM,
the properties may be expected to be different for a central positive mass
than for a negative mass halo.
2. I like the idea of different generations of higgs, with DM maybe being
a lighter generation not yet discovered.
I am not clear about the implications for DM and DE of the scalar properties
of the higgs field. E.g. could a higgs field chase/ move towards matter to
act as DM. [Note that with negative mass as DM, matter tries to avoid DM but
DM chases matter.] Higgs fields seem to me to be ubiquitous, which could be
a pointer to them being DE. Also, I read that the higgs field is measured
as
massless, unlike the higgs boson, which would rule out it being DM.(?)
In my preon model the higgs boson with w.i. -0.5 is the exact antiparticle
of the higgs with w.i. +0.5. [That is, one eigenstate is made of the exact
antipreons of those that the other eigenstate has.] So there could be a
negative mass higgs which could act as DE, and maybe DM.
3. My preon model also allows an elementary particle to be built which has
zero properties, except for mass. This could be a DM particle. Like a higgs
with the w.i. property removed. The aim of my naive preon model was to
build bosons and fermions out of a common pool of preons. IMO this is a
similar aim to SUSY which allows fermions and bosons to convert to one
another. So SUSY should be able to, more formally, find this DM candidate.
This would be another spin 0 scalar, so again I am not sure of scalar
immplications for DM.
> > The oddity is why there was any matter left over and
> > not annihilated in the early universe.
>
> That is a separate question.
>
Yes, it is a separate question, but my recent work has been to try link DE
and DM to negative mass. And now I suspect further that negative mass and
'runaway motion' has also allowed the universe to avoid complete
annihilation by antimatter (so far).
> > I think I have explained in my computer simulation why there was
> > an imbalance of matter and antimatter in the early universe: some
> > of the antimatter (assumed to be signed with negative mass) could
> > not keep up with the positive mass in the 'runaway motion' effect.
>
> Why not?
In my toy simulation, some of the negative masses get left behind. They get
left behind because negative masses repel one another and distribute evenly
through all available space. Some of that space is left far behind the
space matter currently occupies. This is caused by a dark energy effect.
Is it permanently left behind? I am not sure, as negative mass also chases
positive mass [dark matter effect], so it will have two competing forces
acting on it. One to keep away and the other to catch up. But if it lags so
far behind that not even light could catch up, then we are safe from
annihilation.
>
> > If correct, some of the neutrinos/antineutrinos, moving at speed
> > c,
>
> Neutrinos/antineutrinos do not move at speed c.
Ok. Neutrinos move at the very fast end of the speed spectrum, but less than
c.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
