# Repulsion between Matter and Antimatter

· cosmology, physics
Authors

Matter and antimatter propelled nearly to the speed of light by the Crab pulsar, from NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory and the Hubble Space Telescope/Getty Images.

The previous post on God’s equation $\rho =\Delta\varphi$ connects to the recent article (2011) on antigravity and antimatter by M. Villata CPT symmetry and antimatter gravity in general relativity.

Villata derives mutual repulsion between matter and antimatter as a consequence of CPT invariance.

Using instead the equation $\rho =\Delta\varphi$ as starting point with the gravitational potential $\varphi$ being the primary quantity, and with the derived quantity $\rho$ representing matter (visible matter + dark matter) where $\rho >0$ and antimatter where $\rho <0$, the argument is different:

The gravitational force $-\nabla\varphi$ points in the direction of decreasing potential $\varphi$, thus towards local minima with $\Delta\varphi >0$, thus towards matter regions as illustrated  in the following picture:

Here red indicates presence of matter and blue presence of antimatter. We see that with antimatter between two matter regions, the attractive force between the two regions is reduced, which can be interpreted as an effect of repulsion between matter and antimatter. Without antimatter the local maximum will be weaker and the two matter regions will tend to merge  as by mutual attraction.

1. ### Richard T. Fowler

I am confused. I thought you did not subscribe to general relativity. I was under the impression that you had claimed to have disproven it.

Please explain how this post is consistent with a field theory that is mutually exclusive with general relativity.

If the post is not consistent with your field theory, please explain why you are posting something that depends on a theory (G.R.) that you do not believe in.

RTF

2. ### claesjohnson

The post neither contradicts nor supports relativity. It rather connects to Newtonian mechanics which can be viewed as a special case of GR.

• ### Richard T. Fowler

I’m sorry for being slow, but if there is something I am not getting, I need to find out what it is.

Does the work of M. Villata that you have cited assume GR? It is entitled:

CPT symmetry and antimatter gravity in general relativity

You seem to be saying that Villata’s work assumes Newtonian mechanics, but does not depend on GR. But I am having a hard time reconciling this with the words “general relativity” in the title.

Does Newtonian mechanics alone, without GR, provide a mechanism for antigravity? If so, how? Also, can you quote anything from that paper to support your answer to these two questions?

Thank you.

RTF

3. ### claesjohnson

Villata refers to GR, I do not.

• ### Richard T. Fowler

Fine, but how does your theory explain gravity in a way that allow for “antigravity”?

Thanks

4. ### claesjohnson

Through God’s equation with rho of both signs.

• ### Richard T. Fowler

Yes, I saw the rho with alternating signs. But you have said that that connects with Newonian mechanics, not necessarily with your field theory. I was under the impression that Newtonian mechanics has no explanation for gravity; if that is so, it seems to me that the attempt to negate rho using Newtonian mechanics is without physical explanation. That is why I am asking how your theory explains gravity in a way that allows for “antigravity”. The explanation you have just given does not explain gravity to me.

That explanation does tell me that you are doing some math that purports to relate to gravity. But what is the physical explanation your theory offers for gravity? The math of that must contain more than just, ‘There is a phi, and there is a rho, and the rho can be reversed in sign.’ What symbol is used for gravitational flux in your model? And what does that symbol represent physically?

The reason I ask is because my understanding of the Maxwellian interpretation of gravity is waves in a medium, perturbations in a gravitational field that is invisible like a luminiferous aether. If your idea is that gravity is a perturbation in such a field, what would it mean to try to force the operator for that to be negative? Then you’re in Einsteinian territory, just as when general relativity tries to enable “antigravity” by arguing that the math “allows” for “negative space”. Whatever might that be!? And if the fact that the idea of “negative space” is nonsense is one reason why you cannot accept general relativity (it certainly is for me), then surely the same error cannot be acceptable in any theory that is proposed to replace it?

I would like to ask you if Newton would have agreed that the gravitational flux implied by his model could be allowed into an equation which would force it to be negative in any situation in which space is “positive”.

Thank you.

RTF

5. ### claesjohnson

I do not seek to explain gravity, just want to point out that viewing the gravitational potential as the primary unknown and accepting the model rho = Delta phi, may “explain” several things
which have no explanation in a classical Newtonian setting, like action at distance and dark matter/energy. I do not discuss relativity and its connection between mass and “space-time curvature”.

• ### Richard T. Fowler

Very well, your points are taken. But, if I’m understanding you correctly (please correct me if I’m not), you are claiming that accepting the model “rho = Delta phi” means accepting that wherever there is the presence in space of negative mass, there is a negative perturbation in a gravitational field. If gravitation consists of waves … how can a wave’s intensity be less than zero? If it descends to zero, then there is no more wave. This I can accept, in some hypothetical circumstances. But what on Earth does it mean if the intensity is “less than zero”? I cannot make heads or tails out of that. Am I just very slow? Is there something very obvious that I am missing? Thanks for your time.

RTF

6. ### claesjohnson

Yes, you are confused in the sense that the equation rho = Delta phi can have rho of both signs, from a mathematical point of view. It is an open problem if this is also possible from physical point of view.

• ### Richard T. Fowler

I appreciate the clarification.

For the record, I don’t accept equations or anything else that doesn’t have a physical counterpart that makes sense to me. Otherwise, I risk falling into the trap of an ad-hoc unphysical “principle” or assumption. Therefore in the absense of something that makes physical sense, I will assume that there is no anti-gravity and that this equation is wrong. And after reading some of your work on general relativity, I frankly have my doubts about antimatter as well. Dark matter seems reasonable, but dark energy sounds very doubtful to me.

Thank you for your assistance, which has been very helpful to me in trying to untangle the mess left by others. I hope you will come to see the utility of my approach, since it was, at one time, yours as well.

RTF

• ### Richard T. Fowler

Correction — “absense” = “absence”

7. ### Steven Dinowitz

I read the 4 page aticle “CPT symmetry and antimatter gravity in general relativity” by M. Villata.
The author attempts to maintain the validity of General Relativity (GR) with gravitational repulsion between matter and antimatter. Math wise one can maintain anything – but in physics there are physical consequences. Villata maintains that antimatter has a positive inertial mass (and we know experimentally that this is true). But he seems to ignore the following: If there is gravitational repulsion between matter and antimatter then the Principle of Equivalence – the very pillar of GR – cannot be valid, and thus GR itself must not be valid.

I look forward to the AEGIS experiment, and I hope it will find gravitational repulsion between matter and antimatter – but such a result will and should be a death blow to GR – not a reaffirmation of it!

8. ### claesjohnson

I do not discuss GR as I do not understand the beauty of it nor its relevance to in physics.