[Dihydrogen Monoxide]

I went out on a limb in another forum and found that:

1. antimass chases mass.
2. antimass determines the direction of the chase.
2a. It would require a concept of absolute direction in an age of relativity. FNORD.
3. The acceleration of antimass toward mass as mass is repelled away by gravity is

equal to exactly

the acceleration necessary to get a newly emitted photon from 0 to c in Planck time.

If anyone asks I will go through the calculations.

The length the photon would travel during that time is half the Planck length.

Remember the gravitational constant is Planck length cubed divided by the quantity of the Planck mass multiplied by the Planck time squared.

I want to take this further.

Gravitationally antimass is repelled in the company of antimass.
Electromagnetically, the direction of the forces change but since the signs of the masses are negative the result is of course no net difference in behavior.
The question remains though, does mass being negative have any effect on the sign of the field value from a particle? Does a positron have a negative charge but a positive field because it is a negative mass?

I feel like I'm untangling the wires to my headphones. They work tangled, but they don't reach as far.

Would it be possible to arrange two neutrons and an antineutron to see them interact gravitationally without electromagnetic forces messing with the results?

I would expect one neutron to be attracted to the other neutron while being pushed by the chasing antineutron.

Does this happen?

Of course maybe this like the question Feynman asked: What happens to a hose with a curved end if the water were to flow backwards? Would it turn in reverse? Well it turns out (I forget the argument) it just explodes. There is no reverse, just kaboom.

Or we could try to see how a positron and an electron released from magnetic traps interact. Do they attract the same way electrically or does the chase effect have an effect?

[dleviwing]

Since Feynman also stated we do not have a satisfactory explanation as to the cause of mass that promoting a theory of antimass is rather futile; also mass is a quantitative measure of something; the question should be a measurement of what? We actually do not have a true quantitative measure of physical substance; only relative interactive forces.

How were you introduced to such stuff? I do hope it wasn’t academia! Do you have a link? If it's Eric Peterson's theory, it's crap.

[Dihydrogen Monoxide]

Well my hypothesis is falsifiable because it makes some predictions:

Hypothesis:
1. Light is an antimass and mass couplet bound by a chasing effect
2. The masses are planck size
3. The distance between the partners is the planck length
4. Antimatter isn't antistuff, but it does constitute antimass
5. Relativistic corrections have to be made but that's the next step

---This Just In---
6. Planck mass has to be the fundamental unit
7. Larger masses are multiples of the planck mass and would instantly explode without an internal force
8. Is the universe made of antimatter? -- just kidding

Predictions: some of these are slightly wild guesses but I'm offering ways to test
1. The fine structure constant will be slightly changed for antimass/antimatter
2. Antimatter chases matter and repels antimatter
3. This repulsive force is only overcome in an accelerator due to the high energies (clearly #5 above is required because of this)
4. Antimolecules will have different orbitals, melting points, etc
5. Antimatter repels light more than matter does
6. The photoelectric effect will have different numerical results or require different frequencies in an antimaterial
7. Antigalaxies are much harder to make
8. Antimaterials are more brittle and weaker than materials of mass
9. Compounds could be made of mass and antimass at the right distances and the right quantities of mass and antimass

Originally Posted by dleviwing Since Feynman also stated we do not have a satisfactory explanation as to the cause of mass that promoting a theory of antimass is rather futile; also mass is a quantitative measure of something; the question should be a measurement of what? We actually do not have a true quantitative measure of physical substance; only relative interactive forces.

No kidding. I've been waiting for someone to say that. It's not futile though because I'm not looking for a theory of antimass nor even a measure of substance. I'm just going behind the veil and seeing if I can construct a different foundation for things we already observe. I'm being careful to negate all my negations so it shouldn't be a problem.

It was just this: (pl = planck length, pm = p. mass, pt = p. time)

F=Gm1m2/d^2
G=pl^3/(pm*pt^2) (that egged me on)

What I discovered was that the gravitational acceleration of a mass and antimass of absolute value of planck mass at a distance of planck length is the same as going from 0 to c (speed of light) in planck time.

Acceleration of planck size antimass and mass at separation of planck length:

G = pl^3 / (pm * pt^2)

Let's use a coefficient k = G/d^2 so F = km1m2.

Now the important thing is to find the vector of the force on both masses.
I'll use as a reference a unit vector with the direction a mass would be accelerated in a traditional gravitational field. The force vector F1 at point x_m1 < x_m2 is in the direction toward m2. The force vector F2 at point x_m2 > x_m1 is in the direction toward m1. That means essentially F1 = -F2.

Traditionally we consider these to be positive force vectors even though they point in opposite directions. It wasn't until college that teachers stopped doing that. It used to drive me up the walls in high school.

Anyway so now we have: a is acceleration
F = km1m2
F1 = k(-pm)(pm) = -kpm^2
F2 = -k(-pm)(pm) = kpm^2
a1 = F1/pm = -kpm
a2 = F2/-pm = -kpm

So the antimass chases the mass.

k = G/d^2 so the cubed pl term becomes just pl with no length in the denominator.

k = pl/(pm * pt^2)
-kpm = -pl/pt^2

What is kpm? The gravitational acceleration of the planck mass and antimass at separation planck length:

1.6 * 10^-35 m
--------------------- = 5.5 * 10^51 m/s^2
(5.4 * 10^-44 s)^2

Acceleration from 0 to c in planck time.
3.0 * 10^8 m/s
----------------- = 5.5 * 10e51 m/s^2
5.4 * 10^-44 s

Of course this also shows that pl/pt = c which is a fundamental definition.

I'm not saying that antimass is antiquantity of substance. That's a meaningless notion. I'm just saying it behaves differently in a gravitational field.

Originally Posted by dleviwing How were you introduced to such stuff? I do hope it wasn’t academia! Do you have a link? If it's Eric Peterson's theory, it's crap.

This is simply my own investigation. I haven't the froggiest who that bird Peterson is.

It's an exploration.