Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain
the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in
Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles
and JavaScript.
A search for differences in the charge-to-mass ratio of protons and antiprotons, conducted at unprecedented levels of precision, results in stringent limits to the validity of fundamental physical symmetries. See Letter p.196
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
Comments
Commenting on this article is now closed.
Rodney Bartlett
Difference and formation of matter and antimatter, with integrated proposal of dark matter
"Matter and antimatter scrutinized" by Klaus P. Jungmann (Nature 524 – 13 August 2015, pp.168-169) states "... there is no antimatter in the Universe." The book "Workings of the Universe" (Time Life, 1991, p.27) says "Mesons are made of two quarks, one of which is always an antiparticle." I suggest Time Life's mesons do not contradict the statement "... there is no antimatter in the Universe" because there are no antiquarks (or quarks).
Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow wrote on p.49 of ?The Grand Design? (Bantam Press, 2010) ? ?It is certainly possible that some alien beings with seventeen arms, infrared eyes and a habit of blowing clotted cream out their ears would make the same experimental observations that we do (regarding the existence of quarks), but describe them without quarks.?
Referring to my article "Unknown source of antiparticles related to quantum spin" (http://vixra.freeforums.org..., I wrote "There are 2 forms of spin – classical (e.g. a rotating top) and quantum. The latter can't be explained classically but may possibly be explained by particles and space mutually affecting each other. According to General Relativity, matter causes a gravity field by its mass creating depressions in space that can be pictured as a flexible rubber sheet. Space could affect particles through its curvature (gravity) infiltrating particles, thus giving them quantum spin. Curvature implies this quantum spin could be continuous. Since it's known this type of spin can only have discrete values, these values (and space's curves) must be determined by discrete pulses of energy that also transmit information (the binary digits of 1 and 0 possess these properties). Space's curves influencing particles is consistent with Einstein's 1919 paper "Do gravitational fields play an essential role in the structure of elementary particles?"
If space-time is curved as a result of being modeled on the Mobius strip, particles of matter and antimatter would also be "twisted" up to 180 degrees. This gives them a non-rotating ?quantum spin? which does not have unlimited values (as visualizing the continuous curvature of a Mobius strip might imply) but is restricted to certain values by the more fundamental operation ? that of the 1?s and 0?s (I'm suggesting that this more fundamental operation can replace des criptions using quarks). (Remember that electronic 1?s and 0?s need not only represent ?on? and ?off? ? they can also represent ?increase? and ?decrease? of parameters; resulting in spins of 0, 1/2, 1, 3/2, 2, etc.) There would be the ordinary matter we see and touch, which could be labeled positive. At the extremity of 180 degrees; there would also exist an inverted, negative form of that matter. This would be as invisible to us as the curving of space, and only detectable through its gravitational effects. It would be referred to as Dark Matter existing in what can only be called a 5th-dimensional hyperspace.
Imagine waves constituting a particle and its quantum spin being curved and twisted to a degree that exceeds the warping responsible for the particle's quantum spin, but is less than that responsible for dark matter. Then neither a particle of matter nor a particle of dark matter would be in existence. Since gravitational waves can create electromagnetism*, we'd have a particle whose electric charge could be the opposite of the original particle ie we could have a negative electron's antiparticle, the positive positron."
* When Einstein penned E=mc^2, he used c (c^2) to convert between energy units and mass units. The conversion number is 90,000,000,000 (light's velocity of 300,000 km/s x 300,000 km/s) which approx. equals 10^11. Gravity waves with a strength of 10^1 are, via quantum gravitational lensing, concentrated 10^24 times after they?re focused to form matter (to 10^25, weak nuclear force?s strength – giving the illusion that a weak nuclear force that is not the product of gravitation exists). Waves are magnified by the matter's density to achieve electromagnetism?s strength (10^36 times gravity's strength) i.e. 10^25 is multiplied by Einstein's conversion factor [10^11] and gives 10^36 (this gives the illusion of the existence of electric and magnetic fields that are not a product of gravitation). (The gluons that bind mesons would likewise be either products of gravitation or, like quarks, replaceable by the more fundamental 1's and 0's.) After absorption by atoms, the depleted remnant of the gravity waves is re-radiated from stars, interstellar gas and dust, etc. It?s radiated as gravitational waves (a Gravity Wave Background, challenging the idea that Cosmic Inflation was necessary to generate gravitational waves) which have lost most of their energy or strength during formation of forces (returning to a strength of 10^1). Since gravity can produce electromagnetism, it?s also radiated as electromagnetic waves ? including an infrared background whose heat output exceeds that of the stars alone, in addition to a microwave background. The latter challenges the idea that existence of the cosmic microwave background proves the universe began with the traditional Big Bang (for a nontraditional Big Bang, see "Binary Digits and Topology Create Hybrid Big-Bang/Steady-State Universe Unified as One Qubit" by R. Bartlett, July 2015, http://vixra.freeforums.org...
The article "Matter and antimatter scrutinized" says science is still looking for "... any possible, but as yet unknown, differences between particles and antiparticles." Gravitational "twisting" that produces matter,* antimatter and dark matter as it varies in stages reaching 180° could account for these particle/antiparticle differences. The authors of "High-precision comparison of the antiproton-to-proton charge-to-mass ratio" (S. Ulmer et al, in Nature 524 13 August 2015, pp.196-199) have found no difference larger than 870 parts per billion in the way that protons and antiprotons interact with gravity. But I believe that's sufficient to explain particle / antiparticle variation. The explanation seems especially plausible in light of "Constraints on the gravitational properties of antiprotons and positrons from cyclotron-frequency measurements" by R.J. Hughes and M.H. Holzscheiter reporting on a possible gravitational anomaly acting on antimatter, expressed as alphag. (Phys. Rev. Lett. 66 854-857, 1991)
* The translation could be via photons of electromagnetic waves and gravitons of gravitational waves being ultimately composed of the binary digits of 1 and 0 encoding pi, e, ?2 etc. (?Our Mathematical Universe? by cosmologist Max Tegmark ? Random House/Knopf, January 2014 believes the universe has a mathematical foundation). Matter particles [and even bosons like the Higgs, W and Z particles] are given mass by the energy of photons and gravitons interacting in matter particles? "wave packets? (interaction within this term from quantum mechanics results in wave-particle duality).
Explaining particle/antiparticle difference in terms of gravitational twisting also illuminates neutrinos/antineutrinos. All of the Standard Model fermions except the neutrino behave as Dirac fermions (particles that are not their own antiparticle – named after Paul Dirac, a British pioneer of quantum mechanics), but the nature of the neutrino is not settled and it may be either Dirac or Majorana (a particle identical to its antiparticle – named after Italian theoretical physicist Ettore Majorana). Gravitational anomaly in the antineutrino would decide the question – the neutrino must be a Dirac particle.
References
1) "Matter and antimatter scrutinized" by Klaus P. Jungmann (Nature 524 – 13 August 2015, pp.168-169)
2) "Workings of the Universe" (Time Life, 1991, p.27)
3) Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow – p.49 of ?The Grand Design? (Bantam Press, 2010)
5) A. Einstein, ?Speilen Gravitationfelder in Aufbau der Elementarteilchen eine Wesentliche Rolle" (Do gravitational fields play an essential role in the structure of elementary particles?), Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, (Math. Phys.), 349-356 (1919) Berlin.
6) "High-precision comparison of the antiproton-to-proton charge-to-mass ratio" (S. Ulmer et al, in Nature 524 13 August 2015, pp.196-199)
7) R.J. Hughes and M.H. Holzscheiter reporting on a possible gravitational anomaly acting on antimatter, expressed as alphag. (Phys. Rev. Lett. 66 854-857, 1991)
8) ?Our Mathematical Universe? by Max Tegmark ? Random House/Knopf, January 2014
9) "Binary Digits and Topology Create Hybrid Big-Bang/Steady-State Universe Unified as One Qubit" by R. Bartlett, July 2015, http://vixra.freeforums.org...
Rodney Bartlett
Difference and formation of matter and antimatter, with integrated proposal of dark matter
"Matter and antimatter scrutinized" by Klaus P. Jungmann (Nature 524 – 13 August 2015, pp.168-169) states "... there is no antimatter in the Universe." The book "Workings of the Universe" (Time Life, 1991, p.27) says "Mesons are made of two quarks, one of which is always an antiparticle." I suggest Time Life's mesons do not contradict the statement "... there is no antimatter in the Universe" because there are no antiquarks (or quarks).
Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow wrote on p.49 of ?The Grand Design? (Bantam Press, 2010) ? ?It is certainly possible that some alien beings with seventeen arms, infrared eyes and a habit of blowing clotted cream out their ears would make the same experimental observations that we do (regarding the existence of quarks), but describe them without quarks.?
Referring to my article "Unknown source of antiparticles related to quantum spin" (http://vixra.freeforums.org..., I wrote "There are 2 forms of spin – classical (e.g. a rotating top) and quantum. The latter can't be explained classically but may possibly be explained by particles and space mutually affecting each other. According to General Relativity, matter causes a gravity field by its mass creating depressions in space that can be pictured as a flexible rubber sheet. Space could affect particles through its curvature (gravity) infiltrating particles, thus giving them quantum spin. Curvature implies this quantum spin could be continuous. Since it's known this type of spin can only have discrete values, these values (and space's curves) must be determined by discrete pulses of energy that also transmit information (the binary digits of 1 and 0 possess these properties). Space's curves influencing particles is consistent with Einstein's 1919 paper "Do gravitational fields play an essential role in the structure of elementary particles?"
If space-time is curved as a result of being modeled on the Mobius strip, particles of matter and antimatter would also be "twisted" up to 180 degrees. This gives them a non-rotating ?quantum spin? which does not have unlimited values (as visualizing the continuous curvature of a Mobius strip might imply) but is restricted to certain values by the more fundamental operation ? that of the 1?s and 0?s (I'm suggesting that this more fundamental operation can replace des criptions using quarks). (Remember that electronic 1?s and 0?s need not only represent ?on? and ?off? ? they can also represent ?increase?
and ?decrease? of parameters; resulting in spins of 0, 1/2, 1, 3/2, 2, etc.) There would be the ordinary matter we see and touch, which could be labeled positive. At the extremity of 180 degrees; there would also exist an inverted, negative form of that matter. This would be as invisible to us as the curving of space, and only detectable through its gravitational effects. It would be referred to as Dark Matter existing in what can only be called a 5th-dimensional hyperspace.
Imagine waves constituting a particle and its quantum spin being curved and twisted to a degree that exceeds the warping responsible for the particle's quantum spin, but is less than that responsible for dark matter. Then neither a particle of matter nor a particle of dark matter would be in existence. Since gravitational waves can create electromagnetism*, we'd have a particle whose electric charge could be the opposite of the original particle ie we could have a negative electron's antiparticle, the positive positron."
* When Einstein penned E=mc^2, he used c (c^2) to convert between energy units and mass units. The conversion number is 90,000,000,000 (light's velocity of 300,000 km/s x 300,000 km/s) which approx. equals 10^11. Gravity waves with a strength of 10^1 are, via quantum gravitational lensing, concentrated 10^24 times after they?re focused to form matter (to 10^25, weak nuclear force?s strength – giving the illusion that a weak nuclear force that is not the product of gravitation exists). Waves are magnified by the matter's density to achieve electromagnetism?s strength (10^36 times gravity's strength) i.e. 10^25 is multiplied by Einstein's conversion factor [10^11] and gives 10^36 (this gives the illusion of the existence of electric and magnetic fields that are not a product of gravitation). (The gluons that bind mesons would likewise be either products of gravitation or, like quarks, replaceable by the more fundamental 1's and 0's.) After absorption by atoms, the depleted remnant of the gravity waves is re-radiated from stars, interstellar gas and dust, etc. It?s radiated as gravitational waves (a Gravity Wave Background, challenging the idea that Cosmic Inflation was necessary to generate gravitational waves) which have lost most of their energy or strength during formation of forces (returning to a strength of 10^1). Since gravity can produce electromagnetism, it?s also radiated as electromagnetic waves ? including an infrared background whose heat output exceeds that of the stars alone, in addition to a microwave background. The latter challenges the idea that existence of the cosmic microwave background proves the universe began with the traditional Big Bang (for a nontraditional Big Bang, see "Binary Digits and Topology Create Hybrid Big-Bang/Steady-State Universe Unified as One Qubit" by R. Bartlett, July 2015, http://vixra.freeforums.org...
The article "Matter and antimatter scrutinized" says science is still looking for "... any possible, but as yet unknown, differences between particles and antiparticles." Gravitational "twisting" that produces matter,* antimatter and dark matter as it varies in stages reaching 180° could account for these particle/antiparticle differences. The authors of "High-precision comparison of the antiproton-to-proton charge-to-mass ratio" (S. Ulmer et al, in Nature 524 13 August 2015, pp.196-199) have found no difference larger than 870 parts per billion in the way that protons and antiprotons interact with gravity. But I believe that's sufficient to explain particle / antiparticle variation. The explanation seems especially plausible in light of "Constraints on the gravitational properties of antiprotons and positrons from cyclotron-frequency measurements" by R.J. Hughes and M.H. Holzscheiter reporting on a possible gravitational anomaly acting on antimatter, expressed as alphag. (Phys. Rev. Lett. 66 854-857, 1991)
* The translation could be via photons of electromagnetic waves and gravitons of gravitational waves being ultimately composed of the binary digits of 1 and 0 encoding pi, e, ?2 etc. (?Our Mathematical Universe? by cosmologist Max Tegmark ? Random House/Knopf, January 2014 believes the universe has a mathematical foundation). Matter particles [and even bosons like the Higgs, W and Z particles] are given mass by the energy of photons and gravitons interacting in matter particles? "wave packets? (interaction within this term from quantum mechanics results in wave-particle duality).
Explaining particle/antiparticle difference in terms of gravitational twisting also illuminates neutrinos/antineutrinos. All of the Standard Model fermions except the neutrino behave as Dirac fermions (particles that are not their own antiparticle – named after Paul Dirac, a British pioneer of quantum mechanics), but the nature of the neutrino is not settled and it may be either Dirac or Majorana (a particle identical to its antiparticle – named after Italian theoretical physicist Ettore Majorana). Gravitational anomaly in the antineutrino would decide the question – the neutrino must be a Dirac particle.
References
1) "Matter and antimatter scrutinized" by Klaus P. Jungmann (Nature 524 – 13 August 2015, pp.168-169)
2) "Workings of the Universe" (Time Life, 1991, p.27)
3) Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow – p.49 of ?The Grand Design? (Bantam Press, 2010)
4) "Unknown source of antiparticles related to quantum spin" by R. Bartlett, 2015 (http://vixra.freeforums.org...
5) A. Einstein, ?Speilen Gravitationfelder in Aufbau der Elementarteilchen eine Wesentliche Rolle" (Do gravitational fields play
an essential role in the structure of elementary particles?), Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, (Math. Phys.), 349-356 (1919) Berlin.
6) "High-precision comparison of the antiproton-to-proton charge-to-mass ratio" (S. Ulmer et al, in Nature 524 13 August 2015, pp.196-199)
7) R.J. Hughes and M.H. Holzscheiter reporting on a possible gravitational anomaly acting on antimatter, expressed as alphag. (Phys. Rev. Lett. 66 854-857, 1991)
8) ?Our Mathematical Universe? by Max Tegmark ? Random House/Knopf, January 2014
9) "Binary Digits and Topology Create Hybrid Big-Bang/Steady-State Universe Unified as One Qubit" by R. Bartlett, July 2015, http://vixra.freeforums.org...