# Thread: Holographic Universe and missing Antimatter

1. Established Member
Join Date
Nov 2004
Posts
1,532

## Holographic Universe and missing Antimatter

To record a hologram of a complex object, a laser beam is first split into two separate beams of light using a beam splitter. One beam illuminates the object, reflecting its image onto the recording medium as it scatters the beam. The second (reference) beam illuminates the recording medium directly.
A light wave can be modeled by a complex number U. The amplitude and phase of the light are represented by the absolute value and angle of the complex number. The object and reference waves at any point in the holographic system are given by UO and UR. The combined beam is given be UO + UR. It also forms a real image of the object in the space beyond the holographic plate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holography
When particles decay into other particles, these decays must obey the various conservation laws. As a result, pairs of particles can be generated that are required to be in certain quantum states. This type of entangled pair where the particles always have opposite spin is known as the spin anti-correlated case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
The laws of nature are very nearly symmetrical with respect to particles and antiparticles. This leads to the question of why the formation of matter after the Big Bang resulted in a universe consisting almost entirely of matter, rather than being a half-and-half mixture of matter and antimatter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiparticle
The question is naturally explained if the holographic Universe is true. It needs a reference wave which may have its origin in the entangled antiparticles. Our observable Universe exists as a mathematical relation to the Anti-Universe's reference. The conjugate object beam (Universe) is created due to certain program in relation to the reference beam (Anti-Universe). Therefore the antimatter doesn't disappeared after Big Bang but remains as the same illusion around our observable Universe because according to holographic principle both of them, the Universe and the Anti-Universe are illusion. It shows that the problem of the missing antimatter doesn't exist.
There are many evidences for the holographic principle and the holographic universe:
http://www.hlawiczes1.webpark.pl/gravastar.html

2. It seems like an intriguing idea, but I don't really understand how it would work. Maybe it needs more explanation. But I would wonder, why do particles and anti-particles annihilate one another? What is the relationship between the two beams in a holograph? Do they also annihilate when they contact one another?

3. Established Member
Join Date
Nov 2004
Posts
1,532
Hologram is created when two coherent beams of the light interfere together. When the light would be not coherent there will be no image.
Many physicists today (Hooft, Beckenstein, Suskind, Smoot...) believe the structure of the matter and vacuum is modelled due to holographic principle.

4. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
May 2004
Posts
4,139
Originally Posted by czeslaw
Hologram is created when two coherent beams of the light interfere together. When the light would be not coherent there will be no image.
Many physicists today (Hooft, Beckenstein, Suskind, Smoot...) believe the structure of the matter and vacuum is modelled due to holographic principle.
Do you understand what the holographic principle is? It has nothing to do with the interference of image and reference beams onto a piece of photographic film?

5. Established Member
Join Date
Nov 2004
Posts
1,532
The holographic principle is a property of quantum gravity and string theories which states that the description of a volume of space can be thought of as encoded on a boundary to the region—preferably a light-like boundary like a gravitational horizon. In a larger and more speculative sense, the theory suggests that the entire universe can be seen as a two-dimensional information structure "painted" on the cosmological horizon, such that the three dimensions we observe are only an effective description at macroscopic scales and at low energies. In his 2003 article published in Scientific American magazine, Jacob Bekenstein summarized a current trend started by John Archibald Wheeler, which suggests scientists may "regard the physical world as made of information, with energy and matter as incidentals."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle

The process of producing a holographic reconstruction is explained below purely in terms of interference and diffraction. It is somewhat simplified, but is accurate enough to provide an understanding of how the holographic process works.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holography

6. Exactly. These are two completely different things that just happen to use the same word to describe them.

I have an incandescent lamp on my desk.

The sun is incandescent.

So by your logic, the sun is an incandescent light bulb?

7. Established Member
Join Date
Mar 2010
Location
United Kingdom
Posts
3,037
Originally Posted by Strange
So by your logic, the sun is an incandescent light bulb?
How could that even be true? The Sun was born in a low metal environment long before bulbs came about. Use some logic, people. The correct interpretation is that your desk lamp is a star.
;-)

Czelaw: I'm sorry but there appear to be several huge leaps with little logical justification in them in your original post. It may just be me not understanding. What does "It needs a reference wave which may have its origin in the entangled antiparticles" mean when you then refer to the anti-universe having its own reference or being the reference (this is a direct question)? Can you flesh out your ideas further because at the moment it looks a little like three paragraphs of introduction and an incomprehensible jumble of sentences at the end. That may be because you are summarising a more complete and logically structured argument in a short post - if so could you please expand? Some things I'd like to see addressed are: Where do the reference and object beams come from? Why are they coherent? Were they produced together or are they part of some larger structure? How is it possible for our accelerators to generate illusions like antimatter in your scenario? Why do antiparticles map to real particles so precisely? NB: these are not direct questions, I don't want to bombard you with Q's. Just ideas for things that a fuller explanation might cover.

8. Established Member
Join Date
Nov 2004
Posts
1,532
Originally Posted by Strange
Exactly. These are two completely different things that just happen to use the same word to describe them.

I have an incandescent lamp on my desk.

The sun is incandescent.

So by your logic, the sun is an incandescent light bulb?
Disn't I wrote above what the hologram is ?
In the ordinary holography we do use coherent light but to create a holographic universe we have to use something more. I assume it is a quantum information which has to be coherent.
If the Event Horizon of the Black Hole separates the matter and antimatter than the particles and antiparticles remain entangled. The information is coherent, isn't it ?

9. Originally Posted by czeslaw
Disn't I wrote above what the hologram is ?
In the ordinary holography we do use coherent light but to create a holographic universe we have to use something more. I assume it is a quantum information which has to be coherent.
If the Event Horizon of the Black Hole separates the matter and antimatter than the particles and antiparticles remain entangled. The information is coherent, isn't it ?
It seems to me that in the "holographic principle" the word "holographic" is being used purely as a metaphor for the 2D<->3D translation/symmetry/mapping that appears to exist, for example in terms of things such as the entropy inside a balck hole. It does not mean that the universe is a hologram in the snese we use it for storing data or creating images.

You use of the word "coherent" in this context also seems very different from how it is used in a laser, for example.

10. Established Member
Join Date
Nov 2004
Posts
1,532
You are right. The holographic universe is different than the hologram we produce by laser. It is an assumption of Beckenstein, Hooft, Smoot (Nobel price laureates) and many other.
The holographic principle and consequently holographic universe explain naturally many things like Dark Energy, Dark Matter, Space Recession , accelerating expanssion and other.
I assume the Event Horison of the Black Hole separates also the matter and antimatter.

11. Established Member
Join Date
Oct 2010
Posts
135
Originally Posted by czeslaw
The holographic principle and consequently holographic universe explain naturally many things like Dark Energy, Dark Matter, Space Recession , accelerating expanssion and other.
This is something I haven't heard before. Could you provide some references?
I assume the Event Horison of the Black Hole separates also the matter and antimatter.
Separates them how? How does antimatter even exist in our universe, where it doesn't have a "reference wave" in your model?

12. Originally Posted by czeslaw
I assume the Event Horison of the Black Hole separates also the matter and antimatter.
How does that work. Black holes are, as far as we know, formed entirely from matter. So where does anti-matter come into it?

13. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
May 2004
Posts
4,139
Originally Posted by czeslaw
The holographic principle is a property of quantum gravity and string theories which states that the description of a volume of space can be thought of as encoded on a boundary to the region—preferably a light-like boundary like a gravitational horizon. In a larger and more speculative sense, the theory suggests that the entire universe can be seen as a two-dimensional information structure "painted" on the cosmological horizon, such that the three dimensions we observe are only an effective description at macroscopic scales and at low energies. In his 2003 article published in Scientific American magazine, Jacob Bekenstein summarized a current trend started by John Archibald Wheeler, which suggests scientists may "regard the physical world as made of information, with energy and matter as incidentals."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle

The process of producing a holographic reconstruction is explained below purely in terms of interference and diffraction. It is somewhat simplified, but is accurate enough to provide an understanding of how the holographic process works.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holography
So the only link is that information on a D-dimensional volume is somehow encoded onto a D-1 dimensional surface. With respect to the holographic principle this was inspired by the observation that the entropy of a black hole scales as the surface area of the horizon. (I had the luck to see Wheeler talking about this at a colloquium back in around 1990. :-) ) This has absolutely nothing to do with an optical hologram, which essentially is a means of recording the wavefront of light reflected from an object. (In a sense it is just a very complex diffraction grating.)

That you replied by quoting from Wikipedia suggests that you do not really understand what the holographic principle is about. You are reading far too much into the similarity in terminology.

14. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
May 2004
Posts
4,139
Originally Posted by czeslaw
You are right. The holographic universe is different than the hologram we produce by laser. It is an assumption of Beckenstein, Hooft, Smoot (Nobel price laureates) and many other.
The holographic principle and consequently holographic universe explain naturally many things like Dark Energy, Dark Matter, Space Recession , accelerating expanssion and other.
So nothing to do with reference beams and object beams?
I assume the Event Horison of the Black Hole separates also the matter and antimatter.
You can assume anything that you like. You might assume that tiny aliens live just above the horizon of a black hole, or that I can go down to my local store and buy the hover-board that science fiction movies of the 80's promised me. It helps if you have some reason to mtivate the assumption. So...

Why do you assume that the horizon seperates matter and anti-matter? I, for one, am unaware of any reason why that should happen.

15. Established Member
Join Date
Nov 2004
Posts
1,532
If the holographic principle is right the increase of the amount of the information on a flat screen is ~R^2 when the volume increases ~R^3. It causes decrease of the density and we observe it as an expanssion of the Universe. We call itspace recession.
There isn't creation of the matter in the Universe but the information from the environment falls down into our Observable Universe. Each observer has its own observable universe and the observer is in its centre.
The expanssion accelerates because the information from environment is transformed from volume R^3 into screen on R^2.
George Smoot - arxiv.org/abs/1003.5952

It is accepted that particles-antiparticles are created in the strong gravitational field of the Black Hole. If the Black Hole has a magnetic moment the particles spin up and antiparticles spin down.
We can not see what is inside a Black Hole.
If my assumption is true, the half of the 5% of the visible matter of our observable universe is in the Black Holes. Additionally most of the largest BH has to be in the early Universe and in centre of the Galaxy clusters (closest to us is Virgo)

16. Originally Posted by czeslaw
It is accepted that particles-antiparticles are created in the strong gravitational field of the Black Hole.
It is? Could provide a source for that claim.

17. Banned
Join Date
Jan 2008
Posts
2,273
czeslaw,

It is accepted that particles-antiparticles are created in the strong gravitational field of the Black Hole.
I've seen this asserted a number of times in print concerning theoretical possibilities of electrons and positrons being created in this manner. The huge gamma ray emitting bubbles just discovered in the Milky Way might be evidence of this creation process concerning positrons. If you are aware of any theory/hypothesis or papers (other than my own) concerning the creation of protons and/or anti-protons in this manner then I would be grateful for such links or references.
Last edited by forrest noble; 2010-Dec-04 at 01:48 AM.

18. Banned
Join Date
Jan 2008
Posts
2,273
czeslaw,

If my assumption is true, the half of the 5% of the visible matter of our observable universe is in the Black Holes.
I don't understand the meaning of this sentence. Could you reword it?

Additionally most of the largest BH has to be in the early Universe and in centre of the Galaxy clusters (closest to us is Virgo)
This may be true but why do you think "it has to be" / had to be that way?

19. Established Member
Join Date
Nov 2004
Posts
1,532
Originally Posted by Strange
It is? Could provide a source for that claim.
It is commonly accepted.
Thus, virtual particles are often popularly described as coming in pairs, a particle and antiparticle, which can be of any kind. These pairs exist for an extremely short time, and mutually annihilate in short order. In some cases, however, it is possible to boost the pair apart using external energy so that they avoid annihilation and become real particles.

This may occur in one of two ways. In an accelerating frame of reference, the virtual particles may appear to be real to the accelerating observer; this is known as the Unruh effect. In short, the vacuum of a stationary frame appears, to the accelerated observer, to be a warm gas of real particles in thermodynamic equilibrium. The Unruh effect is a toy model for understanding Hawking radiation, the process by which black holes evaporate.

Another example is pair production in very strong electric fields, sometimes called vacuum decay. If, for example, a pair of atomic nuclei are merged together to very briefly form a nucleus with a charge greater than about 140, (that is, larger than about the inverse of the fine structure constant), the strength of the electric field will be such that it will be energetically favorable to create positron-electron pairs out of the vacuum or Dirac sea, with the electron attracted to the nucleus to annihilate the positive charge. This pair-creation amplitude was first calculated by Julian Schwinger in 1951.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle
Pair production is also the hypothesized mechanism behind the Pair instability supernova type of stellar explosions, where pair production suddenly lowers pressure inside a supergiant star, leading to a partial implosion, and then explosive thermonuclear burning. Supernova SN 2006gy is hypothesized to have been a pair production type supernova.
In 2008 the Titan laser aimed at a 1-millimeter-thick gold target was used to generate positron–electron pairs in large numbers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

20. Established Member
Join Date
Nov 2004
Posts
1,532
Originally Posted by forrest noble
czeslaw,

I've seen this asserted a number of times in print concerning theoretical possibilities of electrons and positrons being created in this manner. The huge gamma ray emitting bubbles just discovered in the Milky Way might be evidence of this creation process concerning positrons. If you are aware of any theory/hypothesis or papers (other than my own) concerning the creation of protons and/or anti-protons in this manner then I would be grateful for such links or references.
Thank you Forrest Noble for the remark. the pair creation is commonly accepted. I would like to read your theory.
Here is an article about a mechanism of the pair creation.
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0103053
I think it depends how we understand the spacetime. If it is an empty metric we have problems with the energy conservation. If spacetime and gravitational field are made of virtual pairs the problem disappears.
The change of refractive index of the vacuum caused by the presence of matter has exactly the same effect on the path of light as the curvature of space in Einstein's General Relativity.
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0604009

21. Established Member
Join Date
Nov 2004
Posts
1,532
Originally Posted by forrest noble
czeslaw,
I don't understand the meaning of this sentence. Could you reword it?
This may be true but why do you think "it has to be" / had to be that way?
According to WMAP the visible matter is only 4,6 % of the mass of the Observable Universe and will decrease.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_matter.html
If the matter is separated by Event Horizon it suggests 2,3 % of the mass of the Observable Universe is behind the Event Horizon of the Black Holes as the Antimatter.
The vacuum in early Universe was denser. The differences in its density created first Black Holes as a mixture of the fast annihilated particles-antiparticles. This first BH spinned in relation to each other and created a magnetic moment which separated the matter spin up and antimatter spin down. After short time the matter inside BH annihilated and its interior become filled with antimatter. The primordial BH ejected the matter in the jets far away and our Local Group is ejected from Virgo Cluster.
According my idea many supermassive Black Holes should be in the centre of Virgo cluster. Many of them could be dark if there isn't matter in their Accretion Discs.

22. Originally Posted by czeslaw
It is commonly accepted.
I asked you for evidence of that, which you haven't provided.

Thus, virtual particles are often popularly described as coming in pairs, a particle and antiparticle, which can be of any kind. These pairs exist for an extremely short time, and mutually annihilate in short order. In some cases, however, it is possible to boost the pair apart using external energy so that they avoid annihilation and become real particles.

This may occur in one of two ways. In an accelerating frame of reference, the virtual particles may appear to be real to the accelerating observer; this is known as the Unruh effect. In short, the vacuum of a stationary frame appears, to the accelerated observer, to be a warm gas of real particles in thermodynamic equilibrium. The Unruh effect is a toy model for understanding Hawking radiation, the process by which black holes evaporate.
If the Unruh effect was due to the accelerfation separating virutal pairs, then why is it only visible to the accelerating observer.

Hawking radiation also is not caused by splitting virtual pairs (otherwise it would be visible to a freefalling observer).

Another example is pair production in very strong electric fields, sometimes called vacuum decay. If, for example, a pair of atomic nuclei are merged together to very briefly form a nucleus with a charge greater than about 140, (that is, larger than about the inverse of the fine structure constant), the strength of the electric field will be such that it will be energetically favorable to create positron-electron pairs out of the vacuum or Dirac sea, with the electron attracted to the nucleus to annihilate the positive charge. This pair-creation amplitude was first calculated by Julian Schwinger in 1951.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle
Pair production is also the hypothesized mechanism behind the Pair instability supernova type of stellar explosions, where pair production suddenly lowers pressure inside a supergiant star, leading to a partial implosion, and then explosive thermonuclear burning. Supernova SN 2006gy is hypothesized to have been a pair production type supernova.
In 2008 the Titan laser aimed at a 1-millimeter-thick gold target was used to generate positron–electron pairs in large numbers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
How is this relevant?

23. Established Member
Join Date
Nov 2004
Posts
1,532
In CERN and Fermilab they produce antimatter by collision of the relativistic particles. The astronomers observe it in supernova outburst. It is not possible to do it in the Earth's gravitational field. Julian Schwinger (Nobel price laureate) made a good calculation and I believe it works in a strong gravitational field of the Black Hole. Do you think Schwinger was mistaken ?
It is different to thermal Hawking radiation - it is how eventually the Black Hole may loose its energy and mass.
The particle and antiparticle move in opposite direction in CERN and Fermilab they use the magnetic traps to catch them. Similarly works a Black Hole.

24. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
May 2004
Posts
4,139
Originally Posted by czeslaw
If the matter is separated by Event Horizon it suggests 2,3 % of the mass of the Observable Universe is behind the Event Horizon of the Black Holes as the Antimatter.
Why do you believe that blackholes sort matter from anti-matter? Hawking radiation is symmetric regarding the production of matter and anti-matter. If it wasn't, then it would lead to black-holes becoming charged.

25. Established Member
Join Date
Nov 2004
Posts
1,532
Schwinger shows that pair creation is possible from the vacuum in strong gravitational field. It is not a radiation from a Black Hole. The space is a source of the matter-antimatter itself if the vacuum consists of virtual particles-antiparticles. Most of the Black Holes spins (all of them I think) therefore thy posses a magnetic moment which separates spin up and spin down particles like in CERN and Fermilab. Simple production in the laboratory.
The problem is :
Is the space emergent and made of virtual particles-antiparticles as a vacuum with its vacuum energy ?
or
There is a metric geometry as a fundamental phenomenon in which all events happens ?

I assume that spacetime is emergent due to Holographic Principle as Suskind, Hooft, Smoot claim.

26. Originally Posted by czeslaw
In CERN and Fermilab they produce antimatter by collision of the relativistic particles. The astronomers observe it in supernova outburst. It is not possible to do it in the Earth's gravitational field. Julian Schwinger (Nobel price laureate) made a good calculation and I believe it works in a strong gravitational field of the Black Hole. Do you think Schwinger was mistaken ?
I was under the impression that the Schwinger effect is the spontaneous creation of charged particle-antiparticle pairs in an electric field. Once again you haven't provided any source that supports your intperpretation/claim that it works in a strong gravitational field.

It is different to thermal Hawking radiation - it is how eventually the Black Hole may loose its energy and mass.
Exactly. it has nothing to do with Hawking radiation.

The particle and antiparticle move in opposite direction in CERN and Fermilab they use the magnetic traps to catch them.
They can do this because they know that they are doing: ie. they know the momentum and charge of the particles/anti-particles they are interested in. If you have random production of virtual pairs then they will be going in arbitrary directions and they can have positive, negative or no charge.

Similarly works a Black Hole.
And your support for that claim is what, exactly?

27. Originally Posted by czeslaw
Schwinger shows that pair creation is possible from the vacuum in strong gravitational field. It is not a radiation from a Black Hole. The space is a source of the matter-antimatter itself if the vacuum consists of virtual particles-antiparticles. Most of the Black Holes spins (all of them I think) therefore thy posses a magnetic moment which separates spin up and spin down particles like in CERN and Fermilab. Simple production in the laboratory.
Even if the magnetic moment of a black hole separated spin up and spin down particles (another claim you have provided no evidence for) then why would that make matter/antimatter go one way or the other - both the matter or antimatter particles could have either spin on a (roughly) 50/50 basis.

28. Established Member
Join Date
Nov 2004
Posts
1,532
Spin of Antiparticles
The "antiparticle" is a copy of the "particle" with opposite electric charge. The magnetic dipole moment direction of the "antiparticle" will be the opposite of that of the "particle". Let's place an electron and its antiparticle positron in the same magnetic field. Electron and positron magnetic dipole moments will be aligned in opposite directions. The "spin" for both, however, is 1/2.
When we discussed the "spin direction" we talked about placing electrons in a magnetic field. Now, let's assume there is no external magnetic field and we measure the spin direction. In reality, any such measurement has to involve a magnetic field but let's just assume for the sake of argument that it is a "measurement" of spin direction without specifying how the "measurement" is done. We "measure" the component of electron spin vector along a random direction. As you can guess from the previous discussion, the "spin direction" will either be positively aligned ("up") with the chosen direction or negatively aligned ("down"). Alignment with an angle is not possible. All spin direction measurements are 2-valued. In technical jargon, this is expressed with the statement: quantum mechanical spin operator has 2 eigenvalues.

The rotating Black Hole has a magnetic moment and creates in strong gravitational field an effect of the gravitomagnetism.
Indirect validations of gravitomagnetic effects have been derived from analyses of relativistic jets. Roger Penrose had proposed a frame dragging mechanism for extracting energy and momentum from rotating black holes.[2] Reva Kay Williams, University of Florida, developed a rigorous proof that validated Penrose's mechanism.[3] Her model showed how the Lense-Thirring effect could account for the observed high energies and luminosities of quasars and active galactic nuclei; the collimated jets about their polar axis; and the asymmetrical jets (relative to the orbital plane).[4] All of those observed properties could be explained in terms of gravitomagnetic effects.[5] Williams’ application of Penrose's mechanism can be applied to black holes of any size.[6] Relativistic jets can serve as the largest and brightest form of validations for gravitomagnetism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitomagnetism
The Black Hole has to be neutraly and no charged, therefore each small imbalance in charge generate strong electromagnetic field if you not believe the gravitational field is enough.
The particles and antiparticles are constructed that it would be possible to separate them.
The only problem I see is the construction of the space alone - emergent or fundamental ?
Some physicists say emergent some fundamental.

29. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
May 2004
Posts
4,139
Two quotes from two web pages...
Originally Posted by czeslaw
Spin of Antiparticles
The "antiparticle" is a copy of the "particle" with opposite electric charge. The magnetic dipole moment direction of the "antiparticle" will be the opposite of that of the "particle". Let's place an electron and its antiparticle positron in the same magnetic field. Electron and positron magnetic dipole moments will be aligned in opposite directions. The "spin" for both, however, is 1/2.
When we discussed the "spin direction" we talked about placing electrons in a magnetic field. Now, let's assume there is no external magnetic field and we measure the spin direction. In reality, any such measurement has to involve a magnetic field but let's just assume for the sake of argument that it is a "measurement" of spin direction without specifying how the "measurement" is done. We "measure" the component of electron spin vector along a random direction. As you can guess from the previous discussion, the "spin direction" will either be positively aligned ("up") with the chosen direction or negatively aligned ("down"). Alignment with an angle is not possible. All spin direction measurements are 2-valued. In technical jargon, this is expressed with the statement: quantum mechanical spin operator has 2 eigenvalues.

The rotating Black Hole has a magnetic moment and creates in strong gravitational field an effect of the gravitomagnetism.
Indirect validations of gravitomagnetic effects have been derived from analyses of relativistic jets. Roger Penrose had proposed a frame dragging mechanism for extracting energy and momentum from rotating black holes.[2] Reva Kay Williams, University of Florida, developed a rigorous proof that validated Penrose's mechanism.[3] Her model showed how the Lense-Thirring effect could account for the observed high energies and luminosities of quasars and active galactic nuclei; the collimated jets about their polar axis; and the asymmetrical jets (relative to the orbital plane).[4] All of those observed properties could be explained in terms of gravitomagnetic effects.[5] Williams’ application of Penrose's mechanism can be applied to black holes of any size.[6] Relativistic jets can serve as the largest and brightest form of validations for gravitomagnetism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitomagnetism
followed by a non-sequitor.
The Black Hole has to be neutraly and no charged, therefore each small imbalance in charge generate strong electromagnetic field if you not believe the gravitational field is enough.
The particles and antiparticles are constructed that it would be possible to separate them.
The only problem I see is the construction of the space alone - emergent or fundamental ?
Some physicists say emergent some fundamental.
How does the magnetic field generated by the black hole lead to any form of separation between matter and anti-matter? Just stating that it happens is not enough.

30. Originally Posted by czeslaw
Spin of Antiparticles .... etc
The Black Hole has to be neutraly and no charged, therefore each small imbalance in charge generate strong electromagnetic field if you not believe the gravitational field is enough.
The particles and antiparticles are constructed that it would be possible to separate them.
So you are backing away from your claim that they are separated by gravity?

OK. Now you just need to produce some support for your claim that they are separated by the "electromagnetic field".

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•