Comment to a paper [arXiv:1103.4937] of M. Villata on antigravity
aa r X i v : . [ phy s i c s . g e n - ph ] A ug Comment to a paper of M. Villata on antigravity
Marcoen J.T.F. CabboletCenter for Logic and Philosophy of ScienceVrije Universiteit BrusselPleinlaan 2, 1050 Brussels, Belgiume-mail: [email protected] 26, 2018
Abstract
In a recent paper of M. Villata, it is claimed that “antigravity appears as a prediction of generalrelativity when CPT is applied.” However, the present paper argues that Villata puts the cart beforethe horse qua methodology, and that the resulting theory cannot be reconciled with the ontologicalpresuppositions of general relativity. The conclusion is that Villata’s suggestion for the physics thatmight underlie a gravitational repulsion of matter and antimatter is not acceptable in its current stateof development.
In his recent paper “CPT symmetry and antimatter gravity in general relativity”, cf. [1], M. Villata extendsthe paradigm of general relativity (GR) with the assumption of CPT-symmetry. By applying discreteoperators for charge, parity and time inversion to the equation of motion in GR, equation (8) in [1],d x λ d τ = − m ( g ) m ( i ) dx µ d τ Γ λµν dx ν d τ (8)a new equation is constructed, equation (9) in [1]:d x λ d τ = − − m ( g ) m ( i ) dx µ d τ Γ λµν dx ν d τ (9)This is then interpreted as the equation that governs the motion of antimatter (existing in ‘our’ time-direction) in the gravitational field of ordinary matter; on that basis, Villata claims that “antigravity appearsas a prediction of general relativity when CPT is applied.”At first glance, this might be a tempting idea to obtain a description of the physics underlying gravita-tional repulsion. However, to start with, given that quantum physics – from where the CPT-symmetry istaken – and relativity theory are two distinct paradigms in physics that are proven to be incompatible, itis epistemologically at least a controversial practise to add a theorem of the one paradigm as an additionalassumption to the other. But even if that is ignored, and even if it is assumed that the derivation of (9)from (8) is mathematically correct, the next section argues that this method of theory construction is initself inadmissible, and that the theory that results from adding eq. (9) to GR cannot be reconciled withthe ontological presuppositions of GR. The final section discusses the implications thereof. CPT-symmetry is a law at the metalevel that follows from the actual laws of physics at object level. In otherwords, from the theory of what gravitation actually is it should be clear at object level what the process1f gravitational interaction for matter is and what the process of gravitational interaction for antimatter is,and from there it should follow at the metalevel that CPT-symmetry holds (or doesn’t hold) between theseprocesses. In theory development, it is one thing to assume a symmetry as a condition that has to be satisfiedby a yet to be developed theory, but Villata puts the cart before the horse: he assumes CPT-symmetry anduses the operators C, T, and P as if these are applicable to derive the theory of what the process of gravi-tational interaction of antimatter is at object level from the theory of the corresponding process of matter.But these operators cannot be applied that way: this method of theory development is inadmissible.This inadequateness of the method comes to expression in the fact that the theory that results from addingequation (9) to GR, cannot be reconciled with the ontological presuppositions of GR. In GR, namely, aclassical ontology of particles and fields is presupposed: a particle is an object of negligible dimensions thatat every point in time has a definite position, a definite spatial momentum, and possibly a nonzero restmass; the gravitational field is nothing but the metric of spacetime, where spacetime is the set of all events.That Villata’s theory cannot be reconciled with this ontology is then best demonstrated by a Gedanken-experiment.Consider the gravitational field of the earth, and consider the event that a neutron with initial spatialvelocity v is created at spatiotemporal position h t , x i by the production of a particle/antiparticle pair. Theneutron “sees” the gravitational field of the earth: the initial position and velocity then completely determineits further trajectory through the gravitational field of the earth. Now consider the gravitational field of theearth to be constant, and consider that in a second event by the production of another particle-antiparticlepair an antineutron has been created at spatiotemporal position h t , x i with spatial velocity v and with x = x and v = v . Given that spacetime in GR is the set of all events, this second event thus takes place in that same spacetime . In the physical picture of GR, this antineutron is then nothing but another particlethat exists in the one and only spacetime, and that “sees” the same gravitational field as the neutron earlierat t = t : there is nothing more to it – on the basis of the presupposed ontology of GR one would, thus, expectthat the antineutron follows the same spatial trajectory as the neutron. In [1], however, it is claimed that eq.(9) nevertheless dictates that antineutrons and neutrons behave differently in the gravitational field of theearth. The crux is then that the difference between the neutron and the antineutron is thereby nothing butthe assumed C-inversion : the neutron and the antineutron differ, thus, only with respect to some quantumnumbers that have no relevance for gravitation whatsoever. So, given that the antineutron necessarily existsin the same spacetime as the neutron and “sees” the same gravitational field, this C-inversion can thus notpossibly underlie a difference in behavior under the influence of gravitation.This demonstrates that the theory, obtained by adding the derived eq. (9) to GR, cannot be reconciledwith the ontological presuppositions and the physical picture of GR. The main implication is that Villata’s description of a gravitational repulsion of matter and antimatter isnot acceptable in its current state: the main point is that in the framework of GR, spacetime is the set of all events – the creation of an antiparticle (an event) happens thus in that one spacetime. That is to say:the existence of an inverted spacetime has first to be assumed before it can be said that antiparticles exist(or “live”) in an inverted spacetime. Thus, if gravitational repulsion of matter and antimatter were a factof nature, then there are only two possibilities:1. GR is correct for ordinary particles, but the ontology has to be extended so that antiparticles “see” adifferent metric than ordinary particles;2. the entire ontology of GR is at fault, and gravitation in reality is something completely different.The first possibility has already been investigated by Santilli; the result is published in [2]. If Villata wereto adjust his theory ontologically such that antimatter exists in an inverted spacetime, then this requiresan additional discussion on how this differs from Santilli’s theory, as well as a discussion about photons – aphoton is identical to its antiparticle, yet it sees the same metric as ordinary matter. It should be noted, The other two operators, time inversion T and parity inversion P, apply to an ontology of processes , not particles ! References [1]
Villata , M., CPT symmetry and antimatter gravity in general relativity,
EPL (2), 20001 (2011);arXiv:1103.4937 [gr-qc][2] Santilli , R.M., A classical isodual theory of antimatter and its prediction of antigravity,
Int. J. Mod.Ph. A (14), 2205-2238 (1999); DOI: 10.1142/S0217751X99001111[3] Cabbolet , M.J.T.F., Elementary Process Theory: a formal axiomatic system with a potential ap-plication as a foundational framework for physics supporting gravitational repulsion of matter andantimatter,
Ann. Phys. (Berlin)522