Has Anti-matter been Mistaken as Dark-Matter; An Interview with Adam Freeman
An interview with an extraordinary man you’ve probably never heard of before; Adam Freeman.
The following is a thorough interview with Mr. Freeman the man who has been behind many technical endeavors. Later on in this interview Adam presents a new perspective on space travel, that if true, he believes can forever change humans role in exploring and colonizing other worlds.
P.M. So tell me about your background and quite specifically about your robotics background? I’m a huge robotics fan!
A.F. Well I started off in physics. I attended UCLA and received a B.S. in physics. Then I switched to the computer industry, attended UCSC and received a master’s degree in Computer Science emphasizing scientific visualization and computer graphics. After graduating I joined the startup company Live Picture. Live Picture introduced a tiled image format called FlashPix and I was one of the key engineers who developed the format and the client server architecture for transmitting FlashPix image tiles and information over the internet. While FlashPix may be somewhat obsolete now, for a long time it was supported by Kodak, Hewlett-Packard and other industry giants.
After Live Picture, I was one of the first employees at the startup LightSurf founded by Philippe Kahn and Sonia Lee Kahn which introduced the very first camera phone prototypes in collaboration with Motorola. I was integral in designing and implementing the back-end infrastructure that uploaded photos from the very first consumer camera cell phone, the SCP-5300 that was sold by Sprint.
When LightSurf was sold to Verisign I transitioned into real estate. During this time that I was buying and fixing up houses, I also started developing a theory in regards to anti-matter. When my real estate tanked I went back into the computer industry. Then I started working for a virtual reality startup called Big Stage where I met the famous Jon Snoddy. Jon Snoddy later brought me on board at other research and development projects where I learned about robotics and worked on a couple of sensitive projects.
Currently I am starting a financial services company called DoubleBeam with some pretty important people in that space who I do not think I can name at this point. We are now finishing our MVP (minimum viable product) and just completed a series A round of financing.
P.M. So you said although you are not a physicist that you want to talk about your theory in regards to anti-matter?
First of all I do not have a PhD in physics and even though I think my theory makes a lot of sense it is hard to get people in the physics community to listen to you if you do not have a PhD in physics. Also I am 42 years-old and at this point in my life it is not feasible for me to go back to school. Still I would like people to know about my theory and understand basically what it is. You do not need a PhD in physics to understand so do not worry.
P.M. Go on.
A.F. Well in 2005 I started thinking about what a black hole really is and I started thinking about atoms. The hydrogen atom is the simplest atom with one negatively charged electron orbiting a positively charged nucleus. I thought to myself what would happen to a hydrogen atom if the electron orbiting the nucleus were pushed into a distance shorter than the Schwarzschild radius (which of course is the radius associated with black holes.) It suddenly made sense to me that such an atom would become its anti-atom and that an anti-atom is really analogous to a black hole. Without really having the physics background I started researching general relativity and quantum dynamics.
P.M. So what did that lead you to?
A.F. If you think about it, as a particle approaches the speed of light but does not reach it, through the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, the particle can actually go faster than the speed of light. So if the particle is traveling 0.999999999c, through the uncertainty principle it can go slightly faster than the speed of light at say 1.000000003c for example. In doing so the particle can move from a time-like space-time to a space-like space-time. We see this in nature when a high-energy electron which is time-like transitions into becoming a positron which is space-like. At this point I started doing some of the physics and mathematics for general relativity to discover something new.
P.M. What was this new thing?
A.F. Well in general relativity a timelike spacetime such as the one you and I exist in is spherical in nature but a spacelike spacetime is pseudospherical in nature. When I solved for a spacelike spacetime using the Einstein Vacuum Field Equations I discovered that a pseudosphere is the geometry that describes a spacelike spacetime and that it is valid for a radius smaller than the Schwarzschild radius so less than 2GM/c^2. So while a timelike spacetime is valid for a radius larger than 2GM/c^2, a spacelike spacetime is valid for a radius smaller than 2GM/c^2. Since anti-matter such as the anti-hydrogen atom exists in a spacelike spacetime, it must have a pseudospherical geometry according to general relativity. I did write a paper using GR that shows how a pseudo-spherical static spacetime is valid for a radius less than 2GM/c^2 and that paper is available here.
P.M. How is this significant for physics?
A.F. The main reason it is significant for physics is because if you think about traveling along the surface of the Earth you are not traveling in a straight line. You are traveling along a curved surface so the distance that you travel is actually longer than it would be if you were just traveling along a straight line. This is general relativity in a nutshell. The presence of matter leads to the positive curvature of spacetime which leads to longer distances. By the same token, the presence of anti-matter leads to the negative curvature of spacetime which leads to shortened distances. So anti-matter could eventually lead to conventional space travel.
P.M. Do you think this maybe has something to do with spacetime symmetry?
A.F. In QED (Quantum Electro-dynamics), there is already the notion of something called CPT symmetry. I don’t have a PhD in physics so I have to go out a little bit on a limb here. If you can have charge, parity and time symmetry between matter and anti-matter, it makes sense to me that you can also have a geometry symmetry component. So while matter has the geometry of a sphere, anti-matter has the geometry of a pseudo-sphere. So really my theory involves extending the notion of CPT symmetry to CGPT symmetry.
P.M. So why haven’t these properties of anti-matter been observed in nature?
A.F. The current method physicists use to create anti-matter does not generate very much. For the amount that is generated the gravitational force is far outweighed by the other forces and it cannot really be observed. To really validate or invalidate the theory larger amounts of anti-matter in which gravitational effects can be observed and measured need to be generated. As a thought experiment, from general relativity theory and observation, light waves are bent by the curvature of space-time. So if one could conceive of an experiment to measure the bending of those light waves through a region of matter and compare the bending through an equivalent amount of anti-matter, if the bending of the light waves is equal in magnitude but opposite in direction when passing through the anti-matter that would suggest that this theory has some substance. If the light waves were bent in the same direction passing through anti-matter as matter, then that would suggest that this theory is fallacious. But either way larger amounts of anti-matter should reveal its gravitational effects.
A.F. The one thing that I do want to get out there is it would be really easy to validate or invalidate my theory based on someexperimental evidence. I think if this theory is true then it is important for mankind and if it is not it should be straightforward to prove false. Unfortunately I don’t have a cyclotron in my backyard. One of the things that makes me think something like this must be possible is the huge size of the Universe and why was it created if not for us to explore? Another thing is that at the end of the day physics just makes sense. This is a simple theory maybe simple enough that it could be true.
P.M. Thank you Mr. Freeman and for all of you physicists out there please investigate this and either prove it or disprove it, humankind deserves to know!
An Interview with Dr. Weldon Vlasak
by Peter Marino
Dr. Vlasak has discovered a flaw in Einstein’s Theory of Relativity! Einstein’s theory was based on the belief that electromagnetic waves radiate spherically, which is the Minkowski/Einstein interpretation of space-time.
He claims that this is incorrect and shows that the actual measurements of electromagnetic radiating wave are not spherical. In his technical paper: “A Different Picture of Radiation”, published at the IEEE Antennas and Propagation Society International Symposium 2003, he illustrate the plots of antenna waves that exhibit a bending effect. There is a radial velocity that does occur at the speed of light, but there is also a transverse velocity that exceeds the speed of light!
Space and time do not compress with velocity. The electromagnetic field wave compresses, as is shown.
Peter: What if your theory is correct?
Dr. Vlasak: It will help to unify our system of physics, which is a goal that Professor Max Planck sought. I see some problems with quantum mechanics in this respect, and I will provide some examples and details. One of the problems is that physicists often claim that classical analysis cannot provide answers to some of the problems of physics. However, I have used classical analysis to provide some solutions to some of the remaining major problems of physics. Early physicists, such as Planck, Bohr used this approach.
One of the major difficulties of Einstein’s theory of relativity is the assertion that the dimensions of time and space vary in accordance with the Minkowski relationship. I have discovered a basic flaw that everyone else seems to have missed. My analysis shows that it is not space and time that changes, thus producing variations in measurements as a function of the velocity of a body that is moving with respect to the observer. It is the characteristics of radiation itself that produces this illusion.
My theory is primarily based on the properties of electrodynamics and a not-so-new radiationwave model that is well known to engineers but not very familiar to physicists. Physicists tell me that they believe primarily in Maxwell’s equations, and that the solutions should come from the application of those equations. I quite disagree. Maxwell’s equations provide partial answers and are thus good for the test of a theory, but not so good for designing radio antennas.
One of the great problems of physics concerned the Bohr atom. Bohr’s model was based on Planck’s electromagnetic model of the atom (this is the same approach that I have used) in which the hydrogen atom emits energy when the electron moves from one energy state to another. Today we call that state-space analysis, and it is often used in electronic engineering to solve a wide variety of problems. Bohr developed an equation for these energy states that is fairly accurate over a certain range of values. These Bohr frequencies correlate to Planck’s energy states and have been confirmed by measurements. That was a great accomplishment, but Bohr’s model is abstract since the atom can reach any size. Therefore, physicists chose to simply deal with the energy states themselves and hence the development of quantum physics (QM). I have solve this problem, and now the orbit of the electron has been determined, while with QM only the “probable size” of the atom can be calculated.
Most recently, my studies have been involved with electron capture, which is another problem not previously solved. The problem of how the barrier, which supposedly surrounds the proton, doesn’t really exist. I do not have the resources to verify the theory, but perhaps no one else does either at this point in time.
Peter: What does it mean to space-time?
Dr. Vlasak: Planck analyzed Einstein’s theory and the Minkowski interpretation in which time and space between two observers is allowed to vary with the velocity of one of the observers. No physical properties can be assigned to the vacuum through which the light waves travel, which sort of eliminates the notion of the presence of an ether in the universe. The fundamental assumption upon which the theory of relativity is based is, however, flawed. Electromagnetic radiation is not truly spherical, even though it appears to be. The electromagnetic waves bend with observation angle, which appears to not before have been noticed. This phenomenon also provides a reason which we see both first and second doppler. As Planck put it in his analysis of Einstein’s thesis, “…this conception of time makes the most serious demands upon the capacity of abstraction and the projective power of the physicist”. How true!. The elimination of this problem is removed when we can assume that time/space is not changing.
Peter: How will it change quantum physics?
Dr. Vlasak: that will depend upon which quantum physics we are talking about. For the physics of Planck, there is no change, although my theory provides an addendum to it through the use of the methods of modern electromagnetic analysis and design. For QM significant changes will be necessary. It will only help QM to be able to step back into the utilization of mass, force and velocity, rather than relying simply on energy techniques. We can determine energy from force and distance, but it is not so easy to determine force and distance from energy measurements. QM can also offer their recent contributions to electromagnetic theory if they so decide.
What exactly is the definition of a particle in QM? Is it a particle as described in the dictionary? That may have been the initial assumption, but now they know that a particle also has wave properties. Neither the electron nor the proton is a “particle”. Coulomb’s equation, which is perhaps the most reliable equation in physics, shows that their electric fields extend out into space indefinitely. From my point of view these fundamental particles are actually electromagnetic waves that have properties similar to those generated by a radio antenna but at a much higher frequency.
Peter: Does your theory answer the question as to the variance in nuclear decay with electromagnetic fields?
Dr. Vlasak: My studies have barely touched on nuclear events The one exception is the hydrogen atom either gaining or losing an electron from interacting with a photon or a collision with another particle (beta rays). From electromagnetic theory, a beta particle exhibits a rotational effect in a magnetic field, such as is the case with the deflected beam of a cathode ray tube. The magnetron design is based on the oscillating effect produced by an internal magnetic field on electron flow, thus generating microwave energy. A rotational effect occurs when a hydrogen atom loses an electron due to a collision. In my latest book, evidence was presented that indicates that the electron can also begin to rotate as a function of the interaction with its own self-induced magnetic field as the electron moves at relativistic velocities in a vacuum. This produces a very slight helical motion of the particle, barely detectable, as it moves through space. My physics book indicates that gamma rays cannot normally be deflected by electric or magnetic fields. However, I would expect that there would be an effect when the frequency of the external electromagnetic field waves approach the internal frequency of the particle or that of its energy states. Another exception is when the gamma rays strikes an atom, in which case the emitted particles will move in curved paths (in a medium that has a magnetic field and is not a pure vacuum).
Bio of Dr. Weldon Vlasak
Dr. Vlasak began his career as a radar repairman in the U.S. Air Force. He studied at six different universities and obtained the D.Sc.E.E. Degree at George Washington University. He taught Electronic Engineering at Florida Atlantic University. Companies he has worked for include Bendix Aviation, Motorola Research Laboratory, Airpax, Inc., Hughes Aircraft Co., Quanta Systems, ITT Microelectronics, ITT Gilfillan, Electronic Scales, Lockheed Advanced Systems, Senior Technologies. You can purchase his book ‘The Secrets of Gravity’. You may contact him by phone @ (402) 989-6225 or by email at: email@example.com.
He has worked in the following fields:
Semiconductor testing/Reliability analysis
Electromagnetic field tests of radio transmitters
Mitigation of impulse noise in radio systems
SSB/SC Radio receiver design
Mitigation of impulse noise
Radiotelephone hybrid design
Network theory and design
Semiconductor design and analysis
Magnetic memory, including plated wire
Magnetic devices including magnetic amplifiers
University professor teaching electronic design
Servomechanism system design
Electrooptic detector evaluations
Electronic scale design
Ultra wideband focal plane array
Departure alert security systems
Massimo Villata’s View on Dark Flow Theory
Peter Marino: Dr. Villata, what are your thoughts on the “Dark Flow” theory posited by Laura Mersini-Houghton which theorizes that a parallel universe or universes are pulling on galaxies which make them appear to be flowing in one direction?
Massimo Villata: “Dark Flows” in the Universe, i.e. large-scale peculiar bulk motions of galaxy clusters in addition to the well-known Hubble flow appear to be unexplained by simple cosmological models. One explanation has been given by Laura Mersini-Houghton’s theory, in terms of the existence of other universes beyond our own. This theory is certainly fascinating, even if it may sound a bit too exotic. I think that, before claiming the existence of something unobservable, we should square with what we already know (or believe to know…). On one hand, we have the commonly accepted Lambda-CDM concordance model for the cosmic acceleration, which appears at the same time too exotic (based on an unidentified “dark energy”) and too simplistic (this unknown but dominant component of the Universe would uniformly permeate it). And fails in explaining dark flows. On the other hand, if the accelerating engine is not dark energy, but antimatter as a source of antigravity (as it comes out from my analysis of general relativity) located in cosmic voids, we have an inhomogeneous distribution of acceleration sources that can cause strange, otherwise unexplained, galaxy-cluster motions, even though at very large scales the effect on the Universe expansion would be very similar.
Massimo Villata is a Theoretical Physicist and Sci-fi Writer that can be contacted from his website @ www.MassimoVillata.com.
Sean Carroll – Distant Time and the Hint of a Multiverse