# Antimatter comet

Antimatter comets (and antimatter meteoroids) are theoretical comets (meteoroids) composed solely of antimatter instead of ordinary matter. Although never actually observed, and unlikely to exist anywhere within the Milky Way, they have been hypothesized to exist, and their existence, on the presumption that hypothesis is correct, has been put forward as one possible explanations for various observed natural phenomena over the years.

## Hypothesized existence

The hypothesis of comets made of anti-matter can be traced back to the 1940s, when physicist Vladimir Rojansky proposed, in his paper The Hypothesis of the Existence of Contraterrene Matter the possibility that some comets and meteoroids could be made from "contraterrene" matter (i.e. antimatter).[1] Such objects, Rojanski stated, would (if they existed at all) have their origins outside the solar system.[2] He hypothesized that if there were an antimatter object in orbit in the solar system, it would exhibit the behavior of comets observed in the 1940s: As its atoms annihilated with "terrene" matter from other bodies and solar wind, it would generate volatile compounds and undergo a change of composition to elements with lower atomic masses. From this basis he propounded the hypothesis that some objects that had been identified as comets may, in fact, be antimatter objects, suggesting, based upon calculations using the Stefan-Boltzmann law, that it would be possible to determine the existence of such objects within the solar system by observing their temperatures. An antimatter body subjected to normal levels of meteoric bombardment (per 1940s figures), and absorbing half of the energy created by the annihilation of normal matter and antimatter, would have a temperature of 120 K (−153 °C) for bombardment figures calculated by Wylie or 1,200 K (930 °C) for calculations by Nininger.[3] In the 1970s, when comet Kohoutek was observed, Rojanski again suggested hypothesis of anti-matter comets in a letter in Physical Review Letters, and suggested that gamma-ray observations be made of the comet to test this hypothesis.[1][4]

Rojansky's original 1940 hypothesis was that perhaps the only bodies within the solar system that could be antimatter were comets and meteoroids, all others being almost certainly normal matter.[5] Experimental evidence gathered since then has not only borne out this restriction but has made the existence of actual antimatter comets and meteoroids themselves seem ever more unlikely. Gary Steigman, assistant professor of Astronomy at Yale University, observed in 1976 that space probes had proven — by the fact that they were not annihilated upon impact — that bodies such as Mars, Venus, and the Moon were not antimatter. He also noted that had any of the planets or similar bodies been antimatter, their interaction with the terrene solar wind and the sheer strength of the gamma ray emissions that would have resulted[a] would have made them readily noticeable long since.[7] He noted that not even antimatter cosmic rays had been found, with all of the nuclei found in studies having been uniformly terrene, the experimental data in several studies made from 1961 onwards by various people excluding the presence of a fractional antimatter composition of cosmic rays any larger than 10−4 of the total. Further, the uniformly terrene nature of the cosmic ray flux indicates that nowhere in the Milky Way are there any sources of heavier antimatter elements (such as carbon), since (although it is not proven) it is a likely assumption that they represent the overall composition of the entire galaxy. They are representative of the galaxy as a whole — goes the logic — and since they do contain terrene carbon and other atoms, but have not been observed to contain any antimatter atoms, therefore there is no reasonable source for extrasolar antimatter comets, meteoroids, or any other large scale heavy element objects to originate from, within this galaxy.[8]

Martin Beech from the University of Western Ontario (London, Ontario, Canada) referred to the various hypotheses and experimental results that support non existence of antimatter in the Universe. He discussed the Papaelias' formula about the "Velocity-height relation of antimatter meteors"[9] and argued that any antimatter comets and meteors that exist must be (at least) extrasolar in origin because the nebular hypothesis for the formation of the solar system precludes their being solar. Any antimatter in a pre-formation nebula or planetary accretion disc has a comparatively short lifetime, astronomically speaking, before annihilation with the terrene matter that it is mixed with. This lifetime is measured in the hundreds of years, and so any solar antimatter present at the time that the system was formed will have long since been annihilated. Any antimatter comets and meteors must therefore come from another, antimatter, solar system, and be extrasolar. Furthermore, not only must antimatter meteors be extrasolar in origin, they must have been recently (i.e. within the past 104 ~ 105 years) captured by the solar system. Most meteoroids are broken down to sizes of 10−5g within that timeframe, because of meteoroid-upon-meteoroid collisions. Thus any antimatter meteor must be either extrasolar in origin itself, or broken off from an antimatter comet that is extrasolar in origin. The former are unlikely to exist from observational evidence. Any extrasolar meteoroid would have a hyperbolic orbit, but less than 1% of the observed meteoroids have such, and the process of perturbation of ordinary (terrene) solar objects, by planetary encounters, into hyperbolic trajectories accounts for all of those. Beech concluded that a continued null result, however, does not constitute a proof ('Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence', M. Rees) and a single positive detection negates the arguments presented.[10] Taking into account the work of Alfvẻn, Lehnert and Papaelias, Herbert Shaw detected a seeming necessity of antimatter structures in our vicinity of the Galaxy.[11]

## Hypothesized explanations for observed phenomena

### Tektites

In 1947, Mohammad Abdur Rahman Khan, professor at Osmania University and research associate at the Institute of Meteoretics in the University of New Mexico, put forward the hypothesis that antimatter comets or meteoroids were responsible for tektites (Khan 1947). However, this explanation, out of the many proposed explanations for tektites, is considered to be one of the more improbable.[18][19]

### Tunguska event of 1908

By the 1950s, speculating about antimatter comets and meteoroids was a commonplace exercise for astrophysicists. One such, Philip J. Wyatt of Florida State University, suggested that the Tunguska event may have been a meteor made of antimatter (Wyatt 1958).[20] Willard Libby and Clyde Cowan took Wyatt's idea further (Cowan, Atluri & Libby 1965), having studied worldwide levels of carbon-14 in tree rings and noticing unusually high levels for the year 1909. However, even in 1958 the theoretical flaws in the hypothesis were observed, aside from the evidence that was coming in at the same time from the first gamma ray measurement satellites. For one, the hypothesis did not explain how an antimatter meteor could have managed to survive that low into the Earth's atmosphere, without being annihilated as soon as it encountered terrene matter at the upper levels.[20][21] Papaelias suggested a number of mechanisms that prevent the antimatter meteor of being evaporated below the height of 300 kilometers and consequently to reach the ground. Similar mechanisms (e.g. aircap formation) apply to ordinary matter meteorites which survive of evaporation and can be collected from the ground.

### Ball lightning

In 1971, fragments of antimatter comets or meteoroids were hypothesized, by David E. T. F. Ashby of Culham Laboratory and Colin Whitehead of the U.K. Atomic Energy Research Establishment, as a possible cause for ball lightning (Ashby & Whitehead 1971). They monitored the sky with gamma-ray detection apparatus, and reported unusually high numbers at 511 keV (kilo-electron volts) which is the characteristic gamma ray frequency of a collision between an electron and a positron. There were natural explanations for such readings. In particular positrons can be produced indirectly by the action of a thunderstorm, as it creates the unstable isotopes nitrogen-13 and oxygen-15. However, Ashby and Whitehead noted that there were no thunderstorms present at the times that the gamma-ray readings were observed. They instead presented the hypothesis of antimatter meteors as an interesting one that did explain all of what their observations had recorded, and suggested that it merited further investigation.[22][23]

Ashby and Whitehead's hypothesis, which Dr. Neil Charman (lecturer at the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology) in his 1972 roundup of the several hypothetical explanations of ball lightning characterized as one of the more bizarre explanations, was based upon the (unproven) supposition that there was a potential barrier between antimatter and normal matter. This barrier allowed micrometeoroid and meteoroid fragments that entered the Earth's atmosphere from space to survive for comparatively lengthy periods, because the terrene atmospheric molecules would not always possess enough energy to overcome the barrier and annihilate the antimatter fragments. antimatter atoms in micrometeors would instead become negatively charged antimatter ions, as a result of positrons being stripped from them by the photoelectric effect (and also as a result of secondary effects from annihilation of matter around them). These negatively charged antimatter ions would be electrically attracted to the ground in stormy weather, and, gaining enough kinetic energy to finally overcome the (supposed) repulsive barrier would finally annihilate with terrene matter to form what is observed as ball lightning.[12][24] To explain the survival of an antimatter meteor during its infall flight, Papaelias and Apostolakis introduced the formula σannihilationelastic Π fi, where 0<fi≤1.[12] All mechanisms that may reduce the annihilation cross section σannihilation are involved in the factors fi of the product Π, including the repulsive potential described above. Several studies, by using various methods to determine a possible barrier between ordinary matter and antimatter resulted into controversial discussions, since the decade of 60s.

Experiments at the LEAR (acronym of Low Energy Accumulating Ring) at CERN have shown a surprising result for a fraction (3%) of antiprotons annihilated by protons of He3 nuclei. The annihilation process is retarded for as much as 100,000,000 times (Eades et al., 1993) than the value derived by theoretical calculations of Enrico Fermi and Edward Teller (1947), the two amongst the greatest figures of modern physics. Thus, the formula described above (σannihilationelastic Π fi), which yields in a similar range of magnitude (10−5), for the time duration of the annihilation of antiatoms by atoms, is undoubtedly correct and fairly predicted the high decrease of the rate of annihilation of atoms by antiatoms. This surprising result attracted much attention of the scientific community.[citation needed]

Antimatter is being produced on the surface of the sun during flares.[citation needed] The amount of antiprotons that are being produced in only one single flare is so high that could cover the energy consumption of United States of America for a time period of two weeks.[citation needed] What is important here is that the antiprotons are not being annihilated instantly as expected.[citation needed] Those antiprotons produced in flares are annihilated far away from the point where they had been produced.[citation needed] The long distance they travel escaping annihilation is showing a smaller annihilation cross section, which is in accordance with the Papaelias and Apostolakis' formula.[12]

In a series of papers, Philip M. Papaelias described how an antimatter meteor can produce the ball lightning phenomena.[25][25][26] He also suggested that an antimatter meteor is continually heated when the annihilation products are passing through it. Depending on the dimensions of it, those particles depose part or all of their energy, increasing in that way its temperature. As a result, the residual mass of the antimatter meteor would reach its melting point and consequently liquid drops would start to escape from the parental object. Papaelias calculated the energy absorbed and studied melting processes for 10, 100 or 1000 individual drops, each one glowing separately.[24][27] He also derived a formula about the mean radious r of the antimatter liquid drops.[24][27] Twenty two years later, a ball lightning of about 10–15 m in diameter appeared over Alexanderplatz, a central location of Berlin, Germany. This bright object, which was hovering for about 10 minutes at a height which was estimated between 400 and 250 m slowly evolved into a luminous sphere of about 1 m in diameter and was emitting intense light, maybe equivalent to 10-25 kW of sodium street lighting lamps. The phenomenon was captured by two web cameras and is showing the ball lightning slowly changing shape and color. It was observed by Wilfried Heil and Noemi Zudor, shortly before a thunderstorm on July 29, 2006 at 3:10 AM. The luminus object was gradually divided into 100 independently glowing smaller objects that were seen as escaping from the central one.[28] A remarkable agreement between theoretical prediction and observational confirmation, similar to that of Paul Dirac who predicted the existence of antimatter in 1928 and four years later Carl Anderson captured in a photograph the trajectory of a positron inside a cloud chamber.

### Phenomena that might be explained by antimatter meteors

Additional phenomena that resist explanation for their mysterious properties are puzzling humanity for centuries and can be well clarified under the hypothesis of a slow rate annihilation of an antimatter meteor by atmospheric molecules. One of them is the Christmas star described by the Evangelist Matthew in his Gospel. Papaelias suggested [26] that an antimatter meteor which had been transformed into a ball lightning after the entrance in the atmosphere can be a reasonable explanation, since hypotheses such as a comet, a straight line configuration of two or three planets, a supernova explosion or any other known celestial body can not designate any place on Earth and can not stay over the place where Jesus was. The city and the time of the Jesus' birth were known to the three wise men from Daniel and his seventy weeks prophecy. What remained to be found was the exact location in the city, which had been revealed to the magi by the movement of the ball lightning.

Another phenomenon that resists explanation for almost half a century is the mystery of the Dyatlov Pass incident. In 1959, in an excursion at the northern Ural mountains, nine skiers most of which were students or graduates of the Ural Polytechnical University were found dead, with some of them having unusual injuries. The skiers escaped barefoot of their tent, where the outside temperature was -30 degrees of the Celsius scale. A small antimatter meteor that caused their panic was probably the compelling natural force that had been suggested by the Soviet investigators. Its mass can be found by using the formula about the annihilation of an antimatter meteor [15] and simple calculations show that it was around a picogram, well within the size of most meteors that may enter in the atmosphere. The high doses of radioactive contamination on clothes of a few victims are strongly supporting the hypothesis of antimatter meteor.

### Gamma-ray bursts

Antimatter comets thought to exist in the Oort cloud were in the 1990s hypothesized as one possible explanation for gamma ray bursts.[29] These bursts can be explained by the annihilation of matter and antimatter microcomets. The explosion would create powerful gamma ray bursts and accelerate matter to near light speeds.[29] These antimatter microcomets are thought to reside at distances of more than 1000 AU.[29] Calculations have shown that comets of around 1 km in radius would shrink by 100 cm if they passed the sun with a perihelion of 1 AU. Microcomets, due to the stresses of solar heating, shatter and burn up much more quickly because the forces are more concentrated within their small masses. Antimatter microcomets would burn up even more rapidly because the annihilation of solar wind with the surface of the microcomet would produce additional heat.[29] As more gamma-ray bursts were detected in subsequent years, this theory failed to explain the observed distribution of gamma-ray bursts about host galaxies and detections of Χ-ray lines associated with gamma-ray bursts. The discovery of a supernova associated with a gamma-ray burst in 2002 provided compelling evidence that massive stars are the origin of gamma-ray bursts.[30] Since 2002, more supernovae have been observed to be associated with gamma-ray bursts, and massive stars as the origin of gamma-ray bursts has been firmly established.

## Footnotes

1. ^ The formula for the predicted gamma ray flux, resulting from annihilation of solar wind particles (taken to be roughly 2×108 cm−2 sec−1), from a antimatter planet or other solar system body of radius r at distance d is $F_{gamma} \approx 10^8\left(\frac{r}{d}\right)^2$ photons cm−2 sec−1. This formula predicts a gamma ray flux for the planet Jupiter that is some six orders of magnitude larger than it is actually observed to be. That is, furthermore, without taking into account the fact that other solar system material in addition to the solar wind infalls to Jupiter.[6]

## References

1. ^ a b NS 1974a, pp. 55
2. ^ Rojansky 1940, pp. 258
3. ^ Rojansky 1940, pp. 259–260
4. ^ Rojansky 1973, pp. 1591
5. ^ Rojansky 1940, pp. 257
6. ^ Steigman 1976, pp. 355
7. ^ Steigman 1976, pp. 342
8. ^ Steigman 1976, pp. 342–344
9. ^ a b Papaelias 1987, pp. 13
10. ^ Beech 1988, pp. 215
11. ^ Shaw 1995, p. 436
12. ^ a b c d Papaelias and Apostolakis 1990, pp. 1–13
13. ^ Papaelias 1991a, pp. 105–111
14. ^ Papaelias 1991b, pp. 215–222
15. ^ a b Papaelias 1993, pp. 41–46
16. ^ Papaelias 1994, pp. 71–77
17. ^ Bullough 1995, pp. 1533–1551
18. ^ Bagnall 1991, pp. 124
19. ^ Vand 1965, pp. 57
20. ^ a b TIME 1958a
21. ^ Steel 2008
22. ^ NS 1971a, pp. 661
23. ^ Charman 1972, pp. 634
24. ^ a b c Papaelias 1984
25. ^ a b Papaelias 2006
26. ^ a b Papaelias 2006
27. ^ a b Papaelias 2010
28. ^ Heil 2006
29. ^ a b c d Dermer 1996
30. ^ Bloom et al. 2002, pp. L45