Antimatter and gravity

[MartG]

Interesting article here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-2235... about the notion that antimatter may fall up under the influence of gravity, rather than down.

If so, it could have all sorts of implications, apart from possibly explaining the preponderance of matter v. antimatter in our universe

[annodomini2]

I doubt it, but I am no expert.

All the stuff I've seen relating to the anti-gravity theories requires 'Negative mass', this would indicate that mass is tied to electromagnetic polarity.

Which could have big implications.

I'm sure GV will be along to explain.

[Pobolycwm]

As above, mass has so far proved independent of magnetic polarity, given that we don't know what gravity is discussing - ve gravity or anti matter / gravity interaction is a bit premature, the measurement of the effect of gravity on anti matter may well be a dead end, but until somebody finds the graviton I guess anything goes.

Await GV to crucify my ignorance

[McWigglebum4th]

So we have antimatter that falls upwards

And people say creationism is nuts

High end physics is neck and neck in the its completely bonkers race with creationism

[tapkaJohnD]

That BBC article gets off the really bad start:
"Antimatter particles are the "mirror image" of normal matter, but with opposite electric charge."

If that were the case, a particle and its antimatter partner would just neutralise thier charges on contact, leaving two uncharged particles. Antineutrons exist, or rather have been manufactured, and neither they nor the neutron have any charge at all, but will still annihalate each other in a puff of pure energy.

And the Alpha experiment is more concnerned with 'parity' than antigravity, Parity says that matter and antimatter are exactly the same only opposite in their properties. There are hints that this may not be so, and Alpha is looking for more of that. So don't hold your breath for floating cars.

John

[Simpo Two]

McWigglebum4th said:

High end physics is neck and neck in the its completely bonkers race with creationism

Not really, one is based on science and one is 2,000 year-old fairy tales.

[Badvok]

This is an interesting video on the subject of dark matter and how little we know http://vimeo.com/22956103

[hairykrishna]

McWigglebum4th said:

High end physics is neck and neck in the its completely bonkers race with creationism

bks.

This is testable experimental physics. Most physicists think that anti matter probably won't experience anti gravity, but we should check.

[annodomini2]

Simpo Two said:

McWigglebum4th said:

High end physics is neck and neck in the its completely bonkers race with creationism

Not really, one is based on science and one is 2,000 year-old fairy tales.

~3,500-10,000.

[McWigglebum4th]

annodomini2 said:

Simpo Two said:

McWigglebum4th said:

High end physics is neck and neck in the its completely bonkers race with creationism

Not really, one is based on science and one is 2,000 year-old fairy tales.

~3,500-10,000.

Still doesn't make high end physics any less bonkers


I'm not saying it isn't true

I'm saying it bonkers in relation to what we call reality anti matter, quarks etc and so on is bat st crazy

[annodomini2]

McWigglebum4th said:

annodomini2 said:

Simpo Two said:

McWigglebum4th said:

High end physics is neck and neck in the its completely bonkers race with creationism

Not really, one is based on science and one is 2,000 year-old fairy tales.

~3,500-10,000.

Still doesn't make high end physics any less bonkers


I'm not saying it isn't true

I'm saying it bonkers in relation to what we call reality anti matter, quarks etc and so on is bat st crazy

Anti-matter is real, it's been made and the annihilation is proven, it's been observed. Likewise quarks.

Negative mass and anti-gravity however haven't. Which is the hypothesis for this experiment.

However the hypothesis doesn't fit with our current understanding of mass or theories as far as I am aware.

[Halmyre]

McWigglebum4th said:

annodomini2 said:

Simpo Two said:

McWigglebum4th said:

High end physics is neck and neck in the its completely bonkers race with creationism

Not really, one is based on science and one is 2,000 year-old fairy tales.

~3,500-10,000.

Still doesn't make high end physics any less bonkers


I'm not saying it isn't true

I'm saying it bonkers in relation to what we call reality anti matter, quarks etc and so on is bat st crazy

That's true, but some of the really crazy stuff - quantum physics for example - is some of the most reliable theories ever propounded.