|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Antimatter = antigravity?
On 15 Jun, 22:14, Pat Flannery wrote:
They are going to check up on what the stuff does in regards to a gravity field:http://space.newscientist.com/articl...antimatter-app... Pat Not if General Relativity is true as I believe it to be. We know that pure energy (light) is affected by gravity in the same way that matter is. If antimatter were to fall upwards. a) On an antiworld there would be no symmetry with the photon. The photon here falls in the same way as an apple. Let me do a gedanken experiment. Let me produce an anti GPS satellite. Now we know that time is going faster because the satellite is at a high altitude. Would we receive the same signals from ani GPS as we do from GPS. Would an anti GPS satellite SLOW down. It is hard to see how it could, after all if the radio waves from our anti GPS could be amplified by a nearby satellite and passed to Earth. Those photons would certainly speed up. b) Following on from "a". The "a" paradox be have some quite strong gravitational potentials if we look at the Universe as a whole. The positron then would have a different mass to the electron. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_th..._of_a_positron This is not the case. With the mass being the same I regard the question as settled. Elementary particle physics is all about symmetry. There is symmetry with gravity (mass would be different) the asymmetry is in the weak nuclear force giving small (10^-12) differences in stereoisomer chemistry. BTW - If you want to search for life on Europa, all you need is a laser to look for optical activity. You don't need to drill through the ice. - Ian Parker |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Antimatter = antigravity?
In sci.space.policy, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Andrew Plotkin wrote: :In sci.space.policy, Fred J. McCall wrote: : : Same here. Given that gravity is merely a bend in the space-time : curve, there is every reason to expect antimatter to behave : identically to ordinary particles. : : :Read the article, did you? That's what it says, several times. No, I didn't need to. I actually took a physics course or two way back when. Are you always such an ill-mannered **** or are you making a special effort for some reason? The coin came up "heads". Seriously: I was pointing out a conversational disconnect. Also, I see you are the sort of person who doubles down on perceived rudeness. --Z -- "And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..." * Making a saint out of Reagan is sad. Making an idol out of Nixon ("If the President does it then it's legal") is contemptible. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Antimatter = antigravity?
Andrew Plotkin wrote:
:In sci.space.policy, Fred J. McCall wrote: : Andrew Plotkin wrote: : : :In sci.space.policy, Fred J. McCall wrote: : : : : Same here. Given that gravity is merely a bend in the space-time : : curve, there is every reason to expect antimatter to behave : : identically to ordinary particles. : : : : : :Read the article, did you? That's what it says, several times. : : No, I didn't need to. I actually took a physics course or two way : back when. : : Are you always such an ill-mannered **** or are you making a special : effort for some reason? : :The coin came up "heads". : Time for a new coin? :-) : :Seriously: I was pointing out a conversational disconnect. Also, I see :you are the sort of person who doubles down on perceived rudeness. : I've always been a big believer in the Golden Rule (of sorts). Well, actually more like the Nineteenth Rule of Gunfighting: 19. Decide to be aggressive ENOUGH, quickly ENOUGH. See what I found (posted elsewhere) that perhaps has led so many of us to believe this was an already settled question. -- "They made hypocrite judgments after the fact But the name of the game is be hit and hit back." -- "Boom Boom Mancini", Warren Zevon |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Antimatter = antigravity?
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:15:13 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Plotkin
wrote: Are you always such an ill-mannered **** or are you making a special effort for some reason? The coin came up "heads". ....Andrew. Fred is a known psychotic troll. Most of us with any sense killfiled him *years* ago, along with his spouse, Eric Chumpko. Do yourself and us a favor by doing the same. The less people he has who'll hear him, the more likely he'll just stick to wife-beating Chumpko. OM -- ]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[ |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Antimatter = antigravity?
Pat Flannery wrote in
dakotatelephone: Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote: Weird, I could have sworn reading about such experiments in the works 20+ years ago and when they finally occurred, confirmed that anti-matter behaved in the same way as matter in a gravitional field. You'd expect it to behave exactly the same, as the electrical charge reversal shouldn't affect its mass, or how the gravity field affects that mass. I also thought that they had worked this out long ago. Maybe they didn't have enough antimatter to work with, and were basing a lot of their ideas on theory. Physics has gotten a lot weirder over the past twenty years, so maybe they figure its time to recheck things to make sure their assumptions are still right. I'm still queasy about CERN getting ready to make quantum black holes late this summer, in case we don't fully understand them either. Isn't advanced physics exciting? (loud sucking noise coming from the hole where Switzerland used to be...) It'd be nice to know in detail how antimatter reacts to gravity; I'd think there would be no difference at all, but any difference at all would be newsworthy and perhaps Nobel-worthy. Especially if it went sideways at some consistent angle. So far I think only extremely tiny quantities of antihydrogen have been created. I have no idea if neutrons can be plugged into antimatter to help make heavier anti-elements. --Damon |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Antimatter = antigravity?
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 13:56:41 -0500, Damon Hill
wrote: So far I think only extremely tiny quantities of antihydrogen have been created. I have no idea if neutrons can be plugged into antimatter to help make heavier anti-elements. ....From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antineutron : "The antineutron is the antiparticle of the neutron. It was discovered (in proton-proton collisions in the Bevatron at Berkeley) by Bruce Cork in 1956, a year after the antiproton was discovered. An antineutron has the same mass as a neutron, and no net electric charge. However, it is different from a neutron by being composed of antiquarks, rather than quarks. In particular, the antineutron consists of two anti-down quarks and one anti-up quark." ....Which means, of course, that a neutron is still positive matter, and cannot be substituted for an antineutron, although during the process of creating antihydrogen an electron is used as a "placeholder": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter#Antihydrogen ....There is a theory that oscillations between the neutron and antineutron states may occur, but this would play a bit of havoc with baryon numeration: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryon_number ....Or, to put it another way, yet another imbalance in the already unbalanced loads between matter and antimatter in the observed physical universe. OM -- ]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[ |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Antimatter = antigravity?
"Damon Hill" wrote in message
... It'd be nice to know in detail how antimatter reacts to gravity; I'd think there would be no difference at all, but any difference at all would be newsworthy and perhaps Nobel-worthy. Especially if it went sideways at some consistent angle. So far I think only extremely tiny quantities of antihydrogen have been created. I have no idea if neutrons can be plugged into antimatter to help make heavier anti-elements. Off hand, can't think of any specific reason they couldn't be. --Damon -- Greg Moore SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available! Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Antimatter = antigravity?
Ian Parker wrote: If antimatter were to fall upwards. a) On an antiworld there would be no symmetry with the photon. There would also be no antiworld as gravity is what causes the normal matter to coalesce into a planet in the first place. The antimatter atoms would be scattered about in the vacuum of intergalactic space - trying to stay as far from any gravity source, and each other, as possible. Pat |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Antimatter = antigravity?
"Pat Flannery" wrote in message dakotatelephone... They are going to check up on what the stuff does in regards to a gravity field: http://space.newscientist.com/articl...e-fall-up.html Antimatter is not "opposite matter". It's matter with an opposite electrical charge. It still has mass. There's no reason to expect antimatter to behave differently than a similar amount of matter, other than effects due to the charge. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Antimatter = antigravity? | Pat Flannery | Policy | 19 | June 18th 08 07:53 PM |
antigravity/electrogravity | Shaun Moss | Astronomy Misc | 1 | April 14th 05 02:14 PM |
Calculator for antigravity devices | Esa Maunu | Amateur Astronomy | 8 | March 10th 05 08:55 AM |
Calculator for antigravity devices | Esa Maunu | Astronomy Misc | 2 | March 9th 05 09:10 PM |
ANTIGRAVITY BOULDER | Paul R. Mays | Astronomy Misc | 30 | October 22nd 03 05:39 AM |