Antimatter falls down, not up: CERN experiment confirms theory

Link

Ok, so this is not exactly news. Einstein posited that gravity would affect all matter equally, an anti-electron would still fall down, same as an electron would.

This is the first time, however, that actual experiments verified this. Anti-matter falls down, just like matter, it does not get repelled.

Physicists have shown that, like everything else experiencing gravity, antimatter falls downwards when dropped.

This outcome is not surprising — a difference in the gravitational behaviour of matter and antimatter would have huge implications for physics — but observing it directly had been a dream for decades, says Clifford Will, a theoretician who specializes in gravity at the University of Florida in Gainesville. “It really is a cool result.”

In the topsy-turvy world of antimatter, atomic nuclei are made of negatively charged antiprotons, orbited by positively charged antielectrons, or positrons. According to the standard model of particle physics, however, the opposite charges should be pretty much the only difference: particles and antiparticles should have nearly all the same properties. In particular, experiments have confirmed that positrons and antiprotons have the same masses as their matter counterparts, within the limits of experimental errors.

According to Einstein’s general theory of relativity, all objects of the same mass should weigh the same — in other words, they should experience exactly the same gravitational acceleration.

What a cool experiment. It is so difficult to keep antimatter caged and from interacting with regular matter. If they connect they annihilate each other. So they keep the antimatter in strong magnetic fields to keep it from interacting. Imagine a magnetic tube, aligned vertically; they keep the antimatter centered and when they release the field holding it in place, it can either go up or down. They then measure which way it falls.

It's a simple experiment, but it's so cool we can do these things with antimatter and watch which way it flows.

So what happens when more and more antimatter accumulate on objects in space, will they become more dense or will they create some kind of antimatter bomb ?

a reply to: Spacespider

As soon as antimatter touches matter, it annihilates. Not sure if therefor accumulation even happens or if it just "eats" away the matter. Or matter eating antimatter, however one likes to see it.

originally posted by: Spacespider
So what happens when more and more antimatter accumulate on objects in space, will they become more dense or will they create some kind of antimatter bomb ?

The object would have to be all antimatter as the mater and antimatter annialates each other when they contact. You could conceivable have an antimatter asteroid but because space is not a perfect vaccume, it would very slowly disintegrate in this universe of matter.

originally posted by: beyondknowledge2

originally posted by: Spacespider
So what happens when more and more antimatter accumulate on objects in space, will they become more dense or will they create some kind of antimatter bomb ?

The object would have to be all antimatter as the mater and antimatter annialates each other when they contact. You could conceivable have an antimatter asteroid but because space is not a perfect vaccume, it would very slowly disintegrate in this universe of matter.

Good thing modern theory states that anti-matter will only react with its exact opposite.
I.E. iron with anti-iron.

Tell them its a Mandela Effect that their having because last month they said it was up.

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: beyondknowledge2

originally posted by: Spacespider
So what happens when more and more antimatter accumulate on objects in space, will they become more dense or will they create some kind of antimatter bomb ?

The object would have to be all antimatter as the mater and antimatter annialates each other when they contact. You could conceivable have an antimatter asteroid but because space is not a perfect vaccume, it would very slowly disintegrate in this universe of matter.

Good thing modern theory states that anti-matter will only react with its exact opposite.
I.E. iron with anti-iron.

Got a source? I don't mean that in the usual wiseass way, I'm genuinely interested to read about it. It does make a kind of sense.

Antimatter falls down, not up: CERN experiment confirms theory

Well , why would anyone think different ?
The only difference between matter and anti matter is the difference in opposite charges of the atomic particles.
Anti-matter has to follow the near exact laws of physics that matter does.

Good thread.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: beyondknowledge2

originally posted by: Spacespider
So what happens when more and more antimatter accumulate on objects in space, will they become more dense or will they create some kind of antimatter bomb ?

The object would have to be all antimatter as the mater and antimatter annialates each other when they contact. You could conceivable have an antimatter asteroid but because space is not a perfect vaccume, it would very slowly disintegrate in this universe of matter.

Good thing modern theory states that anti-matter will only react with its exact opposite.
I.E. iron with anti-iron.

Got a source? I don't mean that in the usual wiseass way, I'm genuinely interested to read about it. It does make a kind of sense.

Sources are all over the place, and explain that theory .
I first saw it on "How The Universe Works", then did research.
And , remember , theories are only theories.
Read my post above .
The very basic of explanations.

As a hobby, I used to read a lot of stuff about this kind of stuff. Note my heavy use of the word stuff. Anyway only minor amounts of stuff about this stuff stuck with me but one of them was that matter and anti matter are constantly being created with the constant annihilation of both because, well, matter and antimatter don't get along with each other very well.

The thing I remember reading that answered my question'' well if anti matter is constantly destroying matter why is it that there still is matter''. The answer was that in the sequence of creation of matter and anti matter, matter always is created BEFORE antimatter comes long to destroy it, hence we have, stuff, well, not so much the same stuff but rather new stuff instant after instant after instant.

Well, that's what I remember reading

Try that in an Australian CERN. Wouldn't it fall up, then?

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
As a hobby, I used to read a lot of stuff about this kind of stuff. Note my heavy use of the word stuff. Anyway only minor amounts of stuff about this stuff stuck with me but one of them was that matter and anti matter are constantly being created with the constant annihilation of both because, well, matter and antimatter don't get along with each other very well.

The thing I remember reading that answered my question'' well if anti matter is constantly destroying matter why is it that there still is matter''. The answer was that in the sequence of creation of matter and anti matter, matter always is created BEFORE antimatter comes long to destroy it, hence we have, stuff, well, not so much the same stuff but rather new stuff instant after instant after instant.

Well, that's what I remember reading

It's more because there's an imbalance between how much matter and anti-matter was created in the first moments of the universe. The matter we have now is what was left over. Small amounts of "new" antimatter are created in nuclear reactions, but the amounts are so minuscule compared to the amount of matter in the universe that when the antimatter annihilates, the loss of matter is negligible.

a reply to: face23785

As we are really talking theories here, in this one is matter still coming into existence or is all matter a matter of what we got is what we got.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

I dunno what you're trying to ask. But in science, the word "theory" does not mean unproven.

a reply to: face23785

Let me try again. You commented that matter and anti matter were created in the first moments of the BB and that what matter we have now is left over from those moments. You also stated that small amounts of anti matter are still created in nuclear reactions. So my question is is new matter still created and if so, where and how.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: face23785

Let me try again. You commented that matter and anti matter were created in the first moments of the BB and that what matter we have now is left over from those moments. You also stated that small amounts of anti matter are still created in nuclear reactions. So my question is is new matter still created and if so, where and how.

So this turns into a more complicated discussion than I'm qualified to have, but I'll give you some of the basics I understand. "Created" is perhaps a confusing term in this context. Antimatter is a byproduct of some nuclear reactions, so it's not created from nothing. Conversion might be a better term.

Matter can't be created from nothing either.

In principle, energy can be converted to matter (or antimatter) and vice versa. In practice, it's much easier to convert matter (or antimatter) to energy than it is the other way around. As far as if there are places in the universe where wholesale new matter or antimatter are being created from nothing, as far as we know, the answer is no. That would violate the known laws of physics.

Quantum mechanics complicates the subject further but that's over my head to explain to anyone.

a reply to: face23785

Yeah, I balked at using the term created as well. Guess we both will need to take refresher courses. I've begun listening to more current lectures on more recent developments than I was reading two decades ago. It's almost like starting over again. Cheers

I’m guessing that because gravity is a curve in space itself, then everything that exists in that space would need to obey its 4-dimensional rules by following that curve.

Only something occupying higher dimensions than the 4 of Space-Time can disobey obey those rules. But that would make it invisible and, I think, undetectable without access to that dimension.

Although, like the way we detect distant planets that are to distant to see, we learn of them indirectly by observing the effects they have on stars (stars dimming as a planet orbits in front of it, or sometimes a star’s orbit wobbling suggesting a large planet nearby, or black hole) we might learn about higher dimensional properties by observing apparently inexplicable phenomena in our Space-Time. Just such an inexplicable phenomenon is Dark Energy, the undetected force countering gravity for which we only see the effects; imho no doubt a symptom of higher dimensional ‘goings on’

I caveat all this with the admission that I might be talking out my @rse. A little knowing can often cause these gasious expulsions of BS 😬

originally posted by: McGinty
I’m guessing that because gravity is a curve in space itself, then everything that exists in that space would need to obey its 4-dimensional rules by following that curve.

Only something occupying higher dimensions than the 4 of Space-Time can disobey obey those rules. But that would make it invisible and, I think, undetectable without access to that dimension.

There's an idea among some physicists that the reason gravity is so many orders of magnitude weaker than the other 3 forces is because part of it acts in higher dimensions. If that's true, even higher-dimensional objects would still obey gravity.

It's pure speculation though, and as of right now completely untestable, so it's not even a proper scientific theory. Still fun to think about though!

a reply to: face23785

To my mind Gravity is weaker because it’s completely different in principle to other forces. In effect it’s not electromagnetic, it’s geometric. It’s not ‘powered’ by quantum interaction, but instead simply mass moving through Space-Time; when that Space-Time is distorted by large mass, then smaller mass follows the modified geometric rule of that curved space.

But what’s the process of mass distorting space at the fundamental quantum (particle/wave, string) level? The answer to that may prove my opening sentence wrong, I dunno! But that still leaves Gravity as not being a ‘force’ per se, but the observable result of forces. You may reply ‘There’s no difference’ and you’d have a point.

Fun indeed! What’s more fun than playing God’s sandbox?