Antimatter falling upwards because of gravity?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the behavior of antihydrogen atoms in relation to gravity, particularly the speculation that they might fall upwards instead of downwards. CERN's ALPHA team is conducting experiments to determine whether antihydrogen occupies the same energy levels as hydrogen and how it reacts to gravity. Some participants express skepticism about the idea of antimatter having negative mass, arguing that it contradicts established physics principles. The consensus leans towards the expectation that antimatter will behave similarly to matter, falling down at the standard acceleration due to gravity. Overall, while the topic raises intriguing questions, current scientific understanding suggests that antimatter will not exhibit anti-gravity properties.
rollcast
Messages
403
Reaction score
0
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-05-cern-scientists-confine-antihydrogen-atoms.html

One of the big questions in physics is whether antihydrogen atoms occupy the same energy levels as hydrogen; others of course want to know how it reacts to gravity, as some have speculated that antihydrogen might actually fall up, or behave in other unexpected ways. The experiments going on at CERN might just answer both those questions, and more.

Up next for the ALPHA team are plans to cool a small bunch of antihydrogen atoms in such a way as to allow them to watch as it either rises or falls due to gravity, thus answering one of the more exciting questions regarding antimatter, in perhaps just the next few months.


When I read this I couldn't get my head around it, they are try to suggest that something with mass would be repulsed by gravity instead of attracted by it. This would mean the antihydrogen has a mass of a negative quantity, if I'm getting this so far.

However negative quantities as far as I understood would be highly unlikely as that would be like the same as saying that triangle has side of length -10cm?

Have I missed out a large part of the physics of this or am I just stupid

Thanks
AL
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
As it said, it's purely speculation, at least for the time being. It doesn't really make any sense to me to be honest. I say that because there's only so far you can take the "it's exactly opposite" thought process.
 
I agree with the above comments. That anti-matter has anti-gravity properties has no basis(so far)
An interesting comment from that link said something like "well, why doesn't a lone anti-proton fall up?"
To be sure, I'm not even close to being an expert, so I guess I'll see whatever results come about.
 
It is all but certain that antimatter falls down. If it fell up, energy conservation would be violated, and we would see composition dependent gravitational forces in Eotvos-type experiments. Would it be nice to see for certain? Sure...but nobody expects anything besides "it falls down at 9.8 m/s2"
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?

Similar threads

Back
Top