Does Antigravity Have a Basis in Justifiable Physics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter argonurbawono
  • Start date Start date
argonurbawono
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
does antigravity exist?

is there a justifiable physics behind it?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
argonurbawono said:
does antigravity exist?

is there a justifiable physics behind it?

No. Absolutely none.
 
coalquay404 said:
argonurbawono said:
does antigravity exist?

is there a justifiable physics behind it?
No. Absolutely none.
Maybe, just maybe, "not yet"?? :wink:

Astrophysics is the understanding of the universe 'out there' (astro-) by the application of the 'physics down here' (-physics).

Sometimes, however, just occasionally, it works the other way round and we learn about something 'out-there' that is subsequently discovered in the laboratory 'down-here'. So, for example, helium was discovered in the solar spectrum before it was identified in the laboratory on Earth.

Today in cosmology the 'physics down here' is the application of GR and nuclear physics to the universe on the largest scales and earliest times.

Interpreting the data under that paradigm it is found that physics, as yet undiscovered in the laboratory, has also to be invoked to produce a concordant standard model; viz: Inflation with its Higgs Boson or Inflaton, non-baryonic DM and DE.

The last one is the interesting one from this question's POV, because on a cosmological scale it performs the role of anti-gravity.

Does DE only work on the largest scales, say as the cosmological constant, or is it another kind of repulsive force?
If the latter, will DE ever be identified in the laboratory?
Does it actually exist in the first place or is the need for these entities an artifact of the standard paradigm breaking down at these largest ranges and earliest times?

I would advocate keeping an open mind at the moment until we know more about what we are talking about.

Garth
 
Last edited:
Negative energy has been well-supported by theoretical model and somewhat verified by experiment. It is predicted to be "gravitationally repulsive", but experimentation to prove that would be extremely difficult. Heck, as far as I know, we haven't even verified the gravitational behavior of antimatter yet. It's predicted to behave "normally" in response to the presence of a gravitational field, but gravity's just so weak that it's hard to measure.

So I would say yes, there is "justifiable physics" behind it, but getting emperical proof is nearly impossible.
 

Thread 'Describing the Big Bang'

I started reading a National Geographic article related to the Big Bang. It starts these statements: Gazing up at the stars at night, it’s easy to imagine that space goes on forever. But cosmologists know that the universe actually has limits. First, their best models indicate that space and time had a beginning, a subatomic point called a singularity. This point of intense heat and density rapidly ballooned outward. My first reaction was that this is a layman's approximation to...
View full post »
Thread 'Dirac's integral for the energy-momentum of the gravitational field'

Thread 'Dirac's integral for the energy-momentum of the gravitational field'

See Dirac's brief treatment of the energy-momentum pseudo-tensor in the attached picture. Dirac is presumably integrating eq. (31.2) over the 4D "hypercylinder" defined by ##T_1 \le x^0 \le T_2## and ##\mathbf{|x|} \le R##, where ##R## is sufficiently large to include all the matter-energy fields in the system. Then \begin{align} 0 &= \int_V \left[ ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g}\, \right]_{,\nu} d^4 x = \int_{\partial V} ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g} \, dS_\nu \nonumber\\ &= \left(...
View full post »

Thread 'A sufficient condition for integrability of equation ##\nabla g=0##'

In Philippe G. Ciarlet's book 'An introduction to differential geometry', He gives the integrability conditions of the differential equations like this: $$ \partial_{i} F_{lj}=L^p_{ij} F_{lp},\,\,\,F_{ij}(x_0)=F^0_{ij}. $$ The integrability conditions for the existence of a global solution ##F_{lj}## is: $$ R^i_{jkl}\equiv\partial_k L^i_{jl}-\partial_l L^i_{jk}+L^h_{jl} L^i_{hk}-L^h_{jk} L^i_{hl}=0 $$ Then from the equation: $$\nabla_b e_a= \Gamma^c_{ab} e_c$$ Using cartesian basis ## e_I...
View full post »

Similar threads

I Request for Input: 2D Minkowski Spacetime Diagram Generator
Replies
6
Views
2K
I Dark Energy contribution to plasma temperature in galaxy clusters?
Replies
7
Views
2K
I Physical Difference Between Co- and Contravariant Vectors
Replies
6
Views
1K
B Does Spacetime Have Physical Existence?
2
Replies
58
Views
3K
A Tensors in null basis
Replies
9
Views
1K
B Does anything happen in the quantum world?
Replies
12
Views
1K
I Does the past of an observer still actually exist in their "now"?
2
Replies
58
Views
5K
I Invariant definition of acceleration in Newtonian physics vs proper acceleration in GR
Replies
30
Views
2K
I Lorentz Transform: Justifying Use in Acceleration
Replies
4
Views
1K
B Nalini Joshi's Time Travel Ideas
Replies
2
Views
1K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top