It is being said that gravity would have the same effect on antimatter as it would have on a common matter. But I don't think so.

If a common matter (the keyboard you're touching now, the mouse you're looking at or that glass in the monitor) reacts to gravity falling down, the antimatter (which have the opposite charge from matter) would have to go up, repelling the gravity.

Take an example of two magnets. Magnets is not powered by electricity (usual magnets) nor anything. It has its own energy. If two same poles of the magnet were jointed, it would repel each other. Could this happen between antimatter and gravity?

If this is true, then we can use antimatter to force spaceship upwards. This force could be more efficient and energy-saving than using usual rocket propellers, which uses tons of oil and destroys the environment.

Are you with me?

Mass doesn't have charges; that is to say, there's one kind of mass and that's what gravity couples to and that's that. Electromagnetism does have two charges, obviously positive and negative. Antimatter has the opposite charge of its partner but that's merely an electromagnetic thing. As far as the mass and gravity aspect go (which is the relevant bit here), there's no difference between a particle and its antiparticle.

I've always figured that at this point our next major advancement in science would involve the manipulation of gravity. Interesting theory on a way in which we could do that.

I still don't know enough about particle physics and antimatter to say much to dispute your theory. I remember when antimatter was little more than a theory itself. I know in the late 90's Nuclear Research in Europe lead to the development of about a dozen antihydrogen atoms. I'm not sure what's been done since then, and I have no clue how our knowledge of antiparticles and positrons has advanced since then.

Still, something is to be said for why there is so much matter all over the place (earth, moons, stars, asteroids, comets, planets, etc, etc) and very little antimatter. I don't think antimatter and matter necessarily repel each other, but it is tough to say how a large mass of antimatter and a large mass of matter would react to each other in close proximity. Maybe that's why antimatter and matter appear to be so separate in the universe - I don't know.

I've heard mixing them creates quite an explosion...that'll provide you with a "blast-off" anyway hahaha.

Looking into it a bit closer...instead of repelling each other, antimatter and matter will readily react with each other. This, as I mentioned early, will lead to an explosion. Apparently this explosion results in photon emissions...a big conversion of rest mass to kinetic energy, making this a potential energy source or fuel.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/01...atter.research/

They're oppositely charged so they'll be attracted to one another.

"For everything in this universe, there must be an opposite." - Sir Isaac Newton

That's expensive. One billionth of a gram for $80 million! Who would think of that. ;p

Sir Isaac was brilliant, but not, perhaps, immune to making the odd statement in which his ego overruled his pragmatism.

Anyway, he may not have been wrong (luckily for him ) as Dark Energy (if shown to exist) might resolve your 'falling up' conundrum. Of couse, there'd be all sorts of issues about how to concentrate dark energy - electromagnetism perhaps??

Many scientists hide many things. And that includes over all the great scientists the whole world has ever known. Leonardo da Vinci, in fact, hides some secrets about the truth about Christianity - he laughs at the present idea for unknown reasons. His notebook is written in a mirror writing - only to be read by mirrors, not anybody else.

Einstein, he also have some profanity in hiding something. The rule e=mc² could be all wrong, and he messed it up - instead, he made a new theory, but unreleased to the public or unreleased before his death. Note that e=mc² doesn't include time (t) in the formula.

Maybe Sir Isaac knows what it is. He found the gravity and therefore he must know the opposite. If you know the opposite side of yourself, then why not find the opposite of your own knowledge?

Oh, scientists certainly hide things, but not groundbreaking results.



Well, first of all, E=mc² is not wrong. It is correct down to the measurement accuracy we currently have. Secondly, E=mc² does not contain a time factor, because it is not supposed to. It the rest energy of a given particle (if m is the rest mass) and since particles don't change rest energy over time unless you hit it with some other particle or the like, the timing factor is kinda moot.

If you add the kinetic energy of a particle in motion, you get E=mc²/(1-v²/c²) where v is the velocity of the particle. There you can add the timing if v is time dependent. That is from Einstein's theory of special relativity and it certainly wasn't hidden away



He formed a theory for gravity, but I seriously doubt that he even contemplated the possibility of an opposite force

Cheers,
Badeskov

could antigravity exsist IF antimatter has a kind of "opposite charge" from gravity?

High possibility.

*Cue Star Trek theme song* (jk)

Of course the problem with that is, as someone pointed out, it's expensive.


Bummer


--Mandalore--

I think people are thinking about gravity here as an attraction rather than an acceleration. What could possibly be the opposite of acceleration?

Nope... not really. Anti-matter is still matter, but with an opposite charge. A positron is the same mass as an electron but has an opposite charge. They are still affected the same way though because they are the same type of matter.



No, but it happens between two same anti-particles, as well as too identical particals as long as they are charged.



So?

e=mc^[2 does not include time because it doesn't have to and it's not supposed to. The equation for mass to energy convergence does not require such concept.

the equation E=MC squared DOES IN FACT include time...

C is the speed of light, and speed is measured as distance over time or D/t. If one were to fill in the equation with units of measurement one might see something like this....

the resulting energy (E) = grams x (299,792,458 meters/second) squared

I know the speed of light is relative to all motion in time, but I mean there is no point in adding the measurements of intervals of time into the equation.


Also, Gravitons have no charge. I can't see how there can be an opposite charge of the force of gravity.

*sigh* That still does not include time. Time is not a variable in the equation.

The matter that falls up is called negative mass, anti-matter is just the opposite charge, a proton and a anti-proton has the same spin, same strong nuclear weak force, same amount of force, same ground state, just an opposite number. Experiments have said anti-matter has a positive gravitational number, when let loose anti-particles dropped in a vacuum surrounded by magnetic fields the anti-matter falls. Anti-matter holds energy, energy attracts matter and other energy, so, anti-matter falls down.

If you have a proton + and an anti proton -, and opposite electric charges attract and the majority of earth is normal matter then anti-natter falls also due to its charge.

negative matter
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/...ative_mass.html

Negative matter would warp space-time upwards, it would repel matter because negative matter has less than zero energy. It could exist in ancient dual orbiting brown dwarfs that has lost all energy from radiating it away and the reached negative through energy being expelled through gravitational waves. Since negative mass would have radiated all energy away it has no electric charge to oppose or attract.

Gravitons have no charge though.

No, gravitons are the force particle of gravity, which mean gravitons are a kind of plus or minus sign. They warp space-time to form gravity, either in a positive fashion (like we understand it) or negative. Its not a charge but a number. And also may or may not exist, they are still hypothetical.

So you're saying there's an opposite existence to the force of acceleration??? That doesn't seem plausible.

It is only a hypothesis, but strangely, their is nothing in the laws of physics that excludes the possibility, but yes that is what I a saying.

Ok, but try imagining it.

There are lots of things which are counterintuitive and hard to imagine. Quantum mechanics is one such thing. Another is that the speed of light is constant in all frames of reference. Just because its hard to imagine doesn't mean that it cant be possible.

That's not what I meant. It's actually possible to imagine the opposite of acceleration which you can guess is decelleration. Try imagining the opposite of the curving of spacetime. It's possible, but the very idea seems ridiculous. Spacetime curves away from matter.

No... decellartion is acceleration in the opposite direction. Decelleration and acceleration are essentially the same thing.

Yeah, I just picked that up from no where. I guess that principle also applies for time travel than. Going forward in time and the visualization of reversing it is basically all going forward in time in the opposite direction.