ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 ม.ค. 2024
- Order your SciShow stickers, the Pin of the Month, and all SciShow merch here: dftba.com/scishow
In September 2023, a group of scientists from CERN published the first results from the ALPHA-g experiment, which seeks to figure out how antimatter responds to the force of gravity. Does it fall like regular matter? Does it not interact with gravity at all? Or does it fall UP?
Hosted by: Stefan Chin
----------
Support SciShow by becoming a patron on Patreon: / scishow
----------
Huge thanks go to the following Patreon supporters for helping us keep SciShow free for everyone forever: Adam Brainard, Alex Hackman, Ash, Bryan Cloer, charles george, Chris Mackey, Chris Peters, Christoph Schwanke, Christopher R Boucher, Eric Jensen, Harrison Mills, Jaap Westera, Jason A, Saslow, Jeffrey Mckishen, Jeremy Mattern, Kevin Bealer, Matt Curls, Michelle Dove, Piya Shedden, Rizwan Kassim, Sam Lutfi
----------
Looking for SciShow elsewhere on the internet?
SciShow Tangents Podcast: scishow-tangents.simplecast.com/
TikTok: / scishow
Twitter: / scishow
Instagram: / thescishow
Facebook: / scishow
#SciShow #science #education #learning #complexly
----------
Sources:
Sources
www.eurekalert.org/news-relea...
www.eurekalert.org/news-relea...
www.eurekalert.org/news-relea...
www.eurekalert.org/news-relea...
www.nature.com/articles/d4158...
www.nature.com/articles/s4158...
www.nature.com/articles/d4158...
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles...
physicsworld.com/a/the-legend...
IMAGES
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:El...
svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/12656/
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
cds.cern.ch/record/2759095
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ap...
• How ALPHA-g creates an...
www.gettyimages.com/detail/vi...
www.gettyimages.com/detail/vi...
www.gettyimages.com/detail/vi...
www.gettyimages.com/detail/vi...
www.gettyimages.com/detail/vi...
www.gettyimages.com/detail/vi...
![ทัศนศึกษาโรงงานผลิตโค้ก [THAI/ENG SUB]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/M9y-TJBNem0/mqdefault.jpg)
Minor correction to something that was only really implied by the video's editing and not stated: I'm pretty sure PET scanners don't use artificial antimatter bottled in a Penning trap. Instead, they use radioactive isotopes that naturally emit positrons on their own. To be fair, I think those isotopes themselves might be artificially created, but they aren't piping straight antimatter from a particle accelerator into the scanner.
The F-18 used in PET scans is made in an accelerator (much smaller than CERN.) The F-18 decays via beta-+ (I.e. emitting a positron). The positrons quickly annihilate with electrons producing two 511-keV photons. The sensors in the machine detect where that emission is coming from.
@@lennierofthethirdfaneofchu7286 I believe the latest models use F-22s, which are harder to detect.
@@robglenn4844I see what you did there (but I didn’t see the F22; it was too stealthy)
@@fi4rejust you wait til the F-35 isotope hits the market. stealthiest emissions you've ever seen!
They are actually using bananas. Ever wonder why banana prices keeps rising?!
now make an antimatter star, to see if antimatter curves spacetime the same way matter does?
yeah just make a star
@@blvdes you're already my star :3
@@SoftSemtexbro are you trying to rizz up a random commentor? lmao.
All mass curves spacetime, it doesn't matter if it's made of matter, antimatter or something more exotic.
Your question mark is improper. This is a statement, not a question.
Man, science takes a _long_ time! I talked to scientist at CERN *14 years* ago and he was telling me about this exact experiment they were working on at the time.
I mean when you're doing projects somewhere like CERN and every experiment you want to conduct requires you to schedule out 2 years in advance, I mean yeah... Imagine how long it would take you to do *your* job of you only got to work on it once every couple of years.
Honestly pretty cool. I like it when Einstein is right, homie knew what was up
Literally
Well, this homie is gonna be THE homie for quite the future….
And down. Relatively speaking.
Welp he didn't fully explain physics and we don't understand gravity fully. We just have accurate models on some scales.
@@SaviorTheBurnWe don't understand gravity on a Quantum scale so he' still right just as Newton is still right, it's just different math
I'm very VERY sure that PET scanners don't use antimatter in the form it is implied at 2:00. The radioactive tracer molecule just releases positrons during decay naturally. The PET scan measures the annihilation of positrons with electrons, and doesn't handle either.
Thank you
expose ignorance, become an oddity...
Thank you by the way.
Well, huh. You know you got a good TH-cam science community when you learn things in the comments, too! I looked up PET scans because of this. Didn't know it actually stood for Positron Emission Topography. Guess it's right there in the name. In Ye Olden Days, you'd have gotten the "Smarter Than SciShow" award!
When I was reading Isaac Asimov as a teenager, I didn't know a "positronic brain" was anti-matter (which I'd heard of thanks to my beloved Star Trek).
Asimov admitted that he'd mostly picked the word "positronic" because it sounded sciency. I mean, he knew what positrons actually are, of course, and even did just a little bit of elaboration on how they worked, but it still just boiled down to not really knowing how computer technology would evolve.
In retrospect, I'm not sure how that'd meaningfully differ from an electronic brain XD
iiiinteresting 🤔
3:00 But we already KNOW one of the fundamental forces treats matter and antimatter differently -- the weak force. I don't remember the details off the top of the my head, but for anyone interested, look up "CP [charge-parity] symmetry violations". I believe it was in the '90's that the relevant experiment was done and it was a big deal. Up and Atom did a video about it a few years ago and I think PBS Spacetime did too.
This isn't to say that it wouldn't _also_ be a big deal if gravity too interacts differently with matter than antimatter. But it's rather misleading to imply that such a discovery would be the first time we've found evidence of matter and antimatter being treated differently by a fundamental force.
Actually it was discovered in the 60's, the nobel prize for it awarded in the 80's. However cpt symmetry still holds, which honestly makes more sense anyway since an antiparticle looks time reversed on paper.
Here's a thought. What if some galactic superclusters are made of antimatter? Could we tell? Since superclusters are generally heading away from every other supercluster, this may limit annihilation events to practically nothing. Since the intergalactic medium is so rarefied, with one atom per meter, or something like that, any annihilation events would be too diffused to be noticeable. I assume the spectra from antimatter and regular matter are identical, unless they found out otherwise.
I always thought if the universe is infinite then we just happened to show up in an area with less antimatter. That kind of violates the Copernican Principal unless you use Anthropic reasoning and that's still kind of cheating but yeah.
The flaw with is that all of the observable universe was condensed during the big bang. These antimatter clusters would've needed to survive that period of time. Of course if the universe stretches far beyond the observable and outside the big bang maybe there are anti matter clusters out there.
@@Leggoo383Except that's not completely true. Assuming an infinite Universe and assuming the limits for information compression hold true from the start then in the beginning (point of "big bang") there was an infinitely massive field of compressed energy. And if that field at the point of dilation was not homogenous then theoretically there could be relatively large amounts of antimatter out there.
Or M-Theory is correct and we just happened to end up with an asymmetrical amount of matter. Kind of a shame there wasn't ever a Sliders episode about that, but then I guess it would be really short. And drastic.
Note that even space isn't a perfect vacuum. The gravity from antimatter stars would pull in space dust, depending on the rate the annihilation might send out signals.
Yeah we could potentially find out by looking at cosmic ray particles coming from the cluster. If we are able to detect a neutrino coming from such a cluster, trace it back to its origin, collect more data through telescopes, and somehow find out that the source of the neutrino would have emitted an antineutrino in a normal matter star, that might give reason to say that the source of the neutrino was composed of antimatter. Could very well not work because high energy cosmic bodies are complicated and I don’t study astronomy, and I don’t think we have any reason to believe there are antimatter clusters out there, but this is just some quick thoughts I had on your question based on my current undergrad level physics knowledge.
As only antimatter of the same type that causes the bang I always thought that you just need to make a container made of say just neutrons and you can store as much antiprotons as you want for a long as you need to. Yeah, turns out making the container is kinda hard.
Those neutrons will need to stick together, we’ll need to see what was left out of The Law of Physics.
the anti-neutrons and the anti-protons are made of anti-quarks-up and anti-quarks-down, those will annihilate regardless.
Perfect timing. I was just reading Newtonian Physics, Quantum Physics and General Relativity for Babies. Also Rocket Science. They are brilliantly done for children and adults alike. Now I know that antimatter fits into the picture nicely.
Do you have the ISBN numbers ?
It looks like it's a whole series of board books by Chris Ferrie, called Baby University.
@@esioanniannaho5939 resourceress7 is correct about the author. Let me know if you still need the ISBN numbers, but they should be easy to find in the US. I got this as a package of 4 books on Amazon on sale after hearing other adults talking about how great they are. While I do have grandchildren who will benefit, I purchased them for me. Lol
I like the idea of having a tower of pizza, leaning or not. 🍕
That video of Commander Scott is a relic of pure amazement.
... And here all this made me wonder is if they can make anti-the rest of the periodic table, and then anti water. And then what would happen if someone drank anti water.
😮🤔
Drinking anti-water is probably very bad for your health. It would do much more than simply making you thirsty.
The anti-water and regular water inside the body (and likely the water vapor in the air) would annihilate and create lots of powerful gamma rays which would damage the DNA in some of the cells of anybody nearby. At best they'd get an increased risk of getting cancer, but if you're exposed to enough, it would cause acute radiation syndrome and/or death.
So don't drink anti-water, okay 🙂
If you somehow managed to drink anti water you would probably explode like a dozen nukes
Interestingly, regular old potassium that we have in our bodies and our food is a common source of antimatter as its naturally occurring radioisotope potassium-40 occasionally undergoes positron emission as well as indirectly via pair production of its 1.46 MeV gamma rays!
That's bananas! 🍌
Just a silly joke about bananas being a good source of potassium.
@@capt.cloudsworth4924 I see what you did there. 😂😂😂😂😂😂
My favorite part of this video is that they brought a feather all the way to the friggin moon
I talked to one of the scientists doing this research at CERN last winter! He had just given a lecture on other properties of antimatter, like the spectographic signature of anti-hydrogen :)
normally you hear the phrase "someone dropped anti-matter" and your next thought is "oh dang, I hope some of Sweden is still there" lol
Ah, the influence of Dan Brown lives on. If you were to total up all the antimatter ever created by scientists and annihilate it all at once, IIRC the combined energy released would be enough to power a single light bulb. For a few seconds. Tops.
Get the mop
@@GSBarlev admittedly, I was having a bit of fun. but the illustration of a quarter's worth of this stuff destroying Florida left an impression on me. lol
@@roguedogx Oh, for sure. And it's really fun to think of Antimatter as the energy source (or destructive force) of the future. It's just sadly very far into the realm of science fiction.
Anyone else when they said "partical pyschics" finish it "is kind of confusing" and then the rest of hank's song? Lol
If gravity is weaker for anti-hydrogen, then I don't think it'd be heavy enough to be "Earth shattering". I mean, the Earth doesn't shatter under the weight of regular hydrogen, and there's a little bit more of it!
When you combine antimatter and matter they SOMETIMES annihilate each other. They need to come together just right. I wish they wouldn’t skip right past those little details.
Very interesting. For a long time, I had the idea that maybe gravity had matter and antimatter repel each other but attract themselves, which I thought might explain why our clump of the universe is mostly matter. Sad to hear my little "hypothesis" is wrong, but them's the breaks.
Correct me, if I am wrong. All of the other fundamental fields treat particles differently, depending on their charge in the respective field. If I send for instance an electron and a positron on the same trajectory through an electric or magnetic field, they will part ways and travel in different directions. But whatever I send on the same trajectory through a gravitational field will run the same path, if not disturbed by other non-gravitational fields.
I just want to take a moment and highlight that a group of scientists (i prefer Zefrank’s ‘science hippies’ ) created anti-hydrogen atoms from anti matter particles, Then using magnetic fields put them in a position where they could be dropped and measured.
In real life. Last year.
At times some of the physics being done is beyond mind boggling amazing.
Seems like that shows the potential energy stored in both matter and anti-matter is the same. Or at least in regards to that potential vs. the vacuum background for the same volume of space. If I had to hazard a guess, the acceleration due to gravity is a gradient curl effect in relation to the potential energy stored in mass vs. the resistive and/or permittive properties of a vacuum. (Everyone knows mass is the ball in the rubber sheet analogy, but the vacuum constants in some aspect define the tension of the rubber sheet itself. Perhaps that's the part that could use more looking at?)
The only way to get negative gravity would be to have negative (potential?) energy vs. the vacuum background. But that seems like a particular trick in itself, doesn't it?
So thing go down
And anti-thing go down
Lesson:
Physics do physic correctly no matter the thing
(Haha double t on mater)
ok, we needed to know this. But then, I think we should do many more experiments with antimatter, since its the most powerfull stuff you can bear.
I'm glad this was tested!
Well, there goes that rocket propulsion idea. 😁😁
The testing facility literally has a giant sign that says
ANTIMATTER
FACTORY
right over the front door!
Another experiment is currently being built elsewhere but I bet they don't have a sign as cool :D
I got to see it in person on a school trip. I couldn't help but chuckle at the absurdity of the sign being entirely literal!
For anyone confused as to why this would be the same when otherwise antimatter reacts oppositely to most forces, the reason is because our understanding (which this study supports) says gravity isn't a force in the same way that the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces are. It's a distortion of spacetime, and if you apply general relativity it behaves a lot like centrifugal force, in that it only seems to exist as a force when you think about a reference frame which does not reflect reality.
The idea that antimatter experiences inverse gravity becomes really funny when you think about it in the context of Hawking radiation. If Hawking radiation of black holes is real, and if antimatter is repulsed by gravity, then when particle-antiparticle pairings occur at the even horizon, the antiparticle will always be ejected. So black holes would just be slowly radiating waves of antimatter into the universe.
I always assumed (with no desire to research it) that anti-matter and normal matter would have no gravitational effect on each other and that anti-matter might repel against itself like anti-gravity.
There is a proposed concept called negative mass, which would do what you are describing. Although, its effects are a lot weirder than you might imagine. Antimatter still has positive mass, so this isn't the behavior we'd expect for antimatter.
A negative mass and a positive mass would nominally repel each other, just as if Newton's law of gravitation were a direct counterpart to Coulomb's law, with attraction and repulsion switched. Opposites would repel, and likes would attract.
The weirdness comes when you recognize that inertia and participation in gravity are a package deal, per Einstein's equivalence principle. This means, the negative mass that you thought would be repelled by the Earth (as per the net force on it), is really attracted to the Earth in terms of the acceleration it will respond with. The positive Earth will be repelled and respond as if it were repelled, but the negative mass would respond OPPOSITE the repulsion, as it interacts with positive mass. So this means a negative mass would chase an otherwise-identical positive mass, both accelerating in the same direction indefinitely. Negative mass and negative mass, would still both nominally attract each other in terms of force, but would both accelerate as if they were repelling each other.
Interacting with positive mass through other kinds of forces is also weird. A negative mass, sits on the Earth's surface, and the normal force attempts to repel it upward. But, its response to this repulsion attempt, actually causes it to fall through the Earth. And the stronger the attempt of the normal force to push it away, the more it penetrates.
I worked on this experiment
yes
if anti matter falls down, maybe an anti anti matter will fall up
So dark matter? 😂
So in an antimatter nucleus, A positron orbits(?) a negatron? Do Electrons actually orbit the nucleus
Anyway i mix up Anti- and Dark matter constantly, so I was thinking this was a "Does Dark matter fall?" video and i was confused how theyd even answer that, but now I also want to know - Does Gravity effect Dark matter?
One of the reasons we need dark matter is that it has a gravitational effect.If something has such an effect but is not itself subject to gravity this breaks a bunch of conservation laws and causes problems. While we haven't observed dark matter falling (we can't make the stuff yet) simulations that have it obey gravity work, and it seems to from the data we have. It would be most surprising if it didn't.
Galileo only believed that the same materials fall at the same rate. He didn’t write it down but his biographer said that.
1:34 "do do" (:
An objects mass is not a part of its charge, and is not tied to its charge.
Therefore (as far as we know) anti-matter will get pulled by gravity the same as "regular" matter.
well that pokes a hole my favourite theory; that antimatter and matter were gravitationally repulsive, kinda inverse of electricity, so that like charges attract, and opposite charges repel each other, so matter is attracted to matter and antimatter is attracted to antimatter, but electrically neutral masses of matter and antimatter would repel each other, so that matter and antimatter galaxies would never come into contact with each other, and the universe would be occupied by two distinct, interwoven, but never interacting, spiderwebs of galaxy clusters
The way you refer to positrons is funny. The man who verified them named them that and PET scans would be called AET scans according to you.
Could some black holes be made of anti-matter and could we design an experiment to help distinguish between them? Another question: assuming that there are anti-matter black holes, what would happen if one of them would merge with a "normal" black hole and have we observed any unexplained phenomena that could be associated with this hypothetical scenario?
1:34 Heh heh. He said *do do.*
If there must be equal amounts of electrons and positrons, then maybe instead of “shoosting “ (green acres quote) across the great unknown, maybe they didn’t make the journey like the highly motivated electrons.
I myself would not create a universe so short lived, unless I recorded it then I could watch anytime (would there be time)?
1:33 DOO DOOOO!!!!!
The visible universe has been found to have an overall orientation and spin bias. I would suggest that that is the real reason our part of the universe is dominated by matter. Elsewhere, in the vaster universe, there would no doubt be other local areas that are dominated by the opposite spin giving them a preponderance of antimatter.
There was a study indicating antimatter behaves the same as matter relative to gravity, about a year ago.
Everytime I hear about antimatter I get excited if it will give me any ideas to write more weird explanations for magic and alchemy in fiction, but still haven't had any sensible ideas
I noticed that the way atomic particles bouncing off of each other on their way down was described was similar to how this is said to work for particles of sand, or even tennis balls. Does the same hold true for individual sub-atomic particles of all kinds? Or does this only apply to the higgs-boson at the sub-atomic level because only it has the needed mass for gravity-feuled collisions?
I suppose another way of asking this would be "Are higgs-boson particles the only sub-atomic particles that fall?".
This generally works for all' fermions'; particles that can't 'stack' on top of one another.(Photons can do this so don't 'bounce' off on another like electrons would.) As far as we know *all* particles are affected by curved spacetime so will be capable of,say, falling into a black hole.
The Higgs boson, being a boson, actually would not be affected by that. Bosons, basically by definition, can exist in the same space without pushing on each other. You could stack a trillion higgs bosons into the exact same point of space. @@AynenMakino
Will it blend?
The real Principle of Equivalence is that gravity is indistinguishable from constant acceleration, which is why it acts upon all things the same. It would be weird indeed if you put the anti particles inside their vacuum chamber in an inertial frame of reference (floating somewhere out in deep space) and then accelerated the chamber (from the frame of reference of the chamber the particles should appear to be "falling" toward the bottom of the chamber) but instead they magically started accelerating away in the opposite direction or did not fall as fast as the chamber was accelerated. This would indeed break *everything*.
The charges are opposite, but the mass is not.
Yeah, but, we still test to make sure the mass is the same and the interactions are the same.
No, this 𝘪𝘴 new science. We had no real idea before. Now, we do.
cool
Si that's what a positron is! Was Data a walking bomb, then? I wonder why they didn't write an episode exploring that possibility.
All machines that take a power source are capable of causing an explosion.
It goes without saying that Data was a walking bomb. The same way all the starships are flying bombs.
Extending the scenario to any higher specificity for entertainment purposes would require potential misinformation based on how the net functions.
If all classical observable (except charge) are same. how do we know what star is made of what matters?
Even 'empty' space contains some matter.Stars emit a constant 'wind' of particles from their surface. If there were antimatter 'lumps' in our universe we'd see the glow where their domain met that of matter. It's at a very specific energy where electrons and positrons annihilate. We'd also expect some truly spectacular explosions when stars collided, or even a single anti-asteroid hit a star.We don't see any of this in our universe.
Would anit-helium be stable enough to coexist with standard matter?
No, because it wouldn't repel regular atoms, so it would quickly reduce to an anti alpha particle, which would attract regular alpha particles.
Atoms bounce off each other because the electron shells repel each other. Anti-helium's Positrons would attract Electrons and annihilate when they made contact.
I got really into particle physics in the hobbyist sense, I understand generally where we’re at but I’m not a scientist. That being said I see this as checking our numbers, there’s no logical way or reason antimatter would react different to gravity, it’s too fundamental. Put another way, gravity ignores all charges and appears as space-time itself moving. It’s important to note anti-matter is still positive mass, its quanta of energy like positive particles. Gravity is specifically weird because it’s not a force describable with charge interactions, its something as ephemeral as the concept of energy.
I understand why these videos exist, most people don’t go down the rabbit hole, but I feel they sometimes give a poor representation of particle physics by being necessarily reductive. Experiments like this sound really cool and ARE very important, the casual viewer may walk away with a more fantastical take however.
Its less a big discovery and more another dead end, only reinforcing the question. These theories correctly can predict everything but eachother, what could we possibly still be missing?
Thank you for reading if you bothered ❤
I'm glad the test ended up negative, otherwise we would currently be on a mad hunt for the AntiHiggs particle or... something.
I mean that would be fun and all but we can't solve a puzzle if we keep adding pieces to it *forever.*
It would be nice if the world was made of antimatter. Then a reduction in a redoxreaction would actually make "sense". In the real world a reduction is when an atom GAINS electrons. So yeah something is reduced by gaining something. I know it makes sense because it gains electrons which are negative and its charge is reduced. Still I asked my science teacher if she could please not make all electrons positive and all protons negative, so it is easier to remember.
I'm guessing, yea
To slightly expand, anti-matter has mass, gravity and mass interact, so yea
I have a possible solution to dark matter/energy. If I'm wrong, would you be able to tell me why?
Dark Matter solution (possibly?). What if the missing mass isn't from more atoms? Since interaction with the Higgs field is what gives things mass and that's due to subatomic particles. What if other places in the universe have higher numbers of subatomic particles per atom, or different ratios of subatomic particles that interact with the HIGGS field per atom?
Could there be subatomic particles outside of atoms interacting with the higgs field, in a "non-visible through radiation" cloud in inter stellar/inter dimensional space, throwing all the models off?
Alternatively, or additionally, is it possible for those subatomic particles to exist in the centers of the galaxies, or even black holes, without being contained in an atom? Or, if there's missing mass in planets, perhaps it's in the center of them?
Related to this, black holes are supposed to be infinitely dense because gravity crushes everything infinitely small once a run away density is reached, yet the argument underpinning the "big bang" is that matter was crushed to closely, which created too much heat and energy
Another idea: what if something stretches, or HAS stretched the HIGGS field, particularly if it happens unevenly, and thus differing interactions with it we see as gravity "not working" are just stretched in the Higgs field, like gravity warps space time?
Also: If we don't have an explanation for uneven stretching in our universe, could it be from something occuring in the other dimensions predicted by string theory? I've also long wondered if some of the "missing" impact of gravity that I've been told happens, is due to it being stretched acroas multiple dimensions, perhaps some "dark matter" is this gravity bleeding back over from other parallel dimensions, possibly with the Higgs field as an intermediary somehow????
We still need to confirm experimentally that antimatter exerts gravitational force on OTHER antimatter to the same degree as matter does: the force of gravity between two masses is proportionate to their shared mass.
So, suppose matter exerts an attractive gravitational force on matter and antimatter alike, whereas antimatter exerts a repulsive gravitational force on matter and antimatter alike. The force of Earth's gravity in the experiment would produce identical results to what we've observed, because there's a negligible difference between if the the relatively miniscule mass of the antihydrogen was attractive or repulsive.
I wonder why I don't hear about the possibility that it really is 50-50 matter, just simply beyond observable distance? Seems reasonable that annihiliating each other means observing matter makes it less likely that antimatter will be observed at all, and the reverse, so distance between the two types would be greater.
The problem s why the matter lump would be so large. In a random 50-50 system the smallest 'lumps' will be the most likely to form. In such a universe we should se ourselves in a single star cluster or galaxy,surrounded by a near empty void of annihilation.Getting our whole massive universe would require incredible odds.
I never reflected on how shattering it would be for general relativity if anti-matter didn't fall. GR says gravity is not a force, with those who resist free fall being the ones who are accelerating. So no fall = no equivalence principle because there is no logical way the direction of movement could be reversed in the accelerating rocket ship analogy. It falls or GR is toast.
If “gravity” tugs on an `anti-matter` particle at roughly the same direction and rate of acceleration as a regular `matter` particle, then obviously the SOURCE of that gravity is the same, as well, albeit in a different state of gravity than the “flavor” of gravity that affects regular matter. Think “water” versus “ice” versus “steam”. Same #Agua! Same #Gravitron! 😊 5:52
Just listening with my eyes closed, this gave off Howard Wolowitz vibes
What is charge
Does the nomenclature of "negative" and "positive" have any connection with "subtractive" and "additive" when applied to matter?
No. In this context, negative and positive are just arbitrary labels we assign to the two signs of electrical charges. It is an artifact of history that had a 50/50 chance of being the other way around.
Benjamin Franklin assigned the sign convention of charge, without all the knowledge of what was really happening, as he did his work about 100 years before the electron was discovered. Charge had been known for a long time, and he had figured out that charge was a conserved quantity, and came in opposite kinds of charges. He arbitrarily assigned the charge left on the glass by the silk as a positive charge, and the charge of the silk thereafter as the negative charge.
This is a convention that imposes a challenge to teaching and learning electricity, since our convention of current is based on which way hypothetical positive charges would be flowing. Even though for most manmade circuits, at least external to the battery, it is the negative electrons that are flowing. In general, there are circuits where positive charges also flow as charge carriers, like sodium ions in nerve cells.
@@carultch Thank you for a GREAT reply!
What you describe is exactly why I struggle with physics and chemistry so much. The nomenclature does not match what is happening, and my brain desperately wants it to make sense. I'd LOVE for the scientific community to get together and update their nomenclature, especially for teaching materials! Maybe even mostly so for the youngest age categories, where the basic principles are laid as a foundation. If the foundation makes no linguistic sense, you can only build wonkey buildings on it.
@@AynenMakino Understandable. Unfortunately, the scientists who coin the vocabulary, don't always have the complete picture of what is happening, since it is the frontier of human knowledge that they are discovering. This is why there are so many misnomers, that could have a better name in retrospect.
I don't really see an issue with calling the charges negative and positive, other than that it would make the signs on electrical diagrams make more sense, if it were the other way around. The mathematics of electricity work exactly as they should, with positive and negative numbers to keep track of the type of charge. Electricity is also a perfect application for the multiplication rules of positives and negatives.
I think it would be more confusing if we tried to overhaul it, and possibly dangerous. This would mean people could wire circuits backwards, if not aware that they need to swap the signs when reading a diagram from 20 years ago. A lot of circuit elements are indifferent to polarity, but it could be a safety hazard to mix up the polarity on circuits that depend on getting it correct.
What would fall up would be Negative Matter, made of Negative energy like the kind you would need to force open a wormhole or other exotic uses
That's all fine and dandy but did they try to use anti-gravity or did they use regular gravity?
I think it would be better to discover that antimatter actually falls up, since it would mean that we have to rethink everything we supposedly know and start over. It would be hard, but at least we won't be stuck in the hole we are right now about the the theory of everything.
Also, we would then have antigravity
until now, scientists still don't fully understand gravity.
Are there antiphotons? If, at the edge of the observable universe, there was a switch from Matter protogalaxy to Antimatter protogalaxy, would we be able to tell since all we have is redshirted light to see them with?
Photons are their own antiparticle, in the way +0 and -0 are opposites.
If there's a boundary between matter and antimatter in our universe we should be able to see the specific energy of the glow where the two meet,something we haven't seen yet.
If our whole universe is a random matter clump, that raises questions. Logically the smallest clumps should be the most common; it should be much easier to have one random anti-star than a whole anti-galaxy. Our universe is very, very big,the chance we should be in it, and not in a much smaller, more isolated lump is nearly zero.
@@garethdean6382 If you want to go deep into the math, they 'exist' but it's just a photon of opposite spin. So opposite momentum and 180 out of phase. For all intents and purposes indistinguishable from a 'regular' photon.
That's a smarter reply than mine and honestly photon-photon interactions are fascinating stuff.
SERN bout to have us switching worldlines again
Say, if an anti-hydrogen's positron is positive, wouldn't it be attracted to normal matter's electrons? Does anti-matter gravity affect anti-matter like how our normal matter affects normal matter?
That was the whole point of the test, to double check gravity affects antimatter just like regular matter. Gravity doesn't care about electrical charge. The positrons would be attracted to electrons and annihilated on contact. That's why they keep antimatter cooled and locked in such powerful magnetic fields, so it doesn't touch anything.
Well if there are anti particles of every particle doesn't it stand to reason you would need an anti-higgs boson to apply anti-mass to an anti-higgs field for anti-gravity? And since the universe isn't made of anti-matter even the rare anti-particle is only going to interact with the Higgs Field and thus have normal mass and react to gravity like everything else?
Great video about mavity.
More importantly, "Will it Blend"? www.youtube.com/@Blendtec
If antimatter fell "up" all the antimatter from the big bang wouldn't have been annihilated in the first place, there'd be matter and antimatter systems out there.
If an anti-electron is a positron, does that make anti-proton a conton?
I still want to see what would happen if you created a mini-black hole by pumping energy into anti-hydrogen atoms... Would it function like the positive counterpart or would it exhibit exotic properties...
Will it fall? Let me grab some and toss it in the air and I'll get back to you.
I can't imagine gravity would affect antimatter any differently if light doesn't. Not to equate light and gravity, but it seems odd to think gravity waves would somehow act differently when it hasn't been observed that light waves do (or different enough).
So many other properties of anti-matter are opposite to their regular matter twins. If charge is reversed, why couldn't mass also be reversed?
@@TonkarzOfSolSystembecause mass is not the same as charge
It might explain why antimatter is so hard to keep stable. Because the forces of gravity push it into some kind of subspace.
Not to say that this is likely, just to open your mind to alternatives.
If we found just 1 more fundamental force, that would explain a lot. I wouldn't be too surprised if at this point in science it needs to be entirely theoretical based on the behaviour of antimatter because we obviously don't have an instrument for detecting it yet.
TLDW: Yes, yes it does.
We’ve made containers for antimatter, right? Why build this whole machine when simple chem 1 stuff can test the gravity of antimatter. Weight is the effect of mass from gravity, and antimatter, I think many physicists can agree is matter, it’s the same stuff. So simply take say a 1 kg antimatter capsule and fill it with the little antimatter it can hold, let’s call it 1 gram. Put it on the scale. If the scale says 999, it’s going up, 1001 it’s going down.
Another thing, it’s certainly going down, 100% of normal gravity. It’s important to note that atoms aren’t affected by gravity, the smaller parts are, the protons and electrons are attracted individually, and that may be true if individual quarks too. I’m not sure, but it doesn’t matter.
I’m willing to bet that those antimatter particles released in that contraption were going really really really fast, much faster than gravity, to the point that it didn’t matter as much, which is why 20ish % went up, and I know the video kind of says that, but I’m willing to bet that the relation between the velocities incurred by the atoms bumping and by gravity are in similar proportion to a 20 80 split. That doesn’t mean gravity was 4 times stronger, rather after all the calculus is done, and formulas to the nth degree are used to approximate the motions of the antimatter, it results in a 1:5 split.
I’m high, and high people pull crap out of their ass. Probably will delete tomorrow if I remember.
0:10 this needs to be gif’ed by someone immediately
If all three of the sub-atomic particles have anti particles, how is a neutron distinguished from an anti neutron? It doesn't have a charge, so there's nothing to reverse? I'm not a scientist so I'm just admitting that I don't understand this point.
Neutrons are made up of three subatomic particles (quarks) with charges of +2/3 once (up quark) and -1/3 twice (down quark). I‘d assume anti neutrons to be comprised of one quark with charge -2/3 and two with charge +1/3.
Edit: just checked, it’s the way I assumed it would be. Anti neutrons consist of one anti up and two anti down quarks.
What if the universe keeps dying and gets reborn after mind boggling amounts of time even after heat death? For example, next big bang the universe will mainly consist of antimatter and what we see as matter will be seen as antimatter by the beings who live there, and the universe before this universe was antimatter as well, but the universe before that one was matter. Makes sense?
Why would anyone have ever thought that antimatter would behave differently than matter when it comes to gravity? Matter is matter, orientations be damned.
Nobody really did. You still have to test that, though. If you go around insisting that you already know everything and don't need any experiments, you would never learn anything new
No it pulls in all directions. In terms of our perspecti e on this arth i would say yes matter falls.
I am still waiting for the antinutron.
Yes, because all matter has inertia and the universe is expanding.
I don't want to be the dead anti-horse in the room, but need to ask ... since hydrogen is lighter than air and gravity allows it to float off, (UP) how do you go about saying this.
At the NASA Lewis / Glenn Research in Cleveland, they vacuum all the air out of a silo, and drop a bowling ball beside a feather, but if you have hydrogen, in a vacuum, you really do not have a vacuum.
If you put anti-matter in a vacuum, you really don't have a vacuum either.
Since on earth, and even in a vacuum, the negative 'weight' would react the same. Hydrogen floats in gravity. Why wound a hydrogen anti-matter particle 'not' do the same.
I watched a video, with a supposed explanation of a bowling ball and a feather on the moon. They said, "They both fall at the same rate, because there is no gravity on the moon." 🙄
WHAT?
If there was no gravity, on the moon, neither would fall - this is stupid. There is no 'atmosphere, per say,' on the moon... it is negligible, but hit a golf ball on the moon, and it comes back down. It travels far, but does not leave orbit.
Please enlighten me.
Now to find out what gravity is
I fly, I fly?!? No you fall.
If the only difference is switched charge... And the different charged stuff blows up, why don't other different charged stuff blow up too?
Because it's not the charge that makes the blow...
Do anti H fuse to produce anti He? What if there are entire galaxies made out of antimatter? Can we know? So far we now a few planets and our sun are made of matter
it would fall towards itself. And would fall away from matter. We literally see antimatter falling upward in thunderstorms. Does matter fall towards matter, Yes, so antimatter would fall towards antimatter.
One thing not tested by this experiment is if how antiparticles interact with each other.
If antiparticles repel each other it could explain why we are not seing stars and anti stars collide in crazy flashy annihilations.
I guess it’d be a nightmare to test though. 😅
Antiparticles attract each other the same way regular particles do. So antiprotons are attracted to positrons, etc.
I don't believe we've ever seen an anti star but that's too cool of a word for it to not be real
@@joshuanorman2 In theory we might have, it's kinda hard to tell for sure if something is matter or antimatter at that distance.
That being said, it's not likely, as the odds of there being a galaxy made up of antimatter is low given the fact that if there was one, there'd likely be thousands (nature abhors uniqueness at that scale), and if there were thousands, we'd see evidence of a matter galaxy and an antimatter galaxy colliding and annihilating, which we haven't.
My personal theory is that in the first split second after the big bang, most of the matter was shoved in one direction and the antimatter in another, with any that didn't follow the imbalanced distribution annihilating.
@@TheRealSkeletor I agree. I meant antiparticles repelling each other.
Forbidding large antiparticle structures.
Leaving scattered antimatter in deep space.
@@karelknightmare6712 As I said above, antiparticles attract each other.