Antimatter - Antigravity LHC Results

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep30461

To within 0.13 %, an experiment performed at the Large Hadron Collider in 2016 has confirmed that both the inertial and gravitational mass of the positron (antimatter equivalent of an electron) is the same as that of the electron.

The experiment boasts impressive accuracy, the residual 0.13% in gravitational mass differences in positrons vs. electrons attributed to differences in the proximity of Earth to the Sun during various repeat runs of the experiment.

So, to anyone holding out any hope that a cryogenic vessel filled with solid antihydrogen and equipped with magnetic containment could be employed to slip the surly bonds of gravitation keeping us all pinned to the ground of this small planet, it looks as though rocket engines to accomplish the lifting will not be going away any time soon.

Antimatter rocket engines may still be an efficent means of providing thrust to rocket engines already in space, but whatever goes up, be it matter or antimatter, it will still, nonetheless, eventually fall under the influence of gravitation.

What is now termed the WEP (Weak Equivalence Principle) of gravitational and inertial mass first commemorated in Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation is therefore upheld in the case of antimatter.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In 1987, a supernova event resulted in the observation that the neutrinos and anti- neutrinos arrived at the same time. Of course this meant that both types of neutrinos had responded similarly to interactions with any intervening gravitational fields between here and the supernova event. An indirect indication that antimatter responded the same as ordinary matter to those fields, but not conclusive because we have no idea whether their paths bend at all.

This is the first direct confirmation of the WEP for antimatter. If that doesn't rate a Nobel, I don't know what would. For one thing, it has consequences for the future of fusion energy that is impossible to ignore.

No one else here believes, as I do, that this is an example of science at its best?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Have you checked out the eye and why it can't see vacant space as well as the brain not being able to compute any visual input fast enough?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Appolagises and sorry just could not resist

Grovelling here

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It is outstanding Science

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

First you say they responded the same, then finish by saying we don't know if they responded at all?! Hmm....so anyway what makes you think they might not respond to a gravitational field i.e. paths not gravitationally deflected?

Go on!!! Please detail the incredible consequences for fusion energy, Dan.

Big yawn imo. The stunning surprise would have been any distinction whatsoever showing up. That just might have earned a Nobel prize.

 

The theory says that the paths of both neutrinos and anti-neutrinos should bend under the influence of gravity.

The means to perform the experiment that would confirm this already exists (the chord through which neutrinos pass through the Earth's crust).

Owing to the fact that neutrino masses are so small and travel so close to the speed of light however is what makes it unlikely that a locally performed experiment will be able to detect any curvature, nor can a neutrino telescope like AMANDA or similar design easily detect any neutrino gravitational lensing. This is all I'm saying about the curved paths.

Because positrons fall under the influence of gravity, any magnetic containment design that does not take this effect into account will fail to contain the fusion plasma unless the effects of gravity are also considered. Tokamaks, for example, are already out of the running for a successful design. This is a shame, because they are the current containment record holders.

 

Do we have any evidence of anti- of any non fundamental particle.

Electron, neutrino is fine, do we have any evidence of antiparticle of proton or say hydrogen atom? And if not, is it possible?

 

Both. Just do a web search for the specific references. Anti-hydrogen is a quite recent achievement, but anti-protons have long been a staple of particle accelerator smash-ups.

 

Did that, not very satisfactory or convincing stuff present...

 

So you checked out good old Wikipedia here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter
And despite the specific listings and references to detailed and well verified observational evidence, consider it all unconvincing? OK.

 

The process of producing gamma rays?? Annihilation process??

 

Electron-positron annihilation generates gamma rays. Smash any particles together at sufficient COM energy, and out will spew particle/anti-particle pairs of a whole variety, including proton/anti-protons.

 

You can surely do better than that..

 

What 'better than that' is needed to satisfy you? Given an evident doubt that anti-particles exist, against the overwhelming evidence they do, the onus is on you to prove or at least logically justify such a sceptical stance.

 

I know, let's move beyond electrons positron and Neutrino- Anti Neutrino. Talk of say proton- anti proton, how does annihilation happen? Simply saying that particle anti particle annihilate is axiomatic.

 

Axiomatic? Sure, but then so is a remark like: "the wave function collapses", but quantum physicists say this all the time and not even dead cat lovers bother to ask them exactly what they mean. Maybe the cat died of natural causes before the poison gas was released. How would Schrodinger even know? Stupid example.

Besides which, self annhilation of matter-antimatter is something established from observation, not derived from first principles like an axiom. "Axiomatic" died with Hilbert. Gödel provided the nails for its incomplete coffin. We don't really know (or for the moment, care) how it is matter and antimatter unravel each other into unbound energy. It is sufficient to know that they do.

On these very forums, and more than just once, folks have told me that "E=mc^2" does NOT mean that unbound energy is the composition of every bit of energy, matter, or antimatter in the universe. We did several threads on the subject.

What they are really saying is: "I'm smarter than Einstein", or even the Law of the Conservation of Mass/Energy. And we all know how quickly and frequently that sort of delusion runs afoul of reality. You might as well say: "Well, I've made myself a perpetual motion machine", because it is the same statement.

It's really the classic Donald Trump delusion, isn't it?

 

May be use of word axiomatic bad..

What is the process? How does a proton and anti proton annihilate? Does it happen at constituent level like Quark-antiquark annihilation one by one? How close they should come before they decide to burn out? Can partial burn out take place for example out of 3 quarks each, 2 pairs get annihilated and 1 quark and 1 anti quark manage to run away?

 

https://www.quora.com/What-specifically-happens-when-a-proton-and-an-antiproton-collide
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/66rl5f/how_does_protonantiproton_annihilation_work/
That was a quick-pick selection from a long list of hits. Moral - try a www search using an apt search string. Bow down before the www - let it be your God, The God!

 

Not much help. From your quora link, the first reply is by Frank Heile PhD Stanford guy....Can be taken as quite authentic.

######In contrast, a proton-antiproton collision and "annihilation" is a much messier affair. FIrst of all, protons are composite particles that contain 3 quarks and additional quark-antiquark pairs and gluons that bind the quarks together. However, the 3 quarks only contain 1% of the proton's rest mass - the rest of the mass comes from the gluon/quark-antiquark binding energy (see my answer to: Why is the proton so much more massive than the electron? for more details.)

Similarly, the antiproton contains 3 antiquarks plus the binding energy. So when a proton collides with an antiproton, what is most likely to happen is that the "binding energies" will collide! Even if one of the 3 quarks of the proton collides with one of the 3 antiquarks of the antiproton, this quark/antiquark may annihilate in a way similar to the electron/positron, but all the rest of the quarks of the proton and the antiquarks of the antiproton and the binding energy gluons and quark/antiquark pairs will not likely annihilate each other.

So in the proton-antiproton collision, some annihilation will take place but probably not complete annihilation of all the quarks, antiquarks and gluons. But it does not matter, the original parts of the proton and antiproton that did not annihilate will combine with the products of the annihilation and will generate a stream of multiple outgoing particles. And total energy will be conserved. As I said, it is very messy, and there is probably not a single point in time where you could imagine that all the incoming stuff converted to some "pure energy"....#######

 

Now Dr Heile of Stanford responds above..

1. He talks of binding energy collision.
2. He says that in case of proton antiproton the complete annihilation may not take place.

Suggesting that this annihilation fails even at first basic composite particle. If you read my post I am talking of composite particle annihilation only. Now if you extend Dr Heile on larger composite objects, things will become further dicey..

 

Really? Neither that one or the 2nd answer from Jerzy Michał Pawlak, PhD in High Energy Physics (experimental)?
Hmm...hard to please I guess. Or maybe you just have a fixed irrational ideological position that says 'anti-particles don't and can't exist, because..X.' It might be mildly interesting to know just how you arrived at that imo illogical pov I left as placeholder X. Well?