Anti Gravity

[Anonymous No.1296913]

Is there anything in theoretical physics that could achieve antigravity?

Or would antigravity be physically impossible?

[Anonymous No.1296933]

It's not impossible, but in the event that we isolate the exact mechanism by which it works and are able to subvert it, odds are that it will be wildly energy inefficient, because gravity is an incredibly WEAK force. You need a truly stupendous amount of mass to generate any noteworthy amount of gravitational force, and thus it is highly likely that any artificial gravity or anti-gravity would be equally ridiculously expensive, in the sense of "You will now need approximately seven trillion AAA batteries".

If you want to make things hover, magnetism is a better bet.

[Anonymous No.1296943]

>>1296933
>implying gravity is a force

[Anonymous No.1296948]

>>1296913

Not OP but could someone explain gravitons to me?

Are they real or have I been trolled?

[Anonymous No.1296957]

>>1296948
They're one theoretical model that explains how gravity works. The other is the spacetime curvature idea.

[Anonymous No.1296962]

>>1296948
You have been trolled, gravity is not a quantisable force therefore there is no associated vector boson.

Maybe in 50 years there will be some sort of string knot/bundle equivalent that we can call a graviton, but not with today's theories.

[Anonymous No.1296968]

yes you can, with superconductors and high capacity magnets

[Anonymous No.1296978]

>>1296968
That's not antigravity though, just floating.

[Anonymous No.1296996]

Flux Capacitor

[Anonymous No.1297020]

>>1296962
>gravity is not a quantisable force therefore there is no associated vector boson

no proof here

[Anonymous No.1297061]

>>1297020
A boson is a theoretical construct. If a graviton is impossible within the confines of the standard model then it's totally valid to say there's no such thing. That doesn't preclude the existence of some kind of force-carrying object, but it does make it clear that whatever it is, it's not a vector boson.

[Anonymous No.1297073]

sociologist hamster race here:

boy meets girl.
????
die old together

when you figure that out, you will realize that gravity is a piece of cake.

[Anonymous No.1297079]

>>1297061
lulz
>bosons are theoretical
that means light is theoretical
>impossible within the confines of the standard model
the standard model is obviously incomplete if it can't unify gravity
>not a vector boson
supersymmetry

[Anonymous No.1297125]

>>1297079
Boson is the name given in the standard model to force carriers. Don't make the mistake of confusing a feature of an unprovable, and as you pointed out incomplete, theory with the observable fact of light. There are other theories which have no bosonsin them, which replicate most or all of the functionality of the standard model.

>supersymmetry

Your point being?

[Anonymous No.1297131]

>>1297125
>There are other theories which have no bosonsin them
Such as?
>Your point being?
Don't even know

[Anonymous No.1297136]

>>1297125
>>1297079
FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT

[Anonymous No.1297137]

>>1297079
>supersymmetry
>itsmagicidontgottoexplainshit.jpg

[Anonymous No.1297147]

>>1297125
>Boson is the name given in the standard model to force carriers
lolno bosons have positive integer angular momentum

[Anonymous No.1297186]

>>1297131
Like classical wave theory, or string theory. In the latter bosons are actually coiled strings.

>>1297147
That's one of their properties, yes. But another more interesting one is that they carry forces.

[Anonymous No.1297204]

>>1297186
Both classical wave theory and string theory are wrong.

[Anonymous No.1297239]

>>1297204
As are the standard model, Newtonian gravity and both theories of relativity. Once again I am forced to ask- Your point being?

[HerpDerpAnon No.1297262]

>>1296943
Implying gravity isn't a force
Oh the lulz

[HerpDerpAnon No.1297277]

>>1297204
explain that to my jew/nigger ass

[Anonymous No.1297299]

>>1297262
It's not lrn2relativity.

[Anonymous No.1297292]

>>1297239
>implying samefag
String theory is blatantly wrong and is not a viable candidate for a GUT.

[Anonymous No.1297304]

>>1297292
That's an interesting attitude. Would you mind telling me how you arrived at that conclusion?

[Anonymous No.1297307]

>>1297277
Quantum mechanics (particle wave duality)

False vacua, background perturbativity, cosmological constant prediction failure, to name a few.

[HA HA HA HA HA HA HA No.1297316]

>>1296913
No, not yet.
LMAO, little kids talking about particle physics...

[Anonymous No.1297321]

>>1297304
Oh look here>>1297307

[HerpDerpAnon No.1297322]

>>1297299
>Implying spacetime warps due to existing mass for no reason
>Not understanding that masseous objects exert force carrying particles that affect other objects
herpderp?

[Anonymous No.1297328]

>>1297277
If you were a Jew you'd understand it already.

[HerpDerpAnon No.1297333]

>>1297307
So that's what you meant by classical wave theory, ofcourse particle-wave duality isn't wrong. How do you think we have the uncertainty principle. Sorry I misunderstood you I guess.

[HerpDerpAnon No.1297344]

>>1297328
see:
>>1297333

[HerpDerpAnon No.1297370]

But instead of responding to everyone else, I shall help out the OP.
>>1296933
Accurate, you would need something as dense as a collapsing star that would somehow exert repulsive gravitons (force carrying particle for Gravity) underneath your board. Utilizing Electromagnetism would be a much better/efficient choice.

[Anonymous No.1297397]

>>1297307
Criticising Strings on those grounds is like saying humans can't have evolved because it's too unlikely. The fact that our universe is amenable to life is justified by the anthropic principle- if it wasn't, we would not be around to observe it.

Lack of testable predictions is a much more solid criticism.

[HerpDerpAnon No.1297417]

>>1297397
1 internets to you good sir.

[Anonymous No.1297452]

>>1297397
Bitch doesn't know about false vacua and 10^500 Calabi-Yau manifolds.

[Anonymous No.1297494]

>>1297452
bitch knows exactly what he's talking about; you clearly know nothing about this other than a few buzzwords you got from wikipedia.

[HerpDerpAnon No.1297532]

>>1297494
It's unfortunate that half the anons here can copypasta words from wikipedia and act as if they know a little about physics :/
Not implying I haven't done that to impress others before, but in this case it's happening too much.

[Anonymous No.1297566]

>>1297532
>>1297494
Too bad I can't prove my degree on 4chan, but the fact stands that you refuse to even refute my point.

[Inurdaes !lp/YozMJEM No.1297578]

What did the male LHC scientist say to the female LHC scientist?

Your bosons are giving me a hadron.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, I'll be here all week.

[Anonymous No.1297584]

>>1297578
Got it backwards, dumbass.

[HerpDerpAnon No.1297620]

>>1297566
You're arguing with kids on 4chan that probably don't know enough on the subject compared to you.

[Anonymous No.1297632]

>>1297566
Everyone has a doctorate on the internet. I myself have a PhD in Photonics from Oxford.

Anyway, the anthropic principle is the direct counter to criticism based on false vacua. The fact that you couldn't see that led me to believe you had no real understanding of the issues.

[Anonymous No.1297637]

>>1296913
The answer is that we don't know, but right now we can't think of any way to get it to work without doing gay math stuff which has no relevancy to the real world.

[Anonymous No.1297639]

>>1297632
I can't prove my identity, idiot.

>anthropic principle fallacies
sigh...

[Anonymous No.1297670]

>>1297639
>sigh

And yet if a creationist were to criticise evolution on the same grounds, you would immediately use the anthropic principle to justify the existence of life on this planet. If it wasn't suitable, we wouldn't be here. Double standards much?