/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2096708]

Matter particles attract Space particles. Gravity is the force of the Space particles. We are swimming in an ocean of Space particle, the most abundant thing in the universe.

My question is, if anti-matter particles exists, does anti-gravity particles exists as well?

[Krakengineer !!5XY+x7grkpt No.2096731]

>>2096708 Space particle
You justwent full retard.

>>does anti-gravity particles exists as well?
No. Anti-particles have the same mass as their regular mattter counterparts, only the charge is reversed.

[Anonymous No.2096767]

What about anti-space particles?

[Anonymous No.2096942]

>>2096767
Actually I meant that. I hereby name "space particles" Anons.

[Anonymous No.2096976]

Actually the effects of gravity on anti-matter haven't been empirically observed, and there are some consistent ideas being bandied about that anti-matter will interact differently with gravity, but I'd be very strongly inclined to agree that it behaves identically to matter where gravitation is concerned.

tl;dr OP hasn't heard of Higgs field.

[Anonymous No.2096980]

>>2096731

Also I meant to reply to you, but I fucked up.

[Anonymous No.2098795]

>>2096708
luminiferous aether particles work through interpolation rather than multiplicivety, thus anti-aether luminiferous particulates ungravitate toward a general consensus.

also dark energy

[Anonymous No.2098813]

>>2096976
>Actually the effects of gravity on anti-matter haven't been empirically observed

Actually, inside protons and neutrons, there are quark-antiquark pairs which are constantly produced and annihilated. We know antimatter has a positive inertial mass. If antiquarks were repelled by gravity, they would give the proton and neutron a slightly different gravitational mass from their inertial mass. Furthermore, the proton and the neutron would have different inertial mass/gravitational mass ratios that would show up in tests of the equivalence principle. Now we're talking tiny effects here, but you what you have to understand is the tests of the equivalence principle that have been carried out by e.g. Adelberger's group are crazy sensitive, we're talking parts in 10^-16. If antimatter was repelled by gravity, we'd know it by now.

[Anonymous No.2098816]

>>2098813
>we're talking parts in 10^-16

I'm pretty sure that's impossible, even for protons we only know the mass within a few parts in 10^-12.

[Anonymous No.2098851]

>>2098816
Actually, I did it wrong, and that should be parts in 10^13. I just divided the quoted acceleration accuracy by g, when I should be dividing by the centripetal acceleration of the test masses on earth. Anyway, the accuracy of the mass of the proton has nothing to do with it. You don't need to know the mass of the proton for these experiments.

The relevant paper is here:

http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/publications/pdf/schlamminger08.pdf

[Anonymous No.2098863]

Slightly related but if gravity does have a particle, the graviton, it'd be its own antiparticle, like the photon.

[Anonymous No.2098869]

>>2098863
Please explain why gravity would have this exception?

[Anonymous No.2098889]

>>2098869
The general rule is that in order for a particle to not be its own antiparticle, the field has to have complex numbers as values. The gravitational field, the electromagnetic field, the strong field, and the Z boson field all are vectors or tensors with real components. The electron, muon, tauon, neutrino, quark, and W fields are spinors/vectors with complex components.

[Anonymous No.2098890]

>>2098889
Ok that makes sense.

[Anonymous No.2098891]

>>2098889

[Anonymous No.2098933]

>>2098889

if EM field equations never have complex components, alot of people have spent alot of time doing unnecessary math at university.

[Anonymous No.2098970]

>>2098933
The electric and magnetic field vectors never have complex components. What you are thinking about are calculations where you write something like
<div class="math">\vec E = \vec E_0 e^{-i \omega t + i \vec k \cdot \vec x}</div>
but that is only a convenient mathematical fiction, and you're supposed to take the real part when you're done.

>>2098889
Also, before someone smart notices, I should add that the real/complex rule only works if you write the "kinetic" terms in the Lagrangian (quadratic terms with derivatives) in the standard form, <span class="math">A (\partial^\mu \phi)^* \partial_\mu \phi[/spoiler] for bosonic fields and <span class="math">i A \bar \psi \gamma^\mu \partial_\mu \psi[/spoiler] for fermionic fields. Of course you can always write a complex-valued field as two real-valued fields, but then those terms in the Lagrangian wouldn't be in the standard form. Always a little more complicated than the easy answer...