It has obviously been proven mathematically that antigravity can exist. However, will it ever be possible to find anti anything? If antigravity, matter or energy exists, it would repel from objects instead of attract... So would that mean that IF it does exists, would it not be spread far apart from things? Could a collection of antimatter particles collect, or because their gravity would be opposite, it would repel them from each other?<br /><br />I personally think things like this do exists, however it may be impossible to discover them. I doubt (my opinion) that there is a large collection of antiparticles anywhere (white hole.) <br /><br />I'm really baffled about antigravity in physics and it's hard for me to comprehend how it would work... Could particles/mass with negative mass collect with other particles with -mass? What do you guys think?<br />
- Status
Good question. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Lets start with antimatter. It is not just a mathematical proof.<br /><br />Antimatter actually exists naturally (although only for extremely short lengths of time) on Earth! When cosmic rays hit the Earth's atmosphere they can produce particle jets which contain minute amounts of antimatter. <br /><br />As soon as an atom of antimatter meets an atom of matter they are both annihilated. This doesn't mean they both disappear, but rather that they are converted into other things with equal energy like gamma rays or particle jets. Unfortunately (for the people tying to observe them) the difference in the mass of the original atom and the product of the annihilation is coverted into kinetic energy, and the difference is usually quite large, which means that they don't tend to hang around for long!<br /><br />Anywhere where high energy collisions of particles takes place, antimatter (or antiparticles) are formed. If highly energetic events take place out in space, the gamma rays created by the annihilation of the antimatter produced can be detected on Earth.<br /><br />Scientists have been detecting various antiparticles since 1932 and we have even made some ourselves! <br /><br />The first time we made some anti-atoms was in 1995 at CERN, when they made 9 antihydrogen atoms! This was later confirmed by Fermilab who made around 100 antihydrogen atoms.<br /><br />You asked if antimatter particles could collect together. There is so much matter flying around in our universe (the vacuum of space is rarely actually empty) that any antimatter occuring is usually annihilated pretty quickly. But on Earth, scientists can <i> trap </i> antiparticles they have made using sophisticated means to slow them down. But so far, we haven't been able to trap them for long. I think we have managed to keep a few hundred antihydrogen atoms for over 10 seconds!<br /><br />Put it this way, at the present rate it would take 2 billion years to make 1 <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>
So basically your saying we havent found an efficient way to create and harness antimatter to be used for other things. For example, a "Anti-Grav" machine to put on the back of our airplanes? =)
It is correct to say we haven't found an efficient way to create antimatter.<br /><br />The rest is still science fiction ("harnessing" antimatter and using it as a tool for "anti-grav" machines attached to airplanes etc). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>
I think Stevehw is correct, except other particles are produced in addition to gamma rays, especially when the anti element and the annialated element are different, such as anti-hydrogen anialating a helium nucleus. The process is usually quick, but likely takes a few nano seconds. My guess is anti energy is also science fiction, but there is some evidence for dark energy. Neil
I don't think we know enough about the nature of gravity to speculate at this stage.<br /><br />Gravity is far less understood than matter. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>
One thing that was never really answered well in the books I have read is whether you can safely touch anti-matter or not. In the Star Trek TOS episode <i>The Alternative Factor</i>, Kirk has no problems interacting with an anti-matter universe and someone from that universe has no problems interacting with the Enterprise. It is only when two matching beings from opposite universes touch in one of the universes do you have a problem. (That would supposedly destroy both universes.) As such, Kirk was lucky he did not run into his counterpart from the other universe!<br /><br />So do two molecules have to break down into their subatomic particles to annilate each other?<br /><br />Also, is a magnetic bottle the only safe containment for anti-matter? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>
Dark Energy is the name given to the hypotetival energy that appears to be responsible for the accelerated expansion of the universe.<br /><br />Two proposed forms for dark energy are:<br /><br />1. The cosmological constant, a constant energy density filling space homogeneously;<br /><br />2. Quintessence, a dynamic field whose energy density can vary in time and space. <br /><br />WMAP data favours the cosmological constant form of Dark Energy but the Quintessence cannot be discarded.
So the Star Trek episode I mentioned could not happen? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>
In that episode, one of the Lazeruses was attempting to encounter the other in one universe or the other. They were safe inside the connection.<br /><br />Also, regarding converting beings from matter to anti-matter, that happens in Greg Bear's <i>Anvil of Stars</i>. Furthermore, Starfleet vessels are supposed to be able to covert matter to antimatter, with a loss of a lot of energy. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>
You never answered about the magnetic bottle. Is that the only way to contain antimatter? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>
There are theoretical concepts that involve the idea of using advanced "magnetic bottle" technology for holding antimatter, the idea being used in a propulsion system. <br /><br />But as I said before, we cannot presently contain even a few atoms of antimatter in any way, for more than a few tens of seconds.<br /><br />So at the moment, a magnetic bottle isn't a way to contain antimatter, no. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>
I asked because with most anti-matter molecules, you probably have to turn it into a plasma before the magnetic bottle can store anything. Both the bottle and the heat source will consume a lot of energy. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>
I agree there. Before we try and even think about the negative of something, we should first try and comprehend the positive of it. I also think that anti-matter has as little to do with the mythical anti-gravity as does anti-capitalism; the only link is the prefix 'anti'.
That would be like asking "can we compare a kraken (a huge squid, which might live very deep down in the oceans) with a unicorn (a mythical horselike animal that does not exist)"?. In other words, I haven't a clue.
I wouldn't explain it as antigravity, but dark energy has the characteristics of antigravity. Antigravity must have antimatter, the same as gravity has matter (or mass). And antimatter hasn't been shown to be dark energy yet. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>
I think we will find an efficient way of producing a negative force from magnetic current as a means of flying before we solve anti-gravity. See mag-lev trains
I believe the local convention is to call them North and South, not positive and negative.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
Either is acceptable. Positive and negative are terms better suited for science. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
basically, we dont want to find antimatter, by the accidental collision of an atom of antimatter with the same atom matter would create massive energy which is way stronger than an hydrogen bomb or atomic bomb.<br />The Fermi lab in the U.S. is creating anti-matter, they are able to contain them by making them float through long circle tubes, it just keep on going like there was no friction.<br />The rate of making an atom of anti-matter is about 1 in 500,000. This rate is actually big enough for us to not give up on it and testable. <br />The universe have very little antimatter, however if aliens are able to time travel through space, they must have something like anti-matter, just like we have fossil fuel, they also know how to mass produce it, like us, too bad fossil fuel is running out, and FAST too.
<i><br />Antigravity must have antimatter, the same as gravity has matter (or mass). <br />I disagree with this. According to most theories antimatter has normal mass; so it would have normal gravity, not antigravity.</i><br /><br />You're right, thanks for the correction. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>
Anti Matter will never be the power source of propulsion, this is not from me, this is the statement from the anti matter creator, CERN.<br /><br />The reason is very clear, to create an anti matter is no different to creating a matter, anti matter is just a matter with an oppossite charge. So, unless we can harvest antimatter from somewhere in the distance galaxies, creating matter or anti matter will generate more power than it can produced. Example, we can enrich uranium, refine petroleum, and they all can generate net energy. Imagine if we must create them, instead of mining them , will it be sensible? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 178
-
UFO whistleblowers tell Congress 'we are not alone in the cosmos' (video)- Started by Admin
- Replies: 38
-
-
Europe's Hera asteroid probe heads for Mars after engine burn
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
Question Educating Space to Toddlers to Pre-Adolescence?
- Started by NeoViking
- Replies: 17
-
Next Blue Origin space tourism flight will launch 'Space Gal' Emily Calandrelli
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram