Suprise, suprise . . antihydrogen looks like hydrogen

[PB666]

2 hours ago, p1t1o said:

Please...can you sum that up for me?

This is what I got from it:

Antimatter doesnt have exactly opposite spin values for its constituent parts, compared to normal matter, but they are different?
Something about spin deciding how it reacts to gravity?

In conclusion - antimatter has normal mass properties?

anti-matter has normal properties except charge. A lepton that has a charge of -1/2 has an antiparticle with all the same properties except a charge of +1/2.

 

Am I close?

 

People seem to be leaning quite heavily on "antimatter clearly has energy, and because E=MC^2 it therefore must also have normal positive mass and therefore reacts to gravity in the expected manner."

It was my understanding that that is all well and good but empirical evidence [for antimatter's response to gravity] is for now out of our reach. I would also wager that E=MC^2 is an oversimplification in this matter...no pun intended. The formula itself is a reduction of the full mathematics of mass-energy equivalence and it is not applicable to all forms of mass or energy.

 

Id be the first to admit that this is pushing the limits of my experience, I have so far merely been regurgitating what I have seen elsewhere over time.

Spin is a property that is apparent only with observation . . . .Heisenberg tells us that we don't know what spin is until we attempt to observe it. How we observe it is we apply a magnetic field, about half the time it will flip, and emit a photon, the other half of the time it will not. So depending on the magnetic field and a UV tell, we know what the spin is. Charge spin is a magnetic dipole has nothing to do with gravity. For an electron at rest (like never, very very cold place, 0'K) energy and thus gravity is constant irregardless of spin state. When you observe a spin of an electron (all electrons have angular momentum) the angular momentum assumes a quantum state which is some integer function of reduced planks constant. The property that any given electron is -1/2 or +1/2 is 50:50, these are the eigenvalues for the eigenvector that is defined by the Dirac equations. How do we know that all electrons have an angular momentum, the reason we know this is that 1/2 - 1 = -1/2. Because you cannot add or subtract 1 from -1/2 or 1/2, respectively, to get 0 then an electron must always have angular momentum. So for example, if we apply a magnetic field, about 1/2 the time we will get an emission its always the same frequency. If we had a spin of zero, if we flipped electron to spin 1/2 we would see something like E=hv as some fraction of a -1/2 to 1/2 flip. The distribution of eigenvalues would not be 50:50 but something like 25 No hv: 50 smaller hv: 25 most hv. That is not what is observed, the eigenvalues are the observables of the eigenvector.

[snipped explanation and beat to the point]

It is the interactions between the flowing space-time and energy trapped in various energy systems that create a perception of gravity. If for example, if light requires space-time to flow, then conversely light effects spacetime. This is the way we understand things, C is not just the propogation rate of light, its the field propagation rate of space-time in which light and other massless fields can travel linearly in space-time. Thus if light has some dependency on space-time to travel, then light is also interacting with space-time creating gravity. All fields (e.g. electromagnetic fields, quarks, gluons, leptons, W-bosons, Z-bosons, higgs boson) in space-time contain energy, they all flow, some short distances and others great distances and in this process they warp space time. So that photon that interacted with a disturbance in the field, creates a positron and electron. Both flow in spacetime, there mass determines their inertia. The warp created by one particle interacts via space-time on the members of the pair. if the pair products are traveling slowly, they spend alot of time in the space of the field the integral effect of the interactions is greater. To reduce the integral effect you add more inertia, less time is spent in the field. If you add an infinite amount of inertia (you can't) the effect of local space-time would be minimal, but still present.

 

And basically all particles breakdown into fields, some that flow linearly and others that travel short distances and interact, each interacting with space-time and space-time being influenced as some very small level by the energy. Gravity does not exist; the fictitious nature of gravity was first pointed out by Newton (mysterious force acting at a distance) and confirmed by Einstein. Our perception of space and time is different from the dimensionality of space-time. As stated only our perception of space is static, gravitons are not static, they dart around at c influenced by other fields in space-time and it just so happens that the influence is proportional to the energy. So that the flow of a massive particle (anti-proton or proton) is determined by its inertia and responds to the curvature of spacetime. Electrons (spin = 1, 0 or -1, no charge, its own antiparticle) also are influenced by space-time. If an antiproton wants to not respond to a warping of gravity it needs to spend less time in the space-time field. For that to happen energy needs to be added (either by addition to the system) or conversion of some of its mass to energy. 

 

 

 

[YNM]

12 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

E=MC^2.

... of which the full term is

Could've been negative.

 

All this time, we've seen the swans white.

This is the time we see whether there exist a black swan.

Edited April 12, 2018 by YNM

[KerikBalm]

We know the energy content of antimatter is positive.

[YNM]

19 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

We know the energy content of antimatter is positive.

Wouldn't change with m0 negative per equation below.

[kerbiloid]

If there are areas with galaxies and areas with antigalaxies, shouldn't we see gamma from their zones of contact?

[p1t1o]

7 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

If there are areas with galaxies and areas with antigalaxies, shouldn't we see gamma from their zones of contact?

Precisely.

[YNM]

10 hours ago, p1t1o said:

Precisely.

Unless they repel each other... or the signature's too weak...

 

You never know !

[kerbiloid]

3 hours ago, YNM said:

Unless they repel each other.

to another other from another side.
So, shouldn't there be a weak scattered gamma?

[YNM]

40 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

to another other from another side.
So, shouldn't there be a weak scattered gamma?

It isn't that there isn't absolutely any in the first place... who knows if that's what CMB is ?

 

But yeah, I'm not going to place any bets, I'll just patiently wait what the boffins in GBAR have to conclude in the end.

[StrandedonEarth]

Relevant Larry Niven short story: Flatlander (Wiki plot synopsis link)

Edited April 15, 2018 by StrandedonEarth