ALPHA experiment presents first direct evidence of how atoms of antimatter interact with gravity

Apr 30, 2013
Do atoms of antihydrogen weigh the same as atoms of ordinary hydrogen? Could they even have "negative" weight, pushing them away from ordinary mass? Scientists from Berkeley Lab and UC Berkeley have used data from the ALPHA Experiment at CERN to measure antimatter gravity directly. Credit: Chukman So

The atoms that make up ordinary matter fall down, so do antimatter atoms fall up? Do they experience gravity the same way as ordinary atoms, or is there such a thing as antigravity?

These questions have long intrigued physicists, says Joel Fajans of the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab), because "in the unlikely event that antimatter falls upwards, we'd have to fundamentally revise our view of physics and rethink how the universe works."

So far, all the evidence that gravity is the same for is indirect, so Fajans and his colleague Jonathan Wurtele, both staff scientists with Berkeley Lab's Accelerator and Fusion Research Division and professors of physics at the University of California at Berkeley – as well as leading members of 's international ALPHA experiment – decided to use their ongoing antihydrogen research to tackle the question directly. If gravity's interaction with anti-atoms is unexpectedly strong, they realized, the anomaly would be noticeable in ALPHA's existing data on 434 anti-atoms.

The first results, which measured the ratio of antihydrogen's unknown gravitational mass to its known inertial mass, did not settle the matter. Far from it. If an antihydrogen atom falls downward, its gravitational mass is no more than 110 times greater than its . If it falls upward, its gravitational mass is at most 65 times greater.

What the results do show is that measuring antimatter gravity is possible, using an experimental method that points toward much greater precision in future. They describe their technique in the April 30, 2013 edition of Nature Communications.

How to measure a falling anti-atom

ALPHA creates by uniting single with single (antielectrons), holding them in a strong . When the magnets are turned off, the anti-atoms soon touch the ordinary matter of the trap's walls and annihilate in flashes of energy, pinpointing when and where they hit. In principle, if the experimenters knew an anti-atom's precise location and velocity when the trap is turned off, all they'd have to do is measure how long it takes to fall to the wall.

ALPHA's magnetic fields don't turn off instantly, however; almost 30-thousandths of a second pass before the fields decay to near zero. Meanwhile flashes occur all over the trap walls at times and places that depend on the anti-atoms' detailed but unknown initial locations, velocities, and energies.

Wurtele says, "Late-escaping particles have very low energy, so gravity's influence is more apparent on them. But there were very few late escaping anti-atoms; only 23 of the 434 escaped after the field had been turned off for 20-thousandths of a second."

Fajans and Wurtele worked with their ALPHA colleagues and with Berkeley Lab associates, UC Berkeley lecturer Andrew Charman and postdoc Andre Zhmoginov, to compare simulations with their data and separate gravity's effects from those of magnetic field strength and particle energy. Much statistical uncertainty remained.

"Is there such a thing as antigravity? Based on free-fall tests so far, we can't say yes or no, " says Fajans. "This is the first word, however, not the last."

ALPHA is being upgraded to ALPHA-2, and precision tests may be possible in one to five years. The anti-atoms will be laser-cooled to reduce their energy while still in the trap, and the magnetic fields will decay more slowly when the trap is turned off, increasing the number of low-energy events. Questions and nonphysicists have been wondering about for more than 50 years will be subject to tests that are not only direct but could be definitive.

Explore further: Optimum inertial self-propulsion design for snowman-like nanorobot

More information: "Description and first application of a new technique to measure the gravitational mass of antihydrogen," by the ALPHA Collaboration (C. Amole, M.D. Ashkezari, M. Baquero-Ruiz, W. Bertsche, E. Butler, A. Capra, C.L. Cesar, M. Charlton, A.E. Charman, S. Eriksson, J. Fajans, T. Friesen, M.C. Fujiwara, D.R. Gill, A. Gutierrez, J.S. Hangst, W.N. Hardy, M.E. Hayden, C.A. Isaac, S. Jonsell, L. Kurchaninov, A. Little, N. Madsen, J.T.K. McKenna, S. Menary, S.C. Napoli, P. Nolan, A. Olin, P. Pusa, C. Rasmussen, F. Robicheaux, E. Sarid, D.M. Silveira, C. So, R.I. Thompson, D.P. van der Werf, J.S. Wurtele, A.I. Zhmoginov), appears in the April 30, 2013 edition of Nature Communications. www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/… full/ncomms2787.html

Related Stories

Antimatter sticks around

Sep 22, 2011

By successfully confining atoms of antihydrogen for an unprecedented 1,000 seconds, an international team of researchers called the ALPHA Collaboration has taken a step towards resolving one of the grand challenges ...

Antihydrogen trapped for first time (w/ Video)

Nov 17, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- In the movie Angels and Demons, scientists have solved one of the most perplexing scientific problems: the capture and storage of antimatter. In real life, trapping atomic antimatter has never ...

Recommended for you

Spin-based electronics: New material successfully tested

9 hours ago

Spintronics is an emerging field of electronics, where devices work by manipulating the spin of electrons rather than the current generated by their motion. This field can offer significant advantages to computer technology. ...

A transistor-like amplifier for single photons

Jul 29, 2014

Data transmission over long distances usually utilizes optical techniques via glass fibres – this ensures high speed transmission combined with low power dissipation of the signal. For quite some years ...

User comments : 51

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Tektrix
1 / 5 (1) Apr 30, 2013
An asymmetric matter/antimatter gravitational effect implies that gravity's affect on time is also asymmetric.
vacuum-mechanics
1 / 5 (15) Apr 30, 2013
The atoms that make up ordinary matter fall down, so do antimatter atoms fall up? Do they experience gravity the same way as ordinary atoms, or is there such a thing as antigravity?

By the way, it is interesting to note that nowadays we still do not know how the gravity works! Maybe understand the mechanism of gravity (as below) could help to solve the problem.
http://www.vacuum...=7〈=en
grondilu
not rated yet Apr 30, 2013
Aren't inertial mass and gravitationnal mass the same thing according to Einstein's equivalence principle?
Tektrix
not rated yet Apr 30, 2013
Aren't inertial mass and gravitationnal mass the same thing according to Einstein's equivalence principle?


Equivalent effect, but not equivalent cause.
Q-Star
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 30, 2013
Aren't inertial mass and gravitationnal mass the same thing according to Einstein's equivalence principle?


Experimentally they have been shown to be equivalent (so far) and there is no reason to suspect that might not continue to be so. But they are derived differently.

Inertial mass is derived from a body's resistance to a change in momentum (or motion). (Newton's 1st & 2nd Laws of motion.)

Gravitational mass is derived from the effect of mass interacting with another mass through gravitation. (Newton's and Einstein's Laws of gravitation.)

But ya are correct, without some "new" physics, for all intents and purposes they can be taken as equivalent.
StarGazer2011
3 / 5 (4) Apr 30, 2013
I thought the difference between matter and anti-matter was reversed charge, which is an electrical phenomena. Why would these particles be effected differently by gravity? Whats the reason for even hypothesising that antimatter might fall 'up'?
Doug_Huffman
1 / 5 (1) Apr 30, 2013
I thought the difference between matter and anti-matter was reversed charge, which is an electrical phenomena. ...
Reversed charge AND reversed spin!

How many quantum numbers are there, how many can be 'reversed'?
Telekinetic
1 / 5 (5) Apr 30, 2013
When antimatter is created during a terrestrial lightning storm, that antimatter is observed to be shooting INTO space, which would suggest that it's traveling opposite of earth's gravity, or "falling up". Also, antigravity has been considered to be possible for decades, serious effort has been made by scientific groups to produce it, and the technology will occur within this century.
LarryD
not rated yet Apr 30, 2013
Telekinetic, wouldn't it be more likely that the energy of the storm would power the antimatter to a V greater than escape V? If anitmatter only differs in charge and spin then this would imply that gravitational attrct/exp would depend on charge, spin or both. Have there been experiments do dertmine this? I think more elementary experiments would have indicated the 'gravity' problem before now.
If a poistron/electron pair are produce from some 'gamma ray bundle' after a collision experiment, dosen't that suggest that both are derived from the same original 'material' and their opposite characteristics are determined by how this 'material' is 'organized'. If this were the case then one might expect similar reactions to gravity....Or have I used too many 'ifs'...
Thrasymachus
1 / 5 (1) May 01, 2013
Goes to show how hard it can be to just drop something and see if it falls.
PhotonX
not rated yet May 01, 2013
When antimatter is created during a terrestrial lightning storm, that antimatter is observed to be shooting INTO space, which would suggest that it's traveling opposite of earth's gravity, or "falling up". Also, antigravity has been considered to be possible for decades, serious effort has been made by scientific groups to produce it, and the technology will occur within this century.
I'm not a physicist, but reviewing the NASA website shows: "Scientists long have suspected TGFs arise from the strong electric fields near the tops of thunderstorms. Under the right conditions, they say, the field becomes strong enough that it drives an upward avalanche of electrons." The upward electrons are't fleeing gravity, they are responding to electric fields. Is there any reason to believe that the positrons aren't likewise?
nowhere
not rated yet May 01, 2013
When antimatter is created during a terrestrial lightning storm, that antimatter is observed to be shooting INTO space, which would suggest that it's traveling opposite of earth's gravity, or "falling up".

LarryD and PhotonX have a much more plausable answer.

Also, antigravity has been considered to be possible for decades, serious effort has been made by scientific groups to produce it, and the technology will occur within this century.

Please provide reference for this extraordinary claim.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) May 01, 2013
In AWT the antiparticles have no opposite gravitational mass, but the opposite gravitational charge, which manifests itself for example during their rotation around massive bodies, where they attracted to poles instead of equator (opposite direction of Lense-Thirring precession). They're attracted to the surface of massive bodies, not to their barycenter in similar way, like the dark matter. The difference in gravitational weight during free fall would be measurable only for most lighweight antiparticles, like the neutrinos. BTW Neutrons and magnets glued each other with opposite poles have weaker gravitational charge too.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) May 01, 2013
The gravitatational charge is quantum gravity, i.e. the hyperdimensional effect. You may imagine it with common "trampoline" model of gravity, in which massive spheres are attracted together at the elastic membrane. But it's the local increase of vacuum density, which attracts the massive object each other (the shielding of superluminal gravitational waves between them) and it doesn't say, to which direction the membrane is bent. Both particle, both antiparticle bodies would generate the gravity lens of the same sign, because in quantum mechanics the probability function is proportional to square of energy density, not the energy density as such. But their dynamic/non-inertial behavior of particles/antiparticles inside of such field would be very different, which will manifest itself during their acceleration in this field.
MrRubbs
1 / 5 (4) May 01, 2013
it's a pity we don't have a Antimatter laser, producing antimatter photons, so they could effectively freeze the motion of the anti-hydrogen, before releasing the magnetic field and laser trap. then at least it might be possible to measure the effect of gravity?
LarryD
not rated yet May 01, 2013
nowhere, I think Telekinetic is just living up to his/her name. People like Paul Hill (formerly of NASA) were experimenting with 'thrust vector platforms' and more recently we've all seen and and heard about the 'flying/hovering bedteads'. If that's what Telekinetic is alluding then he has his 'wires crossed'. I suppose braodly speaking any force, ion, mag, rocket, defies gravity by using power to overcome it but if Telekinetic is suggesting a third mag pole or gravity that repels then I can only say this will take us further away from GUT than we are now. (SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1)x(?)
Another idea that seems remote is related to 'gravitons' and 'antigravitons' (from matter and antimatter) but I believe that experiements so far suggests that 'anti g' displays the same property as 'g'. A genuine opposite gravity field would require NEGATIVE MATTER which remains, shall we say, 'illusive'(?) (if memory serves some years ago Prof. J. Weber had a theory)



Skylax123
not rated yet May 01, 2013
"...30-thousandths of a second..."
I think it is save to say that readers of this site know what 30 ms are, so why not use it?
Strictly speaking though this number doesn't appear anywhere in the nature article. They say the magnetic fields decay with a time constant of 9.5ms.
Telekinetic
1 / 5 (2) May 01, 2013
Here is one European patent relating to the reduction of the weight of objects in earth's gravitational field, but prior work by Douglas Torr, Ning Li and other scientists as early as Babson, an MIT graduate, investigated methods of shielding and opposing gravity.

http://electrogra...ent.html
Telekinetic
1 / 5 (2) May 01, 2013
Here's a decade-old mainstream news item:

http://news.bbc.c...7975.stm
LarryD
not rated yet May 01, 2013
Telekinetic, no claim is made in the electograv link concerning genuine antigravity only that weights were reduced. Since the forces used were conventional there may be other explanations. As you say '...investigated methods of shielding and opposing gravity...'. I suggest that this means finding more efficient ways of '...opposing gravity...' than using conventional fuels. Basically what I mentioned before. Maybe there's a 'anti-Higgs' field...now theres a thought...
LarryD
not rated yet May 01, 2013
my original comment took so long to appear I wrote another...whoops
Telekinetic
1 / 5 (3) May 01, 2013
LarryD:
These "conventional" forces aren't conventional at all- just the apparatus is. In order to get to a more efficient effect, first you have to convince scientific or commercial interests to fund research, as Boeing has done. If you have a way of making a more dramatic antigravity effect, you'll need to prove it beyond daydreaming. Also, I am Telekinetic, as is anyone who cares to exert some effort with experimentation.
LarryD
not rated yet May 01, 2013
whoops...happened again
nowhere
not rated yet May 02, 2013
Here is one European patent relating to the reduction of the weight of objects in earth's gravitational field
http://electrogra...ent.html

As far as i am aware there is no interaction between accelerated electrons and gravity, aside from the usual mass attraction. Please explain this interaction?

nowhere
5 / 5 (1) May 02, 2013
Here's a decade-old mainstream news item:

http://news.bbc.c...7975.stm

From the article:
"Dr Podkletnov is viewed with suspicion by many conventional scientists. They have not been able to reproduce his results."

"Scientists who investigated Dr Podkletnov's work, however, said the experiment was fundamentally flawed and that negating gravity was impossible."

"The US space agency, Nasa, is also attempting to reproduce Dr Podkletnov's findings, but a preliminary report indicates the effect does not exist."
beleg
1 / 5 (3) May 04, 2013
"in the unlikely event that antimatter falls upwards, we'd have to fundamentally revise our view of physics and rethink how the universe works." - JF


Theoretical fundamental revisionists have one to five years to build foundations for an unlikely event. Keep your literature. A Newtonian and a Relativist are indistinguishable until closer inspection.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) May 04, 2013
Scientists who investigated Dr Podkletnov's work, however, said the experiment was fundamentally flawed and that negating gravity was impossible
The Podkletnov experiments were never attempted to replicated in peer-reviewed journal (after all, in similar way like the cold fusion at nickel and many other fundamental findings, seemingly violating established physics) NASA already develops it's own drive based on Woodward effect and Chinese replicated the EM-drive.
there is no interaction between accelerated electrons and gravity, aside from the usual mass attraction
The violation of gravity around accelerated superconductive disk has been observed with Martin Tajmar too. But these experiments aren't directly related to antimatter behavior in gravity field.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) May 04, 2013
This is how the character of quantum oscillations of quantum particle changes during their sqeezing from perspective of water surface analogy of space time. The constraining of particle motion in space doesn't destroy the energy of particle - it just converts the particle motion momentum along spatial dimension(s) into motion across the time dimension(s) of space-time. What is important here is A) such a squeezed electrons form the superconductive phase B) they're moving much faster, so they interacts with quantum fluctuations more intensively C) the particles undulating across time dimension exchange the energy via longitudinal scalar/gravitational waves preferably, so they can interact/couple with gravity field mediated with gravitons. You cannot derive such a behavior from special relativity and/or Maxwell theory crippled with Heaviside, because it has all scalar wave interactions removed.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) May 04, 2013
In Boyd Bushman experiments the magnets glued together with repulsive poles each other do fall in gravity field slower, than the inert rock and/or even magnets attracting each other. This experiment is very cheap and simple, but mainstream physics has apparently quite different problems, than the replication of these findings, which don't fit the mainstream theories well. It remains focused to confirmation and extrapolation of established theories, rather than to research of the really new findings and paradigm, because the physicists are valued by citation index and the new areas of physics are unreliable and you have no one to cite there. It's evident, we need to change the methodology of evaluating of scientific work and it's contribution to progress. We need to introduce the criterion, which would help the human society as a whole, not just the close group of scientists itself.
angelhkrillin
1 / 5 (2) May 04, 2013
"Is there antigravity?" dude...that's like asking if there is anti-time. there is just a beginning and end, so i think gravity just is.
ovidrg
1 / 5 (1) May 04, 2013
I thought the difference between matter and antimatter is the color charge that is not electrical charge. Anyway ... if we have two equal amounts of matter and antimatter m, mass will be 2m. And if they annihilate mass will be zero? so 2m = 0? Absurd, so antimatter mass is minus matter mass.
LarryD
not rated yet May 04, 2013
ovidrg, Are you sure 2m=0? In any annihilation surely the gamma rays produced will reproduce other particles depending on what the original particles were?
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) May 04, 2013
In dense aether model are two complementary ways, how to describe the matter/antimatter duality. The first one is based on chirality of vacuum fluctuations, the second one is based on curvature of space-time. The existence of matter in any form is driven with disballance of transverse and longitudinal waves, which are in mutual resonance inside of material particles. The antiparticles have slight excess of scalar waves, so they do behave like the bubbles, i.e. less dense areas of vacuum. The normal particles do behave like the more dense blobs and they've excess of EM waves. But this simple division works for simplest particles only, like the neutrinos and antineutrinos.
The heavier particles do behave like rather the blobs with somewhat hollow interior and surface, whereas the antiparticles do behave like the bubbles with thick walls and somewhat more dense interior and their behavior is very similar.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) May 04, 2013
The actual difference between particles and antiparticles is in chirality of vacuum fluctuations, which are forming it. The particles form the blobs of vacuum foam, which are formed with standing waves at their surfaces. But the normal particles are formed with waves spreading along internal surfaces of bubbles, forming the vacuum foam. The antiparticles are formed with waves at the external surfaces of that foam. The trick is, under normal condition, when the vacuum foam is sparse, the walls of its bubbles are flat and virtually indistinguishable each other, so that the difference between particle and antiparticle behavior is very little too. This difference arises when the density of vacuum increases, the bubbles of foam shrink and get the spherical shape.
ovidrg
1 / 5 (2) May 05, 2013
LarryD , 2m = 0 because energy have no mass.
douglaskostyk
not rated yet May 05, 2013
LarryD , 2m = 0 because energy have no mass.


E=mc2
LarryD
not rated yet May 05, 2013
ovidrg, Nope...can't see that either. All particles are made up of energy...everything is
...so if energy has no mass then 0+0+0+0+0....=0 where does the eventual mass come from? In theory Photons have zero mass because the equations say so not because they actually have zero mass. At present we accept this because we can't measure that accurately, maybe never will (like the minute dimensions in compactification theory). Then again this a calculation of rest mass and eltromagnetic radiation is never at rest and is relativistic and I believe one of the caluclations is m=E/c 2 =h/λc.
Benni
1 / 5 (3) May 05, 2013
...so if energy has no mass then 0+0+0+0+0....=0 where does the eventual mass come from?


Energy fields have gravity

In theory Photons have zero mass because the equations say so not because they actually have zero mass.


Depends on what equations you're using. if you compare Rest Mass Equivalence of a photon to the Rest Mass of a particle. The Rest Mass Equivalence of a photon is so small that it is non-contributory to the final calculation. I believe this is the point you're making?

Then again this a calculation of rest mass and eltromagnetic radiation is never at rest and is relativistic and I believe one of the caluclations is m=E/c 2 =h/λc.


But never ignore the fact that while "rest mass equivalence" of photon energy within a given volume is extremely small compared to "rest mass" of particles in that space & thus has smaller gravity component, over many light years of distance the gravity component of energy flux fields has an integrating response.
Benni
1 / 5 (3) May 05, 2013
.....cont'd from above.

In total, the gravity field of the total of all the energy contained within the universe exceeds by far the sum total of the gravity of all mass in the universe. Check out some sites concerning "dark energy" & you will find the sum-total of the gravity of energy is the source of most of the gravity in the universe.
LarryD
not rated yet May 05, 2013
Yes Benni, I understand this but my original repsonse was to ovidrg '...2m = 0 because energy have no mass...' and as you point out 'Energy fields have gravity' and if that is so then energy fields are not massless otherwise there would be no gravity...no mass no gravity, according to classical GR. So, ovidrg '...2m = 0 because energy have no mass...' is not correct.

LarryD , 2m = 0 because energy have no mass.


LarryD , 2m = 0 because energy have no mass.

ovidrg
1 / 5 (1) May 06, 2013
According to the theory of relativity, the mass is converted into energy, so the result (energy) has no mass because mass was converted.
By converting mass into energy, we transform its movement in time in space movement.
I belive gravity is given by this movement in time.
Benni
1 / 5 (3) May 06, 2013
According to the theory of relativity, the mass is converted into energy, so the result (energy) has no mass because mass was converted.
By converting mass into energy, we transform its movement in time in space movement.
I belive gravity is given by this movement in time.


Rest Mass Equivalence & Relativistic Mass discussions is found in 2nd semester college physics, that's when I learned about it. I learned more about it in a pre-requisite nuclear physics course for nuclear reactor design.

Energy (photons) at transformation from mass becomes "relativistic mass". When mass is transformed the actual mass in the atom that was transformed becomes lighter because a tiny bit of mass was used to create energy, when an atom loses mass it also loses proportionate gravity because there is less mass available to sustain the original gravity field prior to transformation. The transformed mass carried away the now missing gravity, this can be measured as well as calculated.
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (8) May 06, 2013
At present we accept this because we can't measure that accurately, maybe never will (like the minute dimensions in compactification theory). Then again this a calculation of rest mass and eltromagnetic radiation is never at rest and is relativistic and I believe one of the caluclations is m=E/c 2 =h/λc.


Photons aren't massless because we can't measure small enough. They have zero mass because that is the number that comes out of the maths. Energy is not mass, so energy has no mass.

E = mc^2 is nothing more than the theoretical MAXIMUM kinetic energy any particle can have. No mass particle can achieve that because infinity shows up. It was only added to SR to preserve conservation of energy. It is poorly understood by the public, it's nothing more than a constraint.

E = mc^2 won't change if we discover that photons have some miniscule mass. "c" won't change. Only the photon "v" will be less than "c" at all times.
Benni
1 / 5 (3) May 06, 2013
Photons aren't massless because we can't measure small enough. They have zero mass because that is the number that comes out of the maths. Energy is not mass, so energy has no mass.


What is your explanation for the measurable & calculated gravity associated with energy flux fields?

Because energy flux fields carry inherent gravity is the reason photons are assigned ""rest mass equivalence" or may be referred to as "relativistic mass". It's the association of "gravity" with energy that provides the association of mass to energy as simply inverse characteristics of one another

E = mc^2 won't change if we discover that photons have some miniscule mass.


True, so long as the "relativistic mass" of the photon is included in the calculation.
Q-Star
4 / 5 (8) May 06, 2013
What is your explanation for the measurable & calculated gravity associated with energy flux fields?


Maybe ya would help me by pointing how an energy field's gravity was measured. Then the maths used to calculate it if it's not too much trouble. I'm thinking that at some point ya have gotten semantically confused on some fine point.

Because energy flux fields carry inherent gravity is the reason photons are assigned ""rest mass equivalence" or may be referred to as "relativistic mass". It's the association of "gravity" with energy that provides the association of mass to energy as simply inverse characteristics of one another


Is this going to be another "all energy is photonic in nature" sort of days? Energy & mass are two different qualities. E = mc^2 is a theoretical limit, no more. It only defines the maximum potential potential energy contained in a given mass.

(Please tell us ya aren't really around nuclear stuff, that was a joke, right?)
Benni
1 / 5 (3) May 06, 2013
Maybe ya would help me by pointing how an energy field's gravity was measured.


Ask the astro-physicists who actually do it & report it on their websites. Start by studying "dark energy" at those sites. But before ya do that, it will help ya immensely to get enrolled in a 2nd semester physics course this summmer where ya can first learn what "energy" is.

Because energy flux fields carry inherent gravity is the reason photons are assigned ""rest mass equivalence" or may be referred to as "relativistic mass". It's the association of "gravity" with energy that provides the association of mass to energy as simply inverse characteristics of one another


Is this going to be another "all energy is photonic in nature" sort of days? Energy & mass are two different qualities. E = mc^2 is a theoretical limit, no more. It only defines the maximum potential potential energy contained in a given mass.


I have no idea what ya just said here......

Q-Star
4 / 5 (8) May 06, 2013
Maybe ya would help me by pointing how an energy field's gravity was measured.


Ask the astro-physicists who actually do it & report it on their websites.


It's astrophysicists, not astro-physicists, but regardless, could ya pass along a name or two, or a website or two?

Is this going to be another "all energy is photonic in nature" sort of days? Energy & mass are two different qualities. E = mc^2 is a theoretical limit, no more. It only defines the maximum potential potential energy contained in a given mass.


I have no idea what ya just said here......

Somehow that doesn't surprise me at all, strange thing that, but I'm not surprised. Ya internet "nuclear engineers" are a hoot. (But at least Reg Mundy takes ya seriously, ya can at least take heart in that.)
ovidrg
1 / 5 (2) May 07, 2013
You can not measure the photon mass because his lifetime is zero, for him time does not pass. It is the same at the source and at destination.
I think that the photon has no mass, but is influenced by the gravitational field due to the curvature of spacetime. Even space is influenced by gravity, and therefore we can say that space has mass?
The difference between matter and energy: energy vibrates and moves in space in a limited time, matter vibrates and moves in time in a limited space. For matter, gravity may be the result of this and manifests itself in space. For energy, perhaps there is something analogous to gravity which must be manifested in time (entaglement?)
LarryD
1 / 5 (1) May 07, 2013
ovidrg, well that kinda depends on how you look at it. Is space warped by the gravitation or by the mass that produces the gravitation? The larger the mass the greater the gravity, bigger warp.
You seem to be saying that gravity produces mass ('..and therefore we can say that space has mass?..")? This will create a bigger mass, I mean mess than we already have!
Time as we use it (calendars) can't be slowed, twisted or anything else since it is nothing more than a progression; clocks etc only measure something which we have not yet defined. If Time can be acted up then it must have 'substance' upon which action can take place. I suggest that Time has dimensions analogous to those of space.
ovidrg
1 / 5 (2) May 07, 2013
LarryD no, I say that space is affected by mass/gravity, like photons are affected to, but photons or space does not have mass. Photons are PART of space (a wave in space), as matter is part of time (a wave in time).
Yes, time ca be slowed, speed or gravitational field slows time. I think research should be focused about time as dimension because is there is a great connection between it and gravity.
LarryD
1 / 5 (1) May 07, 2013
ovidrg, your comment, 'I think research should be focused about time as dimension because is there is a great connection between it and gravity.' is similar to my own thoughts. If I claimed that research was already in progress I'd be slammed as a 'Conspiracy theory' nut. Not that I mind that, but there is some substance to one of them. In addition to that I've my own thoughts, that Time is 4D. If there were '...a great connection between it and gravity.' then maybe many problems could be solved...and a few more created.