Neutral result charges up antimatter research

January 20, 2016
A view from the Experimental Zone floor of the ALPHA-2 Cryostat and external solenoid assembly, with control and data acquisition electronics located on the overhead platform above the cryostat. Credit: Photo by Robert Thompson, ALPHA-2 member, University of Calgary

Scientists of the international ALPHA Collaboration have once again pushed the boundaries of antimatter research with their latest breakthrough studying the properties of antihydrogen. Published today in the prestigious journal Nature, the collaboration's result improved the measurement of the charge of antihydrogen, essentially zero, by a factor of 20. Their work is the latest contribution in the quest to chase down the answer to the basic antimatter question, "If matter and antimatter were created in equal amounts during the Big Bang, where did all the antimatter go?"

"That means the electrical charge of - the antimatter analogue of hydrogen - can be ruled out as the answer to the antimatter question," says York University Professor Scott Menary, an ALPHA member. "The point of the experiment was to search for a clue as to how or where our predictions of nature are wrong," continues Menary. "Something is missing in our understanding otherwise the matter and antimatter at the Big Bang would have annihilated each other and there would be no universe today. The interactions of matter and antimatter must somehow be different."

Physics dictates that for every particle of matter there is an oppositely charged antiparticle with an equal mass. An antihydrogen atom should have the exact same charge as hydrogen (zero). That's because the antiproton and antielectron (positron), which make up antihydrogen, should have the exact opposite charge of the proton and electron that make up hydrogen.

Dr. Andrea Capra, a former PhD student of Menary's (now at TRIUMF) who played a major role in the analysis behind this result, says, "We take the charge of matter and antimatter for granted, however, you cannot analyze data or make an experiment assuming it's true."

Top, a diagram of the region where antihydrogen is synthesized and trapped in ALPHA. Bottom, a diagram of the electric potential in the trap region. Credit: Nature, copyright Macmillan Magazines 2010

This result showed that antihydrogen and hydrogen are indeed both electrically neutral at a level 20 times more precise than before. Since the antiproton charge is also known to a similar precision, the collaboration also has improved the previous best precision on the positron charge by a factor of 25. While both results uphold the Standard Model, they have constrained what possible extensions to it could be.

Capra points out that this work addresses one piece of a larger puzzle. When comparing normal matter to antimatter, he says that "there is the piece comparing their charges, the piece comparing their light spectrums, and the piece comparing how they respond to gravity." The latter piece will be investigated by a dedicated experiment, ALPHA-g, spearheaded by the University of Calgary and including the Canadian members of the collaboration.

The experiment was the first using the upgraded "ALPHA-2" system which began operation last year. The largest component, the cooling cryostat, was designed and built at TRIUMF and the University of Calgary by a team led by Mechanical Research Engineer Cam Marshall and Research Scientist (now Emeritus) Art Olin. Scientists at Simon Fraser University and the University of British Columbia also contributed to the construction and assembly of the ALPHA-2 apparatus, including the cryostat.

Marshall explained that "the cryostat houses a unique octopole magnet with the antimatter trap, into which was fed the laser spectroscopy system, microwave system, liquid helium cooling, super-conducting current leads, diagnostic wiring, and thermal shielding. A lot going on in a small space!" According to Olin, the experiment's success was "facilitated by the stable cryogenic environment and higher trapping rate of this new atom trap." The experiment was tricky because the team had to isolate the antihydrogen within a sophisticated "magnetic bottle" without it coming into contact with matter as it would then annihilate and disappear.

The video will load shortly
To determine whether antihydrogen atoms have an electric charge, researchers confined them to the ALPHA trap and randomly pounded them with an electric field. If anti-atoms have a non-zero charge, they would eventually be kicked out of the trap, as in this simulation. The anti-atoms did not leave the trap, indicating that they are neutral to less than 1 part in a billion. Credit: Joel Fajans, UC Berkeley

Having passed the first test of their upgraded apparatus with flying colours, the ALPHA Collobration is anxious to attack the other even more exciting pieces of the antimatter puzzle in the coming years.

"We will now look at the other pieces of the puzzle, such as the colour of the light emitted by antihydrogen, and test whether hydrogen and antihydrogen emit light in the same way," says Capra. "We are also working on measuring the gravitational acceleration of antihydrogen and determining whether matter and have the same gravitational behaviour. The next several years are going to be very exciting."

Explore further: Shining light on elusive dark matter

More information: M. Ahmadi et al. An improved limit on the charge of antihydrogen from stochastic acceleration, Nature (2016). DOI: 10.1038/nature16491

Related Stories

Shining light on elusive dark matter

April 4, 2013

The antimatter hunter AMS-02 on the International Space Station is searching for the missing pieces of our Universe. The project's first results published yesterday are hinting at a new phenomenon and revealing more about ...

Dark Matter May be Easier to Detect than Previously Thought

August 10, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- The Milky Way, like many other galaxies, is thought to be embedded in massive, lumpy amounts of dark matter that release gamma rays and other emissions. Although at first these emissions seem too faint to ...

Physicists size up the 'unitarity triangle'

June 23, 2006

B factory experiments at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) in the USA and at the High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK) in Japan have reached a new milestone in the quest to understand the matter-antimatter ...

How things break (and why scientists want to know)

March 7, 2016

Humans spend a lot of time creating things—this drives a huge amount of our lives, economically and personally—and we are always in a fight to keep them from breaking down. Houses, roads, cars. Power lines and bridges. ...

Recommended for you

Measuring tiny forces with light

August 25, 2016

Photons are bizarre: They have no mass, but they do have momentum. And that allows researchers to do counterintuitive things with photons, such as using light to push matter around.

155 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

IonRanger
2.8 / 5 (6) Jan 20, 2016
Just a thought to ponder, could "dark matter" be the reason anti-matter is missing?
Hyperfuzzy
5 / 5 (3) Jan 20, 2016
promile
Jan 20, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Pembrew
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 20, 2016
Can we also get anti-dark matter?
billpress11
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 20, 2016
Quote from article: "We will now look at the other pieces of the puzzle, such as the colour of the light emitted by antihydrogen, and test whether hydrogen and antihydrogen emit light in the same way," says Capra. "We are also working on measuring the gravitational acceleration of antihydrogen and determining whether matter and antimatter have the same gravitational behaviour. The next several years are going to be very exciting."

I certainly agree with the paragraph above, my guess is there will be no differences. The question I have is what evidence do they have that half the universe is not antimatter?

baudrunner
2.4 / 5 (5) Jan 20, 2016
Very cool that you can make and play with anti-hydrogen. Have fun.

Okay, I think that the reason that there is more matter than anti-matter (wait, if there were more anti-matter than matter, then that would be the matter and matter would be the anti-matter, okay?) is that before space-time and matter were spun from their respective recipes, a favored orientation, or direction, must have first been influenced by the establishment of an angular momentum before the phase of particle creation.

To conceptualize this, imagine the beginning as one massive star that spins off smaller stars. Those smaller stars will all be spinning in the same direction, contrary to the spin of the parent star.
billpress11
3 / 5 (6) Jan 20, 2016
baudrunner. how could the universe start with just momentum in your single massive star. Wouldn't there have to be and equal and opposite momentum? Momentum must be conserved. I think it is accepted that antimatter and matter were created in equal amounts.
Botopfbber
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 20, 2016

Okay, I think that the reason that there is more matter than anti-matter is that before space-time and matter were spun from their respective recipes, a favored orientation, or direction, must have first been influenced by the establishment of an angular momentum before the phase of particle creation.

To conceptualize this, imagine the beginning as one massive star that spins off smaller stars. Those smaller stars will all be spinning in the same direction, contrary to the spin of the parent star.


I agree just because we can have anti-matter doesn't mean the universe has to agree whit our math. Maybe none was created in the Big Bang .... fix the math see what you get then.
Jeffhans1
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 20, 2016
Hydrogen clumps in magnetically bound clouds in space. If antihydrogen does not form clouds with the same mutually attracting properties, this would prevent there from being large dense amounts available to form stars and galaxies.
Osiris1
4 / 5 (4) Jan 20, 2016
Suppose anti-matter also has anti-gravity as well? Then all the anti-matter would flee to the outer edges of the normal matter cloud and would have done so at the big bonk or whatever. The surviving matter would concentrate at the center and the anti-matter would be a halo at the edge of the universe.
TabulaMentis
2.5 / 5 (11) Jan 20, 2016
Maybe we should consider matter to be female and antimatter to be male.
Females can reproduce and create more of itself and males cannot.
For those who are suspicious, yes there is a religious angle to this statement.
The Holy Ghost particle is female and her antiparticle counterpart Satan is male.
bluehigh
4 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2016
Oh oh ... I hear footsteps. It might be Otto wielding an axe. Run TabulaMentis while you still can.

Or you might be able to distract Otto by mentioning that Blacklight Power have a name change and a new public demo soon.
TheWalrus
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 21, 2016
I have an uninformed, crackpot "theory" that antimatter is ordinary matter that's been flipped upside-down in 4-space. If you were to take a triangle from Flatland, and flip it over, it would be an anti-triangle. Add a dimension, and there you go. I base this "theory" on absolutely nothing.
baudrunner
3 / 5 (6) Jan 21, 2016
how could the universe start with just momentum in your single massive star
See now, this is what I mean about reading comprehension. I didn't say that was the way it happened. That was an analogy, to conceptualize the idea. Get it?

Before the BB, the state of whatever system that evolved to produce it was a state of absolute zero, because there is general agreement that there was nothing before it all happened. A condensate in this state behaves as a single atom. When the thermodynamics of the system changes such that differentiation occurs, all the individual particles that are so produced must have compatibility with the state that yielded them as a matter of course.

I suppose that through occasional rare particle interactions in that first brief moment, inductive processes might have yielded freak forms of matter, the anti-particle being one of them, stable enough to stay around for as long as it lasts, before being annihilated. That's one idea.
Seeker2
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2016
Just a thought to ponder, could "dark matter" be the reason anti-matter is missing?
Could be if there were such a thing. Until then let's crank up another theory. At the big bang pair production and annihilation began. Annihilation was not complete because some antimatter (1 part per billion) was (and probablly still is) recycled back into energy (I presume since that's where it came from) as it travels in reverse time (per Feynman, and it still does) and escapes annihilation, leaving an excess of matter. So we owe our existence to reverse time travel with antimatter.
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (12) Jan 21, 2016
Just a thought to ponder, could "dark matter" be the reason anti-matter is missing?

No. The amount is totally wrong (If it were dark matter then there'd be too much antimatter and we'd have the same problem - only much much worse).

I certainly agree with the paragraph above, my guess is there will be no differences. The question I have is what evidence do they have that half the universe is not antimatter?

If half of it had been antimatter we wouldn't be here
If there had (somehow) been large regions of pure matter and of pure antimatter (why?) the we'd be seeing spectacular fireworks at the interface all the way back thorugh time. No such fireworks are observed.

Maybe none was created in the Big Bang .... fix the math see what you get then.

Some antimatter gets created all the time - even today (as evinced by Van Allen belt observations). We also use natural antimatter creation (beta+ decay) in medicine all the time (e.g. PET scans)
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (12) Jan 21, 2016
So we owe our existence to reverse time travel with antimatter.

The antimatter we cerate in labs definitely doesn't go 'back in time'. It behaves just like ordinary matter with regards to any temporal phenomena.

Suppose anti-matter also has anti-gravity

Antimatter has positive mass. Why would that allow for anti-gravity? You bump a matter atom and an antimatter atom together you get gamma radiation (i.e. positive energy) for exactly the amount of twice the mass of a normal atom. If antimatter had anti-mass then you'd get nothing.

There must be some symmetry violation somewhere. And it'll be an interesting day when someone finds it. But 'reverse time' or 'antigravity' aren't any of the prime contenders.
TabulaMentis
4 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2016
Before the BB, the state of whatever system that evolved to produce it was a state of absolute zero, because there is general agreement that there was nothing before it all happened.
Incorrect. There is no such thing as nothing. So therefore there was something that existed before the BB. You are correct though when you said there was absolute zero before the BB.


When the thermodynamics of the system changes such that differentiation occurs.
Your prior half sentence just explained how the BB got started.


At the big bang pair production and annihilation began.
"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned."
Seeker2
4 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2016
Suppose anti-matter also has anti-gravity
Antimatter has positive mass. Why would that allow for anti-gravity?
Same mass, same charge, same particle, only travelling backwards in time. Appears to us to back off in electromagnetic (as illustrated by Feynman) and gravitational fields, or so it seems. Since we inhabit the same space, we observe particles going in both directions in time. I can't believe it never crossed Feynman's mind that antimatter (which is a misnomer) reacts to gravitational fields similar to electromagnetic fields. Einstein couldn't believe the expanding universe idea because if it expanded in two directions in space it should also expand in two directions in time as implied by his principle of treating time and space on an equal footing. Right conclusion but he couldn't accept it - he was right all along but he couldn't believe it. TBC
baudrunner
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 21, 2016
Here's a freaky notion. Maybe there really is more anti-matter than matter. Everything is both matter and anti-matter. If a particle becomes corrupted and decays, the anti-matter particles can then escape to take part in an annihilation scenario. That there is any anti-matter around at all to observe and study means that there is actually more of it than there is normal matter.

By extension, this works on the premise that the "uncaused cause", that "random quantum fluctuation" thing, is the result of that most subtle imbalance.

Normal evolutionary and developmental decay, aging, oxidation, all manifestations of the slow process whereby matter will eventually dissipate while space-time slowly melds into the great WMAP cold spot, are all the result of the slow annihilation, while the world turns.
billpress11
2.3 / 5 (7) Jan 21, 2016
There are explosions in the universe that cannot be explained very easily.

https://en.wikipe..._080916C

The explosion had the energy of approximately 5900 type Ia supernovae, and the gas jets emitting the initial gamma rays moved at a minimum velocity of approximately 299,792,158m/s (0.999999c), making this blast the most extreme recorded to date.[1][2]

Here is another link that is releasing so much energy its source could be matter-antimatter annihilation.

http://news.disco...1108.htm
swordsman
3 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2016
Insufficient force field. They have neglected the electronic properties of the atom. See Planck's atom model for details.
Seeker2
4 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2016
(cont) I remember Feynman's cyclotron illustration as plain as day but I've been trying to find it again in the video archives and I guess it must have been expunged somewhere along the way. I think Feynman probably picked up the idea from the Dirac sea theory.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2016
Here is another link that is releasing so much energy its source could be matter-antimatter annihilation.
I've been toying with the idea that black hole jets are are forms of matter-antimatter annihilation.
TabulaMentis
4 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2016
I can't believe it never crossed Feynman's mind that antimatter (which is a misnomer) reacts to gravitational fields similar to electromagnetic fields.
Oh, but it does, quantum gravity that is, not Einstein gravitational waves.

Everything is both matter and anti-matter. If a particle becomes corrupted and decays, the anti-matter particles can then escape to take part in an annihilation scenario.
Correct, you get a cookie.
GoodElf
3 / 5 (6) Jan 21, 2016
Matter and antimatter were created simultaneously and equally at the big bang when the "local time" T=0. According to the Feynman-Stueckelberg Interpretation of antimatter the electrons immediately "fled" into "our" future, while the positrons "fled" into the past crossing the T=0 local zero to negative time. The electron and positron as a pair are still intimately connected as a single particle through a knot and each appear as "Falaco Solitons" moving steadily away from that zero in time ever since. This interpretation is equivalent to the Williamson and van der Mark interpretation of the electron as a "twisted strip" photon embedded in the superconducting surface of spacetime. Time is running in reverse in the particle space not in "empty space". Empty space is just an artifact of the quantum entanglement between particles and is "emergent". Today, particle and antiparticle can coexist for a time as the anti-electron "gets younger" in place.
Seeker2
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 21, 2016
Today, particle and antiparticle can coexist for a time as the anti-electron "gets younger" in place.
Similar to the quarks and antiquarks in a muon. They can coexist for say one planck unit of time and produce a muon. But it doesn't exist for very long as the quarks and antiquarks go their separate ways in time.
Seeker2
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2016
I can't believe it never crossed Feynman's mind that antimatter (which is a misnomer) reacts to gravitational fields similar to electromagnetic fields.
Oh, but it does, quantum gravity that is, not Einstein gravitational waves.
I view gravitational waves as shock waves in the vacuum (dark) energy. The idea of waves imply motion. Physicists have been bugged for many years by why the equations of motion work in backwards time as well as forwards time. So gravitational waves in reverse time for antimatter seem logical to me.
Nanook
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 21, 2016
Perhaps we should give up on inflation, dark matter, dark energy, none of which have ever been observed or reproduced in the laboratory, and start looking for a theory that agrees with observation without the addition of all these fudge factors.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2016
Hi, GoodElf! How are you?

Consider this reality-consistent logic-train arising in my complete ToE theorizing process:

I any truly fundamental, spatio-temporally ubiquitous, persistent, infinite/eternal universal energy-space physical context, there may emerge an equally fundamental non-symmetric process totally UNlike all other emergent processes; and ONLY an UNbalanced dynamics rooted in an underlying energy-space which can be biased/polarized to produce inherently NON-symmetric, ONE-way, action/effect (ie, not TWO-way action/effect like with electric charge, magnetic polarity) can produce emergent energy-space processes/features which are UNbalanced also; and what is the FIRST proven, non-symmetric, emergent, ONE-way energy-space process/action?...the GRAVITY effect, of course!

My ToE identifies the fundamental one-way-biased quantum entities, mechanism, dynamics, effects of gravity; including in 'matter' vs 'antimatter' context. Cheers, GE! :)
TabulaMentis
4 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2016
I view gravitational waves as shock waves in the vacuum (dark) energy.
Dark energy and spacetime fabric are both one, and the same.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Jan 21, 2016
]I've been toying with the idea that black hole jets are forms of matter-antimatter annihilation.
So here's the fun stuff. Any antimatter in a strong gravitational field like around a black hole will high-tail it out of the neighborhood as fast as possible because of stronger and stronger anti-gravity as the black hole singularity is approached. So the threshold energy for virtual particles to separate into real particles gets lower and lower. So most likely nearly all virtual particles generated by the dark energy inside a black hole will be transformed to real particles and expelled very quickly, in the process annihilating with normal matter in or around the black hole and causing all hell to break loose. The process is probably modulated as nearer and nearer to the singularity in the black hole the vacuum energy density decreases and so pair production. Now the implication is the black hole accretes matter as pair production continues. TBC
Seeker2
5 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2016
(con't) Black holes may radiate but my guess is the matter accretion rate from pair production is much greater than the evaporation rate through radiation. So the acid test is: Do black holes with jets increase in mass as long as the jets are active? Would be very interesting to find out. Anyone remember 1946? There's a Ford in your future? Well if this idea passes the acid test I can assure you there will be a black hole in your future.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2016
I view gravitational waves as shock waves in the vacuum (dark) energy.
Dark energy and spacetime fabric are both one, and the same.
Could be bad news for the gravitational wave detectors as they are distorted right along with spacetime as the waves pass through.
promile
Jan 21, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2016
Perhaps we should give up on inflation, dark matter, dark energy, none of which have ever been observed or reproduced in the laboratory, and start looking for a theory that agrees with observation without the addition of all these fudge factors.
I heard somewhere that the cosmic microwave background is actually microwave radiation from water molecules.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2016
the dark energy is currently considered homogeneous...
Flat universe, I assume, on the average. Local gradients in the dark energy lead to matter, galaxies, etc. Nothing in the U is perfectly anything due to the uncertainty principle, but I'm sure you know that.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2016
The vacuum energy density differs by many orders from observed dark energy density.
Slight difficulty with the measurement process. You see the dark energy permeates the measuring apparatus so what you are measuring is actually only a gradient in the dark energy. To get the correct value you need to measure relative to a singularity in the dark energy like in a black hole.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2016
Local gradients in the dark energy lead to matter, galaxies, etc.
Oh I forgot. Also what they call dark matter, which is actually entropic gravity. Man I'm on a roll today.
TabulaMentis
5 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2016
What would that imply? The space-time (fabric) must exhibit variable density around massive bodies.
Correct.

The dark energy is currently considered homogeneous.
It all depends on what you call homogeneous? Spacetime atoms have a homogeneous pattern.
TabulaMentis
4 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2016
Could be bad news for the gravitational wave detectors as they are distorted right along with spacetime as the waves pass through.
The LIGO is currently not able to detect spacetime fabric. It is impossible to directly detect spacetime fabric using electromagnetic radiation. See Physorg article: Gravitational wave rumors ripple through science world. http://phys.org/n...rld.html

Oh I forgot. Also what they call dark matter, which is actually entropic gravity. Man I'm on a roll today.
No not really. Dark matter consist of preatomic (subatomic), atomic and post-atomic (subatomic) particles I call WEIRDOs (Weak Elementary Interacting Rotational Dynamic Objects). See Physorg article: From MACHOs to WIMPs—meet the top five candidates for 'dark matter. http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
my2cts
3.4 / 5 (10) Jan 21, 2016
None of the posts make any sense at all.
Ludicrous.
TabulaMentis
4 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2016
None of the posts make any sense at all.
Ludicrous.
In case you have not noticed we are talking about antimatter and subjects related to antimatter. Do you have anything useful to add to the subject? I would like to see what you may be able to add to antimatter research.
my2cts
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 22, 2016
@ TabulaMentis
I had not noticed. Last time I checked you were talking about LIGO, which is a subject unrelated to the article. I just notice that where usually some comments are meaningful, this thread is all noise.
promile
Jan 22, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Jan 22, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TabulaMentis
5 / 5 (3) Jan 22, 2016
@ TabulaMentis
I had not noticed. Last time I checked you were talking about LIGO, which is a subject unrelated to the article. I just notice that where usually some comments are meaningful, this thread is all noise.
I was responding to a comment by Seeker2. Who are you, a Physorg troll judge?
baudrunner
3 / 5 (2) Jan 22, 2016
Really, the math is invariably married to the ideas of the academically accredited card carrying members of the professional physics communities. Problem is, they don't teach you how to have those ideas, or what to have in the way of ideas, or even how to think. Good ideas can slip through the cracks.

Anyway, my position on the fundamental nature of reality has not changed for decades. It is constantly being supported by discoveries made from others doing research. That being the case, I am committed to supporting the idea of an anti-gravity. An anti-particle Universe is defined also by its gravitational properties, and the way that I think gravity works necessitates this point of view.

A huge challenge presents itself in harnessing this anti-gravity in this reality for the purpose of repositioning objects in space.
TabulaMentis
5 / 5 (3) Jan 22, 2016
A huge challenge presents itself in harnessing this anti-gravity in this reality for the purpose of repositioning objects in space.
The term "antigravity" is and is not a misnomer. Quantum gravity will take care of what you desire in the short future before circa 2050.

Back to the subject of antimatter the statement by GoodElf listed above was very insightful, however the exact mechanism that causes there to be more matter than antimatter remains elusive.
Phys1
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 22, 2016
This result has been expected - but it doesn't bring us the understanding the difference between matter and antimatter any closer.


I disagree. It confirms that antimatter also has charge neutrality. Since positronium has charge neutrality, this confirms that protons and antiprotons also have exactly (within accuracy) the same charge.
Phys1
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 22, 2016
@ TabulaMentis
I had not noticed. Last time I checked you were talking about LIGO, which is a subject unrelated to the article. I just notice that where usually some comments are meaningful, this thread is all noise.
I was responding to a comment by Seeker2. Who are you, a Physorg troll judge?

LIGO has nothing to do with antimatter

Suppose anti-matter also has anti-gravity
Antimatter has positive mass. Why would that allow for anti-gravity?
Same mass, same charge, same particle, only travelling backwards in time.

Gravity is invariant under time reversal, apart from frame dragging.
baudrunner
3 / 5 (2) Jan 22, 2016
The term "antigravity" is and is not a misnomer. Quantum gravity will take care of what you desire in the short future before circa 2050.
This says nothing. Also, what is it that you think that I desire?
the exact mechanism that causes there to be more matter than antimatter remains elusive
It will always remain so for you, since you have no idea how or where to begin thinking about it. As for GoodElf, that's an awful lot of B.S. to pack into one paragraph. His friends appear of like ilk. Sense comes out of a clear picture of what is going on, not out of a jumbled collection of bafflegab intended to elicit respect and admiration for your gloriously creative intellects. We used to call you guys pseudo-intellectuals.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Jan 22, 2016
Gravity is invariant under time reversal, apart from frame dragging.
Yes only difference is you're going back in time, meaning you have to back out of whatever gravitational fields you're in to get back to where you were or would have been. Same for EM fields with the positron. Same charge and mass as electron.
Phys1
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 22, 2016

Gravity is invariant under time reversal, apart from frame dragging.

So there is no "anti-gravity".
Seeker2
5 / 5 (2) Jan 22, 2016
the exact mechanism that causes there to be more matter than antimatter remains elusive
Sorta comes into focus with antimatter moving in reverse time. After baryogenesis antimatter goes back to where it came from, I suppose. Still does by the way. Better to light one candle than curse the darkness.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (2) Jan 22, 2016
Gravity is invariant under time reversal, apart from frame dragging.

So there is no "anti-gravity".
No not really. Only what you might call anti-time. Time expands in two directions just like any other direction in spacetime.
Phys1
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 22, 2016
Gravity is invariant under time reversal, apart from frame dragging.

So there is no "anti-gravity".
No not really. Only what you might call anti-time. Time expands in two directions just like any other direction in spacetime.

So there is also anti-length, anti-width and anti-height?
Anti-distance? How much anti-time did it take you to come up with this ?
Seeker2
5 / 5 (2) Jan 22, 2016
No not really. Dark matter consist of preatomic (subatomic), atomic and post-atomic (subatomic) particles I call WEIRDOs (Weak Elementary Interacting Rotational Dynamic Objects). See Physorg article: From MACHOs to WIMPs—meet the top five candidates for 'dark matter. http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
Never found anything in these top five candidates about entropic gravity. Maybe I missed something.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (2) Jan 22, 2016
So there is also anti-length, anti-width and anti-height?
Anti-distance? How much anti-time did it take you to come up with this ?
Not me - Feynman.
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 23, 2016
the dark energy is currently considered homogeneous...
Flat universe, I assume, on the average. Local gradients in the dark energy lead to matter, galaxies, etc. Nothing in the U is perfectly anything due to the uncertainty principle, but I'm sure you know that.

I call it - "Universal Built In Slop Factor"...
Phys1
2.7 / 5 (7) Jan 23, 2016
So there is also anti-length, anti-width and anti-height?
Anti-distance? How much anti-time did it take you to come up with this ?
Not me - Feynman.

Please provide a reference where Feynman embraces anything called "anti-time".
In QED the description of antimatter can be obtained from that of matter by time reversal.
That is probably what you are referring to: time-reversal symmetry.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (2) Jan 23, 2016
Please provide a reference where Feynman embraces anything called "anti-time".
In QED the description of antimatter can be obtained from that of matter by time reversal.
That is probably what you are referring to: time-reversal symmetry.
So be it. for further info see .http://www.paulfr...nman.htm

" Feynman introduced the idea that we treat antimatter as matter travelling backwards in time."
promile
Jan 23, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (2) Jan 23, 2016
But this analogy implies, that the antiparticles should always exhibit imaginary if not negative mass.
Yes the Dirac sea theory. But if antimatter has negative mass the gravitational force between antimatter objects is still attractive per Newton's law. This means antimatter should accrete, which we haven't observed. Also it means the gravitational force between matter and antimatter should be repulsive.
Phys1
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 23, 2016
@Seekler2
I prefer a reference to a scientific work of Feynman
not some web page perhaps putting words in his mouth.
Phys1
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 23, 2016
@promile.
Newton's potential is invariant under time reversal and space inversion, too.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (2) Jan 23, 2016
@Seekler2
I prefer a reference to a scientific work of Feynman
not some web page perhaps putting words in his mouth.
Actually I prefer the Feynman lecture illustrating the motion of positrons and electrons in a cyclotron but I searched for it recently and couldn't find it.
Phys1
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 23, 2016
Feynman's lectures are online now:
http://www.feynma..._52.html
There's no such thing as anti-time:
http://physics.st...nti-time
met a more fishes
1 / 5 (1) Jan 23, 2016
wow, this is a total crack fest...guess ill throw one in the pot.

Premise - universe described as probability field. all properties of physical phenomena (charge, mass, spatial and temporal position, etc.) emerge from the probability distribution of relationships between all phenomena comprising the field. i.e. a particle exists "where" it does b/c probability of it being in that location is nearly 100% and prob. of being anywhere else is nearly 0%.

Conjecture - probability values in field can gain or lose strength (property becomes more or less probable). anti-matter is phenomena which has some negative probability value. this does not work with the rest of field and is negated. if interaction with regular field is eliminated, phenomena with neg. prob. will interact with each other as though they had pos. prob.

came up with this conjecture before while trying to understand questions about negative probability values within the probability field.
Seeker2
4.5 / 5 (2) Jan 23, 2016
There's no such thing as anti-time:
http://physics.st...nti-time
Unfortunate indeed.
promile
Jan 23, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Phys1
2.7 / 5 (7) Jan 23, 2016
There's no such thing as anti-time:
http://physics.st...nti-time
Unfortunate indeed.

Clarke's second law
The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
;-)
Seeker2
5 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2016
There's no such thing as anti-time:
http://phys.org/n...nwletter


So now we know where the positron came from. But per the Feynman lecture which I don't find here, the positron is merely an electron travelling in reverse time. But Dirac achieved his goal which was to get experimental evidence of the existence of this particle. If he claimed there was a charged particle out there going in reverse time, nobody would want any part of that discovery or anything to do with Dirac.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (2) Jan 23, 2016
But if antimatter has negative mass the gravitational force between antimatter objects is still attractive per Newton's law. This means antimatter should accrete, which we haven't observed
In dense aether model the very lightweight antimatter particles (actually scalar waves only) are mutually repulsive, but still attracted to normal matter.
Hope I never encounter one of these very lightweight antimatter particles.
promile
Jan 23, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Jan 23, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Phys1
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 23, 2016
There's no such thing as anti-time:
http://phys.org/n...nwletter


So now we know where the positron came from.

It comes from beta decay.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (2) Jan 24, 2016
So there is also anti-length, anti-width and anti-height?
Yep. They call it parity transformation.
Phys1
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 24, 2016
So there is also anti-length, anti-width and anti-height?
Yep. They call it parity transformation.

No "they" don't.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (2) Jan 24, 2016
There's no such thing as anti-time:
Note - it appears this poor guy got the shaft - http://physics.st...nti-time - stick it to em - question makes too much sense IMO.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (2) Jan 24, 2016
So there is also anti-length, anti-width and anti-height?
Yep. They call it parity transformation.

No "they" don't.
Sorry. Sure sounds that way to me. Must be my hearing is impaired.
Phys1
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 24, 2016
There's no such thing as anti-time:
Note - it appears this poor guy got the shaft - http://physics.st...nti-time - stick it to em - question makes too much sense IMO.


"If you just slap "anti-" on a random physical concept, it does not have to have a meaning :-)."

So there is also anti-length, anti-width and anti-height?
Yep. They call it parity transformation.

No "they" don't.
Sorry. Sure sounds that way to me. Must be my hearing is impaired.

I don't think it is a hardware issue.

If I add anti-time to time, do I get two photons?
If not, it does not exist ;-).
promile
Jan 24, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Jan 24, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Phys1
2 / 5 (4) Jan 24, 2016
@promile
Ah I see.
It's all connected in a big blob of foam.
promile
Jan 24, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Phys1
2 / 5 (4) Jan 24, 2016
Holy shit, promile, take your pills.
promile
Jan 24, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Jan 24, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Phys1
2 / 5 (4) Jan 24, 2016
In the name of science, promile, stop this nonsense.
promile
Jan 24, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Phys1
2 / 5 (4) Jan 24, 2016
By virtue of the authority vested in me, science says it is nonsense.
Oh wait, I have searched all my life for an explanation why banana's are curved !
promile
Jan 24, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Phys1
2 / 5 (4) Jan 24, 2016
Per review, but you have no peer in science since you are not a scientist.
promile
Jan 24, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Phys1
2 / 5 (4) Jan 24, 2016
... you pretended, that the science has already peer-reviewed opinion about my ideas and explanations ...

No I have not. I say that science cannot peer review you because you are not a peer.
Not exactly the same thing.
Your "ideas and explanations" are a load of bullocks from scientific point of view.
Nothing of value there.
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 24, 2016
By virtue of the authority vested in me, science says it is nonsense.
Oh wait, I have searched all my life for an explanation why banana's are curved !

Excess potassium.
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 24, 2016
Where the mouth of science is located?

Where ALL collated info exits...
Seeker2
5 / 5 (2) Jan 24, 2016
"If you just slap "anti-" on a random physical concept, it does not have to have a meaning :-)."
Probably not unless it's one of the spacetime dimensions.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Jan 24, 2016
If I add anti-time to time, do I get two photons?
I don't think so.
promile
Jan 24, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Phys1
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 24, 2016
If I add anti-time to time, do I get two photons?
I don't think so.

Sigh ...
This was a rhetorical question ...
Phys1
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 24, 2016
"If you just slap "anti-" on a random physical concept, it does not have to have a meaning :-)."
Probably not unless it's one of the spacetime dimensions.

Sigh ...
ESPECIALLY when so.
The guy I quote was being nice, which is not CLEAR.
Inventing physics without the proper education is like stepping on a skate board without initiation.
KBK
not rated yet Jan 24, 2016
Perhaps the missing differential hides in the seeming preponderance of the unidirectionality of time ---in macro systems...

After all, time and gravity are more of a "vectoral summed p[positional aggregate spin polarized viewing position" kinda thing. (I could have used a better organization of words, but some will get the general idea).

The thought that this vibrational viewpoint we call 3d unidirectional time-space....is a sum vector forced position, due to an off set stressing of sorts.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (2) Jan 24, 2016
Inventing physics without the proper education is like stepping on a skate board without initiation.
Perhaps my education would be enhanced if I could find the original Feynman student lecture videos at Stanford - not this stuff - http://www.feynma..._52.html
Phys1
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 24, 2016
Inventing physics without the proper education is like stepping on a skate board without initiation.
Perhaps my education would be enhanced if I could find the original Feynman student lecture videos at Stanford - not this stuff - http://www.feynma..._52.html

I don't think there are video's, these lectures are from 1964. There are sound tapes. The lectures are a transcription of Feynman speaking.
These lectures are a great introduction to physics.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (2) Jan 24, 2016
There's no such thing as anti-time:
Really? Check out http://arxiv.org/...12021v2.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (2) Jan 24, 2016
Really? Check out http://arxiv.org/...12021v2.
As referenced at this site, per R.P. Feynman, "QED", (Princeton, 1985), p.98. "every particle in Nature has an amplitude to move backwards in time, and therefore has an antiparticle".
Jayded
1 / 5 (1) Jan 25, 2016
Maybe the anti matter and the matter did annihilate one another and we are just the product of that annihilation stuck in time.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (2) Jan 25, 2016
Maybe the anti matter and the matter did annihilate one another and we are just the product of that annihilation stuck in time.
So we're like leftovers. Sort of daunting.
Phys1
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 25, 2016
There's no such thing as anti-time:
Really? Check out http://arxiv.org/...12021v2.

1998 was a time when any nutter could post on arxiv.org.
R.P. Feynman, "QED", (Princeton, 1985), p.98. "every particle in Nature has an amplitude to move backwards in time, and therefore has an antiparticle".

Sure. Time reversal symmetry, but no "anti-time".
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 25, 2016
The antimatter/anti-time thing doesn't work for me. In an electron positron annihilation
we get two photons and both move forward in time. So there's an issue right there("momentum in time" is not conserved...why would not one photon move 'backward in time'?)

promile
Jan 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 25, 2016
In dense aether model...

Zeph. F**k off. How man times do you need to be rerere-banned until you get it?
promile
Jan 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Jan 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Jan 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (2) Jan 25, 2016
The antimatter/anti-time thing doesn't work for me. In an electron positron annihilation
we get two photons and both move forward in time. So there's an issue right there("momentum in time" is not conserved...why would not one photon move 'backward in time'?)
Travelling with the photon, time does not move one way or another. That's why they say the photon is its own anti-particle.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (2) Jan 25, 2016
Sure. Time reversal symmetry, but no "anti-time".
Chuck the anti-matter stuff too while you're at it.
promile
Jan 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Jan 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
KBK
not rated yet Jan 25, 2016
baudrunner. how could the universe start with just momentum in your single massive star. Wouldn't there have to be and equal and opposite momentum? Momentum must be conserved. I think it is accepted that antimatter and matter were created in equal amounts.


Momentum does not have to be conserved in the representation of a quantum based unidirectional time/gravity/space scenario.

This is because the system is quantum and multi-dimensional, by definition, underneath all that Newtonian mass aggregate averaging.

When the multidimensional integrated system is introduced, thermodynamic law and conservation of momentum go out the window, as quantum systems are easily capable of feats will beyond Newtonian aggregate calculations.

Then, to add, the 'missing mass', is all in the nanometer/sub-nanometer and plasma sheet range/behaviour, which makes it all pretty well....quantum in behaviour and analysis.
Phys1
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 25, 2016
Sure. Time reversal symmetry, but no "anti-time".
Chuck the anti-matter stuff too while you're at it.

Anti-matter exists. Anti-time is nonsense.
The difference seems to escape you.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (2) Jan 25, 2016
Anti-matter exists. Anti-time is nonsense.
The difference seems to escape you.
The idea of an anti-proton produced in pair production reversing its direction in time does escape me. Actually if it did it would then be moving in forward time. Maybe I'm just asking for too much common sense. Maybe we should go with backward time.
Phys1
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 25, 2016
Antimatter does not move backward in time. If you run a video of moving particles backward, then electrons will behave as if they were positrons, protons will behave as anti-protons and vice versa.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (2) Jan 25, 2016
Antimatter does not move backward in time. If you run a video of moving particles backward, then electrons will behave as if they were positrons, protons will behave as anti-protons and vice versa.
Your first sentence contradicts your second sentence. Pick one and stick to it.
promile
Jan 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Phys1
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 25, 2016
Antimatter does not move backward in time. If you run a video of moving particles backward, then electrons will behave as if they were positrons, protons will behave as anti-protons and vice versa.
Your first sentence contradicts your second sentence. Pick one and stick to it.

No it does not.
Phys1
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 25, 2016
The electrons repulsed by protons would really move backward

Think before you submit. Read a wiki article on time reversal symmetry before you submit.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Jan 25, 2016
Think before you submit.
Well said.
promile
Jan 26, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Phys1
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 26, 2016
@promile.
Here is a good reason: you know nothing of the subject at hand. It shows.
Phys1
2 / 5 (4) Jan 26, 2016
Think before you submit.
Well said.

Thanks.
Phys1
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 26, 2016
@promile
I predict that you will never understand time reversal symmetry.
You will die an ignoramus. It takes every kind of people.
Phys1
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 26, 2016
@promile
did you open an account with the fake name mike_masson just to upvote yourself?
indecent.
promile
Jan 26, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Jan 27, 2016
As a proponent of scientific method you should have some arguments and evidence collected first.
Not really impressed by the scientific method with some of the categorical denials I've been getting.
promile
Jan 27, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Jan 27, 2016
The personal feelings aren't important here
Personally I think you should try the ignore button.
Phys1
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 27, 2016
@promile
I take your word for it and I take back my accusation.
My apologies.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Jan 27, 2016
Good points here, though the site goes on ad infinitum, No mention of time reversal, though. -
http://qz.com/596...entists/
Phys1
2 / 5 (4) Jan 27, 2016
As a proponent of scientific method you should have some arguments and evidence collected first.
Not really impressed by the scientific method with some of the categorical denials I've been getting.

From me you did not get "categorical denials" but solid counter arguments.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Jan 27, 2016
From me you did not get "categorical denials" but solid counter arguments.
Yes there probably was one in there somewhere but I don't recall it right off hand. Oh there was one but it looks contradictory to me.
promile
Jan 27, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Phys1
2 / 5 (4) Jan 27, 2016
From me you did not get "categorical denials" but solid counter arguments.
Yes there probably was one in there somewhere but I don't recall it right off hand. Oh there was one but it looks contradictory to me.

But it is not contradictory. Read it again , it may stop "looking" contradictory.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Jan 27, 2016
Read it again , it may stop "looking" contradictory.
Not sure. Tell it again.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Jan 27, 2016
@Seeker: In dense aether model
Been hearing about this model for several years. Where did it come from?
Whydening Gyre
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 27, 2016
The electrons repulsed by protons would really move backward

Physically, yes. In time, no.

Seeker
Been hearing about this model for several years. Where did it come from?

In the 19th Century, it was postulated as a "framework" medium for the stuff in the Universe.
Proven wrong by the Michelson/Morley experiment.
I guess, sort of replaced by space/time "fabric"...
promile
Jan 28, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 28, 2016
Been hearing about this model for several years. Where did it come from?
It's luminiferous aether, actually quite old concept, which can be traced from Descartes, Euler, Hooke and others. The M-M experiment didn't disprove the luminiferous dense aether forming the space, only the sparse aether model pervading space. Density fluctuations of said aether form quantum fluctuations, virtual particles and space-time fabric in modern models.

WAY better than I put it...:-)
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Jan 28, 2016
So the dense aether is sort of like the Dirac Sea. Trouble with the Dirac Sea is the idea of negative energy. They think the surface of the sea should be zero energy. Actually the bottom of the sea is zero energy. The surface of the sea is the dark energy.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Jan 28, 2016
The bottom of the sea is like a singularity - zero vacuum energy like the singularity inside a black hole. The surface of the sea actually boils, producing discrete hot spots like electrons and condensing into colder spots like positrons
Phys1
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 28, 2016
@seeker2
Antimatter does not move backward in time. If you run a video of moving particles backward, then electrons will behave as if they were positrons, protons will behave as anti-protons and vice versa.

Like this ?
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Jan 28, 2016
Precisely. Thanks. Would prefer non-contradictory crack pottery.

Seeker2
not rated yet Jan 28, 2016
Like this ?
Better to be wrong than not even wrong.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.