I would love to see an episode on how Anti-matter is actually made. What's the process, what are the materials, what reactions have to happen, and why it actually works.
They generate antiprotons by smashing protons together at CERN. They are captured and cooled down, and then they just combine them with positrons collected from radioactive decay to form antihydrogen.
High energy particle collisions (in particle accelerators) produce matter and antimatter in equal proportions, then it's a matter of collecting and confining the antimatter.
I deeply appreciate how in the split screen rocket illustration, you had the rocket's background Starfield accelerating at increasing velocity instead of just passing by at a constant velocity, reflecting the fact that the rocket is constantly accelerating. Great attention to detail!
I just want to ask for a episode on Penning Traps Also why can't we make these, dump em in the Van Allen belt and then collect them in a Falcon 9 return to earth rocket.
Yeah so important. I remember news of a planet discovered last year with a certain molecule in its atmosphere, I believe dimethyl sulfate, which could only be explained by alien life. Some science channels were shouting from the rooftops we probably found aliens. I later found that the results are very dubious, not even statistically significant.
It is reported wrong though. The paper says " a=(0.75 ± 0.13 (statistical + systematic) ± 0.16 (simulation))g." The video only says ± 0.13. If they wanted to keep things simple they should have added the two in quadrature, getting ± 0.21. It's much less statistically significant than the video claims.
I like how Matt keeps bringing up hoverboards like it would be totally safe to have something that if it got into a crash would explode with the force of a Tsar Bomb
And would have to have enough antimatter in them to cause a neutral buoyancy with the load put on it. AKA the hoverboard would have to have enough antimatter in it to equal the mass of the hoverboard (minus the antimatter) and the person on it to equal the displaced air at the air pressure they are in.
Screw safe. Go be a bridge inspector if you want safe - it's a very important job and apparently what you were born to do. With science it's go big or go home!
A hoverboard using this "antigravity" version of antimatter would need an 80kg docking clamp whever you stop and would cause a 2.5 gigaton (very approximate - I can't calculate secondary effects or fuel lost to space) explosion. The initial devastation would be worse than nuclear because it would spread the antimatter "fuel" until it collided with the right matter counterparts, meaning it would create a wider distribution of destruction. The only upside is that, if it were antigravity, some of it might escape into space. Tsar Bomba could erase the London metro area, this hoverboard could erase England.
Whether or not it disrupted the status quo, this experiment is such an amazing achievement. To think that one of the most exotic forms of matter is merrily floating around in a magnetic field, in CERN, on Earth, created by humans, its simply amazing.
I was in Cern im 2019 and an old physicist who gave us a tour was really excited and told us young students evrything about that experiment. We were fascinated by the implications and that such a raw hypothesis was tested for. Wether or not it was ever plausible to show antigravity it is still excellent science to test for it.
Well, if CPT symmetry is broken we have to reevaluate everything from General Relativity to the Standard Model of quantum mechanics. What comes of that reevaluation may be entirely new physics that could eventually lead to anti gravity. As someone smarter than me said "Big break thoughs don't start with a eureka moment. They start with someone saying 'Uh... this is odd....'"
No, and that's the whole point. Acceleration of an object is indepedant of its mass. Every object falls at the same rate in vacuum, regardeless of its mass. You're confusing acceleration with the weight (force) applied to the object, which is indeed proportionnal to its mass (F=Gm/r²). However the acceleration applied to the object is also inversely proprortionnal to its mass (F=ma so a=F/m), which cancels it out. So in short : F = ma = Gm/r² so a = (m/m)G/r² = G/r²
Dear whoever edits/does music for these, PLEASE make the outro quieter! I love listening to these before bed and the last 15 seconds are so much louder than the entire episode. THANK YOU! Sincerely, An overworked mom who just wants to peacefully learn and fall asleep to science
A few years ago I had the pleasure of visiting the Antimatter Factory at CERN where they described this experiment to us. It was really fascinating and I'm happy to hear about the results now. One interesting fact I found interesting was, that the were shooting the first antiparticles they generated just straight into a concrete wall just casually standing around in the facility. 😀Nothing spectacular happens, sure, it annihilates with the matter of the concrete and creates 'lots' of energy, but, after all, it's just a single particle.
I know it probably has less energy than one cosmic random ray hitting my DNA while sitting at a park bench. But it still feels wrong being around and getting "blasted" by a matter-antimatter collision gammaray. No matter how much the energy content is, I either expect to become a superhero... or you know... cancer. XD
It'll be a real trip if you ever need a PET scan for some medical testing. (Positron Emission Tomography). They inject you with a fluid containing a radioactive tracer isotope that releases positrons (antimatter!) when it decays. Also a small fraction of naturally occurring potassium atoms (including in bananas) are radioactive/unstable and also decay by emitting a positron iirc, so bananas are making antimatter too!
It'll be a real trip if you ever need a PET scan for some medical testing. (Positron Emission Tomography). They inject you with a fluid containing a radioactive tracer isotope that releases positrons (antimatter!) when it decays. Also a small fraction of naturally occurring potassium atoms (including in bananas) are radioactive/unstable and also decay by emitting a positron iirc, so bananas are making antimatter too!
It'll be a real trip if you ever need a PET scan for some medical testing. (Positron Emission Tomography). They inject you with a fluid containing a radioactive tracer isotope that releases positrons (antimatter!) when it decays. Also a small fraction of naturally occurring potassium atoms (including in bananas) are radioactive/unstable and also decay by emitting a positron iirc, so bananas are making antimatter too!
One big issue to me with negative gravitational mass for antimatter is that it implies that particles like photons, which _are_ their own antiparticles, must not interact with gravity, even though we've observed that they do. Is this not the absolute deal-breaker I think it is, or do people just like brushing that to the side when talking about this idea?
What a discreet and phenomenal point. And this was just 1 of many issues I had in a long list of obvious reasons this test wasn't even that necessary. Gravity is gravity lol. There was never an indication of having less than 0 mass was possible, because gravity as we know it isn't described as positive or negative (which he also states without seeming to grasp that this is why the experiment was redundant) LOL... They basically tested something that essentially runs contrary to G/R which is a robust theory, you would think that common sense would be to test for unknowns that run parallel to effective theories.
@@Sloppyjoey1 in science you can't rely on presuppositions, you should test everything, even if the result is obvious. and as he mentioned, there is a scenarios where anti-particles could have negative gravitational mass. now that they found the obvious, its time to test the not so obvious, like to see if the CPT symmetry breaks.
You would think that, but remember, gravity affects space-time and not particles directly. If photons are gravitationally neutral, it means clumping a lot of them together wouldn't bend space-time. It does not mean it would negatively affect already-bent spacetime made by positive gravity. Space-time is already bent around clumps of matter, and a neutral particle with neither positive nor negative gravity would just ride along the status quo, instead of adding more gravity or subtracting gravity.
No one really thought we'd find antigravity. The main thing was "can we build a device that could measure it?" and then "let's think of more cool things we can do with this new detector." We haven't done the second bit yet, but every time we build a new type of detector we generally find something interesting. Maybe not in this case since gravity is kinda solved? But then, there's still questions of how gravity and QM could both be true so new detectors are generally good for business.
Fun fact. If a youtube title is a yes/no question, the answer is always "no." This is because the title would be a statement if the answer was yes. For example, if it had been yes, the title would be "Antimatter Creates Anti-Gravity"
It's called Betteridge's law and was first formulated in relation to news article headlines. And while exceptions are very common, it holds true more often than not.
I just want to say that this channel is one of the biggest helps and inspirations for my studies. You are an excellent, top tier teacher who makes math and physics fun, engaging, and rather easy to comprehend. I've only been watching this channel since 2020, but thank you. I am attending college this fall to start my journey into theoretical physics at the age of 34. It's never to late to learn.
It’s not physics, but I started an engineering degree at 29 and finished my masters at 36. You’ll do great if you are dedicated and serious. Good luck.
I’m in my last year of international relations master’s degree that I started in my late 20s - a bit different, but it is vastly different than my bachelor’s and it’s a bold step for me! Best of luck and hoping to hear of your theories on this channel someday
Your reporting of the error bar is wrong. The paper says " a=(0.75 ± 0.13 (statistical + systematic) ± 0.16 (simulation))g." Not sure why you put the ± 0.13 in the video but not the ± 0.16. If you wanted to keep things simple and only have one error bar, you should have added the two in quadrature, getting ± 0.21. This mistake drastically overestimates the statistical significance of the difference. It's not that it's less than 3 sigma, it's barely more than 1 sigma, and it can even be below 1 sigma if you think those different kinds of errors should be added linearly.
Antimatter-based antigravity would be the only way we could top the Hindenburg in the field of "sure it's a colossal bomb but it also floats a bit" research.
I remember that CERN experiment from years ago, and I remember that at the time the results weren't showing a definitive result. When Matt mentioned it, I instantly get excited at the idea of finding the result, but then I considered that if the result was antimatter going upwards, I would probably have already knew it, because all the generic press would have bombarded us with crazy headlines like "Hoverboard principle demonstrated at CERN" 🤣
As an engineer, i'm interested in the science fiction aspect of why flying cars that use anti-gravity don't have the occupants sitting upside down on the ceiling? It would seem that if you can produce and levitate using anti-gravity, everything within the vehicle would experience anti-gavity. Also, why do sci-fi shows that have space ships with artificial gravity still need gravity boots when walking outside the spaceship? Or is there some sort of gravity blocking shell on the spacecraft? I'm not convinced that anti-gravity is the answer we are looking for to achieve the futuristic things we've be promised from Hollywood.
Hollywood's more management.They think of something cool and make a neat presentation. At some point perhaps an engineer might be consulted to see if it's actually possible, but unlike with, say, real companies, no physical product need exist at any point.
@@vibaj16 they aren't even theoretically possible. They are mathematically possible. And since Mathematics is a language constructed by humans to translate observation into digestible information, it can be made to say or suggest, anything. So what you are really saying is "anything is possible". And what that really means is precisely nothing. The fact of the matter is, gravity is not a force. To move matter through space you much push space out of the way. Faster you go the more space needs to move out of your way. There is not enough harvestable energy in the entire solar system to launch humans to the next closest star. It would be the largest human effort ever undertaken just to send something the size of a paper airplane to our nearest neighboring star. And to do it inside a human lifetime would require more energy than has ever been produced by human activity on Earth. Warp drive is a fantasy in every way. It can never exist. Gravity itself isn't even a force.
@@ZennExile Sounds like you don't understand the math. This isn't just random application of math, it's math based in our most successful theories of physics.
@@vibaj16 statistically speaking, there's a much higher probability of you lacking the reading comprehension as well as the mathematical discipline to question a single syllable of my comment. No offense intended. The universe doesn't typically allow something so dramatically improbable to happen. Not at least as far as any human has ever observed and recorded.
Hold on, I thought CPT symmetry was a proper symmetry, i.e. no discernible difference. If you CPT transform matter, don't you get back matter? Isn't it just invert the charge and you get antimatter?
You need to invert the charge and the parity to get antimatter. Inverting the time then gets you back to matter (at least based on the Feynman-Stueckelberg interpretation of antimatter), as you correctly pointed out.
this is so incredibly cool to me in part because one of the people who worked to perform this experiment is my current physics professor. it feels kind of unreal that im being taught by one of the people spearheading the antimatter research field
they should have taught you that gravity isn't a force it's a happenstance of energy moving through space, so you wouldn't be so awestruck by pseudo scientific nonsense.
@@ZennExile I’ve seen your replies in several other comment threads. You really need to work on how you talk to others. You just come across like that one colleague every single one of us dreads having to interact with. Just because we assume we know how an experiment will turn out, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t perform said experiment. That’s the basis of the scientific method, and yet you’re the one calling others pseudo scientific. Weird, weird behavior man
I'm glad to hear that anti matter doesn't produce anti gravity because in my mind an accident in some future city between two cars could cause the city to be destroyed.
well, fortunately for us, a collision between matter and anti-matter cars would simply delete both vehicles. The drivers would retain their momentum, of course, and wind up yeeting into each other at massive speeds, leaving a bloody mess at the site of impact. if it's just two anti-matter cars, then the collision would look the same as any other
I appreciate the funny imagery but it wouldn't work out that way. Just gonna quote wiki since it's a fundamental fact relating to the conservation of energy, "antimatter and matter collisions result in the entire sum of their mass energy equivalent being released as energy, which is at least two orders of magnitude greater than the energy release of the most efficient fusion weapons (100% vs 0.4-1%)"@@fadran11
It would delete both vehicles... And release the mass of the vehicles times c² as radiation energy. 4 tons of cars would turn into 3.595x10^20 Joules. That's like half the energy consumption of all of humanity in a year
It's like how you don't have to worry about setting off nuclear bombs, because when you push the button the bomb is destroyed anyway so nothing to worry about.
Man the people in the comments with their "No. Move on." comments really don't get what a sense of wonder and science are about. Understanding the reason as to why things are not doing something is equally important. Standard answer tests and short attention spans really did a number on people.
It's more that there will be people who only read the title or only watch a few minutes, and having the title be an open ended question misleads them into thinking the question is still unsolved or, at worst, makes them think that the wrong answer is the case
@@CantHandleThisCanYa Why did you make three separate comments that are each like one sentence long? Just separate them out in one comment so you don’t blow up people’s inboxes Physics pedants are the worst type of neuro divergent I’ve ever met lol
Anti-matter may not have negative gravity, but Negative Matter should. I'd love to see an episode about the possibility of turning negative energy into negative matter. Also, what's up with dark matter & dark energy? Is there a corresponding anti-dark matter and negative dark energy?
What do you mean negative matter? Anti matter has a opposite charge as regular matter. You couldnt have an atom of completely negative charged particles
This is such a good example of what science is about. The is NO REASON to imagine Antimatter experiences Anti-gravity and no one thought it would or did. BUT! We didn't KNOW. And we DO know that Gravity is wEiRd so...good thing to test! Because if it DIDN'T behave how we imagine, then we would really have learned something.
...for all we really know, if there was a Big Bang it could have resulted in two exact-opposite timelines expanding from their origin. In one dominating worldline, almost everything is our matter. And in the other worldline almost everything is what we call antimatter. But this is unlikely because antimatter's charge components are coupled to normal matter's physics. That's where these experiments in time reversal and antigravity keep coming from. CPT reversal sounds great, normal matter can produce antiparticles during radioactive decay, great. But the binary values take us back to quantum physics. Somehow across the entire universe there seems to be an infinitely small one-dimensional axis and everything is either going up or down. 3D movement does not matter, everything is either going up or down at the speed of light. And the movement is looped or perhaps oscillating. So when matter and antimatter find each other, they release all of that bound inertial energy as photon pairs traveling in opposite directions.
The purpose of the experiment to test CPT. If antimatter falls up, CPT is proven to fail. In that case, we should instead be asking what the mechanism for the rest of the standard model is if CPT fails.
@@UnitaryV If gravity is opposite but time is also opposite then it would still fall downward in our frame of reference. It seems like such a convenient thing...
I expect anything of antimatter treated differently from regular matter for a simple reason: There are particles such as the photons which are their own antiparticles. If gravity treated antimatter differently from antimatter, these particles "wouldn't know how to behave in a gravitational field".
The ending of this video is devastating. I wrote a multi novel series of books based on the idea of anti matter anti gravity tech. I wrote 50 bajillion words in about 12 minutes riding off the high of inspiration of you just describing the possibility of anti matter anti gravity tech. only for it to come crashing down around me. WHY DOES THIS KEEP HAPPENING!?!
@ardag1439 kidding? I think you're cooking something up here. So now that it's been established that the anti matter anti gravity tech was a dream. Should we ask if it was prophecy? 🤔 Does the dreamer or prophet now have a devine obligation to create the anti matter anti gravity tech? These are important questions.
You're close. Maybe not anti-matter but if we ever found exotic matter that contains negative mass, you could both create a hyper drive and it would also be "anti-gravity". In other words, if you kept folding space in front of you (or the top of the craft) to keep you in one point in space it would keep you afloat as long as it's actively folding space to remain in that point.
"we made a hoverboard" "But what did it cost?" "100 trillion dollars in exotic matter, a containment field that requires the energy needs of a small town and also if for any reason the power goes out or you crash, humanity will be limited to one side of the planet briefly."
Ooh! I was at cern last year in November on a shool trip, and an old student from my school was working on this exact project. I got to see the antimatter decelerator and such, being showed around by the reserchers!
Perhaps the reason why the experiment didn’t create a floating antigravity is that gravity is created thru the interaction between our wave and an mirror wave. So when we created our antigravity particle there was an equal and opposite antigravity particle created that pulled in the particle thus making it fall. I believe the existence of negative numbers sort of proves the possible existence of this negative wave.
I had always thought that antimatter wouldn't "fall up" considering we know its mass to be the same as the regular counterpart... But seeing a glimpse that there is a different interaction there is such a wonderfully cool idea.
The thing is that gravity affects space-time curvature, not other particles. If anti-matter has negative gravity, you'd need a lot of it to see any effect, especially on Earth, as it would still fall "down" because space-time has already bent space-time downwards, and its World Lines will lean towards the center of gravity. A city-block sized clump of anti-matter is where we'd start really seeing wacky stuff if space-time negatively affects gravity. The particles would all shoot away from each other instead of clumping. It would of course still orbit planets, stars, etc, because those things have already bent space time positively.
@@vibaj16 I don't need to. The answer is "no" and that was experimentally proven decades ago. There is no debate to be had, there is "theory" that says otherwise. The entire video is clickbait and can be answered with "other than charge, antimatter is identical to matter. Gravity behaves the same way with both." Spending 10 minutes rambling about this or that is beside the point and only lends people to think there is a "mystery" to be solved when there is not. It's clickbait for idiots.
How far is up ? and what happens to gravity when you go up to the fullest, do you still keep going up or go sideways or say still till another down point comes past so you go up ? What is up ?
Mentioning CPT there reminds me that I really want to see a video about the interaction of the T in CPT, and time being a result of the universe starting in a low entropy state
This was a wonderful episode. I was wondering what the effect would have on time dilation if the experiment had succeeded in showing antimatter had antigravity properties?
The ability to artificially control gravity is like the holy grail of future tech. It's amazing to imagine all that we could do with that. Thank you for another interesting video! God be with you out there everybody. ✝️ :)
If space curves in toward matter and away from antimatter at the same rate per mass, instead of falling up, wouldn't it only partially cancel, because only some of the antimatter's repulsion points 'down' and the other directions of the repulsion are just 'pushing' up or to the side? Say... about 25% cancelled?
In the experiment done it had particles with positive gravitational mass. E.g. positive energy particles. But all other aspects of the particle is anti-matter.
Wouldn't this cause all anti-matter to almost instanteously end up on the expanding universe's outermost point as it grew? Kind of making the edge of the universe purely anti-matter and destructive of any matter that approaches the boundary.
No, the video talks about.. not exactly this, but it does talk about a property that means this wouldn't happen. If anti-matter had negative gravitational mass, it would still attract to other anti-matter. It would be repelled by _regular_ matter yes, but it's far more likely we'd have something like antimatter galaxies and stars and planets in one region of the universe, but that anti-matter region is constantly repelled away from our matter filled region of the universe and vice-versa.
@@overestimatedforesight The "Edge" of our specific observable universe is the event horizon. Our "reality" is a 3 dimensional hologram emanating from the FLAT, 2 dimensional event horizon internally towards the 1 dimensional "singularity". All information is encoded on the surface. Research true and false vacuum, virtual particles, and matter creation through high energy photon interactions.
If there is a difference space curvature is wrong. With gravity being a space curvature, even a particle that produces anti gravity would itself move in an external gravitational field like regular matter.
Wouldn't a small object with negative mass still fall downward because it bends space one direction but the earth bends it the opposite direction much more? Wouldn't it have to be more massive (antimassive?) Than the earth to fall up?
Given how when an electron and a positron produce photons, and given how photons are affected by gravity in the way that GR predicts, I would expect Anti-Matter to fall exactly like ordinary matter.
You often talk about these cool and spectacular theories of quantum gravity, but when are you creating an episode on asymptotically safe gravity? Sabine Hossenfelder made an episode about it and some predictions it made for the mass of the higgs boson, but she didn't go into detail and there are very few popular-scientific sources on the subject. It would be greatly appreciated if you could ve one of them!
I would like to share an idea about this, please correct me if I am wrong. The difference between the acceleration of a particle with the gravitational mass of -1 hydrogen atoms and the gravitational acceleration of a particle with the mass of 1 hydrogen atom would only be the gravitational force of two hydrogen atoms. The absolute value of the slope of the derivative of the curved spacetime would be less for objects with a mass closer to zero. Whether there is an attraction or repulsion depends on whether the net slope of the derivative of the curvature is positive for attraction or negative for repulsion. In other words, even if anti-hydrogen had negative gravitational mass, it would still fall at almost exactly the same speed as normal hydrogen, further more, in order for the anti-hydrogen to “fall up” on earth, one would need more than -1 earth masses of it. Then the net force becomes repulsive, and the two bodies repel each other with a gravitational force equal to the difference between the absolute values of the masses. By this interpretation, anti-hydrogen having negative gravitational mass would be just as consistent with the findings. Also, negative gravitational mass would repel other negative gravitational mass, this keeps in line with the T in CPT, where the motion appears time-reversed, and would look like positive mass if played on reverse. If the earth had negative gravitational mass, and the anti-hydrogen had positive gravitational mass, it would look like the anti-hydrogen is falling up at almost exactly the same rate as a hydrogen atom with negative gravitational mass. That scenario would also look identical to the experiment at cern if time is reversed. Again, please correct me if I am wrong.
My answer before watching: No. And I am not surprised by the confirmation. Both matter and antimatter are basically condensed energy held under (internal) confinement. There is no negative mass term, gravitational or inertial, because there is no negative energy term. Postulating that there could be a negative energy term (in addition to the usual positive energy term), a problem would immediately arise: matter-antimatter annihilation (if antimatter has a negative energy term) would lead to the canceling out of the energy terms; ie, *nothing* would remain - no radiation, no energy, no particles… Yes, in other words - *complete destruction of that energy, irrecoverably*. Which is disallowed by conservation laws, and contradicted by what we have seen in annihilation reactions already.
Is there an antimatter spectrum? Isn't antimatter merely a space that is void of matter, which might have a pattern like how lightning fills the space with electricity in a diffuse web? Couldn't we say that the space between beats in a song or the space created right after two slapsticks hit each other is antimatter although not incredibly condensed or highly energetic? This is based on the idea that acoustics are the essence of what determines the density and organization of matter across space and time. I'd say it's mine alone, but its based off of everything including the way Space-time is capable of being followed from topic to topic and my brain still has something clear to retain and share about despite the topics being so interesting in completely different ways.
Space that is void of matter is just space void of matter - physical vacuum. Antimatter is the same as matter, just all the changes are opposite. Positron +1 / electron -1; up quark +2/3 / up antiquark -2/3. The masses, the inherent oscillations are the same in any particle-antiparticle pair. It is possible though that some neutral particles are their own antiparticle (majorana neutrino).
For those of you that want to know the answer quickly: No. I just saved you 14 minutes at the very least. Yeah, that is how long into the video where he actually answers the question.
Antimatter being less massive was definitely not on my bingo card, but would be an incredible result if it holds up, which is almost certainly won't. But I do agree that the time transformation does mean that antimatter should fall up not down, and the fact that it doesn't breaks CPT symmetry anyway. The universe just isn't time-symmetric, we're going to have to learn to deal with that at some point.
I would like to know why this proves that antimatter doesn't itself bend spacetime in the opposite way. Picture a hypothetical circular vacuum machine in a lake, which basically would represent a matter particle, attracting everything towards it. Imagine too the opposite machine, that pushes everything on the lake surface that it's on its way away from it. Now imagine that the vacuum is a million times bigger than the blower and put one next to each other. The blower will "fight" against the pull of the vacuum, but will have no chance to resist the overall inwards flow of water. So it will "fall inwards" even if it itself is a blower and not a vacuum. If this was the case, that might explain why the gravitational pull on antimatter seems to be just slightly weaker...
HG Wells wrote a book about flying to the moon with a ship made of a materiak that blocks gravity. It has lots of windows so you can open one that points to the moon and then simply fall to the moon. To get back, you simply open one on the opposite side. Of course you'd have to fiddle around with it to break your fall. If I remember correctly :)
It's easy to imagine antimatter still having inertial mass even if it has negative gravitational mass, because gravity is just accelerating it in the opposite direction. Let it then bump into another antimatter object, and it will transfer that energy just as if two regular matter objects were colliding. Simple.
I think there is a fallacy to the experiment done: Anti-protons may react differently to earth's gravitational compared to normal protons. When you let anti-hydrogen "fall" in the tube, the positrons may get affected more so by the gravitational field due to their positive charge even though they have "smaller" mass. This difference may result in the anti-hydrogen being observed to be falling in the gravitational field. I think the experiment should include only anti-protons, or at least anti-helium atoms or anti-alpha particles to definitively reach a solid conclusion on this matter. Also, there should be a parallel "control" experiment involving normal hydrogen similarly confined in a magnetic field to see if it "falls" the same way. Without the control, there can be no comparison.
Without reading the paper, I am going to assume that there is a control experiment as you describe, because as a reviewer this is the first thing I would want to see. The fact that they reference the result to normal hydrogen suggests it was done in this way. The charge of a positron or an electron will not affect their interaction with gravity. Electric charge is the charge for electromagnetism, and mass for gravity. It would be much bigger news if those two things bleed into each other. The reason why this is done on atoms is because they are electrically neutral and so have only limited interactions with the EM field. If you did it with charge particles, then the interaction with even a tiny stray EM field would swamp the interaction with gravity. That was the you on earth affecting the feather on the moon analogy. It would be cool to do this with larger atoms though, although I am not sure how easy they are to create. Not easy is my guess.
@@stevendaly4640 i think it is your assumption that charges don't interact with gravity. Even Einstein said that spacetime curves in presence of large EM fields. That is the basis of GR. So, yes, EM fields do create gravity, but not vice-versa. Static E-fields represent the potential of energy if movement of the field or a charge within the field occurs. Moving E-fields therefore constitute energy. What is the value of the electron's E-field as you approach its center? Furthermore, how do you confine neutral anti-matter atoms in an EM field? You can't. The confinement itself will ionize the atoms, negating their neutrality. Heavier anti-matter atoms would theoritically require anti-neutrons, and so far as i know, none have been created.
There is the possibility of repulsive or anti gravity. Simply if you go backwards in time. But since time is a half-dimension this goes for us only in one direction this is also for gravitation valid for our experience.
Doesn't most of a proton's mass come from its binding energy? Maybe that part is still pulled down while the antiquarks' and positron's rest masses are repelled, and that's why antihydrogen falls more slowly?
The Clarity Argument "I find the terms 'microscopic gravity' and 'macroscopic gravity' really helpful. They avoid the confusion of just saying gravity is 'weak' or 'strong'. Gravity is weak on the particle level but incredibly powerful when you have massive objects like planets or stars!"
Is there any reason to believe that dark matter interacts with any of the other forces? Neutrinos barely interact with the weak nuclear force. Is it possible dark mater only interacts with the gravitational field?
Wait this is probably very dumb but hear me out anyway. So if gravity can bend space time and therefore being within certain gravitational pulls causes time dilation in the sense of time traveling quicker around you compared to others, what if antimatter could have an adverse gravitational effect that allows time to actually move backwards compared to your perspective like an inverse time dilation effect. Probably dumb but a cool idea I think
What's the definition of antimatter? For any pair of particle and antiparticle, how is definied which one is the "regular" one and which one is the "anti" particle, other than saying it's the more common one in nature? Is there any common property that's one way for an up quark, a down quark and an electron but another way for an anti up quark, anti down quark and positron? Something like the sign of the charge, but that can't be it, otherwise we would either group the positive particles or the negative particles as matter and the other ones as antimatter. Imagine discovering a new particle and its anti particle, both not present in nature and only seen in the lab and both equally likely to be created in the experiment, by which criteria would you define which of the two is the anti one?
Spinning into matter as collections of frequencies and out spining from anti frequencies transpositioning as more space in out of matter. Stretching and gathering levels of antimatter from travelling in all possible directions with possible collections into collected matter. Endless possibilities:)
Anti matter as minus matter does not exist. If I make a pizza out of matter its a collective of ingredients and hence I have an object. If I make a pizza out of minus ingredents then I still don't have an object as I have a minus object. So it proberly be a hole where you can put matter into, not a minus matter that goes up.
This question is a basic one I have wondered when I heard about antimatter as a kid. If all of their properties are reversed compared to normal matter, we can picture antimatter as matter going back in time. Which would explain the missing antimatter in the universe: The equal amount of antimatter at the big bang is not missing, it just went in the other direction of time, creating its own unisverse.
Because galaxies are surrounded by large clouds of hydrogen gas. If they were antimatter clouds, the signature products of such interactions would be seen, namely, gamma ray photons with a precise energy.
14:26 Wow this is an extremely intriguing phenomena but also an exciting breakthrough. If there is a change in gravitational acceleration with more number of anti-hydrogen atoms over time, the overall density of such particles might result in a different curvature of space from regular matter. Thanks Matt.
I would love to see an episode on how Anti-matter is actually made. What's the process, what are the materials, what reactions have to happen, and why it actually works.
They generate antiprotons by smashing protons together at CERN. They are captured and cooled down, and then they just combine them with positrons collected from radioactive decay to form antihydrogen.
If you want antimatter buy a banana.
High energy particle collisions (in particle accelerators) produce matter and antimatter in equal proportions, then it's a matter of collecting and confining the antimatter.
@@tonywells6990 I see what you did there
This is what you want ua-cam.com/video/1r6GC0ekyIY/v-deo.html
I deeply appreciate how in the split screen rocket illustration, you had the rocket's background Starfield accelerating at increasing velocity instead of just passing by at a constant velocity, reflecting the fact that the rocket is constantly accelerating.
Great attention to detail!
Well, otherwise it would be pretty misleading.
yet most animations will take the misleading route because it's easier and therefore cheaper@@samtux762
It's all fake. The Earth is Flat.
I just want to ask for a episode on Penning Traps
Also why can't we make these, dump em in the Van Allen belt and then collect them in a Falcon 9 return to earth rocket.
2:58
Thank you for including the confidence level of the result. That makes or breaks this kind of science communication IMHO
He always does
Yeah so important. I remember news of a planet discovered last year with a certain molecule in its atmosphere, I believe dimethyl sulfate, which could only be explained by alien life. Some science channels were shouting from the rooftops we probably found aliens. I later found that the results are very dubious, not even statistically significant.
It is reported wrong though. The paper says " a=(0.75 ± 0.13 (statistical + systematic) ± 0.16 (simulation))g." The video only says ± 0.13. If they wanted to keep things simple they should have added the two in quadrature, getting ± 0.21. It's much less statistically significant than the video claims.
For real, the difference between a proper science channel and just a hype "news" channel.
@@crazedvidmaker Which reinforces the uncertainty.
It would be funny if this was a 2 second episode with Matt just saying:"Nope"
Followed by a lengthy Rick Astley exposé
Agree
Oh man, they should really do that for April Fools
Anti-matter scanners fire antimatter into the body and record the results. So -opposite charges still have same mass. Soooo .... Nope.
I like how Matt keeps bringing up hoverboards like it would be totally safe to have something that if it got into a crash would explode with the force of a Tsar Bomb
Heck that's how the current hoverboards work😅
And would have to have enough antimatter in them to cause a neutral buoyancy with the load put on it. AKA the hoverboard would have to have enough antimatter in it to equal the mass of the hoverboard (minus the antimatter) and the person on it to equal the displaced air at the air pressure they are in.
Screw safe. Go be a bridge inspector if you want safe - it's a very important job and apparently what you were born to do. With science it's go big or go home!
A hoverboard using this "antigravity" version of antimatter would need an 80kg docking clamp whever you stop and would cause a 2.5 gigaton (very approximate - I can't calculate secondary effects or fuel lost to space) explosion. The initial devastation would be worse than nuclear because it would spread the antimatter "fuel" until it collided with the right matter counterparts, meaning it would create a wider distribution of destruction. The only upside is that, if it were antigravity, some of it might escape into space. Tsar Bomba could erase the London metro area, this hoverboard could erase England.
A less talked about issue is how would you stop while on s hover board.
Whether or not it disrupted the status quo, this experiment is such an amazing achievement. To think that one of the most exotic forms of matter is merrily floating around in a magnetic field, in CERN, on Earth, created by humans, its simply amazing.
I was in Cern im 2019 and an old physicist who gave us a tour was really excited and told us young students evrything about that experiment. We were fascinated by the implications and that such a raw hypothesis was tested for. Wether or not it was ever plausible to show antigravity it is still excellent science to test for it.
Well, if CPT symmetry is broken we have to reevaluate everything from General Relativity to the Standard Model of quantum mechanics. What comes of that reevaluation may be entirely new physics that could eventually lead to anti gravity. As someone smarter than me said "Big break thoughs don't start with a eureka moment. They start with someone saying 'Uh... this is odd....'"
@@andersjjensen GR should be fine, but QFT will have issues.
At 3:56 you remove both masses. Acceleration should be a = MG/r^2, with M being the fixed mass of the object you are being attracted towards.
Came to see if anyone had posted this. Pretty healthy mistake, can't believe it's not more up voted.
Yep, glad someone else spotted it! ;)
No, and that's the whole point. Acceleration of an object is indepedant of its mass. Every object falls at the same rate in vacuum, regardeless of its mass.
You're confusing acceleration with the weight (force) applied to the object, which is indeed proportionnal to its mass (F=Gm/r²). However the acceleration applied to the object is also inversely proprortionnal to its mass (F=ma so a=F/m), which cancels it out.
So in short :
F = ma = Gm/r² so a = (m/m)G/r² = G/r²
@@theslay66F=GMm/r². 😁
r/confidentlyincorrect
Dear whoever edits/does music for these,
PLEASE make the outro quieter! I love listening to these before bed and the last 15 seconds are so much louder than the entire episode. THANK YOU!
Sincerely,
An overworked mom who just wants to peacefully learn and fall asleep to science
I also think the outro is not balanced well, it's way too loud comparatively!!
@@revenevan11 agreed!!!
@@Breakemoff2bruh we know you agree, they just rewrote your comment. Both of these comments were nonsense… what’s going on???
@@iwanttwoscoops what do you mean by nonsense? Could you kindly explain what didn’t make sense to you? Thanks “bruh” 😊
100% agree
A few years ago I had the pleasure of visiting the Antimatter Factory at CERN where they described this experiment to us. It was really fascinating and I'm happy to hear about the results now. One interesting fact I found interesting was, that the were shooting the first antiparticles they generated just straight into a concrete wall just casually standing around in the facility. 😀Nothing spectacular happens, sure, it annihilates with the matter of the concrete and creates 'lots' of energy, but, after all, it's just a single particle.
I know it probably has less energy than one cosmic random ray hitting my DNA while sitting at a park bench.
But it still feels wrong being around and getting "blasted" by a matter-antimatter collision gammaray. No matter how much the energy content is, I either expect to become a superhero... or you know... cancer. XD
@@livinlicious Well, afaik you're not allowed in the Antimatter Factory when they are running experiments. 😀
It'll be a real trip if you ever need a PET scan for some medical testing. (Positron Emission Tomography). They inject you with a fluid containing a radioactive tracer isotope that releases positrons (antimatter!) when it decays.
Also a small fraction of naturally occurring potassium atoms (including in bananas) are radioactive/unstable and also decay by emitting a positron iirc, so bananas are making antimatter too!
It'll be a real trip if you ever need a PET scan for some medical testing. (Positron Emission Tomography). They inject you with a fluid containing a radioactive tracer isotope that releases positrons (antimatter!) when it decays.
Also a small fraction of naturally occurring potassium atoms (including in bananas) are radioactive/unstable and also decay by emitting a positron iirc, so bananas are making antimatter too!
It'll be a real trip if you ever need a PET scan for some medical testing. (Positron Emission Tomography). They inject you with a fluid containing a radioactive tracer isotope that releases positrons (antimatter!) when it decays.
Also a small fraction of naturally occurring potassium atoms (including in bananas) are radioactive/unstable and also decay by emitting a positron iirc, so bananas are making antimatter too!
One big issue to me with negative gravitational mass for antimatter is that it implies that particles like photons, which _are_ their own antiparticles, must not interact with gravity, even though we've observed that they do. Is this not the absolute deal-breaker I think it is, or do people just like brushing that to the side when talking about this idea?
What a discreet and phenomenal point. And this was just 1 of many issues I had in a long list of obvious reasons this test wasn't even that necessary. Gravity is gravity lol. There was never an indication of having less than 0 mass was possible, because gravity as we know it isn't described as positive or negative (which he also states without seeming to grasp that this is why the experiment was redundant) LOL... They basically tested something that essentially runs contrary to G/R which is a robust theory, you would think that common sense would be to test for unknowns that run parallel to effective theories.
Granted, this was not made clear in the video.
@@Sloppyjoey1 in science you can't rely on presuppositions, you should test everything, even if the result is obvious. and as he mentioned, there is a scenarios where anti-particles could have negative gravitational mass. now that they found the obvious, its time to test the not so obvious, like to see if the CPT symmetry breaks.
You would think that, but remember, gravity affects space-time and not particles directly. If photons are gravitationally neutral, it means clumping a lot of them together wouldn't bend space-time. It does not mean it would negatively affect already-bent spacetime made by positive gravity. Space-time is already bent around clumps of matter, and a neutral particle with neither positive nor negative gravity would just ride along the status quo, instead of adding more gravity or subtracting gravity.
No one really thought we'd find antigravity. The main thing was "can we build a device that could measure it?" and then "let's think of more cool things we can do with this new detector." We haven't done the second bit yet, but every time we build a new type of detector we generally find something interesting. Maybe not in this case since gravity is kinda solved? But then, there's still questions of how gravity and QM could both be true so new detectors are generally good for business.
Fun fact. If a youtube title is a yes/no question, the answer is always "no." This is because the title would be a statement if the answer was yes.
For example, if it had been yes, the title would be "Antimatter Creates Anti-Gravity"
While in this case the answer is presumably “no”, a title could also be a question if it doesn’t reach a conclusive answer
But do anti-questions create positive answers?
@@Zahaqiel Anti-questions should create anti-answers.
is @markshiman5690 a smart person?
It's called Betteridge's law and was first formulated in relation to news article headlines. And while exceptions are very common, it holds true more often than not.
I just want to say that this channel is one of the biggest helps and inspirations for my studies. You are an excellent, top tier teacher who makes math and physics fun, engaging, and rather easy to comprehend.
I've only been watching this channel since 2020, but thank you.
I am attending college this fall to start my journey into theoretical physics at the age of 34.
It's never to late to learn.
That's amazing! I'm in my final year of my Bsc in theoretical physics and I've really enjoyed it so far. Good luck with your studies :)
@OfTheVoid - That sounds exciting. Be sure to keep that excitement fresh while you wade through the hard parts. I envy you. ^_^
It’s not physics, but I started an engineering degree at 29 and finished my masters at 36. You’ll do great if you are dedicated and serious. Good luck.
Based ❤
I’m in my last year of international relations master’s degree that I started in my late 20s - a bit different, but it is vastly different than my bachelor’s and it’s a bold step for me! Best of luck and hoping to hear of your theories on this channel someday
Your reporting of the error bar is wrong. The paper says " a=(0.75 ± 0.13 (statistical + systematic) ± 0.16 (simulation))g." Not sure why you put the ± 0.13 in the video but not the ± 0.16. If you wanted to keep things simple and only have one error bar, you should have added the two in quadrature, getting ± 0.21. This mistake drastically overestimates the statistical significance of the difference. It's not that it's less than 3 sigma, it's barely more than 1 sigma, and it can even be below 1 sigma if you think those different kinds of errors should be added linearly.
I think alot of people who watch these videos are at my intelligence and I have no clue what you just said or how it's relevant.
Antimatter-based antigravity would be the only way we could top the Hindenburg in the field of "sure it's a colossal bomb but it also floats a bit" research.
When Spacetime drops, it's always a good day
Feel better soon, Matt, and take the time you need to fully recover!
I'm not a regular viewer. Has he been sick?
@@ThieflyChap 7:16
Just wrote my bachelor's research project on the matter-antimatter asymmetry of the universe! very cool to watch this video :)
I remember that CERN experiment from years ago, and I remember that at the time the results weren't showing a definitive result. When Matt mentioned it, I instantly get excited at the idea of finding the result, but then I considered that if the result was antimatter going upwards, I would probably have already knew it, because all the generic press would have bombarded us with crazy headlines like "Hoverboard principle demonstrated at CERN" 🤣
Haha, I had the exact same thought process
Was still hoping for a surprise though.
As an engineer, i'm interested in the science fiction aspect of why flying cars that use anti-gravity don't have the occupants sitting upside down on the ceiling? It would seem that if you can produce and levitate using anti-gravity, everything within the vehicle would experience anti-gavity. Also, why do sci-fi shows that have space ships with artificial gravity still need gravity boots when walking outside the spaceship? Or is there some sort of gravity blocking shell on the spacecraft? I'm not convinced that anti-gravity is the answer we are looking for to achieve the futuristic things we've be promised from Hollywood.
Hollywood's more management.They think of something cool and make a neat presentation. At some point perhaps an engineer might be consulted to see if it's actually possible, but unlike with, say, real companies, no physical product need exist at any point.
Props to exploring the geodesic equation!!! This is what I love about this channel.
I'm not too worried about the flying cars, but this probably means no warp drive.
Warp drives have been shown to be (theoretically) possible without needing negative mass.
@@vibaj16 they aren't even theoretically possible. They are mathematically possible. And since Mathematics is a language constructed by humans to translate observation into digestible information, it can be made to say or suggest, anything. So what you are really saying is "anything is possible". And what that really means is precisely nothing. The fact of the matter is, gravity is not a force. To move matter through space you much push space out of the way. Faster you go the more space needs to move out of your way. There is not enough harvestable energy in the entire solar system to launch humans to the next closest star.
It would be the largest human effort ever undertaken just to send something the size of a paper airplane to our nearest neighboring star. And to do it inside a human lifetime would require more energy than has ever been produced by human activity on Earth.
Warp drive is a fantasy in every way. It can never exist. Gravity itself isn't even a force.
@@ZennExile Sounds like you don't understand the math. This isn't just random application of math, it's math based in our most successful theories of physics.
You need ftl travel, artificial gravity, and extreme energy prowess.
@@vibaj16 statistically speaking, there's a much higher probability of you lacking the reading comprehension as well as the mathematical discipline to question a single syllable of my comment.
No offense intended. The universe doesn't typically allow something so dramatically improbable to happen. Not at least as far as any human has ever observed and recorded.
If we had negative gravity, unless I'm remembering wrong we wouldn't need flying cars, because that's all we need to make wormholes
Love your new look!
Thank you again for including the full equations. I love seeing them. I don’t understand and it is motivating to me to learn.
Hold on, I thought CPT symmetry was a proper symmetry, i.e. no discernible difference. If you CPT transform matter, don't you get back matter? Isn't it just invert the charge and you get antimatter?
You need to invert the charge and the parity to get antimatter. Inverting the time then gets you back to matter (at least based on the Feynman-Stueckelberg interpretation of antimatter), as you correctly pointed out.
this is so incredibly cool to me in part because one of the people who worked to perform this experiment is my current physics professor. it feels kind of unreal that im being taught by one of the people spearheading the antimatter research field
they should have taught you that gravity isn't a force it's a happenstance of energy moving through space, so you wouldn't be so awestruck by pseudo scientific nonsense.
@@ZennExile
I’ve seen your replies in several other comment threads.
You really need to work on how you talk to others. You just come across like that one colleague every single one of us dreads having to interact with.
Just because we assume we know how an experiment will turn out, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t perform said experiment.
That’s the basis of the scientific method, and yet you’re the one calling others pseudo scientific.
Weird, weird behavior man
@@Bubble-Foam your opinions are worth less than it cost to care about. Not a good investment.
I'm glad to hear that anti matter doesn't produce anti gravity because in my mind an accident in some future city between two cars could cause the city to be destroyed.
well, fortunately for us, a collision between matter and anti-matter cars would simply delete both vehicles. The drivers would retain their momentum, of course, and wind up yeeting into each other at massive speeds, leaving a bloody mess at the site of impact.
if it's just two anti-matter cars, then the collision would look the same as any other
@@fadran11 actually the energy released from the annihilation reaction would vaporize both people.
I appreciate the funny imagery but it wouldn't work out that way. Just gonna quote wiki since it's a fundamental fact relating to the conservation of energy, "antimatter and matter collisions result in the entire sum of their mass energy equivalent being released as energy, which is at least two orders of magnitude greater than the energy release of the most efficient fusion weapons (100% vs 0.4-1%)"@@fadran11
It would delete both vehicles... And release the mass of the vehicles times c² as radiation energy. 4 tons of cars would turn into 3.595x10^20 Joules. That's like half the energy consumption of all of humanity in a year
It's like how you don't have to worry about setting off nuclear bombs, because when you push the button the bomb is destroyed anyway so nothing to worry about.
LOVE THE NEW INTRO!
Scooped by acolierastro again!
It's incredible how much I learn from this channel.
Man the people in the comments with their "No. Move on." comments really don't get what a sense of wonder and science are about. Understanding the reason as to why things are not doing something is equally important.
Standard answer tests and short attention spans really did a number on people.
It's more that there will be people who only read the title or only watch a few minutes, and having the title be an open ended question misleads them into thinking the question is still unsolved or, at worst, makes them think that the wrong answer is the case
Or we already know what the answer is and think that this is a clickbaity video because of the obvious answer
Anti-matter has been generated before, and it doesn't fall up. Thats the end of the story.
There's a huge difference between a sense of wonder and possessing ignorance in quantities
@@CantHandleThisCanYa
Why did you make three separate comments that are each like one sentence long?
Just separate them out in one comment so you don’t blow up people’s inboxes
Physics pedants are the worst type of neuro divergent I’ve ever met lol
Same topic as Acollierastro's video.
Makes sense, since both are reviewing the same paper
Yeah Angela did a great job
Ah, I must say I have been really waiting for the outcome of this experiment! So thanks a lot for making a video about it.
My flying car model featured in PBS Space Time intro, a cosmic acheivement!
Anti-matter may not have negative gravity, but Negative Matter should. I'd love to see an episode about the possibility of turning negative energy into negative matter.
Also, what's up with dark matter & dark energy? Is there a corresponding anti-dark matter and negative dark energy?
What do you mean negative matter? Anti matter has a opposite charge as regular matter. You couldnt have an atom of completely negative charged particles
@@aintfromrounhere8099 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_mass
@@chrisjust7445 interesting
This is such a good example of what science is about.
The is NO REASON to imagine Antimatter experiences Anti-gravity and no one thought it would or did. BUT! We didn't KNOW. And we DO know that Gravity is wEiRd so...good thing to test! Because if it DIDN'T behave how we imagine, then we would really have learned something.
Hmm but without CPT violation, why would the universe treat antimatter differently? What could be the mechanism behind it? 🤔
An ethereal anti-current underlying the universe. They should try the experiment at night to see if the results change.
...for all we really know, if there was a Big Bang it could have resulted in two exact-opposite timelines expanding from their origin. In one dominating worldline, almost everything is our matter. And in the other worldline almost everything is what we call antimatter.
But this is unlikely because antimatter's charge components are coupled to normal matter's physics. That's where these experiments in time reversal and antigravity keep coming from. CPT reversal sounds great, normal matter can produce antiparticles during radioactive decay, great. But the binary values take us back to quantum physics. Somehow across the entire universe there seems to be an infinitely small one-dimensional axis and everything is either going up or down. 3D movement does not matter, everything is either going up or down at the speed of light. And the movement is looped or perhaps oscillating. So when matter and antimatter find each other, they release all of that bound inertial energy as photon pairs traveling in opposite directions.
The purpose of the experiment to test CPT. If antimatter falls up, CPT is proven to fail. In that case, we should instead be asking what the mechanism for the rest of the standard model is if CPT fails.
@@UnitaryV If gravity is opposite but time is also opposite then it would still fall downward in our frame of reference. It seems like such a convenient thing...
Thanks for this, I've had people on other science channels ridicule me mentioning this (now defunct) possibility.
I expect anything of antimatter treated differently from regular matter for a simple reason: There are particles such as the photons which are their own antiparticles. If gravity treated antimatter differently from antimatter, these particles "wouldn't know how to behave in a gravitational field".
Man what a let down. Y'all got me so psyched for hoverboards. 😭😂
The ending of this video is devastating. I wrote a multi novel series of books based on the idea of anti matter anti gravity tech. I wrote 50 bajillion words in about 12 minutes riding off the high of inspiration of you just describing the possibility of anti matter anti gravity tech. only for it to come crashing down around me. WHY DOES THIS KEEP HAPPENING!?!
Just call it something else
just say it's in a different universe:) different universe different physics
...then the character wakes up!
(just kidding)
@ardag1439 kidding? I think you're cooking something up here. So now that it's been established that the anti matter anti gravity tech was a dream. Should we ask if it was prophecy? 🤔 Does the dreamer or prophet now have a devine obligation to create the anti matter anti gravity tech? These are important questions.
You're close. Maybe not anti-matter but if we ever found exotic matter that contains negative mass, you could both create a hyper drive and it would also be "anti-gravity". In other words, if you kept folding space in front of you (or the top of the craft) to keep you in one point in space it would keep you afloat as long as it's actively folding space to remain in that point.
The amount of antimatter a hover board would need is rediculously scary.
"we made a hoverboard"
"But what did it cost?"
"100 trillion dollars in exotic matter, a containment field that requires the energy needs of a small town and also if for any reason the power goes out or you crash, humanity will be limited to one side of the planet briefly."
@@GhostofJamesMadison lol
@@GhostofJamesMadison LOL.
Great stuff, thank you for covering this with your trademark incredible production value.
Ooh! I was at cern last year in November on a shool trip, and an old student from my school was working on this exact project. I got to see the antimatter decelerator and such, being showed around by the reserchers!
Perhaps the reason why the experiment didn’t create a floating antigravity is that gravity is created thru the interaction between our wave and an mirror wave. So when we created our antigravity particle there was an equal and opposite antigravity particle created that pulled in the particle thus making it fall. I believe the existence of negative numbers sort of proves the possible existence of this negative wave.
I was hoping that it would explain the cosmic voids!
...Okay, but if antimatter did wind up proving to fall up, would that mean imaginary matter falls sideways?
it actually falls through time🤓
It would repeat itself I think
It falls into higher dimensions
That's the thing, imaginary mass, also known as exotic matter I think is what will "fall up"
@@doremysheep7864 Based on what? Do you have an imaginary mass object?
I had always thought that antimatter wouldn't "fall up" considering we know its mass to be the same as the regular counterpart... But seeing a glimpse that there is a different interaction there is such a wonderfully cool idea.
Antimatter does NOT fall up, this is experimentally proven. This video is fringe woo woo.
The thing is that gravity affects space-time curvature, not other particles. If anti-matter has negative gravity, you'd need a lot of it to see any effect, especially on Earth, as it would still fall "down" because space-time has already bent space-time downwards, and its World Lines will lean towards the center of gravity.
A city-block sized clump of anti-matter is where we'd start really seeing wacky stuff if space-time negatively affects gravity. The particles would all shoot away from each other instead of clumping. It would of course still orbit planets, stars, etc, because those things have already bent space time positively.
antimatter does NOT have negative gravity. We've tested this.@@WestAirAviation . The video is bunk.
@@sarcasticstartrek7719 i don't think you watched the video
@@vibaj16 I don't need to. The answer is "no" and that was experimentally proven decades ago. There is no debate to be had, there is "theory" that says otherwise. The entire video is clickbait and can be answered with "other than charge, antimatter is identical to matter. Gravity behaves the same way with both."
Spending 10 minutes rambling about this or that is beside the point and only lends people to think there is a "mystery" to be solved when there is not.
It's clickbait for idiots.
This would explain why AntiMatt O'Dowd is floating in space.
How far is up ? and what happens to gravity when you go up to the fullest, do you still keep going up or go sideways or say still till another down point comes past so you go up ? What is up ?
Mentioning CPT there reminds me that I really want to see a video about the interaction of the T in CPT, and time being a result of the universe starting in a low entropy state
This was a wonderful episode. I was wondering what the effect would have on time dilation if the experiment had succeeded in showing antimatter had antigravity properties?
It's still acceleration, the effect would be identical to gravity.
Time would speed up.
The ability to artificially control gravity is like the holy grail of future tech. It's amazing to imagine all that we could do with that. Thank you for another interesting video!
God be with you out there everybody. ✝️ :)
Everyone thinks anti matter would shoot upwards, why ? Where does all the anti matter collect, at one end point of an up ? What is up, define ?
Hmm... Technically the first species to touch the moon is the one that produced that dropped feather...
If space curves in toward matter and away from antimatter at the same rate per mass, instead of falling up, wouldn't it only partially cancel, because only some of the antimatter's repulsion points 'down' and the other directions of the repulsion are just 'pushing' up or to the side? Say... about 25% cancelled?
In the experiment done it had particles with positive gravitational mass. E.g. positive energy particles. But all other aspects of the particle is anti-matter.
Looks like Mass is just Mass and both treat Space-Time in the same way. That is great news.
Wouldn't this cause all anti-matter to almost instanteously end up on the expanding universe's outermost point as it grew? Kind of making the edge of the universe purely anti-matter and destructive of any matter that approaches the boundary.
Maybe thats why we cant see any of it in obsservable universe
Here be dragons!
There is (probably) no edge to the universe. The edge of the observable universe is only as far as we can see, not what actually exists.
No, the video talks about.. not exactly this, but it does talk about a property that means this wouldn't happen. If anti-matter had negative gravitational mass, it would still attract to other anti-matter. It would be repelled by _regular_ matter yes, but it's far more likely we'd have something like antimatter galaxies and stars and planets in one region of the universe, but that anti-matter region is constantly repelled away from our matter filled region of the universe and vice-versa.
@@overestimatedforesight The "Edge" of our specific observable universe is the event horizon. Our "reality" is a 3 dimensional hologram emanating from the FLAT, 2 dimensional event horizon internally towards the 1 dimensional "singularity". All information is encoded on the surface.
Research true and false vacuum, virtual particles, and matter creation through high energy photon interactions.
Wait, Matt was ill while recording this? I thought he sounded slightly different.
Get well soon!
If there is a difference space curvature is wrong.
With gravity being a space curvature, even a particle that produces anti gravity would itself move in an external gravitational field like regular matter.
Wouldn't a small object with negative mass still fall downward because it bends space one direction but the earth bends it the opposite direction much more? Wouldn't it have to be more massive (antimassive?) Than the earth to fall up?
Given how when an electron and a positron produce photons, and given how photons are affected by gravity in the way that GR predicts, I would expect Anti-Matter to fall exactly like ordinary matter.
Could anti-time particles be the key to flying cars?
Instead of falling down in positive time, it’s falling up in negative time.
What do you mean "time particles?" A "time particle" would be the smallest measurable patch of space
You often talk about these cool and spectacular theories of quantum gravity, but when are you creating an episode on asymptotically safe gravity? Sabine Hossenfelder made an episode about it and some predictions it made for the mass of the higgs boson, but she didn't go into detail and there are very few popular-scientific sources on the subject. It would be greatly appreciated if you could ve one of them!
I would like to share an idea about this, please correct me if I am wrong. The difference between the acceleration of a particle with the gravitational mass of -1 hydrogen atoms and the gravitational acceleration of a particle with the mass of 1 hydrogen atom would only be the gravitational force of two hydrogen atoms. The absolute value of the slope of the derivative of the curved spacetime would be less for objects with a mass closer to zero. Whether there is an attraction or repulsion depends on whether the net slope of the derivative of the curvature is positive for attraction or negative for repulsion. In other words, even if anti-hydrogen had negative gravitational mass, it would still fall at almost exactly the same speed as normal hydrogen, further more, in order for the anti-hydrogen to “fall up” on earth, one would need more than -1 earth masses of it. Then the net force becomes repulsive, and the two bodies repel each other with a gravitational force equal to the difference between the absolute values of the masses. By this interpretation, anti-hydrogen having negative gravitational mass would be just as consistent with the findings. Also, negative gravitational mass would repel other negative gravitational mass, this keeps in line with the T in CPT, where the motion appears time-reversed, and would look like positive mass if played on reverse. If the earth had negative gravitational mass, and the anti-hydrogen had positive gravitational mass, it would look like the anti-hydrogen is falling up at almost exactly the same rate as a hydrogen atom with negative gravitational mass. That scenario would also look identical to the experiment at cern if time is reversed. Again, please correct me if I am wrong.
My answer before watching: No.
And I am not surprised by the confirmation. Both matter and antimatter are basically condensed energy held under (internal) confinement. There is no negative mass term, gravitational or inertial, because there is no negative energy term. Postulating that there could be a negative energy term (in addition to the usual positive energy term), a problem would immediately arise: matter-antimatter annihilation (if antimatter has a negative energy term) would lead to the canceling out of the energy terms; ie, *nothing* would remain - no radiation, no energy, no particles… Yes, in other words - *complete destruction of that energy, irrecoverably*. Which is disallowed by conservation laws, and contradicted by what we have seen in annihilation reactions already.
Is it appropriate to ask "What's the anti-matter" if someone is walking around feeling great?
I'm stealing that fr
Is there an antimatter spectrum?
Isn't antimatter merely a space that is void of matter, which might have a pattern like how lightning fills the space with electricity in a diffuse web? Couldn't we say that the space between beats in a song or the space created right after two slapsticks hit each other is antimatter although not incredibly condensed or highly energetic?
This is based on the idea that acoustics are the essence of what determines the density and organization of matter across space and time. I'd say it's mine alone, but its based off of everything including the way Space-time is capable of being followed from topic to topic and my brain still has something clear to retain and share about despite the topics being so interesting in completely different ways.
Space that is void of matter is just space void of matter - physical vacuum. Antimatter is the same as matter, just all the changes are opposite. Positron +1 / electron -1; up quark +2/3 / up antiquark -2/3. The masses, the inherent oscillations are the same in any particle-antiparticle pair. It is possible though that some neutral particles are their own antiparticle (majorana neutrino).
"If we Science hard enough..." Love this expression!! Starting now, I will strive to Science harder than I've ever Scienced before!
CPT symmetry does not say that matter and antimatter have to had be created in similar amounts.
For those of you that want to know the answer quickly: No.
I just saved you 14 minutes at the very least. Yeah, that is how long into the video where he actually answers the question.
I feel like I see Matt for who he truly is
Antimatter being less massive was definitely not on my bingo card, but would be an incredible result if it holds up, which is almost certainly won't. But I do agree that the time transformation does mean that antimatter should fall up not down, and the fact that it doesn't breaks CPT symmetry anyway. The universe just isn't time-symmetric, we're going to have to learn to deal with that at some point.
I would like to know why this proves that antimatter doesn't itself bend spacetime in the opposite way.
Picture a hypothetical circular vacuum machine in a lake, which basically would represent a matter particle, attracting everything towards it. Imagine too the opposite machine, that pushes everything on the lake surface that it's on its way away from it.
Now imagine that the vacuum is a million times bigger than the blower and put one next to each other. The blower will "fight" against the pull of the vacuum, but will have no chance to resist the overall inwards flow of water. So it will "fall inwards" even if it itself is a blower and not a vacuum.
If this was the case, that might explain why the gravitational pull on antimatter seems to be just slightly weaker...
HG Wells wrote a book about flying to the moon with a ship made of a materiak that blocks gravity. It has lots of windows so you can open one that points to the moon and then simply fall to the moon. To get back, you simply open one on the opposite side. Of course you'd have to fiddle around with it to break your fall. If I remember correctly :)
It's called cavorite. And, if it existed, it would be a perpetual motion machine.
If you drop an antimatter apple and it explodes on contact, does that mean that the apple has a Warp Core?
It's easy to imagine antimatter still having inertial mass even if it has negative gravitational mass, because gravity is just accelerating it in the opposite direction. Let it then bump into another antimatter object, and it will transfer that energy just as if two regular matter objects were colliding. Simple.
Congratulations on 3M subs! I like the new logo and the new intro. Btw a youtuber called acollierastro made a video about this topic.
thank you for breaking my cpt brain for over 6 years. watched all the videos. just amazing how complex simple things might be ... love this cannel
I think there is a fallacy to the experiment done: Anti-protons may react differently to earth's gravitational compared to normal protons. When you let anti-hydrogen "fall" in the tube, the positrons may get affected more so by the gravitational field due to their positive charge even though they have "smaller" mass. This difference may result in the anti-hydrogen being observed to be falling in the gravitational field. I think the experiment should include only anti-protons, or at least anti-helium atoms or anti-alpha particles to definitively reach a solid conclusion on this matter. Also, there should be a parallel "control" experiment involving normal hydrogen similarly confined in a magnetic field to see if it "falls" the same way. Without the control, there can be no comparison.
Without reading the paper, I am going to assume that there is a control experiment as you describe, because as a reviewer this is the first thing I would want to see. The fact that they reference the result to normal hydrogen suggests it was done in this way.
The charge of a positron or an electron will not affect their interaction with gravity. Electric charge is the charge for electromagnetism, and mass for gravity. It would be much bigger news if those two things bleed into each other.
The reason why this is done on atoms is because they are electrically neutral and so have only limited interactions with the EM field. If you did it with charge particles, then the interaction with even a tiny stray EM field would swamp the interaction with gravity. That was the you on earth affecting the feather on the moon analogy. It would be cool to do this with larger atoms though, although I am not sure how easy they are to create. Not easy is my guess.
@@stevendaly4640 i think it is your assumption that charges don't interact with gravity. Even Einstein said that spacetime curves in presence of large EM fields. That is the basis of GR. So, yes, EM fields do create gravity, but not vice-versa. Static E-fields represent the potential of energy if movement of the field or a charge within the field occurs. Moving E-fields therefore constitute energy. What is the value of the electron's E-field as you approach its center?
Furthermore, how do you confine neutral anti-matter atoms in an EM field? You can't. The confinement itself will ionize the atoms, negating their neutrality.
Heavier anti-matter atoms would theoritically require anti-neutrons, and so far as i know, none have been created.
Just a question.....What if we made an anti-matter stone and tested it?
We are litterally thousands and thousands of years away from doing anything that complex.
There is the possibility of repulsive or anti gravity. Simply if you go backwards in time. But since time is a half-dimension this goes for us only in one direction this is also for gravitation valid for our experience.
No. Antimatter is reversed in charge (time aka entropy), not in mass.
While I already knew the response, this was a most excellent detailed yet consolidated answer.
Doesn't most of a proton's mass come from its binding energy? Maybe that part is still pulled down while the antiquarks' and positron's rest masses are repelled, and that's why antihydrogen falls more slowly?
Since it doesn't have negative mass but simply opposite charge, is this a real question?
You have created it. It is now a question. I like
This channel is a go-to for information. It's the best!
The Clarity Argument
"I find the terms 'microscopic gravity' and 'macroscopic gravity' really helpful. They avoid the confusion of just saying gravity is 'weak' or 'strong'. Gravity is weak on the particle level but incredibly powerful when you have massive objects like planets or stars!"
Is there any reason to believe that dark matter interacts with any of the other forces? Neutrinos barely interact with the weak nuclear force. Is it possible dark mater only interacts with the gravitational field?
It only interacts through gravity
Wait this is probably very dumb but hear me out anyway. So if gravity can bend space time and therefore being within certain gravitational pulls causes time dilation in the sense of time traveling quicker around you compared to others, what if antimatter could have an adverse gravitational effect that allows time to actually move backwards compared to your perspective like an inverse time dilation effect. Probably dumb but a cool idea I think
I believe how anti gravity is made at the fundamental level is this simple: every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
I love the antimatter M&M. They are the better part!
What's the definition of antimatter? For any pair of particle and antiparticle, how is definied which one is the "regular" one and which one is the "anti" particle, other than saying it's the more common one in nature? Is there any common property that's one way for an up quark, a down quark and an electron but another way for an anti up quark, anti down quark and positron? Something like the sign of the charge, but that can't be it, otherwise we would either group the positive particles or the negative particles as matter and the other ones as antimatter.
Imagine discovering a new particle and its anti particle, both not present in nature and only seen in the lab and both equally likely to be created in the experiment, by which criteria would you define which of the two is the anti one?
Spinning into matter as collections of frequencies and out spining from anti frequencies transpositioning as more space in out of matter. Stretching and gathering levels of antimatter from travelling in all possible directions with possible collections into collected matter. Endless possibilities:)
Anti matter as minus matter does not exist. If I make a pizza out of matter its a collective of ingredients and hence I have an object. If I make a pizza out of minus ingredents then I still don't have an object as I have a minus object. So it proberly be a hole where you can put matter into, not a minus matter that goes up.
The minus is about the charge of gravity. Not the physical state of matter.
This question is a basic one I have wondered when I heard about antimatter as a kid. If all of their properties are reversed compared to normal matter, we can picture antimatter as matter going back in time.
Which would explain the missing antimatter in the universe: The equal amount of antimatter at the big bang is not missing, it just went in the other direction of time, creating its own unisverse.
If we live in block universe, how is matter (all fundamental particles) guided through time? Is there a field that can do this?
Obviously, antimatter is anti-gravitational, but only in its own reversed timeline. To us, it looks like regular gravity.
How do we know that distant objects are made of matter instead of antimatter?
Because galaxies are surrounded by large clouds of hydrogen gas.
If they were antimatter clouds, the signature products of such interactions would be seen, namely, gamma ray photons with a precise energy.
@@scifirealism5943 could the gas clouds be antihydrogen?
Or e.g. do the clouds smoothly connect all galaxies with high enough density that we would see evidence of annihilations.
@alexzavoluk2271 no because the annihilation products produce unique gamma ray photons that have never been detected(511 KeV).
14:26 Wow this is an extremely intriguing phenomena but also an exciting breakthrough. If there is a change in gravitational acceleration with more number of anti-hydrogen atoms over time, the overall density of such particles might result in a different curvature of space from regular matter. Thanks Matt.
3 sigma though... Maybe it's just the experimental setup.
I really appreciate the sponsorship by 80k hours. Thank you for turning me on to that!