Pages

Monday, September 19, 2016

Antimatter Responds To Gravity Like Ordinary Matter

Experimental evidence from colliders establishes that the way that antimatter responds to gravity (at least in the case of anti-electrons, called positrons) is the same as the way ordinary matter does to a precision of 0.13%.  This contradicts the hypothesis that anti-matter has an opposite gravitational charge to ordinary matter.

6 comments:

  1. From the abstract:

    Here we establish an indirect bound of 0.13% on the difference between the gravitational and inertial masses of the positron (antielectron) from the analysis of synchrotron losses at the Large Electron-Positron collider (LEP).

    So what would be the difference between the gravitational and inertial masses of the positron if antimatter had an opposite gravitational charge to ordinary matter?

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks. Is 0.13% an expected number if antimatter responds to gravity in the same as the way ordinary matter does? Should not it be 0.00% instead?

    ReplyDelete
  4. The 0.13% figure is the maximum deviation consistent with the experimental margin of error. It would be equally correct to describe it as 0.00%-0.13% at a two sigma confidence interval. Given that there is inevitably statistical error and systemic error in any measurement it can't be 0.00% quoted in the way that it was. A best fit number was not quoted in the abstract and I haven't scoured the full paper enough to see if there is one, but it will definitely be closer to 0.00%.

    Honestly, as the first definitive experimental measure of this quantity is sets the precision bar far higher than I would have expected. It is sufficient to rule out the anti-matter is repulsive hypothesis at the 1,538 sigma level, which is easily sufficient to constitute a discovery by particle physics standards.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks for all the info, Andrew. That was exactly what I guessed because 0.13% is too low a figure that it is probably a statistical fluke.

    ReplyDelete