tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7315236707728759521.post7734128774018031212..comments2024-03-28T21:52:52.100-06:00Comments on Dispatches From Turtle Island: Antimatter Responds To Gravity Like Ordinary MatterAndrew Oh-Willekehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02537151821869153861noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7315236707728759521.post-53781086128532776632016-09-19T14:49:58.720-06:002016-09-19T14:49:58.720-06:00Thanks for all the info, Andrew. That was exactly ...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.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7315236707728759521.post-85839220694476300182016-09-19T14:42:59.112-06:002016-09-19T14:42:59.112-06:00The 0.13% figure is the maximum deviation consiste...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%.<br /><br />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.andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08172964121659914379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7315236707728759521.post-51609929824049139882016-09-19T12:43:43.584-06:002016-09-19T12:43:43.584-06:00Thanks. Is 0.13% an expected number if antimatter ...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?Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7315236707728759521.post-29172181970280714802016-09-19T12:43:04.535-06:002016-09-19T12:43:04.535-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7315236707728759521.post-85374521156043266042016-09-19T12:35:07.338-06:002016-09-19T12:35:07.338-06:00-200.00%.-200.00%.andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08172964121659914379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7315236707728759521.post-26348470412617227952016-09-19T12:12:51.528-06:002016-09-19T12:12:51.528-06:00From the abstract:
Here we establish an indirect ...From the abstract:<br /><br /><i>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).</i> <br /><br />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?Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.com