Thread: Could gravity be the result of antimatter.

In the beginning I believe matter and antimatter clashed. Matter won out and antimatter was vanquished, or was it. Perhaps the attractive force gravity is actually the result of antimatter particles inside atoms that are still attracted to matter as they once had been. When you get enough matter together is one place the antimatter wins out and forms a black hole. Just an idea in progress...

Perhaps a black hole is the vice versa of matter and is governed by antigravity. Maybe that is why the universe is expanding.

Mere speculation that sounds quite ridiculous. Even though I am no physics expert (you'll have to wait for one of the specialists), I see anti-matter as Feynman explained it: a normal particle going back in time. This might not be correct or current, but that's how I know antimatter. It is made out of atoms too, so it can't be inside atoms, and I'm pretty sure it is not attracted by some force to matter other than the normal forces.

I am thinking that the forces of matter and antimatter are twisted together somehow resulting in our universes attractions.

It's a good thing this discussion is in Pseudoscience, since no real science is involved in it.

Sheesh.

I mean I'd make a useful comment (as has been demanded so I don't get banned), but some things have not even enough scientific content to refute.

Originally Posted by 15uliane

Mere speculation that sounds quite ridiculous. Even though I am no physics expert (you'll have to wait for one of the specialists), I see anti-matter as Feynman explained it: a normal particle going back in time. This might not be correct or current, but that's how I know antimatter. It is made out of atoms too, so it can't be inside atoms, and I'm pretty sure it is not attracted by some force to matter other than the normal forces.

Antimatter particles are sub atomic particles.
And as for the rest.

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

I mean I'd make a useful comment (as has been demanded so I don't get banned), but some things have not even enough scientific content to refute.

Did someone threaten to ban you? News to me...

OP, the problem with your hypothesis is that it sort of isn't one. In short, you're not being specific enough. Throwing in the word 'somehow' really ices the cake.

A hypothesis must make at least one solid- and above all testable- prediction about the world. It must imply that if we look at thing X at time Y we'll see some unique phenomenon Z that sets that hypothesis apart from our current assumptions. Does that make sense?

What testable implications does your idea have? Try not to use the words 'maybe' or 'somehow'.

Originally Posted by GiantEvil

15uliane wrote:
Mere speculation that sounds quite ridiculous. Even though I am no physics expert (you'll have to wait for one of the specialists), I see anti-matter as Feynman explained it: a normal particle going back in time. This might not be correct or current, but that's how I know antimatter. It is made out of atoms too, so it can't be inside atoms, and I'm pretty sure it is not attracted by some force to matter other than the normal forces.

Antimatter particles are sub atomic particles.

I thought that antimatter could form atoms? Am I wrong?

Originally Posted by 15uliane

Originally Posted by GiantEvil

15uliane wrote:
Mere speculation that sounds quite ridiculous. Even though I am no physics expert (you'll have to wait for one of the specialists), I see anti-matter as Feynman explained it: a normal particle going back in time. This might not be correct or current, but that's how I know antimatter. It is made out of atoms too, so it can't be inside atoms, and I'm pretty sure it is not attracted by some force to matter other than the normal forces.

Antimatter particles are sub atomic particles.

I thought that antimatter could form atoms? Am I wrong?

Well, the head bangy guy was for mmatt9876.
Antimatter particles can form atoms; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antihydrogen.
The sentence you posted is a little, ambiguous.

Originally Posted by 15uliene

It is made out of atoms too, so it can't be inside atoms,

sorry, what I meant is that anti-matter, since I assumed it would be anti-atoms, could not be inside anther atom. They are "equals" (in that scenario) in size.

Sometimes I just don't make sense though, so forgive me when it happens.