Notices
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Could gravity be the result of antimatter.

  1. #1 Could gravity be the result of antimatter. 
    Forum Professor mmatt9876's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    1,105
    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...


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor mmatt9876's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    1,105
    Perhaps a black hole is the vice versa of matter and is governed by antigravity. Maybe that is why the universe is expanding.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Bachelors Degree 15uliane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    depends...
    Posts
    425
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Professor mmatt9876's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    1,105
    I am thinking that the forces of matter and antimatter are twisted together somehow resulting in our universes attractions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,279
    Quote 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.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote 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'.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Bachelors Degree 15uliane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    depends...
    Posts
    425
    Quote 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?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,279
    Quote Originally Posted by 15uliane
    Quote 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.
    Quote Originally Posted by 15uliene
    It is made out of atoms too, so it can't be inside atoms,
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Bachelors Degree 15uliane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    depends...
    Posts
    425
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •