This question has bugged me since I awoke,
and the curiosity is getting my goat.
If it had a protective coat,
if I threw it in the moat,
would antimatter sink or float?
Should it be shaped like a boat?
Do you have a reference to quote?
Any scientist, or source of note?
Please can you show me what he wrote!
(Or can you quote the answer by rote?)
This is too important to settle by vote!
Does antimatter sink or float?
(Your answer doesn’t need to rhyme.
Prose or poetry, both are fine)
It depends. If its matter correspondent would have floated in water, antimatter would float in antiwater. But not in water; it would just go boom.
I think anti-matter is just a sham to make the equations work out in some lab.
Like in math class where you solve some equation and get two answers, one real and one imaginary. Some clown always insists “well it could be the answer in a Bizarro world”.
No. Only the real answer is real. The imaginary number is just a side effect of the way we do math, which is supposed to resemble the real world, but doesn’t quite.
It depends on how many rocks you put in his pockets.
No wait…we’re talking about antimatter, not antipro.
Never mind…
Um, 1 2 3 4 me, antimatter is certainly real. CERN (I believe) is busy pumping out several atoms of anti-hydrogen a day.
It’s not just stuff to make the equations work out, it’s stuff we’ve actually found and measured.
What about antitachyons?
I gotta admit, when I try to understand quantum physics, sometimes I wonder if the physicists are just winging it. Then I think no one could make all this up and present it with a straight face so it must be true. Then I go back to killing cats.
My guess?
Anti-matter has anti-gravity, repels normal matter, anti-gravity, if you will. The reason anti-matter and matter annihilate into energy is not that they attract when proximate, but when they are forced to be proximate!
If the energy consumed in forcing them into proximity, CERN wise, exceeds the energy they contain, then that energy is released. Which is why there is no or little anti-matter in the “normal” universe - its all been replelled out.
The problem with collider type physics is that they are utterly unnatural. The anti-matter created is unnatural,and has no bearing on the universe as we know it.
If anti-matter had anti-gravity containment would be much easier.
Anti-matter has the same properties as ordinary matter, but opposite electrical charge.
Perhaps you’re thinking of negative matter? That one’s so far only theoretical (although I believe we’ve created negative energy in small amounts?)
Here’s a FAQ on anti-matter.
http://physics.bu.edu/ATLAS/guide/anti-matter.html
Nay, negative energy density is still theoretical too. It’s required for most schemes to travel faster than lightspeed, so it would be very useful.
There’s a theory that may be able to produce it using the Cashimir (correct if required) effect involving very large plates placed very close together so that the space between them has a lower energy density than vacuum. It would effectively mean infinite power.
They haven’t found ordinary tachyons yet!
Quote :
answer …
YES !
Remember, Kids, we’re here to fight ignorance. I know this is MPSIMS, but do you have to make stuff up off the top of your head like this?
Quoth Kyberneticist:
Not quite. Antimatter has everything reversed, except mass. If it were just charge that were reversed, then neutral particles like neutrons would be identical to their antiparticles, but spin, baryon number, lepton number, strangeness, color (in the QCD meaning of the term), and anything else other than mass are also reversed. That said, if you could somehow immerse antimatter in normal matter without annihiliation, it would behave exactly like the corresponding normal matter with respect to buoyancy and gravity. Likewise, as matt_mcl mentions, antimatter immersed in other antimatter will behave exactly like the corresponding situation in our world.