Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

What Exactly is Antimatter (Gravitationally Speaking)?

Published 19 Jan 2024 in physics.gen-ph | (2401.10954v2)

Abstract: There has been renewed interest in the idea of antigravity -- that matter and antimatter repel gravitationally - in lieu of the recent beautiful ALPHA-g result for the free-fall acceleration of antihydrogen of $a_{\bar{H}}=(0.75\pm 0.13~({\rm stat.+syst.})\pm 0.16~({\rm simulation}))g$. Precision tests of the Weak Equivalence Principle (WEP) have shown that binding energy (atomic, nuclear, and nucleonic) acts like matter under gravity. Whereas the contribution of atomic binding energy to the mass of antihydrogen is negligible, the majority of the mass of the antiproton comes from the gluonic binding energy. Hence, in terms of antigravity, the antiproton is mostly composed of matter and so even if the antimatter content of the antiproton is repelled by the Earth, there would still be a net attraction of the antihydrogen to the Earth because of its dominant matter content. Using recent Lattice QCD results showing that around two-thirds of the mass of the proton (and, hence, from the $CPT$ Invariance of QCD, of the antiproton) is due to gluons, I find that in the antigravity scenario the free-fall acceleration of antihydrogen would be $a_{\bar{H}}=(0.33{+0.23}_{-0.11})g$. The fact that antinucleons are more matter than antimatter (in the gravitational sense) leads to quite different cosmological consequences than the naive antigravity scenario (where antistars are wholly antimatter). For example, it follows naturally that there is a matter-antimatter asymmetry in the universe right from the instant of the Big Bang -- but not a baryon-antibaryon asymmetry. Again, this stems simply from the fact that antibaryons are more matter than antimatter.

Authors (1)
Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (7)
  1. C.M. Will, Living Reviews in Relativity 17 (2014) https://link.springer.com/article/10.12942/lrr-2014-4
  2. T A Wagner, S. Schlamminger, J.H. Gundlach and E G Adelberger, “Torsion-balance tests of the weak equivalence principle”, Classical and Quantum Gravity 29 184002 (2012) https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/29/18/184002 [https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.2442]
  3. M. Villata, “CPT symmetry and antimatter gravity in general relativity”, Europhysics Lett. 94 20001 (2011) https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1209/0295-5075/94/20001 [https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.4937]
  4. D.J. Cross, ”Response to CPT symmetry and antimatter gravity in general relativity” (2011) https://arxiv.org/abs/1108.5117
  5. M. Villata, ”Reply to Comment to paper of M. Villata on antigravity” (2011) https://arxiv.org/abs/1109.1201
  6. M. Charlton, S. Eriksson and G.M. Shore, “Testing Fundamental Physics in Antihydrogen Experiments”, https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.09348 (2020)
  7. Mark Fischler, Joe Lykken, and Tom Roberts, “Direct Observation Limits on Antimatter Gravitation”, https://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3929 (2008)
Citations (2)

Summary

No one has generated a summary of this paper yet.

Paper to Video (Beta)

No one has generated a video about this paper yet.

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Tweets

Sign up for free to view the 3 tweets with 0 likes about this paper.