Antimatter responds to gravity like Einstein predicted, major CERN experiment confirms
These findings conclusively prove, for the first time, that antigravity does not exist.
On Wednesday (Sept. 27) morning, an international team of physicists reported a major finding about an elusive form of matter known as antimatter. It appears that antimatter responds to gravity the same way regular matter does.
This result marks the first-ever direct observation of free-falling antimatter, in which atoms are made of antiprotons instead of protons and antielectrons (positrons) instead of electrons. Antiprotons are basically negatively charged protons (protons are positive in normal matter atoms) and positrons are positively charged electrons (electrons are negative in normal matter atoms). Yeah, it's weird.
More specifically to the recent story, the team's feat ultimately proved that atomic antihydrogen in particular — made up of one antiproton in the center with a positively charged positron orbiting around it — is pulled downward due to gravity instead of upward like you might expect with a form of matter that presents as the "opposite" of normal matter, which, as we know, falls downward with gravity as well.
Furthermore, close to three decades after antihydrogen was first created in a lab, today's scientific triumph is yet another confirmation of Einstein's general theory of relativity, which predicts that all masses, irrespective of differences in their internal structures, react to gravity in a similar manner.
"If you walk down the halls of this department and ask the physicists, they would all say that this result is not the least bit surprising. That's the reality," Jonathan Wurtele, a physics professor at the University of California at Berkeley who first proposed the experiment over a decade ago and a co-author of the new study, said in a statement. "But most of them will also say that the experiment had to be done because you never can be sure."
Related: Large Hadron Collider may be closing in on the universe's missing antimatter
Capturing the miniscule
Wurtele and his team created, trapped and studied antihydrogen particles at The European Center for Nuclear Research (better known by its French acronym, CERN). The particles were trapped within what was essentially a magnetic bottle, both ends of which contained controllable magnetic fields. To witness the effects of gravity, which is the weakest of the four known forces, on the antihydrogen particles, researchers reduced the magnetic field strength at each end to let the particles escape.
Get the Space.com Newsletter
Breaking space news, the latest updates on rocket launches, skywatching events and more!
When each particle wandered to the top or bottom of the magnetic bottle, it zapped in a flash. Researchers then counted those flashes and found a higher number wandered to the bottom of the bottle compared to the top. A staggering 80% of them behaved in such a way, in fact, and this result held true for a dozen repeats of the experiment. According to the new study, that conclusively demonstrated that gravity causes the antihydrogen to fall downward.
"This gives us a powerful experimental knob that allows us, basically, to believe the experiment actually worked because we can prove to ourselves that we can control the experiment in a predictable manner," Joel Fajans, a physics professor at UC Berkeley and a co-author of the new study, said in the statement.
The team also found that the gravitational acceleration of antihydrogen was close to that of normal matter, which is 9.8 meters (32 feet) per second squared. That result is expected to hold true for other antimatter particles too, researchers say.
"It would be doubly surprising if this was not true (first, that something fell up, and second that there was a difference with antihydrogen)," Fajans told Space.com in an email.
However, though the latest findings rule out theories that posit antimatter is repelled by gravity, only more precise measurements will tell if there is any difference in the gravitational force on antimatter compared to matter.
Nonetheless, by achieving the first direct observation of gravitational effects on antihydrogen, researchers mark the beginning of detailed and direct pursuit of the gravitational nature of antimatter, which remains puzzlingly scarce in the universe.
If matter and antimatter act so similarly, where's the universe's missing antimatter?
That is still an open question.
During the Big Bang, the universe is believed to have been rich with pairs of matter and antimatter particles, with the latter considered matter's mirror as its particles sport the same mass except for an opposite electrical charge. If matter and antimatter particles come into contact, they wipe out each other in a violent flash that leaves behind pure energy, so matter and antimatter particles are always created and destroyed in pairs.
In theory, that means the universe should feature nothing but leftover energy, at least according to the Standard Model of particle physics that outlines our current best understanding of how fundamental particles behave under those four aforementioned forces. But, that symmetry was broken down sometime during the evolution of the universe such that we clearly see matter dominating the observable universe. This is simply beyond what the Standard Model can explain. Thus, the processes that tipped the scales such that so little antimatter was left behind remain yet unknown.
"Unfortunately since our answers are consistent with general relativity, they do not shine any light on the scarcity of antimatter," Fajans told Space.com in an email. Fajans added that he anticipates the precision of the current experiment can be improved by a factor of 100 in the future. "This may lead to something new but of course we have no idea yet if that is to be the case. Most would say it is unlikely, but still worth pursuing."
The findings were published by the Antihydrogen Laser Physics Apparatus (ALPHA) collaboration at CERN on Wednesday (Sept. 27) in the journal Nature.
Join our Space Forums to keep talking space on the latest missions, night sky and more! And if you have a news tip, correction or comment, let us know at: community@space.com.
Sharmila Kuthunur is a Seattle-based science journalist covering astronomy, astrophysics and space exploration. Follow her on X @skuthunur.
-
rod "If matter and antimatter act so similarly, where's the universe's missing antimatter?Reply
That is still an open question. During the Big Bang, the universe is believed to have been rich with pairs of matter and antimatter particles, with the latter considered matter's mirror as its particles sport the same mass except for an opposite electrical charge. If matter and antimatter particles come into contact, they wipe out each other in a violent flash that leaves behind pure energy, so matter and antimatter particles are always created and destroyed in pairs."
My note. Good question by space.com. Matter and antimatter obeying gravity the same in the BB model, the universe should be energy, we are not here today using that beginning :) -
Questioner This is my problem with 'dark matter',Reply
namely its inconsistent response to gravity.
Inside a galaxy it's invariably 'immune' to gravity while it does follow external galactic gravity.
To be gravity immune it would have to be glued,
inertia free,
absolutely unmoving,
, to a location in space-time.
Really?
Not buying it at all. -
Questioner
In a disk galaxy the inner stars orbit too slowly and the outer stars orbit too fast per expected gravity.billslugg said:What do you mean by " 'immune' to gravity" "?
And since we largely don't see stars & planets piling up in gravity 'gutters' from clumps of DM it must be relatively uniformly distributed ('flat') throughout.
So it's in 'faucet washer' shape.
Pulling inner stars out and outer stars in.
On the outside edge of the DM that DM has all this DM on one side and almost nothing on the other side,
Yet over the billions of years of the lifetime of a galaxy it doesn't migrate inward. It's immune to gravity to its own gravity.
Elsewhere in the formation it doesn't pile up around stars and planets so it's immune to gravity there.
Only when a galaxy orbits another galaxy does it follow that curvature of gravity. -
billslugg Dark matter does not need to be distributed in a "faucet washer" shape in order to explain why the outer stars in galaxies orbit so fast. DM is evenly distributed throughout the galaxy. It could be in disc shape or spherical, depending on the shape of the galaxy.Reply
Here is how differential rotation occurs:
1) At one extreme we have a galaxy in which all mass is entirely at a point in the center. In this case, the classical orbit equations work perfectly. Anything close to the center orbits at a high speed. Anything far away goes much slower.
2) At the other extreme we have all of the mass of the galaxy as a disc shaped or spherical, homogenous cloud with no concentrations of mass anywhere. This cloud will not experience differential rotation, it will rotate as a solid would, same angular speed everywhere. A solid disc or sphere. You could well say "It is immune to gravity".
Here is the problem. Most of the universe's galaxies fall somewhere in between and when we go looking for the mass in that cloud, we can't find it. -
Helio I think studies have shown that there is a central bulge in DM models, but this was from years ago that I recall this.Reply
Keep in mind that Zwicky was the first to discover DM because of the extra speed found in galaxy clusters. It probably was Vera Rubin's work with Andromeda that made DM mainstream. Gravity lensing effects, per Einstein, are additional arguments for DM, though MOND is still around to be a weaker alternative theory. -
Questioner
Thanks you,billslugg said:Dark matter does not need to be distributed in a "faucet washer" shape in order to explain why the outer stars in galaxies orbit so fast. DM is evenly distributed throughout the galaxy. It could be in disc shape or spherical, depending on the shape of the galaxy.
Here is how differential rotation occurs:
1) At one extreme we have a galaxy in which all mass is entirely at a point in the center. In this case, the classical orbit equations work perfectly. Anything close to the center orbits at a high speed. Anything far away goes much slower.
2) At the other extreme we have all of the mass of the galaxy as a disc shaped or spherical, homogenous cloud with no concentrations of mass anywhere. This cloud will not experience differential rotation, it will rotate as a solid would, same angular speed everywhere. A solid disc or sphere. You could well say "It is immune to gravity".
Here is the problem. Most of the universe's galaxies fall somewhere in between and when we go looking for the mass in that cloud, we can't find it.
You are causing me to sharpen my thinking.
Excellent brain exercise.
The galaxy is probably more of a web work so i probably need to back off over emphasizing the 'faucet washer',
DM at a minimum must be a disk shape.
A sphere would have stars wandering out of the elliptic plane.
Remember DM is supposed to be 4 times the mass of baryonic matter.
For any/all orbits to be sustained there must be a circular gravity differential ('slope').
This must be concentrically consistent.
It could be some bare minimum.
If a galaxy's web work of gravity is the barest minimum the first passing galaxy would peel off many of the outer stars.
The Roche limit.
Just a thought.
According to reports the outer stars are orbiting too fast.
So there would need to be a sharper differential ring, 'slope' of gravity to sustain that.
That forces some source of gravity to be inside the orbits of the outer stars.
Bring on 'dark matter'.
Dark matter's outer edge has DM and its gravity on the inside and nothing much on the outside,
yet it doesn't migrate inward over a galaxy's lifetime.
So it's immune to gravity there.
Elsewhere in the disk of DM it doesn't pile up around stars and planets and amplify their gravity.
So it's immune to gravity there.
It doesn't seem to be cascading into the central black hole so gravity immunity once again.
DM does exactly one thing.
It produces gravity.
So what is the distinction between DM and simply saying gravity?
Nothing...
but neurotic reflex. -
billslugg HelioReply
Yes, there must be some level of bulge in DM. Stars near the edge of the galaxy go faster than visible matter would support but they are not going as fast as they would in a homogeneous model. All galaxies are somewhere in between.
I did read recently they found a galaxy with no need for DM, the velocities at the edge were slow enough.
Questioner
You are correct in that when doing rotation analysis, it cannot be a sphere. If it is rotating it will be a disc. In non-rotating clusters we can look for gravitational lensing to point us to excess gravity.
Yes, we must only consider isolated galaxies.
We recently found a galaxy that has no DM in the disc. It may have all fallen to the center. We just don't know. We can't see it, only some extra gravity.
We don't know that DM is not piling up somewhere. In some images derived from lensing studies, the DM is here and there in huge clumps.
There is no distinction between "DM" and "Extra Gravity". Both referring to the same puzzing observations. Maybe it turns out to be something other than matter, like pure energy. When we find out maybe we'll change the name. -
Ian
Why would you get 'clumps' of dark matter? Normal matter tends to clump because of the electromagnetic forces that dominate their interactions. In the absence of these it is very difficult for particles of any material to shed momentum even if they are drawn to each other by gravity. Instead they would just tend to orbit the centre of mass of a cluster of 'normal' matter, forming a fairly featureless cloud.Questioner said:In a disk galaxy the inner stars orbit too slowly and the outer stars orbit too fast per expected gravity.
And since we largely don't see stars & planets piling up in gravity 'gutters' from clumps of DM it must be relatively uniformly distributed ('flat') throughout.
So it's in 'faucet washer' shape.
Pulling inner stars out and outer stars in.
On the outside edge of the DM that DM has all this DM on one side and almost nothing on the other side,
Yet over the billions of years of the lifetime of a galaxy it doesn't migrate inward. It's immune to gravity to its own gravity.
Elsewhere in the formation it doesn't pile up around stars and planets so it's immune to gravity there.
Only when a galaxy orbits another galaxy does it follow that curvature of gravity. -
Atlan0001 Read the lead for an article that says because antimatter falls in gravity, antigravity doesn't exist! What stupidity it is to tie one to the other!Reply