How does gravity affect antimatter?

Antimatter has positive mass, but opposite charge (both electromagnetic and color [for quarks])

>>9096867
we're not sure yet, it hasn't been tested experimentally, though I don't know why since it seems like it would be easy to test. Couldn't you just record the momentum of electrons and positrons coming into the planet near the equator and see if positrons particles have a lower average momentum?

>>9096868
Ok, why do positrons not get sucked into black holes just as much as their opposites

>>9096878
Electrons*, not positrons

>>9096873
>though I don't know why
because gravity is such a feeble force that we would have to accumulate a significant amount of antimatter mass before you could make any such observation. we have no method yet to produce that much antimatter and keep it trapped away from matter so it doesn't cross annihilate. I'm mean, the LHC can only produce 1 ng of positrons a year.

bumpitybump for sexy topic

>>9096867
The same since they have the same amount of mass as their ordinary counterpart?

>>9096885
No, I understand that, but do we really need that much to test it?

I mean, there are tons of electrons and positrons flying around in space, right? It's huge and there's not a lot of stuff to annihilate with in the way. Since gravity is just the contraction of space, wouldn't positrons traveling over long distances have a cosmological blueshift if they were repelled by gravity?

>>9096867
It is actually because matter and antimatter are spontaneously created in pairs, and tend to annihilate immediatly creating net energy of zero. This happens everywhere, including in the gravity field of a black hole. There is exists a certain area in the gravity field which the force is too great for any particle at any speed to overcome, and it gets sucked in (schwartzchild radius). If a pair is created at the very edge this area (event horizon), one particle may be sucked into the black hole, the other may fly off into space freely. Both matter and antimatter have the same mass, and either of which may be sucked in or fly off freely. The importance is the location which they are created.

>>9096914
What force drives new anti pairs of particles back into eachother? Electromagnetic force? Gravity? Purely random collision?

>>9096867
It looks like you have a couple of misunderstanding about how this all works.

First off, we dont know how gravity effects it, it has positive mass, but we dont have a quantum theory of gravity and classically antimatter doesn't exist, so we cant just say positive mass = gravitational attraction. Ive seen theories where antimatter repeals matter, but I dont think its accepted and heard it has some problems. the biggest isue I have (while not having gone through the actual math to be honest) is that photons and other particles which are their own antiparticles would have to be treated either as a special case, or not be effected by gravity at all, and we know photons are attracted by mass ass well as other photons. So most likely antimatter will behave just like normal matter in gravity.

I can understand why you think it has negative mass because most descriptions of hawking radiation simplify shit so much that it sound like it does. In the process a particle antiparticle pair is produced at the horizon, one falls into the black hole and one goes off into space, the change of the electron or positron being the one falling in is 50/50 (unless its a charged black hole, then the opposite charge will obviously be pulled in more). Usualy HR is explained with something like the positron has negative mass, thus when it falls into the black hole it reduces the mass and the electron with positive mass travels away, but in this situation, the electron OR the positron can have negative energy, and its the energy that matters. But what about E = mc^2? doesnt that mean the mass is negative? No, these are virtual particle pairs, which means they are not on shell, which means that they dont satisfy the equation E = mc^2, the energy can be negative while the mass is still positive, as long as the pair together satisfies E = mc^2. and since they appeared from nothing we must also have E = 0, so one has positive energy and one negative nergy.

>>9096989
The 2 particles are actually entangled, so we cant say one has positive energy and one negative, just that together thet have energy 0, when one falls into the black hole the entanglement gets brocken, and since a single particle must always have positive energy it forces the one in the black hole to have negative energy, dso the escaping particle alwasy has positive energy, thus reducing ther mass of the black hole since energy thing is now on shell and E = mc^2 now applies (this is a slight simplification, but I hope better than most pop sci explanations.)

>>9096992
It certainly feels more accurate. Whats "on shell"?

>>9096994
On shell refers to "real" particles, whereas off shell "virtual" particles can be thought of as popping in and out of existence everywhere in space. You might imagine that virtual particles are a manifestation of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

>>9096994
>>9096994
Solutions of the equation E^2 = m^2 + p^2 fall on a hyperbolic surface when plotted, nicknamed the 'shell'. If the particle satisfies the equation it thus lies on the shell, and is called 'on shell', when it does not (virtual particles) it is 'off shell'.

>>9096867
grabity?
the same.

but supposedly animater moves backwards in time...

>>9097248
gravity, this fucking phone, I need to install the English dictionary...

>>9096878
They don't.

Where did you read this?