If Matter -> Gravity, then Antimatter - Antigravity ?

Question

This question was put up in a hurry, therefore it's extremely brief.
P.S.: I know the photon's antiparticle is actually the photon itself, but what about the graviton's antiparticle (presuming the graviton exists although it hasn't been discovered yet) ?

I see some people lack imagination :). Well, i meant if mass causes gravity then what does antiparticle generate ?
I'm sorry if my "coded" language wasn't understood by some people.

Answer 1

Antimatter is matter with an opposite charge, anti protons are negatively charged and positrons (or *anti electrons*, if you prefer) are positively charged!

Matter AND antimatter has mass, if it has mass it disrupts the space time continuum, therefore has a gravitational pull proportional to its mass.


EDIT:
As far as anti gravity is concerned, I don't think there is actual proof it exists, for now. Gravitons and other virtual particles might affect our universe, but might not be part of it, in the sense that it would belong to another universe with an additional dimension!

IE: If we lived in a flat universe we would be able to move in plane geometrical directions, we could go around in circles or different lines, take a left a right whatever. The number pie could apply to measure a circle but not a sphere then again, a circle would only be a direction, leading back to where you started, so would be a straight line in that plane universe, because we would live on the surface and would not know that up and down is, we would be amazed when going far enough in a straight line and ending up right where we had left!
If the shape of that spherical universe was stretched or squeezed by a physical force belonging to our universes (which contain spheres and can apply formula to measure a solid 3d object), the surface (which constitutes the spatial temporal flat universe) would be affected, stretching would be interpreted as expansion and maybe anti gravity.
Perhaps, maybe, there might be a chance that gravitons and some virtual particles pertain to a universe with an additional spatial direction, that is beyond our reach, we do not have the variables to measure it!

Answer 2

You actually have brought up one of the main arguments against the existence of Gravitons.This may lead us to embrace Einstein's gravitational concepts over those of String Theory and perhaps even point out some of the flaws in quantum mechanics. Einstein was oft quoted as being against quantum's views on a few issues, and said that "God does not play dice with the universe". This was not a theological concept, rather a theoretical one. Einstein let it go however, perhaps not without cause.

So if there are no Gravitons then there will be no possible anti-gravitons. I know that you added the presumption that Gravitons exists, but I am not of the opinion that such a particle exists and hence can not pretend that it will. This is not to say that there will never be a gravitational effect that will behave as though it were a form of Antigravity. But I feel that effect will be the result of using a Gravitational effect that so distorts space-time itself that gravity will have an inverse effect imposed upon itself, and for all intents and purposes it will appear as Antigravity, but in truth will still be a form of gravity effect, considering that gravity will actually be defined as Einstein suggested; an effect of warped space-time.

Answer 3

Even with the addition clarification, the answer is still the same. The antiparticle will have the same mass and therefor the same gravitational attraction. It could well be that the graviton's antiparticle is also the graviton.

Answer 4

According to Newton gravity between two objects is the product of their masses and the square of the distance between them so even with antiparticles their mass is the same and therefore the gravitional effect should be the same but perhaps the antiparticles can somehow change the maginitude of the effect

Answer 5

Stress energy is the source of gravity (general relativity). It is obvious that the source of gravity cannot simply be mass, because the measure of mass depends on observer (you will measure a different value for the mass of an object moving with respect to you than its rest mass).

In fact, antiparticles have the same mass as their particle counterparts, and exhibit an energy contribution to stress energy in the same way.

Answer 6

Matter is not gravity. So antimatter is not anti-gravity.

Matter (mass) causes gravity according to classic Newtonian physics. Being gravity and causing gravity are quite different characteristics.

The anti-world is a by-product of something called symmetry or super-symmetry. In non math terms, this simply means that for every thing there is an anti-thing...at the subatomic level.

Although some anti particles have been observered (very briefly) in laboratory conditions, I don't know of any that have been observed in natural conditions not requiring external, laboratory forces to create them. So, to my way of thinking (and some others), these observed anti particles are man-made and not a part of nature.

The whole concept of symmetry is appealing because it makes solving some of the equations in physics much easier (e.g., doable as opposed to undoable). For example, when trying to find the volume of a sphere, its way easier to use spherical coordinates rather than Cartesian coordinates to find that volume. Symmetry is something like that...picking the right "coordinates" by solving an anti particle equation rather than the particle equation.

My personal opinion, nature takes the easy way out...a parsimonious approach to creation. Nature would not invent an anti particle when only particles are needed to create the universe.

Answer 7

You get a famous guy or woman. this could be a attractive question, in spite of the indisputable fact that that's impossible to effectively answer, yet. curiously count and antimatter colliding do create gamma radiation. that's adequate to make one contemplate whether radiation additionally has gravity, between different issues. This following excerpt might shed a splash easy: Expressed much less technically with the help of Sir Arthur Eddington, this suggests: “If the solar attracts Jupiter in direction of its present day place S, and Jupiter attracts the solar in direction of its present day place J, the two forces are interior an identical line and stability. yet while the solar attracts Jupiter in direction of its previous place S’, and Jupiter attracts the solar in direction of its previous place J’, while the stress of charm began to flow the gulf, then the two forces provide a pair. This couple might tend to boost the angular momentum of the gadget, and, appearing cumulatively, will quickly reason an substantial exchange of era, disagreeing with observations if the value is in any respect comparable with that of sunshine.”