Anti-Gravity

[noz92]

Many science fiction writers like the idea of anti-gravity. I was wondering how this would be possible. I know it is, because white holes have it.

 

Scince mass bends space-time inwards, then apperently negative mass would bend space-time outwards. How could this be done?

[5614]

whilst i do not wish to convert this into a thread about white holes i have read that they are purely matematical and have never been physically prooved and some people say are "mathematically there, physically not, they are very advance concept" which i dont get! i mean i get the basics what they are etc. but no physical proof of em yet, so basing a thread on them is not a great idea.

 

at the same time anti-gravity seems quite easy, all you have to do it apply a force to counteract that of gravitys, however in movies this is a little red beam or energiser thing, in the real world it is done by planes, helicopters and people on pogo sticks.

 

when someone says i want to create an 'anti-gravity' machine what do they mean? we have planes & helicopters etc, i mean im not trying to be difficult, but what do they want?

[ydoaPs]

[sarcasm]duh, anti-gravitons. i can't believe you didn't know that.[/sarcasm]

 

but seriously. even sitting in a chair is antigravity. gravity is the weakest force.

[noz92]

whilst i do not wish to convert this into a thread about white holes i have read that they are purely matematical and have never been physically prooved and some people say are "mathematically there' date=' physically not, they are very advance concept" which i dont get! i mean i get the basics what they are etc. but no physical proof of em yet, so basing a thread on them is not a great idea.

 

at the same time anti-gravity seems quite easy, all you have to do it apply a force to counteract that of gravitys, however in movies this is a little red beam or energiser thing, in the real world it is done by planes, helicopters and people on pogo sticks.

 

when someone says i want to create an 'anti-gravity' machine what do they mean? we have planes & helicopters etc, i mean im not trying to be difficult, but what do they want?[/quote']

But wouldn't that be areodynamics? You're still being pulled down. I mean something that would completely cancel out the effects of gravity.

[5614]

oh yeah, i forgot that:

 

"something which cancels* the effect of gravity"

 

*cancel NOT counteracts

 

i'd say that was impossible.

[ydoaPs]

you're always being pulled "down". doesn't going up count as ant-gravity?(5614, thanks for the pogo comment.) if not, what do you mean by ant-gravity?

[The Rebel]

Many science fiction writers like the idea of anti-gravity. I was wondering how this would be possible. I know it is' date=' because white holes have it.

 

Scince mass bends space-time inwards, then apperently negative mass would bend space-time outwards. How could this be done?[/quote']

 

Are we talking about the ability to counteract gravity, or the ability to act like a white hole and repel mass.

[5614]

we are talking about the ability to cancel the effects of gravity.

 

CANCEL... not counteract

[1veedo]

I would think antimatter would have antigravity...maybe. Hey, if there were antimatter clumps out there, it would stay away from our galaxy! Great way to find out if there are clumps of it as well. That would be pretty neat.

[[Tycho?]]

Anti-matter has mass just like any other particle, not anti-mass.

 

I'm pretty sure there is no theoretical basis for anti-gravity, although maybe some form of exotic matter would be able to.

[noz92]

oh yeah' date=' i forgot that:

 

"something which [b']cancels[/b]* the effect of gravity"

 

*cancel NOT counteracts

 

i'd say that was impossible.

That's what I ment.

 

Is it possible that there's more anti-gravity in the universe then gravity. A kind of light matter (opposite of dark matter). Eventually dark matter would out number the light matter and cause the universe to recolapse. This would explain why the universe is expanding.

[Natski]

Dark energy, which also goes under many different names in various fields (such as quantum fluctuations, the cosmic force), is the name given to the force that is causing the universe to accelerate. No understanding of this force really exists, just a series of theories currently untested, and mostly untestable.

 

However, this force could be described as an anti-gravity force since it exists where mass does not. Infact, this zero-point energy is stronger the greater the vacuum, so I have read. The reports on this swing in and out so the real thruth is yet to be unveiled, but it does seem to at least *counter-act* gravity is regions where there is no mass. In other words, it creates a force of the opposite sign in areas of the opposite conditions. Surely that description could put it as a candidate for anti-gravity?

 

Does any force we know of truly cancel another? Surely they all just counteract one another until the net force is zero?

 

Natski

[ydoaPs]

ok, antigravity...immense amounts of negative pressure.

[swansont]

Dark energy, which also goes under many different names in various fields (such as quantum fluctuations, the cosmic force), is the name given to the force that is causing the universe to accelerate.

 

Do you have any credible sources that equate dark energy with quantum fluctuations?

[Natski]

Do you have any credible sources that equate dark energy with quantum fluctuations?

 

Hmm, I think some or all of dark energy may be due to quantum fluctuations, which is consistent with my argument.

 

http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/8/6/17

http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0406504

 

I think the problem is that most of the energy produced by quantum fluctuations must not be contributing to the dark energy because quantum fluctuations would produce 10^120 times more dark energy than observed; but it still would certainly seem a strong candidate to be the source of it. Thoughts?

 

Natski

[swansont]

Hmm' date=' I think some or all of dark energy may be due to quantum fluctuations, which is consistent with my argument.

 

http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/8/6/17

http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0406504

 

I think the problem is that most of the energy produced by quantum fluctuations must not be contributing to the dark energy because quantum fluctuations would produce 10^120 times more dark energy than observed; but it still would certainly seem a strong candidate to be the source of it. Thoughts?

 

Natski[/quote']

 

The article and paper are investigations into whether vacuum fluctuations contributes to dark energy, not that they have concluded that they are synonymous.

[Jordan14]

Thank you Natski for the good links, but once again we are left in Phyysics that something that is hard to prove. Do you Quantum Fluctuation Contribute to Dark Energy? I myself don't see why not and as the article says all the values add up so I don't understand why people find this such a hard concept to understand, have a look at physics and you'll find things MUCH more bizarre - so I think I can say it is acceptable. But true well that's another matter.

[Guest Caesar Rahil]

White holes are said to be existing mathematically. But no proof of such thing in real. If there would exist white holes, then there are chances of wormholes also.

Anti-Gravity should be possible. It will help a lot. Imagine coming out of a black hole after being only a mile from its singularity.

[YT2095]

just a guess here, but wouldn`t a "White hole" show up on our "radar" a little more evidently than a black hole does?

 

something as energetic in output as a "White hole" would be, surely would be far more easy to detect?

[maverick88]

just a guess here' date=' but wouldn`t a "White hole" show up on our "radar" a little more evidently than a black hole does?

 

something as energetic in output as a "White hole" would be, surely would be far more easy to detect?[/quote']

 

I agree with YT and white hole are really somwthing completely theoretical that probably doesn't exist or at least human beings aren't able to detect it.

[noz92]

How would we detect a white hole?

[ydoaPs]

we would look at the massive amounts of matter coming out of nowhere.

[[Tycho?]]

I've never heard of a white hole being reffered to as something that may actually exist. How in the world would something like this work, wouldn't it be required to produce matter/energy? Someone enlighten me, wikipedias article on it says basically nothing.

[noz92]

Instead of sucking in matter, they push it out. I think that it would get it's matter and energy from the black hole that connects to it as a wormhole. I'll do some research on it.

[noz92]

The Swartzschild metric:

 

[math]ds^2 = -(1 - \frac{r_g}{r})d(ct)^2 + \frac{1}{1 - \frac{r_g}{r}}dr^2 + r^2(d\theta^2 + \sin^2 \theta d\phi^2)[math]

 

[math]r_g = 2Gm|c^2[/math] is the Swartzchild radius, and [math]m[/math] is the mass of the source of the field.

 

The Swartzschild radius:

 

[math]R_{sch} = \frac{2GM}{c^2} \thickapprox 1\frac{1}{2} \times 10^{-27}M[/math]

 

[math]R_{sch}[/math] is the Swartzchild radius; [math]G[/math] is the gravitational constant, or [math]6.67 \times 10^{-11} N m^2 / kg^2[/math].

 

[math]M[/math] is the mass of the black hole.

 

[math]c^2[/math] is the speed of light squared, or [math]8.98755 \times 10^{16}\frac{m^2}{s^2}[/math].

 

But anyway, the Swartzschild metric reviels a negative square root solution, along with a positive one for it's geometry. The negative square root solution in the event horizon represents a white hole, which is just a black hole running backwards in time.

 

Apperantly they can't exist, since they violate the second law of thermodynamics. So, I guess I have no more examples of antigravity that I can think of .