> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Ronn! Blankenship > Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 11:27 PM > To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion > Subject: Re: Physicists offer foundation for uprooting a hallowedprinciple > of physics > > At 10:45 PM Monday 1/5/2009, Julia Thompson wrote: > > > >On Mon, 5 Jan 2009, Rceeberger wrote: > > > > > http://www.physorg.com/news150388964.html > > > > > > An apple and an anti-apple might not fall at the same rate. > > > > > > > > > > > > xponent > > > But A Mac And An Anti-Apple 2E Do Maru > > > rob > > > >Wow, it's almost 11PM, and I was almost despairing of encountering a good > >reason not to have liquids at the computer today! Congratulations, Rob! > > > > Julia > > > Humor aside, wasn't the idea that a particle and its corresponding > anti-particle might fall at different rates under the influence of > gravity put forward and supposedly tested and rejected back in the > 80s? I read the article and didn't see how this was different from > what was suggested then (though the details are lacking) . . .
Well, my memory was different, given the fact that most anti-matter that I knew of had a charge and the electromagnetic forces involved swamped any gravitational effect. I did a Google search and got the following from Duke http://www.phy.duke.edu/~phillips/gravity/frameIndex.html which is a proposal to measure the force of gravity on antimatter. So, it appears that the theory mentioned earlier is testable, but not yet tested. I'd bet on boring results, but that's physics. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
