Antimatter gyroscope- anti gravity

What would happen if I run a gyroscope made of antimatter on Earth? Will it fly?

[1]

Paul Ledak, former Vice President Microprocessor Development (Retired at A Fortune 100 Company (1982-2015)

Answered 15m ago

The moment the gyroscope came in contact with any normal matter, whether the planet or atmospheric gases, it would annihilate in a huge explosion.

If it was initially suspended in a large vacuum chamber, it would be subject to the electromagnetic and gravitational forces of the earth and surrounding celestial objects. Depending on the material the gyroscope is made of, it is conceivable that some externally applied electromagnetic field could make that gyroscope fly or hover (magnetic confinement).

With regard to the gravitational field of earth, the knee jerk and probably correct answer is that the antimatter gyroscope would fall to earth just like a normal matter gyroscope. However, this is not known for sure today, either in theory or in experiment.

The forces equation of motion F=ma and of gravatition F=Gm1*m2/r**2 when set equal suggest the mas of the gyro cancels out on both sides of the equation (where m =m1 and m2 is the mass of the earth) and therefore the object falls to the earth, gravity always being an attractive force.

HOWEVER, the mass in the equation F=ma is the inertial mass of the object and in quantum physics is derived from the interaction of all the subatomic particles in the gyro interacting with the Higgs field through the interaction of Higgs bosons. In the case of the gravitational equation of force, the mass terms are called the gravitational mass of the object and is derived from how the particles that make up the gyro can warp the space time fabric of space as described in Einstein’s theory of relativity and have no connection to the Higgs field in this theory.

And therefore, the mass terms can only be cancelled out if the inertial mass is equal to the relativistic mass. So… is it? Well obviously physicists have been asking this question for a long time, both from a theoretical standpoint and an experimental standpoint. From a theoretical standpoint, physicists have been trying to link quantum physics with general relativity, with no success to date. And therefore there is no theory to say that inertial mass is equal to gravitational mass. So, experimental physics have tried the experimental approach and have shown that, to a very high degree of accuracy, these masses are the same for normal matter (though this does not rule out them being different at higher degrees of accuracy, yet to be achieved).

However, that being said, physics have NEVER been able to perform these experiments on antimatter because we have no source of antimatter large enough, either in the lab or the universe, upon which we can perform this experiment.

And therefore, we cannot conclude that an antimatter gyro would behave the same in the earth’s magnetic field as a matter gyro. There is simply no theory or experimental result to justify that claim. It is very possible that antimatter behaves the same in its interaction when warping space time but interacts with the Higgs field in a negative manner, or visa versa. If true, then the antimatter gyro would fly up in the vacuum chamber until it hit the chamber ceiling, at which point it would explode.

This question can only be truly answered when we have a good unification of gravity and quantum physics confirmed by experimentation.

Antimatter and negative mass

== This is a very good question and the answer requires deeper understanding of what antimatter is and what mass is. Just to stir things up a bit, there are particles like the neutron or the  meson, or kaon, which have no charge but have their own anitparticles. Then there is the photon and the Z boson, which are their own antiparticles.  We know that something is an antiparticle because, when it meets its particle, they annihilate each other and turn into pure energy -- namely photons.

It's true that antiparticles have the opposite charges to particles, but there are more types of charge than just the electric charge. 

Physicists call "charge" any discreet conserved quantity (there are also continuous conserved quantities like energy, momentum, and angular momentum). If you start an isolated experiment with a net positive electric charge, you'll always end up with the same net positive electric charge, no matter what you do. The same is true with color, strangeness, beauty, bottomness, topness, and other exotic charges. So an antiparticle must have all the charges reversed as compared to the particle. Only then can an initial state with a particle and an antiparticle turn into a state with pure energy and no charge of any kind.

You have to understand, though, that physics doesn't tell us which of the two kinds of particles that can annihilate each other should be called the particle and which should be called the antiparticle. We have decided to call electron, rather than positron, a particle; the  and  quarks, rather than their counterparts,  and , particles; only because they are more abundant in our universe. With particles that don't occur naturally around us, it's a matter of convention. With  and  bosons, we don't even bother assigning the anti- label. We just say they are ani- each other.

The question why one type of matter is more abundant than another is a separate, and very interesting, question.

Now for the mass. There are two things called "mass." One describes how much a particle accelerates when you push it. It's called the inertial mass. The other describes how the particle interacts with gravitational field -- gravitational mass. Einstein's general relativity is based on the assumption that these two are the same. So if an antiparticle had negative inertial mass, it would also have negative gravitational mass. 

Mass can be turned into energy: . So mass is not a conserved quantity -- it's not a charge. Therefore an antiparticle doesn't have to have negative mass in order to annihilate a particle. The masses of both particles may be turned into the energy of (massless) photons without breaking any laws of physics. 

The real problem with negative mass is that it makes kinetic energy negative: . So a negative-mass particle could always decrease its energy by emitting a photon and accelerating (in the direction of the emitted photon, because its momentum is also negative). Such particles would keep falling into lower and lower energy states forever. 

Interestingly, a similar problem was encountered when a relativistic model for fermions was proposed: There were negative energy states going down all the way to minus infinity. Dirac proposed that all those negative-energy states were filled with the (invisible) sea of fermions. There can be only one fermion occupying a particular state, so it sort of worked. Dirac even predicted that one could create a hole in this sea of negative-energy fermions that would behave as, guess what, an antiparticle. And indeed, not long afterwards anti-electrons (positrons) were discovered. As a hole in the Dirac sea, positron will have a positive mass equal to the mass of the electron.

Unfortunately, the same trick wouldn't work with bosons, because they are allowed to crowd into states. So a negative-mass boson would always be free to fall down in energy, no matter how many bosons are already there in the same state. And they would keep radiating energy forever.

The bottom line is that there is no reason for antiparticles to have negative mass, and they would not fit into our current understanding of particle physics. But everybody would feel much better if we could establish this fact experimentally (maybe even a Nobel opportunity). ==

EDDY CURRENTS

Too scientific misconception about eddy currents and conductivity. Eddy currents are serious problem only at very high magnetic fields and frequency levels over 500 Hz. Standard lamination steel have high enough surface resistance so that don't cause any  serious problems with big eddy currents. At low power an frequencies the eddy currents are problem only in a solid conductive materials especially inside the central core when they have relatively big cross sections. Most solid magnetic materials also have bad magnetic properties which can cause hizteresis.