If there are antiparticles, why is there no antigravity?

[Barbllm]

We know the four fundamental forces that shape our world: the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, electromagnetism, and gravity. Everything experiences the effects of gravity. But why is there no "antigravity" if there are particles and antiparticles?

 

Is dark energy "antigravity"?

 

Why is there no such thing as "antigravity"?

[Dages]

We don't know how gravity works yet. Particles or not, etc. It's generally considered to be linked with the shape of our physical reality, iirc

[Barbllm]

I wonder if it has something to do with particles/antiparticles having mass. 

 

 

[Qapla]

Since there is gravity here on earth but no gravity in space - is it possible space is full of antigravity?

 

[Lewis]

There is gravity everywhere in space, objects are constantly falling towards large body planets like Jupiter, earth etc and stars, Galaxies are held together by strong gravitational forces.

[carlos]

16 hours ago, Barbllm said:

We know the four fundamental forces that shape our world: the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, electromagnetism, and gravity. Everything experiences the effects of gravity. But why is there no "antigravity" if there are particles and antiparticles?

 

The article you link explains it very well. Particles and antiparticles are identical, except they have opposite electrical charges. An electron has negative electrical charge. An antielectron has the same structure but with positive charge. 

 

Yet gravity doesn't have anything to do with electromagnetism and is not affected by it. Gravity makes mass attract other mass, indifferently of its electrical charge. Since antiparticles have the same mass as particles, they are affected the same by gravity.

 

No particles have ever been found that have negative mass, and if you think about it that's a very weird concept. While it can be theorized about, it doesn't seem our universe is built to feature antigravity.

 

As for dark energy, we don't have the slightest idea of what it is, or even if it really exists. Dark energy is a speculation to explain why galaxies don't behave in the way physicists expected, but it has never been detected or measured. Maybe it exists, or maybe it doesn't and there is another explanation for the discrepancy. Or maybe their calculations are flawed and there are other factors we don't have any idea about. 

[Barbllm]

On 1/4/2026 at 1:20 PM, carlos said:

 

The article you link explains it very well. Particles and antiparticles are identical, except they have opposite electrical charges. An electron has negative electrical charge. An antielectron has the same structure but with positive charge. 

 

Yet gravity doesn't have anything to do with electromagnetism and is not affected by it. Gravity makes mass attract other mass, indifferently of its electrical charge. Since antiparticles have the same mass as particles, they are affected the same by gravity.

 

No particles have ever been found that have negative mass, and if you think about it that's a very weird concept. While it can be theorized about, it doesn't seem our universe is built to feature antigravity.

 

As for dark energy, we don't have the slightest idea of what it is, or even if it really exists. Dark energy is a speculation to explain why galaxies don't behave in the way physicists expected, but it has never been detected or measured. Maybe it exists, or maybe it doesn't and there is another explanation for the discrepancy. Or maybe their calculations are flawed and there are other factors we don't have any idea about. 

I've wondered if dark energy and dark matter are the same thing.

[carlos]

3 hours ago, Barbllm said:

I've wondered if dark energy and dark matter are the same thing.

 

I seriously doubt any of them actually exist. The only reason they are suggested is because the calculations of physicists do not match the observations. So rather than assuming their whole model is wrong, they made up dark matter and dark energy to justify their numbers.

 

"Dark" here means impossible to detect. When you suggest there is some matter that is attracted by gravity but is impossible to detect or measure by any means, to me that is not a scientific theory, it's just speculation.

 

I used to love Physics, but lately I no longer read much about it because it's all nonsense. Dark matter, string theory, multiverses... A lot of silly speculation and nothing of science.

[Barbllm]

3 hours ago, carlos said:

 

I seriously doubt any of them actually exist. The only reason they are suggested is because the calculations of physicists do not match the observations. So rather than assuming their whole model is wrong, they made up dark matter and dark energy to justify their numbers.

 

"Dark" here means impossible to detect. When you suggest there is some matter that is attracted by gravity but is impossible to detect or measure by any means, to me that is not a scientific theory, it's just speculation.

 

I used to love Physics, but lately I no longer read much about it because it's all nonsense. Dark matter, string theory, multiverses... A lot of silly speculation and nothing of science.

I haven't read much of string theory, but I like the work of Paul Davies. I attempted "A Brief History of Time". 

[Witness1970]

Of all the four forces gravity is the weakest one.  It takes a lot of mass to produce gravity.  Even a small magnet can overcome the force of gravity from a mass as large as the earth.  it is possible to detect particles associated with all the other fundamental forces, but since gravity is so weak the particles would be harder to detect.

 

 

[LeolaRootStew]

I don't think the theory of gravity has been proven.

[Barbllm]

56 minutes ago, LeolaRootStew said:

I don't think the theory of gravity has been proven.

The fact is that if you drop something it falls down. We can observe and measure this.

 

The ancient Greeks had a theory that this was because everything was made of 4 elements, Earth, Air, Fire and Water. This was their explanation of the observed fact.

We now have our theory of gravity which explains what we see very very well and can predict events before they are observed. Despite this, in the future someone will probably (hopefully) come up with a better explanation of our observations (facts).

 

So gravity is a theory because it explains an observed fact. This theory is ultimately disputable, someone can come and explain the observations in a different way. Even though it is disputable, the idea of gravity is a very very good one.

[Dages]

The thing is we don't understand how gravity works with the other forces as a whole. Many competing models but no answers yet

[LeolaRootStew]

6 hours ago, Barbllm said:

The fact is that if you drop something it falls down. We can observe and measure this.

 

The ancient Greeks had a theory that this was because everything was made of 4 elements, Earth, Air, Fire and Water. This was their explanation of the observed fact.

We now have our theory of gravity which explains what we see very very well and can predict events before they are observed. Despite this, in the future someone will probably (hopefully) come up with a better explanation of our observations (facts).

 

So gravity is a theory because it explains an observed fact. This theory is ultimately disputable, someone can come and explain the observations in a different way. Even though it is disputable, the idea of gravity is a very very good one.

 

I've heard/seen explanations that involve electromagnetism and buoyancy. I think it's only a matter of time before the theory of gravity is replaced.