Slashdot Mirror
Water Flows Uphill
An anonymous reader writes "The BBC are reporting James Dyson's new garden feature, a waterfall with water flowing uphill. Apparently, he wanted to recreate an Escher drawing."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
(-:Stephonovich:-)
"Who needs reincarnation when we've got parallel universes?" -Me
Waterfall.
Google doesn't index user sigs, so stop trying to "Google Bomb" with them.
Since the 70's, there has been a cave on Tom Sawyer Island in Disneyworld in which water appears to flow uphill.
The Imagineers did it cleverly with a slanted room and no point of reference. Not as geeky, but a really cool effect nonetheless which amazed me back in the day.
"The pie shall be cut in half and each man shall receive.....death. I'll eat the pie."
are at the World of Escher. The man was a genius.
I'm not Seth.
A video would be much better but there is the iPix version.
The first thing i would do having this invention in front of me, is to put a small floatation device (leaf, paper boat, etc...) at the bottom of the hill, to watch it float uphill.
Sadly, I would be completely dissapointed.
0110100100100000011000010110110100100000011000100
If only antimatter was repelled by gravity. Antimatter is just normal matter with reverse charge and spin, so it obeys all normal physical laws. So-called "negative matter" would be repelled by gravity, but we don't know if it even exists or can be made.
If you RTFA
Derek Phillips, the Dyson engineer who spent 12 months building the feature, told BBC News Online that his head was spinning when he was given his brief.
"James came up to me and said he wanted this idea to make water go uphill. My initial reaction was to look for Paul Daniels' phone number. But I've had to become a bit of an illusionist myself."
so i think the credit goes to Mr Phillips for actually pulling it off, Dyson loves taking credit for other peoples work
The troubles here are two:
1) We have no experimental evidence as to how antimatter reacts to gravity (beond a couple of small ones where the externally-caused experimental error bars render the results statistically meaningless)
2) We don't know how gravity works. In GR, yes, antimatter has normal mass and reacts normally to gravity. But GR is not the last and final word on how gravity works, and several models otherwise fully consistent with known experimental data allow for anitmatter to be affected to a greater or lesser extent than normal matter by gravity, even to the point of sign reversal.
Since we have no experimental evidence and several potentially correct theories that give different answers, the only conclusion is that we don't know. The general opinion is that animatter is affected by gravity as normal matter, but we don't know that it is.
It's just north of Ayr, near a place called Dunure. Quite a bizarre thing, too. Website here
We don't have experimental proof yet, but we have overwhelming reason to believe antimatter fall down just like matter. You can work it out based on hysical constants and conservation of energy in a matter/antimatter annihilation. It is explained in this physics FAQ.
If antimatter is repelled by gravity then you either have a violation of conservation of energy, or physics constants are not constant.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Liquid helium at close to absolute zero. It doesn't flow uphill, it displays enormous capillary effect which can pull it right out of a container.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
There can be no doubt, for solid physical reasons, that antiparticles behave identically to regular particles when it comes to gravity.
First of all, the only relevant physical quantity to determine how something is affected by gravity is its mass (and equivalently, in relativity, energy). That's practically the definition of gravity -- the force one body exerts on another by virtue of its mass. In physicist speak, the gravitational field "couples" to mass/energy. Any force having an origin in some other physical quantity is by definition not gravity.
Now we have plenty of experimental evidence -- eg from particle accelerators that antimatter has positive mass, just like regular matter. Indeed, antiparticles have IDENTICAL masses to their corresponding real particles. Therefore they must be affected in the same way as regular matter by gravity.
Secondly, in both relativistic and quantum frameworks, gravity can only be understood if it is always attractive. In other words, mass can only be positive. In quantum terms, this comes out of the fact that gravity must be "spin 2" field. (There's a nice book by Feynman on his attempts to come up with a quantum theory of gravity that explains why it has to be spin 2).
Thirdly, according to quantum field theory the vacuum is filled with "virtual" particles and antiparticles -- that's the zero-point energy of the vacuum. Now the whole point about the vacuum is that it's the lowest possible energy state. If anti particles had negative mass-energy, they'd be in a lower energy state than the vacuum, which means that they'd be stable compared to the vacuum and would not decay back into the vacuum.
If that were true, the universe would long ago have filled up with antiparticles...
The author of this post asserts his moral rights.