3 ms·
> Does this actually prove that antimatter necessarily exists? Antimatter definitely exists, it is detectable, and used; e.g, PET scans use positrons (anti-ele
by dragonwriter 2y ago
> Does this actually prove that antimatter necessarily exists?
Antimatter definitely exists, it is detectable, and used; e.g, PET scans use positrons (anti-electrons), and there have been experiments (only in animal models last I knew) with anti-proton radiotherapy for cancers.
This is the first evidence of a particular configuration of antimatter, not the first evidence of antimatter.
- benbayard 2y agoTo be more specific this is the first time we have detected hyper-antimatter of Helium where one of the quarks in the nucleus is an anti-strange quark (an anti-lambda from the article)
- westurner 2y agoThank you all for corrections and clarifications. I had confused Antimatter in particle theory (where there is no gravity) and Dark matter, which has no explanation in particle theory and maybe probably shouldn't be necessary for a unified model that describes n-body gravity at astrophysical and particle scales.
- westurner 2y ago> [dark matter] has no explanation in particle theory From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42369294#42371561 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42369294#42371561 : > One theory of dark matter is that it's strange quark antimatter.