Dear Pavel V. Kudan ,

It is difficult to answer this question. First of all, you should be able to give a clear narrative: What you mean on matter and antimather. Considering the phenomena of nature, the two subjects (matter and antimatter) of the question formulated above substantively, they can lead to contradictory conclusions if they do not have a concrete natural background.

The meaning of antimatter should be understood in natural circumstances only as immateriality. Therefore the question in this form seems meaningless. In vain is near the question the following example.

Why did this opinion get taken?

The answer to this question has been prepared in the spirit of the following article:

Article Fizikailag-metafizikailag bizonyítható a graviton létezése

(Hungarian) but it has its English parts:

Abstract:

Research Proposal Physico-metaphysical proof of the existence of graviton (Fiz...

Conclushion:

Chapter Physico-metaphysical proof of the existence of graviton

and graviton:

Chapter 230902-En-H-Gr-t

Regards,

Laszlo

P.S:

In principle, the two states should neutralise each other: which is a contradictory conclusion!

“Does matter attract or repulse antimatter by gravity?”

- the fundamental Nature Gravity force is utmost universal - and only attractive - Force, and so everything in Matter [besides, rather probably all real fundamental Forces mediators, i.e. “Forces’ fields”] attracts everything.

Though all other, i.e. Weak, Electric, and Strong/Nuclear, Forces also act really having no principal exclusions to a Force acts when something creates its filed, and when this field acts on other something, independently on – what something, i.e. matter or antimatter, creates field and on what something i.e. matter or antimatter, the Force acts.

Say, electron and positron act on each other by the same Electric Force, etc.

And that Gravity Force acts on antimatter [antiparticles and simple antiatoms, mostly Anti hydrogen, i.e. antiproton+ positron, atom] completely equally as that it acts on matter including, say, on a Hydrogen atom, is observed experimentally.

More about what are particles, including antiparticles, and Gravity, Electric, and Nuclear Forces, and how they act, see in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s initial Planck scale informational physical model

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367397025_The_Informational_Physical_Model_and_Fundamental_Problems_in_Physics

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force

Cheers

First of all, gravity is, always, attractive. Second, gravity couples to matter only through matter's energy-momentum tensor, which means that matter and antimatter interact with gravity the same way.

Of course they will. Each mass participates in gravitational interaction. Only the force of attraction between a particle and an antiparticle will be much less than their electromagnetic interaction.

Sergey Shevchenko

Nice to hear from you.

Yes, but this looks strange. Where is equilibrium. For example, charges can both repulse and attract...

Is anything except our beliefs which shows that gravitation is attraction only.

“…Sergey Shevchenko Nice to hear from you…”

- well, thanks. However that

.Yes, but this looks strange. Where is equilibrium. For example, charges can both repulse and attract...Is anything except our beliefs which shows that gravitation is attraction only.……”

- is a bit strange passage. In that Gravity Force is attractive Force there is nothing physically surprising. First of all – all [4 known now – Gravity, Weak, Electric, Strong/Nuclear] fundamental Nature forces are designed, and implemented in created Matter, only aimed at for the informational system “Matter” would be as it is:

– really well strong Strong/Nuclear Force, which is just only attractive, is used to compose stable nucleons and nuclei; lesser strong Electric attractive/repulsive Force makes atoms, molecules, etc., again attractive and extremely non-strong Gravity Force makes cosmological objects. The question – why Matter was designed and created as it is? is outside physics, physics can only observe and analyze what observes.

Besides as to

“…First of all, gravity is, always, attractive. Second, gravity couples to matter only through matter's energy-momentum tensor, which means that matter and antimatter interact with gravity the same way. ….”

- that evidently doesn’t explain for what/by, if non—mystic, reason/way “gravity couples to matter only through matter's energy-momentum tensor”, including, of course, that makes that for antimatter also.

But what is fundamentally more essential is that from this [standard the GR claim] completely rigorously follows that some mystic “mass” constantly and always causes – i.e. really transmit to “curved spacetime” - the “energy-momentum”, i.e. that mass is some source of infinite “energy-momentum”; what is evident violation of the energy conservation law.

Again, really scientific explanation of how Gravity [and Electric, Nuclear, and with well non-zero probability Strong, Forces] Force acts is given only in the SS&VT initial Planck scale informational physical model, more see pointed in the SS post above [in 2-nd link, though also in shorter https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365437307_The_informational_model_-_Gravity_and_Electric_Forces]: .

- including, first of all the energy conservation law really acts only since the Forces fields don’t contain energy, and all what happens in gravitationally [and by other Forces] coupled systems is only re-distribution of the bodies “own” energies; maximal energy, if a system is closed one, is the sum of bodies m0c2 ; m0 are the bodies rest masses, when the bodies are free.

Correspondingly, say, when a small m falls in large M gravity field, it is accelerated practically spending/ transformation in own kinetic energy, only own energy, an example [besides, of course the links above] see in reDzennn comment [3 passages] in https://phys.org/news/2023-12-ways-black-holes-energy-source.html

Cheers

Mikhail N Dulin

Yes, but I mean that attraction without repulsion looks not symmetrically...

More symmetrical would be if hydrogen attracts hydrogen, antihydrogen attracts antihydrogen but hydrogen repulse antihydrogen, for example.

Now experiments do not have sufficient exactness for experimental answer on this question.

But what is the origin of our belief that matter should attract both matter and antimatter?

In my works, I try to show that everything in the world around us is discrete, consists of quanta of action h (known as Planck’s constant) and manifests itself in the form of a pairwise product of actually measured quantities:

1. energy - time h=ετ;

2. particle momentum - (wave)length h=pλ;

3. angular momentum - rotation angle h=ћ2π;

4. electric charge - magnetic flux h=eμ;

5. mass of elementary particles - flux of curvature h=mX, where X is the flux of a value inverse to the Gaussian curvature 1/R.

Here point 4 describes electrostatic interaction, point 5 - gravitational one. In point 4, the electric charge e can be of different sign and this corresponds to a different direction of the magnetic flux quantum μ. Therefore, for different charges there will be attraction, for identical charges there will be repulsion. In point 5, the flow X and mass m are scalars; only attraction corresponds to such interaction. At small distances it is weak, but at large (cosmic) distances it remains the only and therefore determining interaction. It is in this way that the Universe remains stable and does not require excessive symmetry (for beauty).