Why does the ALPHA antimatter experiment's null result rule out artifact better than detecting a small positive signal would?

# Why ALPHA's Null Result Is Stronger Than a Small Positive Signal

The ALPHA collaboration's measurement that antihydrogen falls toward Earth with the same acceleration as ordinary matter is indeed more constraining than detecting a small gravitational repulsion would be—but the provided preprints don't directly explain the statistical reasoning behind this.

However, I can outline the principle: A null result with high precision establishes a tight upper bound on any effect you're looking for. If ALPHA measured antihydrogen's gravitational acceleration and found it consistent with 1*g* downward to within, say, a few percent, they can rule out upward accelerations smaller than that margin. The power comes from the measurement's sensitivity and statistical rigor—a small positive signal *could* always be explained away as noise or systematic error unless you've already ruled out artifacts at that scale [AG-2025.04-1363].

By contrast, imagine ALPHA had detected a tiny upward acceleration. You'd immediately face a harder problem: proving it wasn't instrumental drift, a temperature fluctuation, or some other technical glitch. Positive anomalies require extraordinary evidence to overcome skepticism, especially in precision physics. A well-controlled null result—where you've carefully checked that you can measure effects at a certain level of sensitivity—gives you confidence that any real effect must be smaller than your measurement precision.

That said, [AG-2025.04-1363] argues that ALPHA's result may not fully rule out repulsive gravity for *elementary* antiparticles (like antiquarks), only for composite antihydrogen, which complicates the interpretation.

The archive doesn't contain a preprint that rigorously explains the statistical logic of null results versus small positive signals in the gravity-on-antimatter context.