PDA

View Full Version : Anti-matter, what is it really?



joshbu42
2007-Aug-30, 05:41 PM
I know about pair annhialation, that matter and antimatter "combine" and become energy (in layman's terms). but what is antimatter?

I also had a question about an antimatter hypothysis I developed: Is it possible that anti matter is an inversion of space, in other words, in terms of imaginary numbers, and when matter meets it they combine to a 'zero state'- in other words an infinitely narrow space through which energy travels?

mugaliens
2007-Aug-30, 07:04 PM
Same thing as matter. It's just the other matter, that, when it combines with matter, annihilation occurs.

As to your other question, it was either slightly more unstable, and self-annihilated (but current experiments are off by around ten orders of magnitude), or there may be an antiuniverse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter#Antiuniverse).

If there is, some postulate it would be identical to our own, but with time flowing in the opposite direct, with contact at all points in space at all times (sort of a superimposing).

It may best be illustrated by taking two strings, one black and one white, painting one end of each red (forward arrow of time). Now take the black one (antiuniverse) and turn it upside down. Make an X of the two strings with the red of the black to the unpainted end of the white, then draw them together and apart again maintaining the X.

The juncture represents the entire sum of both our entire universe and the antiverse, but you can clearly see how we can continue to remain connected while we go forward in our time, and they go forward in their time (but are going backwards in ours).

NEOWatcher
2007-Aug-30, 07:22 PM
Same thing as matter. It's just the other matter, that, when it combines with matter, annihilation occurs.

The anti-particle for each particle is a particle that has all of the same properties but the opposite charge.

For example: an anti-electron (positron) is not a proton, mainly because of mass.

As to why? Mugaliens string* theory is good enough for me...

*(theory illustrated by a string, not the theory of strings...:D)

max8166
2007-Aug-30, 09:00 PM
Anti-matter, what is it really?

Same as matter it's energy in a solid (or gaseous or liquid or plasma) form.

You can even release this energy just add a little matter.

Cougar
2007-Aug-30, 09:31 PM
The anti-particle for each particle is a particle that has all of the same properties but the opposite charge.
Correct. Same mass, same spin, opposite charge. That's all.

High energy processes in nature can create antiparticles, and they're almost always created in particle-antiparticle pairs. The early universe was in a state of high energy (to put it mildly), and such pairs were being created and annihilating at a frenetic pace. If there wasn't a very slight asymmetry between particles and antiparticles in such pair creation, out universe would consist entirely of radiation. For every billion antiparticles, there were apparently a billion-and-one particles. Our entire universe is made up of those left-over particles. Remarkably, this is not just guesswork but is supported by (painstaking) observations.

mugaliens
2007-Aug-31, 08:09 AM
Correct. Same mass, same spin, opposite charge. That's all.

Uh, the proton (regular matter) has a positive charge. The electron (regular matter has a negative charge).

Can you see where I'm going with this?

The neutron (regular matter) has no charge. The antineutron (antimatter) has no charge.

Yet you bring together a neutron and an antineutron and what do you get?

I'll give you a hint: Paul Hardcastle included Spock's mention of these two words half a dozen times in in 80's hit, Nineteen.

Thus, that's not all. You're right about the charge, but the very nature of it is, well, opposite to our own.


For every billion antiparticles, there were apparently a billion-and-one particles. Remarkably, this is not just guesswork but is supported by (painstaking) observations.


True. And those painstaking observations have proven that this theory is off by ten orders of magnitude in terms of accounting for the disparity between matter and anti-matter in our universe.

But I have a theory, namely that black holes were the order of the day at the Bing Bang, sucked up both matter and anti-matter, which promptly annihilated themselves, creating photons and neutrinos, which could not excape the black holes.

Thus, black holes are where the missing anti-matter is, in the form of photons (which are it's own anti-particle) and neutrinos hidden behind a veil we cannot penetrate.

NEOWatcher
2007-Aug-31, 12:10 PM
Uh, the proton (regular matter) has a positive charge. The electron (regular matter has a negative charge).
Can you see where I'm going with this?
No...

The neutron (regular matter) has no charge. The antineutron (antimatter) has no charge.
Since this is a level above my understanding, I did some more self-education...
Am I correct in saying that even though the neutron/antineutrons are neutral, the quarks that make them up are not. So it's still a charge difference, only it's determined at the quark level?


Yet you bring together a neutron and an antineutron and what do you get?
I'll give you a hint: Paul Hardcastle included Spock's mention of these two words half a dozen times in in 80's hit, Nineteen.
Who?

antoniseb
2007-Aug-31, 12:28 PM
Is it possible that anti matter is an inversion of space, in other words, in terms of imaginary numbers, and when matter meets it they combine to a 'zero state'- in other words an infinitely narrow space through which energy travels?
You are asking something that isn't known right now. When you read about String theory or M-theory, or quantum loop gravity, or any other idea about the underlying nature of the particles we know, people are exploring ideas, but they don't have something that works completely yet.

If you can take your idea and work out the math such that it explains what we know without contradiction AND makes some predictions for what will be found by future experiments, you will be doing quite well. Until then you are close to just another hand-waving word salad, which is no better than my explanation for what anti-matter particles are 'really'.

Ronald Brak
2007-Aug-31, 12:29 PM
Anti-matter, what is it really?


.rettam fo etisoppo eht s'tI

NEOWatcher
2007-Aug-31, 12:32 PM
.rettam fo etisoppo eht s'tI
:lol:

Cougar
2007-Aug-31, 02:57 PM
Uh, the proton (regular matter) has a positive charge. The electron (regular matter has a negative charge).... Can you see where I'm going with this?

No.
Uhh, me neither.


The neutron (regular matter) has no charge. The antineutron (antimatter) has no charge.
They have no electrical charge. Yet, unlike the photon, the neutron is not its own antiparticle. From my modest investigation, like Neo, I find the anti-neutron is composed of anti-quarks rather than quarks.


Yet you bring together a neutron and an antineutron and what do you get?
I'll give you a hint: Paul Hardcastle included Spock's mention of these two words half a dozen times in in 80's hit, Nineteen.

Foreign war? Singing girls? Hostile fire? Stress disorder?


Thus, that's not all. You're right about the charge, but the very nature of it is, well, opposite to our own.
Define "the very nature."


And those painstaking observations have proven that this theory is off by ten orders of magnitude in terms of accounting for the disparity between matter and anti-matter in our universe.
Details, details. :)


But I have a theory, namely that black holes were the order of the day at the Bing Bang, sucked up both matter and anti-matter, which promptly annihilated themselves, creating photons and neutrinos, which could not excape the black holes.... Thus, black holes are where the missing anti-matter is, in the form of photons (which are it's own anti-particle) and neutrinos hidden behind a veil we cannot penetrate.
Then why did the matter in our universe stay out of your primordial black holes, which, by the way, would leave some signature on the CMB, but there is no such signature.

mugaliens
2007-Aug-31, 06:12 PM
No...

Since this is a level above my understanding, I did some more self-education...
Am I correct in saying that even though the neutron/antineutrons are neutral, the quarks that make them up are not. So it's still a charge difference, only it's determined at the quark level?


Who?

The answer: Pure energy.

And yes, it's determined at the quark level, according to Wiki's article on antiparticles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiparticle).