PDA

tommac
2008-Apr-14, 03:32 PM
Could the ratio of anti-matter to matter effect the total universal mass / energy?

As matter and anti-matter colide in space could this effect the total amount of matter and/or energy in the universe? Or conservation of mass / energy still uphold in terms of matter and antimatter?

Delvo
2008-Apr-14, 04:17 PM
When matter and antimatter are "destroyed", they're converted into energy. The total amount doesn't change; only switches from one form to another.

tommac
2008-Apr-14, 04:21 PM
When matter and antimatter are "destroyed", they're converted into energy. The total amount doesn't change; only switches from one form to another.

OK ... but a few questions here:

1) I thought the explosion way HUGE. I understood that it was more than say that from a normal nuclear explosion. Why is that?

2) Does antimatter have the same gravitational properties as matter?

captain swoop
2008-Apr-14, 05:23 PM
Huge is relative, it depends how much there is.

tommac
2008-Apr-14, 05:44 PM
Huge is relative, it depends how much there is.

I thought that it was HUGER than a nuclear explosion created with the same masses.

Trocisp
2008-Apr-14, 05:49 PM
It is "huger" than a nuclear explosion created with the same mass.

It's about 4 times (I think?) more efficient (per mass) than nuclear energy. The reason being because you're converting 100% of the particles to energy, rather than converting most of the particles to other particles, and some of them to energy.

That's the layman explanation. The complicated one makes my ears bleed. :(

tommac
2008-Apr-14, 06:20 PM
It is "huger" than a nuclear explosion created with the same mass.

It's about 4 times (I think?) more efficient (per mass) than nuclear energy. The reason being because you're converting 100% of the particles to energy, rather than converting most of the particles to other particles, and some of them to energy.

That's the layman explanation. The complicated one makes my ears bleed. :(

Thanks!

trinitree88
2008-Apr-14, 08:48 PM
It is "huger" than a nuclear explosion created with the same mass.

It's about 4 times (I think?) more efficient (per mass) than nuclear energy. The reason being because you're converting 100% of the particles to energy, rather than converting most of the particles to other particles, and some of them to energy.

That's the layman explanation. The complicated one makes my ears bleed. :(

Trocrisp. I think it's bigger than that. ~4 hydrogen protiums become a helium-4....with a production of energy
and a very small mass loss, less than 10%. Let me check.:shifty: pete

About 27 Mev of energy is produced. Each hydrogen is over 940 Mev...so ~3600 Mev -~30...about a percent, crudely. If you annihilated the hydrogens...~3600 Mev, much more than a factor of four....more like a hundred.

Trocisp
2008-Apr-14, 10:22 PM
Trocrisp. I think it's bigger than that. ~4 hydrogen protiums become a helium-4....with a production of energy
and a very small mass loss, less than 10%. Let me check.:shifty: pete

About 27 Mev of energy is produced. Each hydrogen is over 940 Mev...so ~3600 Mev -~30...about a percent, crudely. If you annihilated the hydrogens...~3600 Mev, much more than a factor of four....more like a hundred.I tried to look up where I found that information, and it was (apparently) wikipedia, because that's the only place I could find four as the given number. :shifty:

My bad.

Trocisp (I'm not crispy! :p)

mugaliens
2008-Apr-15, 04:04 AM
Take antimatter and matter within a given volume of space. Their masses exert a gravitational pull. Put them together.

BANG.

Before the energy has left that given volume of space, the gravitational pull is still there. Energy itself (photons) do exert a pull.

It is theorized that the very dense core of a black hole is nothing more than tightly packed photons.