PDA

View Full Version : antimatter matter annihilation (spelling?)



sabianq
2010-Jan-24, 09:11 PM
so let me get this straight.
before i pose my question i want to add some back ground to why i am asking this.
so bear with me... thanks
Happy 2k10 BTW
ok..
we live in a universe of energy.
energy seems to come in different forms
but in reality energy is all the same.

there is electromagnetic energy like light
there is mechanical energy...
anything else?


it can be stored in a system like a moving object
(moving relative to its reference frame.)

it can also be stored in a chemical or nuclear bond..
although i am not sure how this works exactly, here is my understanding.

say O2 and H2 the atomic pair is stable and happy to coexist together in a system.
but it has a negative potential energy?
you need a tiny bit of energy added to the system to
To dissociate the H2 and O2, you need energy,
not very much but you still need energy.
and when the molecules of H2 and O2 separate, the system bonds back together into H2O.
the chemical attraction of free atoms of oxygen and hydrogen as water is so much stronger than the attraction to become O2 and H2.
the H2O state is so much of a lower ground of energy as the molecules snap into their new configuration,
a lot of energy is released in the form of an electromagnetic spectrum,
that heating from the sudden energy release causes the surrounding atmosphere to displace.
this displacement produces a mechanical wave.
like the pop sound you hear when you throw a match at a balloon filled with hydrogen and oxygen gas.
nothing is destroyed (atomic size stuff anyway, simply rearranged).
but i get water and energy is this energy equal to the mass lost as electrons fly away from 2H2 + O2 = 2H20 + energy 5.7 eV
this energy is ultimately stored in the electron bonds
now if i want to take that H20 molecule, i would need to add the same amount of energy that it lost in order to turn it back into H2 and O2..
conservation of energy and all.

is this the electro-weak interaction?

or am i way off base?

ok ok..
now what about fusion.
that is pretty much the same thing.
only working on the atomic level,
the protons and neutrons interact

Fusion of deuterium with tritium creating helium-4, freeing a neutron, and releasing 17.59 MeV of energy,
as an appropriate amount of mass converting to the kinetic energy of the products, in agreement with E = Δm c2.[1]
the energy is simply stored in the bonds between the protons and neutrons just like in the above scenario outlined.
nothing is destroyed, at least on a subatomic sized world, the protons and neutrons are still there.

The mass that is lost comes from the bonds that held together the hydrogen atoms protons and neutrons.

since it takes less force to hold together a helium atom, than it does to hold together 2 deuterium atoms, does the extra force that is not needed simply get thrown away in the form of other particles like light.
Do these bonds takes different amounts of energies based on the architecture of the atoms nucleus.
so just like just like hydrogen oxygen,water reaction, you need energy to get the reaction started once the nucleus is broken apart, they want to reform and it is way easier to form helium than the original hydrogen

yes this is stupid simple but the bottom line is that the energy is stored in the force that binds the protons together.


is this the nuclear-Weak force?

now, what about the nuclear-strong force?
the force that holds together the protons and neutrons.

i want to be clear, that i am meaning the force that hold together the quarks that form the protons and neutrons.. the gluons..
is there energy locked up in force like the two forces described above?


by breaking apart the bonds that hold together the protons and neutrons, the slamming together the free particles exactly the same as both forces described above to create new particles would have to release ever bigger
amounts of energy.

is this what happens in an antimatter/matter annihilation

if i have an anti hydrogen and a hydrogen atom, when they annihiate each other,
is the total mass of the two nucleus summed and entered into the E = Δm c2?

so is there more energy released from an antimatter protron neutron/ matter protron neutron annihilation than from a protron neutron/ protron neutron fusion event?


annihilate a hydrogen and an anti hydrogen atom..
do the protons get destroyed?
what is left?

is that energy bound, (stored if you will) in the forces that holds together the he quarks in protons and neutrons?

Nereid
2010-Jan-25, 06:30 PM
so let me get this straight.
before i pose my question i want to add some back ground to why i am asking this.
so bear with me... thanks
Happy 2k10 BTW
ok..
we live in a universe of energy.
energy seems to come in different forms
but in reality energy is all the same.

there is electromagnetic energy like light
there is mechanical energy...
anything else?

It depends what you count as energy ...

When you burn hydrogen in oxygen, you certainly get heat; how do you count this source of energy?

When you drop a ball, you can produce heat (or electricity, or ...); how do you count this source of energy?



it can be stored in a system like a moving object
(moving relative to its reference frame.)

it can also be stored in a chemical or nuclear bond..
although i am not sure how this works exactly, here is my understanding.

say O2 and H2 the atomic pair is stable and happy to coexist together in a system.
but it has a negative potential energy?
you need a tiny bit of energy added to the system to
To dissociate the H2 and O2, you need energy,
not very much but you still need energy.
and when the molecules of H2 and O2 separate, the system bonds back together into H2O.
the chemical attraction of free atoms of oxygen and hydrogen as water is so much stronger than the attraction to become O2 and H2.
the H2O state is so much of a lower ground of energy as the molecules snap into their new configuration,
a lot of energy is released in the form of an electromagnetic spectrum,
that heating from the sudden energy release causes the surrounding atmosphere to displace.
this displacement produces a mechanical wave.
like the pop sound you hear when you throw a match at a balloon filled with hydrogen and oxygen gas.
nothing is destroyed (atomic size stuff anyway, simply rearranged).
but i get water and energy is this energy equal to the mass lost as electrons fly away from 2H2 + O2 = 2H20 + energy 5.7 eV
this energy is ultimately stored in the electron bonds
now if i want to take that H20 molecule, i would need to add the same amount of energy that it lost in order to turn it back into H2 and O2..
conservation of energy and all.

is this the electro-weak interaction?

Electroweak interaction usually refers to the the unified electromagnetic and weak interactions. In today's environments, the symmetry is broken, and the two are quite distinct. However, once the energy (density?) of a system is high enough, the distinction between them disappears.

An analogy might be the critical temperature/pressure of a substance like water; below this, the liquid and gas phases are distinct; above they are not.



or am i way off base?

ok ok..
now what about fusion.
that is pretty much the same thing.
only working on the atomic level,
the protons and neutrons interact

Fusion of deuterium with tritium creating helium-4, freeing a neutron, and releasing 17.59 MeV of energy,
as an appropriate amount of mass converting to the kinetic energy of the products, in agreement with E = Δm c2.[1]
the energy is simply stored in the bonds between the protons and neutrons just like in the above scenario outlined.
nothing is destroyed, at least on a subatomic sized world, the protons and neutrons are still there.

The mass that is lost comes from the bonds that held together the hydrogen atoms protons and neutrons.

since it takes less force to hold together a helium atom, than it does to hold together 2 deuterium atoms, does the extra force that is not needed simply get thrown away in the form of other particles like light.
Do these bonds takes different amounts of energies based on the architecture of the atoms nucleus.
so just like just like hydrogen oxygen,water reaction, you need energy to get the reaction started once the nucleus is broken apart, they want to reform and it is way easier to form helium than the original hydrogen

yes this is stupid simple but the bottom line is that the energy is stored in the force that binds the protons together.


is this the nuclear-Weak force?

now, what about the nuclear-strong force?
the force that holds together the protons and neutrons.

i want to be clear, that i am meaning the force that hold together the quarks that form the protons and neutrons.. the gluons..
is there energy locked up in force like the two forces described above?


by breaking apart the bonds that hold together the protons and neutrons, the slamming together the free particles exactly the same as both forces described above to create new particles would have to release ever bigger
amounts of energy.

is this what happens in an antimatter/matter annihilation

if i have an anti hydrogen and a hydrogen atom, when they annihiate each other,
is the total mass of the two nucleus summed and entered into the E = Δm c2?

so is there more energy released from an antimatter protron neutron/ matter protron neutron annihilation than from a protron neutron/ protron neutron fusion event?


annihilate a hydrogen and an anti hydrogen atom..
do the protons get destroyed?
The proton and anti-proton annihilate, so yes.


what is left?
Photons ... which may interact with stuff in the local environment to produce some matter-antimatter pairs (this is called 'pair production'). In the case of a proton and anti-proton annihilation, the only stable end particles would be electrons and positrons (pion-antipions would decay, as would muon-antimuons, etc), and neutrinos and antineutrinos.


is that energy bound, (stored if you will) in the forces that holds together the he quarks in protons and neutrons?
I'm not sure I understand the question (e.g. there are no neutrons in hydrogen, unless you mean deuterium); in any case, the energy is in the form of mass, which gets converted to photons.

sabianq
2010-Jan-25, 08:00 PM
i guess what i am saying/asking is..

in a chemical reaction (endothermic or exothermic), the energy that is stored and is released comes from the bonds that hold together the molecule.

in a nuclear reaction, the energy that is released, come from the bonds that hold together the nucleus of the atom..

my question is,
in an antimatter/matter annihilation,
does the energy that is released come from the bonds that hold the quarks together inside of the proton?

or is it different?
and if it is what is the difference?
thanks

cjameshuff
2010-Jan-25, 08:49 PM
my question is,
in an antimatter/matter annihilation,
does the energy that is released come from the bonds that hold the quarks together inside of the proton?

Much of it, yes. Not all of it. Electrons and positrons are thought to be elementary particles, not containing any component structures bound together, and they quite definitely annihilate and release energy in the process. Quarks/antiquarks are also thought to be elementary particles, but similarly can still be expected to release energy on annihilation. Much of the mass of a proton-antiproton pair prior to annihilation is due to binding energy of the quarks, but a small fraction of it is from the quarks themselves.

BigDon
2010-Jan-25, 11:03 PM
Nerd Alert Side Question.

If a photon torpedo ala Star Trek had an ounce of matter/anti-matter ready to mix as a warhead, what would a typical yield be?

Hornblower
2010-Jan-25, 11:06 PM
Nerd Alert Side Question.

If a photon torpedo ala Star Trek had an ounce of matter/anti-matter ready to mix as a warhead, what would a typical yield be?

Roughly half a megaton. I need to look up some numbers to give a better estimate.

Hornblower
2010-Jan-25, 11:26 PM
1 megaton = 4.184 x 1015 joules.

From E = mc2, and c = 3 x 108m/s,

m = 46.4 grams of reactant.

1 ounce adoirdupois = 28.3 g, or about .61 megaton.

Reference http://www.unitconversion.org/energy/joules-to-megatons-conversion.html

IsaacKuo
2010-Jan-25, 11:32 PM
That calculation doesn't factor in the 55% energy lost to neutrinos (http://arts.bev.net/roperldavid/antimatp.htm).

Hornblower
2010-Jan-25, 11:42 PM
That calculation doesn't factor in the 55% energy lost to neutrinos (http://arts.bev.net/roperldavid/antimatp.htm).

That would leave about .27 megaton that could be retained in a suitable tamper to make a blast. A thick shell of suitable metal around the main charge would convert the gamma radiation into heat.

sabianq
2010-Jan-26, 12:25 AM
Nerd Alert Side Question.

If a photon torpedo ala Star Trek had an ounce of matter/anti-matter ready to mix as a warhead, what would a typical yield be?

i come up with the same (with some help from wiki) :)

The reaction of 1000 grams of antimatter with 1000 grams of matter would produce 1.8×1017 J (180 petajoules) of energy (by the mass-energy equivalence formula E = mc˛), or the rough equivalent of 43 megatons of TNT

so 43 megatons of TNT divided by (what is there about 35.27 grams in an ounce) 35.27 times 2 = about 610 kilotones of TNT

and as IsaacKuo points out, about half of that energy of carried away in the form of neutrinos...

sabianq
2010-Jan-26, 12:30 AM
although at current antimatter production rates, it would take over a billion years to make such a quanity.

Hornblower
2010-Jan-26, 02:47 AM
i come up with the same (with some help from wiki) :)

The reaction of 1000 grams of antimatter with 1000 grams of matter would produce 1.8×1017 J (180 petajoules) of energy (by the mass-energy equivalence formula E = mc˛), or the rough equivalent of 43 megatons of TNT

so 43 megatons of TNT divided by (what is there about 35.27 grams in an ounce) 35.27 times 2 = about 610 kilotones of TNT

and as IsaacKuo points out, about half of that energy of carried away in the form of neutrinos...

That neutrino leak applies to the specific case of protons and antiprotons. If we could somehow make the main charge out of electrons and positrons alone, we would not have that loss.

sabianq
2010-Jan-26, 03:04 AM
That neutrino leak applies to the specific case of protons and antiprotons. If we could somehow make the main charge out of electrons and positrons alone, we would not have that loss.

in that case, would not the resulting emission be gamma wave elecrtomagnetic radiation?

what about antineutron/ neutron annihilation?

is there the same neutrino emission?

Hornblower
2010-Jan-26, 01:04 PM
in that case, would not the resulting emission be gamma wave elecrtomagnetic radiation?
Each electron/positron pair would be transformed into a pair of gamma photons of about 511,000 electron volts each, flying off in opposite directions at the speed of light. In my thought-experiment bomb a surrounding shell of heavy material would absorb this gamma radiation, converting it to a tremendous amount of heat.


what about antineutron/ neutron annihilation?

is there the same neutrino emission?

We would need to ask the high energy particle physicists about that.

sabianq
2010-Jan-26, 02:12 PM
Each electron/positron pair would be transformed into a pair of gamma photons of about 511,000 electron volts each, flying off in opposite directions at the speed of light.

isnt it true that gamma radiation can only travel at the speed of light since it is 'light'?


In my thought-experiment bomb a surrounding shell of heavy material would absorb this gamma radiation, converting it to a tremendous amount of heat.


I would think that the abundance of gamma radiation from such a high energy reaction would/could excite and maybe dissociate the atomic nuclei of your " surrounding shell of heavy material"..
Could this in itself cause or trigger a secondary fission or fusion reaction?

don’t all elements lighter than iron fuse as they try to stabilize to iron and all heavier elements than iron fission to try to stabilize to iron?

Any reaction can only produce two forms of energy, electromagnetic and mechanical energy (light and motion)
Heat and light and gamma radiation are all part of the electromagnetic spectrum and are all light.

Is a neutrino with a really tiny mass racing away at near the speed of light simply mechanical energy?

IsaacKuo
2010-Jan-26, 04:07 PM
I don't see the benefit for this surrounding shell. Essentially, it would downshift the highly penetrative gamma rays to less penetrative x-rays and charged particles (the shell turns into an expanding ball of plasma).

Less penetrative x-rays and charged particles would tend to deposit their energy into the outermost layers of the target, whereas more penetrative gamma rays would deposit their energy more deeply into the target.

More penetration means more target damage--up to a point. Unfortunately, the neutrinos are too penetrative. They are so penetrative that they practically don't deposit any energy into the target.