Rosemary

Okay, thanks. I sort of understand it now. So when they cancel out, the energy that each particle had, needs to be conserved, so they annihlate each other? Would that happen every time particles with opposite charges meet?

I thought that massless particles could move at, but not above the speed of light, and gravitons (if they do exist), could move at the speed of light, but not fasted.

I know that matter/energy can not be created or destroyed, but can go between each state. I am probably missing something, but why do they annihlate? How come they just don't become a larger, neutral mass?

What causes Antimatter and Matter to annihlate each other? If it were charge they would just cancel out, right? That is one of the reasons that I think that there is another fundamental difference between antimatter and matter. Does anyone know what causes them to annihlate each other, or what the fundamental difference is?

Thanks, that is really cool. It looks like everything but Thymine and the Phosphate group is 2D. We want to be able to put everything together, but also take it apart to show each molecule. We originaly got to start it on Friday, but we both thought that we were just supposed to show how the strands would unravel, and duplicate, so we were planning that the whole class...

Noble gases do not have to have there outer shell filled.It is very possible for other atoms to strip off electrons, leaving them without full shells. Thye will still be noble gases, because there position on the periodic table would be the same, but they would not have a full shell.

I am in middle school, but I am almost positive that I want to go into particle physics. I love learning how everything works, and it would be really interesting to study antimatter. I also love Chemistry, and genetics, and I will probably keep studying them, but physics is what draws me.

So this has probably been figured out, but being a lowley 7th grader, I do not have access to that. I do not know the math to be able to show how gravity would fit in with the EM, strong, and weak forces, but at least this would show how gravity would act upon a black hole; Gravitational Force=Mass x Radius When object 1 has a greater Gravitational Force (GF), than object 2, object 1 will pull object 2 into orbit, when it is acting over a vacuum. With something like the sun and the solar system, the sun's GF would only have to be greater than each of the planets to pull them into orbit. When there are 3 objects, and object 1 has a bigger mass than objects 2 and 3, and object 2 has a bigger mass than object 3, object 1 will pull them both in, though object 3 will be pulled somewhat to object 2. Gravitational Force- The amount of force that gravity can exert upon an object. It would cause it to be pulled closer together. In something as small, and with as little mass as an atom, gravity has almost no effect, because the mass of an atom is tiny, as is the radius. With something like a black hole, the radius is tiny, but the mass is so huge that gravity would still have a strong effect on it. So how completely wrong is it?

In my life science class we got divided up into pairs, and are making different DNA models. How detailed they are is dependant on our skill level. Cody and I are making a really detailed one, and it is suposed to show the molecular structure of ech of the base pairs, and the deoxyribos and Phosphate group. We are going to start building it after we get back from Thanksgiving break, but how owuld you show each molecule 3 dementionally?

There was an article on that in the AJC last Friday. That is really interesting!

Neutrinos are not massless, so they can not travel at the speed of light. Photons can travel at the speed of light, and other massless particles can too, but if anything has a tiny bit of mass, even something as small as a neutrino, its mass will grow infinate by the time it reaches the speed of light.

Doesn't the Strong force, Weak force, and Electromagnetic Force all have to be combined into one force (GUT), then act upon Photons for them to spontaneosly turn into an electron and a positron?

I am in 7th grade, but I just turned 12. I agree that they need to add stuff like "elementary school gradutate"

I would have thought they would be majorana particles, but I have read in several places, that they can not be majorana particles because they lack vector interactions (instead they have elastic interactions)

So antimatter exists to balance out matter, through charge (and sometimes other things). In that case wouldn't you have to have many versions of the same particle (opposite spin, direction, etc.), in order to fully balance them out?

I had a question about antimatter, and I wasn't sure where to ask it, so I thought I would try here. I was wondering what the difference between antimatter and matter was. Everything I have researched has said that it is charge, but that can not be true. Neutrinos are elementary particles, and they have antineutrinos, yet there charge is zero. I saw several things about them being majorana particles, but each thing (at least the ones that know anything about neutrinos) says that they can not be majorana particles because they do not have vector interactions. I do not know what vector interactions have to do with them being majorana particles. I have also heard of Strangeness being the other factor, but with neutrinos, there are not strange quarks, so you would have the same problem with that as you would have with charge. Also, I recently heard that neatrinos were "right handed" and antineutrinos were "left handed", but in that case how would you know which was which? Thanks, Rosie

Hi, my name is Rosie. I am in 7th grade. I love all of science, but I am really interested in particle physics.