Matter and anti matter

[michel123456]

This thread is very confusing.

[IM Egdall]

Also, would you have any other idea on what makes an anti particle become the opposite of matter? When they create anti-matter in a lab, what are they doing that causes normal matter to all of a sudden have opposite charges and opposite other things?

 

 

Antimatter is produced naturally in certain ordinary matter collisions. For example, steer electrons (at very speed) to collide with large atomic number atoms. See quote:

 

"The main idea in making antimatter is just getting enough energy in a collision to allow the particles to be made. If you get electrons going fast enough and throw them at a piece of material called a target, preferably made out of atoms that have a large atomic number, you will have a shower of electrons, positrons (anti-electrons) and photons"

 

More details in link : http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=1172

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Also, would you have any other idea on what makes an anti particle become the opposite of matter? When they create anti-matter in a lab, what are they doing that causes normal matter to all of a sudden have opposite charges and opposite other things?

As I described earlier, smash a high-velocity proton into another proton and it will create two new particles: a proton and an antiproton. No special tricks required.

[steevey]

As I described earlier, smash a high-velocity proton into another proton and it will create two new particles: a proton and an antiproton. No special tricks required.

 

That doesn't answer my question in any way shape or form...

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

You asked what they're doing to make antimatter, and I told you exactly what they do. Now, the question of why smashing protons together makes antiprotons is a different one, and I have no idea what the answer is.

[swansont]

That doesn't answer my question in any way shape or form...

 

Your question is ill-formed. The antimatter is not normal matter that has been somehow changed, so it's not possible to explain how that happens. The matter and antimatter are both created, as long as there is enough energy present to account for the mass of the particles.

 

 

Matter and antimatter involve not only opposite charge but opposite parity

 

http://blogs.uslhc.us/symmetry-in-physics-pt-2-discrete-symmetries-and-antimatter

[steevey]

Your question is ill-formed. The antimatter is not normal matter that has been somehow changed, so it's not possible to explain how that happens. The matter and antimatter are both created, as long as there is enough energy present to account for the mass of the particles.

 

 

Matter and antimatter involve not only opposite charge but opposite parity

 

http://blogs.uslhc.u...-and-antimatter

 

Scientists create antimatter in a lab by colliding particles right? Well what does colliding particles do to create it that causes the opposite spin and the opposite charge? Why does that change it?

[swansont]

Scientists create antimatter in a lab by colliding particles right? Well what does colliding particles do to create it that causes the opposite spin and the opposite charge?

 

They give the system enough energy. It falls under Murray Gell-Mann's physics version totalitarian principle: That which is not forbidden is mandatory.

 

Why does that change it?

 

I just said that that doesn't happen. The original matter is still there. It hasn't changed.

[Widdekind]

Mass is a property of matter. When you convert that mass into energy, I suppose you can't call it "matter" any more, because it has no mass.

 

Is not the Stress-Energy tensor, of GR, essentially 'blind', to the 'means' by which 'mass-energy' is present, caring only about the 'end' amount of 'mass-energy' ?

 

To my current comprehension, the only real difference, between 'matter' and 'energy', is that the former can be localized, into a stable & static configuration, of 'substantive stuff' -- a little like 'light, pinned permanently in place'. "Mass", meaning "rest mass", is the ability of 'matter' to localize, into some particular, and potentially permanent, 'place' -- a 'frozen in' curvature, of the space-time fabric, instead of a 'sonic vibration' of the same, perpetually propagating thru the same.

 

What about the reverse?

 

Biological 'anabolism' amounts to injecting energy, into the electrical bonds with molecules, to stick molecules together, and build ever bigger macro-molecules, thereby. Although it is a tiny, electro-chemical caliber amount, Living (bio-)chemical systems convert energy, via such endothermic chemical reactions, into stable matter molecules.

[mississippichem]

Biological 'anabolism' amounts to injecting energy, into the electrical bonds with molecules, to stick molecules together, and build ever bigger macro-molecules, thereby. Although it is a tiny, electro-chemical caliber amount, Living (bio-)chemical systems convert energy, via such endothermic chemical reactions, into stable matter molecules.

 

But that energy started out in the bonding orbitals of nutrient molecules so its not really the same thing as relativistic matter-energy equivalence. Its just converting chemical potential energy into another chemical form, harvesting energy from the exergonic reactions that take place along the way.

Edited April 24, 2011 by mississippichem

[DrRocket]

..., harvesting energy from the exergonic reactions that take place along the way.

 

Is that legal in Mississippi ?

[steevey]

I just said that that doesn't happen. The original matter is still there. It hasn't changed.

 

Your question is ill-formed. The antimatter is not normal matter that has been somehow changed

 

Now I'm getting even more confused. Ok, they just give normal matter enough energy and instead of forming a plasma state it forms anti matter which isn't from that matter just a result?

Can someone who's like, not a staff member answer these questions? Because they seem to only give answers that I don't understand.

Edited April 25, 2011 by steevey

[mississippichem]

Is that legal in Mississippi ?

 

Judging by the quality of our roads I imagine that only entropically favored processes are allowed here, which means all endothermic exergonic reactions are legal.

[michel123456]

Can someone who's like, not a staff member answer these questions? Because they seem to only give answers that I don't understand.

 

That was funny. Why did you vote negative? When the pupil has the courage to say he doesn't understand, part of the blame goes to the professor IMHO.

Most of the time you get angry when the pupil doesn't admit his ignorance. Now is the time to choose.

 

Besides, as I stated before

 

This thread is very confusing.

 

and as a matter of consequence, I am obliged to agree with poor Steevey.

[swansont]

When the student goes to a class without having taken the prerequisites and gets confused, it's not the professor's fault. Understanding isn't an entitlement.

 

Tp paraphrase Feynman: I can't explain it in a way that you understand, because you don't have enough of a physics background. Why does the professor get the blame for a student's lack of a physics background?

[alpha2cen]

Do we have an experiment paper about this?

 

Energy ----> M1( matter) + M2( anti matter)

 

inertia mass M1 = inertia mass M2

 

This equation is theoretically correct. But Is this equation experimentally proved?

Edited April 25, 2011 by alpha2cen

[steevey]

When the student goes to a class without having taken the prerequisites and gets confused, it's not the professor's fault. Understanding isn't an entitlement.

 

Tp paraphrase Feynman: I can't explain it in a way that you understand, because you don't have enough of a physics background. Why does the professor get the blame for a student's lack of a physics background?

 

I understand what physicists in real life say, just not anyone who is a staff member here and its probably because they haven't had as much experience explaining it to people well.

Edited April 25, 2011 by steevey

[michel123456]

This is getting bad.

 

Back to the beginning.

 

There is a chain linking matter mass & gravitation.

 

All below from respective wikipedia entries:

 

1. Gravitation, or the theory of gravity, is a natural phenomenon by which physical bodies attract with a force proportional to their mass

 

2.In physics, mass (from Ancient Greek: μᾶζα) commonly refers to any of three properties[clarification needed] of matter,

 

3.Matter is a general term for the substance of which all physical objects consist.[1][2] Typically, matter includes atoms and other particles which have mass.

All 3 definitions could lead to the abusive conclusion that matter=mass=gravitation, but it is not the case(please correct me if I am wrong)

 

Introducing antimatter:

 

from wiki

 

4. In particle physics, antimatter is the extension of the concept of the antiparticle to matter, where antimatter is composed of antiparticles in the same way that normal matter is composed of particles.

One has to go deeper to learn that antimatter has regular mass, and thus exert gravitation as regular matter does.

 

Then one cannot say that "mass is a property of matter", but should state that "mass is a property of matter and antimatter" (correct me again).

 

Proceeding further into what is NOT matter, one finds the most evident: the photon.

 

5. In physics, a photon is an elementary particle, the quantum of the electromagnetic interaction and the basic unit of light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation.

from wiki

 

Here again, one has to go deeper in order to learn that a photon is NOT matter because it has NO (rest) mass.

 

BUT a photon exerts gravitation and is sensible to gravitation.

 

So that as much as I can understand, nothing escapes from gravitation, no matter its nature (can I say that?).

Negative gravitation has never been observed.

(edited)

Edited April 25, 2011 by michel123456

[swansont]

Do we have an experiment paper about this?

 

Energy ----> M1( matter) + M2( anti matter)

 

inertia mass M1 = inertia mass M2

 

This equation is theoretically correct. But Is this equation experimentally proved?

 

 

1) L. A. Page, P. Stehle and S. B. Gunst, Phys. Rev. 89, 127:3 (1953).

2) P. B. Schwinberg, R. S. Van Dyck Jr. and H. G. Dehmelt, Phys. Lett. 81A, 119 (1981).

3) Steven Chu, Allen P. Mills, Jr. and John L. Hall, Phys. Rev. Lett. 52, 1689 (1984).

 

(apologies for any typos here, it's an OCRed document)

 

1 is a mass spectrometer measurement to about a part in 10^5

2 is a Penning trap measurement to a part in 10^7

3 is a positronium spectroscopy measurement to ~4 parts in 10^8

[IM Egdall]

 

Now I'm getting even more confused. Ok, they just give normal matter enough energy and instead of forming a plasma state it forms anti matter which isn't from that matter just a result?

Can someone who's like, not a staff member answer these questions? Because they seem to only give answers that I don't understand.

 

I'll try. An example: A photon can and does spontaniously transform into an electron and anti-electron (positron). But only if the photon has enough energy. How much? We have to use E=mc^2 to figure it out.

 

Add up the masses of the electron and positron. Multiply this number by the speed of light squared. The resultant number is the amount of energy that the original photon must have. Any less energy, then it does not have enough to transform into the two matter-particles. And the greater a photon's energy, the greater its frequency. So here only very high frequency photons (I think gamma rays) have enough energy to transform into electron/positron pairs.

 

Notice that the total electric charge before is zero (a photon has zero electrical charge). And the total electric charge after is -1 (electron) plus 1 (positron) equals zero. This obeys the rule that the charge before is always equal to the charge after. There are also other conservation laws governing these transformations.

 

Hope this helps. For more stuff on particle transformation (decay), see The Particle Adventure http://www.particlea...ecay_intro.html

Edited April 25, 2011 by I ME

[swansont]

All 3 definitions could lead to the abusive conclusion that matter=mass=gravitation, but it is not the case(please correct me if I am wrong)

 

"Matter has mass" or "mass is a property of matter" does not lead to "matter is mass"

[steevey]

I'll try. An example: A photon can and does spontaniously transform into an electron and anti-electron (positron). But only if the photon has enough energy. How much? We have to use E=mc^2 to figure it out.

 

Add up the masses of the electron and positron. Multiply this number by the speed of light squared.

 

I get how it would work mathematically, but aren't there photons that have like 10^27 electron volts generated by supernova and jets from black holes?

 

And just to clear up: Both matter and energy have mass (well I mean light can bed the fabric of space), and in the case of something like matter and anti-matter annihilating, the matter would be gone, but the energy and mass would be left over? Like if there were still Higgs Bosons left over?

Edited April 26, 2011 by steevey

[alpha2cen]

1) L. A. Page, P. Stehle and S. B. Gunst, Phys. Rev. 89, 127:3 (1953).

2) P. B. Schwinberg, R. S. Van Dyck Jr. and H. G. Dehmelt, Phys. Lett. 81A, 119 (1981).

3) Steven Chu, Allen P. Mills, Jr. and John L. Hall, Phys. Rev. Lett. 52, 1689 (1984).

 

(apologies for any typos here, it's an OCRed document)

 

1 is a mass spectrometer measurement to about a part in 10^5

2 is a Penning trap measurement to a part in 10^7

3 is a positronium spectroscopy measurement to ~4 parts in 10^8

 

Thank you for good answer.

[IM Egdall]

I get how it would work mathematically, but aren't there photons that have like 10^27 electron volts generated by supernova and jets from black holes?

 

And just to clear up: Both matter and energy have mass (well I mean light can bed the fabric of space), and in the case of something like matter and anti-matter annihilating, the matter would be gone, but the energy and mass would be left over? Like if there were still Higgs Bosons left over?

 

I think it goes like this. Both matter and energy do not "have mass". Matter- particles (like electrons) have mass. Photons are energy particles which have zero mass. So in the above example, a zero mass (no matter) photon spontaneously transforms into two matter particles such as electron-positron.

 

And yes both matter and energy are a source of gravity; the presence of either causes the warping or bending of spacetime.

[michel123456]

I think it goes like this. Both matter and energy do not "have mass". Matter- particles (like electrons) have mass. Photons are energy particles which have zero mass. So in the above example, a zero mass (no matter) photon spontaneously transforms into two matter particles such as electron-positron.

 

And yes both matter and energy are a source of gravity; the presence of either causes the warping or bending of spacetime.

 

Thank you Youyou (sorry I me)*

 

1.I suppose you ment "massive particles" instead of "matter particles".

 

2. why "spontaneously"? Does the photon "feel better" as a doubled massive entity due to some principle?

 

3. Steevey's question about high energy photons generated by astral objects. Why do these photons remain photons and don't spontaneously transform?

 

*I couldn't resist.

Edited April 26, 2011 by michel123456