Speculation regarding matter/antimatter annihilation - SPLIT

[Kramer]

Krash661
-do you know what happens when antimatter comes in the vicinity of matter ?
i have to say obviously not.
antimatter is unstable

----No! I don’t exactly know what happen when antimatter comes in the vicinity of matter, and I think nobody know for sure, …. except what results afterward.
Let see this way: an electron and an antimatter electron (positron) comes in vicinity. How much near each other and what happens there -- in that moment, nobody know for sure.. Afterward the result is : Both “Annihilated”!?, and instead of them two gamma photons appears moving with C velocity in opposite directions. Einstein state that photons are particles and this is proved: they can “de-annihilated” and two matter -- antimatter particles reappears. Where are gone mass? Charges? How they do re-appears?
Maybe they that know how is “annihilated” matter have any explanation on how process of “de-annihilation” happens.
In my layman different reasoning I say:
Nothing is “annihilated” , nothing is “de-annihilated”. I think as matter and antimatter have opposite electric charges that attract teach other they have opposite gravity “ability” to “repel” each other.
For stationary observer Suma of electric charges is zero, and so gravity ability of photon.
In fact they exist in opposition near each other in perfect equilibrium as it is my book in equilibrium over my table.
That only a thought.

[swansont]

Einstein state that photons are particles and this is proved: they can “de-annihilated” and two matter -- antimatter particles reappears. Where are gone mass? Charges?

 

The mass is converted to the photon energy; in e-/e- annihilation, they each have 511 keV, which is the mass energy of an electron. The net charge is zero, so charge is also conserved.

[Kramer]

Swansont

The mass is converted to the photon energy; in e-/e- annihilation, they each have 511 keV, which is the mass energy of an electron. The net charge is zero, so charge is also conserved.
---- In this “ is converted” stand around the mystery of correlation of mass and mass-les particles, of annihilation and de-annihilation of them. “Conversed” is very poor word to give an idea how it happens, how two physics entity ( electric charge, gravity) disappears and appears, how some things, in relative stationary status,--- instantly transformers in two very fast “things” ( if I am not wrong to call them so).
And this huge question is cause of speculations.

[swansont]

Swansont

The mass is converted to the photon energy; in e-/e- annihilation, they each have 511 keV, which is the mass energy of an electron. The net charge is zero, so charge is also conserved.

---- In this “ is converted” stand around the mystery of correlation of mass and mass-les particles, of annihilation and de-annihilation of them. “Conversed” is very poor word to give an idea how it happens, how two physics entity ( electric charge, gravity) disappears and appears, how some things, in relative stationary status,--- instantly transformers in two very fast “things” ( if I am not wrong to call them so).

And this huge question is cause of speculations.

 

 

Charge is not an "entity", it is a property, and there is zero charge in the system. This was not an explanation of how it happens, because the mechanism itself is not something we can investigate in that way. But we can make models of the behavior, and understand the properties of the interaction(s) that are involved.

 

Gravity is not the interaction involved in this process.

[hyperion1is]

Lyman terms:

In the early moments of big bang matter and antimatter annihilated each other? Is this a working hypothesis? The matter "won" and "populates" the present observable Universe. This is one way to view it. We can say that antimatter exists now, in the Universe all around us, in another form? It's effects can be "seen" in principles of the Universe (probably in those un-explained yet). If I say in another "form" you may say is not "matter" (anti-matter) anymore. This is just a perspective. E=mc² . Energy can constitute as matter (procession of Mercury). If no anti-matter is present currently how can it be artificially created? It's not right to postulate that our present Universe shouldn't be able to sustain anti-matter?

 

Obviously something I got it wrong. But what ?

[swansont]

We already know that in some rare interactions antimatter can decay into matter, but what we have observed thus far does not explain the matter/antimatter asymmetry of the universe. There's still more to be discovered.

[Kramer]

 

Swansont
Charge is not an "entity", it is a property, and there is zero charge in the system. This was not an explanation of how it happens, because the mechanism itself is not something we can investigate in that way. But we can make models of the behavior, and understand the properties of the interaction(s) that are involved.

Gravity is not the interaction involved in this process.

=== I call it entity because it “ disappears” and “appears” in a precise quantity, it is “something” measured with high accuracy that don’t leave tails behind. Together with
”property” of gravity—and un-separable with it exists in Plank extrapolated “mass” via:

M = e / (4*pi*ε0* G)^0.5 = Mplank*sqrt(α)
which is the sub-particle, block that build every common particle.
A speculation? You bet.
It is the only way that a layman can give explanations for some physic phenomena that modern physic wears with mystery.

[hyperion1is]

Again, I stress, I'm a layman when regarding physics. I hope is OK to post here, even so, even I don't know how my contribution will be to this forum.

Perception is, or it can be, a factor in understanding the laws of physics. I think perception is included in quantum theory but I don't know how.

Anyway. Perception can make separation of principles possible. Imagine a middle line delimiting an under-current and an upper-current (in opposite directions). Without perception we: 1. Will think that the 2 currents will intersect ("canceling of forces); 2. We will use an ad-hoc explanation about the principles involved in a phenomena.

Using Newton laws (layman again), used locally: on Planet Earth from ground level to upper atmosphere, Gravity is defined as: All objects (with mass) will fall (are attracted) to the center of the Earth? The in the same way I can define Anti-gravity: All objects will be repelled way from the Gravity center of the Earth.

Gravity and Anti-gravity are defined locally as being of the same nature and opposite vectors. (I know about Einstein theory about an anti-gravity being stronger at greater distances). Gravity and anti-gravity are separated by Perception. To tell which will "act" on object I have to find instances in which Gravity behaves as gravity and in which gravity behaves as anti-gravity (shortage of terms).

A rock "released" will fall on the ground. A balloon filled with helium will be repelled away from the Earth.

 

You can contradict me.

[Bignose]

A balloon filled with helium will be repelled away from the Earth.

A Helium filled balloon's behavior is very well explained without invoking any kind of anti-gravity. The density difference between pure helium and the mixture that makes up the normal air suffices very well. So I guess I am not sure what you're driving at here.

[Kramer]

 

Lyman terms:

In the early moments of big bang matter and antimatter annihilated each other? Is this a working hypothesis? The matter "won" and "populates" the present observable Universe. This is one way to view it. We can say that antimatter exists now, in the Universe all around us, in another form? It's effects can be "seen" in principles of the Universe (probably in those un-explained yet). If I say in another "form" you may say is not "matter" (anti-matter) anymore. This is just a perspective. E=mc² . Energy can constitute as matter (procession of Mercury). If no anti-matter is present currently how can it be artificially created? It's not right to postulate that our present Universe shouldn't be able to sustain anti-matter?

Obviously something I got it wrong. But what ?

------ Sorry. I don’t share believing in Big Bang. For me is a huge speculation for the fact that it doesn’t make any explanation for the main process of how it happened. For me is more than absurd creation of something out from nothing.
I suppose the other your questions are in the court of moderator.

[hyperion1is]

I

 

A Helium filled balloon's behavior is very well explained without invoking any kind of anti-gravity. The density difference between pure helium and the mixture that makes up the normal air suffices very well. So I guess I am not sure what you're driving at here.

In other words the air is more heavy than "my balloon";overall. Did, I include air and other principles when I defined gravity (subjectively one might say)? Why bring other principles to dis-qualify my anti-gravity when I defined it in relation to gravity?

You see where I'm driving at?

The question is if my definition of gravity is the same as Newton's.

[swansont]

 

=== I call it entity because it “ disappears” and “appears” in a precise quantity, it is “something” measured with high accuracy that don’t leave tails behind. Together with

”property” of gravity—and un-separable with it exists in Plank extrapolated “mass” via:

M = e / (4*pi*ε0* G)^0.5 = Mplank*sqrt(α)

which is the sub-particle, block that build every common particle.

A speculation? You bet.

It is the only way that a layman can give explanations for some physic phenomena that modern physic wears with mystery.

 

 

What is α?

 

Is there any way to test that there is a fundamental particle with this mass? Does this equation even have units of mass? ε0 includes Farads, and I don't see how that goes away, unless it's in whatever α is.

[Strange]

I call it [charge] entity because it “ disappears” and “appears” in a precise quantity, it is “something” measured with high accuracy that don’t leave tails behind.

 

It doesn't appear and disappear. It is a conserved quantity (like mass-energy) and the total charge never changes.

[Bignose]

Why bring other principles to dis-qualify my anti-gravity when I defined it in relation to gravity?

You see where I'm driving at?

Because usually 'anti-graivty' presupposes some other force to cancel out or nullify gravity. This is what I assumed you meant when you used the word 'repel' But buoyancy does not need a concept of repelling. Density differences are sufficient. I guess it was mostly a question of your word choice, then.

[Kramer]

 

Swansont

What is α?

Is there any way to test that there is a fundamental particle with this mass? Does this equation even have units of mass? ε0 includes Farads, and I don't see how that goes away, unless it's in whatever α is.----- Constant of fine structure, dimension-less.
----- I suppose that sub-particles which move with C velocity in whatever trajectories you may consider in the same time as a chunk of energy or mass.
Exists? As many hypothetic particles there isn’t any sure test for their existence.
----You may use Juanrgas table obout units to findd yourself . I think yes even has.

Strange
It doesn't appear and disappear. It is a conserved quantity (like mass-energy) and the total charge never changes.

----- I put them under quote. I think if they are conserved they continue to exist as individuals entity.

[swansont]

As many hypothetic particles there isn’t any sure test for their existence.

But this is your speculation. How do you test to see if the particle exists?

 

 

----- I put them under quote. I think if they are conserved they continue to exist as individuals entity.[/size]

And you are wrong. However, feel free to present a model and evidence that you are right, as per the rules of speculations.

[Kramer]

Swansont
But this is your speculation. How do you test to see if the particle exists?
-----I am not physicist. I am a layman, that think differently about some aspects of modern physic. With a different kind of reasoning. And don’t insist I am right.
About the tests of a particle with dimensions of Plank length area, to see if it exist it ridiculous.
Even about tests of existence of exotic or non common particles of modern physics I think that they are conglomerate or merger of common particles. Why? Because they disintegrate in common particles.
And you are wrong. However, feel free to present a model and evidence that you are right, as per the rules of speculations.
-----Maybe even you will change mind if …CERN will find that force between antimatter and matter is repel.

[Bignose]

I am not physicist. I am a layman, that think differently about some aspects of modern physic.

also known as, you are writing science fiction stories. Because if you are going to just abdicate your responsibility to provide evidence for your story-telling, then you certainly aren't doing science. Science is the process of coming up with ideas AND coming up with evidence to support your ideas.

 

In short, if you are just going to shirk the evidence portion of the process, then you need to take this to a metaphysics or spiritual or some other forum where the scientific process isn't held in high esteem.

 

Because on this forum, we hold the scientific process very highly up. And you are basically explicitly telling us that you don't want to do science. Doesn't seem like a good fit to me.

 

EDITED TO ADD:

 

Just to be clear, I am NOT saying that I expect you to be able to go out and build your own super collider.

 

What I am saying I expect is that if your supposed particles exist, that means they have effects that can be measured. And by predicting what those effects are, tests can be hypothesized as to how to quantify those effects. Furthermore, almost surely, experiments have been performed where some aspect of those effects should have shown up. You could use existing data sets and demonstrate that the effects from your particles were indeed seen by comparing predictions based on your model with actual measured results.

 

The above would be much, much, much more meaningful scientifically, rather than just writing stories off the cuff.

Edited August 2, 2013 by Bignose

[swansont]

Swansont

But this is your speculation. How do you test to see if the particle exists?

-----I am not physicist. I am a layman, that think differently about some aspects of modern physic. With a different kind of reasoning. And don’t insist I am right.

You still have a responsibility to present some kind of evidence, model or way to test your idea. This is a science discussion board, not a blog or dorm-room bull session.

 

About the tests of a particle with dimensions of Plank length area, to see if it exist it ridiculous.

We test for the existence of other particles, why not yours? Even point particles, which are how most fundamental particles are modeled. We detect them by seeing how they interact.

 

Even about tests of existence of exotic or non common particles of modern physics I think that they are conglomerate or merger of common particles. Why? Because they disintegrate in common particles.

Which is exactly one way that we test for the particles we see in the standard model, and all of the combinations of them we find. Rather than be granted an exception, all you have done is confirm you should be able to present tests of your idea.

 

 

 

And you are wrong. However, feel free to present a model and evidence that you are right, as per the rules of speculations.

-----Maybe even you will change mind if …CERN will find that force between antimatter and matter is repel.[/size]

 

I fail to see how that will change the way conservation of charge works.

 

But given that matter and antimatter do annihilate, how would repulsion fit in with that?

 

BTW, CERN is going to test whether they have negative gravitational mass. The gravitational interaction between a particle and antiparticle is negligible. Unless you're claiming otherwise, in which case: model, test, evidence, please.

[Kramer]

 

Bignose

In short, if you are just going to shirk the evidence portion of the process, then you need to take this to a metaphysics or spiritual or some other forum where the scientific process isn't held in high esteem.
----- Be careful for yourself because the mathematicians working with abstracts are more inclined toward metaphysics and mystics,--- where are pushing science.

Just to be clear, I am NOT saying that I expect you to be able to go out and build own super collider
----Thanks anyway that have deliberate from a heavy burden

 

Swansont
You still have a responsibility to present some kind of evidence, model or way to test your idea. This is a science discussion board, not a blog or dorm-room bull session.
We test for the existence of other particles, why not yours? Even point particles, which are how most fundamental particles are modeled. We detect them by seeing how they interact.
Which is exactly one way that we test for the particles we see in the standard model, and all of the combinations of them we find. Rather than be granted an exception, all you have done is confirm you should be able to present tests of your idea.

I fail to see how that will change the way conservation of charge works.

But given that matter and antimatter do annihilate, how would repulsion fit in with that?

BTW, CERN is going to test whether they have negative gravitational mass. The gravitational interaction between a particle and antiparticle is negligible. Unless you're

claiming otherwise, in which case: model, test, evidence, please.

------ Thanks for your moderate rebut (If my impression is not a mistake).
I have had a good time debating with you about my hypothesis, in a number of threads that had “Unique sub-particle” as a laid motive.
Now I see that my little baggage of scarce knowledge is quite empty for a dispute that tends to put in “uncertainty” some basic concept of modern physics.
My threads didn’t attired any attention from physicist or mathematicians, for any companionship, this means that I am lone in an deserted path.

I quit. You my close my threads.
About expected experiment in CERN with anti hydrogen atom, I think that if they find repulsive gravity force between matter and antimatter this will have tremendous repecusion in physic.

[swansont]

About expected experiment in CERN with anti hydrogen atom, I think that if they find repulsive gravity force between matter and antimatter this will have tremendous repecusion in physic.[/size][/font]

Yes it will. But nothing you have presented will have been confirmed in the slightest.