Anti-matter and E/M Charge.

[mcompengr]

[( Look, all of this crap really only presupposes one little thing, which is not
to say that it's not crap, but it does at least seem to be a self-consistant little
pile of crap: serial instantiated existance in a real, physical discrete space.

For entertainment purposes only. )]

 

H. More on anti-matter

"...on a straight count the photons have it..." (barrow, p.157) But were they all created by proton/anti-proton annihilation? Generally, say they were all created by proton-electron interactions from and since the last scattering surface. That would only be about one photon every ten years for each proton-electron pair. How is it that there are so few photons in the universe?

Anti-matter

There are some odd things of note about anti-matter, besides the fact that photons don't seem to have real partners. That by itself might indicate the universe has a built-in bias against anti-matter. Photons from muonic or anti-atoms don't seem too different from others. ("Anti" of course is relative.)

 

Mainly, a particle annihilates only when it meets its paired nemesis anti-particle and no other. Were they truly "anti" of each other's "matter", then something dramatic might be expected if, say, a neutron ran gently into an anti-proton, but not so.

 

Also, when a particle does encounter its "anti" they don't really annihilate, they disintegrate into their constituent "stuff", and they both seem composed of the same stuff, i.e. there is no evidence of anti-mass/energy as such. Even charge is the same, just with polarity reversed. Finally, concepts of pre matter and pre anti-matter must seem to be equally incompatible with each other, and so be unable to initially come about together in equal quantities.

 

One conclusion could be that most particles manifest a surface, and it is the surfaces of the matter/anti-matter pairs which are "anti" of each other, and so destructively reinforce perfectly. If particles have a surface, rather than just lending themselves to such a model, that fact would be significant when contemplating their nature/essence. Likewise for some particles having no surface, and so perhaps being more "social" than others.

 

The contemplation of the consequences of this would be nested hypothetical, but then charged particles could provide a mechanism for charge itself, and particle society (Ford, p.2) could be seen to be divided along the lines of effective surface. Surface like attributes would be better.

 

[( You're still reading. Where's the beef? Fat trimmed to the bone. Angles not covered: missed. )]

 

More on Charge

The proton and electron surfaces would be like pass don't-pass filters, each letting some of their stuff out that the other contains, every time they instantiate. This stuff would move out instantiating in every discrete-space and so losing amplitude by the inverse-square rule, and being the ultimate in sociability: "particles" of field.

 

When it encounters another particle surface, the effect would depend on whether that surface would let it pass through or not. Or rather, when a particle encounters discrete space with electro-magnetic fields therein, the effect would depend on whether the field matches its surface or not.

 

Comparing "surfaces" of "particles" of field with "surfaces" of charged particles; when a charged particle instantiates within a field it must change the surface of that discrete space from something to something else. Or rather, that discrete-space's surface must change. The change would be as from positive or negative filtrate surface to positive or negative filter surface. It might just be a little different for a charged particle to instantiate where the field is as its own filtrate or not, lesser or greater depending on polarity and flux.

 

Neutrons wouldn't care about E/M fields because whatever they run into it can't be said to not be part of their surface's makeup/configuration. It's not that E/M force would have no effect on them, but rather that regardless of polarity or flux density there, one E/M-field permeated space is just as easy to instantiate into as any other.

 

Charged particles might not exactly experience a force as such, they would just find instantiation easier one discrete-space over another, depending on the local E/M environment. Like with the moon and bent space: no force, just the path of least cost. Iron atoms must find instantiation easier where flux is greater, regardless of polarity.

[Strange]

There are some odd things of note about anti-matter, besides the fact that photons don't seem to have real partners.

 

Photons are their own anti-particles: http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=1153

 

Mainly, a particle annihilates only when it meets its paired nemesis anti-particle and no other. Were they truly "anti" of each other's "matter", then something dramatic might be expected if, say, a neutron ran gently into an anti-proton, but not so.

 

I am fairly sure that a neutron and an anti-proton will annihilate "dramatically" as one is composed of quarks and the other antiquarks.

 

Also, when a particle does encounter its "anti" they don't really annihilate, they disintegrate into their constituent "stuff", and they both seem composed of the same stuff, i.e. there is no evidence of anti-mass/energy as such.

 

As far as I know, all fundamental particle-antiparticle annihilations result in photons - i.e. a complete conversion of mass to energy. No "constituent stuff" to be seen.

[Sensei]

 

As far as I know, all fundamental particle-antiparticle annihilations result in photons - i.e. a complete conversion of mass to energy. No "constituent stuff" to be seen.

 

Search google for "Muon pair production by electron-positron annihilation" (relativistic)

 

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02725718

 

(this is not the only article about it)

Edited October 26, 2014 by Sensei

[Strange]

Interesting. I assume that is because the high kinetic energy allows muon-antimuon pairs to be produced.

 

However, it is not an example of "disintegration into constituent stuff".

[mcompengr]

 

Photons are their own anti-particles: http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=1153

 

 

I am fairly sure that a neutron and an anti-proton will annihilate "dramatically" as one is composed of quarks and the other antiquarks.

 

 

As far as I know, all fundamental particle-antiparticle annihilations result in photons - i.e. a complete conversion of mass to energy. No "constituent stuff" to be seen.

 

For that annihilation, quarks too would only do so with their paired opposite. Mesons are made of a quark and an anti-quark, but not opposites.

Common "constituent stuff" might be seen because anti-particles come out of collisions where none went in.

 

(I don't know, only this from 1980: osti.gov/scitech/biblio/5165829-antiproton-neutron-annihilation-rest-anti-pi-final-states)

Edited April 12, 2017 by mcompengr