Physicists create antimatter

[glenn1]

Silverpig, Moonbeam is correct in saying there are antiphotons. A cornerstone of the understanding of particles calls for every particle to have an antiparticle. Photons, neutrons, everything.

So in the antiparticle world, everything is reversed? Anti-Windows never has a BSOD? Anti-men can actually understand how anti-women unthink? The anti-Janet Reno is the cover model for the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You will never see an AM bomb. That is because creating antimatter is extremely inefficient. If you could overcome that, and make it 100% efficient, and could store it, remember there is no antimatter mine. You still have to make all of it, as you wont find it in nature, at not least round these here parts. Not like fusion, where you can use deuterium in water.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Silverpig, Moonbeam is correct in saying there are antiphotons. A cornerstone of the understanding of particles calls for every particle to have an antiparticle. Photons, neutrons, everything.

So in the antiparticle world, everything is reversed? Anti-Windows never has a BSOD? Anti-men can actually understand how anti-women unthink? The anti-Janet Reno is the cover model for the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue?

And Clinton was a Republican

 

[cliftonite]

Originally posted by: OmegaNauce

Originally posted by: yobarman

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: yobarman
no good can come from this.

pretty soon they're going to be making anti-matter bombs. that'd be wild.

No way, dood... once someone also figures out how to make dilithium crystals, we'll all be wearing dorky jumpsuits and war will be a thing of the past (until we discover the Romulans, that is)..

right......

We will have our klingon friends help us though. Besides, the borg are the bigger threat...we must prepare!

RESISTANCE IS FUTILE....WE WILL ASSIMILATE YOU AND YOUR CULTURE AND ADD ITS UNIQUENESS TO OUR OWN....LOWER YOUR SHIELDS AND PREPARE TO SURRENDER

 

[Moonbeam]

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: glenn1

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Silverpig, Moonbeam is correct in saying there are antiphotons. A cornerstone of the understanding of particles calls for every particle to have an antiparticle. Photons, neutrons, everything.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So in the antiparticle world, everything is reversed? Anti-Windows never has a BSOD? Anti-men can actually understand how anti-women unthink? The anti-Janet Reno is the cover model for the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



And Clinton was a Republican
---------------------------------------------------


And Bush won.

 

[MichaelD]

[Spicoli]Whoa, dude. I just was like, thinking and like, I realized that Anti-matter is like mind over matter; if you don't mind, then it don't matter! Uh-huhhuhuhuh![/Spicoli]


ps
If you don't know who "Spicoli" is, you are obviously under 30 years old.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by: glenn1 Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Silverpig, Moonbeam is correct in saying there are antiphotons. A cornerstone of the understanding of particles calls for every particle to have an antiparticle. Photons, neutrons, everything. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So in the antiparticle world, everything is reversed? Anti-Windows never has a BSOD? Anti-men can actually understand how anti-women unthink? The anti-Janet Reno is the cover model for the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And Clinton was a Republican --------------------------------------------------- And Bush won.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Meebe this will clear this up.. In this example a proton (could be any other massive particle you like) and a negative proton are placed close enough so each can feel the other's gravity. Cant be too close in this case, because a negative proton has a positive charge and repells the garden variety one. Now the "regular" proton senses the mass of the negative one. It falls towards it. The negative gravity of the negative particle senses the regular proton. It falls AWAY from it. One trys to capture the other and the other trys to escape. Because the force of gravity in this case is identicle, neither particle moves in respect to the other, but it does to the rest of the universe. It is a PushmePullu. Otherwise undisturbed, it will continue to accelerate, ever approaching the speed of light.

It violates no conservation of energy rules, because remember that classically, gravity is an acceleration. How much energy does the moon use up falling around the earth? What is it's means of propulsion? None. Same here.

Silverpig, Moonbeam is correct in saying there are antiphotons. A cornerstone of the understanding of particles calls for every particle to have an antiparticle. Photons, neutrons, everything.

Okay, a few things here:

1. The electromagnetic force is MUCH stronger than the force of gravity. Therefore, the force of electrostatic repulsion will overwhelm the force of this negative gravity (the existance of which I am still skeptical). According to this site, the elecromagnetic repulsion between the two protons will be ~10^37 times stronger than the force of gravity... What about neutrally charged particles you say? Well that's where 2. comes in with the conservation of energy.

2. About the moon orbiting the earth. It does use energy. It's quite easy to explain too. We can simplify the situation by assuming the moon's orbit around the earth is perfectly 2D. Now picture the earth in the middle of a page, and the moon directly south of the earth. It will have a velocity of v = 1u (simplification there) east. It is currently being pulled directly north. Let's call it's altitude above the earth's core -1d[ns], 0[ew] (the south and west directions are negative let's say, and the centre of the earth has altitude 0).

In the [ew] direction, the moon has a kinetic energy of 1EK, and a gravitational potential energy of zero.
In the [ns] direction, the moon had a kinetic energy of 0, and a gravitational potential energy of 1.

The current forces and momentum will curve the moon around to the full east position, where it will have a kinetic energy of 1 in the [ns] direction, and a potential energy of 0, as well as a kinetic energy of 0 in the [ew] direction, and a potential energy of 1 in the [ew] direction.

You can continue this all the way around the orbit of the moon. It's the gravitational force of the earth which moves the moon around. It simply converts kinetic energy to potential energy and back again. That is how it moves. It's total energy never changes.

The two protons you speak of would have an increasing energy, as they lose no potential energy, but keep gaining kinetic energy, as well as eventually gaining mass. I just don't see an explanation for this.

3. There is no such thing as anti-photons. In order for a particle to have an anti-particle, it must first be a particle. Photons are not particles, and are not considered matter. They cannot therefore have an anti-matter counterpart.

Particles and antiparticles

The term matter is then extended, by convention, to include:
* All quarks, (charges +2/3 and -1/3).
* All negatively charged leptons.
* Left handed neutrinos.

Antimatter is, then, any particle built from:
* Antiquarks (charges of -2/3 or +1/3).
* Positively charged leptons.
* Right-handed neutrinos.

...Similarly, force carrier particles cannot be classified as either matter or antimatter.

 

[tweakmm]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: glenn1
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Silverpig, Moonbeam is correct in saying there are antiphotons. A cornerstone of the understanding of particles calls for every particle to have an antiparticle. Photons, neutrons, everything.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So in the antiparticle world, everything is reversed? Anti-Windows never has a BSOD? Anti-men can actually understand how anti-women unthink? The anti-Janet Reno is the cover model for the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And Clinton was a Republican
---------------------------------------------------
And Bush won.

 

[MaxDSP]

no PICS yet?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider Meebe this will clear this up.. In this example a proton (could be any other massive particle you like) and a negative proton are placed close enough so each can feel the other's gravity. Cant be too close in this case, because a negative proton has a positive charge and repells the garden variety one. Now the "regular" proton senses the mass of the negative one. It falls towards it. The negative gravity of the negative particle senses the regular proton. It falls AWAY from it. One trys to capture the other and the other trys to escape. Because the force of gravity in this case is identicle, neither particle moves in respect to the other, but it does to the rest of the universe. It is a PushmePullu. Otherwise undisturbed, it will continue to accelerate, ever approaching the speed of light. It violates no conservation of energy rules, because remember that classically, gravity is an acceleration. How much energy does the moon use up falling around the earth? What is it's means of propulsion? None. Same here. Silverpig, Moonbeam is correct in saying there are antiphotons. A cornerstone of the understanding of particles calls for every particle to have an antiparticle. Photons, neutrons, everything. [/quote] Okay, a few things here: 1. The electromagnetic force is MUCH stronger than the force of gravity. Therefore, the force of electrostatic repulsion will overwhelm the force of this negative gravity (the existance of which I am still skeptical). According to this site, the elecromagnetic repulsion between the two protons will be ~10^37 times stronger than the force of gravity... What about neutrally charged particles you say? Well that's where 2. comes in with the conservation of energy. 2. About the moon orbiting the earth. It does use energy. It's quite easy to explain too. We can simplify the situation by assuming the moon's orbit around the earth is perfectly 2D. Now picture the earth in the middle of a page, and the moon directly south of the earth. It will have a velocity of v = 1u (simplification there) east. It is currently being pulled directly north. Let's call it's altitude above the earth's core -1d[ns], 0[ew] (the south and west directions are negative let's say, and the centre of the earth has altitude 0). In the [ew] direction, the moon has a kinetic energy of 1EK, and a gravitational potential energy of zero. In the [ns] direction, the moon had a kinetic energy of 0, and a gravitational potential energy of 1. The current forces and momentum will curve the moon around to the full east position, where it will have a kinetic energy of 1 in the [ns] direction, and a potential energy of 0, as well as a kinetic energy of 0 in the [ew] direction, and a potential energy of 1 in the [ew] direction. You can continue this all the way around the orbit of the moon. It's the gravitational force of the earth which moves the moon around. It simply converts kinetic energy to potential energy and back again. That is how it moves. It's total energy never changes. The two protons you speak of would have an increasing energy, as they lose no potential energy, but keep gaining kinetic energy, as well as eventually gaining mass. I just don't see an explanation for this. 3. There is no such thing as anti-photons. In order for a particle to have an anti-particle, it must first be a particle. Photons are not particles, and are not considered matter. They cannot therefore have an anti-matter counterpart. Particles and antiparticles

The term matter is then extended, by convention, to include: * All quarks, (charges +2/3 and -1/3). * All negatively charged leptons. * Left handed neutrinos. Antimatter is, then, any particle built from: * Antiquarks (charges of -2/3 or +1/3). * Positively charged leptons. * Right-handed neutrinos. ...Similarly, force carrier particles cannot be classified as either matter or antimatter.

[/quote]

Dude, cut out the italics!

1 Yes, I know gravity is weaker than electromagnetism. Make it neutrons if you like. Or bulk matter
2 Have to think about it
3 Photons are not matter. That does not mean they are particles.



Notice I said that negative matter has never been observed, but do a google, and you will see I didnt make all this up
EDIT ARGGHHH trying to get that linky to work


yet another edit- different linky, but WTH definition

Yeah, I also know that a photon can act as a wave, but it is still a discreet unit of electromagnetic energy.

 

[silverpig]

The moon orbit analogy is easily seen if you consider what would happen if you drilled a hole through the earth and dropped something straight through it in the [ns] direction. It'd start off at altitude h, and fall straight through the centre, ending up at altitude -h where it would stop and fall back again. Copy this exactly in the [ew] direction, phase shift it by pi/2, and add the motion vectors. You'll end up with a circular orbit. Now consider the energies of each separate motion.

As for the photon anti-particle deal, well that's gonna get hairy. That definition says they are particles, but they are sort of a particle/wave/something-else mix. They have zero rest mass, are therefore not matter, and can't have a rest anti-matter counterpart, but when v = c weird stuff happens. I guess it's safe to say that neither of us can conclusively say one way or the other, because not even leading physicists can rigorously define the photon and whether or not it has an anti-particle/wave/etc.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: silverpig
The moon orbit analogy is easily seen if you consider what would happen if you drilled a hole through the earth and dropped something straight through it in the [ns] direction. It'd start off at altitude h, and fall straight through the centre, ending up at altitude -h where it would stop and fall back again. Copy this exactly in the [ew] direction, phase shift it by pi/2, and add the motion vectors. You'll end up with a circular orbit. Now consider the energies of each separate motion. As for the photon anti-particle deal, well that's gonna get hairy. That definition says they are particles, but they are sort of a particle/wave/something-else mix. They have zero rest mass, are therefore not matter, and can't have a rest anti-matter counterpart, but when v = c weird stuff happens. I guess it's safe to say that neither of us can conclusively say one way or the other, because not even leading physicists can rigorously define the photon and whether or not it has an anti-particle/wave/etc.

Wish I could find the durn reference. Have it in print, not a web thingy...
John Wheeler had a thought experiment where you could take a photon and change it's state before the experiment was conducted.
It was done in a lab (drat who did it?!?!?) a few years back. Essentually you can affect how a photon behaved in the past. Weird. I know there was a simplified explanation in a Discover a coupla months ago.

 

[silverpig]

I don't know... but I'd be interested to read it

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
You will never see an AM bomb. That is because creating antimatter is extremely inefficient. If you could overcome that, and make it 100% efficient, and could store it, remember there is no antimatter mine. You still have to make all of it, as you wont find it in nature, at not least round these here parts. Not like fusion, where you can use deuterium in water.

At least, using current methods it is extremely inefficient. Time and research may yield "workarounds" of sorts.

Also, watch out - some of you are interchanging "protons" and "photons." Hayabusarider said something about negative and positive protons, but Moonbeam misread it as "photons" and it went from there. Two very different things there.
This should be very interesting to see what they can learn by studying these antimatter atoms.

 

[JimmyEatWorld]

EXTREMLY interesting....
antimatter fuel???

how come this wasn't anywhere on the news??
(dont' answer that)

 

[Valinos]

Originally posted by: Jellomancer
I've got an antimatter bomb.. in my pants!

can i see it?

 

[Piano Man]

What if you could direct the gamma rays that are given off during the collision between anti matter and matter. In theory, if the same exact rays are forced together, wouldn's it recreate the matter and the anti-matter, thus teleportation?

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: OuterSquare

Originally posted by: whitecloak
umm, antimatter particles have been created before in particle accelerators.

its the storage of anti-matter which is the problem.

I take it you didn't read the article.

They created antiatoms, the antimatter equivalent of elemental hydrogen. They called it anti-hydrogen, composed of an antiproton nucleus (negative charge) and positron shell (positive charge). As I understand it, this has never been done before.

It's an interesting milestone but it doesn't have any real near term impact on our daily lives.

Indeed. So far they had only created anti-electrons, which cannot be easily stored if only for the simple fact that they are repelled by other anti-electrons. An anti-atom has a neutral charge, and can therefor be stored much easier. The problem/danger of storing reasonable amounts of anti-matter (which can be done within a vacuum by means of strong magnetic fields) is that if ever matter gets in contact with the anti-matter (field failing, or container not being totally airtight or empty) the colliding matter and anti-matter is converted into pure energy. With an atom bomb only a tiny bit turns into energy, and that gives the huge destruction. With 1 kg of anti matter colliding with the earth there would probably be nothing left alive.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: Piano Man
What if you could direct the gamma rays that are given off during the collision between anti matter and matter. In theory, if the same exact rays are forced together, wouldn's it recreate the matter and the anti-matter, thus teleportation?

Um, yes and no. The gamma rays would have to "remember" what particles to turn back into. I think this would have something to do with quantum states and such, but I'm a little rusty on that (think q-bits and quantum computer stuff here). Besides, once you re-create the matter and anti-matter, they'd just annihilate each other right away again, unless they happened to be created right on the event horizon of a black hole and one got sucked in, while the other escaped (Hawking radiation).

Basically, it's all just fun and games for now.

 

[radiocore]

Originally posted by: CubicZirconia
Sounds pretty interesting. Who knows where they will go with this.

Definitely very interesting....guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens...:Q