07 Aug 12
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage😀 - I like them.
Slam neutrinos! The poetic particles.
D'you like ions, the ones that don't press trousers?
But to get to the point, it is said that "For every particle (matter) there is a corresponding antiparticle (antimatter). Antiparticles are the same as the corresponding matter particle in every respect except for their opposite charges. A proton is electrically positive: an anti-proton is electrically negative. They both have the exact same mass, so they are affected in the same way by gravity.
When a particle and its antiparticle meet, they annihilate into pure energy. This energy may then give rise to neutral force-carrier particles, such as photons, Z bosons, or gluons." - : http://pdg.web.cern.ch/pdg/cpep/antimatter.html
But then; And the next question is: "If matter and antimatter are exactly equal but opposite, then why is there so much more matter in the universe than antimatter? Why did matter "win" instead of antimatter? , or vice versa? "
-m. ? 😲
07 Aug 12
2 edits
Originally posted by mikelomThe answer to that question will win a Nobel prize but it clearly is such that anti-matter is NOT exactly = to matter in some subtle aspect yet to be fully sussed out. Scientists don't even know for sure if anti-matter responds to gravity the same as matter. Some suggest anti-matter would also be anti gravity but I personally doubt it, I would think if that were the case a lot more anti-matter would congregate in empty spaces between galaxies and such but they know there is a continuous supply of antimatter right here in the solar system so if it is anti gravity then some force is keeping the stuff in our vicinity. There are even plans afoot to capture the buggers in giant mesh cages charged up with a couple hundred million volts, say halfway to the moon and when they intercept an anti matter particle, to capture and store it in a magnetic bottle and use the stuff in rockets which would be awesomely powerful as a rocket and the design for matter-antimatter rockets are actually further along than the equivalent design for fusion rockets.
😀 - I like them.
D'you like ions, the ones that don't press trousers?
But to get to the point, it is said that "For every particle (matter) there is a corresponding antiparticle (antimatter). Antiparticles are the same as the corresponding matter particle in every respect except for their opposite charges. A proton is electrically positive: an anti-pr n antimatter? Why did matter "win" instead of antimatter? , or vice versa? "
-m. ? 😲
The ratio of matter to anti matter in our universe is about 10 billion to one so for every 10 billion tons of matter there is one ton of antimatter so it sounds worthwhile trying to mine the stuff and control it.
07 Aug 12
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseIn fact the answer to that question has already resulted in a Nobel Prize.
The answer to that question will win a Nobel prize but it clearly is such that anti-matter is NOT exactly = to matter in some subtle aspect yet to be fully sussed out. Scientists don't even know for sure if anti-matter responds to gravity the same as matter. Some suggest anti-matter would also be anti gravity but I personally doubt it, I would think if that ...[text shortened]... there is one ton of antimatter so it sounds worthwhile trying to mine the stuff and control it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP_violation
As for using antimatter as an energy carrier: because antimatter is so reactive it is very hard to control, which makes its use as a fuel debatable. But they recently succeeded in trapping antihydrogen, so who knows.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
07 Aug 12
Originally posted by mikelom"If matter and antimatter are exactly equal but opposite, then why is there so much more matter in the universe than antimatter? Why did matter "win" instead of antimatter? , or vice versa? "
😀 - I like them.
D'you like ions, the ones that don't press trousers?
But to get to the point, it is said that "For every particle (matter) there is a corresponding antiparticle (antimatter). Antiparticles are the same as the corresponding matter particle in every respect except for their opposite charges. A proton is electrically positive: an anti-pr ...[text shortened]... n antimatter? Why did matter "win" instead of antimatter? , or vice versa? "
-m. ? 😲
Whichever lost would be called the anti-whatthewinnerwascalled.
07 Aug 12
Originally posted by JS357Of course, the question is why there is a winner in the first place. CP violation is a way to explain this, though it is not very well-understood.
"If matter and antimatter are exactly equal but opposite, then why is there so much more matter in the universe than antimatter? Why did matter "win" instead of antimatter? , or vice versa? "
Whichever lost would be called the anti-whatthewinnerwascalled.
08 Aug 12
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThey would have to use magnetic bottles to keep the AM inside and just let out controlled amounts. The AM rocket design is pretty well known, you "just" introduce AM and M together in a reaction chamber with some propellant, say H2 or even water and the heat generated will produce a LOT more thrust per pound of AM than anything else including fusion.
In fact the answer to that question has already resulted in a Nobel Prize.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP_violation
As for using antimatter as an energy carrier: because antimatter is so reactive it is very hard to control, which makes its use as a fuel debatable. But they recently succeeded in trapping antihydrogen, so who knows.
We could build an AM rocket now if we had a few milligrams of AM in a magnetic bottle.
Here is one proposal by Dr. Robert Forward, a scientist and science fiction writer:
http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=1569