Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Standard member mikelom
    Ajarn
    05 Aug '12 10:03
    Does it matter to you?

    -m.
  2. 05 Aug '12 10:36
    Kind of, yes.
  3. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    05 Aug '12 16:06
    Originally posted by mikelom
    Does it matter to you?

    -m.
    I hope never to meet any in any large quantity.....

    The only consolation would be you wouldn't feel a thing.....
  4. 05 Aug '12 16:16
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    I hope never to meet any in any large quantity.....

    The only consolation would be you wouldn't feel a thing.....
    I'm sure there are plenty of antineutrinos slamming into you at the moment.
  5. 05 Aug '12 17:14
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    ....slamming into you......
    Mostly passing right through actually.
  6. 05 Aug '12 17:28
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Mostly passing right through actually.
    Yeah, but I wanted to make it sound a bit more melodramatic.
  7. Standard member Bosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    05 Aug '12 19:45
    I am anti-matter in principle.

    Anti-mater, too.
  8. Standard member Bosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    05 Aug '12 19:46
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Yeah, but I wanted to make it sound a bit more melodramatic.
    Slam neutrinos! The poetic particles.
  9. Standard member mikelom
    Ajarn
    07 Aug '12 12:54
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    Slam neutrinos! The poetic particles.
    - 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-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. ?
  10. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    07 Aug '12 14:30 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by mikelom
    - 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 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.

    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.
  11. 07 Aug '12 16:37 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    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.
    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.
  12. 07 Aug '12 19:24
    Originally posted by mikelom
    - 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. ?
    "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.
  13. 07 Aug '12 19:42
    Originally posted by JS357
    "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.
    Of 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.
  14. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    08 Aug '12 03:07
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    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.
    They 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.

    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
  15. 08 Aug '12 14:48
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    Slam neutrinos! The poetic particles.
    The poetic ones are the quarks as written in Joyce's poem Finnegan's Wake.

    Three quarks for Muster Mark!