What is the difference between matter and anti-matter?
Golden Boar
properties, except for electric charge, which are opposites of each
other.
If this is incorrect, then what are the differences between a particle
and it's anti-particle, and why is one classified as matter and the
other classified as anti-matter.
If this is correct, then why don't we call all positively charged
particles matter and all negatively charged particles anti-matter.
For example,
positrons, up-quarks and anti-down-quarks would be considered matter,
electrons, anti-up-quarks and down-quarks would be considered
anti-matter.
puppe...@hotmail.com
> As far as I know, a particle and it's anti-particle have all the same
> properties, except for electric charge, which are opposites of each
> other.
First, read these.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPT_symmetry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-matter
Anti particles can be (with a bit of squinting, and several caveats
tossed at you) thought of as regular particles going backward
in time. They thus have the opposite of all quantum numbers.
So, it is not just charge that is opp. for antimatter, it is all
quantum numbers whatever. Except for mass which is the same.
Socks
PD
Golden Boar wrote:
> As far as I know, a particle and it's anti-particle have all the same
> properties, except for electric charge, which are opposites of each
> other.
Sorta. Not just electric charge but all kinds of charge. For example, a
blue up-quark has an antiparticle of electric charge -2/3 and anti-blue
strong charge. In particular, every *additive* quantum number of a
particle is reversed in an antiparticle.
>
> If this is incorrect, then what are the differences between a particle
> and it's anti-particle, and why is one classified as matter and the
> other classified as anti-matter.
>
> If this is correct, then why don't we call all positively charged
> particles matter and all negatively charged particles anti-matter.
>
> For example,
>
> positrons, up-quarks and anti-down-quarks would be considered matter,
> electrons, anti-up-quarks and down-quarks would be considered
> anti-matter.
Convention. What we normally call matter is usually electrically
neutral, and so means including both negative and positive particles.
Choosing your convention would mean that a bottle of water would
contain 1835 parts matter and 1 part antimatter. Not the end of the
world, but not particularly useful, either.
PD
Doc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fecal_matter
FrediFizzx
news:1156365092....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> As far as I know, a particle and it's anti-particle have all the same
> properties, except for electric charge, which are opposites of each
> other.
It is more than just electric charge in the case of quarks and
anti-quarks.
> If this is incorrect, then what are the differences between a particle
> and it's anti-particle, and why is one classified as matter and the
> other classified as anti-matter.
"Anti-matter" is really not a good name for what is going on. A
positron (anti-electron) is really just as much matter as an electron
is.
> If this is correct, then why don't we call all positively charged
> particles matter and all negatively charged particles anti-matter.
>
> For example,
>
> positrons, up-quarks and anti-down-quarks would be considered matter,
> electrons, anti-up-quarks and down-quarks would be considered
> anti-matter.
Ya still need to get a good particle physics textbook, don't ya? A
baryon like a proton is considered to be all "matter". So all three
quarks need to be "matter". It really is just how things are "labelled"
currently. But I have pondered upon your assertion myself and wonder if
baryons could indeed be a mix of matter and antimatter. In this
scenario, a hydrogen atom would be closer to being balanced matter and
antimatter with helium being even more closely matched. If you get into
the details of it all, it doesn't seem to work out right but would
explain why we don't seem to see much "anti-matter" around. However no
matter what you do, there is still a slight imbalance anywise.
FrediFizzx
Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuum-physics.com
critten...@yahoo.com
Anti as the anihilation appears the reaction between particles of exact
nature.
And the cause to this nature is evidently your question, why do they
exist?
Here is a small positron generator for you thinking pleasure.
A fluence of positron's is caused to appear where the electron would
have been in solid geometric terms. Anti existence is this strange
relation of existence hole in theory land.
ANd to make electron existence holes is to cause the positron to
appear.
Here is the basic no shit outline:
1. collide a fluence of 1.+ MeV gammas at the test point. And commonly
the test point is a large nucleus.
2. Collide the fluence test points correctly and many positrons appear!
3. nucleus-nucleus oscilation of the right frequency causes positrons.
What is this frequency?
4. 500 Mhz.
So grip two nuclei with the right field and oscilate to 500 Mhz. Now
electron fields do not cause the right frequency, they saturate out
below positron production much like the magnetron power saturates.
SO use two test particles in the well of 500 Mhz. A simple petri dish
affair causes positrons to appears for real like man.
What is the dish material? A shallow hole in a carbon crystal
substrate, with many free carbon nuclei frozen to 1 degree kelvin, will
self oscilate the second the first 1+Mev photon hits the pile.
And the hole diameter is critical, 1 umeter. A tuned nucleii hole will
oscillate for quite some time emitting positrons. And the energy for
the appearance is found independent of the initiating number.
Why is this?
A simple explaination is I create odd nature. And the energy appears
from cooling of the substrate. A positron cycle is for real.
Sorcerer
Imbecile on imbecile.. a fair fight.
Androcles
"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156366296.3...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Golden Boar
I dont see how you arrive at these values.
A proton would be 2 parts matter and 1 part anti-matter
A neutron would be 1 part matter and 2 parts anti-matter
A hydrogen atom would be 2 parts matter and 2 parts anti-matter
An oxygen atom would be 24 parts matter and 32 parts anti-matter
A water molecule would be 28 parts matter and 36 parts anti-matter
If a proton does not combine with a neutron, but combines with an
anti-neutron instead, then we would get the following:
An anti-neutron would be 2 parts matter and 1 part anti-matter
An oxygen atom would be 32 parts matter and 24 parts anti-matter
A water molecule would be 36 parts matter and 28 parts anti-matter
So I don't see how you arrived at the values of 1835 parts matter and 1
part anti-matter.
This seems to to be difference in mass between a proton and electron,
but I don't see what this has to do with anything.
>
> PD
What the above shows is that we observe an imbalance between positively
charged material and negatively charged material which is due to the
presence of neutrons.
So what is the purpose of a neutron within a nucleus?
Golden Boar
Sorcerer wrote:
> Imbecile on imbecile.. a fair fight.
>
> Androcles
That's rich, coming from a senile old fool that can't even do algebra!
Can you remember writing the stuff below?
"Something not right here... h-Bar = h/2pi, but h = 2pi,
so h-Bar = 2pi/2pi.h = 1/h,
hence h = 1/h-Bar,
but h_Bar = 1,
so h = 1/1 = 1 = h-Bar < 2pi "
Senile old fart, why don't you piss off to Eastbourne.
Golden Boar
If like I said, negatively charged particles were classed as
anti-matter and positively charged particles were classed as matter,
then we would get the following:
Protons would be 2 parts matter and 1 part anti-matter
Neutrons would be 1 part matter and 2 parts anti-matter
A hydrogen atom would 2 parts matter and 2 parts anti-matter.
A helium atom would be 6 parts matter and 8 parts anti-matter.
Or if a proton combined with an anti-neutron, we would get:
Anti-neutron would be 2 parts matter and 1 part anti-matter
A helium atom would be 8 parts matter and 6 parts anti-matter
So the more neutrons present within an atom, the greater the imbalance
would be between positively charged matter and negatively charged
matter.
How did you figure that helium would be more balance than hydrogen?
How did the model you were considering work?
Also, if matter and anti-matter were categorized like I said, then what
we currently call a neutron would actually be an anti-neutron since it
contains more negatively charged particles.
Sorcerer
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > Imbecile on imbecile.. a fair fight.
| >
| > Androcles
|
| That's rich, coming from a senile old fool that can't even do algebra!
I challenge you to find fault with this:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/Rocket.htm
| Can you remember writing the stuff below?
|
| "Something not right here... h-Bar = h/2pi, but h = 2pi,
| so h-Bar = 2pi/2pi.h = 1/h,
| hence h = 1/h-Bar,
| but h_Bar = 1,
| so h = 1/1 = 1 = h-Bar < 2pi "
|
| Senile old fart, why don't you piss off to Eastbourne.
It says "Something not right here.."
Stupid young cunt, why don't you fuck off to Disneyworld?
Androcles