Anti-matter is unstable matter

[HydrogenBond]

I was thinking about this the other day. When I used to think about matter and anti-matter the impression I always got was, they were sort of reflections of each other, which cancel to form energy. But if you look closer, the term anti-matter is sort of a misnomer. The mass aspects are essentially the same. The only real difference is where the charges end up.

 

If we only look at a matter-anti-matter pair, such as electron-positron, they hold true to the traditional thinking, since they cancel with the release of energy. But, if you look at a positron's interaction with the nucleus of matter based atoms, it acts likes matter. There is no annihilation, rather it acts like a higher energy state of matter that gains stability within the matter nucleus. Based on that, the positron is only 1/2 anti-matter. Anti-matter appears to be just matter that is at higher energy. For example, anti-protons can form from matter plus cosmic rays to product this semi-stable state of matter that has a life expectancy of millions of years. It won't spontaneously form unless we kick matter up into a higher energy state.

[Pyrotex]

No, I don't think it works that way. I've been reading about particle physics since I was a senior in high school (1965!). Anti-matter can't be described in terms of modified or energized matter.

It is "mirror matter". It is like your left hand, if ordinary matter is your right hand. This metaphor doesn't stretch very far, but it's a good place to start.

 

In a "mirror" universe made entirely of anti-matter, everything would combine and interact exactly as our universe does. There would be atoms and molecules and proteins and plants and animals and an anti-HydrogenBond posting comments that "ordinary" matter was just unstable, juiced-up anti-matter.

[Moontanman]

No, I don't think it works that way. I've been reading about particle physics since I was a senior in high school (1965!). Anti-matter can't be described in terms of modified or energized matter.

It is "mirror matter". It is like your left hand, if ordinary matter is your right hand. This metaphor doesn't stretch very far, but it's a good place to start.

 

In a "mirror" universe made entirely of anti-matter, everything would combine and interact exactly as our universe does. There would be atoms and molecules and proteins and plants and animals and an anti-HydrogenBond posting comments that "ordinary" matter was just unstable, juiced-up anti-matter.

 

No No No:naughty: antimatter is not a mirror image of matter. It is a charge reversed form of matter. Both matter and antimatter have the same mirror symmetry, both matter and antimatter have a mirror image in the form of mirror matter (not to be confused with antimatter) Both antimatter and matter have (could have) a mirror image. Lorentz symmetry is what matter and antimatter have in common (or in difference!) Mirror symmetry is left-right handed symmetry. Mirror matter would also have anti and regular particles. On the other hand yes you are right antimatter is not a juiced up version of matter. And the only reason I can think of off hand that a positron doesn't annihilate when it encounters the nucleus of a matter atom is that it has the same charge as a proton.

[UncleAl]

You have no idea what you are talking about. You are horribly wrong. You made no effort whatsoever to educate yourself by the simple expedient of looking it up - even in lay text. Matter versus antimatter is simply charge conjugation: inversion of electric charge, baryon number, lepton number, and strangeness (all internal quantum numbers). Parity ("mirror matter") is an external quantum number.

 

Antimatter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The History fo Antimatter

 

Mirror matter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

THE MIRROR MATTER THEORY

New Scientist "Mirror Matter" - 02 Feb 1999

(scraping bottom)

 

Calorimetric Equivalence Principle Test

symmetries in physics

[Pyrotex]

...Antimatter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The History fo Antimatter

 

Mirror matter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

THE MIRROR MATTER THEORY

New Scientist "Mirror Matter" - 02 Feb 1999

(scraping bottom)

 

Calorimetric Equivalence Principle Test

symmetries in physics

Thanks, Uncle Al. :shrug:

[HydrogenBond]

What I was saying about the positron and nucleus, they don't just cancel with a blast of energy but can interact constructively, regardless of their nemesis relationship definition. It is an example of matter and anti-matter working together, because they are cut from the same matter cloth.

 

The idea of an anti-universe is just speculation based on reinforcement of an unsubstantiated assumption. The other way around can be proven with data such as the positron and nucleus interaction which has plenty of data. Also the state of our own universe. We can't form anti matter, totally void of matter, so it lacks all proof.

 

From Wikipedia.

 

Antiprotons have been detected in cosmic rays for over 25 years, first by balloon-borne experiments and more recently by satellite-based detectors. The standard picture for their presence in cosmic rays is that they are produced in collisions of cosmic ray protons with nuclei in the interstellar medium, via the reaction:

p A → p p p A

The secondary antiprotons (p) then propagate through the galaxy, confined by the galactic magnetic fields. Their energy spectrum is modified by collisions with other atoms in the interstellar medium, and antiprotons can also be lost by "leaking out" of the galaxy.

 

Basically it says they form from matter interacting with cosmic rays. They don't just annihilate with any contact with matter but also interact with matter. They don't have much of a problem with the electrons that surround the nuclei. They only have a problem with protons. They are only partially anti to matter, like the positron.

 

If you look in terms of energy, the proton is at lower energy since the anti-proton requires the input of energy to form. In chemistry, one can form high energy semi-stable molecules like TNT. This is the equivalent of the anti-matter version of chemistry. It represents high energy stability, with excess energy built in. In a pure TNT universe, if we introduce oxygen we still get H20, CO2 and NOx. We can say the opposite, since we can never form a pure TNT universe. One can not prove you wrong unless they are able to do the impossible. So that assumption can linger and mislead.

 

One can react O2 and H2 at 5000K to get all types of semi-stable radicals. But as we cool further and further the default is always H2O. The same is true with matter with the default or most stable state proton-electron. But like in chemistry one can also get some semi-stable states like O3 and H2O2. We can make this happen under specific conditions to help stack the deck but it involves putting energy into the system.

[Moontanman]

What I was saying about the positron and nucleus, they don't just cancel with a blast of energy but can interact constructively, regardless of their nemesis relationship definition. It is an example of matter and anti-matter working together, because they are cut from the same matter cloth.

 

The idea of an anti-universe is just speculation based on reinforcement of an unsubstantiated assumption. The other way around can be proven with data such as the positron and nucleus interaction which has plenty of data. Also the state of our own universe. We can't form anti matter, totally void of matter, so it lacks all proof.

 

From Wikipedia.

 

 

 

Basically it says they form from matter interacting with cosmic rays. They don't just annihilate with any contact with matter but also interact with matter. They don't have much of a problem with the electrons that surround the nuclei. They only have a problem with protons. They are only partially anti to matter, like the positron.

 

If you look in terms of energy, the proton is at lower energy since the anti-proton requires the input of energy to form. In chemistry, one can form high energy semi-stable molecules like TNT. This is the equivalent of the anti-matter version of chemistry. It represents high energy stability, with excess energy built in. In a pure TNT universe, if we introduce oxygen we still get H20, CO2 and NOx. We can say the opposite, since we can never form a pure TNT universe. One can not prove you wrong unless they are able to do the impossible. So that assumption can linger and mislead.

 

One can react O2 and H2 at 5000K to get all types of semi-stable radicals. But as we cool further and further the default is always H2O. The same is true with matter with the default or most stable state proton-electron. But like in chemistry one can also get some semi-stable states like O3 and H2O2. We can make this happen under specific conditions to help stack the deck but it involves putting energy into the system.

 

Why would you expect a positron to react with annilation when it contacts a nucleus? A positron would only react if it contacts a electron which do not "live" in the nucleus. to get annilation you would have to hit the nucleus with a anti proton. a proton and an anti proton contain the same amount of energy, where did you get that one contains more emergy than the other? We can't form anti-matter totally devoid of matter? We can't form either one with out the other, they form in matter anti-matter pairs. Neither one is more energetic than the other.

[HydrogenBond]

Can't nuclei give off positrons, without electrons being created, as part of a decay process? This is where we can creates "anti-matter" by itself, i.e., mono-unit. We can do that because it is also matter, just high energy matter with the wrong charge assignment.

 

Radioactive nuclei can undergo decomposition in a variety of ways. The spontaneous decay process can produce particles as in the case of alpha, beta, or positron emission. The alternate form of emission is that of electromagnetic radiation such as x-rays or gamma-rays.

 

Positron

 

This type of particle production is just the opposite of Beta particle decay.

Example : Na ----> 0 1e + Ne

Notice that is still has the same zero mass as an electron but an opposite charge. This is what is known as an antiparticle of the electron.

What happens when a positron collides with an electron? Annihilation!!

This can be shown by the following reaction:

Example : 0-1e + 01e ----> 2

 

We can create an electron-positron pair from a photon, but we can also make a positron without having to create an electron. It is a reversible reaction with a positron also able to enter a nuclei and stick.

 

I don't really have a beef with matter-anti-matter. The direction I was heading with this is positive charge is more stable with heavier mass to form the proton. The negative charge is more stable as an electron. That is why positrons can interact reversibly with the large mass in nuclei without going poof. The final stable state always involves a proton.

 

The assumption that charge is equal and opposite is 19th century. This is true only of the EM forces. There is also a subtle distinction between each charge based on mass preference, leading to maximum stability. The anti- is a semi-stable but higher energy state, due to unstable assignment. We can only create the opposite by adding energy. Once it lowers the correct charge assignment to mass is left standing.

 

What got me thinking in these lines is let us use the assumption both matter and anti-matter are equally likely. Say the asymmetry just so happens to favor matter. If we assume BB, for the sake of argument does that mean 99.999% of the original mass-energy ended in energy to eliminate the 99.999% that was symmetrical? It seemed too inefficient. One may say it formed, annihilated, reformed, etc., but there would come a time it can't reform. This poor yield should be reflected in more energy that matter in the universe.

[Moontanman]

Can't nuclei give off positrons, without electrons being created, as part of a decay process? This is where we can creates "anti-matter" by itself, i.e., mono-unit. We can do that because it is also matter, just high energy matter with the wrong charge assignment.

 

 

 

We can create an electron-positron pair from a photon, but we can also make a positron without having to create an electron. It is a reversible reaction with a positron also able to enter a nuclei and stick.

 

I don't really have a beef with matter-anti-matter. The direction I was heading with this is positive charge is more stable with heavier mass to form the proton. The negative charge is more stable as an electron. That is why positrons can interact reversibly with the large mass in nuclei without going poof. The final stable state always involves a proton.

 

The assumption that charge is equal and opposite is 19th century. This is true only of the EM forces. There is also a subtle distinction between each charge based on mass preference, leading to maximum stability. The anti- is a semi-stable but higher energy state, due to unstable assignment. We can only create the opposite by adding energy. Once it lowers the correct charge assignment to mass is left standing.

 

What got me thinking in these lines is let us use the assumption both matter and anti-matter are equally likely. Say the asymmetry just so happens to favor matter. If we assume BB, for the sake of argument does that mean 99.999% of the original mass-energy ended in energy to eliminate the 99.999% that was symmetrical? It seemed too inefficient. One may say it formed, annihilated, reformed, etc., but there would come a time it can't reform. This poor yield should be reflected in more energy that matter in the universe.

 

Do you have any links to this information? I would really like to read about this idea.

[UncleAl]

I don't really have a beef with matter-anti-matter. The direction I was heading with this is positive charge is more stable with heavier mass to form the proton. The negative charge is more stable as an electron. That is why positrons can interact reversibly with the large mass in nuclei without going poof. The final stable state always involves a proton.

 

Ignorance is educable, stupidity is forever. Make your choice. Uncle Al suggests education lest you continue as a prolix loud fool.

 

BEATING A DEAD HORSE

 

Matter versus antimatter is charge conjugation: inversion of electric charge, baryon number, lepton number, and strangeness (all internal quantum numbers). THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN ENERGY AT ALL. Attempts to rationalize matter favored over antimatter during the Big Bang by the exclusively left-handed Weak Interaction are proven to be wholly insufficent. Any interface of matter and antimatter in the visible universe will be a bright beacon of 511 KeV annihalation radiation. There is no subtlety about it.

[HydrogenBond]

Thanks Uncle Al. But matter is basically proton-electron. While the anti-matter version is anti-proton-positron. Only half of the four combinations of the two basic matter aspects, interacting with the two basic anti-matter aspects, will end with that energy output. Maybe the technicality is in the definition so the deck is stacked properly. If all four combinations ended the same way I would concede the point.

 

Maybe the confusion is in the original assumption of the universe forming from energy to generate matter and anti-matter pairs. If one assumes these pairs are always the closest particles to each other, the other two possible interactions not likely. However, say upon separation of two sets of matter and anti-matter, the electron from one set and the proton from the other set merge. Or the anti-proton-positron from the two sets merge, we get two neutrons. Now another positron can become part of matter but interacting with either of these two neutrons to form a proton. This proton can now get rid of an anti-proton. The net affect are the left over neutrons breaking down into electron-proton after the coast is clear. Matter wins. .

 

Again, the results one is able to support are all based on our genesis assumptions which we can tailor to our needs. If we look at the compression of a star into a black hole, one of the intermediate stopping points for smaller stars is neutron density. If it is larger it can go much further. If we assume a reversible reaction going from the BB singularity black hole look alike, it is not unreasonable that it goes through a neutron stage. It may require first being matter-anti-matter, with the above lateral pair collision analysis allowing the reversible reaction.

[Pyrotex]

...It is an example of matter and anti-matter working together, because they are cut from the same matter cloth.

 

...We can't form anti matter, totally void of matter, so it lacks all proof. ....

I'm not sure what you mean by the first statement, especially "cut from the same cloth". It's ALL "matter" that is, stuff with mass. Was that what you meant.

 

And we can create anti-matter (with or without creating regular matter in the process). Bombarding Berillium with protons will create anti-protons (I think), that we can capture with magnetic fields and "store" in laser cold traps. There was even a successful experiment that captured positrons and enabled them to combine with stored anti-protons to produce "anti-Hydrogen".

 

Anti-matter that has NO contact with regular matter at all, is just as stable as regular matter that has NO contact with anti-matter.

[Moontanman]

Thanks Uncle Al. But matter is basically proton-electron. While the anti-matter version is anti-proton-positron. Only half of the four combinations of the two basic matter aspects, interacting with the two basic anti-matter aspects, will end with that energy output. Maybe the technicality is in the definition so the deck is stacked properly. If all four combinations ended the same way I would concede the point.

 

Maybe the confusion is in the original assumption of the universe forming from energy to generate matter and anti-matter pairs. If one assumes these pairs are always the closest particles to each other, the other two possible interactions not likely. However, say upon separation of two sets of matter and anti-matter, the electron from one set and the proton from the other set merge. Or the anti-proton-positron from the two sets merge, we get two neutrons. Now another positron can become part of matter but interacting with either of these two neutrons to form a proton. This proton can now get rid of an anti-proton. The net affect are the left over neutrons breaking down into electron-proton after the coast is clear. Matter wins. .

 

Again, the results one is able to support are all based on our genesis assumptions which we can tailor to our needs. If we look at the compression of a star into a black hole, one of the intermediate stopping points for smaller stars is neutron density. If it is larger it can go much further. If we assume a reversible reaction going from the BB singularity black hole look alike, it is not unreasonable that it goes through a neutron stage. It may require first being matter-anti-matter, with the above lateral pair collision analysis allowing the reversible reaction.

 

Are you saying that neutrons are the same in both antimatter and matter? If so you are wrong, neutrons have their own antimatter counterpart and they also annihilate when they come into contact. When matter anti matter pairs form there is not automatically a proton an electron and an antiproton and a positron. It is usually a electron/positron pair. Both of which will annihilate each other unless something separates them. I was wrong about the matter antimatter pair being the only way we can produce antimatter, I was thinking of when an intense energy field creates matter antimatter pairs. If you get a very intense energy field you can get proton/antiproton pairs but never proton/electron pairs or antiproton/positron pairs.

[LaurieAG]

No, I don't think it works that way. I've been reading about particle physics since I was a senior in high school (1965!). Anti-matter can't be described in terms of modified or energized matter.

It is "mirror matter". It is like your left hand, if ordinary matter is your right hand. This metaphor doesn't stretch very far, but it's a good place to start.

 

Hi Pyro,

 

I tend to agree that anti matter isn't modified or energised matter. If anything, considering why it was theorised in the first place, it should be called para-matter because it operates against matter (i.e. like parapluie, against the rain, French for umbrella).

 

It could be anything from a force to a theoretical error.

 

While the amount of observable/observed real matter Vs anti-matter continues to gyrate all over the place I tend to think that the ratio of anti:real will be found to be the universal average number of galactic rotations (no of rotations/no of galaxies) because this works with all current observations, whatever they are and it's a much cleaner and simpler way to avoid conservation problems.

 

The ratio could even be an indication of how much of the universe we cannot currently see.

 

I don't know about anti-matter but the term 'Anti-matter' is unstable.

[LaurieAG]

I'm Bombarding Berillium with protons will create anti-protons (I think), that we can capture with magnetic fields and "store" in laser cold traps.

 

Hi Pyro,

 

Did you know that Beryllium is used in space telescopes, nuclear reactors and also acts as a neutron reflector in nuclear bombs?

 

Beryllium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Moontanman]

Hi Pyro,

 

I tend to agree that anti matter isn't modified or energised matter. If anything, considering why it was theorised in the first place, it should be called para-matter because it operates against matter (i.e. like parapluie, against the rain, French for umbrella).

 

It could be anything from a force to a theoretical error.

 

While the amount of observable/observed real matter Vs anti-matter continues to gyrate all over the place I tend to think that the ratio of anti:real will be found to be the universal average number of galactic rotations (no of rotations/no of galaxies) because this works with all current observations, whatever they are and it's a much cleaner and simpler way to avoid conservation problems.

 

The ratio could even be an indication of how much of the universe we cannot currently see.

 

I don't know about anti-matter but the term 'Anti-matter' is unstable.

 

 

Some people call the anti-proton a negaton which matches with the positron. One thing is for sure, what ever you want to call it it's real, not a force or an error. antimatter atoms have been made. Mirror matter has yet to be found but antimatter has. I have to ask how the rotation of sprial galaxies has anything to do with antimatter.

[CraigD]

However, say upon separation of two sets of matter and anti-matter, the electron from one set and the proton from the other set merge. Or the anti-proton-positron from the two sets merge, we get two neutrons.

Are you saying that neutrons are the same in both antimatter and matter? If so you are wrong, neutrons have their own antimatter counterpart and they also annihilate when they come into contact.

Moontanman is correct. Antineutrons are not the same particle and neutrons. If a neutron and an antineutron collide, they annihilate in much the same manner as in a proton-antiproton collision. Because neutrons and antineutrons don’t have opposite charges, and therefore are not attracted to one another, the likelihood of such a collision is lower.

 

Protons and neutrons can annihilate not only with their own particles, but with each other’s. For example, as seen in this 1958 bubble chamber photo, an antineutron ([math]\overline{n}^0[/math]) and a proton ([math]p^+[/math]) collision can result in 3 pions ([math]\pi^+[/math]) and 2 anti-pions ([math]\overline{\pi}^-[/math]):

[math]p^+ + \overline{n}^0 \to 3 \pi^+ + 2 \overline{\pi}^-[/math]

 

What helps me the most in studying particle-antiparticle collisions is to consider composite particles (such as protons, neutrons, and their antiparticles) as bundles of fundamental (AKA elementary) particles (in this case, quarks – we can ignore their other particles, such as gluons, because they have no charge). Protons and neutrons, being baryons, consists of 3 quarks - two +2/3 charge ups and one -1/3 down for the proton, one +2/3 ups and two -1/3 downs for the neutron, while a pion, being a meson, consist of 2, a +2/3 up and a +1/3 anti-down, so this proton-antiproton annihilation event, a proton and antiproton annihilating to an pi meson, an anti-pi meson and one or more photons:

[math]p^+ + \overline{p}^- \to \pi^+ + \overline{\pi}^- + \gamma[/math]

can be written:

[math](u + u + d) + (\overline{u} + \overline{u} + \overline{d}) \to (u + \overline{d}) + (\overline{u} + d) + ( u + \overline{u} \to \gamma)[/math]

 

Note how nice and simple this equation is! Just account for all the quarks, allowing the up and anti-up pair to annihilate into a photon.

 

Collisions like the antineutron-proton one in the bubble chamber photo are a bit less simple, because they result in more quarks than they start with, but the additions are simple particle-antiparticle additions, constrained by the law of quark confinement that prohibits quarks to exist outside of composite particles of twos or threes.

When matter anti matter pairs form there is not automatically a proton an electron and an antiproton and a positron. It is usually a electron/positron pair.

You don’t even have to produce antimatter in particle-ntiparticle pairs: the most common source of positrons ([math]\overline{e}^+[/math]) for research is the positron emission decay of radioisotopes, such as sodium-22. The essence of this decay is:

[math]p^+ \to n^0 + \overline{e}^+ v_e[/math]

([math]v_e[/math] is an ordinary neutrino), resulting element transmutation like:

[ce]^{22}_{11}Na \to ^{22}_{10}Ne[/ce]