Anti-matter is unstable matter

[CraigD]

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

I’ve long liked this quote, from The Antimatter Factory - How does the AD work?

Antiparticles have to be created from energy (remember: E = mc2). This energy is obtained with protons that have been previously accelerated in the PS. These protons are smashed into a block of metal, called a target. We use Copper or Iridium targets mainly because they are easy to cool (but a piece of English beef would serve the same purpose - it would just roast very quickly and is rather messy).

The point is, as the antiproton producing reactions are essentially one-on-one nucleon interactions, it doesn’t matter much what element nuclei they’re in. It’s most important to give your “projectile” nucleons (which pretty much have to be protons, as there’s not easy way to accelerate net charge-less neutrons) sufficient energy. Give enough energy, you’ll not only produce stable antimatter, but even more interesting, short-lived mesons containing quarks other that the common up and down ones.

[Moontanman]

I’ve long liked this quote, from The Antimatter Factory - How does the AD work?

Antiparticles have to be created from energy (remember: E = mc2). This energy is obtained with protons that have been previously accelerated in the PS. These protons are smashed into a block of metal, called a target. We use Copper or Iridium targets mainly because they are easy to cool (but a piece of English beef would serve the same purpose - it would just roast very quickly and is rather messy).

The point is, as the antiproton producing reactions are essentially one-on-one nucleon interactions, it doesn’t matter much what element nuclei they’re in. It’s most important to give your “projectile” nucleons (which pretty much have to be protons, as there’s not easy way to accelerate net charge-less neutrons) sufficient energy. Give enough energy, you’ll not only produce stable antimatter, but even more interesting, short-lived mesons containing quarks other that the common up and down ones.

 

When I grow up I'm going to discover an evergy feild that will allow us to accelerate and control nuetrons:smart: :)

[CraigD]

When I grow up I'm going to discover an evergy feild that will allow us to accelerate and control nuetrons:smart: :D:)

If you do, you’ll be a popular and influential person! A field that can apply large accelerations to uncharged particles could also apply large accelerations to large ensembles of particles with near zero net charge. Objects in this class include not only such things as neutrons and whole molecules in high energy physics labs, but aircraft and spacecraft.

 

Of course, there already is a fundamental interaction resulting in a field that can accelerate uncharged particles: gravity. It accelerates neutrons quite well, but not very strongly without such impractical materials as superdense neutronium, and then only in the direction of the impractical superdense material – rather useless for particle accelerators and spacecraft.

 

The idea of being able to affect gravity other than in the ordinary way, with mass, is a venerable one in science fiction, dating at least as far back as the 1901 H. G. Wells novel “The First Men in the Moon”, and reaching a zenith in rarely-hard-SF Piers Anthony’s 1983-86 “Bio of a Space Tyrant” series. In the Wells story, a “gravity shield” made of a special material, permitted spacecraft to selectively “fall” toward other than the nearest planetary body, while in the Anthony story, a “gravity lens” allowed the gravitational force of one body to be reduced and another increased. Both make for interesting scifi from one small deviation from scientific realism.

 

However, there are a lot of compelling reasons to believe that gravity shield, lenses, and other “anti-gravity” devices are in principle impossible. The basic problem with them is that they allow work to be done without using energy. To avoid violating the known laws of nature, a spaceship like Wells would need to get energy from somewhere, such as slightly reducing the mass of the Earth and the Moon, but no such mass change due to gravity is theoretically predicted nor detected by any experiment. Such a violation of conservation of mass-energy would profoundly overturn the foundations of classical and modern physics.

[Moontanman]

If you do, you’ll be a popular and influential person! A field that can apply large accelerations to uncharged particles could also apply large accelerations to large ensembles of particles with near zero net charge. Objects in this class include not only such things as neutrons and whole molecules in high energy physics labs, but aircraft and spacecraft.

 

Of course, there already is a fundamental interaction resulting in a field that can accelerate uncharged particles: gravity. It accelerates neutrons quite well, but not very strongly without such impractical materials as superdense neutronium, and then only in the direction of the impractical superdense material – rather useless for particle accelerators and spacecraft.

 

The idea of being able to affect gravity other than in the ordinary way, with mass, is a venerable one in science fiction, dating at least as far back as the 1901 H. G. Wells novel “The First Men in the Moon”, and reaching a zenith in rarely-hard-SF Piers Anthony’s 1983-86 “Bio of a Space Tyrant” series. In the Wells story, a “gravity shield” made of a special material, permitted spacecraft to selectively “fall” toward other than the nearest planetary body, while in the Anthony story, a “gravity lens” allowed the gravitational force of one body to be reduced and another increased. Both make for interesting scifi from one small deviation from scientific realism.

 

However, there are a lot of compelling reasons to believe that gravity shield, lenses, and other “anti-gravity” devices are in principle impossible. The basic problem with them is that they allow work to be done without using energy. To avoid violating the known laws of nature, a spaceship like Wells would need to get energy from somewhere, such as slightly reducing the mass of the Earth and the Moon, but no such mass change due to gravity is theoretically predicted nor detected by any experiment. Such a violation of conservation of mass-energy would profoundly overturn the foundations of classical and modern physics.

 

Lets see, all I have to do is make a localised but intense distortion in the space time continum, don't you love technobabble? too bad I am unlikely to grow up any more. I seem to be growing out instead of up at this late point in my life. Oh well i can dream and write so maybe I'll dream it and then write about it......

[HydrogenBond]

The analogy I see for anti-matter, is what we see in chemistry. We can make stable chemicals, by adding energy, so they contain energy value in a stable way. For example, methane is very stable in space where there is not a lot of oxygen present. But when there is oxygen and a little spark it reduces to a lower energy state with the release of that stored energy. By itself methane could be called the zero energy state due to its stability. But on a more broad scale that includes all the elements, it is stored energy.

 

As far as I know anti-matter can not be created without adding energy. If matter and anti-matter were the same, one could start with anti-matter, add energy and make matter. It would be like starting with the zero state called methane adding energy to create CO2 and H2O. If we add energy to methane one will never get this final state.

[Moontanman]

The analogy I see for anti-matter, is what we see in chemistry. We can make stable chemicals, by adding energy, so they contain energy value in a stable way. For example, methane is very stable in space where there is not a lot of oxygen present. But when there is oxygen and a little spark it reduces to a lower energy state with the release of that stored energy. By itself methane could be called the zero energy state due to its stability. But on a more broad scale that includes all the elements, it is stored energy.

 

As far as I know anti-matter can not be created without adding energy. If matter and anti-matter were the same, one could start with anti-matter, add energy and make matter. It would be like starting with the zero state called methane adding energy to create CO2 and H2O. If we add energy to methane one will never get this final state.

 

If you had a block of antimatter osmium or english beef and you pelted it with Negatrons accelerated to a significant fraction of the speed of light you would create protons. I don't see the problem, antimatter contains no more evergy than matter.

[LaurieAG]

I have to ask how the rotation of sprial galaxies has anything to do with antimatter.

 

Hi Moontanman,

 

If the rotation of objects around their galactic centers makes them appear to be speeding away from each other in our observations then anti-matter is not required to balance out universal expansion because it actually isn't expanding.

[Moontanman]

Hi Moontanman,

 

If the rotation of objects around their galactic centers makes them appear to be speeding away from each other in our observations then anti-matter is not required to balance out universal expansion because it actually isn't expanding.

 

Ok, now I have to ask how is antimatter involved in balancing out the universal expansion? Are you thinking of Dark matter?

[LaurieAG]

Ok, now I have to ask how is antimatter involved in balancing out the universal expansion? Are you thinking of Dark matter?

 

It was called antimatter before they decided to call it dark matter or whatever they call it now.

[Moontanman]

It was called antimatter before they decided to call it dark matter or whatever they call it now.

 

Oh no:naughty: Two totally different things dudette. Dark matter is (supposedly) some exotic type of matter that only interacts gravatationally with matter. Antimatter reacts quite well in every way with matter.

[LaurieAG]

Oh no:naughty: Two totally different things dudette. Dark matter is (supposedly) some exotic type of matter that only interacts gravatationally with matter. Antimatter reacts quite well in every way with matter.

 

Hey mate, I'm a bloke.

 

Dark matter came around because it could explain the missing 'anti' matter as an observational deficiency, i.e. with 'dark' matter you don't need 'anti' matter.

[Moontanman]

Hey mate, I'm a bloke.

 

Dark matter came around because it could explain the missing 'anti' matter as an observational deficiency, i.e. with 'dark' matter you don't need 'anti' matter.

 

Sorry dude, around here Laurie is a womans name , my son has the same problem. His name is Madison, an old family name but these days every one wants to name their girls Madison due to a movie with Daryl Hanna. None the less you are incorrect, google it, dark matter is totally different than antimatter. There is little or no antimatter in the observable universe, but Dark matter is thought to be everywhere to the tune of being more dark matter than matter by several times.

[Qfwfq]

As far as I know anti-matter can not be created without adding energy.

And as far as I know matter can't be created without adding energy. The energy required to produce a (non-virtual) positron-electron pair is 511 keV + 511 keV + a bit for kinetic energy. :eek:

 

If matter and anti-matter were the same, one could start with anti-matter, add energy and make matter.

As already said, it certainly would work.

 

For everybody else, look up the story of why Dirac first conjectured the existence of antifermions. The odd thing is that, while one can think of a positron as being a hole in the sea of negative-energy electrons, it works equally well to consider it the other way around. Pair production can be viewed as either of the two particles going from a negative energy to a postitive energy state, leaving the hole behind it.

[HydrogenBond]

The assumed parity between matter and anti-matter comes down to tradition and not practical reality. The reality is, we live in a universe dominated by matter. All cosmology scenarios, end up with the same result. What this means, regardless how we bring substance in the universe, matter becomes the final choice. Not all cosmology scenarios start with BB. Some are more based on continuous creation implying if parity true we should see anti-matter with reliable frequency. The BB assumes some type of asymmetry. The only problem is we don't know how to create a primordial atom. It may have the asymmetry build it to assure matter. It is not a bad assumption since the result needs to stem from an affect.

 

Let me point out an observation about energy and charge. If we add a photon of energy into a hydrogen atom, we can kick the electron to a higher energy state. If we do an EM assessment on both the electron and proton, the electron gains more magnetic potential than the proton, since the proton does not gain similar velocity, since it is heavy and stay put. This would seem to imply the photon's energy is not split down the middle but the electron gains more of its EM potential. This appears to show there can exist asymmetry in an photon's energy split. If we assume symmetry the positive charge is using some other means to compensate for its lack of additional magnetic.

[Pyrotex]

Hi Pyro,

 

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

I do now! :eek:

 

Beryllium is also alloyed with copper to make the Space Shuttle disk brakes on its landing gear. BeCu can radiate heat from friction faster than almost any other known metal. Once the Shuttle landed in the dark at Kennedy, and the wheels looked like they had powerful red lights in them. It was the brakes.

[Pyrotex]

Prior to WWII, the famous science fiction author, A.E. van Vogt, wrote a short story called "The Ship". In it, he coined the terms "Terrene" and "Contra-Terrene" (or CT) for ordinary matter and anti-matter. I always loved the way those words rolled off the tongue.

[CraigD]

If we add a photon of energy into a hydrogen atom, we can kick the electron to a higher energy state. If we do an EM assessment on both the electron and proton, the electron gains more magnetic potential than the proton, since the proton does not gain similar velocity, since it is heavy and stay put. This would seem to imply the photon's energy is not split down the middle but the electron gains more of its EM potential. This appears to show there can exist asymmetry in an photon's energy split. If we assume symmetry the positive charge is using some other means to compensate for its lack of additional magnetic.

According to any literature I’ve read, in the scenario described, the photon is not “split” between the electron and the proton. The electron gets (or, in the case of an atom of antihydrogen, the positively charged positron) all gain all of the energy, the proton (or, in the case of an atom of antihydrogen, the negatively charged antiproton) none of it. This “indivisible packet” or “quantum” nature is the essential feature of quantum physics – fundamental particle interact, appearing and disappearing, but don’t split the way the composite particles of our everyday experience (eg: balls of clay) do. As the case of the interaction of a photon with the positron in an atom of antihydrogen shows, charge is not important in the photon’s “choice” of particles with which to interact.

 

HBond, what’s the source of you claims? Can you cite a text, or some experimental data supporting it? Your claims give me the impression that you are describing accepted scientific theory, but I’m unable to find anything similar in any scientific literature.