Anti-matter is unstable matter

[arkain101]

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

 

Although this guy supplies good information and thoughts... It's too bad he sits in such a tall chair, otherwise I might hear more of what he had to say :(

 

 

With that said... in a general reply to this thread:

 

What is charge?

some dictionary definitions of the word:

-to make a rush at or sudden attack upon, as in battle

-blame for, make a claim of wrongdoing or misbehavior against

-the quantity of unbalanced electricity in a body (either positive or negative) and construed as an excess or deficiency of electrons

-In physics, a charge may refer to one of many different quantities, such as the electric charge in electromagnetism or the color charge in quantum chromodynamics

 

I would at my ability describe particle charge as the form or type of force contained in or applied to a material function of energy.

 

But this requires a description of force.

What causes force? This is a tough question.

 

According to SR force is perportional to velocity. Also, force is the producer or the product of a hypothetical space-time fabric.

 

This then requires the concept of space-time fabric. Another tough question.

 

 

I wanted to point these out because they remain as far as I know, unknown descriptions of observable events.

[CraigD]

What causes force? This is a tough question.

Profound though it is, “what causes force?” is a question completely answered by present day particle physics theories, most centrally the Standard Model. Forces are “caused” – or, its more common to say, carried, by a specific collection of particles called bosons. They are carried between particles called fermions. The electron is a fundamental, indivisible fermion, the proton a composite fermion consisting of 3 fundimental fermions, 2 up and 1 down quarks

 

Most of the forces we encounter in our everyday, macroscopic world are electromagnetic, the repulsive force of electrons that we perceive as when we press solid objects against one another. The boson that caries this force is the photon – exactly the same fundamental, indivisible particle that carries energy in the form of light and other electromagnetic radiation over very large distances. In the case of electromagnetic force, however, the photons are virtual – that is, measurable only by their effect on the fermions between which they carry force.

 

Although the mathematical formalism of these interactions is complicated, on a high level, the fermion-boson interaction scheme of the Standard Model is extraordinarily simple.

 

A major shortcoming of the Standard Model in it present form is that a boson to carry gravitational force, tentatively named the graviton, has not been satisfactorily formally described. This is not to say such a particle does not exits, but that it is not adequately understood or described.

According to SR force is perportional to velocity.

According to both classical and relativistic mechanics, force is proportional to the rate of change of velocity multiplied by the mass of the body for which velocity is being measured. Note that this is a macroscopic description, no a fundamental one.

Also, force is the producer or the product of a hypothetical space-time fabric.

 

This then requires the concept of space-time fabric. Another tough question.

“Space time fabric” is not a fundamental entity in scientific theories of physics. Rather, it’s a metaphor useful for interpreting the consequences of the underlying mathematical formalism of these theories. It’s important, I think, to avoid attempting to informally (or formally) understand theoretical entities that are meant as aids to informally understanding difficult underlying formalism – otherwise, you can get into a terrible, vicious circle of self reference reminiscent of Royce’s “map of England” paradox.

[Pyrotex]

...According to SR force is perportional to velocity. Also, force is the producer or the product of a hypothetical space-time fabric....

Hmm..?? :confused:

 

According to Newton, Force = mass times accelleration.

Now, at lower speeds (say, < c/100) SR and Newton give almost exactly the same results.

 

So, I don't see how SR could say that force is proportional to velocity. It should be proportional to accelleration.

[LaurieAG]

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.

 

Hi Pyro,

 

I used to live on the first chicane of the Gold Coast Indy track. One year the race was delayed so much that it ran into the afternoon dusk. I've got photo's that show exactly the same thing.

 

It's interesting that Be was the heaviest element that could be produced by a BB type scenario and it could also be produced by helium burning stars. What would a cloud or two of Be, with its interesting optical and nuclear properties, cause to happen to a photon passing through both clouds to the observer (TIR or FTL) on a universal scale?.

[CraigD]

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.

Thanks for the and [ce]Be[/ce] and [ce]CuBe[/ce] references, Laurie and Pyro. :thumbs_up I wasn’t aware beryllium was so useful! According to the "Beryllium copper" wikipedia article, it’s even prized for unusual acoustic properties, with applications like the little cymbals (“zills”) on high quality tambourines.

 

What’s previously struck me as distinct about Be is how out-of-place it falls in order of its natural abundance. In the table I compiled in “An abundance of elements perspective”, at an abundance of about [math]2.4 \times 10^{-11}[/math], it’s the 53rd most abundant element, despite having the 3rd lowest atomic number, 4, making it the most out-of-atomic-number-order-by-abundance element, followed not-very-closely by 44th most abundant 82 lead, 49th most abundant 78 platinum (which are out-of-order in the more abundant direction), 34th most abundant 5 boron, and 29th most abundant 3 lithium.

It's interesting that Be was the heaviest element that could be produced by a BB type scenario

Though beryllium is the heaviest element usually predicted to have been synthesized in the Big Bang, according to references from the wikipedia article “Big Bang nucleosynthesis”, there’s uncertainty about some boron having been synthized, so it's possible Be isn't the heaviest primordial element.

and it could also be produced by helium burning stars.

Several of the hydrogen burning Stellar nucleosynthesis reactions, such as the pp II branch also synthesize beryllium. Like helium burning reactions, though, all the references I can find show the beryllium as an intermediate, not and end product – in pp II hydrogen burning, decaying into Lithium and neutrinos, in the helium burning triple alpha process, fusing with helium into carbon.

 

The wiki articles conclude that beryllium “is not formed in conventional stellar nucleosynthesis.” Stellar nucleosynthesis being the complicated subject it is, though, I wonder about unconventional stellar reactions? Do you have a recollection or a link to from where you got the idea, Laurie?

What would a cloud or two of Be, with its interesting optical and nuclear properties, cause to happen to a photon passing through both clouds to the observer (TIR or FTL) on a universal scale?.

There’s so little of it, I doubt there are clouds with significant amounts of beryllium in them, so doubt it has more than a minor effect on a universal scale – though I think I see where you’re coming from/headed with this speculation.

[LaurieAG]

Laurie?There’s so little of it, I doubt there are clouds with significant amounts of beryllium in them, so doubt it has more than a minor effect on a universal scale – though I think I see where you’re coming from/headed with this speculation.

 

Hi CraigD,

 

I understand your point and, considering that the preceding elements are Hydrogen, Helium, and Lithium followed by Boron, wonder what the proportions of Be to the other elements would have been at the early stages, not now.

 

I was heading towards the photon transistor/FTL/TIR experiments where Be plays an important part along with the wavelengths and the entire atomic structures that they pass through. Could these interesting and as yet unexplained (to the satisfaction of the global scientific community) phenomena be replicated on a universal scale?

[CraigD]

wonder what the proportions of Be to the other elements would have been at the early stages, not now.

The usual predicted primordial abundance of elements, compared to currently observed, are

Element(s)      Abundance
1 H hydrogen    .9098509500698236616  currently observed
               .923076923  BBN predicted (12/13)
2 He helium     .08870231484551685877  currently observed          
               .076923077  BBN predicted (1/13)
3 Li lithium    .000000001862096388852578175   currently observed
4 Be beryllium  .00000000002380613596956886283 currently observed
Li + Be         .0000000001  BBN predicted (traces)
5 B boron       .000000000691356277472410811  currently observed
               ?  BBN predicted (uncertain)
6+              .001446732507400676935  currently observed
               none  BBN predicted

Note that the difference between the “currently observed” and “Big Bang Nucleosynthesis predicted” abundances aren’t indication of a predicted-observed discrepancy, because “BBN predicted” is for the early, primordial universe, “currently observed” for the current, local universe. Fortunately for all of us made-of-heavy-element beings, stellar nucleosynthesis has been busy in the past 13 some billion years. :)

 

Sources: hypography post “An abundance of elements perspective”; wikipedia article “Big Bang nucleosynthesis”

I was heading towards the photon transistor/FTL/TIR experiments where Be plays an important part along with the wavelengths and the entire atomic structures that they pass through.

Note that the link in my previous post was to the 12558, in which we discuss Nimtz’s and Stahlhofen’s TIR/FTL optical experiment.

 

The jist of this work is the hypothesis that, via a particular kind of optics, actual violations of the relativistic prohibition on signal speeds greater than the speed of light in vacuum is possible. This is a controversial and complicated, hypothesis, but a testable one: if correct, specially made optical devices, such as fiberoptic data cables, should be able to send actual signals measurably faster than c.

 

As far as I know, Nimtz’s and Stahlhofen’s effect can be realized with any materials of different refractive indexes – beryllium isn’t especially required. It’s a small effect, in which nearly all of a light beam is reflected, and a small fraction transmitted, possible, if the geometry and refractive indexes of the optics set up for it, faster than c.

 

If this effect is real – which is far from a scientific consensus – I can see no reason why it would occur only in precisely assembled optical devices, rather than “in the wild”, for example in matter clouds in outer space. However, as with any statistically rare effect dependent on difficult-to-measure conditions, such an effect would, I think, suffer from severe “signal-to-noise” difficulties, making in the wild detection of it difficult to impossible.

 

PS: We’ve wandered pretty far from this thread’s original discussion of antimatter, so, if there are no objections, I’ll split it into a separate threads.

[HydrogenBond]

Here is my theory. Breaking the speed of light is only occurring at the wave level of light, but not at its particle level. In the media, the light energy causes charges in the atoms to align with the electric field sine waves of the energy. These charges start to oscillate, giving off the same energy. If there is a phase difference between the incoming wave and the oscillation wave, due to the mass of the oscillator, the two distinct waves will add to make a composite wave. What we can get is a single composite wavelength where the frequency times the composite wavelength no longer multiples out to C. Because it is composite wave, it is coming from two different photons. The two particle aspects can stay at C, with only the final composite appearing to be going faster than C. It appears to be a new type of refraction affect.

 

For example, if the composite wave ends up 10% larger, with the frequency held constant, if we multiple wavelength times frequency it is >C. This anomaly is adjusted for in most refractive media, with the path of the light increasing so the light bends and C is not violated. Typically the speed of the composite wave slows, but the two photon particles will stay at C. If we can make the light bend, less than should be in normal refraction, we get a strange new affect. It would be like taking a prism where red is existing at angle X, but then cause it to exist much closer to the zero angle. It appears to go faster than C, now. What this theory suggest is that energy is not a particle-wave duality but a particle and a wave that can be made to display two distinct affects at the same time.

 

This is consistent with another forum topic where the photon does not show an symmetric split when fully ionizing the hydrogen atom. The proton is too heavy to get the same charge velocity=>magnetic induction as the electron. This implies the photon can not be divided equally, by default. If the proton ends up with the same velocity so the its moving charge magnetic affect is equal, then it gains extra kinetic energy because it has much more mass. This asymmetry of the photon brings us back to matter-anti-matter. Since matter-anti-matter stems from energy it does not always have to have a 50-50 split, with the hydrogen atom demonstrating this does occur in nature. If I was to guess, within the hydrogen atom, the positive charge ends up with the photon particle, which is added to the mass. The negative charge gets most of the magnetic. The electric is split 50/50. The positron may end up with the particle, even if the electron has the same energy. There is only one particle.

[alexander]

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.

They could also be silicon-infiltrated carbon-carbon composite brakes (aka silicone carbide). Ceramic material (btw in its natural mineral form it's a rather rare mineral, moissanite) it's used in brakes for high class super cars. They are fade resistant to 1200C, also look like glowing red projectors when they are hot (watch the top gear episode on SLR McLaren, they do a stop test towards the middle i think, well about 5 minutes (a little before) they show you the brakes in action, you can see the glowing red disks... mmm perty... here's a link for ya: YouTube - Mclaren SLR http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xrh0muW5pd8)

 

Sorry if it's a bit off topic. On the topic of antimatter, I have been wondering, what would happen if you drop a blue-white star worth of antimatter into a black hole.....

[Pyrotex]

... On the topic of antimatter, I have been wondering, what would happen if you drop a blue-white star worth of antimatter into a black hole.....

Whoa! Dude! That's like shooting incindiary tracer bullets at the Hindenburg! :eek:

 

But what would be the results? :( If there is actual matter in the black hole then there would be annihilation. Could we detect that on the outside? Theoretically, no. :doh: But if we could, what would we see?

 

I believe if there WERE matter on the inside, we would see the mass of the black hole decrease. On the outside, we would see this as a huge burst of Hawking Radiation from the event horizon.

[alexander]

Whoa! Dude! That's like shooting incindiary tracer bullets at the Hindenburg!

lol not quite... there's matter left after the oxydation of hydrogen, thus there is a limited (though large) amount of energy being produced by this otherwise exothermic reaction. Problem is, that by getting that large amount of antimatter into a black hole, assuming there is matter in the whole (and i think there must be, laws say that energy can not be created nor destroyed, therefore the mass that is the black hole, which forms by highly dense material collapsing on itself, should still be that, material... but that is my take on those things anyhow). The difference from a hydrogen oxygen exothermic reaction, is that in matter antimatter reaction only energy is released...(and i know you know that)

 

oh actually, thinking about it further, the interaction between matter and antimatter will immediately reduce the amount of material in a black hole by the mass of a blue-white star, then there is the energy to deal with; you are going to be applying a lot of energy to a mass.... could you perhaps see non nuclear fission, separation of the star material back into hydrogen and helium...?

 

you may just see a flash, and black hole just may turn back into a star....?

 

if it's a singularity point, and no mass is there...then you shouldn't see anything really, right, i can't find a reason to see an explosion of hawking radiation at the event horizon, caused by what...?

 

it's a ponderance, i doubt anyone will be able to definitively say what would happen..?

[CraigD]

On the topic of antimatter, I have been wondering, what would happen if you drop a blue-white star worth of antimatter into a black hole.....

My take on it is that, if you can drop a mass of anything into a black hole – ordinary or antimatter - you’d get a black hole with a mass of its original mass plus the added mass. The diameter of its event horizon would increase, its accretion disk, if present, would do interesting and energetic things, the power of its Hawking radiation would decrease, but it’d remain a black hole.

 

In its unknowable innards, it would immediately have more photons, and fewer baryons. GR dictates that neither can escape, and mass-energy equivalence that the gravitation effect will be the same regardless of the rest mass to energy ratio. Although in our ordinary experience, the gravitational effect of photons is undetectably miniscule, and they disperse rapidly (as rapidly as possible) from the energy sources that produce them, beneath the event horizon of a black hole, they’d be indistinguishable from the annihilated matter and antimatter that produced them.

 

Maybe the innards of all black holes consist mostly or entirely of bosons, such as photons, or less directly know ones, such as gluons, making them similar to tremendous single neutrons, which one might also term a “supermassive quark star”

 

However, predictions about the behavior of black holes based on GR must, I think, be taken with a large grain of salt. To the best of my understanding of the theory, according to GR, to a distant observer, it should take an infinite amount of time for an object, be it a small body or a star’s mass of antimatter, to fall through the event horizon of a black hole. Current large-scale astronomy, however, indicates that many or all galaxies have suppermassive black holes at their centers. If, as several theories hypothesize, these supermassive black holes are accretions of thousands to tens of billions of star-size masses, and galaxies formed by the collisions of two galaxies combine their central black holes into a single central black hole, the time-dilation prediction of GR can’t be correct. If GR’s predictions are correct, then supermassive black holes either do not form by accretion of many smaller black holes and other bodies, or are much stranger “hairier” bodies than commonly imagined.

[HydrogenBond]

The way I interpret GR, although unconventional, is connected to time and distance expansion. Let me give my logic instead of just stating an opinion. Say we have two mass bodies on a coordinate system one at (0,0) and the other at the system limit of (1,1). We expand the space-time coordinate system to (2,2) , leaving the masses at (0,0) and (1,1). If we look at the positions of the masses relative to the stretching space-time they appear to attract to half the distance relative to the new coordinate system.

 

To test this hypothesis, instead of time slowing one would expect that time should be speeding up. This is easier to see with large mass objects like stars. The center of the star, by being the hottest place, is implicit of the bottom of the gravity well. This zone shows the fastest rate of change of state (time). The average timed event is nuclear and extremely fast. On the surface of the well, the average timed event is plasma which is slower. The time profile of the well has slower timed events at the top of the well with the average time scale of events speeding up toward center.

 

If we look in terms of a black hole, the well events are so fast that we don't yet have experiments this fast so we assume void. But before that center void is reached, one would expect the fastest known events which start to look like what we are able to generate in particle accelerators. This is what one would expect of matter being compressed until the substructure is all touching and transitions begin to occur at the level of substructure.

 

Here is another angle that led to this conclusion. If we look at the forces of nature, such as EM and the nuclear forces, these give off energy. So I asked myself, if gravity is a force, what type of energy does it give off? Gravity does not give off energy directly. What this means it is on recycle. But the overall effect generates work and heat. If we take a smaller object like the moon that original gravity generated heat. After energy radiated the moon cooled. If we compare E=MC2 of the mass before and after, the loss of energy means less final E=MC2.

 

If we loosely compare this to SR, a loss of mass-energy will occur only if we slow the reference. That mass loss would show a parallel distance and time expansion. Stars allow for mass burn via the nuclear forces implying gravity sets up the chain of events for the overall mass to decrease. The mass is not increasing as one might expect if we have space-time contraction and compare this to the results of SR. The current orientation allows space-time to gain or lose mass, which makes space-time indeterminate.

 

There is a simple way to visualize how distance can expand in a small space to give the appearance of more space. GR is analogous to a space-time microscope where we reference zoom into the tiniest fastest events associated with that magnification reference. For example, we place a rock a the top of a space-time well. At first, we see the rock. As we zoom in by going into the GR well, we see the crystal structure reference. The reference focus is now here so the crystals begin to change due to heat and compression. As we zoom in more we center our reference at the outer electrons and these start to ionize as the average reference event. As we zoom in more we go deeper into the electrons orbitals. At further zoom the center of reference begins to include the nuclear and this become the center of reference focus and activity. Further GR zooming goes into the substructure reference as this becomes the central reference of GR microscope focus and activity, etc.

 

SR is the opposite and is more like a reference telescope which allows what should be slow and spread out events in stationary space-time to get appear to closer and happen much quicker. We start at the rock. As the SR telescope increases magnification the surface of the moon is appearing to be closer to the rock. As the SR telescope increases power we see Pluto near the moon, etc. As we scan the horizon I can jump from Pluto to Jupiter, faster than if I was having to physically move that distance in stationary reference. The microscope will take much longer to do that. Near a black hole we crawl due the reference of the GR microscope.

[alexander]

just a quick calculation, if we were to drop a blue supergiant made of antimatter on top of another blue supergiant of the same mass in matter.

 

blue supergiants, class O stars have mass that is about 60 times that of our sun.

so our sun is [math]1.98892*10^{30}kg[/math] times 60 we get [math]1.193352*10^{32}kg[/math] or the same to the 35th power in grams.

 

Equation states that one gram of mass is equivalent to 89,875,517,873,681,764 J/kg of energy, having that [math]89875517873681764*1.193352*10^{35} = 1.07253129 × 10^{52} J[/math]

 

just for ha-has

a kiloton of TNT (standard unit for measuring explosive power) is equivalent to 4.184GJ, so this experiment would release

[math]1.07253129 × 10^{52}/4182000000=2564637231123717848707030129124820659971305[/math] That's in kilotonns of TNT... or about 2.6 qundecimtilltion tons....

 

I dunno about you guys, but i would bring marshmallows and some chocolate... mmmm smores :)

[Moontanman]

just a quick calculation, if we were to drop a blue supergiant made of antimatter on top of another blue supergiant of the same mass in matter.

 

blue supergiants, class O stars have mass that is about 60 times that of our sun.

so our sun is [math]1.98892*10^{30}kg[/math] times 60 we get [math]1.193352*10^{32}kg[/math] or the same to the 35th power in grams.

 

Equation states that one gram of mass is equivalent to 89,875,517,873,681,764 J/kg of energy, having that [math]89875517873681764*1.193352*10^{35} = 1.07253129 × 10^{52} J[/math]

 

just for ha-has

a kiloton of TNT (standard unit for measuring explosive power) is equivalent to 4.184GJ, so this experiment would release

[math]1.07253129 × 10^{52}/4182000000=2564637231123717848707030129124820659971305[/math] That's in kilotonns of TNT... or about 2.6 qundecimtilltion tons....

 

I dunno about you guys, but i would bring marshmallows and some chocolate... mmmm smores :)

 

If you drop "matter" into a black hole it doesn't "matter" what type of "matter" it is. Matter, antimatter, mirror matter, strange matter, dark matter, they all end up captured by and add to the black holes mass. Since nothing can escape a black hole, even EMR, nothing will happen when these types of matter or anything else is dropped into a black hole other than the mass of the black hole increasing. Even Electromagnetic Radiation contributes to the gravity Field.

[Pyrotex]

Uhhh... dude?...

If, as you say,

it should take an infinite amount of time for an object, be it a small body or a star’s mass of antimatter, to fall through the event horizon of a black hole

then how come we "see" black holes out there in the universe? Shouldn't we see clusters of stars and stuff just outside of event horizons, frozen in GR time, so to speak??? And how did the first black hole ever become a, you know... black hole... if it takes an infinite time for the mass to cross over its event horizon??? Or to even create the initial event horizon in the first place???

 

BTW, I am aware of the GR prediction that time slows to a standstill at the e.h., but I'm not sure I understand how that can work -- and still say, "there! that's a black hole!"

 

Whoa!! Maybe there AREN'T any black holes!! Not really!! If we could get close enough to one, we would find a clustering of the images (deeply red-shifted) of stars and planets and dust clouds, all hovering just barely outside the e.h.!!!

 

"Black hole" would no longer be an appropriate name. We should call these objects, "cluster-f*cks", or something like that. :D

[alexander]

it should take an infinite amount of time for an object, be it a small body or a star’s mass of antimatter, to fall through the event horizon of a black hole

 

well, i'm no big expert, and do correct me if i'm wrong, but wait a second, it would only seem that way for an observer at the edge of the black hole, and at that, the object falling in will look more and more stretched until it totally vanishes, but to you, continues falling forever, because it's time, the faster the object travles, will slow down in comparison to you... But then looking as the object falling into the this hole, you would not notice any difference... bestrangeful (just came up with this word too)

 

also, Moon, i understand what you are saying, if i look at it assuming that a black hole collapses to a singularity point; if such is not the case however, and we are discussing a super dense object (made of matter), then no, dropping that kind of a mass into it, will create something cool, something never before seen by any galaxy anywhere, granted that the black hole is a freshly collapsed star or two or something (its a relatively small mass)...