Full Version: Anti-matter
Unexplained Mysteries Discussion Forums > Unexplained Mysteries > Metaphysics, Psychology & Psychic Phenomena
I recently learned about something called "anti-matter". From what I read, apparently it destroys matter upon contact. There is one thing that has really bothered me about this. Doesn't the go against the laws of physics (matter cannot neither be created nor destroyed)? If anybody knows more about this, please share your knowledge.
QUOTE (ShadowMalerenamon @ Jan 17 2008, 03:26 PM) 
I recently learned about something called "anti-matter". From what I read, apparently it destroys matter upon contact. There is one thing that has really bothered me about this. Doesn't the go against the laws of physics (matter cannot neither be created nor destroyed)? If anybody knows more about this, please share your knowledge.
It does not, what happens is that the anti-matter and the matter collide giving pure energy, electrons, but then forms photons almost immediately after the bang.
QUOTE (dest_titor1 @ Jan 17 2008, 10:36 AM)
It does not, what happens is that the anti-matter and the matter collide giving pure energy, electrons, but then forms photons almost immediately after the bang.
So what your saying is the matter is essentialy converted into light and subatomic particles?
That's pretty much it. The matter/anti-matter reaction would convert all the mass of the matter and anti-matter into energy, signifigantly more than is produced in nuclear reactions. The biggest problems involved so far are creating anti-matter and storing it. The only times we have observed anti-matter occurring is in reactions inside particle accelerators, and then in very small amounts, basically meaning it would take years at our current tech. level to get enough anti-matter to produce enough energy to be meaningful, but new techniques are being researched. Also, storing anti-matter is problematic, as any normal matter it comes in contact with is obliterated in a matter/anti-matter reaction, so it must be stored in a vacuum in a magnetic field.
QUOTE (Corthos @ Jan 17 2008, 12:26 PM)
The only times we have observed anti-matter occurring is in reactions inside particle accelerators...
Some nuclear reactions result in positron emission. "Positron Emission Tomography" (PET) is possible because of positron emission during nuclear decay. We're also making strides in antimatter accumulators.
OS
Oops, yeah, i forgot about the positron emissions. 
The law states that mass-energy must always be conserved, the two can freely convert from one to the other.
QUOTE (Corthos @ Jan 17 2008, 02:28 PM)
Oops, yeah, i forgot about the positron emissions.
Not a problem, Corthos, and I wasn't getting onto you; just wanting to point out that you can legally, but with some difficulty, purchase everything you need to make a weak positron emitter, and you just might possibly be able to build your own accumulator. Fun!
QUOTE (ShadowMalerenamon @ Jan 17 2008, 10:26 AM)
I recently learned about something called "anti-matter". From what I read, apparently it destroys matter upon contact. There is one thing that has really bothered me about this. Doesn't the go against the laws of physics (matter cannot neither be created nor destroyed)? If anybody knows more about this, please share your knowledge.
As I've stated before, I've always been a sci-fi fan, and so I'm interested in the space novels and such too. Anyway, in one of my excruciatingly slow days at work, I was looking at different varieties of thrusters that could potentially be used to power our spacecraft because of the huge inefficiency of our current technology. It's really amazing that there are already sattelites and stuff using Ion thrusters.
Anyway, that's unrelated. There's a really cool HowStuffWorks article on using antimatter thrusters in future spacecraft. It doesn't sound like we're nearly there yet, but it could definitely be something that comes to be in your lifetime. Check it out.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/antimatter.htm
So then and antimatter engine is possible?
QUOTE (UnaFragger @ Jan 18 2008, 08:16 PM)
As I've stated before, I've always been a sci-fi fan, and so I'm interested in the space novels and such too. Anyway, in one of my excruciatingly slow days at work, I was looking at different varieties of thrusters that could potentially be used to power our spacecraft because of the huge inefficiency of our current technology. It's really amazing that there are already sattelites and stuff using Ion thrusters.
Anyway, that's unrelated. There's a really cool HowStuffWorks article on using antimatter thrusters in future spacecraft. It doesn't sound like we're nearly there yet, but it could definitely be something that comes to be in your lifetime. Check it out.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/antimatter.htm
Anyway, that's unrelated. There's a really cool HowStuffWorks article on using antimatter thrusters in future spacecraft. It doesn't sound like we're nearly there yet, but it could definitely be something that comes to be in your lifetime. Check it out.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/antimatter.htm
QUOTE (greenboy @ Jan 18 2008, 03:24 PM)
So then and antimatter engine is possible?
Not so much an Antimatter engine as an engine powered by the matter / anti-matter reaction. It's a really cool article.
That's outstanding. Any book about this?
QUOTE (UnaFragger @ Jan 18 2008, 08:31 PM)
Not so much an Antimatter engine as an engine powered by the matter / anti-matter reaction. It's a really cool article.
Antimatter would be a great fuel source if we had any, taking CERN as an example (one of the world's leading particle physics laboratories), it would still take billions of years to create a single gram.
QUOTE (Raptor @ Jan 18 2008, 12:42 PM)
Antimatter would be a great fuel source if we had any, taking CERN as an example (one of the world's leading particle physics laboratories), it would still take billions of years to create a single gram.
it would as of right now. give it some time. our minds are moveing along rather quickly.
pok
QUOTE (pok @ Jan 18 2008, 08:41 PM)
it would as of right now. give it some time. our minds are moveing along rather quickly.
pok
pok
Agreed, pok.
When matter/antimatter collisions occur, a huge amount of energy is released. Because of Einstein's (simplified) equation "E=Mc^2" and with some simple algebra, we can also see that "M=E/(c^2)". That means that the reverse is also possible: a huge amount of energy can be converted into a small mass, half of which should be matter and half antimatter. When looking at it this way, though, we end up with just a very efficient energy storage method, like a battery. The containment method would cause us to lose some efficiency, but it would still be an incredible energy reservoir. We just don't yet have an effective way to generate and control such huge amounts of energy, both for charging the reservoir nor for tapping the stored energy.
However, as we tease more and more secrets out of nature as we "hack the universe," I believe we will uncover natural processes that can be tapped that will allow us to generate antimatter on demand and contain it.
OS
QUOTE (ShadowMalerenamon @ Jan 17 2008, 09:26 AM)
I recently learned about something called "anti-matter". From what I read, apparently it destroys matter upon contact. There is one thing that has really bothered me about this. Doesn't the go against the laws of physics (matter cannot neither be created nor destroyed)? If anybody knows more about this, please share your knowledge.
How does a fallen tree in a forest decay into the forest floor? Is the tree still there even though it has fallen and decayed? You have to go inside the atom. What you say is the law of physics is saying that matter is already in a form and that form is permanent. The smallest known element of ordinary matter is? Hydrogen. You can go smaller than ordinary to Protium. But, normally atoms have three major particles, proton, neutron, and electron. In the case of matter, when it is created, the opposite is also created in the form of anti-particles, not anti-matter. Matter can be created, but not destroyed, but it can be changed into energy and energy can dissipate. All particles inside an atom contain quarks, except the electron. The anti-electron is a quark that has lost charge. The electron that has a positive charge is a positron.
In my search to assist me in an answer to the question, I came across this:
QUOTE
Electron vs Quark Size
2002067
name Tania N.
status educator
age 30s
Question - If a proton/neutron is very much larger than an electron,
is a quark bigger or smaller than an electron? -- Question from one of
my little year seveners. (grade~2)
------------------------------------------------
Tania,
A quark has never demonstrated any measurable size. Like an electron, it is
a "fundamental particle", one of the few particles from which all else is
made. The size of a proton or neutron comes from the motion of the quarks
as they orbit around each other, sending energy and particles(called mesons)
back and forth between each other. The three quarks are the primary
particles of a proton/neutron, the particles that identify the proton or
neutron for what it is. Still, the proton/neutron is essentially a cloud of
motion with low energy particles flashing in and out of existence all the
time. It is this cloud of motion that gives the proton/neutron its size.
Dr. Ken Mellendorf
Physics Instructor
Illinois Central College
=========================================================
It takes "seveners" to ask those questions we wish we had asked in graduate
school.
The "size" of atomic and sub-atomic particles loses its meaning, because
these "particles" behave as though they are waves, or wave packets. So
"size" becomes kind of "squishy". However, with that caveat, the "classical"
radius of a "free" electron is taken to be about 3x10^-15 meters, and the
"classical" radius of a "free" proton is taken to be about 1x10^-15 -- only
about 1/3 the radius of the electron. However, the "classical" radius of a
hydrogen atom consisting of 1 proton and 1 electron, the Bohr radius, is
about 5x10^-9 meters about one million times the radius of either component
particle.
I do not know that anyone really thinks of quarks and other sub atomic
particles as having a particular "size", in fact their masses are usually
given in energy units of c^2 from the Einstein relation E = mc^2.
=========================================================
2002067
name Tania N.
status educator
age 30s
Question - If a proton/neutron is very much larger than an electron,
is a quark bigger or smaller than an electron? -- Question from one of
my little year seveners. (grade~2)
------------------------------------------------
Tania,
A quark has never demonstrated any measurable size. Like an electron, it is
a "fundamental particle", one of the few particles from which all else is
made. The size of a proton or neutron comes from the motion of the quarks
as they orbit around each other, sending energy and particles(called mesons)
back and forth between each other. The three quarks are the primary
particles of a proton/neutron, the particles that identify the proton or
neutron for what it is. Still, the proton/neutron is essentially a cloud of
motion with low energy particles flashing in and out of existence all the
time. It is this cloud of motion that gives the proton/neutron its size.
Dr. Ken Mellendorf
Physics Instructor
Illinois Central College
=========================================================
It takes "seveners" to ask those questions we wish we had asked in graduate
school.
The "size" of atomic and sub-atomic particles loses its meaning, because
these "particles" behave as though they are waves, or wave packets. So
"size" becomes kind of "squishy". However, with that caveat, the "classical"
radius of a "free" electron is taken to be about 3x10^-15 meters, and the
"classical" radius of a "free" proton is taken to be about 1x10^-15 -- only
about 1/3 the radius of the electron. However, the "classical" radius of a
hydrogen atom consisting of 1 proton and 1 electron, the Bohr radius, is
about 5x10^-9 meters about one million times the radius of either component
particle.
I do not know that anyone really thinks of quarks and other sub atomic
particles as having a particular "size", in fact their masses are usually
given in energy units of c^2 from the Einstein relation E = mc^2.
=========================================================
In that statement is the answer. But it gets rather complicated with things like gravitons, bosons, leptons, nuons, pions, gluons, glueballs, etc. There are neutrinos and anti-neutrinos.
But, when the photon is generated, it does not decay in space; it has no anti-photon. But matter cannot be reduced to a photon. That is a different property.
Disclaimer: This is totally my thought with the help of the internet. It was a quick study, so if you tear it up, it's OK.
my friend told me that anti matter might be used for energy to power homes and stuff
QUOTE (dr alien @ Mar 6 2008, 03:41 PM)
my friend told me that anti matter might be used for energy to power homes and stuff
If we can develop a cheap and efficient way of creating/containing anti-matter, then this is a definate possibility. The amount of energy released in even a small matter/anti-matter reaction would be several orders of magnitude greater than that produced by a normal nuclear reactor. It makes sense that if we could harness this power safely, then it would replace our standard forms of producing energy.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.