Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Angel Particle Discovered


seeder

Recommended Posts

Quote

 

Researchers Discover "Angel Particle" Which Is Both Matter And Antimatter At The Same Time

A team of scientists has found evidence for an unusual particle that, bizarrely, is also its own antiparticle. It was first theorized 80 years ago but now looks like it might be a reality.

The findings, published in the journal Science, were conducted by scientists from Stanford University in California and the University of California.

The idea of a particle having its own antiparticle goes back to 1937 when Italian physicist Ettore Majorana (who mysteriously disappeared in 1938) first postulated the theory. He said that within the class of fermions, which include protons, electrons, and neutrons, some particles should have their own antiparticles, which became known as Majorana particles.

http://www.iflscience.com/physics/researchers-discover-angel-particle-which-is-both-matter-and-antimatter-at-the-same-time/


 

 

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

short vid to help understand.  Just over a minute

 

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like they would react and blow up or cancel out or something!

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I've got one in my kidneys ... I better go get it checked ...

~

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mhmmmm, I see particle physics just got a whole lot easier to understand :no:

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if there is "Positive" matter.. and "Negative" (or "Anti") matter... Is there "Neutral" matter?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Taun said:

So if there is "Positive" matter.. and "Negative" (or "Anti") matter... Is there "Neutral" matter?

Yeah. It's what Switzerland is made of. 

Edited by Parsec
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 7/23/2017 at 6:48 AM, Taun said:

So if there is "Positive" matter.. and "Negative" (or "Anti") matter... Is there "Neutral" matter?

Neutrons. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, badeskov said:

Neutrons. 

What I meant was if there is an anti-matter universe (for example) and our own "positive matter" universe... Is there a Neutral matter universe... (or states of matter in general)...

 

From wiki:

The antineutron is the antiparticle of the neutron with symbol
n
. It differs from the neutron only in that some of its properties have equal magnitude but opposite sign. It has the same mass as the neutron, and no net electric charge, but has opposite baryon number (+1 for neutron, −1 for the antineutron). This is because the antineutron is composed of antiquarks, while neutrons are composed of quarks. The antineutron consists of one up antiquark and two down antiquarks.

 

So perhaps I should ask if there are "neutral quarks"...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Taun said:

What I meant was if there is an anti-matter universe (for example) and our own "positive matter" universe... Is there a Neutral matter universe... (or states of matter in general)...

 

From wiki:

The antineutron is the antiparticle of the neutron with symbol
n
. It differs from the neutron only in that some of its properties have equal magnitude but opposite sign. It has the same mass as the neutron, and no net electric charge, but has opposite baryon number (+1 for neutron, −1 for the antineutron). This is because the antineutron is composed of antiquarks, while neutrons are composed of quarks. The antineutron consists of one up antiquark and two down antiquarks.

 

So perhaps I should ask if there are "neutral quarks"...

I understand (or I think I do) what you mean, but the question starts from a wrong assumption: it's by convenience that we define matter positive and antimatter negative. They are both neutral, or, to be more correct, both balanced. The "only" difference is an inverted electric charge.

It's a dualistic state, it's either "on" or "off". 

 

It's like looking in a mirror: you are positive, your mirror image is negative. There is no "neutral" image. 

 

I don't know if that makes sense. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Parsec said:

I understand (or I think I do) what you mean, but the question starts from a wrong assumption: it's by convenience that we define matter positive and antimatter negative. They are both neutral, or, to be more correct, both balanced. The "only" difference is an inverted electric charge.

It's a dualistic state, it's either "on" or "off". 

 

It's like looking in a mirror: you are positive, your mirror image is negative. There is no "neutral" image. 

 

I don't know if that makes sense. 

What you said makes sense, and I do have a (basic) understanding of charged particles... However... Instead of "On" or "Off", wouldn't "Negative" be -1 (or whatever) rather than "Off" (or Zero), and "Positive" be +1?... After all (according to what little I understand of antimatter theory) When "Negative" and "positive" interact (or touch) they negate themselves (rather spectacularly)... I was just thinking that since the Universe is so well balanced in most things, a perfectly neutral (or actual Zero) charge should exist - one that could interact with both Neg and Pos without going Pfft...

(Play along with me here, I'm working on a Nobel prize! :D)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Taun said:

What you said makes sense, and I do have a (basic) understanding of charged particles... However... Instead of "On" or "Off", wouldn't "Negative" be -1 (or whatever) rather than "Off" (or Zero), and "Positive" be +1?... After all (according to what little I understand of antimatter theory) When "Negative" and "positive" interact (or touch) they negate themselves (rather spectacularly)... I was just thinking that since the Universe is so well balanced in most things, a perfectly neutral (or actual Zero) charge should exist - one that could interact with both Neg and Pos without going Pfft...

(Play along with me here, I'm working on a Nobel prize! :D)

Ah sure thing, if it's for a Nobel I'm game! 

 

I do know little about physics as well, the "on/off"  was an analogy. 

According to my understanding, as I said it's a dualistic system, you either have matter with positive charged nuclei and negative electron clouds around them, or you have negative charged nuclei with positron clouds around. 

 

We have neutrons of course, that have no electric charge, but I doubt you could build stable matter out of them. 

 

I guess what you are aiming at is a sort of exotic matter that could potentially be realised in a lab, but I doubt it could exist in nature, nor I don't know how stable it could be and for how long it could last. 

 

It would definitely be a breakthrough though, because if you could create a "neutral matter" storage, you could fill it with antimatter and let a controlled quantity of matter in, allowing to harness the energy released during the annihilation process to feed an engine. 

Et voilà, spaceship engine ready! 

Pluto here we come! 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
On ‎23‎/‎07‎/‎2017 at 2:48 PM, Taun said:

So if there is "Positive" matter.. and "Negative" (or "Anti") matter... Is there "Neutral" matter?

Atomic particles have an electric charge on them.

An example of ordinary matter is an election which has a negative charge. What anti-matter means is the same particle has the opposite electric charge. So the opposite of the electron is the positron which is the same particle but with a positive charge. It dues to the different combinations of sub-atomic particles which make up ordinary and anti-matter.

Then there is negative matter. This is something far more exotic. There is negative ordinary matter and negative anti-matter.

The best way of explaining negative energy and negative matter is to imagine the vacuum of space. Point to any part of the vacuum you like. Thats an example of the least amount of energy and mass you can have right? That being zero mass and zero energy.

Wrong, you can have less than absolutely zero mass and zero energy. And that is negative matter and negative energy. It has weird consequences in physics for example if you shoot an negative energy laser beam at an object instead of heating it up and burning through it you have a freeze ray. A freeze ray might I add which can cool your object down below absolute zero.

Edited by RabidMongoose
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.