Antimatter - Antigravity LHC Results

We do not know about the independent existence of quarks, and we are talking about anti quarks?

Electron positron (fundamental non composite particles) annihilation is ok, but extending this to even the simplest composite particles is problematic.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No surprise, the proton - antiproton annhilation is messy.

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/563372234621060405/

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

In the streamer chamber picture, the antiproton comes in from the bottom and begins spiraling to the right, the proton to the left. Several pions are produced on the way in. You would expect that. Protons and antiprotons have 1000 times more mass/energy than positronium decay.

Until or unless it meets an antiproton, protons never decay, inside or outside of atomic structure. If outside, they simply form new hydrogen atoms.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Pawlak answer although uses the particle anti particle words, but it is equally apt for proton proton high energy collision.

And it makes it momentum dependent, suggesting that a pair can embrace each other without annihilation. Think of it they have opposite charge, they must develop some interaction to burn out without the need of any external accelerator, but no they don't.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So you evidently want some nice and simple answer to a very complex topic. QFT is based on some very powerful and subtle symmetry principles which are fantastically complex to apply to specific real world particle physics scenarios. Like outcome(s) of particle collisions. Maybe have a serious wander through this place:
https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/

 

Qreeus,

As of now my POV is not that they cannot exist, so it's incorrect inference by you.

I am just wondering about the process between composite pair, so far no satisfactory response, both these PhDs have made it further messy.

 

Nonsense. You are chickening out.

 

How so? Given your likely very meager level of knowledge here, what meaningful answer could ever satisfy?

 

Messy or complex is fine, but definition demands that a proton and anti proton must annihilate compeletely.

 

Oh, so now you are saying that I know not much about SM, so I may not understand your clear non popsci answer.

This is the first time I found your response lacking in depth. You first suggested wiki, when that failed you suggested quora/reddit, that created further problem so you attempted to claim that its very complex subject, and now you say that I cannot understand the real answer.

I am afraid people here are not conversant about particle antiparticle mystery beyond simple definition.

So, Shoot it...After all not everyone understands what Rpenner types, but still a few do.

 

Yes.

Well, the antiproton consists of two anti-up quarks, and an anti-down quark, while the proton has two up quarks and a down quark. Opposite charges and all other characteristics apply, including the ability to make an atom of anti-hydrogen. On the balance, all mc^2 of it can in principle self-annhilate, even if it falls to pieces (quarks) first.

It is true that a quark and an anti-quark together do not necessarily self-annhilate. Instead, they can make a meson. The rules for the combination of quarks of various colors, flavors and gluons are quite complex as well (the eightfold way, for example).

 

1. First you have to establish that proton and anti proton mass will be equal. The quarks mass is hardly 5% of total proton mass, rest is some form of energy. So how can you assume or prove that with change in charge distribution this energy contribution to the anti proton mass will be same as energy contribution to the proton mass?

2. You say that quark and anti quark may not annihilate? That's violative of definition. IMO they must first annihilate and after that the residual energy may form possible Meson etc.

 

I'm saying you obviously have no feel for what one needs to master in such a difficult subject, yes. As for popsci answer, that is a silly response. I steered you to some experts who offered basic explanations at an accessible level. You have not ventured to explain why none of that was good enough, or maybe outright wrong iyo.

Explain why wiki 'failed'. Then explain why quora/reddit 'created further problems'. By what sensible criteria?

I make no claim to have grasped anything close to even rudimentary mastery of QFT. But I know the issues and enough to know it requires years of intensive study before you can claim to really know the ins and outs of particle physics.
If particle/antiparticle creation and whatnot is some kind of passion that keeps you awake at night, go to any of the excellent forums and blogs inhabited by experts in the subject, and field your questions there. Why even bother at SF - you know what an intellectual dessert it is in general. As you admitted above in fact.

 

Dr Heile response as taken in #18 is quite vague. Please see the last para in #18.

Other response makes the process momentum related.

Actually none are able to talk of any kind of deterministic process or ore conditions. They say it may or may not annihilate.

 

Right there seems to be the core of your problem then. Quantum phenomena in general are statistical by nature. Determinism and quantum physics (which particle physics belongs to) are mutually incompatible. Outcomes are inherently probabilistic (except for certain aspects of simple exceptions), which is why LHC experiments must collect vast numbers of individual collision event outcomes to glean statistically significant results and conclusions from such.

 

Oops..You are distracting. I am talking about process being deterministic, not about probability of its happening. Take for example electron positron collision, well positional probability of both is key to annihilation, but what after it is established.

 

NO I am NOT distracting. And you should cease to make such rash judgements!

A straight out contradictory statement. Seems you can't even see that.

Ignoring the meaningless "positional probability of both is key to annihilation", you chose a rare example roughly tallying with my comment in #34:"(except for certain aspects of simple exceptions)".

For high energy particle collisions in general, there are many possible branching decay pathways. Each with it's own probability of occurring for any given specific collision scenario. The maths effort required to compute just one pathway probability is huge in it's own right. Moreover there are many possible specific collision scenarios for a given general impact situation between any two specified particles at a given com energy - exact head-on or glancing and by how much. Overall, the task of predicting the inherently probabilistic shower of output particles is enormously complex. Requires long runs with supercomputers to get anywhere meaningful re matching theory and experiment.
DO seriously consider taking a tour through that menu of intro to particle physics articles I gave in #24. Again: https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/

 

So, the conclusion is for composite particle pairs, meeting (whatever that means) of both, may not result into annihilation, contradicting the very definition or asking for riders for annihilation.

A. It is momentum dependent B. Even if momentum is fine it may only convert a part. C. We may not know the split mechanism, we may not know what happens to residual composition. D. We may not know how energy conversion takes place E. we may not know what happens to system energy and how it permits the penetration. F. Cop out is...the mechanism, which is unknown, but still requires extensive knowledge of particle physics, for whatever minute we know.

 

The time and effort put in to try and explain some basics and further hunt online for suitable instructive material has clearly been a waste. Bye bye.

 

Why?

 

This is quite funny, seen in a certain light. Q-reeus is accused of "attempting to claim" that this is a " very complex subject".

It seems to me, having looked at some of the (highly informative and interesting) links, that he has been rather successful in his "attempt".

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!