Antimatter - Antigravity LHC Results

Perhaps some of the problem here is my fault for not pointing out that outside of an atomic nucleus, mesons (a quark and an antiquark) quickly decay and also self- annhialate. The whole process of self annhilation is also a decay, and requires time to complete.

Except for protons which fortunately for us do not eventually decay into unbound energy on their own, this isn't a very stable universe in terms of bound energy that occurs outside of atomic structure. Free neutrons decay by an interesting process (a down quark changing to an up quark) into a proton, an electron, and an electron antineutrino.

I'm learning some of this as well. What got me so interested in the first place was particle physicists negating the principle of equivalence, which I had always considered to be a bedrock theory of physics. Their statistical analysis of the situation that led them to say that is flawless, of course. The flaw lies in replacing time with probability, as Peter Woit, Lee Smolin, and others observed before I actually identified the exact problem with relativity that forced it to be discarded as a description of time and of nature on quantum scales.

Spin or angular momentum should in no manner be equivocated with linear propagation of energy, in the same way that the variables for time and space are discrete entities. The only reason relativity works for doing physics 99% of the time from our perspective is that we move slowly relative to most other bound energy and are, for the most part, not spinning very fast either. Even if fundamental particle manifestly do.

There was a division by zero involved with the geometrical construction of spacetime, and this demands correction before relativity and time can be reintroduced where quantum statistics currently rule. Absolute space never existed other than for the geometric center of particles. Absolute time exists only as an instant, not equivocated with or made proportional to a velocity, a velocity of light, or a time interval. That instant of time is what makes Einstein's.most famous formula, and it's expression as the Law of Conservation of Mass/Energy into a bedrock principle of physics, and the Principle of Equivalence for inertia as well. Inertia does not exist without time.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, subject is very complex, but concept is not complex.

Q-reeus did suggest few links, but I was more focussing on composite particles (or anti matter).

1. Wiki link says a neutron and anti neutron will annihilate on contact.

2. Quora link talks of momentum and distinguishes energy level based collision, that is more than "contact", suggesting somethi g more than mere contact.

3. Quora link further talks of in case of proton only one pair of quarks (out of 3) may get annihilated, and other two can be destined to unknown mess.

My thrust was pretty simple, based on the usage of a very strong word "annihilate" and no usage of part conversion. I do not think Q-reeus has been able to pin point or refer any mechanism associated with such annihilation. Both the references are more or less at pop science level only. I am wondering about existence of antimatter of composite antiparticles. Are there any other possible explanation for such observations at LHC etc? Is there any alternative theory which could exlplain all the observations which are presently examined by anti particle concept?

I think Q-reeus need not feel offended on this aspect, he is a good contributor.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I agree with the last sentence.

But he has not been trying to provide evidence of simple annihilation. It is you that is apparently demanding it. (I quote your post 28: "...definition demands that a proton and anti proton must annihilate completely.")

I asked you why you make this assertion, and you have not answered. It seems to me such an assertion is false because, the way I read the links, a baryon, being - as you yourself have pointed out - a complex particle, has several modes of interaction with its corresponding antiparticle. Not all of these have to result in conversion of all the mass to gamma rays, though they will all presumably result in destruction of the 2 original particles. It seems to me that if by "annihilation" one means destruction of the proton and the anti-proton and replacement by other species, then yes they get "annihilated". If however by "annihilation" you specifically mean 100% conversion of all the mass into EM radiation, as happens with an electron and a positron, then no, under that restricted meaning they do not get "annihilated"....for all the good reasons explained in the links.

I grant you that none of these links provides a reaction scheme for all the paths that the reaction can apparently take. But this is clearly something that is not straightforward to do.

As to your challenge about whether the results obtained by the LHC can be explained in terms of something other than antiparticles, good luck. You will need to identify which results you want to challenge and read a lot about particle physics for yourself. But as antiparticles are a well-established feature of the current models, unless you can point to some observation that the antiparticle concept fails to account for, you are not going to get a lot of traction with that.

If I may ask, what is your reason for wanting to explore alternative explanations that do not rely on antiparticles?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, where in the definition it is stated that it will be partial conversion, pl do not respond that even full is not mentioned. If so, what are the pre conditions for full conversion. IMO meaning of word annihilation suggests full conversion. Logically from definition..."contact or collision of pair ---->>> complete annihilation and thus energy ------>> new particles as per energy available or/and gamma rays".

But except probably for fundamental non composite particles, the above mechanism does not happen.

That is big issue. It's more or less a statement without any light on how it happens. Is it not a relevant question to ask? Q-reeus did not come forward and stated that probably we lack further understanding on this, he implied everything is so complex, suggesting that it is kNown but complex.

My reason is that except possibly for reverse curve motion of positron, in presence of EM field, we don't have much to establish about the existence of anti particles. This also is of no help for neutral composite particles.

 

1.
For a moment consider positron as a standalone fundamental particle with mass equal to electron and positive charge +e. Apart from this what are the other evidence of antimatter.

2.
We do not have any trace of existence of standalone quark. Either the life span is too short or it just does not exist independently. So claiming that both quark and anti quark exist, appears far-fetched.

3.
Assuming that they do, then do we have evidence of existence of anti proton like we have that of positron?

4.
Anti hydrogen with anti proton and positron! Say an atom of anti hydrogen is hit by an electron, so it should be able to annihilate with positron if whatever favorable circumstances it gets, then what happens to antiproton? Is antiproton lifespan too short? And if so why since proton is almost immortal?

My question stands, is there any alternative explanation? If yes then what ? And if no, then does it mean that we are satisfied that the concept of anti~ is sufficient and we need no alternatives?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiparticle (and further links therein)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiproton (and further links therein)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilation (and further links therein)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-consistency_principle_in_high_energy_Physics (and further links therein)

Above articles linked to might be accepted as useful by anyone without unreasonable expectations given rather limited personal knowledge baseline. If such an individual, having done more than quickly skim above material, remains sceptical, there is always the option of perusing links within a site specializing in e.g. particle decay: http://pdg.lbl.gov/
with links there to specialists having email addresses suggesting possible one-on-one correspondence. Which might get past the first exchange if the query is not judged too silly or dogmatic.

 

I agree that antiparticles of neutral species seem rather intriguing, since charge is the best known property that is reversed in antiparticles. I know almost no particle physics but I took a quick look at the Wiki article on the anti-neutron. This gives a date for its discovery (1956), the lab where it was discovered (Bevatron), the discoverer (Bruce Cork) and the properties it was found to have. I'm sure you could research the details of the discovery and the evidence, if you are interested.

One of its properties, I was interested to see, was its magnetic moment. I did not know, or had long forgotten, that the neutron (or antineutron) has a magnetic moment, which of course one would not expect for a neutral "spinning" particle. This was, apparently, one of the unexplained phenomena that the quark model later resolved in the 1960s. Once one regards the neutron as a composite entity, like an atom, one can account for a magnetic moment in terms of circulating charges within its structure - as we do for the atom.

The anti-proton was discovered a year before the anti-neutron and I am sure again that you can research the evidence that led to the claim.

Anti-hydrogen would I'm sure decompose as you suggest: the positron would annihilate on reaction with an electron, leaving a naked antiproton, which would undergo the same fate as the antiproton first discovered and which we talked about in earlier posts, viz. destruction via reaction with protons.

As for whether or not quarks "exist" , I am going to say, in the usual boringly predictable but philosophically correct way, that the evidence is consistent with that model. So it seems, at least, that they do.

What is the evidence? Well, as discussed, there is the magnetic moment of the neutron. You can also read about deep inelastic scattering experiments in the late 60s that seemed to show a number of pointlike objects within the proton. There is a Wiki article on quarks which describes this and more, with references if you want to take it further.

Regarding alternatives, I do not know enough to comment, save in the general sense that science usually only puts a lot of effort into rival theories when there are problems that suggest the current model has deficiencies. The only objection to the model that you have mentioned, I think, is the lack of evidence for free quarks. But as it is not a prediction of the theory that one should be able to see free quarks, this is not going to get people going.

 

So basicallt what you are saying is that the concept of anti particle and antimatter is fine, and apparently no alternative is required.

I do not share your optimism. IMO there is no such animal called anti matter, and I feel if we consider positron as any other normal particle, we can explore alternatives.

 

You are free to think outside the box so to speak. The onus though is on you to provide a credible alternative. One with not just internal self-consistency but enough predictive power to explain the now vast amount of experimental data that is consistent with existence of anti-particles in general. Good luck with that. Personally, i would first expend a lot of effort trying to understand the theoretical essentials underpinning the accepted QFT/SM paradigm. Not a small task.

 

I fully agree with you on this.

 

I feel what is missing is proper consideration of vacuum energy.

 

Danshaven,

Wholesale "likes" ?? Not that I am complaining just q-reeus.

 

Mainstream science may not have a satisfying description of why/how matter can completely annihilate into pure energy but there are plausible explanations. If we model matter as an electromagnetic soliton (i.e. EM mass) then turning matter into energy would simply be a function of "untying the knot". Linear waves superimpose but nonlinear waves, such as an electromagnetic soliton, do not. To see the difference, imagine ocean waves passing through each other compared to two hurricanes of equal size and energy but of opposite rotation being superimposed -- the waves will not affect each other but the hurricanes will annihilate each other perfectly.

https://goo.gl/uJWO4n

 

It is science as good as possible. But there is the general problem of modern experimental science, which covers some part of astronomical observations too - it gives nothing unexpected. It is yet another boring confirmation of existing established theory. Of course, there is a Nobel, which every year has to be given to somebody. So, maybe one of those many confirmations of established theory will receive it. But this does not make their results more interesting.

 

If every particle is having its antiparticle and the particle-antiparticle interaction annihilate both and turn them into EM energy. Every particle also follows wave-particle duality. Its antiparticle also must be following this wave-particle duality. So, the particle-antiparticle interaction also can be considered as wave-antiwave interaction and this may be turning into EM energy.

 

Since the above statement is not correct, the rest of your post is irrelevant.

 

What do you mean by that? Are you saying that every particle cannot have an antiparticle?

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Particles/antimatter.html

 

Just what I said.

No.
Hansda said, "annihilate both and turn them into EM energy" which is not correct. Heavier particles produce photons and other particles, not just photons.

 

Which particles, when annihilated with their respective anti-particles, produce something other than photons?

 

Read the thread. Some of us have just had a discussion about what happens when protons and antiprotons interact.

Because these are composite entities (made of quarks), there are numerous modes of interaction. All of them destroy the original particles, but in general the products are a variety of other particles and radiation, not just radiation alone. This will be true of hadrons generally, I presume.