Antimatter - Antigravity LHC Results

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by danshawen, May 25, 2017.

  1. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    You have nicely summarized. But you have not pondered over, objwctively...

    1. Is it not violative of definition?
    2. Does it not beg for an alternative explanation?
    3. Does it not seek certain pre condition for interaction? Like will mere contact would suffice or some momentum would be required? Text says momentum is required, then how much? It is quite likely that for hypothetical pair of matter antimatter the momentum required is so huge that nothing happens even while they are in decent hit, thus completely violating the very definition.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,618
    1) No. We have discussed this. Nature does what it does: it is not forced to follow anybody's arbitrary definition of terms.

    2) No. You claim it does, but are unable to communicate any cogent argument as to why.

    3) Not as far as I am aware. In particular I have not read that any particular momentum is required. Can you direct me to a source for the idea that it is?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Pl refer to #17 by Q-reeus, hit the first Quora link and refer to the second response (by Pawlak).
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,618
    OK I've read that link now.

    What he is saying is that the products of interaction depend on the momentum, not that momentum of any magnitude is required in order for interaction to occur. He distinguishes two cases: one with low momentum, in which each particle "sees" the other as a single particle, and one with high momentum, in which each "sees" the other as a cloud of quarks, gluons and what-have-you. But nowhere does he say you don't get an interaction unless a certain momentum is present.

    Read it again and check.
     
  8. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    1.
    So when one particle sees the other as one single unit, what annihilates?

    2.
    And when each other see through each other's quarks and gluons then what annihilates?

    How is 1 and 2 above different iyo ?
     
  9. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,618
    He seems to say both processes are complex, which is what the other links also said. The proton and antiproton cease to exist, so they are "annihilated". But you will notice he mentions hadrons among the likely reaction products in both low and high momentum cases. So in neither case, apparently, are you likely to get just photons out.
     
  10. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Annihilation is a strong word, the general understanding is not that A + A- = Photons + Other Particles.

    It is also not the general understanding that some critical relative momentum is required.

    Ideally the definition implies that zero relative momentum contact of A + A- must lead to energy which in turn could form other particles if energy permits.
     
  11. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,618
    Says who? I think you have got it into your head that "annihilation" means 100% conversion to radiation, but I am not aware anyone else thinks that. Unless again you have a source that says that, of course......

    I do not understand what "definition" you keep referring to, or why you think it "implies" anything in particular. It seems to me you have jumped to a number of conclusions about what annihilation means, and about products of interactions, that don't seem to be borne out by what these sources are saying happens.
     
  12. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    First thing first... Dictionary meaning.

    Annihilation
    1. complete destruction or obliteration.
      "the threat of global annihilation"

    2. PHYSICS
      the conversion of matter into energy, especially the mutual conversion of a particle and an antiparticle into electromagnetic radiation.

    None says that interaction of matter anti matter will result into partial conversion to radiation.
     
  13. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,618
    Well in science the first thing is what nature does, not definitions taken from a non-scientific publication, such as a dictionary.

    Just for comparison, the opening line of the Wiki article on annihilation - no doubt written by a physicist - reads as follows: "In particle physics, annihilation is the process that occurs when a subatomic particle collides with its respective antiparticle to produce other particles, such as an electron colliding with a positron to produce two photons."

    You may note this describes annihilation in terms of production of other particles, of which the photons produced in electron-positron annihilation are but one example.

    So there we are. You can call it what you like but the fact of the matter is "annihilation" in particle physics does NOT have to mean 100% conversion to EM radiation.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  14. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Good if that's what it means..
     
  15. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,218
    This is true for all the fundamental particles. The point which i was trying to highlight is that antiparticle can have antiwave, following wave-particle duality.
     
  16. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    What is anti-wave in physics? Try defining?!
     
  17. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,218
    Antiparticle will follow wave-particle duality. So the wave form of antiparticle can be considered as antiwave.
     
  18. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Dont you think you should brush up wave definition?
     
  19. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,618
    Why not help us all by posting it? If you know it.

    Or look it up and post it, if you don't know.

    It is obvious that there is a wave function for antiparticles, as there is for particles.
     
  20. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,993
    An antiparticle waveform is not an antiwave, it is a wave. Just like antiparticles do not have anitmass, they have mass.
     
    The God likes this.
  21. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Exchemist,

    Hope you also got it.
     
  22. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,618
    And your contribution to this has been what, exactly? (No need to answer: the question is rhetorical.)
     
  23. river

    Messages:
    9,791
    Hmm...I always understood that anti-matter was about the spin of any particular form of matter , in the opposite direction of another form of matter .

    You guys are talking about waves of matter . Interesting .
     

Share This Page