Matter-Antimatter , BB begining
- Thread starter river
- Start date
- Status
I think yours is a very poor way to start a thread.
Why ?
And tell me how you would have started the thread . Seriously . I may not agree with you or I might , depends on what you have to say .
But I see nothing wrong with it .
Last edited:
- This site frowns upon simply posting a video and asking for comments. You have to provide some detail as to what it is about - to show that you at least have watched it - and some purpose for posting it - i.e. a question you have, or a point you want to make for discussion etc.
- You have compounded that by not even posting the video, but instead just providing a hint of what to search on youtube. There is no guarantee people will even look at the correct video.
- If I do search Youtube for "The Matter of Antimatter", top of the list is a video that is 1 hour 39 minutes long. If that does happen to be the one you were hoping people would watch, do you seriously expect people to take their time to watch it without knowing the basics of what it is trying to address, and then comment to you on it without you having provided any initial thoughts?
I would start by explaining that I had recently watched a video on [insert detail, including a summary of the video here], then explaining what I liked about it, what I didn't like, and questions/issues I had with it that I'd like to get people's views on.
Then that is rather concerning.
But here is my most important question ;
Why would matter and antimatter annihilate the other ? Just because of polar magnetic field orientation . One is positive the other negative . Where is the inherent obviousness of " annihilation " because of attraction ? This makes no sense .
Why would matter and antimatter annihilate the other ? Just because of polar magnetic field orientation . One is positive the other negative . Where is the inherent obviousness of " annihilation " because of attraction ? This makes no sense .
Last edited:
What you agree with or not can be taken with a pinch of salt, particularly when you are only doing what you do best....trolling.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/wh...universe-at-all-new-study-sheds-light.162868/
and have already been warned for it.
To your last statement . ( Highlighted ) Prove it .
In experiments , empirical based . Proof .
I don't need to..that is already taken as fact, much the same way that we take as fact that you are trolling, and is why you are banned from the sciences.
I don't need to..that is already taken as fact, much the same way that we take as fact that you are trolling, and is why you are banned from the sciences.
But its not a fact . Its not even possible . There can never be transformation of something , to nothing .
But just to humour a fool.....
https://www.britannica.com/science/positron
Positron, also called positive electron, positively charged subatomic particle having the same mass and magnitude of charge as the electron and constituting the antiparticle of a negative electron. The first of the antiparticles to be detected, positrons were discovered by Carl David Anderson in cloud-chamber studies of the composition of cosmic rays (1932). The discovery of the positron provided an explanation for a theoretical aspect of electrons predicted by P.A.M. Dirac. The Dirac wave equation (1928), which incorporated relativity into the quantum mechanical description for the allowable energy states of the electron, yielded seemingly superfluous negative energy states that had not been observed. In 1931 Dirac postulated that these states could be related to a new kind of particle, the antielectron.
https://www.britannica.com/science/positron
Positron, also called positive electron, positively charged subatomic particle having the same mass and magnitude of charge as the electron and constituting the antiparticle of a negative electron. The first of the antiparticles to be detected, positrons were discovered by Carl David Anderson in cloud-chamber studies of the composition of cosmic rays (1932). The discovery of the positron provided an explanation for a theoretical aspect of electrons predicted by P.A.M. Dirac. The Dirac wave equation (1928), which incorporated relativity into the quantum mechanical description for the allowable energy states of the electron, yielded seemingly superfluous negative energy states that had not been observed. In 1931 Dirac postulated that these states could be related to a new kind of particle, the antielectron.
https://www.iop.org/resources/topic/archive/antimatter/index.html#gref
extract:
That particle was found experimentally on 2 August 1930. Carl Anderson was observing the trails produced in the particle shower that was created in his cloud chamber when cosmic rays passed through it. His observations included a particle with the same mass as the electron but the opposite charge – its track bent in the “wrong” direction in a magnetic field. Anderson coined the name “positron” for his new discovery.
In 1933 Dirac went on to predict the existence of the antiproton, the counterpart to the proton. It was discovered in 1955 by Emilio Segrè and Owen Chamberlain at the University of California, Berkeley.
It’s now understood that all particles have an equivalent antimatter particle with opposite charge and quantum spin – although some are their own antiparticle. However hardly any antimatter is seen in the observable universe, and why there should be vastly much more normal matter is one of the great unsolved problems in physics.
Creation and destructionIt was once thought that matter could neither be created nor destroyed, but we now know that energy and mass are interchangeable. When a particle collides with its antiparticle the two annihilate each other, with their mass being entirely converted into energy.
That energy creates a shower of new particles, which serve as a hint that such an event has taken place – for example, detecting a gamma ray with an energy of 511 keV is a signature of an electron and a positron annihilating one another.
Antiparticles can be created either naturally or artificially.
Positrons are commonly produced by radioactivity – they’re a byproduct of β+ decay, in which a proton in the atomic nucleus transmutes into a neutron.
Other antiparticles result from high-energy collisions, in which the excess energy produces pairs of particles and their antimatter counterparts.
This process can be harnessed to produce antimatter artificially by, for example, colliding a stream of high-energy protons with a dense target in order to produce antiprotons.
Although it’s also possible to make whole atoms from antimatter, because they have no net charge they can’t be stored magnetically like positrons and antiprotons can, and risk annihilating with any container.
Application and speculationAntimatter annihilations convert the entire mass of the particles involved into energy, following Albert Einstein’s famous equation E = mc2.
extract:
That particle was found experimentally on 2 August 1930. Carl Anderson was observing the trails produced in the particle shower that was created in his cloud chamber when cosmic rays passed through it. His observations included a particle with the same mass as the electron but the opposite charge – its track bent in the “wrong” direction in a magnetic field. Anderson coined the name “positron” for his new discovery.
In 1933 Dirac went on to predict the existence of the antiproton, the counterpart to the proton. It was discovered in 1955 by Emilio Segrè and Owen Chamberlain at the University of California, Berkeley.
It’s now understood that all particles have an equivalent antimatter particle with opposite charge and quantum spin – although some are their own antiparticle. However hardly any antimatter is seen in the observable universe, and why there should be vastly much more normal matter is one of the great unsolved problems in physics.
Creation and destructionIt was once thought that matter could neither be created nor destroyed, but we now know that energy and mass are interchangeable. When a particle collides with its antiparticle the two annihilate each other, with their mass being entirely converted into energy.
That energy creates a shower of new particles, which serve as a hint that such an event has taken place – for example, detecting a gamma ray with an energy of 511 keV is a signature of an electron and a positron annihilating one another.
Antiparticles can be created either naturally or artificially.
Positrons are commonly produced by radioactivity – they’re a byproduct of β+ decay, in which a proton in the atomic nucleus transmutes into a neutron.
Other antiparticles result from high-energy collisions, in which the excess energy produces pairs of particles and their antimatter counterparts.
This process can be harnessed to produce antimatter artificially by, for example, colliding a stream of high-energy protons with a dense target in order to produce antiprotons.
Although it’s also possible to make whole atoms from antimatter, because they have no net charge they can’t be stored magnetically like positrons and antiprotons can, and risk annihilating with any container.
Application and speculationAntimatter annihilations convert the entire mass of the particles involved into energy, following Albert Einstein’s famous equation E = mc2.
And thread reported river...I really have grown tired of your irrational nonsense.
https://www.ted.com/talks/rolf_landua_what_happened_to_antimatter/transcript?language=en#t-6684
"Is it possible to create something out of nothing?Or, more precisely, can energy be made into matter?Yes, but only when it comes togetherwith its twin, antimatter.And there's something pretty mysterious about antimatter:there's way less of it out there than there should be.Let's start with the most famous physics formula ever:E equals m c squared.It basically says that mass is concentrated energy,and mass and energy are exchangeable,like two currencies with a huge exchange rate.90 trillion Joules of energyare equivalent to 1 gram of mass.But how do I actually transform energy into matter?The magic word is <i>energy density</i>.If you concentrate a huge amountof energy in a tiny space,new particles will come into existence.If we look closer,we see that these particles always come in pairs,like twins.That's because particles always have a counterpart,an antiparticle,and these are always producedin exactly equal amounts: 50/50.This might sound like science fiction,but it's the daily life of particle accelerators.In the collisions between two protonsat CERN's Large Hadron Collider,billions of particles and antiparticlesare produced every second.Consider, for example, the electron.It has a very small mass and negative electric charge.It's antiparticle, the positron,has exactly the same mass,but a positive electric charge.But, apart from the opposite charges,both particles are identical and perfectly stable.And the same is true for their heavy cousins,the proton and the antiproton.Therefore, scientists are convincedthat a world made of antimatterwould look, feel, and smell just like our world.In this antiworld,we may find antiwater,antigold,and, for example,an antimarble.Now imagine that a marble and an antimarbleare brought together.These two apparently solid objectswould completely disappearinto a big flash of energy,equivalent to an atomic bomb.Because combining matter and antimatterwould create so much energy,science fiction is full of ideasabout harnessing the energy stored in antimatter,for example, to fuel spaceships like Star Trek.After all, the energy content of antimatteris a billion times higher than conventional fuel.The energy of one gram of antimatter would be enoughfor driving a car 1,000 times around the Earth,or to bring the space shuttle into orbit.So why don't we use antimatter for energy production?Well, antimatter isn't just sitting around,ready for us to harvest.We have to make antimatterbefore we can combust antimatter,and it takes a billion times more energyto make antimatterthan you get back.But, what if there was some antimatter in outer spaceand we could dig it out one dayfrom an antiplanet somewhere.A few decades ago, many scientists believedthat this could actually be possible.Today, observations have shownthat there is no significant amount of antimatteranywhere in the visible universe,which is weird because, like we said before,there should be just as much antimatteras there is matter in the universe.Since antiparticles and particlesshould exist in equal numbers,this missing antimatter?Now that is a real mystery.To understand what might be happening,we must go back to the Big Bang.In the instant the universe was created,a huge amount of energy was transformed into mass,and our initial universe containedequal amounts of matter and antimatter.But just a second later,most matter and all of the antimatterhad destroyed one another,producing an enormous amount of radiationthat can still be observed today.Just about 100 millionthsof the original amount of matter stuck aroundand no antimatter whatsoever."Now, wait!" you might say,"Why did all the antimatter disappearand only matter was left?"It seems that we were somehow luckythat a tiny asymmetry existsbetween matter and antimatter.Otherwise, there would be no particles at allanywhere in the universeand also no human beings.But what causes this asymmetry?Experiments at CERN are trying to find out the reasonwhy something existsand why we don't live in a universefilled with radiation only?But, so far, we just don't know the answer."
"Is it possible to create something out of nothing?Or, more precisely, can energy be made into matter?Yes, but only when it comes togetherwith its twin, antimatter.And there's something pretty mysterious about antimatter:there's way less of it out there than there should be.Let's start with the most famous physics formula ever:E equals m c squared.It basically says that mass is concentrated energy,and mass and energy are exchangeable,like two currencies with a huge exchange rate.90 trillion Joules of energyare equivalent to 1 gram of mass.But how do I actually transform energy into matter?The magic word is <i>energy density</i>.If you concentrate a huge amountof energy in a tiny space,new particles will come into existence.If we look closer,we see that these particles always come in pairs,like twins.That's because particles always have a counterpart,an antiparticle,and these are always producedin exactly equal amounts: 50/50.This might sound like science fiction,but it's the daily life of particle accelerators.In the collisions between two protonsat CERN's Large Hadron Collider,billions of particles and antiparticlesare produced every second.Consider, for example, the electron.It has a very small mass and negative electric charge.It's antiparticle, the positron,has exactly the same mass,but a positive electric charge.But, apart from the opposite charges,both particles are identical and perfectly stable.And the same is true for their heavy cousins,the proton and the antiproton.Therefore, scientists are convincedthat a world made of antimatterwould look, feel, and smell just like our world.In this antiworld,we may find antiwater,antigold,and, for example,an antimarble.Now imagine that a marble and an antimarbleare brought together.These two apparently solid objectswould completely disappearinto a big flash of energy,equivalent to an atomic bomb.Because combining matter and antimatterwould create so much energy,science fiction is full of ideasabout harnessing the energy stored in antimatter,for example, to fuel spaceships like Star Trek.After all, the energy content of antimatteris a billion times higher than conventional fuel.The energy of one gram of antimatter would be enoughfor driving a car 1,000 times around the Earth,or to bring the space shuttle into orbit.So why don't we use antimatter for energy production?Well, antimatter isn't just sitting around,ready for us to harvest.We have to make antimatterbefore we can combust antimatter,and it takes a billion times more energyto make antimatterthan you get back.But, what if there was some antimatter in outer spaceand we could dig it out one dayfrom an antiplanet somewhere.A few decades ago, many scientists believedthat this could actually be possible.Today, observations have shownthat there is no significant amount of antimatteranywhere in the visible universe,which is weird because, like we said before,there should be just as much antimatteras there is matter in the universe.Since antiparticles and particlesshould exist in equal numbers,this missing antimatter?Now that is a real mystery.To understand what might be happening,we must go back to the Big Bang.In the instant the universe was created,a huge amount of energy was transformed into mass,and our initial universe containedequal amounts of matter and antimatter.But just a second later,most matter and all of the antimatterhad destroyed one another,producing an enormous amount of radiationthat can still be observed today.Just about 100 millionthsof the original amount of matter stuck aroundand no antimatter whatsoever."Now, wait!" you might say,"Why did all the antimatter disappearand only matter was left?"It seems that we were somehow luckythat a tiny asymmetry existsbetween matter and antimatter.Otherwise, there would be no particles at allanywhere in the universeand also no human beings.But what causes this asymmetry?Experiments at CERN are trying to find out the reasonwhy something existsand why we don't live in a universefilled with radiation only?But, so far, we just don't know the answer."
Yet you still are still drawn to my rationality . Because it totally makes sense , to you .
Sure sure river!!Just like the atomic war on Mars between two Alien species!!!
- Status