Anti matter and matter cannot be kept together
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Mathematics offers innovative weapons for fighting terrorism
Next: Do it Yourself Solar Green DIY
From: BURT on 6 Jul 2010 13:54 How do we see anything subatomic in an accelerator? Mitch Raemsch
From: Victar Shawnberger on 6 Jul 2010 17:31 On Jul 6, 1:45 pm, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > On 7/6/2010 4:08 AM, Victar Shawnberger wrote: > > > On Jul 5, 7:00 pm, Tom Roberts<tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> Victar Shawberger wrote: > >>> The magnetic field comes from the surface atoms of the chamber > >>> How is this not an interact? > > >> The issue is not whether antiprotons "interact" with matter, but rather, whether > >> those antiprotons annihilate with the matter. > > > thanks, however E, M and EM _are_ matter > > > i cant see what sort of matter that would be without those basic > > constituents > > While electromagnetic fields exist in atoms they are not matter unless > you want to redefine "matter". not true, rather you redefine matter, or worse, you dont know what matter is all about matter is all about field interactions, what is it you dont understand? > In any case, antiparticles annihilate > with their own antiparticle, not with "matter" in general. You can > throw positrons at protons until Hell freezes over and you won't get an > annihilation. same charge and reject each other > > >> Atomic traps are specifically designed so the trapped particles do not hit the > >> walls -- the electromagnetic fields of the trap prevent that. Antiprotons do not > >> annihilate in EM fields, they just get pushed around by them like any other > >> charged particle. > > >> And as I said, even when antiprotons hit matter, they don't annihilate unless > >> they stop inside the matter; as long as their kinetic energy is above a few keV > >> the probability of their interacting via strong interactions is rather small, > >> and is about the same as for protons interacting via strong interactions -- only > >> strong interactions can annihilate an antiproton. > > > how is this annihilation when it results in a big explosion? > > > explosion of what? > > The notion that anti matter and matter interacting invariably results in > "a big explosion" owes more to science fiction than to physics. The > mass of the two particles is converted into energy with most of it > coming off in one or more gamma rays. One (or two or ten) gamma ray, no > matter how energetic, does not do anything that resembles what most > people think of as an explosion. anyway, gamma rays are the next most dangerous in Universe, just behind the black holes they make at The Collider > > >> Any trapped antiproton which hits a wall will stop within a micron > >> or so and annihilate, which is why they must be kept away from the > > > a micron is a large distance related to a proton !! > > >> walls. The stopping is via EM interactions with the electrons -- > >> they are light enough to be ionized from their atoms and take energy > >> from the antiproton; nuclei are heavy and can't do that effectively. > > >> Remember that to a strongly interacting probe, matter is mostly empty space: > >> nuclei with radii of a few femtometers separated by distances on the order of > >> Angstroms. > > > 0.2 nano? this is too large, atoms are smaller than that > > Nope. Google "diameter of atom" and you'll find that the range is about > .06 to .5 nanometers. nobody ever seen an atom, much less measuring it i so many software depicting round atoms from a surface, the pictures are fake > > > > >> The electrons of the atoms don't interact strongly, only the nuclei > >> do. Once an antiproton is stopped inside some matter (i.e. having velocity< > >> 0.001 c or so), it will quickly happen to come close to a nucleus, be attracted > >> to it electromagnetically, and annihilate with it. > >> But faster antiprotons (v> > >> 0.001 c) will simply pass through the spaces between nuclei, unscathed except > >> for rare direct hits on the nuclei -- this is pure chance, because the EM > >> attraction is not strong enough to divert them into hitting nuclei. > > >> Analogy: try to stop a passing car by lassoing it with a thread; > >> it can work only if the car is already stopped. A multi-GeV > >> antiproton is more like a freight train. > > >>> If an antimatter particle touch a matter particle is the same thing, > >>> they must interact by their electromagnetic field > > >> Charged antimatter particles do interact electromagnetically. But this does not > >> annihilate them; only the strong interaction can do that. Because strong > >> interactions are short range, an antiproton must essentially "touch" a nucleus > >> in order to annihilate, meaning that their positions must be within a femtometer > >> or so, and their relative velocity must be less than ~0.001 c (at higher > >> relative velocities the probability of annihilating is nonzero, but very small). > > >> Tom Roberts > > > thanks, but this imply that the same amount of antimatter, or more, is > > present around, and do not interact because the probability is low !! > > How does it imply anything about the abundance of antimatter? how not, think, they are trapped in between the atom crystal structure surrounded by electron clouds > > > and, if the speed of an antiproton is slowed down by the first > > atoms electron, and not hit its nucleus, then again, slowed down even > > more by the next surface atom, hence close to zero, the antimatter may > > remain suspended in between atoms, in a no_man_land so to speak > > First, the mass of an antiproton is about 2000 times that of an > electron. Even if you get direct center of mass collisions it will take > many, many antiproton-electron impacts to significantly alter the > velocity of an antiproton. yes, you got it right > > Second, you will get a particle with no velocity only at absolute zero. no, it remains trapped disregard molecular agitation > > > hence, if a shake a piece of iron, it gets hot, because the few > > antimatter interaction, then it also might disappear if i shake it > > even more > > If there is abundant antimatter surrounding that piece of iron. There > is no reason to believe that such abundant antimatter exists. neither to the contrary > > > shouldnt their antimatter inertial vector point opposite? > > Are there any experiments that suggest this? if not, then it is not real antimatter, but just a mirrored ordinary matter real antimatter must have negative inertia > > > > > thanks
From: BURT on 6 Jul 2010 18:28 On Jul 5, 10:30 pm, Yousuf Khan <bbb...(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote: > On 7/6/2010 9:37 AM, Raymond Yohros wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 5, 10:04 pm, "J. Clarke"<jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > >> On 7/5/2010 10:52 PM, Raymond Yohros wrote: > >>> On Jul 5, 9:30 pm, Yousuf Khan<bbb...(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>> On 7/6/2010 12:56 AM, BURT wrote: > >>>>> You said they were created high in a vacuum. Particle accelerators are > >>>>> not. So which one is it? > > >>>> Are you trying to be deliberately dense here? Of course particle > >>>> accelerators are in a vacuum. They require the vacuum to isolate the > >>>> particles they are colliding together, from the background. > > >>>> Yousuf Khan > > >>> and that is why is perfectly safe to study particles this way! > > >>> otherwise, they will make a big booooooommmmmm effect that > >>> may not be safe. > > >> Why would they make a "big booooooommmmmm effect"? The amount of > >> antimatter that a particle accelerator produces is minuscule. > > > can you imagine any particle collition in something > > that is not a vacuum. what you think it could happen? > > Yeah, it'll be so big that it might heat your cup of coffee. All of the > anti-matter that's being produced in particle accelerators right now is > maybe a few thousand particles, compared to quintillions of particles in > a room of air, it's nothing. > > Yousuf Khan- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - How do we see subatomic things in an accelerator? Mitch Raemsch
From: Tom Roberts on 6 Jul 2010 20:46 Yousuf Khan wrote: > All of the > anti-matter that's being produced in particle accelerators right now is > maybe a few thousand particles, Not hardly! The Tevatron at Fermilab currently stacks antiprotons at a rate exceeding 2E11 per hour. Over the past 18 years or so I estimate that they have created about 1E16 antiprotons total, which is a few nanograms. Tom Roberts
From: BURT on 6 Jul 2010 21:03
On Jul 6, 5:46 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Yousuf Khan wrote: > > All of the > > anti-matter that's being produced in particle accelerators right now is > > maybe a few thousand particles, > > Not hardly! The Tevatron at Fermilab currently stacks antiprotons at a rate > exceeding 2E11 per hour. Over the past 18 years or so I estimate that they have > created about 1E16 antiprotons total, which is a few nanograms. > > Tom Roberts This is an anti matter science hoax. Mitch Raemsch |