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: Tom Roberts on 7 Jul 2010 00:38 Victar Shawnberger wrote: > thanks, however E, M and EM _are_ matter Not in the normal vocabulary of physics. > i cant see what sort of matter that would be without those basic > constituents Certainly atoms and molecules have E&M fields inside, as they are what holds atoms and molecules together. But that does not make antiprotons annihilate with EM fields. > how is this annihilation when it results in a big explosion? > explosion of what? The annihilation of an antiproton and a proton in an atomic trap is not a "big explosion". It merely results in the release of ~2 GeV of energy. That's about 3E-3 erg (remember 1 erg ~ a flea doing a push-up). But on the scale of an atomic trap, with particles having energies of a few keV, and atoms having energies of a few eV, that is quite large. >> 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 !! Sure. But it's small on the scale of an atomic trap. > thanks, but this imply that the same amount of antimatter, or more, is > present around, and do not interact because the probability is low !! > > 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 > > 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 > > shouldnt their antimatter inertial vector point opposite? I have no idea what you are trying to say with this word salad. Tom Roberts
From: Yousuf Khan on 9 Jul 2010 03:57 On 7/7/2010 4:28 AM, BURT wrote: > How do we see subatomic things in an accelerator? > > Mitch Raemsch We detect them with the built-in detectors. Yousuf Khan
From: Yousuf Khan on 9 Jul 2010 04:06 On 7/6/2010 11:54 PM, BURT wrote: > How do we see anything subatomic in an accelerator? > > Mitch Raemsch With detectors, check out this example from the Fermilab accelerator. D� experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DZero#Detector
From: BURT on 9 Jul 2010 13:41 On Jul 9, 12:57 am, Yousuf Khan <bbb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On 7/7/2010 4:28 AM, BURT wrote: > > > How do we see subatomic things in an accelerator? > > > Mitch Raemsch > > We detect them with the built-in detectors. > > Yousuf Khan But how do the detectors identify the infinitely small in a magnetic vacuum? It can't emit light to be seen because free particles don't go through energy transitions. MItch Raemsch
From: Yousuf Khan on 9 Jul 2010 14:09
On 7/6/2010 2:08 PM, 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 I'm not sure where you get that idea. Electromagnetism (electricity & magnetism) is usually achieved through the movement of electrons, true. The electrons themselves are matter, but the fields they give off are not matter, they are simply energy. In fact, they are simply energy in the form of photons. Similarly, you can get electromagnetism through the movement of positrons instead of electrons. It'll achieve the same electromagnetic effect as electrons. >> 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 annihilation doesn't result in an explosion, it results in the annihilated products turning into pure energy in the form of a gamma-ray photon. The gamma-ray photon then travels through space until it hits the next particle of un-annihilated matter, and this matter goes flying off and hits the next particle of matter, and so on. This is what the explosion is all about. So the explosion isn't really about the matter that was annihilated, but all of the surrounding matter that wasn't annihilated, but got displaced. > >> >> 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 !! But close enough to feel it's electromagnetic field and get attracted to it. Once it gets close enough, then electromagnetism gives way to the strong nuclear force which finishes them off. > >> 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 Atomic nucleus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_nucleus >> 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. > > > thanks, but this imply that the same amount of antimatter, or more, is > present around, and do not interact because the probability is low !! If you're thinking that anti-matter isn't rare, that they're merely all just traveling through relativistically, while regular matter travels non-relativistically, then that's not the case. Then we'd be seeing any matter traversing relativistically annihilating with relativistic anti-matter. > 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 > > 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 > > shouldnt their antimatter inertial vector point opposite? Not sure what you're trying to say here. Yousuf Khan |