[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/sci/ - Science & Math


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: VZAhDBY0n4.png (30 KB, 300x250)
30 KB
30 KB PNG
What is antimatter? If antimatter and regular matter touch do they really annihilate each other? Why? Where does the energy go? And last question, why is there more regular matter than antimatter in the universe?
>>
>>11853961
>Where does the energy go?
It makes a 'splosion.
>>
Follow up question: why do bananas produce antimatter? How does antimatter get produced by regular matter?
>>
>>11853961
>why is there more regular matter than antimatter in the universe?
No one knows for sure. It might have something to do with the weak force having a preference.
Personally I headcannon that some asshole in the future jumps in a time machine and gores back to observe the big bang without considering the scale factor and the injection of his mass in a point like space creates an overpressure that causes the big bang to happen and the injection of his matter into the universe is what caused the symmetry to tip in favor of matter dominated space.
>>
>>11853983
Bananas are slightly radioactive. Beta decay can create antineutrinos.
>>
>>11853961
Anti-matter is hard to explain, I don't have the maths degree but in casual terms it's energy condensed enough to function like an inverse version of matter.
>Where does the energy go?
>In theory, a particle and its anti-particle (for example, a proton and an antiproton) have the same mass, but opposite electric charge and other differences in quantum numbers.
If you condense enough energy together, then in theory you get the reverse side of E = mc^2, where instead of the destruction matter equating to energy released, this energy forms the exotic material.
>And last question, why is there more regular matter than antimatter in the universe?
Existence is, therefore according to the big bang, one side won out the asymmetry. If the universe was made entirely out of antimatter instead then you /might/ not be able to notice (although a cursory glance says the quantum properties are different). It's just a matter of perspective and semantics.
>>
>>11853961
For the most part, antimatter is the charge conjugate of regular matter (electron->positron, quark->antiquark). Don't worry about neutrinos because they're pretty fucked and we still don't know if antineutrinos and neutrinos are the same thing.
Antimatter and regular matter do really annihilate. Without delving too deeply, the process of matter/antimatter converting into photons is an allowed process (as is the reverse process), as it doesn't violate any physical conservation laws (conservation of charge, lepton number, baryon number, etc.). Electrons don't annihilate because they would violate the total amount of charge. Electrons and protons don't annihilate because they would violate lepton/baryon number. So only particles and their own antiparticles can annihilate to make photons.

>why is there more regular matter than antimatter in the universe?
if you figure this out then you'll get a nobel prize. Currently trying to study this in my lab.
However, we know certain conditions must have held in the early universe in order for there to be this imbalance. There must have been a physical process that is charge-parity violating, meaning that these quantities (charge and parity) are not conserved through the process. We know of processes now that exist that violate this (neutral kaon decay does, for example), however the CP violation in the weak force is not nearly enough to account for the preference of matter over antimatter. There also must have been a process that didn't conserve baryon and lepton number, which could potentially be explained by sphalerons, although this explanation is incomplete because if this were true we would observe a completely different mass for the higgs.
Basically the standard model is fucked, and we don't even know where to look. There are a lot of theories that propose baryogenesis mechanisms, but they're quite hard to test.
>>
>>11853999
So if I stand near a banana I might explode????
>>
>>11854187
Yes but it'd unlikely be because of the banana
>>
>>11854187
antineutrinos only annihilate neutrinos, of which you have none inside your body
>>
>>11854187
Given an infinite amount of time and the law of entropy, yes you will explode.
>>
>>11854310
>of which you have none inside your body
Not true, we're constantly bathing in neutrinos pooped out from the sun, and every other star in the universe but there's not a lot of energy there to annihilate.
>>11854187
You couldn't get enough bananas together at once to worry about the radiation output of the potassium isotopes.
Not to mention life likes carbon 14 over carbon 12, which is also a radioactive isotope.
>>
>>11855050
none bound inside your body, retard
>>
>>11855057
it is very important to be specific and speak in detail when discussing any matter of science now add this to your homework young lady
>>
File: I6pKL.png (10 KB, 861x287)
10 KB
10 KB PNG
>>11853961
bruh it's just matter moving backwards in time, it's easy
>>
>>11854019
>antimatter
>maths degree
I see you don't have any degree at all
>>
>>11855141
"there's no light inside your body"
>ACKSHUALLY the skin depth of light inside your actual skin is nonzero. PLUS there's light in your eyeballs when they're open!
that's how you sound
>>
>>11855315
Time for your meds?
>>
>>11853993
>No one knows for sure
When someone says this on this forum it almost always means "I don't know and haven't really looked into it"
>>
>>11855315
I see, you're actually retarded
>>
>>11855333
No, it's an actual unresolved open question. The current evidence of CP-violation in particle physics is not enough to explain the observed asymmetry in cosmology even when taking neutrino mixing into account.
>>
>>11853961
>What is antimatter?
Mirrored matter. Like in the special relativity examples, the object gets squished more and more, and here the example normally ends, but when you push through and try it with FTL speeds, you get the mirror image of the object.
>If antimatter and regular matter touch do they really annihilate each other?
From the outside perspective yes. From its own frame of reference the world flips around and starts running back in time.
>Where does the energy go?
The energy is its mass.
>And last question, why is there more regular matter than antimatter in the universe?
Because most matter doesn't travel faster than light.


(Wild speculation)
>>
>>11855874
I know the time reversal hypothesis of antimatter and am very interested in it as well, but what possible reason could you have to think anything can travel faster than light in the first place? Why wouldn't you see something get almost at the limit and then see antimatter, or something?

I would be more inclined to think that something else is inducing this relationship, or, perhaps, reality, of reversed time.
>>
>>11853993
Similar theory: Future civilizations suck it up from the past in order to use it for power generation.
>>
>>11853961
>Where does the energy go?
In the case of electron-positron annihilation, if particles have low kinetic energy, the energy will turn into 2 or more photons. If they have high energy, other particles will pop out, quarks, neutrinos etc. In QM particles can turn into other particles, as long as it doesn't break conservation laws.
>>
>>11853961
>why is there more regular matter than antimatter in the universe
Do we actually know this? Maybe the actual distribution is homogeneous on a larger scale, but in our local observable universe there's more matter. Maybe beyond the observable universe there are areas where there's more antimatter.
>>
>>11856399
An antimatter region would annihilate on its edges, and that would be visible.
>>
>>11856401
>annihilate on its edges
I don't know what you mean by that but there's most likely infinite universe beyond what is observable. We just can't see it because it's too far away and space is expanding faster than the speed of light.
>>
>>11856405
I mean that an antimatter galaxy would be surrounded by antimatter gas, and eventually it would touch the regular gas filling space.
>>
>>11856409
Just because we don't see that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, it just means it doesn't exist within the observable universe. Arguing about what does or doesn't exist outside the universe is a moot point though.
>>
>>11854019
How the process of popping two massive particles from the combination of two gamma photons can be described?
>>
>>11856459
It's called pair production
>>
>>11855050
Neutrinos don't interact with your body, 100 trillion pass through your body every second
>>
If you microwave your totinos pizza rolls too long they will produce antimatter and you will not like it!!!



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.