Matter or Anti-matter?

Darn! That's a really good question. You've got me completely stumped. I could mutter something about CP symmetry and wave my hands, but that would only be to try to baffle you.

Why should the matter of a distant galaxy mater?

Take your pick and by the time you can be proven wrong you might not be around any more.

What is the possibility of even more classes of matter?

sounds like big financiers.

I guess that means some matter is dumb, anti matter decipherable....

Guest,

You're responsible for a very sleepless night. That really is a stumper. This is what I think I know:

Here on earth, we can easily distinguish between matter and anti-matter.

In our solar system, we're about 99.999% sure there's no significant anti-matter. Space debris isn't. Dirt from the moon isn't. The solar wind doesn't kick out huge bursts of gamma rays from the moon.

We're about 90% sure for the Milky Way. Incoming gamma rays drag along about the right number of antiprotons and no antialpha.

(BTW The percentages are just my SWAG; I don't know the real numbers.)

We're about 20% sure for large galaxy clusters, using the same inference as for the Milky Way.

We're about 1% sure for distant, isolated galaxies where we use the argument that space should be homogeneous.

If we have any astrphysicists on here, they can say this much more accurately than I, but I'm pretty sure we don't know whether some of the distant galaxies are indeed antimatter.

As to where all that anti-matter might be, there have been previous threads suggesting it's probably wherever those missing socks from the clothes dryer are.

TVP, wouldn't any light given off by antimatter be made up of anti-photons?

Yes, and I ran across an astronomer yesterday who thinks spectroscopy can detect the difference, but he wasn't sure. The trouble is that, in general, a photon and antiphoton are the same. I'm still digging.

If the Higgs Boson exists as most theories insist that it must, does that mean that there is an antiparticle of it? If so, what would it's properties be?

for that matter, what is the difference between a photon and an antiphoton?

When The Enterprise was struck by a torpedo fired by Matilda, Kirk said, "Spock, what the devil was in that thing?" And, Spock answered, "Why just a ..."

The Higgs Boson, just like a photon, is it's own anti-particle.

Which actually leads to your other question, what is the difference between a photon and an antiphoton? That's a tough one to explain, let me put it this way, there is a relativistic quantum mechanical equation that Dirac used, called the Dirac equation appropriately enough, that had two positive energy state solutions, and two negative energy state solutions. The positive energy state solutions were interpreted as the spin up and the spin down electrons. The negative energy state solutions were determined to be the spin up and spin down positrons (positron is the anti-electron). This equation actually predicted positrons before they were discovered and in fact I believe Dirac originally mistook the electron antiparticle to be the proton, but I digress.

So why am I telling you about electrons? Well because similarly you find negative energy states when solving for Photons or Gluons or Higgs Bosons or any particle in Quantum field theory, even though they have no charge. These negative energy states are the antiparticles of those particles.

I understand that photons can cancel out if they are combined 180 deg out of sync. an interference patter is made this way (a hologram is one type) You can do the same with AC current. So what this is saying is it goes to 0 energy and no anti annihilation. No electrons are destroyed this way in AC. Yet when an electron drops an energy state photons are emitted.

I'll need to think about this one

Brad

Photon interference is not the same as electron-positron anihilation.

Not stating it is, just realizing photon to anti-photon is just interference no anti-photon known.

Has any one made an Anti-molecule and excited it to see if the photons emitted are the same? I guess that also gets into the question of anti energy

I was kind of hoping I could develop an anti-photon laser beam for material processing.

Brad

So far with string theory, matter and anti matter I myself can only make poetic guesses. In my study of string theory I came to feel that in other universes there would be a different constant for the speed of light. I listened with great interest to the stories of the discovery of a vast void that had been predicted by string theory. Eventually I end up thinking that everything large and small and nothing and something is both separated and together. From what I know Buddhism is accepted as the most scientific of theology. I myself have reservations there when it comes to reincarnation wondering why any soul would be fated to come back to the same physical location like Earth. Now we do know that our weird world has light and dark. For us what is light must be for the parallel universe dark and visa versa. How would we see reversed light? Black absorbs and White reflects. So then does antimatter absorb light, change its speed, and put up another universe? My poem on this is still some guess: I imagine spirits bereft of identity, thirsting for this granted life of curses and bafflement. The experience demanding that we give to God, exactly what we ask for. Forgiveness, Forgiveness, the essence of love. This poem imagines that spirits, and souls vie for physical awareness of their impossibility. A spirit then would have no identity. What if we call that anti matter? What if we call a soul, matter? What good does that do for our discussion? What's love got to do with it?

But in passing through space, wouldnt anti-photons annihilate photons and we would see significant anomalies?

Quite honestly, I haven't a clue about the interaction of photons and anti-photons. That would be an interesting exercise for a QM class; I doubt that I could do that level of math anymore .

I thought anti matter was the stuff that ants piled up on top of there holes.... But anyway, lets be thankful for aunt holes...without them, there would be no cousins............. Phin

If an anti-matter galaxy collided with a regular galaxy there would be one heck-of-a big bang.What did I say? Big Bang?Perhaps ripping open an interdimensional hole in spaceless timeless into which to expand? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Phin

If there is anti-matter, is there anti energy,anti photons, and the whole lot? Perhaps dark energy is the complementary twin of energy, or gravity?If matter is simply a very concentrated form of energy,then anti matter could be a form of concentrated negative energy.This would balance the books for the Big Bang consisting of two equal and opposite reactions.Newton's laws still prevail?

It is a great question and one that is truly difficult to answer. As I understand, it comes down to a matter (ha ha) of assumptions and observations. One assumption is that all places in the universe are basically similar and that we aren't special. This may or may not be true, but so far it has helped create a much better framework within which we understand the universe.

The observations are related to the interactions of matter ad anti-matter. We know that we are in a region of matter. If there is a region of anti-matter out there then there would need to be an edge where the matter and anti-matter are interacting. Even in what we consider empty space there are small amounts of particles floating around, mostly of Hydrogen. It doesn't take many Hydrogen/Anti-Hydrogen interactions to get our attention. The collision between the two releases a lot of energy that would be noticeable to our astronomers. It is very conceivable that there could be a region of space that is primarily anti-matter, but so far we haven't seen any evidence of it interacting with regular matter.

One theory is that a stable area of anti-matter could form by annihilating a lowwer concetration of regular matter in a region, thereby creating a cleanzone of anti-matter. Regretably, this is unlikely since the huge enery released by matter/anti-matter colisions would accelerate and destabilise the rest of the local atimatter. Imagine throwing firecrackers into a pile of marbles and you get the idea.

I personally think it would be cool to find an area of the cosmos that is anti-matter. The sci-fi buff in me wants to believe it is out there. Based on what we have seen so far it isn't, but we have been wrong way more that we have been right.

-Doug

Most of what has been found out there is all matter, possibly because our detection systems are all matter and react only to matter so we don't detect anti-matter. If we rely on matter/anti-matter collisions to give off measurable energy then maybe we are looking in the wrong place.Possible the answer to equal amounts of matter/anti-matter created in the big bang is that they exist at the same time in parallel universes that do not interact.I would assume that crossing over would result in an interesting puff of ..what?

Wait a minute,

Recently I read in the Scientific American that the new theory is that there was no "BIG BANG"????????

This theory is like a baloon that is expanded then deflated over a long period of time, the reason for this assumtion is that they have discovered that all the matter in the universe could not be compressed to a singularity as we know it!

If this is true then anti-matter does not exist???????

Another new reasoning is that if anti-matter did exist on equal and oposite terms with matter then the known universe would not exist!!!!!!

Spencer.

Hi Spencer,

I agree, but lets not be definate about it, a lot of scientific chaps would have to find something else to write about.

Anything not proven leaves scope for argument, that's what makes it so much fun.

Ray

The Big Bang was never thought to originate from a singularity. Tis a shame SciAm took so long to hear. The best thought is that it happened "everywhere". At the time of the Big Bang, there was no where there, so everywhere is a weird concept.

I have heard of a concept that has been floated in which multiple universes exist in isolation from one another (each with somewhat different value constants.) as expanding bubbles in a kind of aether and when the bubbles get large enough to touch they annihilate each other much like matter/antimatter in a "big bang" thereby setting off a new round of universe creation. Perhaps it is the gravitational attraction of these alternate universes that are the source of the "dark energy" that seems to be accelerating the expansion of the universe.

I just googled anti+matter and as per site livefromcern.web.cern.ch/livefromcern/antimatter/

matter and anti matter were not equally formed in big-bang. We are the unbalanced lot of the two. This site is quite informative on this aspect.

The same theory is by spece.com www.space.com/scienceastronomy/antimatter_sun_030929.html

as well as NASA web sites. However they are clear that not much of the property differences exist between them except they are born enemies. And only way to know them is to let them come together and annihilate each other.

One way to find may be by iteration. We know that we are matter *at least for us).

If a star near us is anti-matter, the particles ejected by it will create high energy generation at the boundary between it and us. If it is not then it is also matter, then we go to the next one and see its transactions with the previous.

Perhaps, we should toke another...

Now there are a number of assumptions here that have been touched on by others but there is one way in which you can definitively ascertain that an object is anti-matter and not matter. you cannot however prove the opposite in this manner.

If most of the universe is normal matter as it would appear to be, then any antimatter existant in the universe would most likely appear to be extremely radioactive from the constant bombardment of dust, atomic hydrogen, electrons, photons, etc. It should be hotter than hell and the radiation should be pretty intense, far more than could be accounted for by normal radioactivity and the specific frequencies of the radiation may be unique as well.

By the way, I seem to recall that there was a Larry Niven short Sci-Fi story in the Crashlander series called "Flatlander" that had characters Beowulf Schaffer and Gregory Pelton (Elephant) investigating an odd planet whose coordinates they purchased from The Outsiders. The planet turned out to be anti-matter, but the process by which they arrived at that conclusion might be instructive here. Niven generally takes pains to make sure his physics is correct.

At present a problem of definition and concept exists. Clear that it leaves from suppositions that have formed the bases of a way to know the universe.

One says that the universe is matter and energy.

Matter is defined as everything what it occupies a place in the space, then is no antimatter.

Different states exist from matter, which are defined as solid, liquid and gaseous.

The plasmatic state is questionable since is ionized gas, and it has settled down that the matter is electrically neutral although by means of we can ionize it to the energy in any state not only in the gaseous one.

From time to time it is necessary to think about the definitions and explanations that the ancestors generated, mainly the idea that the universe has two basic forms, the state before the creation (it treated metaphysics) and the state after the creation (it studied the physics), in both states existed the matter, the difference is that before the creation the matter is defined as raw material whose basic characteristic is the perfect balance and by the same did not move nor were pronounced, that is to say, been in absolute rest.

The matter in rest is defined by necessity that everything was uniform without differences, because the differences are those that generate the movements and interfaces.

According to several traditions the first thing that happened was a contraction of the universe which generated the massive centers (centers of the galaxies)and the empty space were emitted being around the massive centers. Of that way the difference of densities was generated in the universe forming the interfaces that are characterized for being gradients of density in which appear the substance of reference (mass) movements of the massive center towards the outside based on the progressive diffusion of their mass, which implies the loss of progressive density and by the same it is moved of the center towards the outside of the galaxy, also appears the movement of emptiness of the outside of the galaxy to the massive center. It is possible much to be said on this one way to conceive to the universe, but the expressed thing is sufficient for the meditation.

Another important point to think is the notion of the regularity of the universe, which has taken to establish the principles that today we named as natural laws and in this one sense settle down that nothing in the universe can exist that goes against its governing principles and by the same all the parts that are in contact follow the same principles, although we do not have them established or we do not know them.

Unfortunately, if you've not communicated something detailed enough or understandable to posters, you've wasted everyone's time -- yours included.

Hi Guest !!!

I would ask to you what you require detail?

It would let to the luck to see that it leaves is not most advisable.

If you leave it for my will, I would say many things that more likely does not satisfy your necessity, like for example:

The facts are the base of science, for that reason a fact is worth more than the opinion of 10 000 experts!

The facts are direct appreciations of which we conjectured to try to establish the prototypes that we state are laws that govern the group of observed events!

To say: ALL BODY REMAINS IN THE EQUIVALENT SPACE REGION TO ITS DENSITY, is to mention a concept that somehow defines a series of observable phenomena and is able to drag brings back to consciousness. The expression is evident when appreciating the manifestation of air balloons, the airships, submarines and similes.

School or dictionary's expressions present the linguistic conventions that there are to respect to obtain an acceptable communication!

In the communication, it is allowed to extend concepts whenever the original senses are respected, is not valid to alter the meaning of the words, although in many occasions the sense that a human group gives them defers that gives another one, but a basic concept can be found.

A simple appreciation based on physical principles is: All movement occurs until the balance is obtained, a simple example is the observable thing in communicating vessels.

There are expressions like: EVERYTHING MOVES, which part of the observation of which everything changes, it vibrates to manifest itself, and more!

The question would be: Why the things move?

An answer is: Because they tend to recover the lost balance.

I am not sure what you meant by any of that. You may have a good point in there someplace, but the way you are stating it is basically indecipherable. We are an engineering forum and typically discuss things in specific terms and, for the most part, in clear English.

If you would like to rewrite your post I would be happy to read it and respond appropriately, but without some clarity I couldn't even comment on what you have written because I don't have any idea what you are talking about.

If you are a foreign language speaker please take some time to work on your language skills. If you are a native English speaker you may need to take some time to slow down and focus on writing clearly.

Good luck

Doug

It is necessary to meditate about the following:

Before speaking about anti – matter, we need to define: what is matter?

If matter is:

· All that occupies a place in the space

· Objects that take up space and have mass.

· Is anything that has both mass and volume (takes up space)

· Is anything made of atoms … Oops!!! What is atom?

Then matter is all that has density because:

Density = mass / volume

Note. - In the universe which we know nothing pure exists, that is to say, volume without mass or mass without volume does not exist, being everything in the universe a manifestation of different degrees from the same thing denominated matter.

…

State of matter:

· Solids,

· Liquids,

· Gases,

· Plasmas … Is ionized gas, in this way, what happens about ionized solids and liquids, or Hybridization of many of the organic elements (principally carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, etc.)? In these cases the matter has more energy.

· And a new one called Bose-Einstein condensates (hypothetical, not demonstrated).

If matter is all that has density

Then the states of matter are only:

1. Solid (all that have many mass and few volume),

2. Liquid (all that have mass and volume) and

3. Gas (all that have a few mass and many volume)

In this way, the energy is all manifestation in the universe that does not have mass and volume… for example: a body has energy in function of its position or movement, but only the body occupies a place in space…

The matter in the universe may contain different amount of energy and that reason may be presented as:

· Matter with a few energy, for example inorganic matter

· Matter with energy, for example organic matter (plants, animals, mineral oil, natural gas and similar things),

· Matter with high energy, for example magma, stars, radioactive materials and similar things,

The matter in all states may be in electric equilibrium or ionized state.

The matter in the universe may be manifested as:

· Matter emitter of energy, for example stars, ionized gas or combustion gas, wood in state of ignition and similar things.

· No - emitter matter of energy, for example planets, space between galaxies, apace between atoms and anything than no emitter energy.

If the matter and its twin denominated anti – matter occupies a place in the space and for definition the matter is all that occupies a place in the space then: we could say that only exist matter?

Thinking in opposite twins like black – white, good – bad, cold – hot, take us to think that a thesis takes us to anti - thesis and for that reasons we can suppose that in the origin of the universe takes form the matter and its anti – thesis, described as anti – matter, however, in ideal concept turned up the mass as a substance of reference and the vacuum as anti – thesis of the mass, remembering that the vacuum existing between atoms, particles or stars were denominated as substance of different origin call ether (heter = different) Oops!!! Then what happens with the experiment of Michelson and Morley?

In other words, the concept of the matter includes the existence of the twins which turn up in the origin of the creation, which for practical purposes we call mass and volume, being the volume the anti – thesis of mass, noting that the volume without mass is known as vacuum and that vacuum is the lighting ether of the ancient Greeks.

…

In this moment I wish to remember the question: What is atom?

Atom = A + tom = without division

But if the atom has volume then the atom is an integer, a kind of unit and all integers may be divided in n parts.

If we take any part or fraction from divided integer, then we have a new integer that we can divide in n parts too, and so successively to infinite.

This way, we can say that the atom may be divided in an infinite of different parts with different density.

So the next questions are:

What is the purpose of dividing the atom en infinity parts?

Why the atom was named atom if the atom may be divided in n parts?

…

May be some Washington and Lee followers have the answer, but the simple answer is in the history of atom…

The atom is a kind of functionally Unit born in a concept that now we call molecule…

We need to stop and think about that, then: what do we mean by functionally Unit?

If we extract a part of functionally Unit, then the functionally Unit will stop its function,

For example, if we extract the heart from human body, then the human body stops to function and the part extracted is now an independent unit that we call integer…

The same happens if we extract a part from a machine or a part from equipment, all of them are in a concept of functional units.

…

If in the practice the division of an atom in 3 basic parts it is enough to explain the phenomena of electricity, magnetism and more…

Then the atom is the particle more small in that may be divided the matter and conserves its property functional. An atom may be divided in many parts but each part extracted is a new atom that may be divided in 3 basic parts to study and understand.

…

Of course this way of thinking affects the theory of strings, because the matter always will be matter no matter how small it is, that is to say, the matter will always have volume and mass, and energy will not have mass and volume… Oops again!!! These concepts affect the theory of relativity? Of course, but that is another history

It seems to me that positrons (positive electrons) were detected in ccloud chambers well over 50 years ago. Thus antimatter does exist.

Bill

Hi om=......., I think I understand what you mean when saying, "why the things are moving?" Actually I would give the credit that you put your finger on to the biggest pain of todays scientific world, because until no one explains why this universe is moving 'till then nobody will be able to explain where is the antimatter. Good point!!! And also I am sure that until they will find the answer, your english will be more than sufficient to explain why they are not able to understand you; in fact, is a matter of if you want or not to understand someone's intention to communicate! And I will give you the good answer anywise. Congratulations!!!

Things move because nature hates a hill(an analogy).Mountains erode,valleys fill in,nature is trying to achieve perfect symmetry(balance) at all levels.Water flows because of a difference in height(space time curvature).The elements at the top of the element table want to get together with the ones at the bottom. The universe is expanding because it is trying to achieve balance with whatever it is expanding into."Silly boy, there is nothing outside of the universe" but I disagree.Even nothing is something,and that something is at a lower level,(at some definition of the word),than the universe in which we exist.Perhaps we live on the skin of a bubble or balloon-like structure that is rising (seeking equilibrium) in an unknown medium that is outside of our detectable universe.A rising bubble would explain also the increasing rate of expansion, the same as a bubble rising in a liquid accelerates as it rises.Will the universe eventually break through the "surface" and rupture, or perhaps float on the "surface" of some unknown medium?One thing for certain,we will not be around to worry about it.We are after all, very small. An old poem comes to mind,but I am sorry I cannot remember who wrote it,and I may get it somewhat wrong, but it goes something like this: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Big fleas have little fleas Upon their back that bite 'em And little fleas have littler still, And so on, and so on, ad infinitum" ------------------Phin-------------

I love all this talk of a substance that all total we may have produced a few grams max. Not all at once mind you. To extrapolate a few atoms into galaxies is a stretch of reality. I'm not saying they, the galaxies, don't exist. I still have reservations on the Big Bang for that matter.

A anti-photon may strike matter on its travels but the chance of it hitting another photon is statistically nil. Let say 1% makes it through and it is absorbed by matter the same as a regular photon you have a very dim source. If 99% survives you have a normal looking source.

If anti-photons react with matter in a destructive way then you would have a small energy release at that point. So would the frequency of the anti-proton effect the energy release or would it be insignificant?

If anti-photons react destructively with matter mainly photons what form is the product? Gamma rays would be hard to find in the rest of the gamma rays unless one knew what specifically to look for. As Microwaves this could be a source for the Background microwaves of this Universe.

But without facts and not extrapolated theories it is all conjecture. And it would be very foolish to store enough anti-matter to see if it reacts just like matter in the macro scale, E=MC² times 2 for a gram of anti matter is a big bang and containment is an issue.

Brad

Perhaps equal parts of matter and antimatter were not formed. Perhaps anti-particles are anomalous, defective particles that were not put together just right. Like a birth defect. One little chromosome doesn't fire just right and BAM! the baby has a foot growing out of it's brain. Who's to say what subtle arrangement of quarks or gluons or whatever other even more elementary particles make an electron vs. a positron?

The problem with that is that all current theories about the creation of the universe postulate that equal amounts of Matter and Anti-matter must have been created. Obviously that is not the case, therefore a blanket statement that the current theories are wrong can be made. But nobody knows why that is the case or what adjustments to the theorys must be made to correct for the anomaly.

The problem with that is that all current theories about the creation of the universe postulate that equal amounts of Matter and Anti-matter must have been created. Obviously that is not the case, therefore a blanket statement that the current theories are wrong can be made.

Beware of blanket statements, especially about topics in which one lacks expertise. It is *not* at all obvious that matter and antimatter were not created in equal amounts. What does seem obvious is that matter and antimatter quantities are not equal *now* (in our galaxy and in all observable collisions between galaxies). How could the quantities differ now if they started out equal? Answer: if antimatter is less stable then matter. The most popular hypothesis is "CP-symmetry violation". This general type of symmetry violation involving the electroweak force has been experimentally confirmed in experiments with simple systems. Whether or not it explains the observed universal matter/antimatter imbalance is still an open question (with new data possibly coming soon from particle accelerators). For details, see the links below. Here is an excerpt:

CP violation and the matter-antimatter imbalance

Main article: Baryogenesis Unsolved problems in physics: Why does the universe have so much more matter than antimatter?

One of the unsolved theoretical questions in physics is why the universe is made chiefly of matter, rather than consisting of equal parts of matter and antimatter. It can be demonstrated that to create an imbalance in matter and antimatter from an initial condition of balance, the Sakharov conditions must be satisfied, one of which is the existence of CP violation during the extreme conditions of the first seconds after the Big Bang. Explanations which do not involve CP violation are less plausible, since they rely on the assumption that the matter-antimatter imbalance was present at the beginning, or on other admittedly exotic assumptions.

The Big Bang should have produced equal amounts of matter and anti-matter if CP-symmetry was preserved; as such, there should have been total cancellation of both. In other words, protons should have cancelled with anti-protons, electrons with positrons, neutrons with anti-neutrons, and so on for all elementary particles. This would have resulted in a sea of photons in the universe with no matter. Since this is quite evidently not the case, after the Big Bang, physical laws must have acted differently for matter and antimatter, i.e. violating CP symmetry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP-symmetry

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/beamline/26/1/26-1-sather.pdf

Point taken. That the observable universe NOW shows an unequal distribution of matter vs anti-matter was what I was getting at. I should attempt to be more precise in my writing. Mea Culpa.

Just because we can theorize the existence of matter does not lead to the assumption that an equal amount of antimatter which would anihilate the matter must exist. In fact, it leads to the opposite conclusion: that what ever we call that which is observed to exist, its very existence must lead to the conclusion that its anti-entity must have been anihiliated, and thus exist only in rare amount if at all. From this you can conclude, in answer to your question, that, in nature, the evolution of the universe has been such as to be biased against the perserverence of any (of what you called) antimatter...since the time of formation of matter...since, at that time, anihilations would have progressed at great rates due to the closer proximity between anti-particles. Hope this helps.