# Thread: Matter vs Anti Matter

1. From what I understand, anti matter that comes in contact with ordinary matter that both are completely annihilated and transformed into energy.

Does this mean that a gram of say iron for example and a gram of iron in the form of anti matter (anti-iron maybe) comes in contact with each other both completely disappear creating a large amount of energy?

And if this is true, my other question relates to performing the opposite. I know that the behavior of physics allows for a process to be reversed. An example off the top of my head, it's possible to transform kinetic energy into heat and then heat back into kinetic energy.

I know we don't have the means to do this, I'm just wondering if these rules are applicable in physics. If anti matter and mater can be obliterate into energy, mathematically and in theory, can that energy be converted back into the same matter and anti matter?

2.

3. Yes. If a sufficiently energetic photon hits another particle, additional particles are created.

4. I'm not sure. If you could make an atom out of antimatter an anti-atom if you will, then I guess you would expect it to anihilate with a normal atom.

Could just be speculation though.

Twit of Wit, you and the OP are not talking about the same thing.

In the OP's original question he was asking about matter-antimatter collisions, in the latter he was asking about transforming energy into particles while you are talking about energy-matter interactions.

With respect to energy he got it a bit wrong. Heat and Kinetic energy are essentially the same thing.

5. Originally Posted by sox
In the OP's original question he was asking about matter-antimatter collisions, in the latter he was asking about transforming energy into particles while you are talking about energy-matter interactions.
It's exactly what I'm talking about - transforming energy into particles.

6.

7. Originally Posted by mjr150
From what I understand, anti matter that comes in contact with ordinary matter that both are completely annihilated and transformed into energy.

Does this mean that a gram of say iron for example and a gram of iron in the form of anti matter (anti-iron maybe) comes in contact with each other both completely disappear creating a large amount of energy?

And if this is true, my other question relates to performing the opposite. I know that the behavior of physics allows for a process to be reversed. An example off the top of my head, it's possible to transform kinetic energy into heat and then heat back into kinetic energy.

I know we don't have the means to do this, I'm just wondering if these rules are applicable in physics. If anti matter and mater can be obliterate into energy, mathematically and in theory, can that energy be converted back into the same matter and anti matter?
Anti-particles annihilate one another to produce photons. This is a relatively straightforward process, and is observed in experiments at Fermilab.

Normally what are involved are elementary particles and not whole atoms, but in principle what you describe could happen. Anti-hydrogen has been produced. I am not aware of any other complete atoms having been observed.

There is a somewhat more involved process which involves quantum chromodynamics in which photons of sufficient energy can be converted into a particle anti-particle pair. There are other processes that can also produce pairs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter

8. I'll just add that there are physical considerations that'd prevent a gram of iron and a gram of anti-iron from completely annihilating. When they begin to touch, the explosion at the surface will force them apart. It's a significant engineering challenge for anything designed to make use of matter-antimatter reactions.

9. Originally Posted by MagiMaster
I'll just add that there are physical considerations that'd prevent a gram of iron and a gram of anti-iron from completely annihilating. When they begin to touch, the explosion at the surface will force them apart. It's a significant engineering challenge for anything designed to make use of matter-antimatter reactions.
There is not enough antimatter in existence for there to be any such engineering challenge. What antimatter exists in a form storeable for more than a small fraction of a second is in the form of individual elementary particles, not even whole atoms.

I have seen JANAAF papers on antimatter propulsion, but I have seen all sorts of ludicrous JANAAF papers. Nobody has a clue how one would handle a gram of anti-iron, but no one has a clue where they would obtain it in the first place.

10. Yeah. All of the designs I've heard of used anti-protons (IIRC) and were purely hypothetical.

11. Originally Posted by Twit of wit
Yes. If a sufficiently energetic photon hits another particle, additional particles are created.
So we can create something out of nothing? Really?

12. Originally Posted by doomsday2012
Originally Posted by Twit of wit
Yes. If a sufficiently energetic photon hits another particle, additional particles are created.
So we can create something out of nothing? Really?
Yup - or sort of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

13. Originally Posted by doomsday2012
Originally Posted by Twit of wit
Yes. If a sufficiently energetic photon hits another particle, additional particles are created.
So we can create something out of nothing? Really?
nope

It takes energy.

Energy is not nothing. Matter and energy are the same thing -- that is the important content of .

14. A current active use of antimatter; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positro...ion_tomography.

15. Originally Posted by doomsday2012
Originally Posted by Twit of wit
Yes. If a sufficiently energetic photon hits another particle, additional particles are created.
So we can create something out of nothing? Really?
No nothing as DrRocket explained, but I know what you mean, it appears to be creating something out of nothing and it's puzzling.

But so is the concept of destroying matter by merging opposites. What could you compare that to? The only thing I can think of that makes any sense is -1 + 1 = 0 but applying that to matter...it's just not the way we are use to thinking.

I wonder, if the concept of anti matter of different materials is possible, is the same matter needed to merge into photons? For example, iron and anti-iron merges, but would anti-iron merge with hydrogen for example?

16. Originally Posted by mjr150
I wonder, if the concept of anti matter of different materials is possible, is the same matter needed to merge into photons? For example, iron and anti-iron merges, but would anti-iron merge with hydrogen for example?
The notion of antimatter is related to elementary particles and not directly to atoms. So, you have positrons, anti-protons, ant-neutrons, etc. Normal matter and anti-matter would react through their constituents -- so if you put your anti-silica encased probe into a vat of anti-water you can expect your probe to disappear (I have no idea what the bucket would be made of, or the table on which the bucket sits).

17. More bullshit from this moron:

Originally Posted by DrRocket
Matter and energy are the same thing -- that is the important content of .
Which you clearly do not understand... Energy and matter are NOT the same thing -- they are related by E=mc^2. There is a difference.

.o:0|O|0:o.

18. Originally Posted by .o:0|O|0:o.
More bullshit from this moron:

Originally Posted by DrRocket
Matter and energy are the same thing -- that is the important content of .
Which you clearly do not understand... Energy and matter are NOT the same thing -- they are related by E=mc^2. There is a difference.

.o:0|O|0.
nope

And that realization is crucial to understanding elementary particles.

19. Originally Posted by DrRocket
Originally Posted by .o:0|O|0:o.
More bullshit from this moron:

Originally Posted by DrRocket
Matter and energy are the same thing -- that is the important content of .
Which you clearly do not understand... Energy and matter are NOT the same thing -- they are related by E=mc^2. There is a difference.

.o:0|O|0:o.
nope

And that realization is crucial to understanding elementary particles.

You evidently have a crap understanding of elementary particles based on your very elementary understanding of E=mc^2.

What next, F=m?

Get off the channel, clown!

.o:0|O|0:o.
P.S. And don't bother reading up on it, you're too stupid. Stick to Cut-n-Paste, you dim-witted Turing machine.

20. Originally Posted by .o:0|O|0:o.

You evidently have a crap understanding of elementary particles based on your very elementary understanding of E=mc^2.

What next, F=m?

Get off the channel, clown!

.o:0|O|0.
P.S. And don't bother reading up on it, you're too stupid. Stick to Cut-n-Paste, you dim-witted Turing machine.
nope

Come on. You are putting us on, right ?

Nobody is this ignorant of basic physics.

Why do you think energy is so important in partcle experiments ? It is because mass/energy is conserved and in order to produce the heavy particles that are sought, a commensurate amount of energy is required in thw collisions that would produce them.

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement