Notices
Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Matter vs Anti Matter

  1. #1 Matter vs Anti Matter 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    35
    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?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Masters Degree Twit of wit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    553
    Yes. If a sufficiently energetic photon hits another particle, additional particles are created.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    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.

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Masters Degree Twit of wit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    553
    Quote 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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,309
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: Matter vs Anti Matter 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote 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
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote 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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Yeah. All of the designs I've heard of used anti-protons (IIRC) and were purely hypothetical.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman doomsday2012's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    24
    Quote 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?
    “If all the Bees were gone, humans would be gone within 4 years.”
    Albert Einstien
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by doomsday2012
    Quote 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
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by doomsday2012
    Quote 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 .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,309
    A current active use of antimatter; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positro...ion_tomography.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by doomsday2012
    Quote 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?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote 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).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman .o:0|O|0:o.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    37
    More bullshit from this moron:

    Quote 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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by .o:0|O|0:o.
    More bullshit from this moron:

    Quote 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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman .o:0|O|0:o.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by .o:0|O|0:o.
    More bullshit from this moron:

    Quote 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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote 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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

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
  •