|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue May 02, 2006 4:23 pm
Every elementary particle has an equal and opposite partner. equal in weight and size, opposite in charge. What is the purpose of antimatter and why is there more matter than antimatter in this universe?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 02, 2006 4:28 pm
We don't know.
Or that is the brief answer. It's a little late to embark on a CP violation, baryogenesis, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 02, 2006 4:34 pm
A Lost Iguana We don't know. Or that is the brief answer. It's a little late to embark on a CP violation, baryogenesis, etc. what do you mean late to embark on baryogenisis? What is a CP violation?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 02, 2006 4:55 pm
poweroutage what do you mean late to embark on baryogenisis? What is a CP violation? Baryogenisis is the generation of matter in teh early universe to account for what we see around us. CP violation describes how when certain decay processes governed by the weak force occur, they have equal chances of producing normal matter or antimatter, but the processes are heavily biased towards the decay that produces normal matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 02, 2006 5:05 pm
poweroutage A Lost Iguana We don't know. Or that is the brief answer. It's a little late to embark on a CP violation, baryogenesis, etc. what do you mean late to embark on baryogenisis? What is a CP violation? As in its 00:43 and thus, is a little late to go into this subject, at least for me. My brain is tired. Baryogenesis is the process by which more baryons [bound state of three quarks] were produced that antibaryons [bound states of three anti-quarks] in the early universe. If the universe did begin with equal amounts of matter and antimatter then a process like baryongenesis must have occured. Very little is know about it, it is an open question in physics. CP violation is one means by which you can attribute some imbalance in matter and antimatter. The CP means "charge-parity" and is what physicists used to believe was a true symmetry of the universe. Alas, the decays of neutral kaons and B-mesons violate this symmetry and the upshot of this is that you get more decays to matter than antimatter. Symmetry really needs a little section on its own for it is a powerful concept and gives rise to conservation laws, and it's too late for me to think clearly. neutral For now. C-symmetry implies that the universe would appear to be the same if you inverted all the particle charges. P-symmetry implies that the universe would appear to be the same if you reflected all the coordinates in a mirror. T-symmetry implies that the universe would appear the be the same if you range time backwards. Oh, BO, it is anything but large. The asymmetry is about a part in a million at least [off the top of my head, do not quote me on it]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 02, 2006 8:08 pm
poweroutage Every elementary particle has an equal and opposite partner. equal in weight and size, opposite in charge. Mass and size, surely. Although the sizes of elementary particles is itself an interesting issue. On one hand, it is not physically meaningful for size to be below Planck lengthl; on the other, elementrary particles are smaller than their Compton wavelengths by definition, so determining their size doesn't quite work either. poweroutage What is the purpose of antimatter ... Eh? Physics is remarkably free from teleology, so this question isn't really meaningful. If you want theoretical reasons for why there is anti-matter, then it's because of relativity. Considerations from STR are the reason behind Dirac's equation, which in turn predicts the positron, for example. poweroutage ... and why is there more matter than antimatter in this universe? Well, I'm not certain that this is a foregone conclusion. There is no way of determining whether or not a given distant galaxy is made of matter or antimatter, for example. In principle, this can be determined by neutrino emission, but in practice, filering a neutrino flux from such a distant sources is nigh-impossible. This is probably something cosmologists have considered in-depth; is anyone aware of any authoritative results on this matter?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 06, 2006 3:04 pm
[ Message temporarily off-line ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 06, 2006 4:55 pm
There are methods of turning protons into negatrons.
I'm not sure what they are, but perhaps such things happen around the edge of the univese/the early part of it, when matter was much more condenced. That leave the universe to be like an orange cut in half, the rine is antimatter we can't get a glimpse of well, and the inside is the regular matter we live in.
Or, just the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 3:07 am
Vannak, what do you mean by "negatron"? I'm torn between it being an amusing, yet redundant, alternative name for the electron or another name for an anti-proton.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 3:21 am
A Lost Iguana Vannak, what do you mean by "negatron"? I'm torn between it being an amusing, yet redundant, alternative name for the electron or another name for an anti-proton. Dictionary.com calls it an electron with a negative charge. So yes, amusing, redundant and alternative name for an electron probably.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 3:30 am
Hmm. Then it would seem that Vannak is suggesting a leptonic proton decay mode. Proton decay is allowed under some hypothetical unification ideas [I know that the SU(5) unification regime allows it, but proton decay was not observed when they looked for it in the 70s, not to mention that this would have been pre-top, imho].
Proton decay has never been observed so the lower bound on the half-life is pretty high.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 10, 2006 8:22 pm
poweroutage Every elementary particle has an equal and opposite partner. equal in weight and size, opposite in charge. What is the purpose of antimatter and why is there more matter than antimatter in this universe? I still don't think the original question's been quite elaborated on, so I'll put forth my pathetic attempt. Basically, there's a theory going around that during Baryogenisis (I believe 1-10 seconds after the Big Bang, and then for a short time afterword... Don't hold me to that though), around 1001 particles were produced to every 1000 antiparticles. The antiparticles were annhiliated immediately upon contact with the particles, resulting in an extrodinary amount of energy (180 petajoules I believe? I think that's what was said earlier), and a single, normally charged particle. I'm a bit rudementary in most areas of physics, but then again, that is why I joined this guild. sweatdrop I just hope I'm right on occasion xD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 11, 2006 3:41 am
Baryogenesis is the name for the (hypothetical) processes that caused the imbalance, not the time period during which it occured.
I also think it was more like 1 unpartnered particle per 1 billion or 10 billion or something, something much greater than 1/1000.
I don't really know that much about it however either, so I'll leave it to someone like lost iguana to explain it better and correct me razz
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 13, 2006 10:56 pm
Are there any past or recent attempts at colliding a matter and it counterpart and harnessing that enourmous amount of energy as a way to provide energy for the world? Or is there no safe container to contain the explosion?
How is this amount of energy comparing to that generated from fusion reaction?
Does anyone know the most recent advances in fusion reactors around the world? Have they given up?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 13, 2006 11:11 pm
bruce_lee_kicks_your_ass Are there any past or recent attempts at colliding a matter and it counterpart and harnessing that enourmous amount of energy as a way to provide energy for the world? Don't be silly. It's not like there's an abundance of antimatter just laying about. To get it, we must make it, and that just as much energy as we would get it back--much more, even, considering efficiency. This power-generating scheme is contingent on a great quantity of antimatter being available for free. bruce_lee_kicks_your_ass Or is there no safe container to contain the explosion? It can be as small as one likes, if one has some way to control the amount of antimatter in the reaction. bruce_lee_kicks_your_ass How is this amount of energy comparing to that generated from fusion reaction? Theoretically, much more energetic. Practically, a net loss. bruce_lee_kicks_your_ass Does anyone know the most recent advances in fusion reactors around the world? Have they given up? Good question. I haven't been keeping up with it, but I doubt they've given up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
