|
Doc_T
Random Dude




Registered: 03/06/09
Posts: 42,395
Loc: Colorado
|
Re: Matter Vs. Anti-matter [Re: DieCommie]
#14316531 - 04/19/11 10:35 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DieCommie said:
Quote:
Doc_T said: Not (necessarily) true. Physics holds many mysteries we have yet to unlock.
By that same token, anti-matter may not even exist then. 
Appealing to possibilities instead of or in spite of plausibilities is an intellectual trap.
Antimatter certainly exists. 
What may or may not exist is a cheap way to make it. It's my belief this is a technological obstacle we can overcome, given time. If you disagree, that's great. But the history of science shows that the impossible becomes possible routinely- as you well know.
-------------------- You make it all possible. Doesn't it feel good?
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,432
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Matter Vs. Anti-matter [Re: Doc_T]
#14316543 - 04/19/11 10:39 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Doc_T said: Not (necessarily) true. Physics holds many mysteries we have yet to unlock.
Seems you have a severe lack of understanding in this matter, yet make unfounded proclamations. I would wager heavily, you didn't do the slightest bit of research on this.
Your statement is akin to the faster-than-light folks thinking the limitation is due to technology and not a fundamental barrier.
--------------------
Edited by OrgoneConclusion (04/19/11 11:27 AM)
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Matter Vs. Anti-matter [Re: DieCommie]
#14316545 - 04/19/11 10:40 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
So you accept scientific theory as certainty for the existence of antimatter, but you do not accept scientific theory as certainty for conservation of energy, charge and the like? How is that not cherry picking? Scientific theory is all tenuous - all of it. The existence of antimatter is tenuous, conservation of energy is tenuous. But each are highly likely and ignoring that is foolish.
Quote:
But the history of science shows that the impossible becomes possible routinely- as you well know.
I dont know that at all, and I disagree. History shows that the impossible routinely stays impossible. Unless, of course, you are still picking cherries.
|
teknix
๐โ๐
ข๐๐
๐ฐ๐ก ๐ผ๐โจป


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: Matter Vs. Anti-matter [Re: DieCommie]
#14316546 - 04/19/11 10:40 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
What happens when these anti-particles become concentrated?
"For every particle of matter in the universe, there should be a particle of antimatter. In practice, though, we don't see them."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/19/antimatter-cern-antihydrogen
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Matter Vs. Anti-matter [Re: teknix]
#14316552 - 04/19/11 10:41 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Im not sure what point you are getting at with that link... When anti-particles become concentrated they behave as when particles become concentrated.
|
teknix
๐โ๐
ข๐๐
๐ฐ๐ก ๐ผ๐โจป


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: Matter Vs. Anti-matter [Re: DieCommie]
#14316622 - 04/19/11 10:57 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
One way to examine this is to carry out experiments on antimatter. If scientists could detect even the slightest difference in behaviour between, say, an atom of hydrogen (composed of an electron orbiting a proton) and one of antihydrogen (a positron orbiting an antiproton), it might help explain what happened at the start of the universe, and why we only see normal matter around us today.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/12/x-particle/
"A new hypothetical particle could solve two cosmic mysteries at once: what dark matter is made of, and why thereโs enough matter for us to exist at all. โWe know you have to have these two ingredients to the universe, both atoms and dark matter,โ said physicist Kris Sigurdson of the University of British Columbia, coauthor of a paper describing the new particle. โSince you know you need those ingredients anyway, it seems like a natural thing to try to explain them from the same mechanism.โ Cosmologists think the same amount of matter and antimatter should have been created in the Big Bang, and particles and antiparticles immediately started colliding and extinguishing each other. But the fact that stars, planets and physicists exist now is proof that thatโs not what happened. โIf matter and antimatter were created in equal amounts in the early universe, they would all have annihilated [each other],โ said theoretical physicist Sean Tulin of the Canadian physics institute TRIUMF. โThere has to be some asymmetry that was left over.โ Together with physicists Hooman Davoudiasl at Brookhaven National Lab and David Morrissey of TRIUMF, Tulin and Sigurdson suggest a way to solve the problem of missing antimatter: Hide it away as dark matter. The details are published in the Nov. 19 Physical Review Letters. โIf our theory is right, it would tell you what dark matter is,โ Tulin said.
Most of what we know about dark matter is that it is mysterious stuff that makes up a quarter of the energy density of the universe, but refuses to interact with regular matter except through gravity.
The most popular candidate for dark matter is a theoretical weakly interacting massive particle, or WIMP, that connects only with the weak nuclear force and gravity, making it undetectable by eyes, radios and telescopes at all wavelengths. Based on current theories, WIMPs are expected to be about 100 times as massive as a proton, and to be their own antiparticle โ whenever two WIMPs meet up in space, they annihilate each other. The new theoretical particle โis completely different from the WIMP idea,โ Tulin said. The proposed particle, named simply โX,โ has a separate antiparticle called โanti-X.โ Equal amounts of X and anti-X were created in the Big Bang, and then decayed to lighter particles. Each X decayed into either a neutron or two dark-matter particles, called Y and ฮฆ. Every anti-X converted to an anti-neutron or some anti-dark matter. But the hypothetical X particle would rather decay into ordinary matter than dark matter, so it produced more neutrons than dark matter. Anti-X preferred decaying into anti-dark matter, and so produced more of it. After all the particles and anti-particles that could find each other collided and eliminated each other, the universe was left with some extra neutrons and a corresponding number of extra anti-dark matter particles. โThe protons and neutrons canโt annihilate completely with their antiparticles, because thereโs not enough to annihilate with,โ Tulin said. โThe same story happens in the hidden sector as wellโฆ. Some dark matter canโt annihilate with anything. So youโre left with some extra dark matter in the universe.โ Conveniently, this picture could explain another particle-physics puzzle: why there is only five times more dark matter than regular matter in the universe. To physicists, five is a really small number. If dark matter and regular matter didnโt spring from similar origins, thereโs no reason why there should be roughly the same amount of both of them. But in the new model, there should be the same absolute number of regular-matter particles and dark-matter particles left after all the particles that can destroy each other are gone. If the dark-matter particles each have a mass between two and three times the protonโs mass, then the universe ends up with five times more dark matter than regular matter. โThatโs why the light stuff, the visible matter that we all know and love and are used to, is in exact balance with the excess in the dark matter,โ Sigurdson said. He compares the balance to a yin-yang: โYou end up with a little bit more matter and a little bit more antimatter, but theyโre in exact compensation with each other.โ The signatures of this new form of dark matter could be detected by existing experiments. In this model, dark matter doesnโt interact with regular matter very often โ but it can happen. A dark-matter particle can sometimes smack into a proton or a neutron and destroy it, creating a signature similar to a proton decaying. Proton decay isnโt allowed by the standard model of particle physics, but some theories that go beyond the standard model allow it. An enormous underground tank of water in Japan, called SuperKamiokande, was designed to look for the decaying protons, but has so far found nothing. If physicists at SuperKamiokande went back through their data and looked at slightly different energies, they may be able to find traces of dark matter. โItโs a pretty novel idea,โ said astroparticle physicist Subir Sarkar of the University of Oxford, who has suggested detecting a different possible form of dark matter by observing its buildup in the sun. The signature of dark matter destroying protons โcan be easily tested by the even bigger proposed underground detectorsโ planned to be built somewhere in Europe. โThis is only the beginning,โ Sigurdson said. โThereโs other puzzles out there in particle physics, and weโd like to connect as many of those as possible.โ"
http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v105/i21/e211304
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Matter Vs. Anti-matter [Re: teknix]
#14316633 - 04/19/11 10:59 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I know a bit about physics, so feel free to make your point rather than linking to news articles. What are you getting at?
|
teknix
๐โ๐
ข๐๐
๐ฐ๐ก ๐ผ๐โจป


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: Matter Vs. Anti-matter [Re: DieCommie]
#14316639 - 04/19/11 11:01 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I already explained.
|
teknix
๐โ๐
ข๐๐
๐ฐ๐ก ๐ผ๐โจป


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: Matter Vs. Anti-matter [Re: teknix]
#14316728 - 04/19/11 11:19 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
There are atleast 2 other planes that you are inadvertantly aware of yet refuse to believe exist or even mater, because you can't measure it with your ruler.
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Matter Vs. Anti-matter [Re: teknix]
#14316740 - 04/19/11 11:20 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
And that has something to do with antimatter?
|
teknix
๐โ๐
ข๐๐
๐ฐ๐ก ๐ผ๐โจป


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: Matter Vs. Anti-matter [Re: DieCommie]
#14316773 - 04/19/11 11:26 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
In the metagame, yes.
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Matter Vs. Anti-matter [Re: teknix] 1
#14316780 - 04/19/11 11:27 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I think you are just making things up.
|
teknix
๐โ๐
ข๐๐
๐ฐ๐ก ๐ผ๐โจป


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: Matter Vs. Anti-matter [Re: DieCommie]
#14316851 - 04/19/11 11:40 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DieCommie said: I think you are just making things up. 
I would prefer to know than to think I know.
What do you "think" I made up?
|
teknix
๐โ๐
ข๐๐
๐ฐ๐ก ๐ผ๐โจป


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: Matter Vs. Anti-matter [Re: teknix]
#14316998 - 04/19/11 12:06 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
|
|