Matter/Antimatter ... is this accurate?
Posted Mar25-09 at 04:39 PM by logandiez
I would like to begin by paying my respects to each and every one of you who have gone to such effort to obtain a formal education in the field of Physics. I admire your dedication and accomplishments.
Now I am going to probably make a lot of you peeved at me ... because I sincerely think the term "antimatter" is misleading and entirely inaccurate.
What has been called "antimatter" is factually not "anti" (i.e. the anti-thesis) of matter at all. Rather it is simply the oppositely charged matter of that which we commonly refer to as "matter." In fact, would better terms not be: negative matter; and, positive matter? The designation would be determined by the charge of the nucli ... to wit ... what is now called "matter" would be designated +matter, and "antimatter" would be designated -matter. (Or P-matter & N-matter ... "Patter" and "Natter" for those of you with a sense of humor.) It is important that we acknowledge the fact that "antimatter" does not anihilate "matter" upon contact, ergo, it is not "anti." In fact ...
I am going to put forth a hypothesis here for the Physics Community to consider ... I am convinced that particles of like charge are interchangable; that, for example, an "antiproton" could be replaced (in the nucleus of an "antimatter" hydrogen atom) with a Muon, since both have one unit of negative electrical charge and have approximately equal mass. I will assert that, in accordance with my opinion regarding String Theory and the Energies which form the Strings themselves, both 'patter' and 'natter' are made up of the exact same strings/energy ... that whether it is 'patter' or 'natter' depends solely upon the positioning of the positive &/or negative particles.
I would hypothesize that, there is no actual difference between an "antiproton" and a Muon. That their substance and charge are very near the same if not identical. I will go one step further ... I would be willing to bet that some enterprising Physicist with the proper labratory equipment could manufacture &/or "create" a hybred hydrogen atom that is less massive than a natural hydrogen atom, by binding together an "antineutron," an electron (or Tau), and a positron.
Allow me to state my case on that "hybred" atom, please?
The atomic bond relies, does it not, upon the electrical attraction of the particles and the strong force ... correct? Gravity & the weak force are not strong enough to effect the bonding of the particles, so the mass of the particles is largely irrelevant to the composition of the atom. Hence, if the particles at the nucleus have the proper amount of charge ... then their mass really should not matter. An electron, Tau and Muon all have the exact same electrical charge as the "antiproton" does; it would seem, therefore, that any one of the three "matter" (natter) particles could be substituted for the "antiproton" in the nucleus of the "antimatter" ([patter)hydrogen atom without causing the atom to fly apart. [If such is indeed possible (?), the resulting atom would be approx. 50% less massive that the natural atom (assuming an electron were used to replace the antiproton).]
That said ... now comes the part where I post this and all of you get to rip me to shreads, call me an "armchair physicist," etc., etc.; correct? (lol) Okay ... I will be in the company of many throughout the history of Science whose thinking outside the box gained them ridicule from those who cling to the status quo. Nonetheless ... time and trials will, I am convinced, prove me right.
Now I am going to probably make a lot of you peeved at me ... because I sincerely think the term "antimatter" is misleading and entirely inaccurate.
What has been called "antimatter" is factually not "anti" (i.e. the anti-thesis) of matter at all. Rather it is simply the oppositely charged matter of that which we commonly refer to as "matter." In fact, would better terms not be: negative matter; and, positive matter? The designation would be determined by the charge of the nucli ... to wit ... what is now called "matter" would be designated +matter, and "antimatter" would be designated -matter. (Or P-matter & N-matter ... "Patter" and "Natter" for those of you with a sense of humor.) It is important that we acknowledge the fact that "antimatter" does not anihilate "matter" upon contact, ergo, it is not "anti." In fact ...
I am going to put forth a hypothesis here for the Physics Community to consider ... I am convinced that particles of like charge are interchangable; that, for example, an "antiproton" could be replaced (in the nucleus of an "antimatter" hydrogen atom) with a Muon, since both have one unit of negative electrical charge and have approximately equal mass. I will assert that, in accordance with my opinion regarding String Theory and the Energies which form the Strings themselves, both 'patter' and 'natter' are made up of the exact same strings/energy ... that whether it is 'patter' or 'natter' depends solely upon the positioning of the positive &/or negative particles.
I would hypothesize that, there is no actual difference between an "antiproton" and a Muon. That their substance and charge are very near the same if not identical. I will go one step further ... I would be willing to bet that some enterprising Physicist with the proper labratory equipment could manufacture &/or "create" a hybred hydrogen atom that is less massive than a natural hydrogen atom, by binding together an "antineutron," an electron (or Tau), and a positron.
Allow me to state my case on that "hybred" atom, please?
The atomic bond relies, does it not, upon the electrical attraction of the particles and the strong force ... correct? Gravity & the weak force are not strong enough to effect the bonding of the particles, so the mass of the particles is largely irrelevant to the composition of the atom. Hence, if the particles at the nucleus have the proper amount of charge ... then their mass really should not matter. An electron, Tau and Muon all have the exact same electrical charge as the "antiproton" does; it would seem, therefore, that any one of the three "matter" (natter) particles could be substituted for the "antiproton" in the nucleus of the "antimatter" ([patter)hydrogen atom without causing the atom to fly apart. [If such is indeed possible (?), the resulting atom would be approx. 50% less massive that the natural atom (assuming an electron were used to replace the antiproton).]
That said ... now comes the part where I post this and all of you get to rip me to shreads, call me an "armchair physicist," etc., etc.; correct? (lol) Okay ... I will be in the company of many throughout the history of Science whose thinking outside the box gained them ridicule from those who cling to the status quo. Nonetheless ... time and trials will, I am convinced, prove me right.
Total Comments 12
Comments
-
we use many words quite non-orthodox in physics. For instance we talk about annihilation of particles, but that is not an annihilation in the strict semental definition of annihilation (which means totally destruction). The particles are just beeing transferred to something else. So don't bother about the term "antimatter", it is just semantics.Posted Mar26-09 at 07:53 AM by malawi_glenn 
-
Sematics Might Prove Problematic?
While we perceive the terms "antimatter" and "matter" a simple matter of sematics, it could prove problematic in the future if our Scientific Community were to actually discover a true "antimatter." And, if comparing to Sci-Fi is permissible for a moment, what if some parallel diminsion of the Universe is composed of what we now call "antimatter" ... to that diminsion's Physicists, WE would be the "antimatter" diminsion. While this may sound "loony," the fact remains that Charge Polarizations of "positive" and "negative" are the same in both forms of Matter and have properties that could be distinguished in either type of Universe. Correct???Posted Mar30-09 at 08:06 AM by logandiez
-
I mean, who cares at the moment, the term has already been accepted. Astronomy is another such scientific area where many historical semantics are still around.
Posted Mar30-09 at 02:41 PM by malawi_glenn
-
Are you the Website's official Blog-addict? It seems like you are the "First Responder" to every new blog entry that comes down the pike; so, I was just wondering if you're like one of those semi-acknowledged "blog-addicts" who hang on every moment of Blogging just so they can get their response (usually negative) posted before anyone else can???
Let me ask you this ... if we do NOT begin to use the terms "positive matter" and "negative matter" rather than the "matter" & "antimatter" used now ... would/does it not cause difficulty in PERCEPTION of the factual nature of matter/energy? And what will we call "neutral matter" once it's discovered if we cling to the old labels? [You'll probably want to tell me there is no such thing as "neutral" matter ... are you SURE?]
Labels are very important in the Sciences ... they should reflect the utmost accuracy where they present an adjective image of that which is labelled. Does the fact a label is as ancient as a dinosaur bone and "well accepted" necessarily mean we have to keep on using it? Or ... would it not be much better to acknowledge the forward-moving nature of the Sciences by changing old labels to be more reflective of known FACT???Posted Mar31-09 at 01:53 PM by logandiez
-
I use the blog quite much yes, it is a free world =)
Neutral in what sense? Neutrally electric charged? What should the definition of antimatter in a scientific sense be? You are demanding that antimatter + matter should give 0, nothing?
Labels are not important for us, what is important is stringent formalism, also terms like "antimatter" and "annihilation" sounds cool, doesn't it?
So the REAL PERCEPTION lies in the physical formalism, which is not written in English, but in math. Sorry, but that is the truth, and may sound esoteric to you perhaps.Posted Apr1-09 at 11:02 AM by malawi_glenn
-
Yes, Friend Malawi ... it IS a free world (for the most part), and hopefully we can keep it that way & free even more of it in order that EVERYONE will be free to express themselves without fear.
"Neutral" in the sense that it will be a Matter that will NOT be affected by EITHER positive or negative Matter. Nature is undisputably a thing that works in threes ... from the proton-neutron-electron combination responsible for the general atomic structure to the general Time-Space-Matter/Energy combination responsible for the universal structure, everything comes in 3's. It stands to reason, therefore, this pattern would be repeated in Matter: matter with a positively charged nucleus; a negatively charged nucleus; and, a nuetral-charge nucleus.
The definition of "antimatter" would be the substance that when interacting with ANY form of Matter would literally render "0" ... Nothing. Total annihilation of all that Matter & Antimatter is so that nothing, not even their energy remains. Yes, that is how I would define "antimatter."
If "stringent formalism" begins to strangle open-minded consideration of new ideas simply because the person offerring that new idea is unable (for whatever reason) to present it within the dictates of that "formalism," our Society and Sciences will soon stagnate. "Formalism" should ALWAYS be flexible enough to allow the presentation and consideration of new ideas and possibilities from outside an established group's membership ... such is the introduction of fresh "genes" into the blood of physics research, Malawi Glenn.
There are MANY times in the history of our World when some individual had a great and worth idea, but did NOT have the expertise to properly present that idea ... so some other person helped prepare the idea in a formal manner so that it could be presented. You are correct that I am not a Mathematician or Physicist ... but that alone does not make my hypothesis invalid; is simply means that I do not have the knowledge to write down my hypothesis in a language used by Physicists. Does being illiterate mean a man is not able to frame wise proverbs? Does not knowing how to paint or draw mean a man can not envision a beautiful masterpiece and describe it to an artist? Likewise, just because I can not write in mathematical language &/or perform physics experiments myself due to a lack of formal education in this area, it does not mean my hypothesis is inaccurate &/or incorrect.Posted Apr1-09 at 11:51 AM by logandiez
-
Ok, you have the logical prescription of antimatter then. Was just wondering. Then you perhaps want to rename almost the entire astrophysical nomenclature and the way one draws the "current" arrow? (current arrow is in the OPPOSITE direction of the electron flow)
The cases I am aware of (Einstein etc) those guys knew the formalism and had to learn some more of it (Einstein had to learn a bit of differential geometry back then). So why should formalism be flexible enough so that any guy person can contribute? You are telling scientists what science should be?
String Theorists are busy as they are, they don't need all this mumbo jumbo that laymen who have read some pop-sci books has came up with.
You think you are understanding what strings are in the same sense as string theorists are doing, that is your mistake I believe. It is like trying to explain colours and paintings to a blind man, or playing music to a man who is deaf.Posted Apr1-09 at 12:19 PM by malawi_glenn
-
Deaf people enjoy music through vibrations ... blind people see through the sensory ability of touch. Sometimes it is just a matter of putting something into a "language" the other person can understand, Malawi.
No, I do NOT want to change the entire nomenclature of astrophysic, or any other science; just the nomenclature that makes no common sense and is misleading. :) [There is a reason the current arrow is shown in the opposite direction of electron flow,of course, in an AC current, the "flow" goes BOTH directions so the indicator arrows point to the SOURCE of the electrical current (kind of like in meterology, wind direction is indicated from it's source not it's destination).] That is similar to the electronics terms for "positive" and "negative" electricity ... ALL electricity is actually negative since it is entirely electrons that carry a negative charge, but the Positive means "inflow/input" and the Negative means "outflow/output" to/from the electricity's source. These seemingly improper terms have a valid purpose based on a tangible necessity ... "antimatter," however, does not.
Did you know Albert Einstein required assistance to even keep himself properly attired? Some say he was an "idiot savant," who while a genius in Mathematics didn't have much common sense.(?)
No, I am not "telling scientists what science should be," my Friend ... I am only suggesting a very small thing they might consider that would make things better. I do not have to be a scientist myself to do this constructively. My profession, at the moment, is a professional freelance writer. (Yes, I have been published in periodicals.) Would it require another professional writer to offer me valid advice on what would make my writing better to read? Would it require a person with a Ph.D. in English & Creative Writing to show me some errors in grammer I had made? And if some Junior High School student told me I had made an error of grammer in something I had written, would that young student be telling me what creative writing should be?
What I have presented with regard to String Theory is NOT "mumbo jumbo," Malawi ... it is a valid hypothesis that CAN (and soon will be, I'm sure) proven valid through mathematical testing and labratory experimentation. It is just as sound as the keyboard you have written your attacks toward it upon, and it will stand the test of time and prove correct in the end.
In conclusion: You might want to check your comment that you posted at 05:19PM today ... if you believe what you state in sent/1 para/4 (?), then it is I who am in harmony with String Theorists & you are telling me I am making a mistake to see things the same as they do???Posted Apr1-09 at 01:41 PM by logandiez
-
You guys, calm down and listen to both of yourselves.
Do either one of you honestly believe that it takes a degree to make a scientist? Truly, what is the definition of a scientist?
Remember, the Dark Ages were only broken when science was taken out of the stiffling hands of the high-church elite. How far we have come, right gentlemen?
Logandiez, you yourself began in elitist terms by stating,First of all if you're going to thank people for considering your work, you should start at the other end of the spectrum. The educated need no thanks to understand scientific discourse. Rather it is the waitress, bartendar, clerk, and fireman who attempts to understand your positions that are the ones who should be thanked. Only when those people know of your hypotheses can they change to be called "hypotheses.Quote:Originally posted by Logendiez "respects to each and every one of you who have gone to such effort to obtain a formal education in the field of Physics."
And Malawi_Glenn, how xenophobic can you be?Didn't people once believe females couldn't possess original scientific thought? Are you saying that every faculty member caught touching/possessing a pop-sci book should be fired, because anyone who reads pop-sci obviously can't know anything about science?Quote:Originally posted by Malawi_Gleen"You are telling scientists what science should be? String Theorists are busy as they are, they don't need all this mumbo jumbo that laymen who have read some pop-sci books has came up with."
Please both of you consider, the next big break-through could come from any direction. Last time it was a patent clerk. There is a lot of buzz about a new accounting for Universe evolution being brought forward by a high-school science teacher. It's a really thought-provoking read, http://hypography.com/forums/alterna...asanuddin.html
Question: Is a high-school advanced science teacher more of a scientist, a layman, or a complete hybred?Posted Jun8-09 at 04:13 PM by Paduka
-
it depends...
Posted Jun28-09 at 09:54 AM by lwebb101
-
I think Mr. Hawking makes a difference in that anti-particles are produced when their existance is borrowed from a virtual pool that is subject to be repaid, and produces antimatter upon which when repaid to the virtual community the end result does not produce positive energy but instead just repays the virtual community.
Posted Jul5-09 at 01:11 PM by Primordial
-
So in a way, the term anti-matter is both correct and yet incorrect. In certain events the end result is annihilation of a virtual form of energy and in another it transforms positive energy. Just think about it.
Posted Jul5-09 at 01:22 PM by Primordial
