- #1
S.W. Morrison
- 10
- 0
When more matter collides with less antimatter, is all of the antimatter and matter destroyed, or just equivalent amounts, and if the latter, what happens to the excess matter?
Current theory assumes that there was no initial difference between the amount of matter and the amount of antimatter. The current lack of antimatter presumable comes from some differences in decay mechanism, associated with cp violation. However no one has yet figured out the details.S.W. Morrison said:So way back 13. something billion years BP, stuff was really stuffed compactly. Since there is almost no anti matter around now, one could assume that the ratio of matter to anti matter in the beginning was - what? a billion to a billion and one? Would that kind of mostly mutual annihilation have caused the Big Bang and the expanding universe we see today? And then there's the conundrum of it expanding FTL because the space between clumps/strings of matter is expanding FTL. Hmm. Why would space expand that fast? What's driving it?
jasonhoods said:If only equal amounts of matter and antimatter annihilate, then why would the explosions be so large?
S.W. Morrison said:I get the Big Bang part and that a matter/antimatter explosion might have caused it. But the other thread I was exploring was - what if anti-matter is inherently less stable than matter? Would that explain why we can't find much anti-matter in the universe? So my question is still out there: Has anyone addressed the difference in the abilities of matter and anti-matter particle clouds to form atoms?
Drakkith said:As far as I know there is no difference in anti-matter and normal matter that would cause it to be less stable or have a difference in forming atoms. But I'm not an expert.
mathman said:Although the mechanism is not known yet, it is assumed that there is some difference in the decay processes of antimatter particles as compared to matter particles. The difference is presumed to be the reason there was matter left over after the big bang.
What do you mean by that?Drakkith said:Either that or something to do with their creation is different.
S.W. Morrison said:What do you mean by that?
S.W. Morrison said:I get the Big Bang part and that a matter/antimatter explosion might have caused it. But the other thread I was exploring was - what if anti-matter is inherently less stable than matter? Would that explain why we can't find much anti-matter in the universe? So my question is still out there: Has anyone addressed the difference in the abilities of matter and anti-matter particle clouds to form atoms?
Drakkith said:An annihilation between anti particles and real particles convert the entirety of the REST MASS of the particles to energy.
Matter is anything that has mass and takes up space. It is composed of atoms, which are made up of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Antimatter is essentially the opposite of matter, with particles that have the same mass but opposite charge.
When matter and antimatter collide, they annihilate each other, releasing a large amount of energy in the form of gamma rays. This process is called annihilation and is what happens when matter and antimatter come into contact with each other.
The amount of energy released in a matter-antimatter collision is determined by the mass of the particles involved. The more massive the particles, the more energy is released during annihilation.
According to the laws of physics, matter and antimatter should have been created in equal amounts during the Big Bang. However, in our observable universe, there is a significant imbalance between the two, with matter dominating over antimatter.
The excess energy released during matter-antimatter annihilation can take various forms, including kinetic energy of the resulting particles, photons of light, or even the creation of new particles. The exact distribution of the excess energy depends on the specific particles involved in the annihilation process.