Why Doesn't the Universe Explode Because of an Antimatter Reaction?

In summary: I think you are thinking of radioactive tracers or perhaps treatments where radioactive particles are targetted to specific locations. Nuclear medicine does deal with...
  • #1
AntiPhysics
12
0
So, semi-simple antimatter physics state that when antimatter comes in contact with regular matter, an explosion occurs. If there is only antimatter and matter in the universe, how can antimatter even exist, since it will come in contact with matter at one point and explode? So how are scientists able to capture it? They store it in a container made out if matter, so why doesn't that explode?

This really doesn't make sense to me. Maybe there could be such a thing called neutral matter, whose atoms are solely composed of neutrons?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #2
AntiPhysics said:
since it will come in contact with matter at one point and explode?
And so it does. But space is big. And nearly empty.

The "explosion" is really annihilation, with release of gamma radiation. We see lots of radiation in the universe.

AntiPhysics said:
So how are scientists able to capture it? They store it in a container made out if matter, so why doesn't that explode?
They store it in a magnetic bottle. The antimatter is prevented from contacting the container via magnetic fields.
 
  • #3
DaveC426913 said:
And so it does. But space is big. And nearly empty.

The "explosion" is really annihilation, with release of gamma radiation. We see lots of radiation in the universe.


They store it in a magnetic bottle. The antimatter is prevented from contacting the container via magnetic fields.

Hmm... But magnetism is created by charges the matter produces, and you don't need physical contact for the reaction to occur.
 
  • #4
AntiPhysics said:
Hmm... But magnetism is created by charges the matter produces, and you don't need physical contact for the reaction to occur.

If you mean the reaction that results in annihilation, then yes, you DO need physical contact.
 
  • #5
AntiPhysics said:
Hmm... But magnetism is created by charges the matter produces, and you don't need physical contact for the reaction to occur.

Magnetism is particle-agnostic, just like photons. Yes, you do need physical collision for particles and anti-articles to annihilate.
 
  • #6
phinds said:
If you mean the reaction that results in annihilation, then yes, you DO need physical contact.

Oh, okay, thank you. I'm not be a physicist, (heck, I'm only a freshman in high school), so sometimes I get my facts screwed up.
 
  • #7
I don't think Anti-matter can be captured. Of course, I strongly contradict myself. But, there is some kind of belief in my self, may be a superstition, that anti-matter can't be captured or held in control with us.

I support this by saying that energy is produced during collision of particles at particle accelerators. Collision means, we are colliding particles with other particles - not anti-particles. When such thing is done energy is produced. Energy is released when a particle and anti-particle combination takes place. Then how come anti-matter is produced all of a sudden, when matter is collided. We know, matter is formed only when matter and anti-matter combination already occurred and matter is more than anti-matter during those collisions.
 
  • #8
sheshank said:
I don't think Anti-matter can be captured. Of course, I strongly contradict myself. But, there is some kind of belief in my self, may be a superstition, that anti-matter can't be captured or held in control with us.

I support this by saying that energy is produced during collision of particles at particle accelerators. Collision means, we are colliding particles with other particles - not anti-particles. When such thing is done energy is produced. Energy is released when a particle and anti-particle combination takes place. Then how come anti-matter is produced all of a sudden, when matter is collided. We know, matter is formed only when matter and anti-matter combination already occurred and matter is more than anti-matter during those collisions.

You should read some real science instead of just making things up in your head.

Antimatter has been created and captured numerous times, although it has never been held for more than about 15 minutes so far.
 
  • #9
Antiprotons can stay in storage rings for days, no problem.
 
  • #10
i have been wondering this as well . I read somewhere that they have inveted a treatment against alzheimer that implys the use of a radiactive fluorine that emitts positrons and that are send into the brain so that they can attach to the affected areas , or somehting like that , and i wonder how this can be possible ? or have i understand this wrong ?
 
  • #11
castro94 said:
i have been wondering this as well . I read somewhere that they have inveted a treatment against alzheimer that implys the use of a radiactive fluorine that emitts positrons and that are send into the brain so that they can attach to the affected areas , or somehting like that , and i wonder how this can be possible ? or have i understand this wrong ?
I think you are thinking of radioactive tracers or perhaps treatments where radioactive particles are targetted to specific locations. Nuclear medicine does deal with antiparticles, a good example is a PET scanner that measures the gamma rays released by a radioactive tracer.
 
  • #12
how come this PET doesn't explode the brain , it says that it emittes positrons , how come this positrons does not annihilate with the brains matter ? i understand how antimatter can be stored in magnetic fields , but how can this aplly in the brain when nuclear medicine uses antiparticle emittion inside the brain ?
 
  • #13
castro94 said:
how come this PET doesn't explode the brain , it says that it emittes positrons , how come this positrons does not annihilate with the brains matter ? i understand how antimatter can be stored in magnetic fields , but how can this aplly in the brain when nuclear medicine uses antiparticle emittion inside the brain ?
Annihilation is what a PET scanner measures. Essentially a radioactive tracer is injected into the patient, this tracer is designed so that after a while it undergoes positive beta decay in which a proton is converted to a neutron realising a neutrino and positron in the process. The positron lasts very small fractions of a second before interacting with an electron in the brain, this causes the release of gamma rays that are then detected by the PET machinery. The reason the brain is not damaged is due to the fantastically small amounts of annihilation. In total a patient is exposed to less than 10 millisieverts of radiation.
 
  • #14
They quickly annihilate with electrons in the brain and emit gamma rays - that is they way these tracers work, the gamma rays get detected and tell the doctors something about the distribution of the tracer in the human. The energy released per volume is extremely low, so you don't get macroscopic effects like heat ("explosion").

Edit: Too slow
 
  • #15
and they are so "slow " so they don't produce enough energy to create other antiparticle particle pairs , now i get it , thank you
 

1. Why doesn't the universe explode because of an antimatter reaction?

The universe does not explode because of an antimatter reaction because the universe has a balance between matter and antimatter. While antimatter is essentially the opposite of matter, they both have equal and opposite charges and cancel each other out when they come into contact. This balance prevents any significant antimatter reactions from occurring on a large scale in the universe.

2. What would happen if there was an imbalance of matter and antimatter in the universe?

If there was an imbalance of matter and antimatter in the universe, it could lead to large-scale antimatter reactions, which would result in the annihilation of both matter and antimatter. This would lead to a rapid release of energy and potentially catastrophic consequences for the universe.

3. Can we create an antimatter reaction on Earth?

Yes, scientists have been able to create small-scale antimatter reactions in controlled environments on Earth. However, these reactions are highly unstable and difficult to contain, making it currently impossible to create a large-scale antimatter reaction. Additionally, the amount of antimatter created is minuscule and not enough to cause any significant damage.

4. Is there any evidence of past antimatter reactions in the universe?

Yes, there is evidence of past antimatter reactions in the universe. Scientists have observed gamma-ray bursts, which are believed to be the result of antimatter reactions occurring in distant galaxies. However, these events are rare and do not pose a threat to the overall balance of matter and antimatter in the universe.

5. Could an antimatter reaction be used as a potential energy source?

While antimatter reactions do release a significant amount of energy, it is currently not a viable option for energy production. The process of creating and storing antimatter is extremely costly and challenging, making it impractical as an energy source. Additionally, the potential dangers and risks associated with harnessing antimatter technology make it an unfeasible option for energy production at this time.

Similar threads

  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
2
Replies
44
Views
8K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
2
Replies
49
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
1
Views
12K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Back
Top