Anti-matter/matter combination.

  • Thread starter hakon
  • Start date
  • #1
18
0
Ok so anti-matter and matter when combined give energy as the masses with opposite charges annihilate each other, giving off energy.

Here's the thing, there is no such thing as pure energy, it comes in the forms kinetic, heat, sound and light.

so in a vacuum, we take 1 anti-matter hydrogen, and 1 matter hydrogen (a protium version for both)

now when combined the proton annihilates the anti-proton, and the electron annihilates the proton.

now as we are in a vacuum, there is no way for sound to occur (no one can hear you scream in space :P) there is no mass left so there is nothing for kinetic energy to act upon, there is no matter to vibrate and cause heat, leaving only photons(light)

so in this scenario we have light as our energy created.

now we do the same experiment but use a anti-matter and matter version of deuterium.

My question is....
In the deuterium matter/anti-matter annihilation there should be 2 neutrons left over (they don't annihilate as they have no charge. however they can vibrate (heat) and be moved (kinetic) so first, do the neutrons hang around? and second does less light energy get made since heat and kinetic energy can be applied to the remnants of the atoms?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
188
0
Contrary to your statements, there is such a thing as an "antineutron". The neutron has a magnetic moment, which is different for neutron and antineutron (it is not only electric charge that differs between matter and antimatter). So if you bring a deuterium and an antideuterium nucleus together, it will completely annihilate. And as far as I know, it will annihilate into pure photons.
 
  • #3
Ryan_m_b
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
5,844
711
It's my understanding that matter/antimatter anihilation results in energy radiating as photons (gamma rays IIRC).

However if have a bulk mass of either and try to bang them together you are also going to get a shell of expanding plasma as the resultant explosion from the contacting m/am will heat the non-contacting m/am to incredible temperatures as well as blasting it out away from the contacting m/am.

In other words, unless all the m/am annihilates at once the detonation will blast some of the m/am away.
 
  • #4
18
0
ok, so the neutron makes no difference.

in that case lets take 2 blackholes, 1 is made up of matter and 1 is made up of anti-matter.

now in effect everything gets turned into energy when the 2 meet, however according to einstein, e=mc^2, the mass of both black holes remains. however there is no matter left to create said gravity, this would result in a huge flash of photons.

however if gravity remains in place but no matter is present then effectively the blackhole simply doubles in size, however on the inside there is nothing but light.

I would think then that it is logical to assume that a matter and anti-matter annihilation would result in not just a photon being created but also a graviton.

this would allow the black hole to keep its gravitational mass, and all the photons created Perhaps this would result in photons being unable to be contained, which would either mean we can see the black hole or that the warped space that remains is merely an invisible 3d object with gravitational forces made of nothing more then energy created by light.

such a thing could explain why the universe does not have the amount of visible matter that accounts for the universes mass.

it could also mean that if anti-matter and matter create gravitons that it may be the way to create artificial gravity.

however such a warped space would still have a mass effect, and would still pull matter it comes close to in, effectively creating a black hole of super density it could lead to any number of possibilities, from time travel, multiverse gating, a tear in the fabric of space, a recreation of the big bang, or a white hole (maybe time is reversed and it spews out the energy as matter).

if anyone knows more on what really would happen in a matter/anti-mater combination on a black hole scale, i'd love to learn about it.

personally i dont think it's possible to know without knowing all the dimensions of our reality, but i love to theorise about it.
 
  • #5
Ryan_m_b
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
5,844
711
in that case lets take 2 blackholes, 1 is made up of matter and 1 is made up of anti-matter.
Stop right there, you need to go and learn about what blackholes are. You cannot have a blackhole made from matter or antimatter. Blackholes are constructs that are so massive they collapse into a singularity surrounded by an event horizon.

The graviton is a hypothesised particle that we have not observed in nature. Photons are massless and so do not have a gravitational field, your comments on making a blackhole out of light are nonsensical, because of this every point you have led onto is flawed.
 
  • #6
343
0
Photons are massless and so do not have a gravitational field, [...]
They may not have rest mass, but they certainly do have energy, which contributes to the curvature of spacetime and therefore to the gravitational field.
 
  • #7
Ryan_m_b
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
5,844
711
They may not have rest mass, but they certainly do have energy, which contributes to the curvature of spacetime and therefore to the gravitational field.
Even so the idea that you could make a black hole out of photons that would have no event horizon is still nonsensical.
 
  • #8
343
0
Even so the idea that you could make a black hole out of photons that would have no event horizon is still nonsensical.
I agree with that statement.
 
  • #9
18
0
a black hole is a singularity yes, but they are made when the matter condenses under its own mass, you can therefor have them be made out of matter and anti-matter as both have mass.

photons as mentioned do act on space in such a way as to form gravitational forces.


nobody knows weather or not the matter is still inside a singularity (which is just another term for black hole), but i'm taking the assumption that all though the gravity of a black hole can impede upon the electro magnetic forces of an atom, it would not make a difference as since they could be squished into a giant ball of condensed neutrons, the matter neutrons and anti-matter neutrons as some earlier mentioned still annihilate each other, the mass of the 2 opposing singularities would prevent an explosion from occurring and simply combine the two masses. the fact that a anti-matter and matter combination occurred would result i photons, however either these photons would need to generate the gravitational forces to contain them selves or the theoretical particles known as gravitons would need to also be created.

which as i said, could mean that anti-matter and matter could be used to create artificial gravity in the future.
 
  • #10
18
0
The graviton is a hypothesised particle that we have not observed in nature. .
Sir Isaac Newtons apple tree disagrees with you....

Wether it is a particle or a force of the universe my point is it would need to exist in a singularity and that if there is no substance left, only energy, it must still exist in some form after matter and anti-matter combine.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
343
0
Sir Isaac newtons apple tree disagrees with you....
No, that's not true.
 
  • #12
Ryan_m_b
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
5,844
711
Sir Isaac Newtons apple tree disagrees with you....

Wether it is a particle or a force of the universe my point is it would need to exist in a singularity and that if there is no substance left, only energy, it must still exist in some form after matter and anti-matter combine.
Er, what? Newton's tree is evidence of gravity not the graviton. I can't make sense of the rest of your statement, it seems like you are trying to say that gravity must exist as matter or antimatter.

nobody knows weather or not the matter is still inside a singularity (which is just another term for black hole), but i'm taking the assumption that all though the gravity of a black hole can impede upon the electro magnetic forces of an atom, it would not make a difference as since they could be squished into a giant ball of condensed neutrons, the matter neutrons and anti-matter neutrons as some earlier mentioned still annihilate each other, the mass of the 2 opposing singularities would prevent an explosion from occurring and simply combine the two masses. the fact that a anti-matter and matter combination occurred would result i photons, however either these photons would need to generate the gravitational forces to contain them selves or the theoretical particles known as gravitons would need to also be created.

which as i said, could mean that anti-matter and matter could be used to create artificial gravity in the future.
Again you seem to have a misunderstanding, I would advise you go and look up what a black hole is and theories regarding a singularity. You seem to be under the misapprehension that a dense ball of matter. I know that physics hasn't fully explained the nature of such things yet but you can't just claim that it is made of matter.

You also haven't cited any evidence that would suggest that matter/antimatter would create gravity. The annihilation creates photons. You are presuming that the graviton exists and speculating that somehow we could make artificial gravity but thanks to e=mc2 the gravity of the matter/antimatter wouldn't change if it was anihilated. To a specific gravitational pull you would have to place a certain amount of mass a specific distance away. No need to make this more complicated by involving antimatter.
 
  • #13
18
0
Er, what? Newton's tree is evidence of gravity not the graviton. I can't make sense of the rest of your statement, it seems like you are trying to say that gravity must exist as matter or antimatter.



Again you seem to have a misunderstanding, I would advise you go and look up what a black hole is and theories regarding a singularity. You seem to be under the misapprehension that a dense ball of matter. I know that physics hasn't fully explained the nature of such things yet but you can't just claim that it is made of matter.

You also haven't cited any evidence that would suggest that matter/antimatter would create gravity. The annihilation creates photons. You are presuming that the graviton exists and speculating that somehow we could make artificial gravity but thanks to e=mc2 the gravity of the matter/antimatter wouldn't change if it was anihilated. To a specific gravitational pull you would have to place a certain amount of mass a specific distance away. No need to make this more complicated by involving antimatter.
My point which you fail to understand is i refer to the force gravity, and do not care wether or not you can prove that the graviton exists, i merely used the graviton as although unproven it is an easy way to explain that the force is made.


as for your second paragraph, i know heaps on black holes, and it can't be proven that a black hole isn't a dense ball of matter, it can't be proven that a black hole can kill you, nothing can be proven as we know so little.
my argument is based purely on we know a singularity is a collapsed star and that a star can be made of matter, and that theoretically a star can be made of antimatter, and that when these stars collapse we know that gravity increases to the point that light can not escape (that is the gravity per cubic centimeter of space) .

i am fully in my right to claim anything i like to find my answers, as nothing can be disproved or proved at this time, this is purely a, if this is true, would this not be the result argument. science often takes leaps to find answers, and saying a singularity is a dense ball of matter is an accepted plausibility.


as for your 3rd paragraph, well of course i have no evidence other then theory, this is a theory not something i claim i can prove, you seem very unknowledgeable about the difference between a hypothetical and a "i'm a scientist with unlimited funds and can prove this" discussion. i merely state that when you combine matter and anti-matter completely (so no kinetic energy can throw the particles not annihilated away, all that should be left is photons, and the gravity that the atoms used to impart on the universe, and that maybe down the track we can use the gravity portion from this annihilation process to provide an artificial gravity.
 
  • #14
2,544
2
I think you could have a black hole made out of only photons, but it would have an even horizon.
 
  • #15
Ryan_m_b
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
5,844
711
as for your 3rd paragraph, well of course i have no evidence other then theory, this is a theory not something i claim i can prove, you seem very unknowledgeable about the difference between a hypothetical and a "i'm a scientist with unlimited funds and can prove this" discussion. i merely state that when you combine matter and anti-matter completely (so no kinetic energy can throw the particles not annihilated away, all that should be left is photons, and the gravity that the atoms used to impart on the universe, and that maybe down the track we can use the gravity portion from this annihilation process to provide an artificial gravity.
It doesn't matter whether you have an idea on the fly or after 10 years of research you have to cite references to show that your idea isn't just bunk.

Again this artificial gravity doesn't make any sense to me, if you had a lump of matter and a lump of antimatter in space you could measure their gravity. When they collide you could measure this gravity disappearing. Your last sentence is complete science fiction that if we could observe the gravity we could simulate it some day, the observation in this process would be no different to any other situation in which we observe gravity. You have no basis for your claim about artificial gravity.
 
  • #16
2,544
2
. When they collide you could measure this gravity disappearing. .
The field would still be there, photons do gravitate according to GR mass energy or pressure
creates gravity.
And another interesting thing that wheeler talks about it is a geon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geon_(physics)
 
  • #17
Ryan_m_b
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
5,844
711
The field would still be there, photons do gravitate according to GR mass energy or pressure
creates gravity.
And another interesting thing that wheeler talks about it is a geon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geon_(physics)
Yes but the photons are not going to stay in one place are they. They are going to fly out at the speed of light in all directions so to all intensive purposes the gravity of the objects disappears.

The expanding ball of light may have the same gravity but now it's highly mobile (and quick to dissipate). The idea of using it for artificial gravity is as good an idea as sticking a mass beneath you, at least that way you don't have to fiddle about with antimatter nor survive the gamma rays that will blast through you.
 
  • #18
2,544
2
why would the light spread out if the field is so string to contain them? What if half of the photons emitted travel in the same direction to conserve momentum could this be a black hole.
 
  • #19
Ryan_m_b
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
5,844
711
why would the light spread out if the field is so string to contain them? What if half of the photons emitted travel in the same direction to conserve momentum could this be a black hole.
For the field to be strong enough to contain them indefinitely they would have to form a black hole. Anything beneath this means that the light will escape eventually.
 
  • #20
2,544
2
Ok so why can't they form a black hole
 
  • #21
Ryan_m_b
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
5,844
711
Ok so why can't they form a black hole
Well if they do not have a high enough concentration in one place to create a sufficiently sized gravity well they will not create a black hole. I'm not sure what your point is?
 
  • #22
300
22
I'm not a scientist or anything but I think the point is that if the matter and antimatter put together turn into photons, the gravity would still be the same and since the matter and antimatter made black holes before, there would be a black hole after the annihilation. So that in the end you would have a black hole with the gravitational field of the two black holes combined, except that the new black hole is made out of only photons, which contain themselves due to the extreme gravity.

That is the idea as I understood it. I think to an outsider it would not look any different from a regular black hole, since it is just a dark whole with extreme gravity, we can't tell what is in it.

I am not sure that if we let matter collapse into a black hole, then let antimatter collapse into a black hole and let them come together that they will annihilate. We probably couldn't even know because it should look exactly like two regular black holes meeting up.
 
  • #23
Ryan_m_b
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
5,844
711
To the best of our understanding at the centre of a black hole is a gravitational singularity. Whether or not this singularity is formed from the mass of matter, antimatter or photons is besides the point. If matter and antimatter collided in between the event horizon and the singularity the resultant explosion would just be sucked into the singularity, unable to escape.

as for your second paragraph, i know heaps on black holes, and it can't be proven that a black hole isn't a dense ball of matter, it can't be proven that a black hole can kill you, nothing can be proven as we know so little.
my argument is based purely on we know a singularity is a collapsed star and that a star can be made of matter, and that theoretically a star can be made of antimatter, and that when these stars collapse we know that gravity increases to the point that light can not escape (that is the gravity per cubic centimeter of space)
This is illogical, you cannot presume that because something hasn't been proven wrong that it is the case. Our best understanding points to the formation of a singularity. If you want to offer alternative explanations you have to provide evidence from published literature. The only other explanation for black holes that I am aware of are fuzzballs in string theory. This again would not lend credence to the idea of artificial gravity through antimatter/matter annihilation.
 
  • #24
18
0
well then i am basing my black hole on the one Mr Hawking believes to be the case.

not the string theory since it isnt exactly rock solid yet.


my point is if you can contain the resultant creation, then you might be able to direct its application, i do not know if 1. you can contain the resultant formation, or 2. if you can direct this.

but i believe if there is a way o do those things you could use anti-matter and matter annihilation to create a gravity field.
 
  • #25
Ryan_m_b
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
5,844
711
well then i am basing my black hole on the one Mr Hawking believes to be the case.

not the string theory since it isnt exactly rock solid yet.


my point is if you can contain the resultant creation, then you might be able to direct its application, i do not know if 1. you can contain the resultant formation, or 2. if you can direct this.

but i believe if there is a way o do those things you could use anti-matter and matter annihilation to create a gravity field.
What do you mean by direct the application? The explosion is not going to create ejecta capable of exceeding the speed of light and so nothing will escape the event horizon.

Why again do you think that Am/M would produce "a gravity field"? The field is already there. Here's a practical example based on what we have already discussed;

We have two masses, one Am and one M. Both are half the mass of Earth and are close together. This creates a gravity field the same as Earth. If they perfectly annihilate (i.e. explosion does not blast away any Am/M before they touch) we have a gravity field of the exact same strength but now it dissipates as the photons fly off.

I have a feeling that you are trying to push an idea that we could collide minute amounts of Am/M beneath a space ship floor to keep the astronauts on the ground in some science fictional like manner. This would not work.
 

Related Threads on Anti-matter/matter combination.

  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
780
  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
25
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Top