Is Antimatter Really a Misnomer?

[Alex-NL]

"Antimatter" a misnomer?

This is my first post on PF. Hello all.

Noting the fact that antimatter has a positive inertial mass and probably an equal, positive gravitational mass, isn't the term a misnomer? I know it has an opposite electrical charge and magnetic moment compared to normal matter, which means the two are partially each others opposites. However, I feel it is a stretch to call them mirror images of each other. Antimatter can indeed annihilate with ordinary matter, but this makes new particles, sometimes even massive ones, rather than the two cancelling each other out. I therefore propose that what is now called antimatter should really be called "complementary matter" or "Dirac matter".

I'm suggesting this renaming scheme because it's conceivable that one day "true" antimatter with a negative mass may be discovered or predicted in some theoretical framework. What would you call this stuff then?

Discuss.

 

[ZapperZ]

What about if we ignore the label that many things are given, and just understand the physics that describes it?

I mean, we could go on and on on the mislabeling of the word "spin" given to the spin quantum number, etc.. etc. But we won't, because at the end of the day, one has to understand the physics! Call it a cow, or call Pluto a planet if you wish. Mother Nature doesn't give a hoot what you call it, as long as you understand what she's trying to say!

Do not get so hung up on the name given to things. Physics is difficult enough to understand as it is. Putting useless effort into something meaningless as this is a waste of time.

Zz.

 

[Alex-NL]

What about if we ignore the label that many things are given, and just understand the physics that describes it?

Why not just get rid of language all together then? Ludwig Wittgenstein, the philosopher, used to say: "There are no philosophical problems; there are only linguistical problems." I feel that one may similarly state: "There are no real physics problems..."

It's strange to me that so much effort is put into deriving all sorts of beautiful equations, while at the same time physicists tend to use ordinary language in a very trivial or even sloppy way. I'm not suggesting that normal language is as precise as mathematics, I AM suggesting that using proper terms can help tremendously both in the process of thinking and communication.

I mean, we could go on and on on the mislabeling of the word "spin" given to the spin quantum number, etc.. etc. But we won't, because at the end of the day, one has to understand the physics! Call it a cow, or call Pluto a planet if you wish. Mother Nature doesn't give a hoot what you call it, as long as you understand what she's trying to say!

I kind of understand your point but there's a difference between using words in an analogous fashion if something can not be described any other way, or conversely applying an incorrect term to a particular thing.

Do not get so hung up on the name given to things. Physics is difficult enough to understand as it is. Putting useless effort into something meaningless as this is a waste of time.

Zz.

It's pretty arrogant to label a question or effort of a person completely unknown to you as meaningless, useless and "a waste of time". It's meaningful to me and my logic isn't flawed as far as I can tell. I wouldn't tell you that making 20k+ posts on an internet forum is meaningless; apparently you find it meaningful and that's fine with me.

 

[DragonPetter]

What about if we ignore the label that many things are given, and just understand the physics that describes it?

I mean, we could go on and on on the mislabeling of the word "spin" given to the spin quantum number, etc.. etc. But we won't, because at the end of the day, one has to understand the physics! Call it a cow, or call Pluto a planet if you wish. Mother Nature doesn't give a hoot what you call it, as long as you understand what she's trying to say!

Do not get so hung up on the name given to things. Physics is difficult enough to understand as it is. Putting useless effort into something meaningless as this is a waste of time.

Zz.

You have a good point, but one thing I have noticed is that people's less thoughtful naming can lead to a lot of confusion and a barrier to learning concepts that they normally could pick up quite easily. Even your own example of spin is a great example. The first time I read about it, within milliseconds of the word "spin" being read by my brain, I immediately began forming an image of a sphere spinning in my head, before I even had any idea what the book was talking about. Perhaps that was my naive error, but it certainly was a barrier to clarity for a new learner.

Sure, it is easy for an experienced physicist to understand the true meaning of a concept, and to ignore its name, but when someone is first learning material they often gravitate or form their thoughts around the words and context being used to describe the concept. I have had plenty of confusion over simple ideas because misleading terms or perspective (usually the perspective of someone who already understood the concept) were getting in the way. That's why its so important to ask questions from a teacher, because they can't read everyone's mind as to how their language is being interpreted, and that's why its often easy to get stuck during self-study in a textbook since you can't ask for a different wording.

Anyway, I think the term antimatter has too much use and acceptance already for it to change any time soon, but he has a good point.

 

[ZapperZ]

Why not just get rid of language all together then? Ludwig Wittgenstein, the philosopher, used to say: "There are no philosophical problems; there are only linguistical problems." I feel that one may similarly state: "There are no real physics problems..."

It's strange to me that so much effort is put into deriving all sorts of beautiful equations, while at the same time physicists tend to use ordinary language in a very trivial or even sloppy way. I'm not suggesting that normal language is as precise as mathematics, I AM suggesting that using proper terms can help tremendously both in the process of thinking and communication.

It has never been a hindrance in physics. It may be a hindrance to laymen who simply took the words at face value. But this is true in ALL aspects of life, and in many subject areas, not just physics. Try looking in Economics, Business, Biology, etc... They all have their own meanings for familiar words. If one is too lazy to actually learn what those words and phrases mean in their respective context, then there's nothing anyone one else can do.

It's pretty arrogant to label a question or effort of a person completely unknown to you as meaningless, useless and "a waste of time". It's meaningful to me and my logic isn't flawed as far as I can tell. I wouldn't tell you that making 20k+ posts on an internet forum is meaningless; apparently you find it meaningful and that's fine with me.

I label the EFFORT as being meaningless, because in my profession, we have NEVER debated on the NAME. Why? Because that is a label that is attached to an idea or a concept, and we are more interested in the latter. I have never, ever, seen a situation where the name or the label got in the way of progress in physics. Have you? You are then proposing to solve a problem that doesn't exist! That is why I call it a waste of time. You have not shown any concrete evidence to the contrary. You only speculated on what such-and-such might cause, which doesn't require any solid evidence to back it up.

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

You have a good point, but one thing I have noticed is that people's less thoughtful naming can lead to a lot of confusion and a barrier to learning concepts that they normally could pick up quite easily.

Sure, it is easy for an experienced physicist to understand the true meaning of a concept, and to ignore its name, but when someone is first learning material they often gravitate or form their thoughts around the words and context being used to describe the concept. I have had plenty of confusion over simple ideas because misleading terms or perspective were getting in the way.

That is why one has to LEARN these things. Again, this isn't specific to just physics. I've seen more convoluted usage of many words in Economics!

When one simply memorizes and put everything one knows in the WORD itself, one then is setting oneself up to a lot of pain and suffering. I would never one to work or collaborate with someone like that. It shows that this person stop thinking right at the point where they encounter something familiar, without bothering to check how such a thing is used. I would even go one step further by saying that a lot of social problems that we have today is due to people who put labels on people and ideas, and THEN think they know all there is to know about those people and those ideas.

Zz.

 

[DragonPetter]

That is why one has to LEARN these things. Again, this isn't specific to just physics. I've seen more convoluted usage of many words in Economics!

When one simply memorizes and put everything one knows in the WORD itself, one then is setting oneself up to a lot of pain and suffering. I would never one to work or collaborate with someone like that. It shows that this person stop thinking right at the point where they encounter something familiar, without bothering to check how such a thing is used. I would even go one step further by saying that a lot of social problems that we have today is due to people who put labels on people and ideas, and THEN think they know all there is to know about those people and those ideas.

Zz.

You have all good points. My only complaint is that it can sometimes impede the learning process if the term is misleading. On the other hand, it would be really annoying for all the jargon to be so exact that it gets in the way of making sentences readable for everyday users of the terms.

 

[FredericGos]

It has never been a hindrance in physics. It may be a hindrance to laymen who simply took the words at face value. But this is true in ALL aspects of life, and in many subject areas, not just physics. Try looking in Economics, Business, Biology, etc... They all have their own meanings for familiar words. If one is too lazy to actually learn what those words and phrases mean in their respective context, then there's nothing anyone one else can do.

In software development, there is a saying: 'Naming is everything'. In my opinion, the problem is not when things get the 'wrong' name, we can live with that as you say. It's when terms get overloaded and you end up having the same word for very different concept because someone was too lazy to use 5 mins to think about a good name for a concept. You end up using mental energy to discerns things over and over again while working with them, and while communicating having to specify which version we mean.

This problem also occurs in math and physics, where some things get overloaded because their creators were too lazy to find a good word. But. yes, it's less of a problem than in SD.

/Frederic

 

[ZapperZ]

You have all good points. My only complaint is that it can sometimes impede the learning process if the term is misleading. On the other hand, it would be really annoying for all the jargon to be so exact that it gets in the way of making sentences readable for everyday users of the terms.

Think about this: we will have to invent NEW words for almost everything in QM.

After all, "particle", "wave", "position", "momentum", etc... are all classical concepts that may or may not be appropriate in QM. When something no longer becomes a "good quantum number", what do you call it?

Maybe we have different experiences. I had never been distracted or confused by the names given in physics. I've always assumed that the terms and names have their own meanings and definitions.

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

In software development, there is a saying: 'Naming is everything'. In my opinion, the problem is not when things get the 'wrong' name, we can live with that as you say. It's when terms get overloaded and you end up having the same word for very different concept because someone was too lazy to use 5 mins to think about a good name for a concept. You end up using mental energy to discerns things over and over again while working with them, and while communicating having to specify which version we mean.

This problem also occurs in math and physics, where some things get overloaded because their creators were too lazy to find a good word. But. yes, it's less of a problem than in SD.

/Frederic

I'm not so sure "overloading" is an issue in physics. Can you point out to some specific examples?

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

P.S., this thread is being moved into the General Discussion forum because it is a discussion ABOUT physics, and not physics.

Zz.

 

[DragonPetter]

I'm not so sure "overloading" is an issue in physics. Can you point out to some specific examples?

Zz.

Here is an example of terms causing confusion just because of the naming used:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v190/n4776/abs/190621a0.html

Flux in general can be ambiguous and mean different things depending on the context, and even modifying words used with flux, like flux density, can still be ambiguous but mean very specific things in context.

What one person considers flux could refer to energy flow or power flow (intensity) or other things entirely different (fluid flow, EM field flow). If I talked about sound with a sentence like "the sound source's flux at 0 degrees", would you automatically be thinking in terms of energy or intensity? I have seen times when the same term I used in hydroacoustics for flux referred to intensity while another time in nuclear context it referred to just energy flow (ignoring time). I had to confirm the differences with another reference source to establish that the two fields use the term in similar but different ways, and then update this in my head - if there were different terms or more care taken to introduce them, I wouldn't have had to spend that extra energy and time researching the difference and still would have learned the concept that the author was trying to explain.

Again, this is generally not an issue for the scientific community, and it is nothing more than an annoyance or barrier to learning because at the end, the math and experimental results are what physics relies on rather than English. I just am still learning a lot, and recently was in school so I have sympathy for those who are not already through the awkward stage of learning fundamental glossary terms.

 

[Alex-NL]

It has never been a hindrance in physics. It may be a hindrance to laymen who simply took the words at face value. But this is true in ALL aspects of life, and in many subject areas, not just physics. Try looking in Economics, Business, Biology, etc... They all have their own meanings for familiar words. If one is too lazy to actually learn what those words and phrases mean in their respective context, then there's nothing anyone one else can do.

There are special words with specific meanings in all different fields, I concur. Sometimes they are erroneous and then they should be changed. For example, the term "junk DNA" causes confusion in people who study genetics or biology. It isn't clear at all that junk DNA actually constitutes junk and doesn't have some physiological function. For example to create evolutionary flexibility due to the possibility of frame shifts occurring in the so-called junk DNA, making new genes from "nothing". Such a hypothesis only makes sense and can only be tested if the old and premature term is thrown out and changed, for example, to "non-expressive DNA".

I label the EFFORT as being meaningless, because in my profession, we have NEVER debated on the NAME. Why? Because that is a label that is attached to an idea or a concept, and we are more interested in the latter. I have never, ever, seen a situation where the name or the label got in the way of progress in physics. Have you? You are then proposing to solve a problem that doesn't exist! That is why I call it a waste of time. You have not shown any concrete evidence to the contrary. You only speculated on what such-and-such might cause, which doesn't require any solid evidence to back it up.
Zz.

I can not give and example of a person being discouraged to develop a particular new idea in any field of science because he wouldn't be in the history books now would he? DragonPetter makes a good point though. I do know that physics evolved out of natural philosphy and that Einstein was an avid reader of Ersnt Mach's work on relativity (retating bucket) and that ideas such as negative matter, black holes, et cetera are very old ideas that may have inspired many great physicists in modern times. Have you ever heard of the (quantum) Zeno-effect? Plato's absolutism? Does the word "platonics" mean anything to you?

Words have meaning and meaning has consequences!

 

[nasu]

I know it has an opposite electrical charge and magnetic moment compared to normal matter, which means the two are partially each others opposites. However, I feel it is a stretch to call them mirror images of each other. Antimatter can indeed annihilate with ordinary matter, but this makes new particles, sometimes even massive ones, rather than the two cancelling each other out. I therefore propose that what is now called antimatter should really be called "complementary matter" or "Dirac matter".

Where do you get the idea that the antimatter means negative mass or "mirror image"?
If you want to discard the meaning already well established in science and look at the world itself, what will world like antibody, antitank, antiaircraft, antigen, etc will imply? An object that looks like the mirror image of the original? Not at all. Rather something that annihilates (or tries to) the original.

 

[mishrashubham]

For example, the term "junk DNA" causes confusion in people who study genetics or biology.

Just to clarify , "junk DNA" is not used as a standard term in biology (AFAIK that is; every book or paper that I've read refers to it in a colloquial sense)

 

[DragonPetter]

Where do you get the idea that the antimatter means negative mass or "mirror image"?
If you want to discard the meaning already well established in science and look at the world itself, what will world like antibody, antitank, antiaircraft, antigen, etc will imply? An object that looks like the mirror image of the original? Not at all. Rather something that annihilates (or tries to) the original.

Anti- and annihilate are not exactly synonyms. I don't think a person would automatically associate the two or assume anti implies an annihilation process.

Anti is more synonymous with opposite, and I don't think (I could be wrong) charge and spin are the entire story of what is "matter". One really has to study the topic to a certain extent to understand why its called antimatter, and what the term truly implies, and any initial misconceptions from the term are only going to leave opportunity for confusion and hindrance in learning. I do think antimatter is not that confusing (the term might cause some minor confusion, but at least the implication is valid to a large extent and it is a unique term) compared to the above example that I mentioned with flux.

 

[Alex-NL]

Where do you get the idea that the antimatter means negative mass or "mirror image"?
If you want to discard the meaning already well established in science and look at the world itself, what will world like antibody, antitank, antiaircraft, antigen, etc will imply? An object that looks like the mirror image of the original? Not at all. Rather something that annihilates (or tries to) the original.

I get your point. The difference between your examples and fundamental particles is that in your example there is a clear directionality of intent. It doesn't make any sense to say that an antiparticle annihilates a normal particle and not the other way around. An antiparticle is called that way because it is the opposite, or mirror image, of a "normal" particle.

Complementary matter is a better term because antiparticles don't really annihilate each other but rather add their mass-energy to form new stuff of a different nature, i.e. mass-energy is conserved.

 

[DragonPetter]

I just realized another very common but very confusing term that leads to a lot of misunderstanding and misconception that we should all be familiar with.

The imaginary number i can cause our minds to attach some meaning of the English word "imaginary" with the mathematical description. It almost always is futile to try to make this connection, but for someone's head in a whirlwind of new concepts, it can easily get mixed up or its entire and true meaning can be misconceived.

If you don't believe me, there are plenty of books on amazon that try to demystify the imaginary numbers even though it is fairly straight forward to use them as a mathematical tool and to define the square root of negative 1.

 

[ZapperZ]

There are special words with specific meanings in all different fields, I concur. Sometimes they are erroneous and then they should be changed. For example, the term "junk DNA" causes confusion in people who study genetics or biology. It isn't clear at all that junk DNA actually constitutes junk and doesn't have some physiological function. For example to create evolutionary flexibility due to the possibility of frame shifts occurring in the so-called junk DNA, making new genes from "nothing". Such a hypothesis only makes sense and can only be tested if the old and premature term is thrown out and changed, for example, to "non-expressive DNA".

I'm not sure how that is related to this thread and how that supports your argument.

I can not give and example of a person being discouraged to develop a particular new idea in any field of science because he wouldn't be in the history books now would he? DragonPetter makes a good point though. I do know that physics evolved out of natural philosphy and that Einstein was an avid reader of Ersnt Mach's work on relativity (retating bucket) and that ideas such as negative matter, black holes, et cetera are very old ideas that may have inspired many great physicists in modern times. Have you ever heard of the (quantum) Zeno-effect? Plato's absolutism? Does the word "platonics" mean anything to you?

Words have meaning and meaning has consequences!

Words have MEANINGS. It is the responsibility of EACH person to understand the MEANING of each of the words being used in the CONTEXT that they are used! There is no excuse for laziness.

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

I just realized another very common but very confusing term that leads to a lot of misunderstanding and misconception that we should all be familiar with.

The imaginary number i can cause our minds to attach some meaning of the English word "imaginary" with the mathematical description. It almost always is futile to try to make this connection, but for someone's head in a whirlwind of new concepts, it can easily get mixed up or its entire and true meaning can be misconceived.

If you don't believe me, there are plenty of books on amazon that try to demystify the imaginary numbers even though it is fairly straight forward to use them as a mathematical tool and to define the square root of negative 1.

Sorry, but I have never had that problem. And someone who has his/her "head in a whirlwind" has other issues as well, not just trying to figure out what "i" means.

Furthermore, if that person has issues with using that symbol, then follow what electrical engineers do and use the symbol "j"!

BTW, this has now comes down to an issue of not words, but symbols. Do you want to know how many physical concepts are represented by a symbol such as "H"? Is it a Hamiltonian, or magnetic field? Or maybe it is the unit Henry?

Again, the point here is that there is a reason why there is an educational process! We don't just learn "E=mc^2". We learn what it MEANS and how it is used! And when we understand that, we can replace it with anything or call it anything we like. It doesn't change what Mother Nature wants us to know!

Zz.

 

[DragonPetter]

Sorry, but I have never had that problem. And someone who has his/her "head in a whirlwind" has other issues as well, not just trying to figure out what "i" means.

Furthermore, if that person has issues with using that symbol, then follow what electrical engineers do and use the symbol "j"!

BTW, this has now comes down to an issue of not words, but symbols. Do you want to know how many physical concepts are represented by a symbol such as "H"? Is it a Hamiltonian, or magnetic field? Or maybe it is the unit Henry?

Again, the point here is that there is a reason why there is an educational process! We don't just learn "E=mc^2". We learn what it MEANS and how it is used! And when we understand that, we can replace it with anything or call it anything we like. It doesn't change what Mother Nature wants us to know!

Zz.

In my post, I was using "imaginary" as a plain English word, not a symbol. In plain English it has an implication entirely different than what one should get from the mathematical definitions. So why call it an imaginary number? The answer is largely historical - something that is not commonly explained when introducing the concept.

If you are first introduced to a new subject with many new concepts and terms, which is what I call the "whirlwind", then it is very easy to miss the fine details and when someone tells me a number is "imaginary" as I'm just learning all of these things, then there is a very real possibility that I will think this implies something "imaginary", in the English definition, about the number. As a new learner, perhaps the very basic forming concepts might not be adequate enough yet to understand what that implication is. In hindsight, which we are discussing from, you can go back and look at the historical context that this term originated from and have no confusion for why its called "imaginary" and see that the automatic English interpretation is misleading.

I don't think its fair to say someone has issues if they are overloaded with new information - anyone can be overloaded this way, and when a lot of familiar words are tossed around in non-familiar context, confusion ensues. I think everyone picks up new ideas in different ways and at different rates, and so I think its unfair to make the English implication of the word "imaginary" a non-issue to people learning the mathematical concept.

My point is the term "imaginary number" is not the most intuitive term for someone new to the concept.

 

[ZapperZ]

In my post, I was using "imaginary" as a plain English word, not a symbol. In plain English it has an implication entirely different than what one should get from the mathematical definitions. So why call it an imaginary number? The answer is largely historical - something that is not commonly explained when introducing the concept.

If you are first introduced to a new subject with many new concepts and terms, which is what I call the "whirlwind", then it is very easy to miss the fine details and when someone tells me a number is "imaginary" as I'm just learning all of these things, then there is a very real possibility that I will think this implies something "imaginary", in the English definition, about the number. As a new learner, perhaps the very basic forming concepts might not be adequate enough yet to understand what that implication is. In hindsight, which we are discussing from, you can go back and look at the historical context that this term originated from and have no confusion for why its called "imaginary" and see that the automatic English interpretation is misleading.

I don't think its fair to say someone has issues if they are overloaded with new information - anyone can be overloaded this way and when a lot of familiar words are tossed around in non-familiar context, confusion ensues. I think everyone picks up new ideas in different ways and at different rates, and so I think its unfair to make the English implication of the word "imaginary" a non-issue to people learning the mathematical concept.

But I know this. I've already given an example in physics of the word "spin". It is purely historical why we use that word in QM. There really is nothing "spinning" here!

But someone walking off the street simply cannot expect to understand the concept of "imaginary numbers" in mathematics! It is utterly foolish to impose the pedestrian understanding of anything and apply it to physics, mathematics, biology, chemistry, engineering, economics, medicine, computer science, technology, etc... etc.

Zz.

 

[KiwiKid]

Seriously, why are some people pretending this is an issue? All philosophical bantering aside, I find it very hard to believe that more than one out of thousand people who learned what antimatter means and why the 'anti' part was used (even though 'anti' may have a different meaning in different contexts) keep thinking it's a misnomer. For the rest of us, it's clear as day. Ergo, it's not a misnomer. The same goes for imaginary. That's how language works.

 

[DragonPetter]

But I know this. I've already given an example in physics of the word "spin". It is purely historical why we use that word in QM. There really is nothing "spinning" here!

But someone walking off the street simply cannot expect to understand the concept of "imaginary numbers" in mathematics! It is utterly foolish to impose the pedestrian understanding of anything and apply it to physics, mathematics, biology, chemistry, engineering, economics, medicine, computer science, technology, etc... etc.

Zz.

What about someone making the transition from off the street to the physical/mathematical world? My concern has been about learning, not about its use amongst people who already understand the concept.

Some kids still have imaginary friends at the age that they are taught imaginary numbers (yes they might have other issues than learning the meaning of 'i'). If it was called something else - anything - that is not open to misinterpretation to a mind forming new ideas, then it would make the learning process more efficient and less confusing. That is my only argument.And here is the inspiration for my imaginary example:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=612982
Someone in a technical field, using advanced tools, has confusion about the implication of complex numbers and what a "real" frequency is. If you read his question, his confusion about what a "real" frequency is almost undeniably a result of confusion of the English implication of "imaginary" in the mathematical sense. This confusion barrier is blocking him from seeking the mathematical explanation that might be very straight forward if the imaginary nonsense was not nagging in the thought process.

Take this article for example:
http://4dlab.info/article_complex_and_imaginary_not_so_complex.htm

It is true that people learning this for the first time will come up with questions like he mentions because of the English implication of the word. Why is this author wasting his time and energy to demystify this? Because it really is a known barrier to understanding square root of -1. If it was called something else less misleading, the author and his readers would not be wasting their time or energy to clarify the meaning of "imaginary". Yes, in the technical fields, we all grow up and learn to work with with these terms as they apply to our study or job, but we all do this at different levels where many fail and give up completely to understand or have far-fetched misinterpretations.

 

[Alex-NL]

I'm not sure how that is related to this thread and how that supports your argument.

My point is that a premature or incorrect terminology in any science can lead to confusion or a disregard for certain possibilities.

Words have MEANINGS. It is the responsibility of EACH person to understand the MEANING of each of the words being used in the CONTEXT that they are used! There is no excuse for laziness.

Zz.

It is true that people who do original work in any field have the personal resposibility to think clearly and get rid of erroneous conventions. However, a CONTEXT doesn't correct an ERRONEOUS definition. Science isn't about parroting errors, quite the opposite.

offtopic: Why do you keep using the word laziness? Do you think I am lazy and, if so, what makes you think that?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

A couple of thoughts on this topic;

1) The meaning of words inevitably changes over time. Even if we were to magic up an international language standardisation policy (that worked) and make every word crystal clear and reflect the meaning of the concept the next day the system would be broken. Why? Because someone would used a word metaphorically in slang even when it was literally nonsense (e.g. "wow that's really cool!") or someone in an advertising department will coin an inappropriate but sellable name (e.g. "why don't we call our operating system 'windows'?) or an academic will discover something new and have to form a word that both appropriately describes the discovery but in a manner that is practical for communication (e.g. "Right that's decided, we're calling it 'antimatter'", "fine but I still think that it will just mislead people. We should call it 'composed-of-particles-of-opposite-charge-matter'".

2) As has been pointed out 'anti-' has more than one meaning. It can be used to indicate opposite (e.g. antisense oligonucleotide) and opposing (e.g. antibody).

 

[DragonPetter]

My conclusion to contributing to this thread is that we cannot expect to modify common knowledge terms for the sake of clarity, and we can not hope to always assign the most appropriate or non-ambiguous terms to concepts. There is too much momentum in these words, and if you understand the math/science concepts, you can overcome any ambiguity or confusion of a word.

However, I think during teaching and communication, reasonable effort should be stressed to eliminate probable paths of confusion from the English or ambiguous interpretation of concepts. I would like teachers and textbooks to explicitly explain that imaginary numbers are not figments of our imagination and have real world meaning and interpretation. I would like a book introducing the term flux to disclaim it from being used synonymously with other flux usage. A simple sentence or two is all. I think its a fair expectation for someone trying to learn, and I always appreciate when an author goes out of their way to clear things up from common confusion.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Does the term antimatter even come up in physics texts?

 

[nasu]

My conclusion to contributing to this thread is that we cannot expect to modify common knowledge terms for the sake of clarity, and we can not hope to always assign the most appropriate or non-ambiguous terms to concepts. There is too much momentum in these words, and if you understand the math/science concepts, you can overcome any ambiguity or confusion of a word.

I would add that
1. The ambiguity is nor restricted to scientific words but is a common feature of language.
Scientific terms are usually a lot less ambiguous than common language.
2.The language cannot be changed by order even if it make sense to do it.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

The language cannot be changed by order even if it make sense to do it.

Very much agreed, reminds me of this:

 

[nitsuj]

My least favorite physics word - Entanglement

 

[Drakkith]

My least favorite physics word - Entanglement

Entanglement: The state of my extension cord after using it a dozen times and never rolling it up before putting it away.

 

[Dickfore]

This is my first post on PF. Hello all.

Noting the fact that antimatter has a positive inertial mass and probably an equal, positive gravitational mass, isn't the term a misnomer? I know it has an opposite electrical charge and magnetic moment compared to normal matter, which means the two are partially each others opposites. However, I feel it is a stretch to call them mirror images of each other. Antimatter can indeed annihilate with ordinary matter, but this makes new particles, sometimes even massive ones, rather than the two cancelling each other out. I therefore propose that what is now called antimatter should really be called "complementary matter" or "Dirac matter".

I'm suggesting this renaming scheme because it's conceivable that one day "true" antimatter with a negative mass may be discovered or predicted in some theoretical framework. What would you call this stuff then?

Discuss.

Antimatter is not a "mirror image" of matter. It is obtained from matter by applying the operation of charge conjugation (C). Mirror images, on the other hand, are obtained by a parity transformation (P).

EDIT:
There is no such thing as negative mass, therefore it makes no sense to reserve the term 'antimatter' for a non-existant property.

 

[Alex-NL]

Antimatter is not a "mirror image" of matter. It is obtained from matter by applying the operation of charge conjugation (C). Mirror images, on the other hand, are obtained by a parity transformation (P).

That is the definition yes. My point is that it's not a very good definition. The term "conjugated matter" would then be a better in my opinion.

EDIT:
There is no such thing as negative mass, therefore it makes no sense to reserve the term 'antimatter' for a non-existant property.

Not that we know of and maybe it doesn't make sense within the context of our visible universe. It would make sense if our visible universe had an invisible counterpart consisting of what I call true antimatter traveling "with" it. This would solve completely the conservation of energy issue that is so awkward in big bang cosmology.

 

[Drakkith]

Not that we know of and maybe it doesn't make sense within the context of our visible universe. It would make sense if our visible universe had an invisible counterpart consisting of what I call true antimatter traveling "with" it. This would solve completely the conservation of energy issue that is so awkward in big bang cosmology.

Which conservation of energy issue are you referring to?