Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Antimatter at c

  1. Jul 5, 2009 #1
    what happens to anti matter traveling the speed of light?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 5, 2009 #2

    D H

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Antimatter particles have non-zero mass, so they cannot travel at the speed of light.
     
  4. Jul 5, 2009 #3
    doesnt matter also have a non-zero mass
     
  5. Jul 5, 2009 #4

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    Which is why they also don't travel at c.

    There's no difference between matter and antimatter in this respect.

    Zz.
     
  6. Jul 5, 2009 #5
    so is it theoretically possible to convert antimatter into energy, the way matter can be converted into energy such as a nuclear reaction?
     
  7. Jul 5, 2009 #6

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    In [itex]E = mc^2[/itex], you'll note that that "m" doesn't discriminate between matter and antimatter.

    Zz.
     
  8. Jul 5, 2009 #7

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    A very easy way of turning anti-matter into energy is to simply let it escape its magnetic bottle. The moment it contacts matter, both will be converted - rather enthusiastically - into gamma radiation.
     
  9. Jul 5, 2009 #8
    i was under the impression that matter antimatter annihilation resulted in space, which is to say that if one had a closed system of space which contained a particle of matter and a particle of antimatter and they annihilated the net amount of space in the system would increase
     
  10. Jul 5, 2009 #9

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Not to my knowledge. no.

    The result would be a flash of gamma radiation.
     
  11. Jul 5, 2009 #10
    is there any fraction of matter left over after annihilation, or is it a total conversion of the matter involved into energy
     
  12. Jul 5, 2009 #11

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    Where do you actually read these things?

    On second thought, maybe I don't want to know.....

    Your impression is not correct. If it is, then Fermilab would be producing "space" a gazillion times a second right now.

    Zz.
     
  13. Jul 5, 2009 #12

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    You could of course, have incomplete mixing of the two reactants, but that's not the same thing.

    For every atom of matter that combines with an atom of antimatter, you will get an amount of energy released defined by E=mc^2, and no matter left over. It is a 100% conversion of matter to energy.
     
  14. Jul 5, 2009 #13
    lol sorry z, i don't remember where or when exactly i got confused about that. 100% energy conversion? so if physicists can create anti matter, and use it to annihilate matter into what i assume is a massive amount of gamma radiation on a scale with the atomic bomb, isn't that basically the same or better as cold fusion?
     
  15. Jul 5, 2009 #14

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    You're forgetting that it takes A LOT OF EFFORT, under normal terrestrial condition, to create antimatter and to contain them. This is a highly inefficient way to generate energy.

    Zz.
     
  16. Jul 5, 2009 #15
    in steven hawkings new series on the sci channel aptly named "master of the universe" he says "in empty space this energy takes the form of pairs of subatomic particles that emerge out the void, exist for less than a nano second and then annihilate each other. so the idea is, out of nothing if you like, a pair of particles is created and then exists for a short time and then annihilates and that's happening through out space" how is this possible? and why doesn't this light up the universe with the resulting gamma radiation?
     
  17. Jul 5, 2009 #16
    because i was under the impression that annihilation created space, i assumed that this explained the expansion of space
     
  18. Jul 5, 2009 #17
    and also
    but has there ever been any testing done on antimatter in the form of breaking the bonds of the nucleus to release energy as with the atomic bomb. does anti atom have a strong force?
     
  19. Jul 5, 2009 #18

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    This is the "free energy" nonsense that many crackpot are trying to push. If there is THAT much pair production out of empty space, then our universe would have been opaque, and we would not have to go to such a difficult extent to detect the Casimir forces.

    Your impression is incorrect.

    Zz.
     
  20. Jul 5, 2009 #19
    so are you saying this isn't proven, by what mechanism do they explain how matter and antimatter are being created out of nothing? the validity of this in mind seams easy to test, wheres all the radiation from them?
     
  21. Jul 5, 2009 #20

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    What isn't "proven"?

    Vacuum fluctuation has been shown to be valid, per the Casimir effect. However, the speculation that one can harness significant energy, the way you are equating it with nuclear energy, so far has been shown to be a fallacy.

    Zz.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Antimatter at c
  1. Antimatter ? (Replies: 3)

  2. Antimatter book (Replies: 1)

  3. Antimatter self. (Replies: 10)

  4. Antimatter Fusion (Replies: 3)

Loading...