Decoding Anti-Matter: Understanding its Formation and Properties

[Badass]

Hey guys, many a time have I heard about anti-matter, but could someone kindly explain to me please in laymens terms, just what it is, and how it forms?

 

[Astronuc]

A good overview of particle physics, including anti-matter can be found here - http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/parcon.html

Antimatter - http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/antimatter.html#c1


A lay explanation can be found at - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter

Antimatter or contra-terrene matter is matter that is composed of the antiparticles of those that constitute normal matter. If a particle and its antiparticle come in contact with each other, the two annihilate and produce a burst of energy, which results in the production of other particles and antiparticles or electromagnetic radiation. In these reactions, rest mass is not conserved, although (as in any other reaction) energy (E=mc²) is conserved.

 

[Gluonium]

Yes, It goes on the Everything has it's opposite notion. Light - dark, day - night, etc. - etc.

So for every particle of matter there (should) be a corresponding antiparticle. Antimatter can basically be thought of as matter moving backwards, rather than forwards, in time. The charges of a positron for example (the antimatter counterpart of the electron, and the only one with its own name; all other antimatter counterparts are usually referred to as anti[whatever]). A positron acts very similar to an electron in many ways; except charge. The charge of an electron is -1, while the charge of a positron is +1.

Also as already mentioned when two particles (anti- and regular) meet (corresponding of course--Positron and Electron, antiproton and proton, etc.) they 'Annihilate' which converts their total mass into energy E=mc2.

I am in the process of writing a report on the possible reasons why matter has dominated the universe because there appears to be no more left today in our universe, some of the missing antimatter can be contributed to CP violation during the big bang. But it doesn't account for all of it.

For a good intro to all of particle physics try The Particle Adventure. Just google it, i don't know the specific web address. Good luck!

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Yes, It goes on the Everything has it's opposite notion. Light - dark, day - night, etc. - etc.

So for every particle of matter there (should) be a corresponding antiparticle.

But then the photon, graviton and Z boson are all their own antiparticles, so it's not quite that there is always a distinctly different antiparticle.

 

[ray b]

looks like some particles are unsure if they are anti or normal matter
and switch back and forth

http://www.fnal.gov/pub/presspass/press_releases/CDF_04-11-06.html

 

[jhmar]

But then the photon, graviton and Z boson are all their own antiparticles, so it's not quite that there is always a distinctly different antiparticle.

Only particles that have charge have a recognizable anti-particle. Bosons have left and right hand rotation, but this is not considered to be ‘anti’.
I do not know why, given that the opposite of plus zero is minus zero, I would expect LH spin with (say plus) zero charge to be ‘anti’ to RH spin with (say minus) zero charge.
But then spin is not real, angular momentum is real; so is angular momentum reversed?. If so, why are they not ‘anti’.
In bubble chamber experiments zero charged particles always decay into two stable charged particles (sometimes with an intermediary step), one +1 and one -1, so either there are two kinds of zero charge or someone has to explain how charge is created in the decay process.
The whole subject gets a little tricky.

 

[selfAdjoint]

But then spin is not real, angular momentum is real; so is angular momentum reversed?. If so, why are they not ‘anti’

Say what? Spin and A.M. combine with Pauli's principle to give the electron shells of the atom, which show up in the spectra. And those rules of combination radically depend on 1/2 spin's twice-around-to-home behavior.

 

[jtbell]

Only particles that have charge have a recognizable anti-particle.

What about neutrinos? Antineutrinos exist.

 

[Norman]

Only particles that have charge have a recognizable anti-particle.

I hope you do not mean electric charge.

 

[jhmar]

Say what? Spin and A.M. combine with Pauli's principle to give the electron shells

'Spin is not real, angular momentum is' is taken from beyond measure by Jim Baggott.

What about neutrinos

I believe there is still some doubt about the current interpretation of neutrino experiments and new experiments are about to be undertaken.

I hope you do not mean electric charge.

As used in The Particle Explosion by Close, Maarten and Sutton.

 

[ZapperZ]

What about neutrinos

I believe there is still some doubt about the current interpretation of neutrino experiments and new experiments are about to be undertaken.

Doubts on what, exactly? The existence of antineutrinos? And what experiment in particular? MINOS just started to report on their first result, and I see nothing that would question the existence of the antineutrino and its properties, especially the muon and its anti/neutrino.

Zz.

 

[Norman]

I hope you do not mean electric charge.

As used in The Particle Explosion by Close, Maarten and Sutton.

I have no idea if this book is a credible source or not. It seems to me it is likely to be a popularization of physics type book. Either way, I know that if you mean only electric charge you are wrong. Otherwise how do we know that the anti-neutron exists. It was discovered a while ago and I don't believe there is any controversy at all about it.