Does Matter-Antimatter Annihilation Really Produce an Energy Discrepancy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter humsafar
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Annihilation
humsafar
Messages
36
Reaction score
0
I've heard that matter antimatter annihilation does not produce required mass to energy ratio at the end, i.e either some particles created are not being detected...is this true? Also why does annihilation creates so much energy, any logical explanation?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Matter antimatter annihilation results in all the mass being converted to energy with the quantity determined by E=mc2. There are no undetected particles, as far I understand your question.
 
humsafar said:
Also why does annihilation creates so much energy, any logical explanation?
Annihilation does not create the energy; the energy was already there in the form of mass. (Mass and energy are two flavours of the same thing.)

(Analagously, ice and water are also two flavours of the same thing; you would not ask why the melting of ice "creates" so much water, would you?)

Annihilation is simply the process of conversion of mass into energy and the release of that energy.

There is a lot of energy "curled up" in every bit of mass. In fact, the amount of energy is equivalent to mc2.
 
Just one more thing...fusion also makes a lot of energy...but mass is not converted to energy there...(fusion of hydrogen),now... what's the difference of energy levels at fusion and annihilation of the same atom (let's say hydrogen with mainly proton being fused or annihilated)
 
Last edited:
Toponium is a hadron which is the bound state of a valance top quark and a valance antitop quark. Oversimplified presentations often state that top quarks don't form hadrons, because they decay to bottom quarks extremely rapidly after they are created, leaving no time to form a hadron. And, the vast majority of the time, this is true. But, the lifetime of a top quark is only an average lifetime. Sometimes it decays faster and sometimes it decays slower. In the highly improbable case that...
I'm following this paper by Kitaev on SL(2,R) representations and I'm having a problem in the normalization of the continuous eigenfunctions (eqs. (67)-(70)), which satisfy \langle f_s | f_{s'} \rangle = \int_{0}^{1} \frac{2}{(1-u)^2} f_s(u)^* f_{s'}(u) \, du. \tag{67} The singular contribution of the integral arises at the endpoint u=1 of the integral, and in the limit u \to 1, the function f_s(u) takes on the form f_s(u) \approx a_s (1-u)^{1/2 + i s} + a_s^* (1-u)^{1/2 - i s}. \tag{70}...
Back
Top