Is antimatter matter? If not, what is it?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter student34
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Antimatter Matter
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the classification of antimatter in relation to matter, exploring whether antimatter can be considered a type of matter and the implications of various definitions of matter in particle physics.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that both antimatter and matter could fall under a broader category of "particles."
  • Others specify that "massive particles" should be the focus, excluding massless particles like photons from the definition of matter.
  • A participant raises the question of Z bosons, noting that they are massive particles but do not fit neatly into the categories of matter or antimatter as they are their own antiparticles.
  • Mesons are mentioned as not being their own antiparticles, leading to ambiguity in labeling them as matter or antimatter.
  • One participant argues that if matter is defined as something with mass and volume, then antimatter could indeed be classified as matter.
  • Another participant emphasizes that antimatter does not possess negative mass but has properties that are opposite to those of normal matter, leading to annihilation when the two come into contact.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the definitions and classifications of matter and antimatter, indicating that there is no consensus on how to categorize antimatter within the framework of particle physics.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the limitations of current definitions of matter, the dependence on specific criteria for classification, and the unresolved nature of how certain particles fit into these categories.

student34
Messages
639
Reaction score
21
In other words, in terms of science, is there a category that has both antimatter and matter in it?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
"Particles"
"Matter" (in particle physics)
 
mfb said:
"Particles"
Or more specifically: "massive particles", to exclude photons, which are neither matter nor antimatter.
 
A.T. said:
Or more specifically: "massive particles", to exclude photons, which are neither matter nor antimatter.
What about Z bosons? They are massive particles, but do not belong to "matter" or "antimatter" as they are their own antiparticles.
What about mesons? They are not their own antiparticles (neutral pion as exception), but there is no clear way to call some "matter" and some "antimatter".
 
This is a perfect example of how the term "matter" is not clearly defined.
 
If we are using the definition of matter to be something of mass and volume, then isn't antimatter actually matter by this definition?
 
student34 said:
If we are using the definition of matter to be something of mass and volume, then isn't antimatter actually matter by this definition?

I would say that you could use the term matter to refer to fundamental and composite particles that bind together to form structures of finite volume and mass. In such a case, yes, antimatter would fit this definition.
 
It's important not to get the idea that 'antimatter' has negative mass. It just has other aspects to it which are the opposite 'sign' to 'normal matter'. The two forms of matter will still anihilate each other when they get close enough and produce a lot of energy (EM).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
6K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
13K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K