/sci/ - Science & Math

Just like regular matter but with opposite charges.

Warning: Do not combine with regular matter.

Bampity bampu

>>2079239
Well, what does that mean? What does an opposite charge mean for something? Is Antimatter physical, non-physical, etc?

>>2079249
It is precisely identical to matter in every way except the charges are reversed. If you were made of antimatter and lived in an antimatter world, physics would operate identically in every way.

When, in extremely high energy environments, energy spontaneously becomes matter... it is equally likely to form antimatter. Because we live in a world made of matter, that anti-matter ceases to exist pretty quickly.

It is an open question why we live in a matter universe rather than an antimatter one (or even whether our universe is as completely composed of matter as we believe it to be).

Antimatter is exactly like matter, but consists of anti-protons (negative charge) and positrons (positive charge) instead of protons (positive charge) and electrons (negative charge), respectively.

Matter and antimatter annihilate each other if they come into contact.

Also bananas produce antimatter on a regular basis.

you don't know what antimatter is? well it's okay, it doesn't even matter

Antiparticles are made of antiquarks, by the way. Anything remotely matter-like is made of one or the other. Energy doesn't seem inclined either way. That anti-matter is rare is kind of weird.

>>2079265
So is anti-matter technically physical in our world even though it can only exist for a few seconds?

>>2079279

sup

http://public.web.cern.ch/press/pressreleases/Releases2010/PR22.10E.html

>>2079286
Yes, I heard about this article, which is why I came here to discuss antimatter. I still don't fully get it, but I definitely am much closer compared to where I was before.

>>2079271

wait what on that last bit

>>2079277
Oh ho ho ho.

OP here again, here's a different question. What would be the use in researching Anti-Matter, what are it's benefits? Hopefully that doesn't come off with me sounding like a skeptic, I'm legitimetley interested.

>>2079318
Science doesn't need to have "benefits", although many times they do come. Pure science doesn't give a fuck about applications.

>>2079326
Again, I'm not questioning whether we should be researching it, I'm just asking if there is, if any, benefits from researching Antimatter?

>>2079326

I am pretty sure you are wrong there bud

>>2079296

pus

http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/spotlight/SpotlightAandD-en.html

>>2079303
Apparently bananas (and other things rich in potassium) (can) contain an isotope K40 that emits a positron when it decays. Ostensibly the average banana emits one positron every 75 minutes?

>>2079347

Looks correct to me.

Science is not concerned with possible applications at all.

Investors, on the other hand...

>>2079347
Not that tool but the pursuit of knowledge is a noble endeavour. That said, ignoring applications is likely to get nowhere.

>>2079332
Well, it's completely useless as an energy source because it takes WAY, WAY more energy to produce antimatter than you can get from it. But it MAY be used as fuel. In fact I think there exist schematics for antimatter engines for spaceships and all. But it's science fiction for now, we're WAAAAY too far from that.

>>2079361

It is overly pretentious and idealogical to assume
such a thing as "pure science", from where do you
think money comes to pay scientists?

>>2079377
Just out of curiosity, would it be possible to attain the required amount of antimatter for spaceship propulsion by having a magnetic trap in between Io and Jupiter?

>>2079377
I may be looping a bit here, but does that mean Anti-matter could exist longer? From what I've read, Anti-Matter only lasts for a few seconds.

>>2079383
We're not talking about the real world here. Real world sucks and it's run by people who care about money, and are corrupt. Still don't see how you can disagree that science alone doesn't care about any of it. PEOPLE do, and it sucks.

>>2079383
Money will be taken out of the equation soon enough.

>>2079389
Antimatter is perfectly stable unless it comes in contact with matter. The problem is just storing it safely. Kinda hard to do.

>>2079397

It is unscientific to be unrealistic..
Why bother?

Sorry but these so called "people"
are the ones doing science and funding it.

Science does not care about anything,
science is a faceless process.

>>2079403
How do they go about creating it then? I mean, I'm kinda getting a sci-fi vision in my head of it being made in a a bubble like container, but I'd like more specifics. Not the whole deal, but just a basic summary.

>>2079389

Antimatter lasts until it touches regular matter. The problem is keeping it from doing that when regular matter is everywhere and they are electromagnetically attracted to each other.

>>2079400
I don't get why people scoff at statements like this. Wouldn't we want to live in a world free of things like currency if we could feasibly do so? Wouldn't we want an automated "economy" (if we would even still call it such)?

>>2079429
see >>2079349

>>2079403
The great thing about the diatomic anti-hydrogen they're making at CERN is that unlike anti-protons and positrons it's uncharged... so it's not naturally attracted towards the matter that will destroy it.

On the subject of reasons to create anti-matter: It MAY be different than matter. We've never had enough around to study its interactions. Studying it may also give us the reason that the we live in a matter universe, which could theoretically unlock the secret of zero point energy (which is largely a matter of matter/antimatter creation and destruction).

We don't know if we don't explore. Science often pays off in the end, but it's hard to tell which particular bit of it will be the profitable part. It's like venture capital.

OP here, thanks /sci/, you were very helpful with this. Physics man, it's some awesome stuff.

>anti-protons

Why not call them negatrons? We call them positrons, not anti-electrons. And negatron sounds really cool.

>>2079440
>so it's not naturally attracted towards the matter that will destroy it.

Not quite entirely correct...

Think chemistry.

Now realize the significance of the anti-atom having a positron cloud.

>>2079440
I'm not sure if it helps or hurts that people like Kaku immediately hail any discoveries made as "the beginning of deep space flight" and what not.

>>2079460

Actually, we also call them anti-electrons.

We don't call anti-protons negatrons because that's the original name given to electrons when they were first discovered.

>>2079471
They've made diatomic anti-hydrogen MOLECULES. Two atoms. The positron cloud is not a problem any more than the electron cloud is a problem on hydrogen molecules.

>>2079506
That's not what that means at all.

The clouds around the nucleus of both atom and anti-atom are going to pull them towards each other despite overall neutrality because of how far away the nucleus is compared to the cloud's radius.

If they get near each other, their interaction is dominated by positrons and electrons. That's a large part of why they can't keep them trapped long even with effective magnetic bottling.

>>2079506

Picture how Hydrogen and Fluorine react to each other.
Now imagine if that were twice as strong.

>>2079318
You could make a world-destroying bomb with it though with the technology we have right now it would take way too long of a time to produce enough antimatter to create a significant explosion.