/sci/ - Science & Math

They are converted into photons.

For example, when an electron and a positron annihilate at rest, two gamma rays, each with energy 511 keV, are produced. These gamma rays go off in opposite directions because both energy and momentum must be conserved. The annihilation of positrons and electrons is the basis of Positron Emission Tomography (PET) discussed in the section on Applications (Chapter 14). When a proton and an antiproton annihilate at rest, other particles are usually produced, but the total kinetic plus rest mass energies of these products adds up to twice the rest mass energy of the proton (2 x 938 MeV).

So you want to know that the mass is converted to energy and any particles/photons are emitted on defined trajectories?

>>2388103
whatever happened to "matter cannot be created or destroyed"?

are gamma rays considered matter?

>Believing in antimatter

>>2388114
they go in opposite directions
but is there a visual appearance? kinda like cherenkov radiation? a flash? a boom? I'm not catching the math and the reaction.

>>2388129
Too obvious.

1/10

>>2388121
Finish higschool first.
And yes.

>>2388146
why so mad? it's a valid question. Electromagnetic waves don't have mass and they pass through much of the world.

If I recall, matter is defined as anything that takes up space. It seems to be that light doesn't really take up any space.

>>2388138

I don't think I am understanding your questions.

>kinda like cherenkov radiation? a flash? a boom? I'm not catching the math and the reaction.
The math tells us that certain quantities must be conserved. Our instruments record the products of such reactions.
But we cannot directly "see" the photons - it is the interaction of emitted particles/photons with other physical objects (e.g. water etc) that gives rise to the physical effects.

>>2388181
cherenkov radiation is the blue glow

>>2388082
e=mc^2

It looks like a gamma ray

You get two high-energy photons. Those can each also turn into lighter particle-antiparticle pairs, if there is enough energy. Those particles can either annihilate again, or decay into several lower-energy particles (if there are any).

>>2388189

I know what it is ...
But without some absorbing medium in the way (e.g. water), there would be no phenomenon - it would just be a release of photons.

>>2388121
>"matter cannot be created or destroyed"
Not true. All nuclear reactions violate this.
The conservation law is something more like "mass/energy cannot be created or destroyed", or "energy is conserved", while understanding that E = m*c^2 is the energy associated with a mass at rest.

>>2388121
>"matter cannot be created or destroyed"?
They lied. Or rather, that only applies to chemical reactions. But not even then, really, since chemical bonds have mass.

Energy conservation OTOH is a solid concept, once you understand that mass is one of the forms that energy takes.

>>2388214
?
Without a medium, you don't get any radiation at all. The point is that charged particles are exceeding the effective speed of light in the medium. With no medium (in vacuum), those particles wouldn't radiate.

As for what it looks like to a google image search on particle antiparticle annihilation and you'll get lots of diagrams.

>>2388121
All matter is extremely dense amounts of energy, the law is energy cannot be created or destroyed

>>2388231
well yeah. Energy is not even a "thing"

>>2388121
check this shit out:
>0 = no matter
>0 = 1 - 1
HOLY FUCKING SHIT MATTER AND ANTI-MATTER!

>>2388268
0 doesn't actually exist.

>>2388290
0 what doesn't exist?
>mfw claims a value doesnt exist without saying what the value represents
>mfw I have no face

>>2388308
suck my dick

>>2388323
>still doesn't answer the question
Dohoho.jpg

>>2388290
0 as the restmass isn't it? the reaction with the Higgs field.

on creation, anti matter would repel the Higgs field and matter attracts it at an equal value. In a closed system 0 is still 0 because 1 - 1.

[fuckton of citation needed] [degree needed]

>>2388344
>mfw when that picture is of a subway station in toronto.

>>2388356
Is it Julian Beever by any chance? that guy is a dude!

>>2388344

>Antimatter would repel the Higgs field

>has absolutely no idea what antimatter is or how the Higgs field has been proposed to function off of a substance's MASS, not its ELECTRICAL CHARGE, you fucking dolt.

I swear, are you aether in disguise?

>>2388369
:( don't insult gemma ward

>>2388379
No sorry, i thought the size of a particle was relative to the attraction of the Higgs field, 'slowing it down' and giving it mass.
I thought the Higgs field was kind of like treacle.

I don't really understand anti-matter, i expected it to have [negative] mass/size.

>>2388406

Antimatter is the same as regular matter, just the protons are negatively charged and the electrons are positively charged.

It actually has to do with different quark structure, (antiquarks with opposite charges), but that's really the only difference between them

Negative mass is a different story altogether and finding something with THAT property WOULD repel the higgs field, but it's in the same category as magnetic monopoles at the moment. All theoretical.

>>2388431
>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100412084525.htm
>http://www.doctorkoontz.com/Scalar_Physics/Negative_Mass_Electrons.htm

Just saiyan.

Could be wrong, but Feynman diagrams could help?

My uneducated guess is Gamma Rays (i.e. Photons)

In PET Imaging, a positron is emitted from a decaying nucleus of F-19 and collides with an electron, releasing gamma rays which are then detected.

>>2389171
>>2388431
Someone cite this please.