Antimatter

[Anonymous No.9529312]

Brainlet here. What is antimatter? What makes it any different from regular matter?

[sage goes in all fields No.9529352]

>>9529312
uhh... you posted a picture that exactly describes what antimatter is and how its diferent from matter... Its got negatively charged antipositrons where positively charged protons should be and positively charged positrons where negatively charged electrons should be.

[sage goes in all fields No.9529358]

>>9529352
>antipositrons
meant antiprotons, fuck

[Anonymous No.9529369]

it has opposite charge of regular matter
when it runs into regular matter, it does the same shit as different poles of magnets slamming into each other, except it destroys both in the process and releases insane amount of energy

[Anonymous No.9529370]

Antiparticles have opposite charges and spins. When they touch matter both the matter and antimatter are annihilated.

[Anonymous No.9529382]

>>9529312
its just matter but the opposite you fucking brainlet what is not to understand

>For every kind of particle in nature, as far as we know, there can exist an antiparticle, a sort of electrical “mirror image.” The antiparticle carries charge of the opposite sign. If any other intrinsic quality of the particle has an opposite, the antiparticle has that too, whereas in a property that admits no opposite, such as mass, the antiparticle and particle are exactly alike.

there u go idiot

[Anonymous No.9529389]

>>9529370
>When they touch matter both the matter and antimatter are annihilated.
That's impossible. According to the laws of physics, matter cannot be created or destroyed.

[Anonymous No.9529399]

>>9529389
it's converted into energy

[Anonymous No.9529410]

>>9529389
Sure, but it's not really being destroyed. It's being transformed into energy.

[Anonymous No.9529411]

>>9529389
Energy cannot.
They are annihilated, turned into energy. That energy may become matter again at some point.

[sage goes in all fields No.9529412]

>>9529389
>what is E=MC^2
I think its time for you to go back to middle school

[Anonymous No.9529415]

>>9529312
>What is antimatter?
a retarded theory based on nothing, just like other stuff like string theory, dark matter, etc

[Anonymous No.9529423]

>>9529415
except it's not retarded and a proven fact

[Anonymous No.9529445]

>>9529389
wrong. what you learned was wrong. matter can be destroyed. energy can be destroyed. they are not separately conserved.

mass-energy, however, is conserved. an electron/positron can annihilate into energy. and a high energy photon can "end its life" so to speak by producing an electron/positron pair (charge here is conserved since they have opposite charge)

[Anonymous No.9529447]

>>9529415
you are an idiot beyond repair

[Anonymous No.9529464]

>>9529389
>>9529415
The absolute state of /sci/

[Miniature Spacecraft No.9529493]

How can you difference a photon and an antiphoton ?

[Anonymous No.9529500]

>>9529493
at this point i honestly cant tell if u are the worlds biggest idiot or you are just a troll

photon is its own antiphoton

[Miniature Spacecraft No.9529514]

>>9529500
>photon is its own antiphoton

[Anonymous No.9529517]

>>9529500
What does that mean?

[Anonymous No.9529523]

>>9529517
its electrically neutral, there is no need for an antiphoton. read the first chapter of electricity and magnetism by edward purcell, also some other bits of it

>>9529514
even if you are trolling, the fact that you can conceive of such retardation only goes to show how dumb you truly are

[Anonymous No.9529564]

>>9529500
>photon is its own antiphoton
It's simple, photons have a spin, so if a photon is spinning opposite the current photon (or field of photons) being measured it is said to be called an antiphoton.

[Anonymous No.9529577]

If you look at the explicit construction of the Dirac theory of matter (the one that works and predicts antimatter), the nature of there being antimatter comes from the fact that the theory must be symmetric under Parity.

If you follow the Weyl/group-theoretic construction of the Dirac equation, you notice that if you just tried to include matter, then this matter is a) massless, b) chiral, and c) not symmetric under Parity. The solution is to mix the chiral and anti-chiral components together. This resolves the issues above and generates antimatter.

[Anonymous No.9529595]

>>9529312
So wait. Does that mean Positrons are anti-matter?

[Anonymous No.9529621]

>>9529564
there is no conservation of spin you dumb fucking brainlet so no such constraint exists in quantum field theory

photons are neutral with no other constraint on them so they are their own antiphoton.

>b-b-b-but antineutrons!
neutrons aren't fundamental, they are made of quarks that have fractional charges that even out to zero

>b-b-but antineutrinos!!!!!!!!!!
neutrinos have a lepton number associated which is conserved

[Anonymous No.9529630]

>>9529370
What is charge?

[Miniature Spacecraft No.9529637]

>>9529621
>with no other constraint

[Anonymous No.9529677]

>>9529415
You may actually be retarded unfortunately

[Anonymous No.9529686]

>>9529415
Okay Billy, I think it's time for you to go back to your little friends in the Tard Zone

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8ADMJL7Ds0

[Anonymous No.9529712]

>>9529312
It is fake hand-wavy magic bullshit made up by grant chasers to write papers about and feel important..

[Anonymous No.9529737]

>>9529712
Then prove em wrong if you're so confident it's bullshit.

[Anonymous No.9529767]

>>9529737
>do research into something that is fake just to disprove them

Give me a grant and I'll do it.

[Anonymous No.9529788]

>>9529767
Why don't you convince someone to give you that grant by showing them your theoretical work

[Anonymous No.9529814]

>>9529767
In order for it to be fake, you first have to prove that it is fake. You do know we award people for disproving previous outdated theories... that's what the fucking Nobel awards are

[Anonymous No.9530181]

There is no antimatter. I know because I'm the antithesis of you OP in being correct.

[Anonymous No.9530288]

>>9529637
>photon
>mass smaller than 1E-18 eV/c^2
>not zero identically
wut?

[Anonymous No.9530301]

>>9530288
experimental bounds, extracted from a model where the photon might have a small effective mass

It doesn't.

[Anonymous No.9530328]

The real question: Why the fuck isn't it called an Antielectron?

[Anonymous No.9530339]

>>9529369
matter cannot be created or destroyed :(

[Anonymous No.9530353]

There is more matter than anti matter but there shouldn't be

antimatter resonates within you and it's created from decaying particles just like regular matter

if they occupy the same quantum state (NOT """touch""" since they don't have any physical "form" they are just floating equations) then they convert into photons usually of equal energy to their previous mass times the speed of light squared

[Anonymous No.9530359]

>>9530339
Yes it can.

Energy can be created and destroyed to, for example quantum foam ,because it doesn't effect the rest of the universe.

You are coming in here with a high school education to one of the hardest fields of science. It's a bit more complicated than that. But for the most part energy and mass can convert into each other by Einstein's famous equation when the time comes.

[Anonymous No.9530390]

>>9530353
>antimatter resonates within you
That's a misleading way to say some natural elements produce anitmatter when they decay

>if they occupy the same quantum state (NOT """touch""" since they don't have any physical "form" they are just floating equations)
lol what?

[Anonymous No.9530455]

>>9529514
>>9529517
>>9529564
Photon is it's own anti particle, annihilation results in electron positron pair production usually. The constraint being that the photons energy sum exceeds the rest mass of ordinary matter to be produced meaning even higher mass particles could theoretically be produced in some sort of 'photon atmosphere'

[Anonymous No.9530464]

>>9529415
>a retarded theory based on nothing
ask your doctor to explain PET scans to you when you go in for your yearly chromosome update.