NightCrawler
12-15-2005, 12:45 PM
Antimatter

'Negative' matter. All known matter known currently is consideredn 'positive' matter.

Now, when I was reflecting on this last night (instead of studying for my logic exam), I was considering what my friend had told me about antimatter. I came across a few important concepts about antimatter:
1) Antigravity
2) The interaction of antimatter and positive/real matter.

Now, I am sure many have heard of the idea of gravity being like a taut sheet. You put objects on the sheet, it will pull down, and objects around it will draw to the lower spots. Like the sun, it has heavier mass and thus draws more objects to it, as a larger marble on a sheet would draw smaller marbles to it. But considering anti-matter, what would happen? The opposite? So I imagined it as a hill, or lump in the sheet.

These pictures are represented from aerial view, which is all I could come up with easily with PSP7.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v701/jonathanvajda/image2.png

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v701/jonathanvajda/image1.png

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v701/jonathanvajda/Image3.png

I also reflected on what he said would happen when positive and negative matter touched. His thought was that the interaction would prove to be an extremely explosive force. And, if harnessed, would allow a huge new gateway of possibilities for travel, weaponry, etc.
But then I reflected on the laws of thermodynamics.

Matter and energy are interchangeable. So, wouldn't the positive matter exchange for positive energy? And likewise, negative matter exchange for negative energy? However, my friend reasoned that if they touched, an explosive force would rapidly generate. But last night it hit me, that was positive energy in an explosion like that. This cannot be!

The negative and positive matter would cancel each other out, making the matters exist in a smaller quantity or not at all (depending on the quantity of each types of matter). Not create more energy!

But this conflicts with 'matter and energy are interchangeable and can neither be created nor destroyed'. How? The destruction part. If matter ceases to exist, then it breaks that law of thermodynamics. And I believe in the laws of thermodynamics.

So, while the above pretty much says "anti-matter cannot exist" (or else I would have a contradiction set of beliefs), I will continue this post in the effort to reach some interesting thought.

Surely a lump and a dip in a sheet cannot exist in the same place. So either they interact and cancel each other out, or perhaps it could still exist, only ... on a different level? Like, two sheets -- two dimensions? Two sheets on top of each other, one having a dip (real grav) and the other having the opposite dip (nega grav, a 'lump' as I said before).

skynes
12-15-2005, 01:04 PM
Sweeeeet.
Trust you to create an interesting topic.

Hmmm...

Matter + Anti-matter = No explosion.
I would agree. +10 + (-10) = 0

Matter cannot be created or destroyed. But I think that applies to a physical attack on matter. Matter will be broken down into the tiniest amounts and no further.

But a collision with anti-matter... I think that would cause both to cease to exist. But since even air is a form of matter. You're not just removing matter, but removing a piece of the universe. You would literally create a hole in space!

amodman
12-15-2005, 02:23 PM
Sweeeeet.
Trust you to create an interesting topic.

Hmmm...

Matter + Anti-matter = No explosion.
I would agree. +10 + (-10) = 0

Matter cannot be created or destroyed. But I think that applies to a physical attack on matter. Matter will be broken down into the tiniest amounts and no further.

But a collision with anti-matter... I think that would cause both to cease to exist. But since even air is a form of matter. You're not just removing matter, but removing a piece of the universe. You would literally create a hole in space!

*pretty much agrees*

Isn't this basically what a black hole is supposed to be? ;)

disciple
12-15-2005, 02:25 PM
I know when to admit that something is out of my scope of understanding.

Actually, if I put my mind to it on a day when I'm less tired, I'm sure I could understand it, to a degree. But right now, I'm staring at a blank wall. :P

animeraven34
12-15-2005, 04:01 PM
First, antimatter is purely theoretical. Second, this sheet idea seems to be ignoring the fact that this universe does not operate on two dimensions. There are many things I could say about modern science (like I could talk about the blatant hypocrisy that is so prevalent in science), but why bother? Science tries to explain things made and designed by God, an entity so far beyond us that it's impossible for us to even grasp the scope of His being, let alone the scale that He thinks on. I equate sceintists trying to understand the universe to ameobas trying to understand quantum physics, it ain't gonna happen.

amodman
12-15-2005, 04:23 PM
First, antimatter is purely theoretical. Second, this sheet idea seems to be ignoring the fact that this universe does not operate on two dimensions. There are many things I could say about modern science (like I could talk about the blatant hypocrisy that is so prevalent in science), but why bother? Science tries to explain things made and designed by God, an entity so far beyond us that it's impossible for us to even grasp the scope of His being, let alone the scale that He thinks on. I equate sceintists trying to understand the universe to ameobas trying to understand quantum physics, it ain't gonna happen.

Well with that attitude it sure isn't! Many amazing advances in science, physics, and chemistry have occurred because those studying nature ignored the critics of what is and is not possible for man to understand. As Michael Faraday said, studying the laws of nature is another way of studying God's creation like how he studied God's word when he read his Bible. By studying science, he learned more about God and how he designed Creation in perfection (this coming from the scientist who took years off from science simply to study the Bible - and he's not the only one).

Am I saying anti-matter does exist? No, this is all theoretical discussion. Are we not allowed to question the laws of nature anymore? That's how we learn. This physical realm is something we can understand and utilize if we put our minds to it. That, in fact, is something God gave us dominion over (domion in the stewardship sense, utilizing and abusing are two different things). Jonathan wasn't being literal with his example, but presented an abstract pcture of how reality might work were anti-matter to exist.

Sorry if I came across harsh here.

bob
12-15-2005, 04:36 PM
I think it would be cool if anti-matter did exist, but I highly doubt it's existence, because where would be the border in between the two?

animeraven34
12-15-2005, 04:38 PM
Well with that attitude it sure isn't! Many amazing advances in science, physics, and chemistry have occurred because those studying nature ignored the critics of what is and is not possible for man to understand. As Michael Faraday said, studying the laws of nature is another way of studying God's creation like how he studied God's word when he read his Bible. By studying science, he learned more about God and how he designed Creation in perfection (this coming from the scientist who took years off from science simply to study the Bible - and he's not the only one).

Am I saying anti-matter does exist? No, this is all theoretical discussion. Are we not allowed to question the laws of nature anymore? That's how we learn. This physical realm is something we can understand and utilize if we put our minds to it. That, in fact, is something God gave us dominion over (domion in the stewardship sense, utilizing and abusing are two different things). Jonathan wasn't being literal with his example, but presented an abstract pcture of how reality might work were anti-matter to exist.

Sorry if I came across harsh here.
You didn't. But what you need to realize is I didn't say studying the world and universe around us was a bad idea, I'm just saying that we are NEVER going to be able to understand how it all works. I enjoy things like this. But as I said, God is SO far beyond us, that understanding is impossible...at least in the forms we are in right now.

For example, science can't figure out where the asteroid belt and the Oort Cloud came from. Science assumes they are left over material from the creation of the universe. Wrong! I think God put them there as protection for us against things like asterroids and comets. Blackholes? Same thing. Wouldn't such massive gravity alter the trajectory of objects hurtling through space?

amodman
12-15-2005, 04:46 PM
You didn't. But what you need to realize is I didn't say studying the world and universe around us was a bad idea, I'm just saying that we are NEVER going to be able to understand how it all works. I enjoy things like this. But as I said, God is SO far beyond us, that understanding is impossible...at least in the forms we are in right now.

For example, science can't figure out where the asteroid belt and the Oort Cloud came from. Science assumes they are left over material from the creation of the universe. Wrong! I think God put them there as protection for us against things like asterroids and comets. Blackholes? Same thing. Wouldn't such massive gravity alter the trajectory of objects hurtling through space?

Ah, but everything in the physical universe conforms to uniform laws of Science God laid down. NOTHING violates those laws. Therefore, how/what a black hole works/is, theoretically, is possible through study of the laws of nature. Nothing can exist contrary to those laws.

animeraven34
12-15-2005, 04:50 PM
Ah, but everything in the physical universe conforms to uniform laws of Science God laid down. NOTHING violates those laws. Therefore, how/what a black hole works/is, theoretically, is possible through study of the laws of nature. Nothing can exist contrary to those laws.
And yet God exists...

Besides, the only one who knows ALL of these rules and "laws" is God. There are weather patterns here on Earth that no one knows about yet. How would we humans know EVERY law of physics, chemistry, etc.? We don't even know what black holes are, so how can we assume they break or bend any law of nature? How can we assume that they DON'T break or bend these laws? Modern science knows practically zilch about anything. Whether you accept it or not, the universe is beyond our comprhension.

amodman
12-15-2005, 04:54 PM
And yet God exists...

Didn't you read my lengthy temporal theory post? Heh, I pretty much outlined my conception of God in relation to our reality there. Though, I'll also state, there's no reason for anything in this physical universe not to conform to laws of nature. Anything less wouldn't be perfection, and God certainly has the capability to create all the wonders we see before us with fundamental, natural conformity.

NightCrawler
12-15-2005, 07:17 PM
Jonathan Vajda enjoys replies. I asked him, he confirmed it.

skynes
12-16-2005, 12:54 AM
Is the whole concept of anti-matter the fact that it really DOESNT exist! If it exists, then its matter.

Anti-matter is a state of negative-existance. Not non-existance, Negative-existance.

Thought: Consider it a mirror image of our universe, everything working as an opposite.

When the two opposites make contact, both cease to exist.

riz
12-16-2005, 01:11 AM
*brain falls out of head*

NightCrawler
12-16-2005, 11:43 PM
Is the whole concept of anti-matter the fact that it really DOESNT exist! If it exists, then its matter.

Anti-matter is a state of negative-existance. Not non-existance, Negative-existance.

Thought: Consider it a mirror image of our universe, everything working as an opposite.

When the two opposites make contact, both cease to exist.
Some side banter:

Anyone see TimeCop? ... the theory was that if the future matter and past matter touched they would cancel each other out. Which to me makes no sense. Especially when a human gets all goopy.

Anyway... So pink is blue there? Bizzaro!!!!

skilltroks
12-17-2005, 10:04 AM
all I can say is good thing I'm not taking chemistry.

skynes
12-17-2005, 11:32 AM
Better keep Laura (pink) and me (blue) separate then... Or poof goes both of us. Lol.

The timecop thing was weird. I don't understand the physics behind that. My guess is thus:

The future matter and past matter where (time aside) the same matter. So the laws of physical touch would not apply since they were the same, when they collided, they immediately occupied the same location.

2 bodies in the same spot. Twice the cells. Reality breaks down killing both.

amodman
12-18-2005, 04:10 PM
Some side banter:

Anyone see TimeCop? ... the theory was that if the future matter and past matter touched they would cancel each other out. Which to me makes no sense. Especially when a human gets all goopy.

Anyway... So pink is blue there? Bizzaro!!!!

And result...in the present?! Lol, but really, I've never seen that movie but if the theory was "What was" and "What is to be" then the middle ground (-1 + 1 = 0, which is neither positive nor negative) would be "What is", and that, of course, just makes things completely confuzzling, lol.

whereami
12-18-2005, 04:27 PM
anyone here ever read angels and demons by Dan Brown? its got some cool stuff about antimater in it, although im not sure how scientifically based it is.

amodman
12-18-2005, 05:34 PM
anyone here ever read angels and demons by Dan Brown? its got some cool stuff about antimater in it, although im not sure how scientifically based it is.

Knowing Dan Brown? Not at all, lol.

whereami
12-19-2005, 02:02 PM
yeah, thats probably true, but anyways, according to him in that book, when antimater and matter come in contact, they cancel each other out and there is a massive release of photons from the deteriorating atoms. so antimater touches something, there is a huge, very bright, heatless, 'explosion', then whatever the antimater touched is gone. again, not sure if that's scientific, but it sure makes a nice plot for the book. ;)

NightCrawler
12-19-2005, 06:16 PM
What on earth is a heatless explosion? How can something be bright without radiation -- and thus heat?

amodman
03-20-2006, 09:23 PM
Dude...just...dude...Antimatter exists :o. Like, really. I complete and utterly retract my previous statements, haha. Scientists have produced it. Albeit, in precious small quantities. It is in fact, I am told, the most valuable substance on Earth atm as only a few micro-ounces currently exist.

Also, everyone was saying antimatter is 'negative' matter, which is not true. Antimatter is matter composed of opposited particles. That is, postive electrons, negative protons, and some f'ed up mothers of neutrons (seriously, my astronomy proffessor attempted to explain these anti-neutrons...they're like, both, or something? I dunno, let's just settle and anti-neutrons). Fact is, matter can be 'eliminated' with anti-matter. In fact, it is an extremely complicated substance to store (believe it or not!) is what I am told!

Annihlation, apparently, is the star trek'esque way scientists envision they could use anti-matter if they were able to syntehsize and control large amounts of it. This is a process where 100% of the matter is converted into energy (:o), rather than the 7%, for instance, generated by Fusion.

I checked this out on Google, it's true...pretty much all the debates on whether or not Antimatter exist naturally admit the fact that scientists have been able to synthesize it. So, apparently, there's nothing theoretical (at least, the fact of it's existence) about it.

Also, To animeraven (sorry, I just saw your post again in light of recent edmucation), what in the heck are you talking about 'massive gravity' of black holes? I wasn't originally actually making a serious comment about their nature before (since I really didn't know...but I know some now). They have the exact same gravitational pull as the star that 'formed' them. Also, those are some pretty funky ideas about the asteroid belt and Oort Cloud. I'm not saying I disagree with you, but I'm not saying I agree either...I mean, if you accept the fact that the universe was formed (in whatever time period), why wouldn't you accept our observations on how this may have occurred (Divine intervention regardless).

I think our models of the universe are perfectly logical and useful in understanding how it works (whether or not we get the whole picture). I don't think matters you believe God created everyhting in 6 Earth days, 6 universal cycles, or 6 hojillion million years. You already, I assume, believe it's scientifically impossible for a fully formed human being to simply pop into existence fully matured, and yet, accept it happened. I see no difference for a universe.

zeroneff
03-27-2006, 06:22 PM
Well what you are looking at is theory of relativity Which i think there is mater in between Stuff like Here in earth. Whats every where around you air or just a combination of oxygen, nitrigen, hydrogen, and more junk.. there all that mater that is around you bill up gravity and makes a gravitational pull in wich every single pice of mater has..
know space has mater that is called black matter that is call black matter or matter thatyou can not see why? Becuse there too little to see but is still there now if you put large section's of space an add up the matter you find a little gravitational pull....

zeroneff
03-27-2006, 06:59 PM
General relativity is a theory of gravitation and to understand the background to the theory we have to look at how theories of gravitation developed. Aristotle's notion of the motion of bodies impeded understanding of gravitation for a long time. He believed that force could only be applied by contact; force at a distance being impossible, and a constant force was required to maintain a body in uniform motion.

Copernicus's view of the solar system was important as it allowed sensible consideration of gravitation. Kepler's laws of planetary motion and Galileo's understanding of the motion and falling bodies set the scene for Newton's theory of gravity which was presented in the Principia in 1687. Newton's law of gravitation is expressed by

F = G M1M2/d2

where F is the force between the bodies of masses M1, M2 and d is the distance between them. G is the universal gravitational constant.

After receiving their definitive analytic form from Euler, Newton's axioms of motion were reworked by Lagrange, Hamilton, and Jacobi into very powerful and general methods, which employed new analytic quantities, such as potential, related to force but remote from everyday experience. Newton's universal gravitation was considered proved correct, thanks to the work of Clairaut and Laplace. Laplace looked at the stability of the solar system in Traité du Mécanique Céleste in 1799. In fact the so-called three-body problem was extensively studied in the 19th Century and was not properly understood until much later. The study of the gravitational potential allowed variations in gravitation caused by irregularities in the shape of the earth to be studied both practically and theoretically. Poisson used the gravitational potential approach to give an equation which, unlike Newton's, could be solved under rather general conditions.

Newton's theory of gravitation was highly successful. There was little reason to question it except for one weakness which was to explain how each of the two bodies knew the other was there. Some profound remarks about gravitation were made by Maxwell in 1864. His major work A dynamical theory of the electromagnetic field (1864) was written

... to explain the electromagnetic action between distant bodies without assuming the existence of forces capable of acting directly at sensible distances.

At the end of the work Maxwell comments on gravitation.

After tracing to the action of the surrounding medium both the magnetic and the electric attractions and repulsions, and finding them to depend on the inverse square of the distance, we are naturally led to inquire whether the attraction of gravitation, which follows the same law of the distance, is not also traceable to the action of a surrounding medium.

However Maxwell notes that there is a paradox caused by the attraction of like bodies. The energy of the medium must be decreased by the presence of the bodies and Maxwell said

As I am unable to understand in what way a medium can possess such properties, I cannot go further in this direction in searching for the cause of gravitation.

In 1900 Lorentz conjectured that gravitation could be attributed to actions which propagate with the velocity of light. Poincaré, in a paper in July 1905 (submitted days before Einstein's special relativity paper), suggested that all forces should transform according the Lorentz transformations. In this case he notes that Newton's law of gravitation is not valid and proposed gravitational waves which propagated with the velocity of light.

In 1907, two years after proposing the special theory of relativity, Einstein was preparing a review of special relativity when he suddenly wondered how Newtonian gravitation would have to be modified to fit in with special relativity. At this point there occurred to Einstein, described by him as the happiest thought of my life , namely that an observer who is falling from the roof of a house experiences no gravitational field. He proposed the Equivalence Principle as a consequence:-

... we shall therefore assume the complete physical equivalence of a gravitational field and the corresponding acceleration of the reference frame. This assumption extends the principle of relativity to the case of uniformly accelerated motion of the reference frame.

After the major step of the equivalence principle in 1907, Einstein published nothing further on gravitation until 1911. Then he realised that the bending of light in a gravitational field, which he knew in 1907 was a consequence of the equivalence principle, could be checked with astronomical observations. He had only thought in 1907 in terms of terrestrial observations where there seemed little chance of experimental verification. Also discussed at this time is the gravitational redshift, light leaving a massive body will be shifted towards the red by the energy loss of escaping the gravitational field.

Einstein published further papers on gravitation in 1912. In these he realised that the Lorentz transformations will not apply in this more general setting. Einstein also realised that the gravitational field equations were bound to be non-linear and the equivalence principle appeared to only hold locally.

This work by Einstein prompted others to produce gravitational theories. Work by Nordström, Abraham and Mie was all a consequence of Einstein's, so far failed, attempts to find a satisfactory theory. However Einstein realised his problems.

If all accelerated systems are equivalent, then Euclidean geometry cannot hold in all of them.


Einstein then remembered that he had studied Gauss's theory of surfaces as a student and suddenly realised that the foundations of geometry have physical significance. He consulted his friend Grossmann who was able to tell Einstein of the important developments of Riemann, Ricci (Ricci-Curbastro) and Levi-Civita. Einstein wrote

... in all my life I have not laboured nearly so hard, and I have become imbued with great respect for mathematics, the subtler part of which I had in my simple-mindedness regarded as pure luxury until now.

In 1913 Einstein and Grossmann published a joint paper where the tensor calculus of Ricci and Levi-Civita is employed to make further advances. Grossmann gave Einstein the Riemann-Christoffel tensor which, together with the Ricci tensor which can be derived from it, were to become the major tools in the future theory. Progress was being made in that gravitation was described for the first time by the metric tensor but still the theory was not right. When Planck visited Einstein in 1913 and Einstein told him the present state of his theories Planck said

As an older friend I must advise you against it for in the first place you will not succeed, and even if you succeed no one will believe you.

Planck was wrong, but only just, for when Einstein was to succeed with his theory it was not readily accepted. It was the second half of 1915 that saw Einstein finally put the theory in place. Before that however he had written a paper in October 1914 nearly half of which is a treatise on tensor analysis and differential geometry. This paper led to a correspondence between Einstein and Levi-Civita in which Levi-Civita pointed out technical errors in Einstein's work on tensors. Einstein was delighted to be able to exchange ideas with Levi-Civita whom he found much more sympathetic to his ideas on relativity than his other colleagues.

At the end of June 1915 Einstein spent a week at Göttingen where he lectured for six 2 hour sessions on his (incorrect) October 1914 version of general relativity. Hilbert and Klein attended his lectures and Einstein commented after leaving Göttingen

To my great joy, I succeeded in convincing Hilbert and Klein completely.

The final steps to the theory of general relativity were taken by Einstein and Hilbert at almost the same time. Both had recognised flaws in Einstein's October 1914 work and a correspondence between the two men took place in November 1915. How much they learnt from each other is hard to measure but the fact that they both discovered the same final form of the gravitational field equations within days of each other must indicate that their exchange of ideas was helpful.

On the 18th November he made a discovery about which he wrote For a few days I was beside myself with joyous excitement . The problem involved the advance of the perihelion of the planet Mercury. Le Verrier, in 1859, had noted that the perihelion (the point where the planet is closest to the sun) advanced by 38" per century more than could be accounted for from other causes. Many possible solutions were proposed, Venus was 10% heavier than was thought, there was another planet inside Mercury's orbit, the sun was more oblate than observed, Mercury had a moon and, really the only one not ruled out by experiment, that Newton's inverse square law was incorrect. This last possibility would replace the 1/d2 by 1/dp, where p = 2+ for some very small number . By 1882 the advance was more accurately known, 43'' per century. From 1911 Einstein had realised the importance of astronomical observations to his theories and he had worked with Freundlich to make measurements of Mercury's orbit required to confirm the general theory of relativity. Freundlich confirmed 43" per century in a paper of 1913. Einstein applied his theory of gravitation and discovered that the advance of 43" per century was exactly accounted for without any need to postulate invisible moons or any other special hypothesis. Of course Einstein's 18 November paper still does not have the correct field equations but this did not affect the particular calculation regarding Mercury. Freundlich attempted other tests of general relativity based on gravitational redshift, but they were inconclusive.

zeroneff
03-27-2006, 07:10 PM
now Antimatter or contra-terrene matter is matter that is composed of the antiparticles of those that constitute normal matter. If a particle and its antiparticle come in contact with each other, the two annihilate and produce a burst of energy, which results in the production of other particles and antiparticles or electromagnetic radiation. In these reactions, rest mass is not conserved, although (as in any other reaction) energy (E=mc˛) is conserved.

:P :-X :lick: :'( :-* :azn: :afro: :evil:

skynes
03-28-2006, 12:30 AM
If you were trying to explain gravity and anti-matter in simple, easily understood terms... I'm sorry you failed utterly. You get an F both for effort AND result...

Now any chance of explaining this for the class in such a way that you don't turn my intellect into anti-intellect and have it commit suicide?

zeroneff
03-28-2006, 04:11 AM
ok youre turn...................

slu_clarkinator
04-05-2006, 11:50 AM
Thanks to amodman for actually caring enough to research the subject.

Here goes my attempt at a simple explaination: All matter is created of atoms made of positively charged protons, negatively charged electrons, and uncharged neutrons. Anti matter is made of negatively charged protons and positively charged electrons (I don't know about anti-neutrons, those haven't been made yet to my knowledge. The only anti-matter I know of is anti-hydrogen, and regular hydrogen has no neutrons).

The real significance of anti-matter comes from the size difference between protons and electrons. If they were approximately the same size, there would be no anti-matter because an anit-proton would just be an electron, and vice versa. However, electrons are rediculously small compared to protons, so much so that electrons act partly as a wave instead of a particle. This is why anti-matter is significant, because there is nothing in the normal world that directly opposes a proton or electron.