Anti-matter is unstable matter

[HydrogenBond]

I was thinking about this the other day. When I used to think about matter and anti-matter the impression I always got was, they were sort of reflections of each other, which cancel to form energy. But if you look closer, the term anti-matter is sort of a misnomer. The mass aspects are essentially the same. The only real difference is where the charges end up.

If we only look at a matter-anti-matter pair, such as electron-positron, they hold true to the traditional thinking, since they cancel with the release of energy. But, if you look at a positron's interaction with the nucleus of matter based atoms, it acts likes matter. There is no annihilation, rather it acts like a higher energy state of matter that gains stability within the matter nucleus. Based on that, the positron is only 1/2 anti-matter. Anti-matter appears to be just matter that is at higher energy. For example, anti-protons can form from matter plus cosmic rays to product this semi-stable state of matter that has a life expectancy of millions of years. It won't spontaneously form unless we kick matter up into a higher energy state.

[Pyrotex]

No, I don't think it works that way. I've been reading about particle physics since I was a senior in high school (1965!). Anti-matter can't be described in terms of modified or energized matter.
It is "mirror matter". It is like your left hand, if ordinary matter is your right hand. This metaphor doesn't stretch very far, but it's a good place to start.

In a "mirror" universe made entirely of anti-matter, everything would combine and interact exactly as our universe does. There would be atoms and molecules and proteins and plants and animals and an anti-HydrogenBond posting comments that "ordinary" matter was just unstable, juiced-up anti-matter.

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by Pyrotex

No, I don't think it works that way. I've been reading about particle physics since I was a senior in high school (1965!). Anti-matter can't be described in terms of modified or energized matter.
It is "mirror matter". It is like your left hand, if ordinary matter is your right hand. This metaphor doesn't stretch very far, but it's a good place to start.

In a "mirror" universe made entirely of anti-matter, everything would combine and interact exactly as our universe does. There would be atoms and molecules and proteins and plants and animals and an anti-HydrogenBond posting comments that "ordinary" matter was just unstable, juiced-up anti-matter.

No No No antimatter is not a mirror image of matter. It is a charge reversed form of matter. Both matter and antimatter have the same mirror symmetry, both matter and antimatter have a mirror image in the form of mirror matter (not to be confused with antimatter) Both antimatter and matter have (could have) a mirror image. Lorentz symmetry is what matter and antimatter have in common (or in difference!) Mirror symmetry is left-right handed symmetry. Mirror matter would also have anti and regular particles. On the other hand yes you are right antimatter is not a juiced up version of matter. And the only reason I can think of off hand that a positron doesn't annihilate when it encounters the nucleus of a matter atom is that it has the same charge as a proton.

[UncleAl]

You have no idea what you are talking about. You are horribly wrong. You made no effort whatsoever to educate yourself by the simple expedient of looking it up - even in lay text. Matter versus antimatter is simply charge conjugation: inversion of electric charge, baryon number, lepton number, and strangeness (all internal quantum numbers). Parity ("mirror matter") is an external quantum number.

Antimatter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The History fo Antimatter

Mirror matter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
THE MIRROR MATTER THEORY
New Scientist "Mirror Matter" - 02 Feb 1999
(scraping bottom)

Calorimetric Equivalence Principle Test
symmetries in physics

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by UncleAl

...Antimatter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The History fo Antimatter

Mirror matter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
THE MIRROR MATTER THEORY
New Scientist "Mirror Matter" - 02 Feb 1999
(scraping bottom)

Calorimetric Equivalence Principle Test
symmetries in physics

Thanks, Uncle Al.

[HydrogenBond]

What I was saying about the positron and nucleus, they don't just cancel with a blast of energy but can interact constructively, regardless of their nemesis relationship definition. It is an example of matter and anti-matter working together, because they are cut from the same matter cloth.

The idea of an anti-universe is just speculation based on reinforcement of an unsubstantiated assumption. The other way around can be proven with data such as the positron and nucleus interaction which has plenty of data. Also the state of our own universe. We can't form anti matter, totally void of matter, so it lacks all proof.

From Wikipedia.

Antiprotons have been detected in cosmic rays for over 25 years, first by balloon-borne experiments and more recently by satellite-based detectors. The standard picture for their presence in cosmic rays is that they are produced in collisions of cosmic ray protons with nuclei in the interstellar medium, via the reaction:
p A → p p p A
The secondary antiprotons (p) then propagate through the galaxy, confined by the galactic magnetic fields. Their energy spectrum is modified by collisions with other atoms in the interstellar medium, and antiprotons can also be lost by "leaking out" of the galaxy.

Basically it says they form from matter interacting with cosmic rays. They don't just annihilate with any contact with matter but also interact with matter. They don't have much of a problem with the electrons that surround the nuclei. They only have a problem with protons. They are only partially anti to matter, like the positron.

If you look in terms of energy, the proton is at lower energy since the anti-proton requires the input of energy to form. In chemistry, one can form high energy semi-stable molecules like TNT. This is the equivalent of the anti-matter version of chemistry. It represents high energy stability, with excess energy built in. In a pure TNT universe, if we introduce oxygen we still get H20, CO2 and NOx. We can say the opposite, since we can never form a pure TNT universe. One can not prove you wrong unless they are able to do the impossible. So that assumption can linger and mislead.

One can react O2 and H2 at 5000K to get all types of semi-stable radicals. But as we cool further and further the default is always H2O. The same is true with matter with the default or most stable state proton-electron. But like in chemistry one can also get some semi-stable states like O3 and H2O2. We can make this happen under specific conditions to help stack the deck but it involves putting energy into the system.

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

What I was saying about the positron and nucleus, they don't just cancel with a blast of energy but can interact constructively, regardless of their nemesis relationship definition. It is an example of matter and anti-matter working together, because they are cut from the same matter cloth.

The idea of an anti-universe is just speculation based on reinforcement of an unsubstantiated assumption. The other way around can be proven with data such as the positron and nucleus interaction which has plenty of data. Also the state of our own universe. We can't form anti matter, totally void of matter, so it lacks all proof.

From Wikipedia.



Basically it says they form from matter interacting with cosmic rays. They don't just annihilate with any contact with matter but also interact with matter. They don't have much of a problem with the electrons that surround the nuclei. They only have a problem with protons. They are only partially anti to matter, like the positron.

If you look in terms of energy, the proton is at lower energy since the anti-proton requires the input of energy to form. In chemistry, one can form high energy semi-stable molecules like TNT. This is the equivalent of the anti-matter version of chemistry. It represents high energy stability, with excess energy built in. In a pure TNT universe, if we introduce oxygen we still get H20, CO2 and NOx. We can say the opposite, since we can never form a pure TNT universe. One can not prove you wrong unless they are able to do the impossible. So that assumption can linger and mislead.

One can react O2 and H2 at 5000K to get all types of semi-stable radicals. But as we cool further and further the default is always H2O. The same is true with matter with the default or most stable state proton-electron. But like in chemistry one can also get some semi-stable states like O3 and H2O2. We can make this happen under specific conditions to help stack the deck but it involves putting energy into the system.

Why would you expect a positron to react with annilation when it contacts a nucleus? A positron would only react if it contacts a electron which do not "live" in the nucleus. to get annilation you would have to hit the nucleus with a anti proton. a proton and an anti proton contain the same amount of energy, where did you get that one contains more emergy than the other? We can't form anti-matter totally devoid of matter? We can't form either one with out the other, they form in matter anti-matter pairs. Neither one is more energetic than the other.

[HydrogenBond]

Can't nuclei give off positrons, without electrons being created, as part of a decay process? This is where we can creates "anti-matter" by itself, i.e., mono-unit. We can do that because it is also matter, just high energy matter with the wrong charge assignment.

Radioactive nuclei can undergo decomposition in a variety of ways. The spontaneous decay process can produce particles as in the case of alpha, beta, or positron emission. The alternate form of emission is that of electromagnetic radiation such as x-rays or gamma-rays.

Positron

This type of particle production is just the opposite of Beta particle decay.
Example : Na ----> 0 1e + Ne
Notice that is still has the same zero mass as an electron but an opposite charge. This is what is known as an antiparticle of the electron.
What happens when a positron collides with an electron? Annihilation!!
This can be shown by the following reaction:
Example : 0-1e + 01e ----> 2

We can create an electron-positron pair from a photon, but we can also make a positron without having to create an electron. It is a reversible reaction with a positron also able to enter a nuclei and stick.

I don't really have a beef with matter-anti-matter. The direction I was heading with this is positive charge is more stable with heavier mass to form the proton. The negative charge is more stable as an electron. That is why positrons can interact reversibly with the large mass in nuclei without going poof. The final stable state always involves a proton.

The assumption that charge is equal and opposite is 19th century. This is true only of the EM forces. There is also a subtle distinction between each charge based on mass preference, leading to maximum stability. The anti- is a semi-stable but higher energy state, due to unstable assignment. We can only create the opposite by adding energy. Once it lowers the correct charge assignment to mass is left standing.

What got me thinking in these lines is let us use the assumption both matter and anti-matter are equally likely. Say the asymmetry just so happens to favor matter. If we assume BB, for the sake of argument does that mean 99.999% of the original mass-energy ended in energy to eliminate the 99.999% that was symmetrical? It seemed too inefficient. One may say it formed, annihilated, reformed, etc., but there would come a time it can't reform. This poor yield should be reflected in more energy that matter in the universe.

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

Can't nuclei give off positrons, without electrons being created, as part of a decay process? This is where we can creates "anti-matter" by itself, i.e., mono-unit. We can do that because it is also matter, just high energy matter with the wrong charge assignment.



We can create an electron-positron pair from a photon, but we can also make a positron without having to create an electron. It is a reversible reaction with a positron also able to enter a nuclei and stick.

I don't really have a beef with matter-anti-matter. The direction I was heading with this is positive charge is more stable with heavier mass to form the proton. The negative charge is more stable as an electron. That is why positrons can interact reversibly with the large mass in nuclei without going poof. The final stable state always involves a proton.

The assumption that charge is equal and opposite is 19th century. This is true only of the EM forces. There is also a subtle distinction between each charge based on mass preference, leading to maximum stability. The anti- is a semi-stable but higher energy state, due to unstable assignment. We can only create the opposite by adding energy. Once it lowers the correct charge assignment to mass is left standing.

What got me thinking in these lines is let us use the assumption both matter and anti-matter are equally likely. Say the asymmetry just so happens to favor matter. If we assume BB, for the sake of argument does that mean 99.999% of the original mass-energy ended in energy to eliminate the 99.999% that was symmetrical? It seemed too inefficient. One may say it formed, annihilated, reformed, etc., but there would come a time it can't reform. This poor yield should be reflected in more energy that matter in the universe.

Do you have any links to this information? I would really like to read about this idea.

[UncleAl]

I don't really have a beef with matter-anti-matter. The direction I was heading with this is positive charge is more stable with heavier mass to form the proton. The negative charge is more stable as an electron. That is why positrons can interact reversibly with the large mass in nuclei without going poof. The final stable state always involves a proton.

Ignorance is educable, stupidity is forever. Make your choice. Uncle Al suggests education lest you continue as a prolix loud fool.

BEATING A DEAD HORSE

Matter versus antimatter is charge conjugation: inversion of electric charge, baryon number, lepton number, and strangeness (all internal quantum numbers). THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN ENERGY AT ALL. Attempts to rationalize matter favored over antimatter during the Big Bang by the exclusively left-handed Weak Interaction are proven to be wholly insufficent. Any interface of matter and antimatter in the visible universe will be a bright beacon of 511 KeV annihalation radiation. There is no subtlety about it.