|
|
Post by kmsdrwho510 on Nov 4, 2012 18:32:45 GMT
Another one from the same Space, Universe, etc. Show:
The show claims that when equal amounts of matter and anti-matter collide, they destroy each other in a nuclear explosion. OK, that I can believe without any problem. But what about that little law that says "matter cannot be created or destroyed?" Loophole?
|
|
|
|
Post by freegan on Nov 4, 2012 18:50:25 GMT
Matter and energy are interchangeable according to Einstein so the energy that created those matter/anti-matter particles was released 'back into the wild'.
And that program didn't, apparently, explain that the amounts of anti-matter and matter were slightly unequal, leaving the matter that populates the Universe today.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Nov 4, 2012 18:55:28 GMT
Matter is effectively a form of very stable energy, and while energy can't be created or destroyed it can be transformed from one form to another.
So matter/antimatter reactions don't violate the laws of physics.
|
|
|
|
Post by kmsdrwho510 on Nov 4, 2012 21:02:32 GMT
OK, that makes sense. But what happens when energy is burned? I realize it cannot be destroyed, but is that when it's turned back into matter in the form of a gas?
|
|
|
|
Post by kmsdrwho510 on Nov 4, 2012 21:08:15 GMT
As I posted in the other question thread I have: The program is called How The Universe Works. It's narrated by Mike Rowe, which is why I started watching it. It's actually pretty good, but it assumes the viewer already understands some concepts they are talking about. While I have a huge interest in astronomy, there are a lot of things that still leave me scratching my head, going "huh?" I'll post again if I have another question.  |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Nov 5, 2012 3:28:08 GMT
Please do.
Note that there is a science links board in the Oracle section. You may find answers to some of your questions through the posted links there.
|
|
|
|
Post by unavailable on Nov 5, 2012 16:00:54 GMT
Matter and energy are interchangeable according to Einstein so the energy that created those matter/anti-matter particles was released 'back into the wild'. And that program didn't, apparently, explain that the amounts of anti-matter and matter were slightly unequal, leaving the matter that populates the Universe today. What process created matter and anti-matter unequally? |
|
|
|
Post by freegan on Nov 5, 2012 17:49:31 GMT
What process created matter and anti-matter unequally? Try here for a rudimentary answer. It should give you enough clues for finding a more detailed explanation, if you need one. |
|
|
|
Post by unavailable on Nov 6, 2012 16:38:19 GMT
If I understand your link, matter and anti-matter were created equally but annihilated unequally. As yet, nobody knows how or why this happened and even changing the laws of physics doesn't explain it.
As far as I can find, the basis for the assumption of unequal annihilation is that we can observe the existence of coalesced matter objects but not anti-matter objects.
Is there any possibility that the quirk of the quarks mentioned in the link could preclude anti-matter from coalescing?
|
|
|
|
Post by kmsdrwho510 on Nov 6, 2012 17:36:36 GMT
I know that the truth is that the two collide and are changed into energy, but the show is misleading. It said "completely destroyed." That's the real problem I had here, the wording indicates that the process breaks one of the first laws of physics.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Nov 6, 2012 17:50:38 GMT
Well, it is true from a certain point of view.
Normal matter reactions may produce energy, but they usually produce matter. For example hydrogen and oxygen react and release energy (heat and light) but also create water.
In a matter/anti-matter reaction all you get is energy, no matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by freegan on Nov 6, 2012 17:53:53 GMT
'Strewth! You really know how to ask some tough questions. Considering that we have so little antimatter (from particle accelerator experiments) to work with, it may be that an undiscovered 'hidden variable' may be at play that influences anti-quark bonding but that still leaves the quark/anti-quark annihilation inequality up in the air. I'd prefer to leave that particular puzzle to the highly qualified particle physicists because that's what they're paid for and it makes my head spin. |
|
|
|
Post by subductionzone on Nov 7, 2012 13:46:53 GMT
From my very limited understanding of the "problem" of too many matter particles it would take some sort of parity violation. And here is an article that describes the latest parity violation found at the RHIC (Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider): www.bnl.gov/rhic/news2/news.asp?a=1073&t=pr |
|
|
|
Post by unavailable on Nov 8, 2012 5:41:05 GMT
From the above link:
"While some small violations of CP symmetry have been found in previous laboratory experiments, those violations are far too weak to account for the amount of matter remaining in the universe today. Likewise, the signs of possible local CP violation at STAR cannot explain the global predominance of matter in today’s world, but they may offer insight into how such symmetry violations occur."
It seems there is still no explantion of why we observe matter but not anti-matter so the assumption is that anti-matter doesn't exist. This goes back to my earlier question:
Is it possible that the universe contains an amount of anti-matter equivalent to the matter but it has not coalesced into observable objects?
|
|
|
|
Post by kmsdrwho510 on Nov 8, 2012 6:14:49 GMT
I believe that was mentioned in the TV show "The Universe," that it is estimated that there exists an equal amound of matter to anti-matter, and the same goes for Dark Matter, Dark Energy, etc.
Also to my understanding: we cannot observe anti-matter, Dark Matter or Dark Energy but we theroize that they exist because there is simply no other explanation that we have.
|
|
|
|
Post by unavailable on Nov 9, 2012 5:33:39 GMT
I believe that was mentioned in the TV show "The Universe," that it is estimated that there exists an equal amound of matter to anti-matter, and the same goes for Dark Matter, Dark Energy, etc. Also to my understanding: we cannot observe anti-matter, Dark Matter or Dark Energy but we theroize that they exist because there is simply no other explanation that we have. Physicists have produced anti-hydrogen atoms and they are observable. The number of atoms produced was too small to measure gravitational properties so whether or not they would coalesce into larger objects is still unknown. Perhaps the effects attributed to 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' are really caused by a universe filled with subatomic anti-matter particles with gravitational properties that are different than matter particles. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Nov 9, 2012 9:02:39 GMT
Do we have anti-matter?....
I mean, is it something we can contain?...
I read that matter and anti-matter will "Self cancel", I dunno about explode.
However, that was theoretical.
Its like having questions about Zombies... I always say bring me a real life zombie and we can talk....
Bring me real life anti-matter, we can experiment.... has anyone ever created or contained anti-matter, or even observed it, and if so, what happened?.....
My own theory, I can theorise all you want, but until its in front of me, I cant give you exacts?....
|
|
|
|
Post by freegan on Nov 9, 2012 12:51:21 GMT
Highly unlikely, given that cosmologists can observe the collisions of galaxies, each with their attendant dark matter 'halo' and no cataclysmic reactions are evident.
It looks like dark matter is way weirder than anything we can currently imagine.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Nov 9, 2012 13:02:47 GMT
Anti-matter is produced both by some natural processes and can also be produced, if in VERY small amounts in some labs.
Anti-matter and Dark matter are two different things.
Dark Matter is matter that doesn't omit anything we can detect, therefore we can't see that matter unless it interacts with something else. For example a black hole is dark matter, as we can't see it unless it has a disk of compressed gas around it being drawn in to the hole or is bending the light emitted from something behind it (a star or a galaxy).
Planets are also dark matter - we can only detect them because they interact with the star they orbit. Given how many planets we have discovered orbiting stars in the last decade or two chances are quite a fair chunk of the universes missing matter is in the form of planets and other stellar objects orbiting stars. While the amount of matter would be tiny compared to the mass of an individual star, overall the amount of mass would be significant if most stars have planets.
Black holes probably cover most of the remaining 'missing' matter, since it appears that galaxies usually have one in their centre and if black holes exist between galaxies as well you'd never know it.
So 'Dark Matter' doesn't have to be exotic - and probably isn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by freegan on Nov 9, 2012 14:33:27 GMT
The use of the term "Dark" in cosmology is usually used to convey the idea that no-one knows what's going on and we don't know how to find out (i.e. we're totally in the dark about it). Dark Matter, Dark Energy and Dark Flow are examples of this usage. Calling black holes "Dark Matter" is a borderline use of the term but referring to extra-solar planets as such is a definite misuse. Find "Dark Objects" in the 'snapshots' for an example of ordinary matter in the dark, in this link.Dark Matter is indeed exotic, in that, during galactic collisions, the Dark Matter 'haloes' do not appear to even interact with each other, passing serenely through one another, only drawn back to the galactic maelstrom by the gravitational attraction of ordinary matter. |
|
