Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Antimatter

Antimatter:
Matter and antimatter are complete opposites, as do all that are created have opposites, for example heaven and hell, man and women, light and dark, etc.
Scietists believe that when the universe was created, equal amounts of antimatter and matter were created. Heard of the Big Bang theory? I'm not very clear-is it that two particles crashed or something?
And what do you think happened to the antimatter? There are no antimatter now, only matter. (well, except for those created in high energy collisions.The collision takes place in the Large Hadron Collider, by the way.)
And what exactly is antimatter and how does it look like? Someone help me out?

ive heard a theory about that. dont know how well accepted it was, but someone had the idea that since they were reversed, the big bang sent matter outwords and antimatter inwards into some kind of black hole. another theory someone came up with is that matter went one way and anti the other. if this is true, the galaxies that are moving away fastest are antimatter gallaxies. point is, no one really knows.

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/horse.htm

Particle physics contains a small asymmetry. Matter and antimatter condensing out of Big Bang ylem are not a 50:50 toss.

dehammer there is/was no "in" and/or "out" and I can't think of a single serious proposal in physics that corresponds with your statement.

evil:
Matter and antimatter are NOT complete opposites. There is a lot of support for the proposition that the differences, however small, were enough that more matter was created. For more information on this check out:
http://www.llnl.gov/str/VanBib.html
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/experiments/bfactory.html

Random note to Uncle Al:

Dear Al:

Could not help but note your comments on
success in Physics, especially the "feeling lucky" comment directed at the young and the enthusiastic.

Regarding the depths of theoretical physics, you may well be correct.

By no means however is particle physics or hi-energy physics or GUT theory the answer to everything.

About 20 years ago, I finished a major in chemistry and biochemistry and spent a year in the graduate physical chemistry, before coming to believe that wall-papering my playpen with the quantum mechanics of very small molecules and radicals most likely would NOT earn a good living for me. So, I bailed out and went to med school.

Now, 20 years later,an internal medicine physician, I intensely miss the disciplines of the physical sciences- and worse, I can remember the individual classes and problems as if it were yesterday.

I have long been aware that medicine and biology in general is art, rather than science. The point is this: there remains a vast area of biophysics and biophysical chemistry in the realm of phenomena far from thermal equilibrium whose mathematical description in closed form is either very hard or impossible, but the understanding of which is crucial to evolving medicine into a more mature scientific discipline. All these years later I am seriously entertaining the idea of pursuing chemical physics with a view toward work in the areas that Prigogine made so famous sveral years back. There are many tracts on non-linear thermodynamics, including ones by Prigogine himself. In areas such as these, I am willing to hazard a guess that pushing existing techniques in new directions and modestly advancing theory is still a possible endeavor- and in areas like this, one probably does not have to develop a profound revolution in physical thought, such as in Feynman's QED or Einstein's special relativity. Perhaps a bit of humility is advisable on your part, especially when lecturing to those who are young, eager and enthusiastic enough to devote many years to pluming the depths of physics?

Well said Random. Though it applies not just to Uncle Al ... but rather to all of us.

once again, the science class that I've referred to before is showing its effect. i read or heard about a lot of theories, many of which have been discredited in the succeeding decades, but which at the time were possible. as i pointed out, they don't have much following or did not at that time. some of them have been proven wrong, while others are against accepted theory. there was one that was not accepted when it came out, that i believe is now accepted, that was a carbon molecule (i believe) called a bucket ball (or something close to it) that is close to being the perfect lubricant. not every one has been discredited. i don't know enough about antimatter/matter to know if these have been discredited.

one thing that is 'commonly' accepted (possible another urban myth) is that antimatter reacts the opposite as matter does. for it, a push is a pull, and vice versa