Maria Spiropulu is a physics doctoral candidate at Harvard. Her response follows:
Let's start by defining matter. People have asked "what is matter?" for quite a long time. Democritus, the ancient Greek philosopher and mathematician, envisioned structure in the building blocks of everything and he called the basis for this structure an atom; he wrote, "nothing exists except atoms and empty space: everything else is opinion." At the atomic level, the world can be described in terms of the elements, including hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and the like.
As it turns out, though, atoms are not the fundamental constituents of matter. When we zoom closer into matter, by probing at smaller distances, the subatomic world unfolds. The closer we look, the stranger this world, the quantum world, actually behaves. We can not make a direct connection with it: at a small scale, objects do not behave like rods or balls or waves or clouds or anything we have ever directly experienced. But the quantum mechanics of this world does let us describe how atoms form molecules.
It also enables us to depict the "motion" of certain particles inside atoms. Indeed, atoms are made of electrons that whiz around the fixed protons and neutrons in their nuclei, which are made of quarks. These particles all interact with each other by means of "force messenger" particles, such as photons, gluons, W's and Z's. Based on the attributes of these particles, we assign them identification numbers, or quantum numbers. And by means of symmetries and conservation laws involving the quantum numbers of the particles, we can describe their interactions. Examples of such numbers are charge and intrinsic angular momentum, or spin.
If a is any particle and this particle has no attributes other than linear and angular momentum (which include energy and spin), then a is its own anti-particle--one of the constituents of antimatter. For example, the photon is its own anti-particle. If a particle has other attributes (such as an electric charge Q), then the anti-particle has the opposite attributes (or a charge of -Q). The proton and neutron have such attributes. In the case of the proton, its positive charge distinguishes it from the negatively charged anti-proton. The neutron--although electrically neutral--has a magnetic moment opposite that of the anti-neutron. Protons and neutrons have another quantum number called the baryon number, which also has the opposite sign in the corresponding anti-particles.
The operation of changing particles with anti-particles is called Charge conjugation (C). Particles and anti-particles have the exact same mass and equal, but opposite charges and magnetic moments; if they are unstable, they have the same lifetime. This period is called the Charge Conjugation-Parity-Time (CPT) invariance, which establishes the fact that if you interchange particles for anti-particles (C), look in a three dimensional mirror (P) and reverse time (T), you cannot tell the difference between the them. The most stringent tests of CPT to date are measurements of the ratio of the magnetic moments of the electron and positron to two parts in a trillion (R. Van Dyck, Jr. and P. B. Schwinberg, University of Washington,1987) and measurements of charge per mass of the proton and antiproton--found to be 0.999,999,999,91 to 90 parts per trillion (G. Gabrielse, Harvard, 1998).
See what we're tweeting about
8 Comments
Add CommentSir it is a very intresting topic where we need a lot of reserch and its application. I like to have more information of this theory in space applications.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI hope that anyone that reads this, knows that the quantity of antimatter produced, could only light a lightbulb for a couple minutes. We're lots of years short of having anything antimatter based. As well as if they will even launch it to our government, it's highly dangerous, costs a ton, and uses massive amounts of electricity. So, what they talk about could be very possible, but don't get your hopes up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUpdate Concepts
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisElectron: The Present Universe Runs ONLY Forward
A. From "Sizing up the Electron"
Measuring the inner shape of the famous particle could help solve a cosmic mystery
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/69229/title/Sizing_up_the_Electron
- "Physicists suspect that electric dipole moments exist because they allow particles to violate what's known as time-reversal symmetry. Although symmetry sounds like a good thing, scientists know that processes involving other particles (such as B mesons) behave differently whether running forward or backward, a violation of time-reversal symmetry. In order for this to happen, the electron (and other fundamental particles) must have an internal structure, something an electric dipole moment can reveal."
- "The Big Bang should have created matter and antimatter in equal amounts".
B. The Universe is SPACEDISTANCE, NOT SPACETIME. It runs ONLY FORWARD.
From "Commonsensical Cosmic Rebirth", comment on "Cosmic reincarnation idea may be dead"
http://www.sciencenews.org/index/generic/activity/view/id/67788/title/Cosmic_reincarnation_idea_may_be_dead
Rethink
- A Basic Physics Tenet: SpaceDistance, in lieu of SpaceTime.
- The universe in which we live: It is a dualistic, mass-energy, cyclic array.
C. The Big Bang was the start of the still ongoing D>0, of the still growing D
in E=Total[m(1 + D)]
The Big Bang did not create matter or antimatter, in any amount. It was the start of the still ongoing reconversion of m into E. It was the culmination of the 10^-35 seconds long singularity.
Dov Henis
(Comments From The 22nd Century)
Dispel Some Figments Of 2010 Science Imagination
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2SF3CJJM5OU6T27OC4MFQSDYEU/blog/articles/245540
03.2010 Updated Life Manifest
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/54.page#5065
28Dec09 Updated "Implications Of E=Total[m(1 + D)] "
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/180/122.page#3108
Cosmic Evolution Simplified
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/240/122.page#4427
"Gravity Is The Monotheism Of The Cosmos"
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/260/122.page#4887
Evolution, Natural Selection, Derive From Cosmic Expansion
http://darwiniana.com/2010/09/05/the-question-reductionists-fear/
Again:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMatter and antimatter are products of evolution of mass along its route of reconversion into energy, started at Big Bang.
Dov Henis
(Comments From The 22nd Century)
If a proton is its own antimatter then how does it exist?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyes i meant photon not proton
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientists postulate that there is an imbalance to the amount of matter relative to anti matter in the universe seeing as both should have been created equally. If the imbalance of the amount of anti matter in the universe is unaccountable for, is that indicative of there having been unequal amounts of matter to anti matter to begin with and what we have as tangible is more matter than anti matter in the original sum? What we can use as evidence in all of this to explain any existence of anti matter is the fact that we can produce and store it at will, even though that is in minuscule amounts. If anti matter can be produced at will using relatively lots of energy doesn't that mean that anti matter can only be made in all possible settings by energy being applied to matter to the extent that its spin is reversed thus creating anti matter? Maybe the working out that matter and anti matter were created equally at the beginning of this universe is wrong. Anti matter can be shown to be created from matter in laboratories and there is no evidence to show that anti matter can be created from any other source and manner. I wrote the latter some time as questions to CERN's Google + hangouts but they never answered. The text is still retrievable from their Google+ hangout you tube pages.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientists postulate that there is an imbalance to the amount of matter relative to anti matter in the universe seeing as both should have been created equally. If the imbalance of the amount of anti matter in the universe is unaccountable for, is that indicative of there having been unequal amounts of matter to anti matter to begin with and what we have as tangible is more matter than anti matter in the original sum? What we can use as evidence in all of this to explain any existence of anti matter is the fact that we can produce and store it at will, even though that is in minuscule amounts. If anti matter can be produced at will using relatively lots of energy doesn't that mean that anti matter can only be made in all possible settings by energy being applied to matter to the extent that its spin is reversed thus creating anti matter? Maybe the working out that matter and anti matter were created equally at the beginning of this universe is wrong. Anti matter can be shown to be created from matter in laboratories and there is no evidence to show that anti matter can be created from any other source and manner. I wrote the latter some time as questions to CERN's Google + hangouts but they never answered. The text is still retrievable from their Google+ hangout you tube pages.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this