MedVision ad

Anti-matter and Dark Matter (1 Viewer)

747captain

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
34
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Could someone please help explain to me what Anti-matter and Dark Matter are, how they are different, and what arguments to support their existence?

I've browsed the net, and got reasonable definitions and explanation on what they are, but not much on how they are different nor
anything regarding arguments to support their existence.

Greatly appreciate the help.

Cheers
 

kurt.physics

Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
840
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
hello,

anti-matter

anti-matter was postulated by paul Dirac in 1928, he stated that Every Fundamental Particle (i.e. neutrons, protons, electrons) has an antiparticle- a mirror twin with the same mass but opposite charge. He also provided the mathematical basis for the theory. He predicted that an electron, which is negatively charged, should have a positively charged counter part i.e. the positron. Diracs mathematical calculations also apply to other fundamental particles.
The discovery of positrons ( also known as anti-electrons) in the cosmic radiation in 1932 by Carl Anderson vindicated Dirac's bold prediction. 23 years later scientists at the University of California at Berkeley created the antiproton in a particle accelerator. When matter and anti-matter meet, they annihilate and disapear in a violent explosion in which mass is converted in to energy ( predicted by Einstein's formula E=mc2).
If you think that is perplexing, then what about the idea of an anti-universe- a universe parallel to ours? Enter it and you will find your antimatter counterpart: anti-you. But dont shake hands!

Dark Matter

Aside from Normal matter i.e. Solids, Liquids, Gases, Plasmas and Bose-Einstein Condensates is Dark Matter and Exotic Matter both of which is hypothetical. Dark Matter does not emmit or reflect enough electromagnetic radiation to be observed directly, but whose presence can be infered from gravitational effects on visible matter. It accounts for the vast majority of mass in the observable universe. The first to provide evidence and infer the existence of a phenomenon that has come to be called "dark matter" was swiss astrophysicist Fritz Zwicky in 1933. He applied the virtual theorem to the Coma cluster of galaxies and obtained evidence of unseen mass. Zwicky estimated the cluster's total mass based on the motions of galaxies near its edge. When he compared this mass estimate to one based on the number of galaxies and total brightness of the cluster, he found that there was about 400 times more mass than expected. The gravity of the visible galaxies in the cluster would be far too small for such fast orbits, so something extra was required. This is known as the "missing mass problem". Based on these conclusions, Zwicky inferred that there must be some non-visible form of matter which would provide enough of the mass and gravity to hold the cluster together.

So in the universe we have Radiation, fundamental particles floating around i.e. quarks which in turn are combined with gluons to create subatomic particles like protons and neutrons. In this world we have also anti-particles which are composed of anti-quarks and anti-gluons which roam distant places in the universe. Also there is dark matter particles, say, axions roaming around neutrons and protons taking up lots of mass in the universe. There is also exotic matter which, instead of bending the fabric of the universe lift it due to the fact it has negative mass.

So basically anti-matter is considered to be a mirror of normal matter i.e subatomic particles and dark matter is a seperate form of matter which exists in large quantites whose hyperthetical particles are WIMPS or axions.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
By Kurt.physics
Yr. 8 student
fav. topic Physics, Mathematics
 
Last edited:

xiao1985

Active Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2003
Messages
5,704
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Another Eistein in the making...

It's scary that some one actually enjoyed physics... but meh I enjoyed maths and chemistry, so what am I to say?

Also, I believe anti-matter would have an opposite spin to their normal counterparts.
 

kurt.physics

Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
840
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
yes, i believe you would be right about the spin.
 
Last edited:

Kirjava

Member
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
32
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
xiao1985 said:
Another Eistein in the making...
I suppose you didn't notice the fact that most of that was an unacknowledged copy+paste splurge from wikipedia.

I'm sure that it was done in the interests of better answering the question kurt, but in future rather provide a link to the article in accompaniment to your own explanation.
 

Kirjava

Member
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
32
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
xiao1985 said:
Also, I believe anti-matter would have an opposite spin to their normal counterparts.
On a lighter note, you're quite right xiao, the antimatter counter-part to any normal particle has completely reversed quantum numbers (which happens to include spin and charge).

kurt.physics said:
So in the universe we have Radiation, fundamental particles floating around i.e. quarks which in turn are combined with gluons to create subatomic particles like protons and neutrons. In this world we have also anti-particles which are composed of anti-quarks and anti-gluons which roam distant places in the universe. Also there is dark matter particles, say, axions roaming around neutrons and protons taking up lots of mass in the universe. There is also exotic matter which, instead of bending the fabric of the universe lift it due to the fact it has negative mass.


I have a few things to add to this, firstly; quarks do not and cannot float around in isolation (an implication of QCD theory)- they are only found within hadrons (particles composed of quarks such as baryons e.g. the proton and neutron, and mesons e.g. the K-meson or the pion).

Also, quarks don't really "combine" with gluons any more than a charged particle "combines" with a photon in an electromagnetic interaction. Gluons are simply the carrier particles of the strong force (like photons are for the EM force), and are absorbed and emitted periodically in the process of the interaction.

Furthermore, the anti-particle of any hadron is not comprised of anti-gluons any more than its normal matter counterpart. Anti-gluons are a necessary part of the strong force, and are created and absorbed within both matter and antimatter particles.

Anti-matter may be roaming distant parts of the universe, but it happens to be all around us too (albeit not nearly as common as normal matter). The earth receives a huge and assorted shower of antiparticles which are created by collisions in the upper atmosphere involving cosmic rays every second (it's actually a significant problem in modern particle accelerators to shield the experiments from these "background" particles).

Unfortunately, I don't know enough about dark matter or dark energy to confidently comment on your second last line, however, I'm inclined to think that you are confusing exotic matter (uncommon, but rather ordinary and well understood particles) with dark energy in saying that it "lifts" rather than "bends" the universe- which is what I take to be a reference to general relativity's interpretation of gravity. So far as I know dark matter is suspected to be mutually repulsive (the opposite to matter which is mutually attractive via gravity) rather than possessing a negative mass- but I'm not too sure on that one.

Hope that didn't come off as too aggressive, I just couldn't bring myself to let those few things slip- that's all.

EDIT: If I happen to be wrong about anything, I offer my most humble apologies in advance- this is just what I happen to recall from some of my forays into particle physics, and I would be more than happy to accept a rebuke.<!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shapetype id="_x0000_t75" coordsize="21600,21600" o:spt="75" o:preferrelative="t" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" filled="f" stroked="f"> <v:stroke joinstyle="miter"/> <v:formulas> <v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"/> <v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0"/> <v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1"/> <v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2"/> <v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"/> <v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"/> <v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1"/> <v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2"/> <v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"/> <v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"/> <v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"/> <v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"/> </v:formulas> <v:path o:extrusionok="f" gradientshapeok="t" o:connecttype="rect"/> <o:lock v:ext="edit" aspectratio="t"/> </v:shapetype><v:shape id="_x0000_i1025" type="#_x0000_t75" alt="" style='width:12pt; height:12pt'> <v:imagedata src="file:///C:\DOCUME~1\Daniel\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtml1\01\clip_image001.gif" o:href="http://community.boredofstudies.org/images/smilies/smile.gif"/> </v:shape><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]-->:)<!--[endif]-->





 
Last edited:

kurt.physics

Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
840
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
So right, i still have a few things to learn, and admitinly I did copy some on dark matter because my perception is, as such, slightly blured on that topic, but i didnt plagerised the anti-matter, but i did refer to the net on the specific dates.
 

z600

Sigh.....
Joined
Feb 18, 2006
Messages
821
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
Kirjava said:
I have a few things to add to this, firstly; quarks do not and cannot float around in isolation (an implication of QCD theory)- they are only found within hadrons (particles composed of quarks such as baryons e.g. the proton and neutron, and mesons e.g. the K-meson or the pion).

Also, quarks don't really "combine" with gluons any more than a charged particle "combines" with a photon in an electromagnetic interaction. Gluons are simply the carrier particles of the strong force (like photons are for the EM force), and are absorbed and emitted periodically in the process of the interaction.

Furthermore, the anti-particle of any hadron is not comprised of anti-gluons any more than its normal matter counterpart. Anti-gluons are a necessary part of the strong force, and are created and absorbed within both matter and antimatter particles.

Anti-matter may be roaming distant parts of the universe, but it happens to be all around us too (albeit not nearly as common as normal matter). The earth receives a huge and assorted shower of antiparticles which are created by collisions in the upper atmosphere involving cosmic rays every second (it's actually a significant problem in modern particle accelerators to shield the experiments from these "background" particles).


*clap* learnt all that by yourself?
 

xiao1985

Active Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2003
Messages
5,704
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Kirjava said:
Yeah, I have a bit of an interest in particle physics.
phhfftt ... physics

/shakes head


mmm interesting... I'm most definite that positron (anti matter of electron) is widely used in industry today (PET scan), but i did not know that other anti particles are also generated in the upper atmosphere.

I always thought only highly charged ions and free radicals are generated...

Also, it was my first impression that the information was copy pasted from wiki, until a rough scan didn't give me any matching words etc from kurt's data and wiki.
 

z600

Sigh.....
Joined
Feb 18, 2006
Messages
821
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
xiao1985 said:
phhfftt ... physics

/shakes head


mmm interesting... I'm most definite that positron (anti matter of electron) is widely used in industry today (PET scan), but i did not know that other anti particles are also generated in the upper atmosphere.

I always thought only highly charged ions and free radicals are generated...

Also, it was my first impression that the information was copy pasted from wiki, until a rough scan didn't give me any matching words etc from kurt's data and wiki.
could be from physics notes/textbooks!
 

kurt.physics

Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
840
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
z600 said:
could be from physics notes/textbooks!
In yr. 8 no one would even know that anti-matter even exists and its definetly not in in the science syllabus for yr 8,9,10 and i'm pritty sure thats its not in yr.11 and 12 physics. I have not produced any physics notes as I am only in yr. 8!

Sorry, i hope that didnt come as an affence, i find it had to be acoused of something and have it imply im intelectually imperior
 

Kirjava

Member
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
32
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
kurt.physics said:
Sorry, i hope that didnt come as an affence, i find it had to be acoused of something and have it imply im intelectually imperior
I couldn't help but laugh at that one. You're almost quotable kurt =p
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 17, 2006
Messages
433
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
xiao1985 said:
Another Eistein in the making...

It's scary that some one actually enjoyed physics... but meh I enjoyed maths and chemistry, so what am I to say?
Amen, another child-prodigy physicist (and more?) in the making.
Scary. Yeh.

I enjoy learning, but not subjects, well, all of them, by the way.
kurt.physics said:
In yr. 8 no one would even know that anti-matter even exists and its definetly not in in the science syllabus for yr 8,9,10 and i'm pritty sure thats its not in yr.11 and 12 physics. I have not produced any physics notes as I am only in yr. 8!
Actually, I know of a peer who knew of uni, even postgraduate, physics (and therefore chemistry) in Yr4.;) You are, however, quite precocious for your age/year.
xiao1985 said:
Also, it was my first impression that the information was copy pasted from wiki, until a rough scan didn't give me any matching words etc from kurt's data and wiki.
Haha... perhaps it was reworded? Or from some tome of some sort.
Kirjava said:
I suppose you didn't notice the fact that most of that was an unacknowledged copy+paste splurge from wikipedia.
Eh, come on, someone's bitter or something; if it is, however, a copypasta splurge, sure it's legal to do that (well, not looking at the technicalities), but it's not cool.

Btw, what school, Kirjava?
xiao1985 said:
pphhhhtt... ghost... they don't exist xp
Yeh they do; in a parallel dimension.:rolleyes:
kurt said:
( predicted by Einstein's formula E=mc2).
That's not
"Einstein's formula"; it's only the mass-energy equivalence formula.;)

747captain said:
Could someone please help explain to me what Anti-matter and Dark Matter are, how they are different, and what arguments to support their existence?

I've browsed the net, and got reasonable definitions and explanation on what they are, but not much on how they are different nor anything regarding arguments to support their existence.
St. Dominics... aah. Cool.
Googlepedia a bit more, then I'll post some crap that could be published as a dissertation (currently supposed to be rushing essays...).:)

Any due date? What is this for?
 
Last edited:

Kirjava

Member
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
32
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
Thought I might've come off as a bit bitter. I was just surprised that people didn't notice that the style of writing in that post was considerably different from what kurt had exhibited elsewhere (or in the least suspiciously advanced), and that they went from there straight into calling him the next Einstein- granted, kurt's knowledge is certainly admirable for his age and I can only encourage his curiosity- it's just a matter of honesty, that's all. However, I found it slightly amusing to note that you called me "bitter or something", only to later acknowledge that copy+pasting "isn't cool". ;)

Mosman High is the school if you're interested- nothing special.
 

xiao1985

Active Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2003
Messages
5,704
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
edited out....

forget it... i shouldn't get too worked up with such a trivial matter...

/wave @lucid
how've you been?! =)
 
Last edited:

kurt.physics

Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
840
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Lucid Scintilla said:
That's not
"Einstein's formula"; it's only the mass-energy equivalence formula.;)
I didnt mean "Einsteins formula" but mearly an formula "discovered" by Einstein.
 
Joined
Dec 17, 2006
Messages
433
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
I wouldn't say it was discovered by Einstein either, Kurt - if you don't mind my calling you such a name.
It was simply that Einstein had published it first, IIRC, in his "Annus Mirabilis" (19...??, between 1901 and 1910).
;)
In fact, Newton (200 y.b.) is a 'major' contributor to such a relationship.

Kirjava, I see what you mean. Mosman High; good school from what I hear. =)
Well, hello.
xiao1985 said:
edited out....

forget it... i shouldn't get too worked up with such a trivial matter...
Hm?
/wave @lucid
how've you been?! =)
Not too bad, thanks. It's the holidays now; holidays are always wasted, 'cuz I have nothing to do other than work and I'm laaazy as hell.

What about you, Xiao? How've you been? =)
Long time no see.

(Sorry about not replying earlier or anything, btw.)
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top