Antimatter? Antiyou antime???

Ok here it is!

There is antimatter does this mean there is antiyou and antime?
If this is the case is it possible for there to be anti antimatter or would they just cancel each other out and make normal you and me?

Imagine a hot metal sheet in a coin factory ('energy'). When you stamp out a coin from a metal sheet, you are left with a coin and a hole in the sheet.You could call this hole an "anticoin".

Link

I have been reading a lot on this subject and a lot of it just boggles the mind.
What are some of your thoughts on the matter?

AlBeMeT

[edit on 5-12-2006 by AlBeMet]

Mods any idea why its leaving out the first half of my post its all there when i click edit


Ok its there now plz remove this

[edit on 5-12-2006 by AlBeMet]

That's some pretty deep stuff there. Really got me thinking.

It's the old, 'everything has an opposite' thing, isn't it?

A ship in the water displaces an amount of water, that water would be the anti-ship. Same with the coin, everything has an opposite, an anti-it as it were.



So your 'anti' would be the space you take up in the universe. At least, that's how I see it.

Originally posted by AlBeMet
Ok here it is!

There is antimatter does this mean there is antiyou and antime?

Nope... at least not in our dimension. We do have quantities (small amounts) of antimatter available and in use (used in PET scans.)

livefromcern.web.cern.ch...

If this is the case is it possible for there to be anti antimatter or would they just cancel each other out and make normal you and me?

It wouldn't even get that far. Unless it's kept in a special environment, the collision between the individual particles (the air or any other atom) immediately cancels it out with an unnoticeable explosion (because it's electrons or protons exploding) that produces radiation.

Ok I think I see so what your saying is my hole approach is off then?
And if they are making very small amounts of antimatter how is it possible? Does the matter have to be destroyed for this to happen and if it does wouldn’t that in effect put the matter in the anti matters space in the alternate?


AlBeMeT

I'm not really sure what the first paragraph of that article is trying to get at, but the rest of it is more or less correct.

When we talk about matter and anti-matter, we're talking about baryons. Knowing that energy creates both matter and anti-matter in what should be equal parts, here's a mind twister; almost all the baryons in the universe are matter. What was it about the beginnings of the universe that caused this imbalance between matter and anti-matter (favoring matter)? Why is it that matter and anti-matter didn't just collide and annihilate each other as they were created as "normally" happens? Anyone who can answer those questions will be unquestioningly famous because those are amongst the two most difficult questions in physics. There are some speculations right now, but that's about it.

Originally posted by AlBeMet
Ok I think I see so what your saying is my hole approach is off then?
And if they are making very small amounts of antimatter how is it possible? Does the matter have to be destroyed for this to happen and if it does wouldn’t that in effect put the matter in the anti matters space in the alternate?

AlBeMeT

I'm still unclear about the metaphor of the coin holes.

There are a few different ways of creating antimatter. Most of them don't require the destruction of matter, and some even require the creation of matter (because matter and antimatter usually come in pairs during their creation). Some make use of unstable particles of matter--unstable usually meaning isotopes--which decay and emit anti-particles, although those antiparticles don't typically last long since they usually quickly find themselves colliding with particles (which produces pure energy--E=mc^2--the only known process to do so). Plus, that produces vary, vary, vary, vary, vary small amounts of antimatter. For an example, check out how PET scans work--one of the few technologies we have that makes regular usage of antimatter.

Another way of doing it is to send a proton or an antiproton (usually the antiproton) off at relativistic speeds (usually greater than 0.2c) towards an atom of antimatter or matter (usually matter), respectively, and to have them pass by each other just close enough to cause a highly energy reaction, but not actually colliding and destroying each other. The energy from the reaction should be enough to create a positron (anti-electron), and sometimes that positron will begin "orbiting" the antiproton to create an atom of antihydrogen. It's an extremely expensive and difficult process. In fact, all known manners of artificial creation of antimatter are extremely expensive and difficult, except for with decay, but the amount of antimatter produced is negligible and short-lived. Antimatter is the most expensive substance per unit of measure known to man.

So, of course, that leads to the natural question of where they get all those antiprotons. CERN uses high protons, and bounces them off the nuclei of iridium atoms, which creates enough energy to create matter-antimatter pairs, some of which are antiprotons. The antiprotons are then separated into a vacuum with magnets.

It's all super-amazing stuff, and I highly recommend Jim Al-Khaliil's book Quantum: A Guide for the Complex for a reading.

Thanks supercheetah!! I will give that book a go. I just started touching the surface on this anti matter subject so sorry if my posts were a little confusing because thats how I feel on the subject at the moment. With people giving me great information on the subject I dont think it will take long for me to understand.

AlBeMeT