Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #610157 > unrolled thread

Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-12-23 12:42 -0500
    Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-12-23 10:21 -0800
      Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-12-23 11:19 -0800
    Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-23 18:59 +0000
      Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-23 11:05 -0800
        Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-12-23 18:30 -0500
          Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-12-27 09:49 -0800
            Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-12-28 13:22 -0800
              Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-12-28 16:04 -0800
        Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-24 16:22 +0000
          Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-24 16:24 -0800
            Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-25 15:26 +0000
              Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-25 11:13 -0800
                Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-26 02:17 +0000
                  Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-25 19:45 -0800
                    Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-26 05:31 +0000
                    Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-27 10:40 -0600
                      Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-27 09:12 -0800
                        Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-27 13:04 -0600
                      Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-27 09:26 -0800
                        Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-27 13:07 -0600
                          Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-27 12:33 -0800
                            Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-27 13:19 -0800
                              Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-28 22:28 -0600
                                Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-28 20:44 -0800
                                  Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-29 05:50 +0000
                                    Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-29 07:47 -0800
                                      Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-29 17:33 +0000
                                        Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-29 10:08 -0800
                                          Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-29 22:10 +0000
                                            spectra from waves of emmission & absorption noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-12-29 15:31 -0800
                                            Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-03 12:14 -0600
                                              Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-03 11:09 -0800
                                  Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-02 13:36 -0600
                                    Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-02 16:52 -0800
                                      Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-01-02 20:10 -0500
                                      Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-03 15:30 +0000
                                      Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-03 15:00 -0600
                                        Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-01-03 17:02 -0800
                                          Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-03 18:59 -0800
                                            Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time edprochak@gmail.com - 2017-01-04 08:02 -0800
                                              Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-04 08:20 -0800
                                                Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time edprochak@gmail.com - 2017-01-04 08:47 -0800
                                                Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-04 10:50 -0600
                                                  Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-04 09:17 -0800
                                                    Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-04 11:30 -0600
                                                    Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time edprochak@gmail.com - 2017-01-05 06:34 -0800
                                                      Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-05 07:16 -0800
                                                        Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-05 10:17 -0600
                                                          Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-05 08:40 -0800
                                                            Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-06 07:08 -0600
                                                              of Antimatter bserveD noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-01-06 14:24 -0800
                                                        sorry, Dad noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-01-05 12:29 -0800
                                                          sorry, Dad john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-05 14:15 -0800
                                                        Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time edprochak@gmail.com - 2017-01-07 19:03 -0800
                                                          Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-07 19:14 -0800
                                                            Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-08 06:59 +0000
                                                            Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time edprochak@gmail.com - 2017-01-09 10:19 -0800
                                                          Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-09 11:27 -0800
                                                            Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-09 13:50 -0600
                                                Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-04 18:45 +0000
                                                  timewise noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-01-04 11:48 -0800
                                                  Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-04 13:14 -0800
                                                    tock noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-01-04 16:32 -0800
                                                    Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-05 04:10 +0000
                                            Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-04 10:28 -0600
                            Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-28 03:39 +0000
                              Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-28 06:01 -0800
                                Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-28 08:04 -0800
                                  Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-28 20:33 +0000
                                  Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-02 13:35 -0600
                                    Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-01-03 12:32 -0800
                                Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-28 16:28 +0000
                            Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-28 22:28 -0600
                              Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-12-29 00:36 -0500
                Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-27 10:39 -0600
          Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-24 18:51 -0800
            Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-25 15:23 +0000
        Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-27 10:34 -0600
      Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-12-23 12:43 -0800
        Re: Spectrum Of Antimatter Observed For First Time john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-23 14:04 -0800

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

#611669

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>The antimatter is in the neighbouring
>galactic arm, that is kept separate from
>our arm BECAUSE it repels.

So what holds galaxies together? If matter arms repelled antimatter arms,
why don't the arms fly apart from each other?

>Or- why did you think galactic arms remain
>separated?

They don't.  As stars orbit, they move from one arm to the next arm. The
arms themselves are standing waves of higher densities of stars as they
orbit the center, they are not permanent structures.

You've been told that several times before, but that ADHD of yours keeps
you distracted, and you go off and post the same thing without resolving
the problems.

>And then, within our arm of matter-
>the half-and-half resumes with the
>up electron versus the down electron
>(which is just an upside-down positron)

Babble.

======

You still haven't explained how both matter arms and antimatter arms could
be in contact with the center, without one arm or the other annihilating
with whatever the center is made of (matter/antimatter).

You never explained where the 511 keV annihilating radiation is, where
matter from one arm encounters the antimatter from the next arm. Look
at any spiral galaxy, you'll see the star density does NOT go to zero
between the arms, it is simply lower density there (see what I wrote before,
stars spend time there as they orbit, moving from one arm to the next)

You don't explain odd-numbered armed galaxies, nor irregular/elliptical
galaxies with no arms.

I know you intended to do that, it's that damned ADHD again.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#611674 — timewise

I cut you after a.d.h.d, because
it exacerbates mine, but
what you say is as far as I have heard, as well, and
I'm sure that it is covered by Alfven et al
(he died, a couple of years ago, though

> They don't.  As stars orbit, they move from one arm to the next arm. The
> arms themselves are standing waves of higher densities of stars as they
> orbit the center, they are not permanent structures.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#611690

Mike
"john <johnse...@gmail.com> writes: 

>The antimatter is in the neighbouring 
>galactic arm, that is kept separate from 
>our arm BECAUSE it repels. 

So what holds galaxies together? If matter arms repelled antimatter arms, 
why don't the arms fly apart from each other? 
 Me- what holds atoms together?

>Or- why did you think galactic arms remain 
>separated? 

They don't.  As stars orbit, they move from one arm to the next arm. The 
arms themselves are standing waves of higher densities of stars as they 
orbit the center, they are not permanent structures. 

You've been told that several times before, but that ADHD of yours keeps 
you distracted, and you go off and post the same thing without resolving 
the problems. 
 Me- I'm certain they can not see that detail;
      or are even sure that the star followed
      is even in the same galaxy.

>And then, within our arm of matter- 
>the half-and-half resumes with the 
>up electron versus the down electron 
>(which is just an upside-down positron) 

Babble. 

====== 

You still haven't explained how both matter arms and antimatter arms could 
be in contact with the center, without one arm or the other annihilating 
with whatever the center is made of (matter/antimatter). 

You never explained where the 511 keV annihilating radiation is, where 
matter from one arm encounters the antimatter from the next arm. Look 
at any spiral galaxy, you'll see the star density does NOT go to zero 
between the arms, it is simply lower density there (see what I wrote before, 
stars spend time there as they orbit, moving from one arm to the next) 
 Me- impossible to see

You don't explain odd-numbered armed galaxies, nor irregular/elliptical 
galaxies with no arms. 
 Me- odd-numbered galaxies are rare
     for that very reason- what is YOUR reason?
I know you intended to do that, it's that damned ADHD again. 
 Me- I know you knew- because I know
       your little mind

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#611698 — tock

yolittlemind,
I have always known of this, but
what are any pr00fs ... probably is some, but
time-lapse ain't it

> They don't.  As stars orbit, they move from one arm to the next arm. The 
> arms themselves are standing waves of higher densities of stars as they 
> orbit the center, they are not permanent structures. 
>  Me- I'm certain they can not see that detail;
>       or are even sure that the star followed
>       is even in the same galaxy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#611717

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>So what holds galaxies together? If matter arms repelled antimatter arms, 
>why don't the arms fly apart from each other? 
> Me- what holds atoms together?

Not an answer.  Besides, you should know that opposite charges attract
and that is what holds atoms together.

>>Or- why did you think galactic arms remain 
>>separated? 

>They don't.  As stars orbit, they move from one arm to the next arm. The 
>arms themselves are standing waves of higher densities of stars as they 
>orbit the center, they are not permanent structures. 

>You've been told that several times before, but that ADHD of yours keeps 
>you distracted, and you go off and post the same thing without resolving 
>the problems. 

> Me- I'm certain they can not see that detail;
>      or are even sure that the star followed
>      is even in the same galaxy.

That's the whole galactic rotation curve you keep whining about. How the
stars move in the galaxy.  We also have good computer simulation of how
the stars move in a galaxy under mutual gravity. I've given you links in
the past.


>You still haven't explained how both matter arms and antimatter arms could 
>be in contact with the center, without one arm or the other annihilating 
>with whatever the center is made of (matter/antimatter). 

No answer?

>You never explained where the 511 keV annihilating radiation is, where 
>matter from one arm encounters the antimatter from the next arm. Look 
>at any spiral galaxy, you'll see the star density does NOT go to zero 
>between the arms, it is simply lower density there (see what I wrote before, 
>stars spend time there as they orbit, moving from one arm to the next) 
> Me- impossible to see

You'd have to assume it goes from a lowish value to suddenly dropping to zero
and back up to the same lowish value in a very short distance for that to
be true.  Extremely unlikely.  Besides, we still have all those stars
moving from one arm to another as they orbit.

There should be loads of 511 keV gammas.

>You don't explain odd-numbered armed galaxies, nor irregular/elliptical 
>galaxies with no arms. 
> Me- odd-numbered galaxies are rare

But not zero?

>     for that very reason- what is YOUR reason?

The three body problem doesn't have a closed solution.  A 100 billion body
problem? I don't know all the dynamics of that.

And what about irregular/elliptical galaxies which are very common?

>I know you intended to do that, it's that damned ADHD again. 

> Me- I know you knew- because I know
>       your little mind

Go see a doctor and explain. Maybe he'll give you a scrip for Ritalin
or something else from Big Pharma (NO! Don't head to Little Pharma!!!)
which can help with that.

As Odd says, you have lots of interesting ideas.  Too bad those damn facts 
keep getting in the way!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#611653

On 1/3/2017 8:59 PM, john wrote:
> "Antimatter gravity could explain Universe's expansion - Phys.org
> phys.org › Physics › General Physics
> AMP - Apr 13, 2011 - For this reason, most physicists think that the
> gravitational behavior of antimatter should always be attractive, as
> it is for matter. ... As Villata explains, the current formulation of
> general relativity predicts that matter and antimatter are both self-attractive,
> yet matter and antimatter mutually repel each other."
> Apparent,
> everyone doesn't believe like Odd
>

  M. Villata. “CPT symmetry and antimatter gravity in general 
relativity.” EPL (Europhysics Letters), 94 (2011) 20001.

That's how you do a proper reference, John.

Villata's idea has not been validated by experiment. But you're right, 
there are a FEW physicists who think that matter and antimatter MIGHT be 
mutually repulsive. Most physicists believe otherwise.


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#610572

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Odd
>"As other kids learned in the third grade, and which you missed in the 
>tenth grade, opposite charges attract. Always. "

>What are you talking about "charges" for?
>I'm talking about ANTIMATTER versus MATTER.

This has been pointed out to you MANY times, John.  Antimatter particles
have the opposite charge of matter particles.  Positrons are positively
charged, opposite of their matter equivalent, the electron.  Antiprotons
are negatively charged, opposite of their matter equivalent, the proton.

Oppositely charged things will attract each other very strongly.

You appear to have a very short attention span.  In addition to OCD, 
perhaps there's some ADHD there as well?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#610593

Michael
If people don't listen to you for very
long, it could be their attention span,
yes.
That is one possibility.
Or it could be lack of content

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#610598

Michael,  you and Odd are
always immediately comparing 
apples and oranges.

Yes, charges are opposites.
They better be- they are two halves
of the whole. We don't have to call
them positive and negative. Up-down works.
Left-right works.

We're not talking charges. We're talking
neutral matter versus neutral antimatter,
okay? Got that so far?

So- what we got, so far, 
is:
 MATTER ATTRACTS MATTER

so fill in the remaining blanks

ANTIMATTER __________ANTIMATTER

MATTER ___________ANTIMATTER

ANTIMATTER ___________ MATTER

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#610724

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>We're not talking charges. We're talking
>neutral matter versus neutral antimatter,
>okay? Got that so far?

There is a lot of (charged) plasma in interstellar space. But go on.

>So- what we got, so far, 
>is:
> MATTER ATTRACTS MATTER

>so fill in the remaining blanks

>ANTIMATTER __________ANTIMATTER

>MATTER ___________ANTIMATTER

>ANTIMATTER ___________ MATTER


"ATTRACTS" all three times.

Remember, antimatter has positive mass/energy, and gravity actually acts on
energy (in the form of mass or not).  If antimatter had negative mass/energy,
we'd see electrons/positrons annihilating by vanishing completely -- not even
a blip -- as the total energy would be zero.

And I listed three other issues with galactic arms being alternate matter/
antimatter, which you've avoided answering so far.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#611341

On 12/28/2016 10:04 AM, john wrote:
> Michael,  you and Odd are
> always immediately comparing
> apples and oranges.
>
> Yes, charges are opposites.
> They better be- they are two halves
> of the whole. We don't have to call
> them positive and negative. Up-down works.
> Left-right works.
>
> We're not talking charges. We're talking
> neutral matter versus neutral antimatter,
> okay? Got that so far?
>
> So- what we got, so far,
> is:
>  MATTER ATTRACTS MATTER
>
> so fill in the remaining blanks
>
> ANTIMATTER __________ANTIMATTER
>
> MATTER ___________ANTIMATTER
>
> ANTIMATTER ___________ MATTER
>
>

Attracts.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#611518

esp. handshakes

> _MATTER
> >
> >
> 
> Attracts.
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#610600

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Michael
>If people don't listen to you for very
>long, it could be their attention span,
>yes.
>That is one possibility.
>Or it could be lack of content

No, John, it's not me, it's you.  You post something about retarded
spinny things, then Odd, me or someone else points out to you why your
ideas are non-starters, you may go quiet for a couple of days, but
you always come back a few days later with the same retarded ideas.

You ask questions which Odd answered two days ago.

You obviously don't have an attention span that lasts more than a
day or two.  You seem unable to remember things you were told more
than about two days ago.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#610642

On 12/27/2016 2:33 PM, john wrote:
> Odd
> "As other kids learned in the third grade, and which you missed in the
> tenth grade, opposite charges attract. Always. "
>
> What are you talking about "charges" for?
> I'm talking about ANTIMATTER versus MATTER.
>

John, you apparently cannot read more than one or two sentences at a 
time. I'll try one more time and please focus.

One of the DEFINING TRAITS of antimatter vs. matter is that the particle 
and antiparticle have opposite electric charge. Thus, like all opposite 
electric charges, they ATTRACT.

Example: electron vs. positron, particle and antiparticle. Electron is 
negatively charged, positron is positively charged. They ATTRACT.

Example: proton vs. antiproton, particle and antiparticle. Proton is 
positively charged, antiproton is negatively charged. They ATTRACT.

What part of this is eluding you?

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#610657

On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 22:28:26 -0600, Odd Bodkin wrote:

>On 12/27/2016 2:33 PM, john wrote:
>> Odd
>> "As other kids learned in the third grade, and which you missed in the
>> tenth grade, opposite charges attract. Always. "
>>
>> What are you talking about "charges" for?
>> I'm talking about ANTIMATTER versus MATTER.
>>
>
>John, you apparently cannot read more than one or two sentences at a 
>time. I'll try one more time and please focus.
>
>One of the DEFINING TRAITS of antimatter vs. matter is that the particle 
>and antiparticle have opposite electric charge. Thus, like all opposite 
>electric charges, they ATTRACT.
>
>Example: electron vs. positron, particle and antiparticle. Electron is 
>negatively charged, positron is positively charged. They ATTRACT.
>
>Example: proton vs. antiproton, particle and antiparticle. Proton is 
>positively charged, antiproton is negatively charged. They ATTRACT.
>
>What part of this is eluding you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antineutron
The antineutron ... has ... no net electric charge

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#610495

On 12/25/2016 1:13 PM, john wrote:
> Michael
> "
> But they do exist.  How can the rare 3 armed galaxies have arms
> alternating between matter and antimatter? "
>
> If two of the arms are the same,
> they will attract each other and coalesce.

But for the OBSERVED galaxies where that coalescence has NOT happened 
(obviously), where are the gamma rays?

John, why do you hang on to your ideas that just DO NOT WORK?

> This would seem to predict
> double electrons, if they then remain
> together. Presumably,  it would take some
> time for 2 to become 1.
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#610327

Michael

4) "You claim (falsely) that matter and antimatter repel each other. 
If that were true, what holds galaxies together? "

Matter and antimatter are like the 
crest and trough of a wave. 
Why don't they just annihilate?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#610352

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Michael

>4) "You claim (falsely) that matter and antimatter repel each other. 
>If that were true, what holds galaxies together? "

>Matter and antimatter are like the 
>crest and trough of a wave. 
>Why don't they just annihilate?

Because E=mc^2.  An electron has a mass equivalent to 511 keV.  A positron
has a mass of 511 keV.  So when they annihilate, they produce 1022 keV
worth of gammas, frequently 2 511 keV gammas (in the COM frame).

But most important of all, they have opposite charges, therefore they
attract each other strongly.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#610494

On 12/23/2016 1:05 PM, john wrote:
> Michael forgot.
> The only way the Universe can be half
> matter and half antimatter is if
> galaxies themselves are half and half.
> This means some arms are antimatter stars
> and some arms are matter stars.
>

First of all, it's not the only way the Universe could be half matter 
and half antimatter. For example, some galaxies could be WHOLLY matter 
and other galaxies WHOLLY antimatter. When you say "the only way" is the 
one way that has occurred to you, it shows how limited you are upstairs.

Secondly, physicists do not believe the universe is half matter and half 
antimatter, so there's no reason to find a way to make that happen.

Third, if a single galaxy were half matter and half antimatter, you 
would be GUARANTEED to see characteristic gamma rays from the 
annihilation, because there is NO POSSIBLE WAY for any galaxy to have 
matter completely segregated from antimatter everywhere in the galaxy. 
This has been pointed out to you a dozen times, but it just bounces off 
the wood of your forehead.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#610179

as there is no existant absolute/pascalian vacuum,
they'll know, when they get into a material region,
coming from an antimaterial region

> Remember, if he is antimatter to us, to him he's matter and we're
> antimatter...  we can't ask to measure the charge of an electron
> since the charge assignment was originally arbitrary and he only
> has his local (anti?)matter as a reference.
> 
> Unfortunately, I forget the answer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web