The Antiphoton

[Severian]

This is just my theory. If you could explain how you know antimatter has positive mass, I would like to hear it.

 

We have measured it. It's definitely positive.

[Phx Lord]

We have measured it. It's definitely positive.

 

What I mean to say is; what were the assumptions made and what apparatus was used to find the antiphoton.

Furthermore you have neglected my earlier comment, that it is only in relation to the present that an antiphoton has negative mass. It most certainly has positive mass, as E=mc^2, however if this energy exists not in our present, then the mass produced must be zero or negative.

Edited April 21, 2010 by Phx Lord

[Severian]

What I mean to say is; what were the assumptions made and what apparatus was used to find the antiphoton.

 

Detection of the "antiphoton" was surprisingly straightforward. All I had to do was open my eyes.

 

Furthermore you have neglected my earlier comment, that it is only in relation to the present that an antiphoton has negative mass. It most certainly has positive mass, as E=mc^2, however if this energy exists not in our present, then the mass produced must be zero or negative.

 

The photon (and the antiphoton, which is of course the same thing, since the photon is its own antiparticle) has zero mass, to the accuracy of our measurements.

[Phx Lord]

The photon (and the antiphoton, which is of course the same thing, since the photon is its own antiparticle) has zero mass, to the accuracy of our measurements.

 

A positron is different to an electron as it is differently charged. A photon has no distinguishing features aside from light energy (or as another EM wave). Therefore are considered the same.

 

The mass of a photon is due to E=mc^2.

This translates to m=E/(c^2).

Therefore the energy of a photon has mass and can interact with mass. It is folly to consider these otherwise as without the photon there is no mass.

[Severian]

The mass of a photon is due to E=mc^2.

This translates to m=E/(c^2).

 

The actual equation is [math]E^2= m^2c^4 +p^2c^2[/math]. Your version is for a particle at rest, when [math]p=0[/math]. The photon has no rest frame - it is never at rest, so [math]E=mc^2[/math] does not apply.

 

The energy of a photon comes entirely from its momentum. Since it has no mass [math]m=0[/math] and so [math]E=pc[/math].

[swansont]

This is just my theory. If you could explain how you know antimatter has positive mass, I would like to hear it.

 

And regardless, I have not said when antimatter has negative mass. This is so only in relation to the present, as the mass of antimatter does not follow a linear timeline with us and so with something like a mass/time graph the mass would decrease and is therefore negative.

 

If you want to pursue discussion of this, it should be done in the Speculations forum. In the Physics section, we discuss mainstream physics.

[Phx Lord]

There's a speculations forum?! Alright. Thanks.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

[math]E^2= m^2c^4 +p^2c^2[/math]

 

I was unaware of this. I shall have to revise my argument.

Thankyou.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

When subatomic particles are seperate, they weigh more than when they are a nucleus. (i think thats how it goes). I know this is due to a mass deficiency, but I want to know the cause of this deficiency. Please help?

Edited April 23, 2010 by Phx Lord
Consecutive posts merged.

[insane_alien]

the particles are in a lower energy state when they are bound to each other than when they are seperate. so when the bind to each other they lose energy. if we use E=mc^2 (an use the rest frame for the particles) this loss of energy can be observed as a loss of mass.

[shubham2706]

^{I want to ask if antimatter interacts with gravity as matter does and wil the chemical properties of antihydrogen be different from hydrogen in wat ways are they differentantihydrogen - wikipedia}

Edited November 28, 2010 by swansont
turn down volume

[alpha2cen]

I've heard many things about antiproton.

The key point is how to make it more cheaply and less energy consumming.

Present method is very expensive.

We can use it for treating cancer.

But its very expensive.

Its good for treating deeply buried tumer.

It gives no damage to the surface tissue.

[swansont]

^{I want to ask if antimatter interacts with gravity as matter does and wil the chemical properties of antihydrogen be different from hydrogen in wat ways are they differentantihydrogen - wikipedia}

 

They should be the same in the nature of their interactions, but it hasn't been tested yet. That's why the ability to trap and store it is important — it will allow for such tests.

[LH97]

I don't think it's correct to say photons ARE their own anti-photons, but, as a simple force of energy, rather than something with a positive or negative charge or a radius in which to differentiate any charges in, they are indistinguishable.

Edited August 5, 2011 by LH97

[questionposter]

A photon is an electromagnetic wave. Like sound and water waves, or any other wave, if you overlap two copies of the wave that are half a wavelength apart (so the troughs of one are aligned with the crests of the other), then the waves will cancel. This is called interference.

 

"If" you overlap waves like that, then they will cancel out, but how come photons don't already do that on their own when they already collide into each other? You "can" have that opposite wave thing, but I don't see it anywhere. Also if a photon was its own anti-counterpart, wouldn't it not exist? If I point two laser beams of the same frequency at each other, then the light doesn't disappear in the middle because the waves of light aren't overlapping in that way you described when they hit each other, so that means it "must" take an anti-photon itself to make a normal photon disappear because normal photons with normal photons won't overlap like that.

 

They should be the same in the nature of their interactions, but it hasn't been tested yet. That's why the ability to trap and store it is important — it will allow for such tests.

 

Why don't they just create an anti-proton and then use a negative magnetic field? A single anti-proton would be the same as anti-hydrogen right? It's just that it would be ionized, but photons could still come from it.

Edited August 13, 2011 by questionposter

[swansont]

"If" you overlap waves like that, then they will cancel out, but how come photons don't already do that on their own when they already collide into each other? You "can" have that opposite wave thing, but I don't see it anywhere. Also if a photon was its own anti-counterpart, wouldn't it not exist? If I point two laser beams of the same frequency at each other, then the light doesn't disappear in the middle because the waves of light aren't overlapping in that way you described when they hit each other, so that means it "must" take an anti-photon itself to make a normal photon disappear because normal photons with normal photons won't overlap like that.

 

You can see it when you see a rainbow of colors in a thin film, like oil on water. Lasers will behave like that if you set the experiment up carefully enough to see it.

 

Why don't they just create an anti-proton and then use a negative magnetic field? A single anti-proton would be the same as anti-hydrogen right? It's just that it would be ionized, but photons could still come from it.

They do use magnetic confinement, AFAIK. With all the steps involved, it's fairly hard to make antiprotons, slow them down and store them in the magnetic trap.

[questionposter]

You can see it when you see a rainbow of colors in a thin film, like oil on water. Lasers will behave like that if you set the experiment up carefully enough to see it.

 

How does a rainbow show that photons are canceling themselves out? Are you saying they hit the lens, then the lens refracts the light, so the light interferes with itself? But if it interfered with itself, wouldn't not reach the interior of the camera? Wouldn't it already be cancelled out? Also, do you mean a laser with a mirror?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

A rainbow on a thin film is a result of thin-film interference:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thin-film_interference

[questionposter]

A rainbow on a thin film is a result of thin-film interference:

 

http://en.wikipedia....lm_interference

 

Why does the angle at which photons leave at determine whether or not they interfere with each other in such an exact way as to perfectly match a wave peak with a wave trough?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Because the angle decides how far the photons travel through the thin film before being reflected on the other side, and hence how the reflected waves line up. Some waves reflect off the surface, and some travel through and reflect off the other side of the film. (See this diagram.) When they combine after reflection, those that traveled farther may be out of synch and destructively interfere; the amount of interference is dependent upon the additional distance the waves traveled.

[questionposter]

Why can't matter be its own anti-counterpart? I mean matter also has sine-wave properties.

Edited August 14, 2011 by questionposter

[swansont]

Why can't matter be its own anti-counterpart? I mean matter also has sine-wave properties.

The basic properties of the antiparticle are opposite of the their matter counterpart. Charge is the most common attribute.

[questionposter]

The basic properties of the antiparticle are opposite of the their matter counterpart. Charge is the most common attribute.

 

Ok, but I'm saying, light is it's own counterpart, but why didn't matter occur the same way?

Edited August 14, 2011 by questionposter

[swansont]

Ok, but I'm saying, light is it's own counterpart, but why didn't matter occur the same way?

Matter has other properties. I don't know why; physics is more about knowing what, and you can't even contemplate why if you don't know what.

[khaled]

Speculation: Wait a minute, if String theory says that all primitive parts of the matter are simple a vibrant string, then it's possible that the inverse has the inverse vibration on its string level, the cancellation interference is done when inverses hits, except it's a cancellation in terms of string theory ...

 

.. What do you think ?

Edited August 31, 2011 by khaled

[Mystery111]

There is only one experiment I know of which may prove that the idea that some particles are their own antiparticles are false.

 

''What the several researchers found was that there were more photons in some places

than there should have been and fewer in others. The stunning result, though, was

that in some places the number of photons was actually less than zero. Fewer than

zero particles being present usually means that you have antiparticles instead. But

there is no such thing as an antiphoton (photons are their own antiparticles, and are

pure energy in any case), so that cannot apply here.''

 

http://www.photonicquantum.info/Research/press/Economist.pdf

 

 

It's absolutely bizarre, but their tests seem to indicate the existence of antiphotons. So perhaps not all particles have antiparticles they can annihilate with? It is only in light of the evidence above I made that speculation. It would be interesting to see more thoughts on this matter.

[swansont]

I'm not that familiar with the experiment itself, but one has to take a summary in The Economist with a grain of salt.