What Happens to Neutrons in Matter/Anti-Matter Annihilation?

[hakon]

Ok so anti-matter and matter when combined give energy as the masses with opposite charges annihilate each other, giving off energy.

Here's the thing, there is no such thing as pure energy, it comes in the forms kinetic, heat, sound and light.

so in a vacuum, we take 1 anti-matter hydrogen, and 1 matter hydrogen (a protium version for both)

now when combined the proton annihilates the anti-proton, and the electron annihilates the proton.

now as we are in a vacuum, there is no way for sound to occur (no one can hear you scream in space :P) there is no mass left so there is nothing for kinetic energy to act upon, there is no matter to vibrate and cause heat, leaving only photons(light)

so in this scenario we have light as our energy created.

now we do the same experiment but use a anti-matter and matter version of deuterium.

My question is...
In the deuterium matter/anti-matter annihilation there should be 2 neutrons left over (they don't annihilate as they have no charge. however they can vibrate (heat) and be moved (kinetic) so first, do the neutrons hang around? and second does less light energy get made since heat and kinetic energy can be applied to the remnants of the atoms?

 

[kloptok]

Contrary to your statements, there is such a thing as an "antineutron". The neutron has a magnetic moment, which is different for neutron and antineutron (it is not only electric charge that differs between matter and antimatter). So if you bring a deuterium and an antideuterium nucleus together, it will completely annihilate. And as far as I know, it will annihilate into pure photons.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

It's my understanding that matter/antimatter anihilation results in energy radiating as photons (gamma rays IIRC).

However if have a bulk mass of either and try to bang them together you are also going to get a shell of expanding plasma as the resultant explosion from the contacting m/am will heat the non-contacting m/am to incredible temperatures as well as blasting it out away from the contacting m/am.

In other words, unless all the m/am annihilates at once the detonation will blast some of the m/am away.

 

[hakon]

ok, so the neutron makes no difference.

in that case let's take 2 black holes, 1 is made up of matter and 1 is made up of anti-matter.

now in effect everything gets turned into energy when the 2 meet, however according to einstein, e=mc^2, the mass of both black holes remains. however there is no matter left to create said gravity, this would result in a huge flash of photons.

however if gravity remains in place but no matter is present then effectively the black hole simply doubles in size, however on the inside there is nothing but light.

I would think then that it is logical to assume that a matter and anti-matter annihilation would result in not just a photon being created but also a graviton.

this would allow the black hole to keep its gravitational mass, and all the photons created Perhaps this would result in photons being unable to be contained, which would either mean we can see the black hole or that the warped space that remains is merely an invisible 3d object with gravitational forces made of nothing more then energy created by light.

such a thing could explain why the universe does not have the amount of visible matter that accounts for the universes mass.

it could also mean that if anti-matter and matter create gravitons that it may be the way to create artificial gravity.

however such a warped space would still have a mass effect, and would still pull matter it comes close to in, effectively creating a black hole of super density it could lead to any number of possibilities, from time travel, multiverse gating, a tear in the fabric of space, a recreation of the big bang, or a white hole (maybe time is reversed and it spews out the energy as matter).

if anyone knows more on what really would happen in a matter/anti-mater combination on a black hole scale, i'd love to learn about it.

personally i don't think it's possible to know without knowing all the dimensions of our reality, but i love to theorise about it.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

in that case let's take 2 black holes, 1 is made up of matter and 1 is made up of anti-matter.

Stop right there, you need to go and learn about what black holes are. You cannot have a black hole made from matter or antimatter. Blackholes are constructs that are so massive they collapse into a singularity surrounded by an event horizon.

The graviton is a hypothesised particle that we have not observed in nature. Photons are massless and so do not have a gravitational field, your comments on making a black hole out of light are nonsensical, because of this every point you have led onto is flawed.

 

[Polyrhythmic]

Photons are massless and so do not have a gravitational field, [...]

They may not have rest mass, but they certainly do have energy, which contributes to the curvature of spacetime and therefore to the gravitational field.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

They may not have rest mass, but they certainly do have energy, which contributes to the curvature of spacetime and therefore to the gravitational field.

Even so the idea that you could make a black hole out of photons that would have no event horizon is still nonsensical.

 

[Polyrhythmic]

Even so the idea that you could make a black hole out of photons that would have no event horizon is still nonsensical.

I agree with that statement.

 

[hakon]

a black hole is a singularity yes, but they are made when the matter condenses under its own mass, you can therefor have them be made out of matter and anti-matter as both have mass.

photons as mentioned do act on space in such a way as to form gravitational forces.


nobody knows weather or not the matter is still inside a singularity (which is just another term for black hole), but I'm taking the assumption that all though the gravity of a black hole can impede upon the electro magnetic forces of an atom, it would not make a difference as since they could be squished into a giant ball of condensed neutrons, the matter neutrons and anti-matter neutrons as some earlier mentioned still annihilate each other, the mass of the 2 opposing singularities would prevent an explosion from occurring and simply combine the two masses. the fact that a anti-matter and matter combination occurred would result i photons, however either these photons would need to generate the gravitational forces to contain them selves or the theoretical particles known as gravitons would need to also be created.

which as i said, could mean that anti-matter and matter could be used to create artificial gravity in the future.

 

[hakon]

The graviton is a hypothesised particle that we have not observed in nature. .

Sir Isaac Newtons apple tree disagrees with you...

Wether it is a particle or a force of the universe my point is it would need to exist in a singularity and that if there is no substance left, only energy, it must still exist in some form after matter and anti-matter combine.

 

[Polyrhythmic]

Sir Isaac Newtons apple tree disagrees with you...

No, that's not true.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Sir Isaac Newtons apple tree disagrees with you...

Wether it is a particle or a force of the universe my point is it would need to exist in a singularity and that if there is no substance left, only energy, it must still exist in some form after matter and anti-matter combine.

Er, what? Newton's tree is evidence of gravity not the graviton. I can't make sense of the rest of your statement, it seems like you are trying to say that gravity must exist as matter or antimatter.

nobody knows weather or not the matter is still inside a singularity (which is just another term for black hole), but I'm taking the assumption that all though the gravity of a black hole can impede upon the electro magnetic forces of an atom, it would not make a difference as since they could be squished into a giant ball of condensed neutrons, the matter neutrons and anti-matter neutrons as some earlier mentioned still annihilate each other, the mass of the 2 opposing singularities would prevent an explosion from occurring and simply combine the two masses. the fact that a anti-matter and matter combination occurred would result i photons, however either these photons would need to generate the gravitational forces to contain them selves or the theoretical particles known as gravitons would need to also be created.

which as i said, could mean that anti-matter and matter could be used to create artificial gravity in the future.

Again you seem to have a misunderstanding, I would advise you go and look up what a black hole is and theories regarding a singularity. You seem to be under the misapprehension that a dense ball of matter. I know that physics hasn't fully explained the nature of such things yet but you can't just claim that it is made of matter.

You also haven't cited any evidence that would suggest that matter/antimatter would create gravity. The annihilation creates photons. You are presuming that the graviton exists and speculating that somehow we could make artificial gravity but thanks to e=mc2 the gravity of the matter/antimatter wouldn't change if it was anihilated. To a specific gravitational pull you would have to place a certain amount of mass a specific distance away. No need to make this more complicated by involving antimatter.

 

[hakon]

Er, what? Newton's tree is evidence of gravity not the graviton. I can't make sense of the rest of your statement, it seems like you are trying to say that gravity must exist as matter or antimatter.
Again you seem to have a misunderstanding, I would advise you go and look up what a black hole is and theories regarding a singularity. You seem to be under the misapprehension that a dense ball of matter. I know that physics hasn't fully explained the nature of such things yet but you can't just claim that it is made of matter.

You also haven't cited any evidence that would suggest that matter/antimatter would create gravity. The annihilation creates photons. You are presuming that the graviton exists and speculating that somehow we could make artificial gravity but thanks to e=mc2 the gravity of the matter/antimatter wouldn't change if it was anihilated. To a specific gravitational pull you would have to place a certain amount of mass a specific distance away. No need to make this more complicated by involving antimatter.

My point which you fail to understand is i refer to the force gravity, and do not care wether or not you can prove that the graviton exists, i merely used the graviton as although unproven it is an easy way to explain that the force is made.as for your second paragraph, i know heaps on black holes, and it can't be proven that a black hole isn't a dense ball of matter, it can't be proven that a black hole can kill you, nothing can be proven as we know so little.
my argument is based purely on we know a singularity is a collapsed star and that a star can be made of matter, and that theoretically a star can be made of antimatter, and that when these stars collapse we know that gravity increases to the point that light can not escape (that is the gravity per cubic centimeter of space) .

i am fully in my right to claim anything i like to find my answers, as nothing can be disproved or proved at this time, this is purely a, if this is true, would this not be the result argument. science often takes leaps to find answers, and saying a singularity is a dense ball of matter is an accepted plausibility.as for your 3rd paragraph, well of course i have no evidence other then theory, this is a theory not something i claim i can prove, you seem very unknowledgeable about the difference between a hypothetical and a "i'm a scientist with unlimited funds and can prove this" discussion. i merely state that when you combine matter and anti-matter completely (so no kinetic energy can throw the particles not annihilated away, all that should be left is photons, and the gravity that the atoms used to impart on the universe, and that maybe down the track we can use the gravity portion from this annihilation process to provide an artificial gravity.

 

[cragar]

I think you could have a black hole made out of only photons, but it would have an even horizon.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

as for your 3rd paragraph, well of course i have no evidence other then theory, this is a theory not something i claim i can prove, you seem very unknowledgeable about the difference between a hypothetical and a "i'm a scientist with unlimited funds and can prove this" discussion. i merely state that when you combine matter and anti-matter completely (so no kinetic energy can throw the particles not annihilated away, all that should be left is photons, and the gravity that the atoms used to impart on the universe, and that maybe down the track we can use the gravity portion from this annihilation process to provide an artificial gravity.

It doesn't matter whether you have an idea on the fly or after 10 years of research you have to cite references to show that your idea isn't just bunk.

Again this artificial gravity doesn't make any sense to me, if you had a lump of matter and a lump of antimatter in space you could measure their gravity. When they collide you could measure this gravity disappearing. Your last sentence is complete science fiction that if we could observe the gravity we could simulate it some day, the observation in this process would be no different to any other situation in which we observe gravity. You have no basis for your claim about artificial gravity.

 

[cragar]

. When they collide you could measure this gravity disappearing. .

The field would still be there, photons do gravitate according to GR mass energy or pressure
creates gravity.
And another interesting thing that wheeler talks about it is a geon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geon_(physics)

 

[Ryan_m_b]

The field would still be there, photons do gravitate according to GR mass energy or pressure
creates gravity.
And another interesting thing that wheeler talks about it is a geon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geon_(physics)

Yes but the photons are not going to stay in one place are they. They are going to fly out at the speed of light in all directions so to all intensive purposes the gravity of the objects disappears.

The expanding ball of light may have the same gravity but now it's highly mobile (and quick to dissipate). The idea of using it for artificial gravity is as good an idea as sticking a mass beneath you, at least that way you don't have to fiddle about with antimatter nor survive the gamma rays that will blast through you.

 

[cragar]

why would the light spread out if the field is so string to contain them? What if half of the photons emitted travel in the same direction to conserve momentum could this be a black hole.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

why would the light spread out if the field is so string to contain them? What if half of the photons emitted travel in the same direction to conserve momentum could this be a black hole.

For the field to be strong enough to contain them indefinitely they would have to form a black hole. Anything beneath this means that the light will escape eventually.

 

[cragar]

Ok so why can't they form a black hole

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Ok so why can't they form a black hole

Well if they do not have a high enough concentration in one place to create a sufficiently sized gravity well they will not create a black hole. I'm not sure what your point is?

 

[chingel]

I'm not a scientist or anything but I think the point is that if the matter and antimatter put together turn into photons, the gravity would still be the same and since the matter and antimatter made black holes before, there would be a black hole after the annihilation. So that in the end you would have a black hole with the gravitational field of the two black holes combined, except that the new black hole is made out of only photons, which contain themselves due to the extreme gravity.

That is the idea as I understood it. I think to an outsider it would not look any different from a regular black hole, since it is just a dark whole with extreme gravity, we can't tell what is in it.

I am not sure that if we let matter collapse into a black hole, then let antimatter collapse into a black hole and let them come together that they will annihilate. We probably couldn't even know because it should look exactly like two regular black holes meeting up.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

To the best of our understanding at the centre of a black hole is a gravitational singularity. Whether or not this singularity is formed from the mass of matter, antimatter or photons is besides the point. If matter and antimatter collided in between the event horizon and the singularity the resultant explosion would just be sucked into the singularity, unable to escape.

as for your second paragraph, i know heaps on black holes, and it can't be proven that a black hole isn't a dense ball of matter, it can't be proven that a black hole can kill you, nothing can be proven as we know so little.
my argument is based purely on we know a singularity is a collapsed star and that a star can be made of matter, and that theoretically a star can be made of antimatter, and that when these stars collapse we know that gravity increases to the point that light can not escape (that is the gravity per cubic centimeter of space)

This is illogical, you cannot presume that because something hasn't been proven wrong that it is the case. Our best understanding points to the formation of a singularity. If you want to offer alternative explanations you have to provide evidence from published literature. The only other explanation for black holes that I am aware of are fuzzballs in string theory. This again would not lend credence to the idea of artificial gravity through antimatter/matter annihilation.

 

[hakon]

well then i am basing my black hole on the one Mr Hawking believes to be the case.

not the string theory since it isn't exactly rock solid yet.


my point is if you can contain the resultant creation, then you might be able to direct its application, i do not know if 1. you can contain the resultant formation, or 2. if you can direct this.

but i believe if there is a way o do those things you could use anti-matter and matter annihilation to create a gravity field.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

well then i am basing my black hole on the one Mr Hawking believes to be the case.

not the string theory since it isn't exactly rock solid yet.my point is if you can contain the resultant creation, then you might be able to direct its application, i do not know if 1. you can contain the resultant formation, or 2. if you can direct this.

but i believe if there is a way o do those things you could use anti-matter and matter annihilation to create a gravity field.

What do you mean by direct the application? The explosion is not going to create ejecta capable of exceeding the speed of light and so nothing will escape the event horizon.

Why again do you think that Am/M would produce "a gravity field"? The field is already there. Here's a practical example based on what we have already discussed;

We have two masses, one Am and one M. Both are half the mass of Earth and are close together. This creates a gravity field the same as Earth. If they perfectly annihilate (i.e. explosion does not blast away any Am/M before they touch) we have a gravity field of the exact same strength but now it dissipates as the photons fly off.

I have a feeling that you are trying to push an idea that we could collide minute amounts of Am/M beneath a spaceship floor to keep the astronauts on the ground in some science fictional like manner. This would not work.

 

[hakon]

here is why i say we can make a gravity field.

the matter and anti-matter are annihilated completely through the use of electromagnetic fields (we don't use a singularity when using this for gravity field applications), this means we are left with photons and gravity, what we have lost is all the stuff that takes up physical space. it's as if we remove the rock we want to stand on from the 3 dimensions of space.

if we are able to then force the gravity to act in 1 direction (1 dimension) then our gravity field will be stronger and the matter and anti-matter required to produce the gravity field will be a lesser amount.

the real question is: is there gravity left over or is the gravity=photons, experiments suggest that 2 photons are produced from a electron and proton combining, but that would mean the gravity is less then the original product, so it is only logical to think extra gravity must be produced.

gravity is thought to be as strong as the electro magnetic force by some scientists, however we experience it as a weaker force due to extra dimensions that gravity splits it's self upon.
so if we can get gravity to act i 1 dimension then we could make the field far stronger then normal, meaning the masses of the matter and anti-matter annihilation process would not need to equal half an Earth each to create an Earth like gravity.

our technology is nowhere what is needed to be able to create a process like this in the near future, however i do think it may be possible to create a gravity field in this manner.

 

[chingel]

I don't think it matters if there isn't mass in the black hole. You can't touch it either way, or you get sucked in, anything that get's on it's way is toast. If there is a black hole made out of photons (lets just suppose) under the floor of a spaceship, it would attract everything that has mass with gravity and suck it up. So in the end I don't think it would be possible to determine if the black hole is made out of photons nor does it really matter, it acts the same way, just sucks up everything.

If it is possible to amplify gravity somehow, you could just make the floor hypergravitational, no need to have black holes eating you up with the ship.

 

[Drakkith]

the matter and anti-matter are annihilated completely through the use of electromagnetic fields (we don't use a singularity when using this for gravity field applications), this means we are left with photons and gravity, what we have lost is all the stuff that takes up physical space. it's as if we remove the rock we want to stand on from the 3 dimensions of space.

if we are able to then force the gravity to act in 1 direction (1 dimension) then our gravity field will be stronger and the matter and anti-matter required to produce the gravity field will be a lesser amount.

The dimensions of space do not simply disappear. Photons are just as 3 dimensional as anything else. And you cannot cause gravity to act in only 1 dimension.

the real question is: is there gravity left over or is the gravity=photons, experiments suggest that 2 photons are produced from a electron and proton combining, but that would mean the gravity is less then the original product, so it is only logical to think extra gravity must be produced.

I'm assuming you mean an electron and positron? The mass of the two particles are converted into two photons. According to General Relativity, photons affect the stress-energy tensor and do cause gravitational attraction. The gravity would be exactly equal to the two annihilated particles I believe.

what we have lost is all the stuff that takes up physical space

This is incorrect. Matter and energy exist within space, they do not make it up. The reason for the "physical space" we are used to, as in objects having volume, is because there are three dimensions for them to form into.

i am fully in my right to claim anything i like to find my answers, as nothing can be disproved or proved at this time, this is purely a, if this is true, would this not be the result argument. science often takes leaps to find answers, and saying a singularity is a dense ball of matter is an accepted plausibility.

Not on this forum you are not. Not within the rules you agreed to when you signed up to the forums.

as for your 3rd paragraph, well of course i have no evidence other then theory, this is a theory not something i claim i can prove, you seem very unknowledgeable about the difference between a hypothetical and a "i'm a scientist with unlimited funds and can prove this" discussion. i merely state that when you combine matter and anti-matter completely (so no kinetic energy can throw the particles not annihilated away, all that should be left is photons, and the gravity that the atoms used to impart on the universe, and that maybe down the track we can use the gravity portion from this annihilation process to provide an artificial gravity.

You cannot combine matter and antimatter in a way that would allow ALL of the particles to annihilate without the created photons themselves imparting momentum onto the matter and antimatter and flinging them away.

Also, the amount of EM radiation required to possibly create artificial gravity is so large, you could not contain it within anything small enough to use it. It's like taking a laser a billion billion times more powerful than anything here on Earth and trying to contain it. Not going to happen.

 

[hakon]

Not on this forum you are not. Not within the rules you agreed to when you signed up to the forums.

Go take that dribble else where.

I am well within the boundaries of the rules of this site, which quite clearly states that people may put forward ideas, if you can show reason to disprove my hypothesis go ahead and do so.

but you can't just say my argument is flawed when you your self can't prove that is impossible to annihilate 100% of a ball of matter and a ball of anti-matter.

 

[chingel]

Could you please say again what your argument is?

Inside black holes physics laws break down and we don't know what's in there.

Even if such word like matter and antimatter have meaning in the singularity and if they do annihilate each other, there would just be a regular black hole that acts like one.

You could probably use the gravity of the black hole for something useful before you get eaten up by it. Is that the argument? Why bother with antimatter and matter if any black hole will do?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Go take that dribble else where.

I am well within the boundaries of the rules of this site, which quite clearly states that people may put forward ideas, if you can show reason to disprove my hypothesis go ahead and do so.

but you can't just say my argument is flawed when you your self can't prove that is impossible to annihilate 100% of a ball of matter and a ball of anti-matter.

Quoting from the rules

It is against our Posting Guidelines to discuss, in most of the PF forums or in blogs, new or non-mainstream theories or ideas that have not been published in professional peer-reviewed journals or are not part of current professional mainstream scientific discussion. Personal theories/Independent Research may be submitted to our Independent Research Forum, provided they meet our Independent Research Guidelines; Personal theories posted elsewhere will be deleted

You cannot put forward an idea that conflicts with current mainstream understanding and then say that you are in the right because no one has disproved you.

Read the Drakkith's post again, It's saying what I have clearly failed to make you realize in the rest of this thread. You have some misconceptions which is fine except you are sticking to them so that you can keep your idea of artificial SciFi gravity.

gravity is thought to be as strong as the electro magnetic force by some scientists, however we experience it as a weaker force due to extra dimensions that gravity splits it's self upon.
so if we can get gravity to act i 1 dimension then we could make the field far stronger then normal, meaning the masses of the matter and anti-matter annihilation process would not need to equal half an Earth each to create an Earth like gravity.

There is no firm evidence to explain the strength of gravity. Regardless what you are talking about is pure speculation, the idea of forcing gravity in one direction and strengthening it has no basis in mainstream understanding. Yet again though why would you need Am/M? If you had a magic machine that can strengthen and direct gravity then why wouldn't you just use mass rather than Am/M?

You really should start providing some references to peer-reviewed sources rather than just continue to spout pseudo-scientific ideas. Otherwise this thread will probably be locked.

 

[Danger]

Forgive me if I repeat something that has already been stated; I had to quit reading about half-way through the second page.
It seems that someone has no idea that a "black hole" is not a physical object. It is a "hole" in the local spacetime continuum caused by a gravitational field that is too condensed for our universe to contain. Once something passes the event horizon, there's no going back. The only two ways to extract energy from the BH are through a "slingshot" manoeuvre as can be done with any large mass, or to exploit the ergosphere of the BH. BH's have several different relevant radii associated with them. Static limit, ergosphere, photon shell, event horizon, singularity...
They are not something to be easily exploited, and the matter or antimatter discussion in reference to a BH is totally irrelevant. If something approaches too closely, it's done for. Keep in mind, though, that the overall strength of the gravitational field is the same that it would be for any other object of that mass.
It's not physically possible for this particular event to occur, but I'm going to use it as an example. If our sun were to suddenly become a black hole without any of the attendant problems, the orbits of the various planets and moons would not be disrupted in any way. The gravity will be the same as it was with the original sun, but more concentrated.
Jeez, but I wish that Space Tiger was still around to deal with this stuff...

 

[Geezer]

Here's the thing, there is no such thing as pure energy, it comes in the forms kinetic, heat, sound and light.

Really? Where did you get that information?

Classically, we think of energy as "transforming" from one type to another (e.g. kinetic energy converted to heat energy); it's nothing more than acknowledging energy conservation in the classical regime.

However, energy is a tad different in the quantum regime. For example, there's such a thing as vacuum energy--which is quite cool, by the way. It's "pure" energy in the sense that it's NOT kinetic, NOT heat, NOT sound, and NOT light energy (being made of virtual particles...it's not really anything except energy).

 

[Danger]

(being made of virtual particles...it's not really anything except energy).

But since virtual particles don't actually exist, would that not constitute virtual energy which work can not be extracted from?

 

[Geezer]

But since virtual particle don't actually exist, would that not constitute virtual energy which work can not be extracted from?

Two Casimir plates being squooshed together...virtual work?

ETA: I've read this thread two times now and I cannot understand the OP's logic one bit. It's like some sort of gibberish. I keep hearing the words "black holes", "gravity," "anti-matter," but they're never strung together in any way that makes any sense to me. Am I really the only one who doesn't understand what's going on in this thread?