An underground ocean existence proposed for Charon.
And this similarity to Encedalus and Europa
Explanation for AC/DC All is spin
Projects high surface density for Moon.
Gravity data from Moon fudged to minimize surface density.
Is the Moon hollow and is it artificial or natural?
The two above cited articles claim a natural ground source, metals, as the source of ball lightning and crop circles.
Where is our missing antimatter:
The fundamental problem with antimatter is that in the scientists scenario matter/antimatter annihilate each other and this obviously is not so.
What happens is that a process that matter/antimatter annihilate each other actually changes/leaves an abundance of matter.
A billion years of missing antimatter
21 August 2012
A brief history of the universe
Image by Dr J Rademacker
Everyone wants to break the first law of thermodynamics, but guess what? No one’s pulled it off so far, and the interaction between matter and antimatter doesn’t change things. According to Einstein, energy and matter are different forms of the same thing, so when matter and antimatter annihilate each other, they actually create energy. Electrons and positrons (antielectrons) produce gamma rays when they collide, and heavier particles such as protons and antiprotons also produce secondary particles that decay into neutrinos. So antimatter and matter don’t really destroy each other, but merely transition into another form: energy.
One of the questions physicists have tried to answer about the complex relationship between matter and antimatter has to do with the beginning of the universe. If the incredible energy that was the Big Bang created equal parts of matter and antimatter, what happened to the antimatter? And do all particles have mirror antimatter counterparts?
Researchers at the world’s largest atom smasher — the Large Hadron Collider outside Geneva, Switzerland — might have found an answer in possible evidence of supersymmetric particles. These particles could be created in an instant and disappear during particle decay, which might explain differing decay processes for matter and antimatter . This also might explain why antimatter already seems to have disappeared from space while matter remains intact.
This finding is an important step in explaining much about matter and antimatter, but is not the first observation of atomic asymmetry. In 2010, physicists from MIT and Los Alamos National Laboratory reported initial findings on differences in “flavor-switching behavior” of neutrinos and antineutrinos. This really means that as neutrinos and their antimatter counterparts, antineutrinos, traverse the universe and morph between the forms of muons, electrons and taus, many oscillate over short distances. Physicists suspected presence of a fourth type called a sterile neutrino. They confirmed similar behavior in three years of data collection and planned to follow up with 18 months of data collection on antineutrinos in a cyclotron, which allows particles to accelerate in a circle instead of a straight line .
So far, the results seem to show that matter and antimatter behave differently — a premise that goes against conventional theories regarding matter and antimatter. However, the behavior has been seen in quarks before, just not in neutrinos or electrons.
Another area which perhaps needs some additional explanation is the concept of antimatter, and why our universe consists almost entirely of matter and hardly any antimatter. According to theory, the Big Bang should have produced matter and antimatter in equal quantities. Thus, for every quark produced in the early stages of the Big Bang, there would also have been an antiquark; for every electron, a positron (the antiparticle of the electron); etc. The apparent asymmetry of matter and antimatter in the visible universe is one of the greatest unsolved problems in physics.
The British physicistPaul Dirac first predicted the existence of antimatter in 1928. For each of his theoretical equations, there appeared to exist another associated solution, with all the properties reversed, which did not seem to physically exist in the known universe. This antimatter, then, is the “mirror image” of matter, and the antiparticles of which it is composed are the mirror images of normal particles, being the same size but having opposite electrical charge.
Dirac’s equations also predicted that, if enough energy could be concentrated, an antielectron (always accompanied by an electron in order to preserve the overall electrical charge) could in theory be produced where none had existed before! In 1933, Carl Anderson successfully demonstrated the appearance of this hypothetical antielectron (which he called the positron), and definitively showed that matter could in fact be created in the laboratory in a controlled experiment. With the development of super-high-acceleration machines after World War II, other particles (such as protons and neutrons) and their respective antiparticles were created, and even stored in magnetic “bottles”.
However, when matter and antimatter meet, they completely annihilate each other in a brilliant flash of light produced by extremely high-energy gamma photons. This explosive annihilation mirrors the huge energy required to produce the matter-antimatter pairs in the first place.
For example, the high-energy cosmic rays which regularly impact the Earth’s atmosphere produce minute quantities of antimatter in the resulting particle jets, which are immediately annihilated by contact with nearby matter. The tiny quantities of antimatter which scientists have managed to create in the laboratory have always been accompanied by an equal quantity of normal matter, and the two tend to cancel each other out almost immediately.
While it is technically possible that substantial amounts of antimatter do exist somewhere in the universe, isolated in some way from normal matter, no substantial quantities of antimatter have actually been discovered. Which begs the question of why this huge apparent imbalance exists, and why all matter and antimatter did not just annihilate each other completely very early in the history of the universe (and therefore, ultimately, why we are here at all!)
It is assumed that, very early in the life of the universe, in a process known as baryogenesis, massive numbers of particles and antiparticles were created and did in fact annihilate each other. The cosmic microwave background radiation which pervades the universe today represents the remains of the energy produced by this wholesale annihilation of the matched particle-antiparticle pairs. But a small imbalance remained, in the form of an excess of matter, of the order of one extra matter particle per billion matter-antimatter particle pairs. It has been calculated that this apparently tiny imbalance in the early universe would be sufficient to make up the amount of matter presently observable in the universe.
In 1966, the Russian physicistAndrei Sakharov outlined three conditions necessary for a matter-antimatter imbalance to be possible: first, protons must decay, but so slowly that for all the protons in the Earth, fewer than a bread crumb’s worth should have decayed so far; second, there must be specific constraints on the way in which the universe has cooled after the Big Bang; and third, there must be a measurable difference between matter and antimatter.
James Cronin and Val Fitch won the Nobel Prize in the 1960s for their work on a particle called the kaon, which showed that particles and their antiparticles might not in fact be exact opposites, and it does seem possible that kaons might actually live longer than antikaons, but it is still far from clear whether this could account for the triumph of matter over antimatter in the universe.
Every elementary particle in the Universe appears to have a partner particle called its antiparticle that shares many of the same characteristics, but many other characteristics are the opposite of those for the particle. For example, the electron has as its antiparticle the antielectron. The electron and the antielectron have exactly the same masses, but they have exactly opposite electrical charges.
The common stuff around us appears to be “matter”, but we routinely produce antimatter in small quantities in high energy accelerator experiments. When a matter particle meets its antimatter particle they destroy each other completely (the technical term is “annihilation”), releasing the equivalent of their rest masses in the form of pure energy (according to the Einstein E=mc^2 relation). For example, when an electron meets an antielectron, the two annihilate and produce a burst of light having the energy corresponding to the masses of the two particles.
Because the properties of matter and antimatter parallel each other, we believe that the physics and chemistry of a galaxy made entirely from antimatter would closely parallel that of our our matter galaxy. Thus, is is conceivable that life built on antimatter could have evolved at other places in the Universe, just as life based on matter has evolved here. (But if your antimatter twin should show up some day, I would advise against shaking hands—remember that matter and antimatter annihilate each other!) However, we have no evidence thus far for large concentrations of antimatter anywhere in the Universe. Everything that we see so far seems to be matter. If true, this is something of a mystery, because naively there are reasons from fundamental physics to believe that the Universe should have produced about as much matter as antimatter.
Dark matter is the general term for matter that we cannot see to this point with our telescopes, but that we know must be there because we see its gravitational influence on the rest of the Universe. Many different experiments indicate that there is probably 10 times more matter in the Universe (because we see its gravitational influence) than the matter that we see. Thus, dark matter is basically what the Universe is made out of, but we don’t yet know what it is!
As one simple example of the evidence for dark matter, the velocity of rotation for spiral galaxies depends on the amount of mass contained in them. The outer parts of our own spiral galaxy, the Milky Way, are rotating much too fast to be consistent with the amount of matter that we can detect; in fact the data indicates that there must be about 10 times as much matter as we can see distributed in some diffuse halo of our galaxy to account for its rotation. The same is true for most other spiral galaxies where the velocities can be measured.
There are various candidates for the dark matter, ranging from ordinary matter that we just can’t see because it isn’t bright enough (for example, ordinary matter bound up in black holes, or very faint stars, or large planet-like objects like Jupiter) to more exotic particles that have yet to be discovered. There are some fairly strong arguments based on the production of the light elements in the Big Bang indicating that the majority of the dark matter cannot be ordinary matter or antimatter (which physicists call “baryonic matter”), and thus that the majority of the mass of the Universe is in a form very different from the matter that makes up us and the world around us (physicists call this “non-baryonic matter”). If that is true, then the matter that we are made of (baryonic matter) is but a small impurity compared to the dominant matter in the universe (non-baryonic matter). As someone has put it, “not only are we not the center of the Universe, we aren’t even made of the right stuff!”
The nature of the dark matter is perhaps the most fundamental unsolved problem in modern astronomy.
Could the Dark Matter be Antimatter?
It is conceivable that the dark matter (or at least part of it) could be antimatter, but there are very strong experimental reasons to doubt this. For example, if the dark matter out there were antimatter, we would expect it to annihilate with matter whenever it meets up with it, releasing bursts of energy primarily in the form of light. We see no evidence in careful observations for that, which leads most scientists to believe that whatever the dark matter is, it is not antimatter
Radiation from particle annihilation
How much energy is created when the particle-antiparticle annihilate? Does it release a large amount of radiation? If so, about how many rads?
I am Don Cossairt, a physicist, and I am also the Associate Head for Radiation Protection in Fermilab’s Environment, Safety, and Health Section.
The Fermilab Public Affairs Office forwarded to me your question about particle-antiparticle annihilation that I am happy to try to answer your question and I since I do not know much about your background knowledge in science, I will probably explain some aspects of this topic that you may already understand. As you apparently already know, the matter we encounter in everyday life is nearly all matter, rather than antimatter. However, scientists now believe that for every particle that can be found in nature, an antiparticle exists. The simplest example that illustrates the principles involved is that of the electron and positron. Electrons are found in ordinary atoms and, of course, moving electrons in various devices such as electrical lines, telecommunications networks, and television and radio form much of the technological basis for modern living.
The electron has a rest energy of 0.511 million electron volts. One million electron volts is called one “MeV” for short. This energy of 0.511 MeV is released if all the mass of the electron is converted to energy by means of Albert Einstein’s famous formula E = mc**2 [or “E equals the mass (m) times the square of the speed of light (c)), an equation that is commonly seen even on T-shirts]. In different units, the mass of the electron amounts to 9.11 E-31 kilograms (in scientific notation or, in words, 9.11 times ten to the negative 31 power).
Some atomic nuclei are naturally radioactive and when some of these decay, they emit the antiparticle of the electron called the positron. This happens in nature all of the time. A positron has the same mass as an electron, but opposite electric charge.
While these positrons may be fast moving at first eventually they encounter matter and slow down. Soon, they will encounter an electron in an atom and annihilate with it. In doing so, the total rest energy of BOTH particles, 2 times 0.511 MeV = 1.022 MeV is released. This release most commonly occurs by producing two particles of light called photons or gamma rays. These photons are emitted in opposite directions and each have an energy of 0.511 MeV. (The reason TWO photons are produced may seem a bit complicated, but two are needed to conserve both momentum and energy. Briefly, since the electron and the positron were at rest, the total system had no momentum. Thus the available energy of 1.022 MeV is accounted for by the emission of the two photons while zero total momentum is achieved by having the two photons going off in opposite directions.)
You are quite correct in recognizing that this energy appears as radiation. After all, these photons are essentially the same as high energy x-rays or other photon radiation used in medical procedures, for example. Also, this type of annihilation radiation is routinely seen and measured in connection with work with radioactive materials, natural or man-made.
You also appear to be aware that radiation hazards are routinely quantified in units called “rads”. If someone (or even something) is exposed to ionizing radiation at the level of one rad, that means that a certain amount of energy called 100 ergs (in metric units) is deposited in each gram of their tissue (or material, if not a person).
People on earth are exposed to about 1/10 of a rad per year from natural sources in the ground (from naturally radioactive elements) and from outer space (from the sun and from cosmic rays). It turns out that it takes about 5 billion 0.511 MeV photons per square centimeter of tissue to result in a dose of one rad. Thus, if a person found themselves 1 foot (30 centimeters) away from a point source made up of material containing annihilating electrons and positrons, to receive one rad of dose, one would have to witness 57 trillion annihilations (5.7 followed by 13 zeros preceding the decimal point).
Other particles also have been observed to experience annihilation with their antimatter counterparts. Some of these processes are more complicated but all of them release radiation and the basic principles involved are the same. I hope this helps. It is always fun communicating with people who are curious about science. You can contact me by e-mail if something is not clear. You may also call me at (620)840-3465.
So, if matter/antimatter did exist equally and did annihilate, the universe would be saturated with radiation and that means no life as we know it?
And there is speculation that matter/antimatter annihilation may rip space time and allow the transportation of matter within the local ‘bubble’ galaxy. This concept may well be the source of the ‘multi verse’ theory.
As I theorize that the end of a monopole cycle means an enormous release of energy that is in the core of the Earth, this energy would be antimatter kept in movement separate from matter and the failure of this energy support from the sun would allow antimatter to be in contact with matter resulting in a tremendous energy release.
As this energy release has been decreasing steadily from the time our sun became a magnetar from its Beetle Sun origin, this energy release would have been responsible for the expulsion of energy that created the Moon, and with the ejection of this Moon material, the lithosphere thinned, allowing all subsequent energy releases to be dissipated through the wounds of the Earth which science refers to as plate tectonics.
How to explain the missing antimatter– may be that it is not in antimatter form. Science now understands that energy from the sun transmutes several times into different forms of energy, kinetic, etc., from the original form of release from the sun in CMEs in its engagement of the Earth’s magnetosphere. I suspect similar transmutations occur in the core of the Earth as this energy raises pressure and temperature into the realm of the monopole sun. When this energy falls –when the monopole cycle ends and the dipole cycle continues– the material —either antimatter in a mazed state or transmuted from antimatter—falls into a lower energy. The antimatter-matter encounter leads to a massive release that the Earth experiences as radiation and gases released from below the lithosphere.
Is the scarcity of antimatter due to the fact that our Sol is a collapsed and compressed Beetle Sun?
Is the scarcity of antimatter the result of monopole/dipole cycles over eons?
Is the radioactivity seen in the Earth due to this antimatter/matter annihilation in the deep core of the Earth since Sol’s formation as a magnetar?
One cannot fail to connect the missing antimatter to the unseen but claimed dark energy and matter. Where is the missing antimatter and the missing mass of the universe? Since it cannot be conveniently swooshed into a nearby universe or shoveled into a wormhole, it has to be right under our noses.
I suspect it is a product of a monopole energy in a form which we cannot recognize.
That makes sense of the matter we do see, the result of the dominance of the dipole sun. In that sense there is missing antimatter/mass because we ourselves are a product of a dipole sun. Remember we could not ‘see’ monoatomic gold because it defied the laws as we understand them for chemical bonding. Remember most of our science is recent and confined to the years of dipolarity. Every decade we experience monopolarity and discoveries in deep science.
Science has recently determined that cells have vibratory resonance. There is a glassy state that occurs and yet another where there is connection but independence. We seems to have lost an ability to experience higher resonance/cellular vibration and are living proof of the Second Law. We a Rube Goldberg invention created with dipole energy interspersed with monopole energy.