What If Electrons Aren't Round? The Antimatter Problem - EXPLAINED
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 июн 2024
- Head to www.squarespace.com/drbenmiles to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain using code drbenmiles
From the vastness of the universe down to the minuteness of the electron, antimatter should be everywhere - So why can’t we see it? New results coming out of CERN point us towards the electron and the possibility it might not always be perfectly round…But how can we possibly measure such incredibly small irregularities in a particle already at the subatomic level? And how can this help us in understanding one of the universe’s greatest mysteries?
Merch!
I think Scientists are Rockstars so I made t-shirts to celebrate it
Einstein Rockstar Tee: www.drbenmiles.com/merch/p/ro...
Curie Rockstar Tee: www.drbenmiles.com/merch/p/ro...
Schrodinger Rockstar Tee: www.drbenmiles.com/merch/p/ro...
00:00 What If an Electron Wasn't Round?
00:57 What is Antimatter?
1:50 Breaking the Universe's Symmetry
2:48 Does Antigravity Exist?
4:03 Do Electrons Change the Nature of The Universe?
4:47 The Electric Dipole Moment
5:14 Ad read
6:32 How Do You Measure The Shape of an Electron?
9:14 What if the Asymmetry Hides in Different Particle?
10:36 What if We Can't See the "Real" Electron?
#antimatter #physics #breakthrough #science
If you enjoy the channel and want even more physics, tech, and business content, I've just launched new Instagram and Threads pages. Follow on the links below
Insta: / drbenmiles
Threads: threads.net/drbenmiles
Newsletter drbenmiles.substack.com/
A few people have asked so I've added the info below. Some of these are affiliate links. If you make a purchase it doesn't cost you anything extra, but a percentage of the sale will help support this channel and my work to bringing entrepreneurship into science.
My camera : amzn.to/3ed5Xac
My lens: amzn.to/3xIAZyA
My lav: amzn.to/2SeE20Y and amzn.to/3nK33wA
My mic: amzn.to/3gUYYEv 
Наука
Head to www.squarespace.com/drbenmiles to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain using code drbenmiles
Elementary particles are like boxes, and I have developed the structure of them, using their masses.
You have SQUAREspace sponsoring a video on ROUND electrons???
Nobody cares about anything you have to say, denier. You obviously have zero genuine scientific knowledge.
I have two questions:
- Why the shape of an electron could cause the imbalance between matter and antimatter?
- What shape should the positron be and why couldn't that have taken over?
And electron shape (dipole moment) violates parity symmetry because it is aligned with the spin. Under reflection, the dipole flips direction and the spin does not.
@@DrDeuteron Yes but under CP the charge is flipped too restoring the dipole moment. So I see that P breaks the symmetry but isnt the symmetry restored under CP?
The most important thing is missing one the video: why and how does the shape of the election could cause the master antimatter imbalance to begin with?
I second that. How does the shape make the imbalance? What shape is the positron? Is it different?
If the shape of an electron or any fundamental particle is not perfectly round then CP parity is broken.
If CP parity is not true then we can't assume that matter and anti matter were produced in equal amounts during the big bang.
@@priyanksaklani8176 Why does CP parity being broken due to electron shape have to do with CP parity broken in matter anti matter distribution? We already know it is broken right since we live in a matter universe? so seeing another instance of it being broken doesn't seem to be the full explanation as to how it explains the uneven matter produced.
@lendluke investigation in shape (electric dipole moment) of fundamental particles is an experimental way to disprove the CP parity.
Our assumption of 'equal amount of matter and anti matter produced in big bang' is based on CP parity. Once you prove CP parity false you basically prove the above assumption false.
So maybe during the big bang there was a slight imbalance between matter and anti matter.(with slightly more matter than anti matter)
Most of the matter and anti matter would annihilate but some matter will remain ( the imbalance I talked about above) we might be living in that remaining matter universe.
The "three quarks" explanation of nucleons only refers to the so-called "valence" quarks. The model also has them containing multiple "sea quarks" of ephemeral quark/antiquark pairs.
I assume since he has a PhD in physics that he knows all this stuff and is just using some simplification and analogies. Like talking about the electron being "round" or "smooth" which is a very classical description that does not apply to subatomic particles.
lol these are all attempts to force feed questions and puzzles mankind doesn't understand.
@@jumpievaYou’re right, we should just give up on trying to understand things that we don’t currently, it’s a useless pursuit. I mean really, what have “science” and “innovation” ever done for us???
I would be interested in another video on any other explanation of the imbalance.
You did a good job of explaining some difficult concepts.
Really interesting video (thank you), but I didn't pick up on WHY the electric dipole moment explains how CP symmetry breaking is possible. The video appears to assert a connection between one and the other without explaining it (or perhaps I missed this?)
I applaud you on making something that I don't quite understand still interesting to watch.
Great channel. Well put together for us of average minds ❤
Thanks. Please excuse my ignorance. Electrons travel. I don't know if it makes any sense to ask how fast they travel around a nucleus. But wouldn't relativity appear to flatten them in the direction of travel? How might that effect their interactions with other particles? tavi.
Electrons do not travel in the nucleus at all. The truth is electrons don't really exist, not in the nice particle form you're imagining anyway. Particles are an illusion. The truth is there is an electron field, and this field jiggles like water ripples or a drum skin, but the difference is this is a quantum field, which means it can only vibrate with certain specific energies. In fact it's a simple ladder, there is some minimum energy and then you increase in steps from there, the gap between each step is always the same, and this energy is what we associate with particles. But it's really, truly, a field. It's much more wave than particle, and you cannot understand electrons in atoms if you try to think of them as particles. The atomic nucleus has a strong electric charge and this creates a so-called boundary condition on the electron field nearby. This sounds fancy but it's not really, it's just like a guitar string or a drum skin. A guitar string is fixed at each end, so it can't move there. A drum skin is fixed all around the circumference, so it can't move there. This restriction is what we call a boundary condition, and it limits the possible ways for the string/skin/quantum field to vibrate. The atomic nucleus actually causes a kind of spherical harmonic pattern in the electron field (look up spherical harmonics, good animations out there). So the question of how the electron moves inside an atom is not answerable. Electrons do not really move because they don't really exist, they temporarily seem to exist when we measure them, otherwise you have to stick with fields. If the electron really was moving in there, it would have to move in circles or it would not stay close to the nucleus, and that means it would be accelerating, which means it would radiate electromagnetic waves and spiral into the nucleus.
This video misses something important, which is the distinction between egg-shaped and oval-shaped. The electron is not perfectly round (spherical), since it has angular momentum, charge, and a magnetic dipole moment, which combine to give a free electron an "oval" shape. But that shape has no net electric dipole moment. To turn an oval into an "egg" (which does have an electric dipole moment), you need relative motion (apparent shape changes in relativity). So asymmetry in the relative motion of electrons in the big bang could result in an effective electric dipole moment.
What's the chance that matter-antimatter annihilation equally annihilated neutrons, protons and electrons? Would there not have been annihilation of anti-neutrons with protons and all other combinations as well? Where is the energy that came from this event?
It seems to me unlikely that annihilation occurred, which indicates the universe evolved as a matter universe only, with the odd antimatter particle coming into existence from other post universe creation processes.
So is there any research into why or how a matter only universe could come about?
Hot take, what if there isn't an anit-matter problem. What if the natural low energy state for a positron is to be contained within a proton and the natural resting state of an electron is to be contained external to protons, what if being an anti-proton is simply a high energy state?
Also, it seems apparent to me that protons and electrons are not actually litterally attracted to each other but are only apparently attracted to each other.
You would think that if they were actually litterally attracted to each other, that combining a proton with an electron to form a neutron would be a low energy state, but this is incorrect. The neutron is a high energy state.
Lone neutrons quickly decay outside of the nucleus of attoms and when they do, they release a neutrino and convert into hydrogen-1. This mean hydrogen-1 is the low energy state. That means placing the proton in direct contact with the electron require an addition of energy as the electron and proton resisted being put together.
I posit that all electrons are reppelled from all electrons, and all protons are reppelled from all proton but that electrons shield protons from the field of other protons and protons shield electrons from the fields of other electrons.
So naturaly they want to be close together but resting a distance appart that affords the maximum level of shielding: hydrogen-1
6:42 these physical experiments are ABSOLUTELY INCREDIBLY AMAZING!
The big bang really went so hard that the explosion was just like "how? And why?"
I think the symmetry break has already been discovered (weak force acts differently on matter than on antimatter), but not how it shaped the early universe.
I've not heard that the weak force acts differently on antimatter. I've heard it acts on different chiralities but I didn't think it was inherent to the sign of the matter.
@@isonlynameleftthe chiral difference is maximum, while CP violation is small….to small for the cosmologists. See neutral kaon oscillations… they are odd.
@@DrDeuteron I was on the sauce when I wrote that 😆 I do remember some of that although I think really what it is is I don't think I understood it very well the first time I learned it. Thanks, I've got some studying to do 😄
A few questions. How do we know the partial antiparticle symmetry is broken? The antimatter could be spread out between galaxies. Also, how do we know some of the galaxies we observe aren't made from antiparticles?
Where is all the antimatter you ask? Well, what makes it different from normal matter? The charge (there is also chirality but in any case it's still a binary distinction). What if we swapped some labels around, and called protons antimatter? Then you'd have both matter and antimatter in the universe. Of course there remains the issue that we still don't have positrons and antiprotons around, so some symmetry did break. But rephrasing the question this way would help us focus on the way more important question, the nature of charge (which I'm willing to bet is going to be linked to all the other differences)
I think antimatter is just regular matter with opposite momentum vectors. That's why they "annihilate" when they collide with each other. They perfectly cancel each other's momentum. What we call "charge" could be a type of intrinsic momentum just like quantum spin.
An important subtlety overlooked in most popular discussions of the Standard Model is that there are four versions of each particle, not two. For example, the electron and positron both have left- and right-handed versions. The “real” or “massive” versions of electrons and positrons are composites of these left- and right-handed versions, bound together by (surprise!) the Higgs boson.
This makes the full problem of particle symmetry more complicated - and more interesting - than “just” matter and antimatter, since all four particle types must play a role if your goal is full symmetry.
I thought only left-handed electrons exist? Are you talking about muons? Are muons right-handed electrons?
@joegillian314 , all everyday versions of electrons - that is, the ones that have mass and hang around for a long time, such as in atoms - consist of two _alternating_ forms, one left-handed and the other right-handed. Neither is stable by itself. When folks talk about electrons being “left-handed,” it’s particle-speak shorthand for saying, “Only the _left-handed_ version of this particle is sensitive to the weak force.”
Antimatter electrons, called positrons, also have left and right versions. But in that case, the right-handed version is sensitive to the weak force. Thus, folks consider antimatter to be right-handed.
What about little triangles? Then things could really fit together in crazy tight ways. Just a thought
I'm convinced that electrons are shaped like lego bricks, because when you get electrocuted it feels like your whole body stepped on one.
The Antimatter Problem EXPLAINED [but NOT answered]
The real problem is that all the current experiments are checking the roundness of the electron's charge (EDMe) only at the magnetic dipole moment axis N-S of the electron and not overall its circumference. Did you know that? There is actually currently no experiment methodology that can do that checking the total circumference of the electron's sphere charge possible deviation from perfect 2πR symmetry. They, don't even try? The excuse they come up with is "because SM theory predicts that "electrons cannot have a quadrapole moment", however this was never experimentally verified (not even close the 10^-30 precision they are measuring). Well at least I tried telling then but they don't listen "Fine Structure Constant Model Demonstrates the Electron Elementary Charge of Having an Intrinsic Manifold".What they currently checking is if N pole electric charge of the the electron is different in value from its S pole charge but what they really should check is, if the pole charge's are different from the charge at the equator of the electron?!
How can you measure it and prove that? Nobel prize for you if you've got the correct answer! Bet you don't. Go to it, and prove me wrong. Otherwise, I'm listening to the people who actually have extensive experience in and work in the experimental field. You theoretical recliner physicists are hilarious. You can make a model of anything, with a little thought. Proving it in the real world is much harder.
Perhaps that's the reason why it is hurtful to fall, the pointy electrons
Wouldnt the electrons be oval because of length dilation/contraction
Isn't there a missing neutrino? Right/Left spin?
That imabalance seems like it would be related. Is it in anyway?
What if normal matter was slightly attracted to the center of the big bang region and anti-matter was slightly repelled away from it at early stages of the big bang expansion? Wouldn't this propel anti-matter outwards creating an anti-matter shell which could exist beyond the CMB and in equal quantities to the matter we know of in our visible universe?
There is no “center” of the Big Bang, it happened everywhere.
The Big Bang didn’t have a center. It was everywhere.
@@AdrianBoyko Actually it had an infinitely dense (centralized, if you will) origin point from which all things expanded from, so in a scalar sense the center would be the beginning expansion coordinates if cardinal points could somehow be externally constructed, but otherwise, you are correct that everything which is within the universal sphere was within that origin point. So, when I mention the "center" I'm speaking in terms of the origin cardinal coordinate expansion point and where all initial energy, gravity and matter was directed away from in the initial moments of the big bang. The matter and energy didn't expand linearly (in one direction) or circuitously (in a loop) it expanded spherically in all directions away from a point of origin. That means that in fact, there remains a true cardinal pinpoint somewhere within our visible universe where the initial expansion took place if scale is to be considered. As for my premise, it was intended to be in reference to possible early stage disparities between normal and anti-matter, since the early effects upon matter and anti-matter would have been quantum influences and not classical. We know that electrons don't fall into the nucleus because of quantum effects creating atomic valance shells and the gluons holding quarks tightly together. So, in the earliest of time during the initial hyperinflation of the universe, there could have been a quantum phase in which antimatter was equal to normal matter, but its inflation rate was ever so slightly different at the beginning to where it's far beyond the visible sphere of detection in our current expanded universe. But, it's just a thought I decided to share. I'm not claiming it's true or even probable. Then again, we have no conclusively deep grasp on the quantum world to begin with.
@@merlepatterson
It would probably be the other way around if it's anything like what you're suggesting...
We don't really know if matter has the upper hand in the whole universe, though, do we? Only that it does in the observable universe. Couldn't there have been some event during the Big Bang that distributed matter and antimatter unevenly on the scale of our observable universe, even if it's homogeneously distributed on the scale of the entire universe?
Can relativistic length contraction make an electron look "non-round" ?
Exactly. First thoughts about it
Relativity doesn’t actually change things, it just changes how they appear to different observers. The same object viewed simultaneously from different inertial frames will appear to be squished along different axes.
@@AdrianBoyko yes, it does. In time dimention it squished also. Less time passed, less space passed. ds^2=c^2*dt^2-dr^2, if dt1
it sounds like the sampling rate was possibly much less than the internal spin rate of the particles (not just the ion)?
Whenever the matter-antimatter distribution in the early universe is discussed, I miss the justification for why we assume that this value was balanced back then. It is pure conjecture, as it is an initial value. Accordingly, it could be equally likely that there was initially no imbalance.
Conservation laws
@@AdrianBoyko We're talking of initial conditions. There is no proof what so ever, that shows that conservation laws we're valid. Even today conservation laws don't hold up, e.g. photon red shifting due to cosmic inflation.
I've been wondering this too. It seems like it was included in the theory because it makes the mathematics look pretty.
Perhaps the magnetic field so early on could twist electrons into the correct pretziloid required, also strong enough to force matter bias.
OR A MIRRORVERSE (Explains matter/antimatter CP violation & gravity weakness)
Roundness of an electron? Roundness of what? This whole business seems to not ask the more fundamental question.
If electron is point like particle how gravity affect on it? Point has no volume and has no time dilation gradient on it sides and can not move along geodesic line.
why is CPT violated by an electron's shape?
The shape is always changing.
Isn't it impossible to know the exact position of an electron? Wouldn't maintaining symmetry necessitate the position of a particle to be perfectly knowable?
I was under the impression that electrons, as elementary particles, had no size and were just zero dimensional points, and thus had no shape.
Though the term “electron dipole moment” does ring a bell…
As for looking closer. Like in the case if the Neuteon. The more energy used to observe the further away it will appear to move. This itself isn't quite accurate either. What occurs is the shrinking of the radius to an increase in angular frequency. (An EH)
The video does not explain why non-round electrons will produce any difference between matter and antimatter. In reality, is just a test for the standard model. If the standard model does not work, then we should not expect equal amounts of matter and anti-matter. It also tests some alternative theories.
IF IF IF electrons WERE some sort of particulate objects, then I might worry. And electron is more like a volume of inflow to compensate for the outflow of the proton singularity.
If you take Wheeler and Feynman's idea of antimatter being indistinguishable from time reversed matter seriously, then the difference is just a particle's orientation in spacetime which would put all primordial antimatter outside our observable universe and before inflation/the big bang from any observer's perspective.
There's another potential solution if you re-evaluate the historical definition of antimatter in light of the discovery of quarks. The quark model we have now was derived with the assumption that protons and neutrons are definitely all matter and it leads to the odd quirk that the top row of quarks are charge sign reversed from the bottom row and the leptons. You can rather dramatically simplify the conservation laws if you don't assume that protons and neutrons are made entirely of matter and swap the labels on the top row of quarks so charge sign is consistent. Surprisingly, that makes you recompute the baryon numbers in a way that makes it consistent with charge conservation and still handles the full zoo of meson decays properly. It doesn't quite solve the asymmetry by mass (it's basically 2:1 if you do that) but the up quarks that make up 1/3 of the mass are roughly half the mass and twice the charge of their down counterparts which might suggest an alternative way of accounting for both mass and charge where it's 1:1.
How can they tell, for example, if a universe 50 light years away is antimatter or normal matter?
In time, the orbit of an electron is always elliptic. There cannot be a non elliptic orbit in our standard model.
What if the positrons or the antiquarks have a dipole moment, and not the ordinary matter electrons and quarks? 🤔
Interesting, how come nucleons are apparently perfectly round, whilst very heavy nuclei aren’t? Does it have something to do with the range of the strong/weak forces?
Also, I could’ve sworn I heard about protons being warped to the point of being rod/needle shaped in the magnetic fields around neutron stars. I guess the whole “perfectly round” thing is an ideal rather than an absolute?
12:10 wouldn’t the sea of virtual particles be present around all particles and anti particles?
If the electrons ARE affected by gravity then it would stand to reason that gravity would have much the same affect on them as it does on the humble egg. I've always thought that they were not so much round as fuzzy, and so their ability to be affected in this way seems plausible. The closer they are to a gravitational source which is much the same thing as saying the more bunched up they are (clumped as they are along with protons & neutrons etc.), the more likely they are to be distorted. But does that then mean that their energy level is also "distorted"?
I never really thought of them having a shape lol their orbit i geuss but not the particle itself
Isn’t Weak Force asymmetrical in its effect. Wouldn’t that be enough to explain the matter bias after the Big Bang?
Matter and antimatter were made in equal amounts down to the last particle. The person making the universe was lazy and ignored the instruction that said "mix well"
Interesting video.
What I think, though, is that primordial antimatter formed it's own half of the real geometry of our universe. See Jean Pierre Petit's theory (plus the idea does float around in physics, since decades, but is extremely rarely known to exist).
I suppose it's still about checking boxes, while we understand very little. Most of this still heavily relies on trial and error. Hubble, Euclid, Webb... Each time space defied our logical models, our predictions. Hawkins corrected himself... I figure the Jean Pierre Petit theory is just that for a reason. It's what drives us to keep looking, the theories aren't satisfying and our science has a hard time, like with 2:48 - even when the theory was widely accepted. Like the collider and telescopes: very expensive to test such a hypothesis.
point being that at the time it's probably easier to prove the things that are abundant _and unknown._
I'll look into the theory though ;)
There were equal amounts of matter and antimatter at the bi bang, the matter went one direction, half the universe, the antimatter went the other direction, the other half of the universe.
What if they really are point-like sources, but due to the way electronics warp space-time around it using nuclear forces, their shape isn't fixed?
I can't wait until they discover watsamatter.
What u said in the end could actually be the reason. It sounds logical to me.
Lots of things sound logical..how do you think flat earthers are being made everyday?
This is ignoring a lot of science most basic laws. Like ocams razor. This just seems to unnecessarily contrived that they ignore the most basic stuff
If there's 100 of each type of matter. But before getting to normal matter the anti matter is forced to hit other antimatter. It becomes a multiplication problem...-100 times -100 is a positive number. Since we don't know exactly what forces were at play we have to presume the most basic things before jumping the shark and doing an ice berg dive without doing the basics
Maybe uneven distribution left one side of the universe with more regular particles and the other side with more antiparticles
I believe there must be some sort of "imbalance" because this is required for the momentum exchange between elementary particles (e.g. quarks are constantly exchanging momentum between each other via the gluon flux tubes) which takes place inside the composite matter particles.
Their hexagons light does have the shape when it shines on some point of views...yes cube- squares..
😅😮😅😅😮😮well information good show you 😅😅
Aren't electrons shaped like a probability cloud in an orbit? Skewed by any nearby electrons?
I bet you that ovality of the electron is in perfect harmony with the golden ratio.
It looks round cos its spinning. If it was a square or a triangle or even a line it would still appear as a perfectly rounded object
An analogy would be ET s1 and s2 values for p.
what is really weird about anti-matter , is interaction distance with matter
Who said electrons are round? By the wsy, spherical would be a better term. In fact it has been assumed for decades that they are point particles.
Does the shape of electrons relate to spin?
No, the video is really misleading. Electrons do not have a shape
And egg shaped deformation is a quadrupole moment
BB coming from one point and nothing before RIDICULOS
I know it's very difficult to make anti-particles, and even harder to keep them from contacting regular particles (eliminating each other). So, I apologize if this is a stupid question, but have scientists ever created enough anti-particles to see the properties of anti-atoms and anti-molecules? In other words, if scientists made anti-oxygen, and twice as much anti-hydrogen, and combined them, do we know what the properties of anti-water would be?
Without structure can there be shape?
Maybe the reasoning is much more simple.. what if space was already here, with matter in it, and our "universe" exploded within it.
CPT theorem
Neither. They are waveform. The asymmetry is due to the observation of the time arrow. Antimatter is merely time running backwards which implies superluminal electrons
Ceteris paribus!
Not understand why if electron had dipole moment it could be an answer to the matter-antimatter asymetry?
People are trying to defend the symmetry by stating equations and other things state it has to be symmetric.
But all of this ultimately stems from us starting with the very assumption that universe ought to be symmetrical. We dont like the idea of things not being symmetric.
I dont like the idea of it not being symmetric. But the facts remain. We DO live in a mostly regular matter universe. Regardless of how we feel about it. And theres also no currently accepted explanation for it.
Its quite possible it just isnt symmetric for no reason at all that has anything to do with any equations we have to describe the universe or physics.
Just as theres probably no reason at all for the universal constants to have the exact values that they do except that if it were any other way. Life wouldn't be possible and we wouldnt exist to contemplate it.
So as infitessimally unlikely as our universe is with its exact configuration. We couldnt exist to ponder it if it was different in any other way. This includes the ratio of matter to antimatter. So if theres any random fluctuations in how the bigbang can happen. Then we wouod have only existed in THIS version of those random fluctuations even if the probability is so ridiculously low it's uncomputable.
There quite possibly is no reason at all for it other than sheer chance.
You’re also home to the Vicious Chicken of Bristol.
What if all the antimatter was forced to the center of the universe when it started expanding and that's where it all is, driving the expansion of the universe.
The universe doesn’t have a center
What if electron aren't have surface and shape at all?
In the early universe, could gravity have made the electron oblong?
Does it even make sense to say electrons have a shape? Why are we assuming this? What observations support this assumption?
This channel is an advertising monster. Any useful info is purely ancillary. G99d work dude, all that cheddar!
Question: How do we know we don't see antimatter? If antimatter behaves identically to regular matter how could we differentiate antimatter from a distance? Could it be a possibility that distant galaxies and structure could be made of antimatter due to local inequalities of matter/antimatter but the universe as a whole balances out? Please excuse my ignorance
If there was a bubble of antimatter somewhere, there would be a flare around it of annihilating matter. You would definitely see this.
@@jurjenbos228 Not if they are separated by pure vacuum or like in the video above separated by magnetic fields. Even in the experiment above the antimatter could exist forever if the experimentalist never turned off the magnetic field.
Maby they should try measuring the charge of a anti electron Maby its the one that's asymmetrical that's my guess Thue i don't know a lot about it
Wouldn’t quantum superposition prove that electrons have a dipole, and are thus not perfectly round?
The charge field of a free electron should be perfectly round. In my model an electron-positron annihilation turns to field imbalances back into balanced field. It's a unified matter-energy field... The Electro-Positronic Field from which all forces emerge from the base electric force, naturally and sensibly. It adds up.
If the definition of anti matter is regular matter going backwards in time, maybe they were created in equal amounts but one went to the future and the other went towards the past, thus avoiding each other
Wouldn’t any newly created antimatter also travel back in time, meaning we’d never see any? But we do see it.
Could anti-gravity still be achievable despite this discovery?
Everyone keeps looking at protons and electrons and their antiparticles. Let me give you a clue, what if the difference is really in neutrons and antineutrons? No, I don't mean that there's a shape difference between them, but just the dynamics of how these particles flew through space in the early nanoseconds of the Big Bang universe. They may have left areas of greater matter density and other areas of greater antimatter density.
Do you think Atto Physics could possibly give scientist's a better picture of the electron ?
What if anti-matter dissolves over time? How stable is anti-hydrogen?
The antiproton is as stable as the proton and the positron is as stable as the electron.
We only assume the Big Bang would do this because when we hit the quantum field with a bunch of energy that’s what happens.
You said that since antimatter has been observed falling in Earth's gravitation field that means anti gravity is unlikely but this is wrong. All energy falls toward a positive mass body, due to spacetime geodesics curving toward it. Both matter and antimatter should be expected to fall under Earth gravity. But if you could build an entire planet out of antimatter that's a different story. If antimatter has negative mass then it would generate a repulsive gravitational field around it, it would cause a negative curvature in spacetime and make parallel lines diverge, antigravity basically. No experiment thus far conducted has provided any strong evidence as to the question of whether antimatter has positive or negative mass. The overwhelming strength of Earth's positive mass dominates the local spacetime curvature. You would need either a very big lump of antimatter or to get far away from any other gravitating bodies. That said, a key detail of the experiment which dropped anti protons was a possible indication that they fall slightly slower than normal protons. This would support the theory that antimatter indeed has negative mass. We should not expect antimatter to fly away from the Earth, not unless the mass of the antimatter is greater than the mass of the Earth, until then the dominant force is attractive albeit slightly weakened. Negative mass antimatter also neatly explains a very long list of issues such as where the mass goes in matter-antimatter annihilation events, why there APPEARS to be an imbalance of matter and antimatter in the universe (because antimatter repels itself and forms a diffuse fluid instead of clumping into galaxies and stars), which further accounts quite nicely for dark matter and the anomalous galactic rotation curves, as well as the large scale structure of the universe (filaments, voids, etc), AND has the potential to explain dark energy as well, because it would mean that the "empty" space between stars and galaxies is really a very diffuse fluid of antimatter, negatively curving spacetime at the largest scales of the universe. This also suggests that the universe may in fact have zero total mass/energy, helping to explain the "something from nothing" problem of cosmology. The whole universe could just be a zero energy quantum vacuum fluctuation, by the heisenberg uncertainty principle this means it could exist for infinite time instead of being short lived. Matter and antimatter pairs chasing eachother across the universe, accelerating to arbitrary speeds can also explain ultra high energy cosmic rays. We have this bias against negative mass but there's no evidence for that except "we've never seen any", but even that may be false. The fact is we wouldn't have known even if we did have it. There is still a very real possibility that antimatter has negative mass and we wouldn't know it, only now we're beginning to test the gravitation effects of it, but this is ridiculously hard. A proton has almost no gravitational field, its hard enough to detect the gravitational force between two lead balls several kilograms each. We're a long way fro accurately measuring the gravitational properties of antimatter.
I thought the electron was point like.
Shhh!
Who 'assumes' that electrons are round? It's like saying "latest findings show that diamonds are not soft". Saying that electrons have an electric dipole of zero does not mean that electrons have a shape or form!
A spherical shell is the result of forces being in balance and an even distribution of "charge." This is where the assumption of the electron's roundness comes from.
atom and electron ? Staticly round in a dynamic environment ? Unlikely . Why ? Try this . Use a half a sphere fill it till you are 1 cm from the edge . Blindfold your eyes hear . Then take the bowl of liquid in your hand . Go walk in a way atom move . Get the bowl recorded . Yep water change shape use a water baloon , its shanging shape even more .magnitude of change . Less then wroughtness of earth but at the dynamic of atom environment ? The ripple effect is huge . Thanks to newton resistance to change and likely incoherent magnetism wich introduce its own vibration electricity does too
Ramen spectroscopy. 🤤
I examined my soup for hours and couldn't find anything unexpected
what is so "anti" in an anti-neutron ?
They walk around with placards protesting against established science
The mere fact that if anti matter and matter were to touch, a giant cataclysmic explosion occurs and anti matter cannot be observed with current technology. Isn’t it seemingly more plausible that matter is moving in one direction and anti matter moving in the opposite. Given our very limited understanding of the universe, how could we possibly know?
There is no observational evidence of any antimatter 'hiding' in the universe.
since matter and antimatter are both affected by gravity, they would more in the same direction or towards each other
One question I always had is what if the antimatter is there, but we can't tell because the wavelengths of light emitted by anti-matter stars is the same as regular matter stars?
Like, antimatter and matter were made in the same amounts, but they just haven't had the chance to touch and annihilate due to the distances involved?
Intergalactic dust has had plenty of time to "meet and annihilate." Astronomers should see a significant glow from the interactions. They don't.
@@ProfessorJayTee thats fair. Thank you for the response!