0
What else can I help you with?
In an atom of antimatter what would be the charge of an electron?
An atom of antimatter does not contain any electrons. The equivalent of an electron in antimatter is a positron, which has charge +1.
What are two questions physicists have regarding antimatter?
1. Why is there more matter than antimatter in the Universe? Or: Why is there matter at all? (If there were the same amount of matter and antimatter, and it came into contact, it would quickly get destroyed. 2. If antimatter is so abundant, how come we've never come in contact with it or have been able to observe it?
What is the difference between a proton and antiproton?
AnswerThe difference between a proton and a positron is threefold. First, the proton is much more massive (a bit over 1800 times) than a positron. Second, the positron is an elementary particle (though it is antimatter), while the proton is made up of three elementary particles called quarks (two up quarks and one downquark). Third, the positron is antimatter while the proton is "regular" matter. Protons are stable particles (they are hydrogen-1 nuclei), and positrons are produced in positron emission (a type of radioactive decay) or in pair production (where a high energy gamma ray "splits" into an electron and a positron when passing near an atomic nucleus). After a positron appears, it will eventually (and in a relatively short period) combine with an electron in an even called mutual annihilation, and both particles will be converted into energy.Both the proton and positron have a charge of +1, and you can review more information by using the links below to the related questions about the proton and the positron.AnswerA proton is a particle found in the nucleus. It has a positive charge of +1. (Depending on how versed you are, this is equivalent to + 1.60 x 10-19 C of charge). The proton actually is comprised of three smaller subatomic particles called quarks, two up quarks (+2/3) and one down quark (- 1/3). The electron on the other hand is a fundamental particle in that it is not made up of anything smaller (that we know of yet). It has a -1 charge (again - 1.60 x 10-19 C). A positron, however, is antimatter. It is the antimatter of an electron. For intents and purposes it is an electron with a positive charge. If an electron and a positron should interact, they would annihilate one another.
Does antimatter have the same laws of physics with itself as matter?
Yes. If we could communicate with intelligent life in a distant galaxy composed completely of anti-matter, we would have no way of determining that fact. No matter what experiment we asked them to perform, their results would be identical to the results we see in our galaxy composed of matter.
What does antimatter look like?
Death. Theoretically, anti-matter should look just like normal matter. However, we've never been able to make enough of it to see, which is probably just as well; anti-matter will combine with normal matter to produce phenomenal amounts of energy. That is to say, a speck of antimatter combining with normal matter would create the most titanic explosion ever seen on Earth.
In an atom of antimatter what would be the charge of an electron?
An atom of antimatter does not contain any electrons. The equivalent of an electron in antimatter is a positron, which has charge +1.
Is an electron negative?
Unless its positive, in which case it would be a positron which is antimatter.
Do antimatter has the same electrical charge and magnetic characteristics?
Antimatter particles have the opposite electrical charge and magnetic characteristics compared to their matter counterparts. For example, the positron has a positive charge while the electron has a negative charge. Similarly, the magnetic properties of antimatter are opposite to those of matter.
When matter created gravity as antimatter why not create anti-gravity?
"Antimatter" is not negative mass. Mass is a positive quantity for both matter and antimatter. So gravity is always attractive, even if one of the masses in the relationship happens to be antimatter. If such a thing as negative mass exists, then the forces between it and a lump of normal mass would be repulsive ones. Antimatter is observed routinely, but no evidence of negative mass has ever been observed. When matter & antimatter annihilate energy is released per E = mc2 where m corresponds to the sum of their masses. If the antimatter had negative mass then instead of a positron/electron annihilation releasing energy corresponding to twice the electron mass (as it does) the mass of the electron and negative mass of the positron would cancel resulting in no energy release (this does not happen). This proves that both matter & antimatter have positive mass, without even referring to gravity. As they both have positive mass their gravity will be attractive not repulsive.
How come the universe is made of matter and not antimatter?
That is not currently known. There is a slight assymetry between matter and antimatter, but so far, it seems that this assymetry is not enough to explain why there is only matter, and hardly any antimatter, in the Universe. Without such an assymetry, there wouldn't be either matter or antimatter in the Universe - just radiation. For more information about what is known, and what isn't, check the Wikipedia article on "Baryon asymmetry".
What are the advantages of using antimatter?
Currently antimatter is only used for scientific research as it is very expensive to obtain. In the future antimatter could be used for anything that requires energy such as producing electricity.
If 1gram body of antimatter meets a 10gram body of matter which survives?
Initially the 9g of remaining matter would survive. Each particle of antimatter can only annihilate with one other particle of antimatter. At this point the 1g of antimatter would cause an explosion equivalent to that of 200000 pounds of TNT. Causing both groups of matter and antimatter to be obliterated.
What are two questions physicists have regarding antimatter?
1. Why is there more matter than antimatter in the Universe? Or: Why is there matter at all? (If there were the same amount of matter and antimatter, and it came into contact, it would quickly get destroyed. 2. If antimatter is so abundant, how come we've never come in contact with it or have been able to observe it?
What would antimatter look like if it were visible to the human eye?
If antimatter were visible to the human eye, it would likely appear similar to regular matter, but with opposite charge. This means that antimatter would have colors and properties that are the opposite of what we see in our everyday world.
If an antimatter star went supernova near your solar system would it be any different than a regular supernova?
The observable universe is almost entirely matter (as opposed to antimatter) so it's unlikely that a cloud of antimatter large enough to form a star could exist long enough to form a star anywhere near the solar system; it would be annihilated by collisions with neighboring normal matter. Ignoring that, though, yes, there would be differences. The ejecta of an antimatter supernova would be primarily antimatter, meaning that it would annihilate nearby normal matter and give off massive amounts of gamma radiation that would not be seen with a normal matter supernova.
Was the explosion out of antimatter?
Current physical theory tends to indicate there should be a symmetry expressed in the form of a parity between matter and antimatter created in the Big Bang, with no preference for matter over antimatter; this explosion should have created equal amounts of both, which would then annihilate each other. However, the universe tends to be dominated so far as we can tell by matter and no significant regions of antimatter have yet been detected. This would indicate an asymmetry or bias in favor of matter's creation, which is somewhat mysterious and remains a subject of research. In any case, this bias of matter over antimatter is believed to be extremely small - such that it may have been for every billion particles of antimatter created, there were a billion and one particles of matter.
What is the difference between a proton and antiproton?
AnswerThe difference between a proton and a positron is threefold. First, the proton is much more massive (a bit over 1800 times) than a positron. Second, the positron is an elementary particle (though it is antimatter), while the proton is made up of three elementary particles called quarks (two up quarks and one downquark). Third, the positron is antimatter while the proton is "regular" matter. Protons are stable particles (they are hydrogen-1 nuclei), and positrons are produced in positron emission (a type of radioactive decay) or in pair production (where a high energy gamma ray "splits" into an electron and a positron when passing near an atomic nucleus). After a positron appears, it will eventually (and in a relatively short period) combine with an electron in an even called mutual annihilation, and both particles will be converted into energy.Both the proton and positron have a charge of +1, and you can review more information by using the links below to the related questions about the proton and the positron.AnswerA proton is a particle found in the nucleus. It has a positive charge of +1. (Depending on how versed you are, this is equivalent to + 1.60 x 10-19 C of charge). The proton actually is comprised of three smaller subatomic particles called quarks, two up quarks (+2/3) and one down quark (- 1/3). The electron on the other hand is a fundamental particle in that it is not made up of anything smaller (that we know of yet). It has a -1 charge (again - 1.60 x 10-19 C). A positron, however, is antimatter. It is the antimatter of an electron. For intents and purposes it is an electron with a positive charge. If an electron and a positron should interact, they would annihilate one another.
