Were the moon landings faked?

The particle is charged, as in electrical charge. Its one of a handful of fundamental properties each particle has. As to what charge actually is who knows, its a property that a particle has that determines how it moves in electric fields. Im not getting into another philosophical debate about when we know what something is, maths gives us a good window into that world and im happy with that for the time being.

 

Tony

Occam stands corrected.

Occam

 

Man this thread is
still only 3 down from top after 3 weeks.
With occams last post.

When occam was posting here there was no stagnation...
Yet you all went off to talk about other peoples ideas about antimater.And said nothing new..
Then said nothing.

Imagination. Occam offers that.. NEW questions. Ones that question all u hold as holy. And occam MEANS 'holy'.
U clerics of science. Clerics being those that learn by rote..a dogma.

Occam

 

.

 

.

 

Im guessing that the scientists posting here probably have more specific questions on a day to day basis. Its good to think about the abstract stuff but when it actually comes to practising science you do have the idealistic part in the back of your mind but a lot of the work is writing programs to analyse results, checking errors and learning electronics because you are learning thats is hard to be in any discipline without being able to do it. Also last time it took me about a week to convince people that anti-matter had been discovered at all, when it was discovered in 1932 (I looked that up on wiki).

 

Shaggie

Had no idea you would consider a motivational comment an insult.
Never intended to insult. Occam does not do that.
Just goad.

Occam

 

LOL

Occam

 

Tony

Well said. Glad to see some are methodical. And unemotional.
Yes. Believe u occam does on human description of antimater.
It took 5 minutes..not a week. lol
But is a 'positron' really anti mater..?
Or just a variant state of 'mater as we know it'.

Occam

 

Thank myself for getting this thread and forum moving.

Glad to see at least 2 people with the gumption to speak.

Occam

 

You can call the positron the anti-electron if it makes you feel better. Its more for historical reasons that it was named the positron, it was the first. By the time the others were found it was clear what was going on so they just started aticking anti- infront of everything. I dont have dates for the others to hand but im sure your wiki capable. Though id guess the next was probably the anti-proton probably in the 50s. By the 80's when all the 'cool' particles were being found the anti-particles were usually found at about the same time.

 

The term 'anti' as in anti-matter is a deceptive term.
As Fat_Tony pointed out before, they are not so different.

An electron will have a negative charge and a certain type of spin. A positron will have a positive charge and an opposite spin. Otherwise, the particles are pretty much identical.

What intrigues me is that they will anhialate eachother if they come into close enough proximity. As far as I know, this ability to anhialate eachother is why it is called anti-matter.

The other interesting thing is the apparent lack of anti-matter in the universe.

Drifting off a bit..
Can someone clarify for me how matter was created in the big bang?
Can it be replicated artifically?
As far as I know, all manmade anti-matter is derived from matter by bombarding it with high energy particles. Would this be similar to how it would be created naturally? Always derived from matter?
I must assume that matter can be created from energy at some point if I understand the big bang theory correctly. If so, then woudl it be possible to also create anti-matter in this way?

 

Yes we landed on the Moon but it was MR. Bush who landed on the moon and stay there until the end of the vietnam war. he was never the same since .

 

At the moment of the big bang we dont know what happens as this requireds a theory of quantum gravity but matter would have been in the form of strings or whatever theory is ever shown to be correct. Then as the universe cooled these would form a quark-gluon plasma, as the name suggests the matter in the universe would be made of quarks and gluons, this state of matter should be produced in the new CERN collider when it opens next year. After a bit more cooling leptons (electons, neutrinos, etc) become separate from hadrons (quarks, protons, mesons, lots of funky names), this is where we are now. Im sure you can see where this is going, atoms -> molecules -> stars -> galaxies -> Earth -> people -> windsurfing.

The standard model says that anti-matter should have been produced equally with matter in the big bang, after all the only difference is the charge, we could equally well be living in an anti-universe. So the big question is why didnt all the anti-matter anihilate with the other matter to leave a universe bathed in radiation? Well the first response is maybe there are anti-matter galaxies we havent seen. Well at the big bang everything was close together even places now separated by billions of light years. So the most logical conclusion is that nature treats matter and anti-matter differently. In a few very specific situations nature does favour matter over anti-matter, called CP symmetry violation, at the moment experiments are being carried out to see if this could explain why there is only matter. The way its going at the moment is it wont explain it and we have finally found a hole in the standard model, which is good, theres nothing worse than a correct theory.

Most practically used anti-matter is got from the radioactive decay of lithium, if you want other anti particles then you have to start wrecking atomic nuclei which does require a particle accelerator. This is more or less how it was done in the big bang, except there the particles were already at high energies. I hope somewhere in there ive answered your question, it was quite wide ranging.

 

Thanks Tony. Yes mostly you did.

How would a collider be used to create matter? Photons?

Do quarks and gluons exist naturally outside of any matter?

When matter and anti-matter anhialates, it creates a bunch of high energy photons, correct?

 

A collider doesnt create matter, it breaks it into its consituent parts and then looks at the wreckage. The principle is in some ways similar to a car crash the faster you smash together the smaller the pieces you get. The aim being to 1) see what the basic constituents are and 2) see how they interact together to make new things. When you smash a nucleus theres no standard outcome there are a huge range of possible products the relativite probabilities of different outcomes are determined by quantum mechanics. Outcomes range from the two particles bouncing off each other like tennis balls (boring) to breaking in to lots of tiny pieces and interacting to make lots of cool particles (interesting), though usually you are looking for one type of product.

Quarks and gluons are not found as free particles. The gluon is a mediator particle in much the same way the photon is the EM mediator particle the gluon is the strong force particle. Its called the gluon because it holds quarks together. Quarks are found in combinations of 3. The proton and neutron are the most comon combination, pions, kaons well theres lots of them are other possible combinations. So no to liberate individual quarks you need very high energies. Infact the neutron is unstable unless in an atomic nucleus.

Yes when matter and anti-matter anihilates, you get 2 photons (gamma frequency) emitted.

 

.

 

Occam, have you looked into the work of Dirac? What do you think of his synthesis methods? What do you think about Einstein's synthesis of Maxwell's work and Newtonian mechanics? Those synthesis approaches I mentioned are viable methods for generating new science. I offered them to you but didn't get a response. Instead you intentionally spouted off some derogatory inuendo about people in the science community supposedly being clerics.

.

 

Is the original poster talking figuratively?
I mean what if "moon-landings" are some sort of reference to "orgasms"?
Well there is is some symbolic similarity there!

 

They were for real. It was a race between the US and the Russians and the US won. If they had just faked it, the Russians would have found out and would have told the world.