Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: yairdoza on 18/05/2021 11:44:42
-
Recently I read that there might be up to 14 solar systems in our galaxy that are made out of anti-matter.
If any of these solar systems have technological advanced civilisation, that communicate with electromagnetic waves - could we intercept their communication and respond?
Does the fact that they are made out of anti-matter effect the electromagnetic communication.
Thanks for reading.
-
Recently I read that there might be up to 14 solar systems in our galaxy that are made out of anti-matter.
The more likely number is zero.
If any of these solar systems have technological advanced civilisation, that communicate with electromagnetic waves - could we intercept their communication and respond?
In theory there should be no problem, but I would not recommend visiting their planet or them visiting our planet and shaking their hands would be a right bad idea.
Does the fact that they are made out of anti-matter effect the electromagnetic communication.
It shouldn't since photons are their own antiparticle, so photons can be generated from matter or antimatter.
-
The more likely number is zero.
I agree,it is unlikely that we'll have them in this Galaxy, but perhaps there could be relatively isolated entire galaxies somewhere. Even something like Cosmic Rays would be incredibly damaging to an antimatter cluster.
In theory there should be no problem, but I would not recommend visiting their planet or them visiting our planet and shaking their hands would be a right bad idea.
If one could reach an Antimatter rogue planet, solar system, galaxy, etc... it would put our space system ahead a thousand years.
It is hard to imagine any commodity that would drive trade between solar systems, but if there was, it would be matter/anti matter trade.
Just imagine the value of say a ton of anti-mercury or anti-iron.
And an anti-matter system would be equally happy to receive "normal" matter in trade.
-
Just imagine the value of say a ton of anti-mercury or anti-iron.
And an anti-matter system would be equally happy to receive "normal" matter in trade.
So, ignoring the shipping costs*, the value of a ton of anti iron would be the same as a ton of iron.
Because, as a trader, I could simply offer to swap matter for their antimatter.
Similarly, from their point of view, they could trade a ton of scrap metal for a ton of antimatter.
* Yeah... right...
-
I think antimatter might be worth the hassle, boy or boy would it be a powerful rocket fuel!
A lump of anti-iron would be amazing. You could hold it with maglev and just ablate some off with a plasma when you want some energy.
-
And, if it ever went wrong, you would never know about it.
-
Dunno actually, you could afford to put quite a lot of shielding between you and the antimatter.
Antimatter isn't quite as powerful as normally thought anyway. The matter+antimatter = complete annihilation + energy trope only applies to electrons and positrons.
-
there might be up to 14 solar systems in our galaxy that are made out of anti-matter.
Stars (and their planetary systems) form out of dense, cold clouds of gas and dust.
- If that cloud was partly matter and partly anti-matter, it would not be cold!
- If the cloud were antimatter, and nearby stars were matter, there would be a furious reaction where the stellar wind hit the edge of the gas cloud.
Similarly, galaxies form out of multiple clouds of dust, each traveling in different directions.
- If some clouds wer matter, and some antimatter, there would be a furious reaction.
For these reasons, it is unlikely that antimatter stars could form and persist in a matter-dominated galaxy.
-
Hi.
I've got to agree with evan_au.
But I'd be interested in knowing where you (yairdoza) got the original information -
Recently I read that there might be up to 14 solar systems in our galaxy that are made out of anti-matter.
Any chance of finding out where you read that? Does it start with Wik and end with edia ?
-
Hi.
I've got to agree with evan_au.
But I'd be interested in knowing where you (yairdoza) got the original information -
Recently I read that there might be up to 14 solar systems in our galaxy that are made out of anti-matter.
www.sciencenews.org/article/antimatter-stars-antistars-milky-way-galaxy-space-astronomy
I found copies of this article on many websites, so no idea on which it might first have appeared.
They're apparently detecting 14 places where the sort of gamma radiation that Evan mentions is observed.
-
Antimatter isn't quite as powerful as normally thought anyway. The matter+antimatter = complete annihilation + energy trope only applies to electrons and positrons.
What do you get from "the bigger stuff"?
On a related note, is the neutron its own antiparticle or does "spin" spoil things?
-
If any of these solar systems have technological advanced civilisation, that communicate with electromagnetic waves - could we intercept their communication and respond?
Does the fact that they are made out of anti-matter effect the electromagnetic communication.
It has been possible to create anti-hydrogen atoms so there is some confidence that it is possible to create larger atoms and maybe molecules. However, there are subtle differences between matter and antimatter interactions around what are known as CP violations and these are being investigated. These violations may be the reason why there is less antimatter than matter in the universe.
However, let’s look at your question which appears to have been ignored.
If it is possible to create stable complex molecules from antimatter then it is possible that it might behave in a similar way to matter and hence the construction of an antimatter radio would be possible. The photon is it’s own antiparticle and it’s unlikely that em radiation would be any different in a region containing antimatter, so I would guess that we would be able to communicate with them by radio. Understanding is a whole new ball park ;)
-
is the neutron its own antiparticle or does "spin" spoil things?
A neutron consists of 1 up quark (charge: +2/3) and two down quarks (charge: -1/3 each). Total charge: 0.
An anti-neutron consists of 1 up anti-quark (charge: -2/3) and two down anti-quarks (charge: +1/3 each). Total charge: 0.
- Or should that be "anti-up quark", which would be different from a "down quark"?
Whatever you call it, an anti-neutron is different from a neutron, and the two will annihilate on contact.
- It's the quarks that spoil things...
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron
-
Antimatter isn't quite as powerful as normally thought anyway. The matter+antimatter = complete annihilation + energy trope only applies to electrons and positrons.
What do you get from "the bigger stuff"?
Electron/positrons annihilate and produce only photons, but that's not generally true:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilation#Proton%E2%80%93antiproton_annihilation
-
If there was an antimatter star or small cluster in our galaxy with an advanced civilization, then it is quite possible they've already discovered how to capture and harness the energy of matter.
However, there would be advantages of working with an anti-civilization.
So, for example, one could design an antimatter injector that could be made entirely out of antimatter, and construction of the antimatter component would be easy on the antimatter planet. One could presumably even have antimatter computers and robots.
So, for example pressurized liquefied anti-Xenon gas in an anti-Iron based cylinder. The anti-Xenon could be released in a fine stream using a valve controlled by an external magnetic field. The anti-Iron cylinder could be in a vacuum and magnetic containment.
Diamagnetic liquids would also be unique for containment, but anything with a relatively high vapor pressure under high vacuum would need a secondary antimatter containment.
-
They're apparently detecting 14 places where the sort of gamma radiation that Evan mentions is observed.
Recently I read that there might be up to 14 solar systems in our galaxy that are made out of antimatter.
Thanks for the link Halc. Here it is again in case anyone new joins the thread:
www.sciencenews.org/article/antimatter-stars-antistars-milky-way-galaxy-space-astronomy
Well, I'm speechless about this. It just seems so unlikely. I'm sorry if I doubted your information, yairdoza.
There have been other equally remarkable discoveries and experimental results that end up disappearing quietly and I'm suspicious this will be another one of them. Let's stay calm, it will turn out to be just some other interesting source of gamma bursts and/or experimental error. But.... maybe.
-
As far as I know, we don`t have such technology that can allow us getting in touch with some forms of life out of the Solar system. Also, we cannot travel in other galaxies or make uncrewed missions. I`ve read recently that scientists had cought a radio wave somewhere out of our Solar system
-
As far as I know, we don`t have such technology that can allow us getting in touch with some forms of life out of the Solar system. Also, we cannot travel in other galaxies or make uncrewed missions. I`ve read recently that scientists had cought a radio wave somewhere out of our Solar system
It isn't that we couldn't communicate or find a way to communicate, but we are limited by current radio/light/laser types of communication which would be limited to the speed of light. So, to Proxima Centauri it would take about 4 years each way (8 or 9 years RT). Across the Milkyway could be 100 years each way, or 200 years RT.
We are certainly able to communicate with Voyager 1 & 2 at about 17½ light hours away. Obviously not even a light day yet. I do wonder if we could discern a weak radio signal near a star, but one could put a relay in the outer solar system to improve transmission spacial resolution. There have also been proposals to put radio telescopes and perhaps optical telescopes on the dark side of the moon to avoid Earth's radio and light contamination.
And, obviously choose frequencies without other cosmic contamination.
The linguistic nightmare would be difficult to deal with. Imagine having no vocabulary, and a century until your next question is answered. But,we are able to decipher texts over a millennia old without a dictionary.
There may well be some digital universals that might help.
So, for example, there would be only a few ways to transmit a 2 dimensional black&white bitmap photo. And, once one got a basic B&W BMP, one could start dealing with more colors and data compression, perhaps 3rd dimensions and/or time.
Likewise for text, we have 26 letters, plus caps, punctuation, etc. It may well be complex to decipher, but likely the character set could be discerned with stop bits and gaps. If one believed that one was reliably sending photos, one could do photos + captions.
Eventually one might choose to send an entire dictionary, again accentuating characters, stops, words vs definitions, etc.
With human's limited lifetime, it would certainly be be frustrating if a child would barely get a response back from a query a lifetime ago. I.E. generational continuity.
Travel is far more complex as we are nowhere near the speed of light. For many reasons one would likely choose unmanned probes or even seed ships. We could likely develop artificial wombs inclined to do so. Of course sending life to an antimatter solar system would not be of much benefit unless they had both matter and antimatter planets, or a nearby matter star.
There would be very real issues designing equipment to last hundreds, thousands, or perhaps even tens of thousands of years without maintenance. As well as developing longterm power sources. One could, of course, develop a sleep mode which might help, but it might be a big gable that it would all wake back up in 10,000 years (assuming no destructive impacts).
And, of course, sending matter to an antimatter system or visa-versa would be like sending the most powerful bomb imaginable.
Distances beyond our galaxy are just greater, and resolution more difficult to discern.
-
If there are antimatter civilisations out there, maybe they deliver.
-
If there are antimatter civilisations out there, maybe they deliver.
Of course, but make sure we have a plan to receive it, and if it is 1000 years from placing the order to delivery, make sure it isn't forgotten. A few tons of antimatter delivered at high velocity could be mighty destructive to Earth.
Perhaps it is like having a package delivery left on your neighbor's doorstep, ask for it to be delivered to Proxima Centauri where hopefully future humanity can go pick it up.
-
Perhaps, earlier in the history of the Universe, there was an equal distribution of matter and anti-matter.
And civilisations arose, based on matter and anti-matter. Then they came into conflict and fought a war.
The war resulted in the complete, universal, victory of matter over anti-matter.
Wouldn't that explain it.
-
Perhaps, earlier in the history of the Universe, there was an equal distribution of matter and anti-matter.
And civilisations arose, based on matter and anti-matter. Then they came into conflict and fought a war.
The war resulted in the complete, universal, victory of matter over anti-matter.
Wouldn't that explain it.
Not really, since destroyed antimatter civilizations would still leave antimatter debris behind. Thus, there would still be a roughly equal amount of matter and antimatter in the Universe. It's also not like we could realistically expect half of all the mass in the Universe to take the form of antimatter civilizations. The overwhelming majority of mass appears to be in the form of stars, planets, gas clouds, and so on. In other words, nothing alive or technological in nature.
-
Perhaps, earlier in the history of the Universe, there was an equal distribution of matter and anti-matter.
And civilisations arose, based on matter and anti-matter. Then they came into conflict and fought a war.
The war resulted in the complete, universal, victory of matter over anti-matter.
Wouldn't that explain it.
Not really, since destroyed antimatter civilizations would still leave antimatter debris behind. Thus, there would still be a roughly equal amount of matter and antimatter in the Universe. It's also not like we could realistically expect half of all the mass in the Universe to take the form of antimatter civilizations. The overwhelming majority of mass appears to be in the form of stars, planets, gas clouds, and so on. In other words, nothing alive or technological in nature.
Yes, but if the M-civilisation armed forces had won a complete victory over the AM side, they might have ruthlessly attempted to expunge all traces of AM from the Universe. By destroying all remaining AM stars, planets and gas clouds. In a fit of exultant "Matter Cleansing" of the Universe.
Mightn't that explain why anti-Matter is so puzzlingly short, in today's Universe.
-
That would require them to react an equal amount of matter with the antimatter in order to annihilate it. So if the Universe was originally half antimatter, you'd have to react all the matter with it in order to get rid of it. Thus, there would be neither matter or antimatter left.
-
That would require them to react an equal amount of matter with the antimatter in order to annihilate it. So if the Universe was originally half antimatter, you'd have to react all the matter with it in order to get rid of it. Thus, there would be neither matter or antimatter left.
You argue very plausibly. However, in a typical atom of modern matter, such as Hydrogen, the greatest mass is concentrated in the positively-charged proton. The single negatively-charged electron, which accompanies it, has a much weaker mass.
In war, victory usually goes to the side with the greater mass.
Therefore, I conclude that the greater positive mass of the Proton was decisive in ancient wars against weak, negative electron-based anti-matter forces.
The remnants of the anti-matter armies, have been thrown to the outskirts of our proud Positive galaxies.
-
Electrons aren't antimatter.
-
Electrons aren't antimatter.
Isn't solid matter made of positive protons, with electrons just spinning around on the outside, only influencing the chemical bonds between the protons of different matter elements?
-
More or less, but electrons are still matter particles. Their antimatter equivalent is the positron. Anti-atoms consist of an antiproton and antineutron nucleus surrounded by a positron cloud.
-
Hi.
I've got to agree with evan_au.
But I'd be interested in knowing where you (yairdoza) got the original information -
Recently I read that there might be up to 14 solar systems in our galaxy that are made out of anti-matter.
Any chance of finding out where you read that? Does it start with Wik and end with edia ?
I read it in New Scientist from 1st May 2021 page 16
-
More or less, but electrons are still matter particles. Their antimatter equivalent is the positron. Anti-atoms consist of an antiproton and antineutron nucleus surrounded by a positron cloud.
Thanks very much, Kryptid for your post. It has led me to ponder about "anti-atoms" and their properties. Your post, if I've understood it correctly, suggests that AM atoms may include "anti-neutrons"
This makes me wonder - how would you distinguish an "anti-neutron" from a "standard neutron". The distinction can't be electric charge, as neutrons haven't got any.
And it probably can't be mass, because neutrons with a heavier or lighter mass than standard, would disrupt the inner balance of atomic structure..
So my question is - what's the difference between standard neutrons, and anti-matter neutrons?
-
So my question is - what's the difference between standard neutrons, and anti-matter neutrons?
The answer hasn't changed.
A neutron consists of 1 up quark (charge: +2/3) and two down quarks (charge: -1/3 each). Total charge: 0.
An anti-neutron consists of 1 up anti-quark (charge: -2/3) and two down anti-quarks (charge: +1/3 each). Total charge: 0.
-
So my question is - what's the difference between standard neutrons, and anti-matter neutrons?
The answer hasn't changed.
A neutron consists of 1 up quark (charge: +2/3) and two down quarks (charge: -1/3 each). Total charge: 0.
An anti-neutron consists of 1 up anti-quark (charge: -2/3) and two down anti-quarks (charge: +1/3 each). Total charge: 0.
Thanks, but this is what puzzles me.
1. Is the electron an indivisible particle of electric charge - ie, you can't have 1/3rd or 2/3rds of an electron
2. If so, how can a quark have an electric charge of 1/3rd or 2/3rds of an electron.
-
Thanks, but this is what puzzles me.
1. Is the electron an indivisible particle of electric charge - ie, you can't have 1/3rd or 2/3rds of an electron
2. If so, how can a quark have an electric charge of 1/3rd or 2/3rds of an electron.
The electron is an indivisible particle. However, it is not necessarily the smallest unit of charge used in theoretical physics (quarks have fractions of this charge as you stated). None the less, e (the charge on an electron) is the smallest unit of charge that any isolated particle could have in the real world. A Quark cannot be isolated, you can't have one quark all on it's own. Only certain groups of quarks can be isolated and this group of quarks will always combine to have a charge that is a whole multiple of the charge on an electron.
-
Thanks, but this is what puzzles me.
1. Is the electron an indivisible particle of electric charge - ie, you can't have 1/3rd or 2/3rds of an electron
2. If so, how can a quark have an electric charge of 1/3rd or 2/3rds of an electron.
The electron is an indivisible particle. However, it is not necessarily the smallest unit of charge used in theoretical physics (quarks have fractions of this charge as you stated). None the less, e (the charge on an electron) is the smallest unit of charge that any isolated particle could have in the real world. A Quark cannot be isolated, you can't have one quark all on it's own. Only certain groups of quarks can be isolated and this group of quarks will always combine to have a charge that is a whole multiple of the charge on an electron.
But - if a Quark "cannot be isolated", as you say, than can it be regarded as a truly fundamental "particle"?
Do you see what I'm getting at? Shouldn't the defining characteristic of a physical "particle" be, that it's a separate "thing" - that can exist by itself, independently. If it can't do that, is it really a physical particle?
Or just a kind of theoretical idea. Like for example, you could say, that if you cut an apple in half, you get two "halves" of an apple.
But does that mean "halves" are actual particles with a physical reality - so that apples are made of two particles:
I half-apple particle + ! half-particle apple = I whole apple.
This is confusing my head!
-
But - if a Quark "cannot be isolated", as you say, than can it be regarded as a truly fundamental "particle"?
Do you see what I'm getting at? Shouldn't the defining characteristic of a physical "particle" be, that it's a separate "thing" - that can exist by itself, independently. If it can't do that, is it really a physical particle?
Or just a kind of theoretical idea. Like for example, you could say, that if you cut an apple in half, you get two "halves" of an apple.
But does that mean "halves" are actual particles with a physical reality - so that apples are made of two particles:
I half-apple particle + ! half-particle apple = I whole apple.
This is confusing my head!
Scattering experiments in particle accelerators can "see" individual quarks. Basically, the pattern of particle ricochets off of protons and neutrons tells us that there are three "things" in them. Although you can't isolate individual quarks, you can have them in different combinations. Protons contain two up quarks and one down quark, whereas neutrons contain one up quark and two down quarks. The ways that the quarks can (or can't) be combined tells us a lot about their individual properties, such as their charge.
-
Thanks Kryptid, for your explanation. I honestly can't pretend to understand it. It seems too "mystical", more like an ancient religious description of the variegated esoteric ranks of angels and demons, and the seven invisible spheres of heaven and hell..
In saying that, I'm not intending to be at all insulting, or disparaging of Science. I've loved Science all my life.
Because it seemed, I thought, to offer the possibility of a rational and intelligible explanation of the Universe..
But modern science seems to be increasingly degenerating into mere mysticism. At least it seems to be doing that in the field of Physics, which is getting more and more baffling and unintelligible.
Is that because the Universe is really not intelligible to humans. Or because Physics has gone wrong in its theories?
-
But modern science seems to be increasingly degenerating into mere mysticism. At least it seems to be doing that in the field of Physics, which is getting more and more baffling and unintelligible.
Particle physics isn't mysticism. You can make predictions about it and test those predictions via experiment. It adheres quite well to the scientific method.
Is that because the Universe is really not intelligible to humans. Or because Physics has gone wrong in its theories?
That's a tricky question because we have no way of knowing just how close we are (or far away) from the ultimate understanding of the finer workings of the Universe. We might be right on the cusp of a physics breakthrough that will give us a picture of how all of physics meshes together, or we might simply not be smart enough to ever get to that level of understanding. What I can say is this: one should not conclude that their own inability to understand something means that others also lack that understanding.