[charles1948]

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.

[Kryptid]

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.

[charles1948]

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.

[Kryptid]

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.

[charles1948]

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.

[Kryptid]

Electrons aren't antimatter.

[charles1948]

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?

[Kryptid]

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.

[yairdoza (OP)]

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

[charles1948]

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?

[Bored chemist]

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.

[charles1948]

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.

[Eternal Student]

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.

[charles1948]

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!

[Kryptid]

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.

[charles1948]

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?

[Kryptid]

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.