Were the moon landings faked?

Anti-matter can be stored, its hard and rarely done but mostly on the grounds that theres no point rather than a technical impossibility. Though they're easy to keep around long enough to measure their properties, besides thats easier to do when their moving anyway.

Gamma radiation is photons, which is a very high prequency part of the electromagnetic spectrum. If you want to get into particle wave duality concept read Schrodingers Cat by John Gribbin.

 

No human can survive passing through: Gamma Radiation.

 

Thats why you perform these experiments in high vacuum (a better vacuum than space) to stop them interacting with ordinary matter. The anti-hydrogen factgory was quite an achievement but its old news really now. Ive not actually looked at it much I was early in my degree when it was doing its most groundbreaking work.

As for gamma radiation there a fair amount passing through you every second, though hopefully not enough to kill you.

 

Antigravity could explan why antimatter appears to be so rare in the universe.

Exploration for antimatter has always been focused on discovering evidence of gamma radiation caused by matter/anti-matter collisions which would be expected to be rather common assuming they share the same properties of gravity.

However if antimatter naturally repels matter, then the universe could be expected to settle into a semi-heterogneous state, rather than the homogenous state that is usually assumed. In other words matter would gravitate to matter and antimatter would gravitate to antimatter, which would naturally sort the universe into a loose conglomeration of bodies of matter and bodies of antimatter.
Gamma radiation would not be expected to be common since matter and antimatter would naturally resist eachother.
This could explain why the universe is expanding, contrary to expectation.
At the beginning of time, after the big bang, the universe would be homogenous,
and massive chaos would be expected. At the apex of time, it could be extrapolated that matter and antimatter would have completed their separation, reducing the force of antigravity as the two dimensions(for the sake of labelling) drift further apart forming rings, eventually resulting in contraction of the universe as the rings naturally attempt to consolidate into a rest state.

 

The anti-proton storage facility at CERN, where they make the anti-hydrogen, was what I had in mind, dont know what the storage times are mind. I doubt they're huge but more than creation down a vacuum tube to be anihilated.

Why would anti-matter repel matter? Matter/anti-matter asymmetry is a big interest of mine and I cant see any reason for them so separate, other than the fact they'd anihilate in the presence of each other. Though if theres a theory send me journal links and ill have a look tomorrow.

 

.

 

.

 

.

 

If E = MC^2
and antimatter has a negative charge, deduction concludes that if E is negative, and C is a constant, the only way to satisfy the equation is if M is negative.
Using -M applied with known physics, would result in inverse reactions.

 

I'm not an expert but through my own experience and exploration I've developed my own theory.
Forgive my ignorance. I'm not familiar with all the terminiology, or whether
something like this has already been proposed or refuted or maybe common knowledge already
Maybe you guys can help clarify for me.

As I've indulged myself in various studies such as quantum mechanics, string theories and unification and even standard and newtonian physics, I usually find myself resorting back to my own derived theories to help me comprehend how they fit together and to help explain alot of the assumptions/predictions associated with them.

Firstly, I imagine that matter is actually a phase of energy.
Which would explain the direct correlation between mass and energy.
I like to think of things as a spectrum, from -0K to +0K
To maintain perspective, I'll represent it here in reverse.

+ 0+SSSSSS+LLLL+GGGGGG+PPPPPP+C C-PPPPPP-GGGGGG-LLLL-SSSSSS-0 -

Where
S = Solid
L = Liquid
G = Gas
P = Plasma
C being the relativistic constant speed of light.

Given this depiction, it's logical to predict that if antimatter occupies the inverse spectrum, energy would also behave in an inverse manner.
Negative light, or anti-light, would appear to us as light being absorbed or drawn away, rather than radiating. Such as with blackholes, which are plausible candidates for antimatter factories.

 

Energy is positive, charge is negative. Infact keeping energy positive in equations is where the positron came from. Not really following the second post to be honest.

 

Don't you mean that energy is not signed?
Is there a distinct positive signature and a negative signature unrelated to charge?

 

fat_tony wrote: "Not really following the second post to be honest."

The most important concept being that matter and energy are the same thing.
The second concept being that antimatter does not actually share the same energy spectrum as matter. It's an opposite spectrum.
For example, if you were to observe the anti-universe, rainbows would be reverse.

 

The photon as a neutral boson is its own anti-particle so I dont think a rainbow would be any different. The next step in the anti-hydrogen story is to cool it further in Penning traps much the same way ultra low temp physics does atm, this will allow very fine tests of the atomic spectra of anti-hydrogen. CPT theory says it should be the same, with any luck it will be different, then we can finally move on from the standard model.

 

A single photon will not exhibit a light spectrum afaik.
Only when in combination with a population of photons would a spectrum become evident.

As my spectrum analogy depicts, on the positive side, frequency increases from absolute zero to C, and on the negative side, it decreases from C to absolute zero.
This would indicate an effect much like reversing the strings on a guitar. The guitar is still very much a working instrument, it just now requires a different perspective. The G string is still a G-note, it just happens to be inverted on the guitar's musical bandwidth.

I agree that the rainbow example seems strange.
I should point out that a rainbow would appear to be in reverse if observed by an individual from the opposite spectrum. To an observer of it's own spectrum, the rainbow would appear to be normal.
The best way to describe this would be to say that a matter observer is forward looking, while an anti-matter observer is looking backward on the energy spectrum.

 

My point is that the photon is its own anti-particle so there would be no difference. When a particle and its anti-particle meet you get 2 photons. For the anti particle to be different to the normal particle it needs to be charged, like a proton or an electron.

 

If it's actually the particles which are signed, it would seem logical to me that there would have to be a fundamental physical difference between signed particles that dictates which sign the particle will maintain.
Assuming that it's actually the energy spectrum that is polarized, allows the particles to be a general medium, rather than a specialized medium. This would mean that there is no physical difference between particles and anti-particles, other than the energy signature.
Given the structural composition in the universe, it's natural to concur that all matter is comprised of smaller building blocks, until ultimately, we find ourselves with one unique unit.

 

I dont know what you mean by a signed particle, im going to assume you mean a quantity that can be positive or negative, in the programming sense. The fundamental difference between a particle and its anti-particle is cits harge, as you say the charge has the oppose it sign. Is mass stays the same as does a whole host of other things. Actually there is another quantum number that changes but that doesnt really matter for the purposes of this.

I dont know what you mean by energy spectra theres a whole host of different kinds of spectra, though whether any would be different if everyparticle was replaced with its anti-particle I dont know. But EM spectra (optical, IR, radio, etc) would, I imagine remain unchanged, though I cant guarantee it I just cant think of a reason for it not to be.

 

When you refer to charge, what exactly is charged? The particle? Charged with what?