Unfortunately I can't seem to find anything on how we tell them apart at the moment; it's probably something more exotic than emissions spectra - I would assume that anti-matter generates different EM radiation or something due to its different charge characteristics, but I don't know.
Charge is the same - just sign flipped.
Quantum number flipped.
Mass, forces - everything else works the same.
Spacing of orbitals in anti-atom and anti-molecules the same - so same EM radiation.
The only way to tell is to interact with it - throw a rock at it and see if it goes boom - but at a distance it looks the same no way to measure the difference unless you can measure kaon particle decay.
Only difference if you interchange matter with antimatter - Symmetry Parity for kaon particle decay.
"In particle physics, CP violation is a violation of the postulated CP symmetry: the combination of C symmetry and P symmetry. CP symmetry states that the laws of physics should be the same if a particle were interchanged with its antiparticle (C symmetry, or charge conjugation symmetry), and left and right were swapped (P symmetry, or parity symmetry). "
Except for this one case of kaon decay, everything else is the same.
All electrical charges would be reversed - anti electrons (positrons) are positive charge.
Except all your diodes and batteries would have to be put in backwards.
Ha ha. But just in case someone has a "whoosh" moment to your post, converting to antimatter nothing changes - the polarity of batteries would be reversed as well - "flow" of electricity would be caused by movements of positrons rather than electrons.
Diodes would not have to be reversed, since the polarity of holes and charge carriers would be reversed as well.
Everything on the macroscopic to microscopic level would be the same - until something comes in contact with matter and the party's over.
(Although - there is one rare particle decay that occurs with matter but works differently with anti-matter. Need to look up that Feyman lecture...)
(But not, I think, demeaning. The article did poke a bit of fun as the way quarks are named...but the names are rather silly, even if there are reasonable historical reasons.)
Ha - don't forget, we're so used to the words used in Computer Science - bit, byte, aborting child processes, core dump -
they are funny in their own right.
Most of us just don't hear these words "charm" "strange" and so on used in the context that particle physicists so we think them... strange.
(I wouldn't even mention those pesky chemists with their degenerate orbitals and HOMO - LUMO levels, capitalization scheme of pH...)
In addition, what if the resultant atom with a Lambda in the nucleus is stable?
Then we would have a new element, with new chemical properties and untold applications - or perhaps it would behave like equivalent nucleus of same charge, but different mass - sure that would be like an isotope of the element, but mass difference would not be unit (applications in mass spectroscopy)
Is anti-matter matter? Could we build stuff out of it?
Consider:
The theoretical macroscopic properties of antimatter are the same as matter.
Interaction with light, gravity, the fundamental forces, entropy would be all the same.
If you had a world made of anti matter, everything should work the same.
All electrical charges would be reversed - anti electrons (positrons) are positive charge.
Anti Protons are negative charge.
From a distance you would not know that world was made of antimatter, since properties would be the same. Electromagnetic wavelengths absorbed / emitted would be the same. Anti-Sodium would have the same yellow emission line as Sodium.
However we have not observed antimatter besides as particles. Besides anti-hydrogen, no other anti-atoms (let alone anti-molecules) have been produced or discovered.
Now building something made of antimatter in a matter world would be quite difficult - close proximity of a positron to an electron and you have neither particle, just a very energetic photons flying away. Any particle coming into proximity of its anti-particle results in annihilation (complete conversion of the masses of the particles to energy).
Now if Fred meets anti-Fred (ignoring air) they explode not because macroscopic Fred sees his anti-self (no matter how many time you watch that Star Trek episode, it's not true) - it is because Fred is made up or protons, neutrons and electrons and anti-Fred is made up of positrons, anti-protons and anti-neutrons and those little guys go boom.
How to handle such material that you cannot even get near - and "building" something means manipulating atoms, molecules - uncharged?
What would be interesting is if there was some combination of nucleons which would make the particle with the strange quark stable.
For example, the half life of a free neutron is 10 minutes decay via the weak interaction, but when in a nucleus of appropriate configuration (any stable elements) it is stable.
Would would the properties of a atom containing a strange particle be like?
It's like finding a bunch of ready cut diamond rings lying around, as opposed to having to build a strip mine, excavate them and cut them, mine the gold for the ring, smelt it, make a ring, and mount the diamond.
Well, yeah sure, finding the ring is great for us slashdotters, but if you've ever had a girlfriend, you'd realize that she would expect you to "build a strip mine, excavate them and cut them, mine the gold for the ring, smelt it, make a ring, and mount the diamond".
You're in bed, surfing porn. Now, you can do it with a notebook that requires a trackpad and keyboard to use, or you can use the iPad.
But but but wouldn't the touch screen have problems after ej...
Most everyone else here doesn't - "oh, the iPad is missing this and that and netbook is less expensive..."
For those that don't get what Microlith wrote above and my comment, perhaps a car analogy would be in order.
In fact in this case a car analogy would be perfect.
Most people buy a car, they want it to get from point A to point B and they want it to be reliable and to work; comfortable and easy to drive.
They don't need the complexity of manual transmission. One pedal makes it go, the other makes it stop.
They don't care about the horsepower or how many cylinders or anything that goes on under the hood.
They don't care about pinstriping or fuzzy dice or spoilers.
They don't care what the mechanic does under the hood every 3 months.
They don't care that you can go under the hood and twist this screw or that screw.
They don't to trade off reliability to have a car that works in this certain innovative way.
They just want it to get from point A to point B and they want it to be reliable and to work; comfortable and easy to drive.
That's it. THAT'S IT!!!
Same with computers.
Most people want a device that will do what they need to do. Don't care about the innards
I realize on/. this might sound like heresy, but we are different from those people. We care about these things. They don't. They want a device without the "headaches". Some of us might want an iPad - for what it does and it does well - when we're not coding the next great program or show off to our (cough) girlfriend how we cut our calculation time in half with our clever Perl ditty (while the girlfriend thinks " when is he going to be able to afford to buy me some REAL pearls?")
Now I was going to use a girlfriend analogy, with one girl being high maintenance but does everything - everything, and the other low maintenance, sweet, really good friend kind of girl, but then this is SlashDot and most would understand about as well the distinction between a netbook and iPad.
I would agree that C13 diamonds should be harder than C12 (or mix of isotopes) due to stronger chemical bonds- C13 is heavier than C12, more energy is required to break bonds.
But if you compare rate of reaction (which should have some bearing on bond cleavage) - difference there is 1.04% - so perhaps increase in hardness should be somewhere in that range (4%?)
C14 would have even stronger bonds, but since it is radioactive it'll eventually decay leaving defects in the crystal structure.
That option would be spinning the wheels on the north side of Spirit, letting it dig in deeper in the Martian sand but at the same time improving the tilt of the rover's solar panels toward the Sun."
The difference is that winter is coming, and the sun gets low on the horizon.
Good idea - I saw someone do that with their car the other day and - dang - you should have seen the guy zoom outta there.
[quote] Totally. I'd much rather watch the episode where the Enterprise was reposessed due to the military cuts in spending, but because the construction was contracted to several different manufacturers[/quote]..and then the primary buffer panel falls off the gorramn ship for no apparent reason...
So that's what happened to Bob - he kind of appeared and disappeared early 2000, big round face with a smile, telling people how to use their computer and trying to comfort the technologically challenged...
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately I can't seem to find anything on how we tell them apart at the moment; it's probably something more exotic than emissions spectra - I would assume that anti-matter generates different EM radiation or something due to its different charge characteristics, but I don't know.
Charge is the same - just sign flipped.
Quantum number flipped.
Mass, forces - everything else works the same.
Spacing of orbitals in anti-atom and anti-molecules the same - so same EM radiation.
The only way to tell is to interact with it - throw a rock at it and see if it goes boom - but at a distance it looks the same no way to measure the difference unless you can measure kaon particle decay.
Only difference if you interchange matter with antimatter - Symmetry Parity for kaon particle decay.
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP_violation
"In particle physics, CP violation is a violation of the postulated CP symmetry: the combination of C symmetry and P symmetry. CP symmetry states that the laws of physics should be the same if a particle were interchanged with its antiparticle (C symmetry, or charge conjugation symmetry), and left and right were swapped (P symmetry, or parity symmetry). "
Except for this one case of kaon decay, everything else is the same.
All electrical charges would be reversed - anti electrons (positrons) are positive charge. Except all your diodes and batteries would have to be put in backwards.
Ha ha. But just in case someone has a "whoosh" moment to your post, converting to antimatter nothing changes - the polarity of batteries would be reversed as well - "flow" of electricity would be caused by movements of positrons rather than electrons.
Diodes would not have to be reversed, since the polarity of holes and charge carriers would be reversed as well.
Everything on the macroscopic to microscopic level would be the same - until something comes in contact with matter and the party's over.
(Although - there is one rare particle decay that occurs with matter but works differently with anti-matter. Need to look up that Feyman lecture...)
Medical imaging - MRI etal
Structure Elucidation for drug development (or if you're of the other mindset, QC/QA for herbals)
The Internet (developed at CERN)
(But not, I think, demeaning. The article did poke a bit of fun as the way quarks are named...but the names are rather silly, even if there are reasonable historical reasons.)
Ha - don't forget, we're so used to the words used in Computer Science - bit, byte, aborting child processes, core dump -
they are funny in their own right.
Most of us just don't hear these words "charm" "strange" and so on used in the context that particle physicists so we think them ... strange.
(I wouldn't even mention those pesky chemists with their degenerate orbitals and HOMO - LUMO levels, capitalization scheme of pH...)
Then we would have a new element, with new chemical properties and untold applications - or perhaps it would behave like equivalent nucleus of same charge, but different mass - sure that would be like an isotope of the element, but mass difference would not be unit (applications in mass spectroscopy)
Is anti-matter matter? Could we build stuff out of it?
Consider:
The theoretical macroscopic properties of antimatter are the same as matter. Interaction with light, gravity, the fundamental forces, entropy would be all the same.
If you had a world made of anti matter, everything should work the same.
All electrical charges would be reversed - anti electrons (positrons) are positive charge.
Anti Protons are negative charge.
From a distance you would not know that world was made of antimatter, since properties would be the same. Electromagnetic wavelengths absorbed / emitted would be the same. Anti-Sodium would have the same yellow emission line as Sodium.
However we have not observed antimatter besides as particles. Besides anti-hydrogen, no other anti-atoms (let alone anti-molecules) have been produced or discovered.
Now building something made of antimatter in a matter world would be quite difficult - close proximity of a positron to an electron and you have neither particle, just a very energetic photons flying away. Any particle coming into proximity of its anti-particle results in annihilation (complete conversion of the masses of the particles to energy).
Now if Fred meets anti-Fred (ignoring air) they explode not because macroscopic Fred sees his anti-self (no matter how many time you watch that Star Trek episode, it's not true) - it is because Fred is made up or protons, neutrons and electrons and anti-Fred is made up of positrons, anti-protons and anti-neutrons and those little guys go boom.
How to handle such material that you cannot even get near - and "building" something means manipulating atoms, molecules - uncharged?
For example, the half life of a free neutron is 10 minutes decay via the weak interaction, but when in a nucleus of appropriate configuration (any stable elements) it is stable.
Would would the properties of a atom containing a strange particle be like?
Wow talk about clueless mods...
It's like finding a bunch of ready cut diamond rings lying around, as opposed to having to build a strip mine, excavate them and cut them, mine the gold for the ring, smelt it, make a ring, and mount the diamond.
Well, yeah sure, finding the ring is great for us slashdotters, but if you've ever had a girlfriend, you'd realize that she would expect you to "build a strip mine, excavate them and cut them, mine the gold for the ring, smelt it, make a ring, and mount the diamond".
"Where did you get that ring???" sob - slap slap
You're in bed, surfing porn. Now, you can do it with a notebook that requires a trackpad and keyboard to use, or you can use the iPad. But but but wouldn't the touch screen have problems after ej ...
(apparently the mods get it it too)
Most everyone else here doesn't - "oh, the iPad is missing this and that and netbook is less expensive..."
For those that don't get what Microlith wrote above and my comment, perhaps a car analogy would be in order.
In fact in this case a car analogy would be perfect.
Most people buy a car, they want it to get from point A to point B and they want it to be reliable and to work; comfortable and easy to drive.
They don't need the complexity of manual transmission. One pedal makes it go, the other makes it stop.
They don't care about the horsepower or how many cylinders or anything that goes on under the hood.
They don't care about pinstriping or fuzzy dice or spoilers.
They don't care what the mechanic does under the hood every 3 months.
They don't care that you can go under the hood and twist this screw or that screw.
They don't to trade off reliability to have a car that works in this certain innovative way.
They just want it to get from point A to point B and they want it to be reliable and to work; comfortable and easy to drive.
That's it. THAT'S IT!!!
Same with computers.
Most people want a device that will do what they need to do. Don't care about the innards
I realize on /. this might sound like heresy, but we are different from those people. We care about these things. They don't. They want a device without the "headaches". Some of us might want an iPad - for what it does and it does well - when we're not coding the next great program or show off to our (cough) girlfriend how we cut our calculation time in half with our clever Perl ditty (while the girlfriend thinks " when is he going to be able to afford to buy me some REAL pearls?")
Now I was going to use a girlfriend analogy, with one girl being high maintenance but does everything - everything, and the other low maintenance, sweet, really good friend kind of girl, but then this is SlashDot and most would understand about as well the distinction between a netbook and iPad.
How do I protect myself from a skimmer inside a gas pump?
+1 Scroll of invincibility?
Or you could always eat a yummy slime mold...
XYZZY.
Bah.
This is way more reliable:
http://www.amazon.com/Mobile-Office-WM-01-Laptop-Steering/dp/B000IZGIA8/
Laptop Steering Wheel Desk
To fully appreciate the utility of this marvelous device, click on "customer images"
I especially like this one:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-media/product-gallery/B000IZGIA8/ref=cm_ciu_pdp_images_1?ie=UTF8&index=1
Now all they have to do is put in tactile feedback, and you've got an iPhone killer !
But if you compare rate of reaction (which should have some bearing on bond cleavage) - difference there is 1.04% - so perhaps increase in hardness should be somewhere in that range (4%?)
C14 would have even stronger bonds, but since it is radioactive it'll eventually decay leaving defects in the crystal structure.
fails to address my problem correctly, I say "please elevate this," and I keep saying it
For example, with Verizon, you need to say "please escalate this"
Some companies have escalators to the next level, some have elevators.
...and this is why slash dotters don't have girlfriends.
I suggest you inform your local professional football team's linebackers that they are all using feminine hygiene products.
Which side?
The kisses X or the hugs O ?
thxby
Then the question is whether students are able to distinguish clowns from their professors.
To do this correctly, you would require three line-ups:
one with professors only
one with clowns only
one with a mix of clowns and professors.
Then you would need some students who are asked the question whether there is anything unusual in the lineup.
That option would be spinning the wheels on the north side of Spirit, letting it dig in deeper in the Martian sand but at the same time improving the tilt of the rover's solar panels toward the Sun."
The difference is that winter is coming, and the sun gets low on the horizon.
Good idea - I saw someone do that with their car the other day and - dang - you should have seen the guy zoom outta there.
But the problem with Ginko (and stuff like it) is that the people who really need it
forget to take it
Thank you, I'll be here all day.
Now what were we talking about? (dang)
16K? I thought that all that ever would be needed was 640K...
Whew, thanks thats a relief - so those phone calls that I've been getting from Samara Morgan for the past 7 days are fake ack2^@%!$@6....
Oh wait - I'm so confused here :-)
So that's what happened to Bob - he kind of appeared and disappeared early 2000, big round face with a smile, telling people how to use their computer and trying to comfort the technologically challenged...