Can you create antimatter using neutral particals?
110691
Actually what is anti matter? Is it a substance that struggles with the architecture of matter?\nIt is difficult to answer this question without bringing into question what is energy and what encloses atomic particles.\nAccording to the statement of Richard Feynman the renouned\nphysisit,who said no scientist really know what energy is.\nIt other word, they are confused and would only give definition by another undifined clichet.Those are only imaginary answers.\nIm afraid to give you an answer you would not believe me!\nThat is why Newton did not want to give an answer ether.\nHowever there is a designed mechanism that prevents human kind to blow the Universe.\nThe world of particle is studied by breacking elementary mass structures apart.However Science is unable  to put them together again.
9631
I suppose you are referring to galaxies composed entirely or at least mostly of antimatter. None have been observed. If there were any, it would certainly be coming into contact with large amounts of matter at some sort of boundary. At that point, the collisions of the two would set off gigantic amounts of gamma rays, which we would be able to see. These have not, however, been observed. This is likely due to the fact that, for some reason as yet unknown, the amount of matter has increased hugely in the universe relative to antimatter since the big bang.
489823
Atom smashing. In high-energy head-on collisions between particles such as protons some of the energy will be converted into particle-antiparticle pairs. The antiparticles are, of course, antimatter.
1173028
anti-matter happens to have an opposite charge of matter, like a proton with a negative charge would be anti-matter here.  If matter and anti-matter happened to be in the same space they would cancel eachother out and the only thing left of them would be I think it was either Beta or Gamma rays, mabey Infered.  \n\nDark matter, is something else.  It's a contraversial subject and scientists LOVE to debate about it, I don't know ANYTHING about it, but you could look it up.
231248
The clue is in your question:  "We find."  How do you know what becomes of antiparticles we don't find?
30716
if we can make particle accelarator as small as an electric generator, then we might be able to use anti matter energy.
480431
Yes. Part of the idea of antimatter is in some equations containing squares, to solve for that variable you must have a positive and negative answer. Therefore an opposite or anti- thing must exist. Antimatter in this case. So if the E=mc^2 works for matter than it should work for anti-matter.\n\nHowever, as the theory of antimatter states - rather than be like matter where something travelling the speed of light can produce matter and mass, the antimatter will become energy and destroy mass when it comes in contact with matter. \n\nHope that makes some sense. Antimatter is an annoying thing.
665650
Antimatter is mainly useful because it has a very high energy density but to produce it you need to put in more energy than you can get out of it which is why about the only large scale uses would be spacecraft propulsion and weapons (with pretty much everyone with some sanity left prefering the first usage).\n\nYou would need to produce antimatter somewhere, Earth would do although if I were planning a large scale interstellar programme I'd be more inclined to set up a production plant close to the sun for the abundant energy there.  Current production using particle accelerators is at a very low rate although it seems to be largely because the accelerators were designed for high energy physics experiments and not antimatter production so some optimisation for antimatter production should allow the production rates to increase quite a bit and costs to come down (though it'll still be in short supply on Earth).\n\nAs for how antimatter rockets would work:\n\nSome of them would fire the antimatter at something to heat it up and expel another propellent, say hydrogen, this has the advantage of requiring less antimatter but also causes a loss of performance with some of them even having inferior performance to much safer nuclear fission rockets.  Higher performance comes from the Beam Core design in which the products of the proton+antiproton reaction and sent directly out the back of the spacecraft though this requires a lot of antimatter.\n\nSome other proposals use very small amounts of antimatter to cause a fission or fusion reaction (or both) that otherwise could not have occured to provide propulsion.
374022
There are already antimatters existing in and outside our galaxy. But the ratio of antimatter to matter is rather small. More often than not, when both matter and antimatter come together, large amount of energy is release. The energy emitted is large enough to create another particle.
1176860
In theory, yes.  You create a new element each time you add one more proton to the previous one.\n\nIn practice, there seems to be a practical limit to the stability of the artificial elements that requires exponentially increasing amounts of energy to create the heavier artificial elements.  And since these new elements are usually only stable for tiny fractions of a second, we can't hold them in place for long enough to pump another proton in.\n\nInstead, what physicists do is take larger stable atoms and smash them together, and then look for signs of new elements based on their expected decay particles.
14731
Photons, gluons, gravitons and Z are neutral and elementary so they are their own anti-particles.\n\nThe W+ and W-, the weak force carriers, are charged and are anti-particles.  W+ and W- can annihilate each other.
21088
Anti-matter particles are particles that have the opposite charge of normal matter.  For example, a proton is a positively charged particle, it's opposite, a positron has the same properties but with a negative charge.  When a proton and positron come in contact, tremendous amounts of energy are released and the particles destroy each other.  \n\nIt is hoped that anti-matter reactors will be available some day.  However, anti-matter particles are very unstable and scientists have had little success in stabilizing them for more than a few nanoseconds before they cease to exist.
389141
Electron-positron annihilation is the process that occurs when an electron (which is matter) and a positron (which is antimatter) collide. If they are both relatively at rest (which happens in an exotic but not uncommon form of matter called positronium), they destroy each other upon contact, and produce two gamma ray photons of 511 keV each which are emitted in opposite directions. If they are moving at different relative velocities, the energies of the photons emitted will be higher, in accordance with the conservation of momentum. [At higher relative velocities, other particle-antiparticle pairs can also be produced, since there is enough kinetic energy in the relative velocities to provide for the masses of those particles. At much higher relative velocities, there may be enough energy to produce a single neutral Z-boson. The opposite process is known as pair production or matter creation.]\n\nOf course, both the electron and the positron cease to exist, as their masses are converted to energy (E = mc^2), which is the energy of the two resultant photons.\n\nThere is no separate law of conservation of matter (or, mass). Actually, it goes together with the law of conservation of energy, under the name 'mass-energy conservation'. And this conservation of mass-energy, as well as the conservation of momentum, both hold during the process of annihiltion.
20450
Propulsion Techniques Anti-matter\n\nAnti-matter is explosive stuff! In a scientific sense, it is the opposite of the normal matter which comprises both us and our surroundings. Every type of particle in nature is thought to possess its own anti-particle – which will have the opposite charge to the particle itself. Originally theorised to exist by scientists in the first half of the 20th century, the fact that a matter/anti-matter reaction releases a hundred times more energy (per mass of fuel) than even the most powerful nuclear reaction quickly brought it to the attention of the science-fiction genre. “Star Trek” is probably the most obvious example of the basic use of anti-matter in science fiction. Star ships of the Federation use stores of anti-matter as their source of fuel, so that their ships are powered by a matter/anti-matter reaction. \n\nSometimes the use of anti-matter was as straightforward as being the ultimate rocket fuel, for example in the anti-matter rocket starships in Peter F. Hamilton's “The Nightsdawn Trilogy” (1990s). On other occasions, anti-matter has been viewed as the natural successor to nuclear reactors as the source of power of the future, a prime example being the “Starship Enterprise” from the 1960s television show “Star Trek” (not to mention its sequel series and film spin-offs). The “Enterprise” contained a central reactor core which powered the entire ship in which matter and anti-matter were mixed, releasing enough energy to boldly go where no-one had gone before! \n\nSome science-fiction authors have even asked what-if questions about anti-matter. In the book “Traces”, Stephen Baxter explores the idea that anti-matter might exist in space as large chunks of “anti-ice”, which could be mined and mixed with large volumes of normal water to provide, in the case of the story in question, an awful lot of steam power.
71348
The last I heard the existence of antimatter was an observed fact.  Positrons and the like are routinely created at the CERN supercollider in Switzerland.  The part over which scientists remain undecided is whether antimatter occurs naturally in the universe or if it is just a curiosity which only occurs in particle colliders.
1066558
Anit-matter is related to the atomic bomb? How?  The "atomic" bomb was a device that created a nuclear fission chain reaction.  No anti-matter was used.  The modern "nuclear" or "hydrogen" bombs are fusion devices (which create the energy needed for the fusion reaction by first detonating an atomic fission device), but still, no anti-matter involved.  \nNow, a positron (or the anti-electron) can come about under certain circumstances of a photon interacting with things such as carbon or fluorine and a couple others causing beta particle decay, but none of the right elements was used in any bomb.
912086
(m)\n\nMatter which consists of antiparticles, elementary particles of ordinary matter, such as protons and electrons, but have an opposite electrical charge. For example, an antiproton has a negative charge while a proton has a positive charge. When a particle of matter and a particle of antimatter come into contact with each other they are destroyed, releasing energy.