Is it true  Anti Matter exists. if anti   electron, proton are true how  Anti Earth and Anti Universe will be?
353833
There is conjecture that the universe began with a big bang, out of nothing. If matter formed, then anti-matter also must have formed at the same time to have the various laws of physics as we know them hold good. Some scientist postulate that the big mishap in Siberia in 1906 could have happened  because of the passing of a small quantity of anti-matter. Remember, for anti-matter, we could be as dangerous as is is to us. \n\nI think anti-matter has been created in small quantities in labs, and yes you are right, it could be harnessed to meet with our energy requirements.
649008
Antimatter is just like matter, except everything has the opposite charge. Instead of a proton, which has a positive charge, there is an antiproton, which has a negative charge. Instead of a negatively charged electron, you have its antimatter equivalent, a positron. Energy is produced when matter and antimatter meet and annihilate each other. If I were to use a mathematical analogy, matter and antimatter are like additive inverses (which cancel each other out). When you get to zero matter, that's when you get a whole bunch of energy. I found this website to be a pretty understandable explanation of how antimatter works and why, even though there is antimatter all around us, the universe does not explode.
819712
According to some recent research in the field of astrophysics, antimatter are particles that have the opposite charge of the particle that it corresponds to. For example, the antimatter of protons are anti-electrons (some refer to it as prolectrons) while for electrons are protrons. Theoretically, this types of particles no matter how illogical it sounds NEED to exists in nature for the sole reason of maintaining the law of conservation of mass. The way antimatter preserves this very essential law because constantly --- according to Quantum physics --- new particles pop out everywhere. Because this phenomenon defies the law of mass conservation and HAVE to exists in nature for it to work properly, antimatter need to fill in the gap. When new particles constantly pop out and disappear (the life of a particles can extends from a billionth of a second to infinity), antiparticles "bond" with them to neutralizes tha charge. For example, let's say a particle that has a positive charge appears out of nowhere in space, the antiparticle (which is a negatively type charge of the positively charge particle) "bonds" with the positively charge particles for their charge to become zero (1 + -1 = 0).\n     The darkness in the sky are nothing but void. It is just a space where nothing exists except particles poping out of nowhere. Also, it is a common misconception that the darkness in space are called dark matter because of what the name implies. However, dark matter in plain astrophysics definition (shortened) are matter that had been the product of the "creation" of the world and all of its after affect. For now, theses matter cannot be seen by our eyes nor any telescope out there, but it can be seen through complex geometry and calculus.\n     Light is considered to be a particle that has both the characteristic of a wave and particle. We call these characteristic as wave particle. \n     Also, as a side note, it's true that time doesn't exists in reality, but it DOES exists in its own different dimension. If you want to know why, post a question.
595584
the spontaneous creation and destruction of particles goes on all around us all the time.  but antimatter does not seem to be part of that process in our "timeframe" and it could be that if time is viewed as a dimension only we will find the antimatter at another point on that dimension.  If antimatter did appear annihilation would occur on a vast scale.  I believe that matter and antimatter have a weak repulsing force to each other, or utterly neutral, as the antimatter has a "reverse gravity" (perhaps because it's moving backwards on the time dimension).\n\nOur Universe, all the parts that count to us, is all matter.  The antimatter resides next to us, but not in our universe.
179527
No, neither. When matter and anti-matter get together you get a lot of gamma rays, and assorted other known particles. This has been observed many times in the larger particle accelerators. Nobody knows what dark matter or dark energy are made of, but we do know they aren't made of the things we've detected in our accelerators yet.
938332
I think you mean at the atomic level, but still the answer is no.\n\nOne counter example would be positronium. This is when an electron and its anti particle, a positron, "revolve" around each other.  This is very unstable with a half-life of about 10^-7 seconds. \n\nThere are other exotic atoms of this type. Any atom formed by a particle and its anti particle is called an onia.
95898
The most fundamental particles known to exist at the moment are quarks and leptons. Quarks are the things the make up the pieces of the nucleus in an atom and leptons include things like electrons.\n\nWithin a nucleus you will have heard of Protons and Neutrons ro collectively Nucleons. Well a quark is a sub unit of one of these so called "Nucleons". There are three quarks to every nucleon. There are many types of quark and these create many types of particles, most of which are extremely shortlived. You can learn more about the world of Particle Physics in the Particle Physics Adventure.\n\nhttp://particleadventure.org/particleadventure/
992429
Hi bornsmartgal\n\nThe antimatter created in the very early universe annihilated with matter created at the same time.  When a matter particle and its antimatter counterpart meet the annihilate and produce energy (eg a collision between an electron and positron produces two back to back photons).  In the early universe there was a small over abundance of matter over antimatter (one billion and one matter particles for every one billion antimatter particles).  After the annihilation this leaves matter left over (plus a billion photons for every matter particle!)\n\nThis initial over abundance of matter over antimatter is puzzling - the difference between matter and antimatter is a reversal of charge and particle physics is largely symmetrical to charge reversal. Physicists have been looking for an asymmetry in nature which will explain the over abundance, and have finally found a few such events (called charge-parity symmetry violations).  It appears nature isn't totally symmetrical after all.\n\n\nHope this helps!\nThe Chicken
89665
Anti-matter colliding with matter is the most powerful mass to energy reaction.  The problem is that we have not yet managed to produce anti-matter in large enough amounts to make it available and "stable" enough to be used safely.
919946
There is no reason to believe that there weren't equal amounts of matter and antimatter after the big bang. However, there is a difference between the way matter and antimatter interact. It has to do with a complex symmetry in physics called CP (charge-parity).\nThe difference allowed abut one in every billion matter particles to avoid annihilation.
1020424
this wiki will help\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti_Matter\n\nit has been observed in controlled experiments
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.
894559
Anti-matter is one of the best bridges between theoretical and applied physics. In theory it was thought it could exist, so we looked for it and found it, then we we able to make it in the lab and it was the same as we found in nature, though very rare. Anti-matter is made the same way ordinary matter is made, with protons, electrons and neutrons; the main difference being each anti-particle has the OPPOSITE charge of its ordinary matter counterpart. So an atom of anti-hydrogen is made of one negatively charged anti-proton and one positively charged anti-electron. As for neutrons that have no charge, they can be distinguished by their opposite spin. The basic reaction is that when a particle of matter contacts a particle of anti-matter, they are mutually annihilated in an almost complete matter to energy conversion. That's where that E=mc2 comes into play  One of the more interesting topics for discussion is that if we assume the original Big Bang created equal amounts of matter and anti-matter, which would satisfy conservationism, then where is all the anti-matter? Are there whole galaxys made of antimatter?  Is that where the new galaxies are formed? As for practical applications, a controlled, large scale matter / antimatter reaction would be an enormous source of energy. maybe enough to power a starship.
647158
no.  The most anti-matter they can produce at one time is incredibly small, only a few particles the size of electrons.
86810
When you talk of the possibilities of Matter and Anti-Matter...we already have them.\n\nProblem in lies that if you seperate matter and anti-matter and combine them to forn energy, you have to find a way to contain the energy (there is alot from a small cumbustion)  There is the problem.  So my thoughts are not yet ready for warp technology.
1179398
That is a very good question. We currently do not know definitively the answer to this question. Thousands of years ago, the Greeks believed that all matter were composed of some indivisble units called "atoms". This was irrefutably proven by Einstein at the turn of the 20th century (and he received a Nobel Prize for it). However, as we probe further, we discovered that even atoms has internal structure: protons, neutrons and electrons. For awhile we thought that was it, but then later we found that protons and neutrons were also made of more fundamental particles called quarks (now confirmed by experiements).\n\nSo is this it? Quarks is the final indivisible unit? It turns out that it is most likely not the case. The reason is not that we have discovered anything smaller than quarks. The reason is because our 2 current theories of the physical world, quantum mechanics and theory of general relativity, are not compatible with each other. What this means is that these 2 theories are not completely correct. They are good for most situations, but they can not explain objects like black holes or explain the big bang (the beginning of the universe). There are other things that these 2 theories can't explain, but I won't go into that right now.\n\nThese serious flaws has been the mother of all physics problems for the most of the 20th century. The Holy Grail of modern physics is to find a single theory that can combine the 2 theories together and explain all physical phenonmenons. So far we have one candidate: Superstring Theory.\n\nSo in our effort to solve this problem, we created String Theory, which tells us that quarks are not the fundamental building blocks of matter, but tiny filaments of vibrating energy called Strings. They are much much smaller than quarks. Quarks are estimated to be about to 10^-16 centimeters, but strings are around 10^-33 centimeters. So is this it? We really don't know for sure, but all the signs points to a yes (I won't explain why here because it's too long and it wasn't your question.).\n\nSo does this imply that matter/energy always existed? The answer is NO. because the universe is about 14 billion years old. That's how long anything has existed, including all the matter and energy.
988938
Matter (116 Elements known so far) (94 of them found elsewhere in the universe, to date) and anti-matter (the same elements but with anti-protons in the nucleus and positrons instead of electrons circling around the nucleus),\n\nWhat are these Elements called?\n\nIn 1959 Tom Lehrer sang the following ditty to a Harvard audience (to the tune of Gilbert and Sullivan's I am the Very Model of a Modern Major General)\n\n``There's antimony, arsenic, aluminum, selenium, \nAnd hydrogen and oxygen and nitrogen and rhenium \nAnd nickel, neodymium, neptunium, germanium, \nAnd iron, americium, ruthenium, uranium, \nEuropium, zirconium, lutetium, vanadium \nAnd lanthanum and osmium and astatine and radium \nAnd gold, protactinium and indium and gallium (inhale) \nAnd iodine and thorium and thulium and thallium. \n\n``There's yttrium, ytterbium, actinium, rubidium \nAnd boron, gadolinium, niobium, iridium \nAnd strontium and silicon and silver and samarium, \nAnd bismuth, bromine, lithium, beryllium and barium.  \n\n``There's holmium and helium and hafnium and erbium \nAnd phosphorous and francium and fluorine and terbium \nAnd manganese and mercury, molybdinum, magnesium, \nDysprosium and scandium and cerium and cesium \nAnd lead, praseodymium, and platinum, plutonium, \nPaladium, promethium, potassium, polonium, and \nTantalum, technetium, titanium, tellurium, (inhale) \nAnd cadmium and calcium and chromium and curium. \n\n``There's sulfur, californium and fermium, berkelium \nAnd also mendelevium, einsteinium and nobelium \nAnd argon, krypton, neon, radon, xenon, zinc and rhodium \nAnd chlorine, carbon, cobalt, copper, \nTungsten, tin and sodium. \n\n``These are the only ones of which the news has come to Harvard, \nAnd there may be many others but they haven't been discovered.'' \n\n(a few of the 116 eg Seaborgium were discovered after 1959 and are therefore not in the song)\n\nFor a Flash animation of the song go to \nhttp://www.privatehand.com/flash/elements.html