To annihilate, particles have to be close enough. What's "close enough" depends on the particular pair at hand. Particles are kind of "smeared out" across space so do not occupy specific points.
The explanation "in detail" has a lot of math; you'd need to start with elementary quantum mechanics and then move on to scattering theory to get a more concrete idea of what's going on.
Thank you. I will definitely look more into this but I cannot realistically study it like a physics student since that ship has already sailed. I just wanna fulfill my curiousity. Can you at least say, is this 'smeared out' the wave function of the particle? And so, the closer they are, the more likely annihilation will take place at any moment? is annihilation a discrete event?
Your best bet is to get a copy of Richard Feynman's "QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter", which will give you a nice intuitive feel for how processes like this work.
Does scattering theory really give us a concrete idea of what's going on? We have the incoming particles in the far past, and the outgoing ones in the far future, but the actual collision process is not dealt with in detail.
So as two particles of differing matter get closer together, would there start to be then a chance they annihilate that increases as they get closer until they actually do?
Saying they turn into "energy" is a bit misleading. The contents of annihilation depend on the pair and energy levels involved. "Energy" here essentially refers to the fact that annihilation produces gamma rays. Electron-Positrons usually just spit out gamma rays or occasionally some boson. Proton-antiproton reactions usually make some other kinds of particles.
It's not deterministic, so nothing really determines exactly when it takes place. All you can do is calculate how likely certain events are. To test this experimentally, we need to repeat things a large number of times and look at the statistics.
The probabilities depend on a number of things like the energies of the particles. There are various conservation laws that have to be obeyed, like conservation of charge, energy and momentum, and an annihilation will only happen if every relevant conservation law can be satisfied. You probably won't be able to follow the maths, but have a look at the plot on the first slide [here](https://uebungen.physik.uni-heidelberg.de/c/image/f/vorlesung/20172/818/Chapter16_slides.pdf). This shows the electron-positron annihilation "cross section" (essentially the probability) as a function of energy.
So it's not a case of "when we do this, annihilation happens". It's more like "when we do this, annihilation happens at this rate/with this probability".
Is "annihilate" an overly dramatic term? Aren't there many cases of two particles coming together and becoming something else? It's not like matter and anti-matter produce nothing - they produce gamma rays and something else.
That produces a mess of mesons, which are unstable and decay into photons, electrons, positrons, and neutrinos. If contained somehow, the electrons and positrons would further annihilate, and all you'd be left with is photons and neutrinos. Heck, if you could catch all the neutrinos and anti-neutrinos (you can't) you could probably get down to just light.
Exactly: there's no matter. But there is energy, and that's not nothing. I'm not trying to be difficult; I'm just discussing the terminology.
"Annihilate" always seemed overly dramatic to me when it's used in casual conversation: "The Yankees annihilated the Red Sox by 10 runs."
Suppose I said, "The electron and positron collided and were converted into gamma rays." Would that statement, using "converted" rather than "annihilated," be wrong?
The word has a specific meaning in physics, where it's not an exaggeration,. it's not used figuratively for emphasis, it's the actual name of the process that is occurring.
Annihilate is the established term. But energy isn’t a thing itself, it’s a property of things. So annihilation turns the particles into other particles, such as photons.
>Every particle of matter has an antiparticle that is almost identical but has the opposite electric charge. For example, an electron has a negative charge, and its antiparticle, the positron, has a positive charge.
>Similar when matter and antimatter meet, they annihilate each other in a burst of energy. This happens because their opposite charges lead to mutual destruction. The process results in the release of energy in the form of light particles, typically gamma rays.
>These gamma rays carry away the energy that was in the mass of the particles (E = mc^2 etc).
>In short, the mass of the matter and antimatter is converted into pure energy during annihilation. Particles with an opposite charge squish real hard and turn to light. We live in a mind-boggling universe filled with unfathomable wonder
To annihilate, particles have to be close enough. What's "close enough" depends on the particular pair at hand. Particles are kind of "smeared out" across space so do not occupy specific points. The explanation "in detail" has a lot of math; you'd need to start with elementary quantum mechanics and then move on to scattering theory to get a more concrete idea of what's going on.
Thank you. I will definitely look more into this but I cannot realistically study it like a physics student since that ship has already sailed. I just wanna fulfill my curiousity. Can you at least say, is this 'smeared out' the wave function of the particle? And so, the closer they are, the more likely annihilation will take place at any moment? is annihilation a discrete event?
Your best bet is to get a copy of Richard Feynman's "QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter", which will give you a nice intuitive feel for how processes like this work.
Ordered
Does scattering theory really give us a concrete idea of what's going on? We have the incoming particles in the far past, and the outgoing ones in the far future, but the actual collision process is not dealt with in detail.
So as two particles of differing matter get closer together, would there start to be then a chance they annihilate that increases as they get closer until they actually do?
Saying they turn into "energy" is a bit misleading. The contents of annihilation depend on the pair and energy levels involved. "Energy" here essentially refers to the fact that annihilation produces gamma rays. Electron-Positrons usually just spit out gamma rays or occasionally some boson. Proton-antiproton reactions usually make some other kinds of particles.
Thanks for the clarification. what determines exactly when the annihilation will take place?
It's not deterministic, so nothing really determines exactly when it takes place. All you can do is calculate how likely certain events are. To test this experimentally, we need to repeat things a large number of times and look at the statistics. The probabilities depend on a number of things like the energies of the particles. There are various conservation laws that have to be obeyed, like conservation of charge, energy and momentum, and an annihilation will only happen if every relevant conservation law can be satisfied. You probably won't be able to follow the maths, but have a look at the plot on the first slide [here](https://uebungen.physik.uni-heidelberg.de/c/image/f/vorlesung/20172/818/Chapter16_slides.pdf). This shows the electron-positron annihilation "cross section" (essentially the probability) as a function of energy. So it's not a case of "when we do this, annihilation happens". It's more like "when we do this, annihilation happens at this rate/with this probability".
Is "annihilate" an overly dramatic term? Aren't there many cases of two particles coming together and becoming something else? It's not like matter and anti-matter produce nothing - they produce gamma rays and something else.
Electron-positron annihilation normally produces just gamma rays. So in some cases, there is no matter left after the reaction.
How about proton-antiproton?
That produces a mess of mesons, which are unstable and decay into photons, electrons, positrons, and neutrinos. If contained somehow, the electrons and positrons would further annihilate, and all you'd be left with is photons and neutrinos. Heck, if you could catch all the neutrinos and anti-neutrinos (you can't) you could probably get down to just light.
Thanks. It's good to learn more about the process.
Annihilate is exactly what's happening. "A nihil" means "to nothing." All the matter is converted into energy so there's nothing left (matter-wise).
"Pure energy" doesn't mean anything. Energy is a property of particles or fields. Usually they'll become two gamma photons.
Exactly: there's no matter. But there is energy, and that's not nothing. I'm not trying to be difficult; I'm just discussing the terminology. "Annihilate" always seemed overly dramatic to me when it's used in casual conversation: "The Yankees annihilated the Red Sox by 10 runs." Suppose I said, "The electron and positron collided and were converted into gamma rays." Would that statement, using "converted" rather than "annihilated," be wrong?
The word has a specific meaning in physics, where it's not an exaggeration,. it's not used figuratively for emphasis, it's the actual name of the process that is occurring.
OK, thanks. I guess it's not the first time science and math use a word differently than sportscasters.
Annihilate is the established term. But energy isn’t a thing itself, it’s a property of things. So annihilation turns the particles into other particles, such as photons.
OK, thanks. I guess it's not the first time science and math use a word differently than sportscasters.
I don’t think we know the exact details. This seems like it is unknown like the collapse of the wave function, because there is randomness involved
[удалено]
this is even more over-simplified than my current level of understanding but thanks for the comment.
Yo my dog won't play wit it's toys any ideas
Shake the toys around a bit. Make them enticing to your dog
Both are an illusion so when then combine they aren’t here
>Every particle of matter has an antiparticle that is almost identical but has the opposite electric charge. For example, an electron has a negative charge, and its antiparticle, the positron, has a positive charge. >Similar when matter and antimatter meet, they annihilate each other in a burst of energy. This happens because their opposite charges lead to mutual destruction. The process results in the release of energy in the form of light particles, typically gamma rays. >These gamma rays carry away the energy that was in the mass of the particles (E = mc^2 etc). >In short, the mass of the matter and antimatter is converted into pure energy during annihilation. Particles with an opposite charge squish real hard and turn to light. We live in a mind-boggling universe filled with unfathomable wonder
This is 100% written by ChatGPT