Talk:Antiparticle

Untitled

The spin of an antiparticle is equal to the spin of the corresponding particle, not its negative. In fact, the spin is never negative, only its projection can be nagative. I corrected the first paragraph accordingly.

Elad Tsur May 25 08:08:56 UTC 2005

"below addition by xxxx" not necessary Mark - keeping it unattributed is part of the deal. The record does show which user writes what though, and youd be wise to log in under a name (whatever it may be) to establish some sort of identity. This helps in a number of ways - including in our ability to talk to you through your talk page.

Best, 豎&#30505sv

Somebody just added a page for Chung-Yao Chao, and claims he's the discoverer of the first antiparticle, while this page says it's Carl Andersen. Is the Chao page a hoax? -- Walt Pohl 07:40, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sources are spare, but it may be the case he was a student working at Andersen group. --Pjacobi 09:12, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Superparticles and antimatter

It is said in the supersymmetry article that "if the superparticles are found, it is analogous to discovering antimatter." Does this make any sense or is it mistaken for antiparticles?Mastertek (talk) 09:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Color charge

Color charge is not a scalar which is negated for an antiparticle. Quarks lie in the 3 of color and antiquarks in the 3^*. Gluons are not necessarily their own anti-particles, since their C parity is undefined, but they all lie in the 8 of color. I've removed the misleading references to color charge here. If someone wants to put it back, it should be discussed better. Bambaiah 06:26, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Stückelberg-Feynman interpretation

On the section "2.1 The Feynman-Stueckelberg interpretation ", it is Stückelberg-Feynman interpretation or 'Feynman-Stückelberg interpretation'? -- 218.103.149.76 18:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Historically it used to be called the S-F effect. In particle physics, over the last couple of decades, there has been a movement towards putting names in alphabetic order if the publication record reveals independent discovery. This is why I used the order F-S in the article. On the other hand, an alternative scheme which puts names in chronological order of discovery is also used. I'm not particularly attached to the ordering. Bambaiah 09:22, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Any idea about Stückelberg vs Stueckelberg? --Pjacobi 10:44, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Stueckelberg is perhaps better for people used to English language spellings. There is a tendency for umlauts to drop out of respellings otherwise. Bambaiah 11:06, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

IMHO in this case its even more complicated. I was under the impression that "ue" is the right spelling in this particalur case, and the "ü" spellings found on the Web are based on misguided attempts to restore the umlaut. --Pjacobi 11:26, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I checked up Helvetica Physica Acta and it is indeed E.C.G. Stueckelberg. Bambaiah 12:00, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Content

Now that we got the name right, what about the content? I'm inclined to think that the diagram is all wrong! The antiparticle moves into the direction of the backward light cone, not into the space-like direction. Comments? --Pjacobi 09:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. the diagram makes no sense. it shows an anti-particle traveling faster then the speed of light. If the person that made the diagram to begin with doesn't correct it within a few days, I'll remove it. I'ts better to have no diagram then an incorrect one.

Bosons

I changed "bosons (if they exist)" to "bosons". The existence of bosons is not disputed. Numerous bosons have been detected, including fundamental particles (such as the photon, W, Z) and composite particles (mesons, many atoms, etc.) -- Tim314 19:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could we see antimatter?

Is there any problem with photons striking antimatter conglomerates (assuming that such an object existed) and being reflected and absorbed so as to illuminate the object? Would it look like matter, since it has all of the same basic characteristics? --HantaVirus 12:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as long as it didn't come into contact with matter. I know people who are working to verify this with the Hydrogen spectrum. -- SCZenz 17:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering...

Well, if anitparticles would appear normally, meaning they would interact normally with light energy, how would they interact with warmth, or x or gamma rays? And would antiparticle clusters exist in the same forms as normal matter, solid, liquid, gas etc.?

I Assume that by "warmth" you mean Infrared Radiation. IR radiation, X-rays and gamma-rays are all light but at different wavelengths.Dauto 19:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Backward in Time

I would have enjoyed seeing somewhere in Wikipedia an in-depth discussion of the implications of considering antiparticles as moving backward in time, and of considering that there are no time differences between events in the time frame of a photon. The notion that there may exist only one photon (or perhaps one at each energy level) in the entire universe is particularly compelling. Could it be true, for example, that all interactions of elementary particles (and, therefore, all physical systems) are causally connected? David (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

???

Waht is the difference between a Neutron and an Anti-Neutron if they bothpossess no chagrge becasue they are neutrons? please explain in simple terms! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.226.175 (talk) 02:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This question has already been answered in [[1]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nandi.abir (talk • contribs) 10:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opposite quantum numbers

This article seems to imply that the only difference between particles and anti-particles is their electromagnetic charge. Is it not the case that they in fact have opposite quantum numbers?

User: L Ollyver 15:30, March 25 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. Dauto (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Majorana particles

From the article:

“

However, other neutral particles are their own antiparticles, such as photons, the hypothetical gravitons, and some WIMPs. These are called Majorana particles and can annihilate with themselves.

”

I've come across different definitions of a 'Majorana particle'. Some sources list it as any particle that is its own antiparticle and some limit it to fermions. However, Majorana particles redirects to the Majorana equation, which is for spin-1/2 particles. This doesn't describe photons (spin-1) or gravitons (spin-2). Thoughts?

I never heard the term"Majorana particle applied to a boson. Dauto (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really confused. In the talk page of the Majorana Equation article is stated that NO known Majorana particles exist. So who the heck is correct? (I've never heard of them). Either they exist and a photon is one, or any reference to them should be removed from this article. 72.172.1.86 (talk) 17:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vague to the point of uselessness

We have a pretty detailed understanding of the Standard Model. I expect that an article on antiparticles would at least enumerate the elementary ones and go on to explain how compound particles also have/are antiparticles. In the standard model, are photons the ONLY (elementary) particle to be their own antiparticle? I strongly urge someone to rewrite the introduction to include reference to the list of particles with antiparticles, and particles without. If I recall, this article doesn't even specify that atoms and larger "particles" do not have antiparticles? (or do they?). We should get the basics right. The basics include the realm of discourse.72.172.1.86 (talk) 17:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No Antiquarks article

The link to Antiquarks appears to be broken and I can't find one with a quick search. I recommend someone verify this and start an article on Antiquarks if it doesn't exist. GABRIEL FILMSTUDIOS (talk) 10:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Currently antiquark itself is a redirect to the main quark article. DavRosen (talk) 23:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incomprehensible remark

This parenthetical remark in the second paragraph of the introduction defies standard English syntax, and cannot be parsed: "(a kind of all particles usually interacted with is made of)". I recommend deleting it. (If you think it necessary or useful, a separate parenthetical sentence can be added to the end of the paragraph explaining that the vast bulk of visible, palpable matter is composed of particles rather than antiparticles; substituting a percentage for the word "vast" would be nice, if that is known or conjectured.) -- Solo Owl 17:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

elementary particles

Can it not be possible that there is a third thing besides particles and antiparticles that is made by the anhiliation of them. A third thing can also be possible which can be force particle as bosons. 171.50.171.101 (talk) 10:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a forum. Bosons may have antiparticles, just like fermions. The antiparticle of a W+ is a W-. The article describes self-conjugate particles which are their own antiparticle. Pls delete the comment. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stückelberg vs Stueckelberg

It seems that his name is spelled "Stückelberg", but that many of his publications were made under the name "Stueckelberg". I have edited some parts of the article to reflect that, but maybe someone else should check that as well? Also, I believe that "it is inconvenient for me to spell his name correctly" should not be considered a valid argument to choose one spelling over another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:A61:25BD:9201:D986:96F3:3E88:13FD (talk) 21:18, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]