Talk:Antiparticle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
High	This article is on a subject of high importance within physics.
Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

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)

Contents 1 Color charge 2 Stückelberg-Feynman interpretation 2.1 Content 2.2 Bosons 3 Could we see antimatter? 4 Just wondering...

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)