as simple as electron (e-) and positron (e+). Photons are their own antiparticles.
Neutrons and neutrinos (zero charges) are matched by antineutrons and antineutrinos,
also of zero charge-this sounds like meaningless redundancy because English is not
appropriate language; abstract mathematics is the language required for precise
statements in physical theory. (Try writing the score of a symphony solely in words
with no musical symbols whatever.)
But a hint lies in noting that there are reaction series in which protons
and electrons yield neutrons-one e\alnple: the ~o,-disa nr Solar Phoen I (solar
Page 196
power theory, Hans Bethe); if we ignore details, the Solar Phoenix can be summarized
as changing four hydrogen atoms (four of 1Ht) into one helium atom (2H4). We start
with four protons and four electrons; we end up six stages later with two neutrons,
two protons, and two electrons-and that is neither precise nor adequate and is not
an equation and ignores other isotopes involved, creation of positrons, release of
energy through mutual annihilations of positrons and free electrons, and several
other features, plus the fact that this transformation can occur by a variety of
routes.
(But such are the booby traps of English or any verbal language where
abstract mathematics is the only (-orre(-1 l~Ingtta~e.)
A ide \~I ~CL \ ( i I’ I
t iprolons ~md l’Ofl~ to V~Hd ~nl n~nt i OHS. Ilie t\Vifl types (ii \aiieties 01
tr~n~10t~Uah1o)t1s filentiolled above are simply samples: there 31 c many 01 hei
types being 1)0th predicted ii nil hemat lea1 l~ and detected in the laboratories
almost dailv—and many or most
transformation series involve antiparticles of antimatter.
Nevertheless, antimatter is scarce in our corner of the universe-lucky for
us because, when matter encounters antimatter, both explode in total annihilation. E
= mc2 is known to everyone since its awful truth was demonstrated at Hiroshima,
Japan. It states that energy is equivalent to mass, mass to energy, in this
relation: energy equals mass times the square of the velocity of light in empty
space.
That velocity is almost inconceivable. In blasting for the moon our
astronauts reached nearly 7 miles! second; light travels almost 27,000 times that
speed- 186,282.4 (±0.1) miles or 299,792.5 (±0.15) kilometers each second. Round off
that last figure as 300,000; then use the compatible units of science (grams, cen
timeters, ergs) and write in centimeters 3 x 1O~°, then square it: 9 x 1020, or
900000,000,000000000,000. (!!!)
This fantastic figure shouts that a tiny mass can become a monstrous blast
of energy-grim proof: Hiroshima.
But maximum possible efficiency of U23~ fission is about 1/10 of 1%; the
Hiroshima bomb’s actual efficiency was much lower, and H-bomb fusion has still lower
maximum (H-bombs can be more powerful through having no limit on size; all fission
bombs have sharp limits). But fission or fusion, almost all the reacting mass splits
or combines into other elements; only a trifle becomes energy.
In matter-antimatter reaction, however, all of both become energy. An
engineer might say “200~ eli1lent” as anti mattel undergoing ann lb hat lOll conelts
into raw energy an equal mass of matter
Mathematical Physicists
An experimental physicist uses expensive giant accelerators to shoot
particles at 99.9~-f- of the speed of light, or sometimes gadgets built on his own
time with
scrounged materials. Large or small, cheap or costly, he works with things.
A mathematical physicist uses pencil, paper, and brain. Not my brain or
yours-unless you are of the rare few with “mathematical intuition.”
That’s a tag for an unexplainable. It is a gift, not a skill, and cannot be
learned or taught. Even advanced mathematics (“advanced” to laymen) such as higher
calculus, Fourier analysis, n-dimensional and non-Euclidean geometries are skills
requiring only patience and normal intelligence .. . after they have been invented
by persons having mathematical intuition.
The oft-heard plaint “I can’t cope with math!” may mean subnormal
intelligence (unlikely), laziness (more likely), or poor teaching (extremely
likely). But that plaint usually refers to common arithmetic-a trivial skill in the
eyes of a mathematician. (Creating it was not trivial. Zero, positional notation,
decimal-orbase point all took genius; imagine doing a Form 1040 in Roman numerals.)
Of billions living and dead perhaps a few thousand have been gifted with