Timeline for What is "pure energy" in matter-antimatter annihilation made of?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 10, 2022 at 22:52 | comment | added | Mike Serfas | Does one photon, which carries angular momentum, count as "pure" energy for this context? The pair of photons might, in a sense, "annihilate" to return the angular momentum to zero, just as a proton and antiproton could annihilate to return other quantum numbers to zero. | |
| May 26, 2011 at 2:23 | vote | accept | HDE | ||
| May 26, 2011 at 2:23 | vote | accept | HDE | ||
| May 26, 2011 at 2:23 | |||||
| May 11, 2011 at 17:29 | comment | added | Luboš Motl | I think that "pure energy" is used to denote any intermediate state that carries no conserved charges. So a single virtual photon is "pure energy", too. A virtual graviton or their pair would also be "pure energy". "Pure energy" is meant to have the property that it's not hard for other objects to absorb it (or emit it) without changing their character qualitatively. It's like the energy in the sugars or chocolate that you may quickly transform to the energy to run. An extra proton in the state makes the energy "non pure". | |
| May 11, 2011 at 15:44 | comment | added | Ted Bunn | I'm saying (a) that "pure energy" is a lousy synonym for "photons" and (b) photons aren't always what you get anyway! | |
| May 11, 2011 at 15:25 | comment | added | DigitalZebra | Doesn't the term "Pure energy" just refer to the fact that matter/anti-matter reactions result in nothing but photons (annihilating the matter)? Or, are you saying that this is not ALWAYS the case with matter/anti-matter reactions? | |
| May 11, 2011 at 15:05 | history | answered | Ted Bunn | CC BY-SA 3.0 |