Paola, (01)
> also, if Ontology is based on Aristotle's categories,
> then which category does antimatter fit? (02)
Re Aristotle: His work has certainly been more influential
than any other single contribution over the centuries, but
very few of the current ontologies adopt Aristotle's categories
directly. (03)
Re antimatter: The term "anti" may be misleading, because antimatter
is of exactly the same nature as ordinary matter: it has mass, it
obeys all the ordinary laws of physics, and a large object composed
entirely of antimatter would look very much like one composed of
ordinary matter. (04)
The reason why it is called antimatter is that it reacts violently
with ordinary matter to create an enormous amount of energy.
For example an electron and an anti-electron (also called a
positron) annihilate one another by generating high-energy
gamma rays. (05)
This process is of the same nature as what happens with ordinary
matter in an atomic bomb or a hydrogen bomb. It just happens to be
more complete -- i.e., all the mass is converted to energy, not
just a small fraction of the mass. (06)
Therefore, ontologically, antimatter is just a form of matter. (07)
John (08)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (09)
|