It seems to me that the entire set of theories regarding anti-particles is a bit slip-shod. Though they have been created (briefly) in the labs, physicists don't seem to know much about them. They claim that each particle's associated anti-particle has exactly inverse properties. However, I'm a bit unclear as to whether or not ALL of a particle's properties are involved in this. For protons and electrons, physicists state that the anti particles have opposite charges thus effectively creating small protons and large electrons (true?). Yet with neutrons charge is irrelevant so a reversed magnetic field is substituted. My confusion lies in whether or not anti-protons and anti-electrons also have reversed magnetic fields or if an opposite charge and equal mass are sufficient to classify them as anti-particles.

Also I must say that much of quantum theory eludes my memory from lack of application, so I'd like to clarify something. Quarks, instead of negative and positive charges, have 'colour' charges; red, blue ,green, anti-red, anti-blue, anti-green (correct?). My question is whether the anti-(place colour here) quarks are considered anti-particles to the (place same colour here) quarks or if they simply use the prefix 'anti' to denote an opposite charge. Or maybe it's a conspiracy to hurt my brain....

(Sorry if none of this made any sense...)

• quarks - mathman - August 22, 2001 - 02:26 UTC