What is the half-life and Stability of anti-particles?

Question

Do particles and antiparticles have same half-life and stability?

Electron is v stable. Is positron equally stable with the same half-life? Is the anti-proton equally stable as the proton?

Of course we assume that the antiparticles are well confined and they do not come in contact with their counterpart and annhilate.

Has the half-life of positron been measured independently?

Answer 1

Mesons and their antiparticles are routinely created in high-energy physics experiments, and have mean-lives that are identical to within measurement uncertainties. There has never been a verified measurement of a non-zero difference in mean lives between any particle and its associated antiparticle. Indeed, if there were, it would indicate a violation of the law of CPT invariance, which directly implies a violation of the Lorentz transforms (in other words, it invalidates the fundamental transformations of special relativity).

Answer 2

Positrons are stable, just as electrons are. Antiparticles of stable particles seem to be stable as well--though there is some mystery as to the apparent predominance of matter over antimatter in the local universe, and a decay would clear that up, it does not seem to be the case.

Answer 3

I agree with Christopher N.
Due to the assumed symmetry of the Universe, all particles and their anti-particles should have identical half-lives, or be equally stable.

Answer 4

in case you hear to a geiger counter it crackles particularly than ticks like a clock via fact radioactive decay is in certainty a random technique. yet as you recommend that would not clarify the approach. you probable have heard of the straw that broke the camels lower back. interior the nucleus of a radioactive atom there is an imbalance that threatens to interrupt up the atom. in particular circumstances the imbalance is intense and the 0.5 existence is measured (on huge-unfold) in seconds and at different circumstances the imbalance is greater like a straw on a camel and the particle is comparatively good and might have a 0.5 existence of one thousand or million of years. In the two case after one 0.5 existence is used up, in user-friendly terms 0.5 of the atoms under question stay (on huge-unfold). In a reactor, neutrons can enter a uranium atom and advance its instability (too many debris inclusive of the sum of protons and neutrons) and the atom will quickly fission, producing capability plus 2 new atoms that are probable volatile and radioactive. the recent atoms might ought to eject an electron or a gamma ray to alter into greater good yet often there are a number of decay activities mandatory to succeed in a fairly good situation and each technique has its own 0.5 existence. while an atom fissions, the two new atoms weigh below the unique atom and the version (mass discrepancy) is seen the "glue" that held the atom jointly that's converted to capability that flings the atoms aside or in line with probability generates a gamma ray. in line with probability an volatile atom has too many protons and neutrons and probable too lots glue and might decay to set issues suitable. the approach relies upon fullyyt on the nucleus of the atoms via fact heating or cooling or ionizing the atoms, etc. which impacts in user-friendly terms its electrons has no result on the 0.5 existence.

Answer 5

physics is a hard science, you do not assume things, but you measure them. because we live in a matter world and not in a anti-matter world, we know really not much about anti-matter, theoretically, half lifes of matter and anti-matter are expected to be the same, but only real science can tell.

Answer 6

Is it really half-life or half-death?
Is the cup half full or half empty?