Slashdot Mirror


Antimatter Atoms Captured

Whamo writes: "Researchers at CERN think they have created and stored thousands of antiatoms in a particle trap. The researchers first used powerful magnetic fields to trap antiprotons then exposed this to a beam of positrons. Initial results indicate that at least some of the antiparticles have bound together to become neutral antihydrogen atoms. How cool is that?"

475 comments

  1. How cool is that? by wiredog · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well, that would depend on how fast the anti-hydrogen atoms are moving, wouldn't it?

    1. Re:How cool is that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Watch out for mind worms.

    2. Re:How cool is that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if it were cool enough, they could easily store the antimatter since (IIRC) at really really low temperatures it would not interact with regular matter. Just pop your liquid antihyrogen in a wickedly efficient thermos bottle and voila its as safe to handle as regular liquid hydrogen

    3. Re:How cool is that? by MaxVlast · · Score: 2

      I've never understood why people are so eager to leave this planet. My roommate is always talking about how we need to colonize other planets and leave Earth, as this planet has been used up.

      While I agree that we have major problems (not the least of which is overpopulation,) I just don't understand why people are so eager to leave the splendors that are available here behind. I do hope that we settle on other worlds, but I won't be going. I, for one, don't want to move permanently to Mars and see nothing but red for the rest of my life, or go to the moon and never see a running stream of a bird in a forest again.

      I'd be happy to visit (and I'd probably be willing to pay large sums to do so,) but I'm sticking to this planet until we find something that comes close to the majesty of a rain forest or the coast of New England on a stormy day.

      --
      There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
      Max V.
      NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
    4. Re:How cool is that? by Ravagin · · Score: 2

      Yes, I concur, but hold on a sec... I haven't shaved in several weeks, so I guess you could say I have a beard. Will the evil version of me then be clean-shaven? If I shave, will he grow a beard? Are good-evil facial hair configurations inversely related? Am I in serious need of sleep?

      --

      Karma: T-rexcellent.

    5. Re:How cool is that? by geekoid · · Score: 2

      I think this allready happened in the 90's.
      for a while there I couldn't go anywhere without see a lot of people in goatees and smoking cigars.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    6. Re:How cool is that? by geekoid · · Score: 2

      I'm glad a certian italian queen didn't feel that way...

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    7. Re:How cool is that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait a minute. Now that you mention it, I think I AM the evil bearded version of me.

    8. Re:How cool is that? by DebtAngel · · Score: 2, Funny

      I can answer that first question.

      Since you have a beard, you must be the evil one. Therefore, you may indeed find a good version of yourself that is clean shaven.

      If this concerns you, just remember that evil always triumphs over good, because good is dumb. :)~

      --

      Is this post not nifty? Sluggy Freelance. Worshi

    9. Re:How cool is that? by TeamSPAM · · Score: 1

      Yeah, cause no one wants to see a bearded supermodel. >;-)

      --
      Brought to you by Team SPAM! where we believe: "Information in the noise!"
    10. Re:How cool is that? by azizlumiere · · Score: 1

      You probably meant the queen of Spain, right ?

      Isabella if I remember right.

      --
      -Linux is SO fast it does an infinite loop in 5 seconds.
    11. Re:How cool is that? by MaxVlast · · Score: 1

      Which one is that? Isabella? She was spanish. Columbus was the italian.

      I'm not saying that I'm not all for exploration, etc. I'm just saying that the anti-earth sentiments confuse me. Besides, exploring all of the splendors of this planet are quite appealing, so, go Columbus (explorer-ly, not socio-ethnically.)

      --
      There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
      Max V.
      NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
    12. Re:How cool is that? by ackthpt · · Score: 1
      Believe it or not, there are people who never leave inner cities, like New York. To them, 50 miles south into New Jersey would be alien, threatening even, as they'd lack familiarity and confidence with the surroundings.

      I've love the chance to see other worlds, but I do agree, there's much to this one that I love and much that I still haven't seen that I want to. Read Heinlein's Tunnel in the Sky sometime, though it's got pretty much a 'Survivor' story, I can see people like Rod Walker leaving the cradle of man to settle other worlds and having a significant following who feel there's not enough room, politically or otherwise, on this one.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    13. Re:How cool is that? by Dirtside · · Score: 2
      Pretty damn cool, until bearded, evil versions of ourselves start popping up all over the place.
      You say that like it's a bad thing. How else are we supposed to take over the world?
      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    14. Re:How cool is that? by MaxVlast · · Score: 2

      I agree with you about the insularity of so many people, but what gets me is that the people who are most anxious to have done with this planet are among the most intelligent and best-educated ones I know.

      The humorous irony for me is that one of them is the most fervent collector/refurbisher of discarded computer and electronic equipment I know. He won't throw anything away (ever) and regularly proclaims that getting new hardware is a waste of money when there's so much quality stuff out there to be had.

      --
      There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
      Max V.
      NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
    15. Re:How cool is that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh real funy bumperbutt

    16. Re:How cool is that? by emmons · · Score: 2

      Perhaps. But when it starts to warm up, whoever is holding the thermos is fucked.

      --
      Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
    17. Re:How cool is that? by Blitzenn · · Score: 1

      Old Old news. CERN has been trapping antimatter for a number of years. Further more. There are at least 5 funded programs at American Universities to design a funtional Antimatter drive.
      Old news.

    18. Re:How cool is that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But... Dark Helmet didn't have a beard. Neither did Vader or Emperor Palpatine, IIRC. If they're the good ones, I don't want to even be in the same universe as their evil selves. :)

    19. Re:How cool is that? by shogun · · Score: 2

      Yes, yes they have, but not complete atoms.

    20. Re:How cool is that? by prismatic · · Score: 1

      yeah. except, of course, all those anti-hydrogen atoms my physica professors talked about a couple years ago. and not as a theory, but as something that had been experimented on to see how its properties differred from regular hydrogen

      --
      Brian Voils
      "A university is what a college becomes when the faculty loses interest in students."
    21. Re:How cool is that? by Bastien · · Score: 1
      If you want to read some excellent discussions about what current physics tells us about the possibility of warp drives, etc., check out http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw81.html.

      This is my old physics professor talking, and he's also a sci-fi writer. He has many very interesting articles about sci-fi topics, and they're especially good since he actually DOES know physics quite well.

      Good geek reading!

    22. Re:How cool is that? by Pooua · · Score: 1
      Yes, yes they have, but not complete atoms.

      "FIRST ATOMS OF ANTIMATTER PRODUCED AT CERN"

      "In September 1995, Prof. Walter Oelert and an international team from Jülich IKP-KFA, Erlangen-Nuernberg University, GSI Darmstadt and Genoa University succeeded for the first time in synthesising atoms of antimatter from their constituent antiparticles."

      http://press.web.cern.ch/Press/Releases96/PR01.96E AntiHydrogen.html

      --
      Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
    23. Re:How cool is that? by Pooua · · Score: 1
      if it were cool enough, they could easily store the antimatter since (IIRC) at really really low temperatures it would not interact with regular matter.

      A hydrogen bubble chamber is full of liquid hydrogen matter, maintained cryogenically. The bubble chamber is used to observe sub-atomic decay and interactions, including those of matter-anti-matter interactions.

      http://teachers.web.cern.ch/teachers/archiv/HST200 1/bubblechambers/glug.pdf

      http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/msad12no v97_1.htm

      --
      Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
    24. Re:How cool is that? by Ravagin · · Score: 2

      *sigh* I was afraid of that. I guess I'll have to have you fed to my piranhas now.

      --

      Karma: T-rexcellent.

  2. Yeah? by somethingwicked · · Score: 4, Funny

    Well, how does this matter?

    *grin*

    --

    ---"What did I say that sounded like 'Tell me about your day?'"---

    1. Re:Yeah? by Stavr0 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Slashdot
      News for Nerds. Stuff that's antimatter.

    2. Re:Yeah? by orcrist · · Score: 0, Redundant

      we need a metamoderate choice: stupid.

      For those who don't get it, the parent post (currently at 0) has been moderated offtopic and flamebait.

      For the brain-damaged: Antimatter... how does this matter? Get it?

      Jeez. (using my +2 to keep the thread visible.)

      --
      San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
    3. Re:Yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How the heck is this redundant???

    4. Re:Yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the original thread was fairly funny, but an obvious joke. Your post (im assuming you posted the redundant post, and are posting as AC so you wont get mod'd down again, as im sure you probably would have, and no im not a moderator) was stating the obvious, and it got marked as redundant, pretty easy to understand..

    5. Re:Yeah? by mandolin · · Score: 1

      taco beat ya awhile back with his stuff-that-antimatters dept. tagline.

    6. Re:Yeah? by drink85cent · · Score: 1

      yeah unfortunately we will all be dead when we get some of this matter to move us from A to B at high speed.

  3. a little help here? by Em+Emalb · · Score: 2

    "Researchers at CERN think they have created and stored thousands of antiatoms in a particle trap."

    Ok, they THINK they have? How can you tell?

    IAECOTT--I am extremely clueless on this topic, so please someone out there give a newbie a little help with this....

    thanks, and I hope to god I am not the only clueless one on this subject here. :)

    --
    Sent from your iPad.
    1. Re:a little help here? by connorbd · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's particle physics -- they're Uncertain...

      (ducks flying objects)

      /Brian

    2. Re:a little help here? by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Unless I'm much mistaken, an antiparticle is completely neutral; one anti-proton of negative charge, one positron of positive charge, and one anti-neutron of neutral charge. From a distance it should look identical to a standard hydrogen atom.

      The only way they can test it is if they fire off a single hydrogen atom in there and note the massive explosion followed by all the other anti-particles flying out of containment and then destroying the rest of the normal matter in anti-matter-matter annihilation.

      For all they know, firing a stream of positrons at anti-protons created normal atoms (since this is all theory)

      What I wonder is how they're gonna get rid of several thousand anti-hydrogen!

    3. Re:a little help here? by Sir+Tristam · · Score: 4, Informative
      Well, according to the article some of the particles in the trap did not move when they exposed the particle trap to a magnetic field, and they are using this as the basis for the supposition. Since they put anti-protons (negative charge) and anti-electrons (positive charge) in the trap, the magnetic field should make all the free anti-protons move one direction and all the free anti-electrons (aka positrons) move the other direction. An anti-hydrogen atom (hydrogen anti-atom?) would have one anti-proton and one anti-electron which would (essentially) net out, and so should not move under the influence of the magnetic field.

      To double-check this, they're going to run the experiment again, and do a spectral analysis of what they've got in the particle trap later this year. I guess they've already got a theory on how the spectral emission/absorption lines of anti-hydrogen will compare to those of hydrogen.

      Chris Beckenbach

    4. Re:a little help here? by Drachemorder · · Score: 1
      "Unless I'm much mistaken, an antiparticle is completely neutral; one anti-proton of negative charge, one positron of positive charge, and one anti-neutron of neutral charge."

      Can there be any such thing as an anti-neutron, since neutrons have no charge to begin with?

    5. Re:a little help here? by kavau · · Score: 2, Informative
      From the New Scientist article:

      "When the group exposed the particle trap to an electric field, some particles failed to move, suggesting that the charged antiparticles had bound together into neutral antihydrogen atoms."

      That should answer your questions. Both antiprotons and positrons (aka antielectrons) are electrically charged. Therefore they are accelerated if you apply an electric field. The antihydrogen atom consists of one antiproton and one antielectron. Since the charge of antiprotons and that of positrons is opposite, the antihydrogen atom has no net electric charge and stays immobile in an electric field. So they guess that, if it doesn't move, it must be an atom! There are of course more elaborate tests one can do, and will do. For example, ordinary hydrogen atoms emit light at very specific frequencies (maybe some of you will remember the terms Lyman series, Balmer series etc. from freshman physics). Since the antihydrogen is the exact "mirror image" of the ordinary hydrogen atom, these frequencies must be the same. Observation of these frequencies should yield definite proof (or reveal it as a flop :-)

    6. Re:a little help here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes there can be an anit-neutron made up by anti upp and down quarks.

    7. Re:a little help here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes.

      All the quantum numbers of anti-particles are of the opposite sign as compared with normal matter. These quantum numbers include things such as electric charge, but also baryon and lepton number. Anti-neutrons would have a baryon number of -1 as opposed to neutrons which have a baryon number of +1.

    8. Re:a little help here? by geekoid · · Score: 2

      since exposing them to normal matter would not creat enough energy to even warm up a small cup of coffee, I don't think this will be a real issue.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    9. Re:a little help here? by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      would you simply have to expose them to matter or would it have to be H Atoms?

      I mean, and anti-H Atom would only anialate one proton and one electron....so if it could react with any matter, then exposing it to a He Atom would create a H atom.

      that just does not seem right to me.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    10. Re:a little help here? by racermd · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Somebody else may have pointed this out already, and keep in mind that I'm just a low-level geek with knowledge in areas other than this, but...

      Let's all assume (correctly) that a particle of 'normal' hydrogen has a neutral charge by having a single Proton and a single Electron. By definition, aparticle of anti-hydrogen has a neutral charge, as well. Seeing as both of these partcles have neutral charges, does it not stand to reason that they will not be attracted to one another due to opposite charges? Maybe my high-school physics classes were a little basic, but it sounds like there's more to do than just introduce hydrogen to anti-hydrogen for there to be a reaction between to two particles with neutral charges. Unless there's some sort of anti-neutral (?!) charge that I'm missing, this doesn't seem dangerous.

      Not until you think a little deeper. There are lots of other particles that are *not* neutrally charged that could be used to release energy in the fashion we're all thinking. Further still, this may change chemistry as we know it, as we now might (keyword here, "might") have the ability to mix one anti-element with a different 'normal' to get some desired results.

      As someone else suggested, how would anti-water work? Could it still be used to put out a fire? I don't think you'd want to drink it (as the body is over 70% 'normal' water, anyway), but I'm sure it could have some uses. Ta-da! The science of anti-chemistry is born!

      Just some random thoughts. If I'm incorrect in my assumptions, let me know. Don't flame me. I'm not that smart, really. I just ask lots of questions.

      --
      My sources are unreliable, but their information is fascinating. -- Ashleigh Brilliant
    11. Re:a little help here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      "All your Beowulf cluster of grits are belong to Cowboy Neal. Did I miss one? "

      Yes...

      Natalie Portman

      "All your Beowulf cluster of grits are belong to petrified Cowboy Portman."

    12. Re:a little help here? by beerman2k · · Score: 1

      Since the anti-hyrdrogen would be made up of anti-electrons and anti-protons it would not neccessarily have to find a hydrogren atom. Just another proton and an electron (not to hard to find)

    13. Re:a little help here? by JabberWokky · · Score: 2
      Since the anti-hyrdrogen would be made up of anti-electrons and anti-protons it would not neccessarily have to find a hydrogren atom. Just another proton and an electron

      Now, wait a second - if this is true, and the atom holds together, you could step down to any arbatrary lighter element (and create very odd isotopes, since you'd have loads of neutrons sitting in a suddenly much "lighter" atom).

      Anybody up on their physics a bit more than the people in this thread care to shed some light on this possibility (at least theoretical enough to be able to write a nifty SF story about it). :)

      --
      Evan

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
    14. Re:a little help here? by drik00 · · Score: 1
      Like you, i'm limited in my understanding of such things, but I must point out that you seem to be thinking of it in the wrong way (as are a lot of posts on this particular story). The fact that a proton has a + charge, and an anti-proton has a - charge is NOT the reason they would annihilate each other in an anti-matter/matter collision. The way I understand it is that each subatomic particle has a specific set of "attributes," as in, the particles that make up the subatomic particle itself have, say, a certain spin, and are made up of certain sub-subatomic particles. Each anti-particle is not just charged differently, but if you were to express the particles makeup mathematically, you would see they were complete opposites, down to every detail of their existence, this is why they cancel each other out when they meet...doesnt really have anything to do with charge only.

      hope that helps

      --
      Beer, now there's a temporary solution -- Homer Jay S.
    15. Re:a little help here? by krlynch · · Score: 2

      I guess they've already got a theory on how the spectral emission/absorption lines of anti-hydrogen will compare to those of hydrogen.

      Yes indeedy ... hydrogen and anti-hydrogen should have exactly the same spectra. If they are NOT identical, that will be extremely cool.

    16. Re:a little help here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, I attended a colloquium on this subject a couple of weeks ago by one of the top guys in this field (at least, in the UK!) who explained things so I could understand them....

      Basically, anti-protons/electrons are detectable in the same way as normal ones, but a neutral atom isn't detectable in the same way. As someone says above, the anti-hydrogen is theoretically detectable using its absorption spectrum, but there's no theory as to /how/ it will be different from your standard H-atom.

      The main problem with the whole thing is that CERN have been creating anti-protons and anti-electrons in abundance for ages, even together. There has been several teams that have claimed to have made anti-H before, but none can prove it at the moment. That's why these guys just /think/ they've made some anti-H.

      Unfortunately, I would quote this guy I listened to two weeks Tuesday ago, but I can't even remember his name, but I think he was from Exeter. Anyway - there's an article that claimed to have made anti-h dated Jan 1996 at Exeter

      So, my thoughts is that although interesting, this is another claim that won't be proven.

      lyceus

    17. Re:a little help here? by norton_I · · Score: 2

      Well, assuming the energy liberated by annihilation doesn't destroy the nucleus, as you step down the periodic table, you will form progressivly more unstable isotopes. Eventually, the nucleus will undergo either nuclear fission, releasing several free neutrons, or beta decay, converting a neutron to a proton.

      That said, I think the better way to accomplish this task is neutron capture. Since neutrons are neutral, you can use slow neutrons to bombard your target, drastically reducing the excess energy deposited.

    18. Re:a little help here? by Sir+Tristam · · Score: 2
      I'm almost in over my head on this, but standing on tip-toe I think I'm on good ground explaining this. (Dammit, Jim, I'm a programmer, not a nuclear chemist!)

      Single hydrogen atoms have one empty position in their outermost electron shell, so are fairly reactive and quickly form diatomic hydrogen (H2) molecules. When this happens, each of the hydrogen atoms is sharing two electrons (one it brought to the pair, and the other from the other atom). This is enough to fill the innermost electron shell, which is also the outermost electron shell on hydrogen. It is probably pretty safe to assume that anti-hydrogen will form diatomic antihydrogen molecules.

      With the two hydrogen atoms sharing the electrons, the electrons spend more time in the region between the two nuclei (exhibit a larger probability wave in that region, for you quantum physics wonks), and so the two ends of the molecule exhibit a very slight positive charge. In the case of diatomic anti-hydrogen there should be a slight negative charge at the two ends of the molecule. These charges are weak compared to a free electron/positron/proton/anti-proton, which is why I said in my first post that the charges "would (essentially) net out".

      So if we mixed hydrogen gas and anti-hydrogen gas, what we would probably see is the slightly oppositely charged ends of the diatomic hydrogen and anti-hydrogen molecules attracting each other.

      Trying to form a molcule from an anti-element and a normal element would probably not work very well, because elements combine into molecules through sharing electrons to fill the outermost electron shells of the atoms. Even if a positron could temporarily serve to fill an electron shell, eventually it's going to meet up with an electron from the normal atom, they both go away, and the bond between the two atoms breaks down. You'd be left with an ion and an antimatter ion.

      Anti-water probably would work quite well in putting out a fire, just like dynamite is used to put out oil-well fires.

      Chris Beckenbach

    19. Re:a little help here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The key thing that's missing in saying that anti-H2 and H2 wouldn't interact is the fact that they are still composite systems. Moreover they are quantum systems so they are in a sense everywhere all the time. My guess (and I was at one point in my life a PhD particle physicist) is that the electrons and positrons would be the first to anihilate since they have a much longer wave length. The the the protons/anti-protons would eventually be electromagnetically attracted until they went.

      As far as the spectrum of H2 and anti H2 being identical. For the time being I would guess the spectra would be indistinguishable due to the rarity of anti H2 --- just not enough of it to do terribly statistically significant spectral measurements. But IF anti-H2 and H2 were abundant enough to get good measurements, then the question is would there be spectral differences. I think the answer is yes if neutrinos have mass. IIRC neutrino mass is effectively an indicator of electro-weak symmetry breaking, which would make matter and anti-matter different. --- It's been years since I've thought about this but that's how I think the song and dance went.

    20. Re:a little help here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, actually... If you have a hydrogen atom and anti-hydrogen atom collide, they would probably just bounce off eachother. The electron and positron are in bound states - quantm mechanically speaking, electrons (and positrons) cannot share the same space when they are bound, so they cannot anhialate eachother.

      Of course that is just a guess, someone else may be able to argue otherwise, but maybe that is how you can keep antimatter around.

      To use it as a fuel, you just heat it up until the positrons get unbound from the anti protons, mix with hydrogen ions and, boom...

    21. Re:a little help here? by RobertFisher · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Chris :

      I think both of the tests you mention are not really confirmation of the fact that they have actually formed anti-hydrogen.

      Why? Let's assume that, for some reason, the atoms in question were not anti-hydrogen, but simply plain run-of-the-mill hydrogen.

      How do the spectra compare? The spectrum of hydrogen should be exactly identical to that of anti-hydrogen. Nope. Can't use it as a confirmation of the antimatter state.

      How about net charge? Well, hydrogen also has zero charge. Nope, can't use net charge as a confirmation either.

      In fact, your argument is not quite correct. Hydrogen atoms do possess a net magnetic moment (primarily due to the spin and orbital angular momentum of the electron, though the latter is zero in the ground state) and therefore do move in a magnetic field. In fact, that was the entire basis of the classic Stern-Gerlach experiment.

      I've heard that experimentalists might be able to confirm the existence of anti-hydrogen by smashing the atoms in question against a wall, and looking for characteristic gamma rays. If one knew the initial state were either hydrogen or anti-hydrogen, then one could be assured upon seeing the gamma rays, that the initial state was indeed anti-hydrogen. The problem with this approach is that it destroys the antimatter atoms in the process, so that you are not able to subsequently use them in other experiments.

      Bob

      --
      Science, like Nature, must also be tamed, with a view turned towards its preservation.
    22. Re:a little help here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The fact that a proton has a + charge, and an anti-proton has a - charge is NOT the reason they would annihilate each other in an anti-matter/matter collision.

      As far as I understood, this is NOT what racermd meant anyways. I think his real question was why would the collision happen at all, if there was nothing to attract the molecules to each other. After all, matter is mostly empty space; thus probability of a collision happening "on its own" without any help from an attractive force would be incredibly small.

    23. Re:a little help here? by Pooua · · Score: 1
      Now, wait a second - if this is true, and the atom holds together, you could step down to any arbatrary lighter element (and create very odd isotopes, since you'd have loads of neutrons sitting in a suddenly much "lighter" atom).

      I'm not sure what you mean by "lighter elements." Hydrogen is the lightest element--technically, a proton is a hydrogen nuclei and a proton and an electron is an electrically neutral hydrogen atom (atomic hydrogen). Due to some quantum effect, protons like having 2 electrons in the inner-most orbital (the s orbital), so two hydrogen atoms will usually share their lone electrons, forming molecular hydrogen. If you like, you can stick a neutron or two onto the proton, and produce hydrogen isotopes, but that isn't necessary to make a hydrogen atom. Helium, however, needs neutrons to be stable.

      --
      Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
    24. Re:a little help here? by JabberWokky · · Score: 2
      I'm not sure what you mean by "lighter elements." Hydrogen is the lightest element

      Okay, I'll explain - use antimonohydrogen (the classic atomic form) to "knock" down heavier elements (say iron) down to lower elements (say something like boron) with the number of neutrons that the original had. Or just the simpler (and already achievable) transmutation from element to element. But with this method, you can choose the whole count of particles and thus make "designer isotopes".

      Sorry - I figured the idea was obvious so I never explained it fully.

      --
      Evan

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
    25. Re:a little help here? by n9hmg · · Score: 1

      "Trying to form a molcule from an anti-element and a normal element would probably not work very well, because elements combine into molecules through sharing electrons to fill the outermost electron shells of the atoms. Even if a positron could temporarily serve to fill an electron shell, eventually it's going to meet up with an electron from the normal atom, they both go away, and the bond between the two atoms breaks down."

      Actually, that would be an instant annihilation. the positron and electron would, in filling the 1s orbital, become one item filling the probability space of the orbital. There's no running into each other. They're both everywhere in the orbital. Obviously, this only sort of gets to happen, as they'd both disappear as a big old photon, leaving the nuclei they shielded unshielded and close together. POP!

      Also, this would happen in preference to homogenous combinations, as the negative outer charge of the matter would be closer to the positive outer charge on the antimatter than to the negative nucleus of the antimatter (and vice versa)... a spherical vanderwalls force.
      Even more pronounced in diatomic H2 interacting with diatomic aH2, due to the uneven distribution of the charge around the molecule.

    26. Re:a little help here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that way you could only produce neutron-rich isotopes, because the heavier elements have a higher neutron/proton ratio. However you can already produce neutron-rich nuclei using a neutron-pickup-reaction, e.g. fire your nuclei at a deuterium-gas target and they will acquire the neutrons from the deuterium. That's a comparatively easy experiment and only requires some MeV's to trigger the pickup reaction.

  4. cheap shot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Researchers at CERN think they have created and stored thousands of antiatoms in a particle trap..
    But they're afraid to look...

    1. Re:cheap shot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But they're afraid to look...

      It's easy to tell if there's antimatter in the box. Just open it up after the experiment, if the cat's dead, then there was antimatter, if not, the experiment failed, but hey! at least the cat's alive!

  5. How cool is that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, that's one hot topic!

  6. how cool? by lfourrier · · Score: 1

    very hot, when they leave the trap...

    1. Re:how cool? by Hittite+Creosote · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The article stated that the amount of heat emitted if these antimatter atoms encountered matter wouldn't heat a cup of coffee, before any of the more panicky readers of /. start expecting the end of the world

  7. AntiHydrogen atom? by L-Wave · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Pardon my stupidity on the subject, but what exactly does an ANTI-hydrogen atom do? Is a particular application of this type of knowledge useable such as radioactive waste disposal or something? *clueless*

    --
    I SURVIVED THE GREAT SLASHDOT BLACKOUT OF 2002!
    1. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by JoeLinux · · Score: 2, Informative

      The idea is that if you have a hydrogen and an anti-hydrogen meet, there will be a huge explosion of energy. Stephen Hawking jokes that if you ever meet the "anti"-you, don't shake hands.

      Joe

    2. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anti-matter bombs, anti-matter reactors... haven't you ever read any science fiction?

    3. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Antimatter is matter that is created when the electronics and protons orbit in a counter-clockwise fashion rather than clockwise, like regular matter.

      Sort of like how water spins down the drain in a different direction in the southern hemisphere than in the northern hemisphere.

    4. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by GreyPoopon · · Score: 1
      Pardon my stupidity on the subject, but what exactly does an ANTI-hydrogen atom do?

      It sits there and looks cute. According to the article, if you put it into a boxing ring with a normal atom, they would fight, annihilate each other, and maybe produce enough energy to warm your cup of coffee a tad. I'm surprised though. I was expecting the energy released from such a collision to be pretty large.

      I also read somewhere years ago that there was speculation that antimatter of this sort may possess anti-gravity. I don't know how true this is, as I haven't followed particle physics very closely.

      --

      GreyPoopon
      --
      Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?

    5. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by EricKrout.com · · Score: 0, Redundant

      "Antihydrogen is an atom made entirely of antiparticles: while ordinary hydrogen consists of a positive proton with a negative electron orbiting around it, the antihydrogen atom has a negative "antiproton" in the centre bound to a positive "positron".
      ...
      Pioneering experiments at CERN and more recently at Fermilab in the US, had only one aim : to produce and to detect a few antihydrogen atoms. They succeeded in demonstrating that antihydrogen can indeed be produced, but the real goal is more challenging: the precise comparison of the physical properties of matter and antimatter atoms. Three quarters of our universe is hydrogen and much of what we have learned about it has been found by studying ordinary hydrogen. If the behaviour of antihydrogen differed even in the tiniest detail from that of ordinary hydrogen, physicists would have to rethink or abandon many of the established ideas on the symmetry between matter and antimatter.
      ...
      Just over a year after the announcement of the production of the first 9 anti-atoms at CERN (PR 01.96) in January 1995, the approval of the Antiproton Decelerator opens up new exciting research possibilities for scientists from all over the world waiting to increase our knowledge of antimatter. The questions are fundamental : Why, if the same quantities of matter and antimatter were produced during the Big Bang, as is supposed, is our Universe made entirely of matter? Does gravity has the same effect on antimatter as it does on matter? The solutions to these questions could lie in the results which will be produced by the Antiproton Decelerator?"

      - from http://press.web.cern.ch/Press/Releases97/PR01.97E AntiprotonDec.html

    6. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Antimatter has *nothing* to do with the orbit of the particles. Antimatter is just like normal matter, but the particles have opposite charges, i.e. antiproton -> -1, positron -> +1 and so on.

    7. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by k12boy · · Score: 1

      The amount of energy released is VERY large. mc^2, in fact. The reason it doesn't seem like a lot is the mass of a single hydrogen atom is pretty tiny. Get a gram of the stuff though...

    8. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL. Good one!

    9. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by GreyPoopon · · Score: 1
      The amount of energy released is VERY large. mc^2, in fact.

      Any idea as to how this compares to the energy required to CREATE and HOLD the anti-hydrogen atom in the first place? Would this be a viable energy source? (create anti-hydrogen, hold, combine with hydrogen, harness resulting energy) Would this provide significantly more energy than burning hydrogen gas or the like? (Physics is not my forte).

      --

      GreyPoopon
      --
      Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?

    10. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Antimatter is matter that is created when the electronics and protons orbit in a counter-clockwise fashion rather than clockwise, like regular matter.

      Since when did VCR's and stereo's learn to fly?

    11. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by wavecentral · · Score: 1, Insightful

      one use for anti-matter is being able to harvest it, and use it for propulsion. Also, harvesting of anti-matter, or actually the anti-engery that is created by the presence of anti-matter, in enough quantities, can be a big enough negative energy to help in holding wormholes open by creating a Casmir effect ultimately, making Einstein-Rosen bridge a possibility. ->MAG

    12. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by Magar · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Basically, the anti-matter/matter reaction is the most efficent mass to energy conversion there is. Take something like a nuclear warhead - the actual 'core' of the warhead isn't all that big, roughly the size of a basketball, depending on the KT rating of the device. The massive energy output is derived from an extremely inefficent conversion of that into energy. If I remember my science correctly, only about 1-3% of the core is converted into energy, the rest is spread as radioactive material.

      Anti-matter/matter is a 100% conversion of matter into energy, and unlike a nuclear explosion where the only way to get energy out of a core is by a massive, simultanious event, you can in theory feed a controlled amount of anti-matter into a suitable 'reactor', and produce a controlled reaction. Due to the near perfect mass/energy conversion, you can generate a lot of power from a very small amount of fuel, meaning things like fueling spaceships become a lot more practicle since you don't have to lug around thousands of tons of chemical fuel everywhere you go.

      Of course, a few hundred atoms of anti-matter isn't much, and won't generate much energy. In time though, research like this will hopefully lead to the ability to generate large amount of anti-matter, allowing us access to a very powerful form of stored energy to do all sorts of cool things - one of the first I'm sure will be anti-matter weapons. :(

    13. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by skilef · · Score: 1

      Anti-matter serves the same purpose as matter. Since matter and anti-matter are thought to be formed through the Big Bang, the best possible application, if we're able to control it properly, would be to generate the energy that's stored in the matter/anti-matter 'cleavage'. This is only possible, however, if theoreticists are right about the reversibility of the Big Bang.

      --

      You do not exist. Go away.
    14. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by TheRain · · Score: 1

      Great, so how long untill I get an anti-matter engine in my car? I'd like one gram of hydrogen and one gram of anti-hydrogen please! Fill 're up!

      --
      Please help! I'm stuck inside my virtual reality headset!
    15. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by s20451 · · Score: 5, Informative

      The mass of an antihydrogen atom is roughly 1e-27 kilograms, the same as a hydrogen atom. Using Einstein's famous formula, with the speed of light given as 3e+8 meters/second, the annihilation of one anti-hydrogen atom and one hydrogen atom would produce 2*(1e-27)*(3e+8)^2 = 1.8e-10 joules. The specific heat capacity of water is 4.2 J/(g*K), so 1.8e-10 joules would raise a 300g cup of coffee by 1.4e-13 degrees Kelvin. (I haven't had my coffee yet ... does that sound right? Anyone?)

      The point is, one hydrogen atom makes little difference, but annihilating kilogram's worth of hydrogen atoms would liberate 9,000 terajoules of energy. Compare that to a kilogram of coal, wood, or oil ...

      --
      Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
    16. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by caferace · · Score: 3, Funny
      tephen Hawking jokes that if you ever meet the "anti"-you, don't shake hands.

      Hmmph. I've met quite a few "anti-me" types. The worst that ever happened was a black eye. That Hawking guy ain't so smart after all..

    17. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what does anti-hydrogen do? well, on a typical m-f, it goes off to its normal desk-job for the city. but, on weekends he is a notorious protester and anarchist, inciting riots and causing mayhem wherever hydrogen (it's nemesis) congregates.

    18. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by JonWan · · Score: 1

      Will we see this soon?

      Bush: Give up, Bin Laden we have an anti-matter bomb!

      Bin Laden: No! You give up, I've got an anti-anti-matter bomb

      Damn... that's an old joke!

    19. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just wondering, would, say, anti-hydrogen and (regular) helium eliminate into energy? What about the leftover particles (1 proton, 2 neutron)? If they get the (or most of the) energy from the eliminated mass, we might be looking at the mother of particle beam weapons.. hot neutrons are a nasty breed, I'm told..

    20. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by Happy+Monkey · · Score: 2

      It makes German zeppelins sink.

      --
      __
      Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
    21. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by Russ+Steffen · · Score: 1

      Well, you have to look at it this way - matter-anti-matter annihilation is one of the most, if not the most energetic reactions we know of. But, at the level of one atom vs. one anti attom there just isn't going to be that much energy. However, scale that up to 1 kg of matter vs. 1 kg of antimatter and the resulting reaction will reconfigure the planet.

    22. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by Mr_Matt · · Score: 3, Informative

      (Physics is not my forte).

      ...so I'll be gentle. :) Right now, the energy required to create and hold the anti-hydrogen exceeds the the energy output of the matter-antimatter reaction. Right now, remember. Similar to how it requires more energy to design and build a car engine than that engine will be producing. But, once you work the bugs out and get that sucker up to speed, the energy created by the matter-anti-matter reaction will far exceed the energy required to hold the reaction. It's just a matter of time...provided the funding to do the research is there. We'll see how Big Oil reacts to this. :)

      --


      But what does my opinion matter, I just vote here. It's not like I have any money or anything.
    23. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 2

      wow....that would be enough energy to power about a thousnad Delorian time machines!!!!!!

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    24. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by Sgt+Pinback · · Score: 1

      The idea is that if you have a hydrogen and an anti-hydrogen meet, there will be a huge explosion of energy.

      Each time I see this particular claim I wonder whether it really needs to be H/anti-H? As far as my limited understanding of physics goes, any kind of matter vs any kind of antimatter would cause a bang?

      --

      --

      I do not like the men on this space ship!
    25. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah...screw fusion power and fuel cells....bring on matter anialation!!!!!!

    26. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 2

      err wait....9,000,000 Delorian time meachines :-p

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    27. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Believe Edward Teller said it first, though.

    28. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by SEE · · Score: 2

      The energy released will be a fraction of that spent to create and hold the antihydrogen. You need mc^2 energy to make the antihydrogen to begin with, and the efficiency of the process is abysmal. Achieving 10% efficiency in conversion would be remarkably efficient.

      It could be a good energy storage technology. The great advanatage is that it holds more energy per gram than any other fuel. Half a kg of antihydrogen combined with half a kg of hydrogen releases megatons of energy.

    29. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by rben · · Score: 1

      One of the scarrier possible uses of anti-matter is to "pump" a thermonuclear bomb. By using a very small amount of anti-matter, much smaller (in size) hydrogen bombs can be made with greater yields. (You have to have a very powerful explosion to force the hydrogen to fuse in the first place.) Anti-matter by itself could be used to build a bomb, but not very much can be made right now. Its far more likely that it will be used to enhance weapons.

      I'll keep hoping that the first real uses are peaceful though.

      --

      -All that is gold does not glitter - Tolkien
      www.ra

    30. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by parnasus · · Score: 1

      If you are talking about the pure economics of matter/antimatter engines, it will always take more energy to create the particle pairs than will be realized by their annihilation. Remember, there's no such thing as a perpetual motion machine. The real beauty of this system is not the energy savings, but the efficiency of the storage medium. Matter/antimatter fuel stores a great deal more energy than the equivalent mass of, say, gasoline. That means less mass can be used in propulsion and more mass can be devoted to payload.

      --
      --If you code for the exceptions, the rules fall into place
    31. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could be because H is the simplest atom around.

    32. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by monkey_jam · · Score: 1

      (i'm not a physicist btw) i wonder if theres any way that a chain reaction could be set up to create antimatter from an antimatter explosion? would this mean the end for all matter?

    33. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by TheAlmightyQ · · Score: 1

      1.21 Gigawatts!!

      --
      I hope you're not pretending to be evil while secretly being good. That would be dishonest.
    34. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by biobogonics · · Score: 4, Informative

      Basically, the anti-matter/matter reaction is the most efficent mass to energy conversion there is.

      This brings us closer to one of the propulsion systems envisioned by hard science fiction writer and physicist Robert L. Forward in a number of his books, the latest of which is "Indistinguishable From Magic".

      http://www.whidbey.com/forward/

      His books are prime reading for slashdotters. They are a throwback to the early SF of Campbell and Heinlein, but with much more real science thrown in.

    35. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by mshiltonj · · Score: 1

      Pardon my stupidity on the subject, but what exactly does an ANTI-hydrogen atom do? Is a particular application of this type of knowledge useable such as radioactive waste disposal or something? *clueless*

      No no no. All we need now is some dilythium crystals and a warp containment field. Then, we just modify the deflector array to trap the positron emissions into the matter/anti-matter reactor, and we should be able to hit warp 9.7 before the Romulans know what hit them.

    36. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by hawk · · Score: 2
      >The worst that ever happened was a black eye.


      Quite obviously, you haven't looked at your credit report recently . . .


      :)


      hawk

    37. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by Exatron · · Score: 1

      I'd rather use Mr. Fusion.

      --
      "I think so, Brain, but 'instant karma' always gets so lumpy." - Pinky
      "Decepticons FOREVER!!!" - Ravage
    38. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by Dirtside · · Score: 2

      I get the impression that accidental release of antimatter would not be nearly as destructive as some people like to think. For one thing, let's say you have a sphere of antimatter held inside a spherical containment field. The containment field drops instantly, exposing the antimatter to the air outside. (Let's assume there's no pressure difference between the antimatter and the air.)

      First of all, the outer edge of the antimatter sphere is going to contact the air first, but the inside won't quite yet. The outside layer converts to energy, presumably causing an "explosion" which sends energy in all directions, symmetrically, both out into the air and back into the antimatter sphere. This explosion will, for a short period of time, keep the matter and antimatter separate, so they will not be further reacting. After a few milliseconds, more of the antimatter will start reacting, but probably in a nonsymmetrical manner, and we end up with a prolonged (in reactive terms; a fraction of a second instead of the few milliseconds it takes for a normal chemical or even nuclear explosion to take its course) release of energy.

      Thoughts? Am I wrong? Right? Deranged? (Well, yeah.)

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    39. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by drik00 · · Score: 1
      Your post makes me wonder, however, how effective an anti-matter weapon could be, since the conversion is so efficient and limited. In a conventional nuclear warhead, the chain-reaction is what is so key to the release of massive amounts of energy...in an antimatter weapon, there's not the same chain-reaction is there? (please correct me if i am mistaken, seriously) It seems that any antimatter weapon would need a constant supply of anti-particles to do damage, not to mention the dispersion into the atmosphere, further weakening the effect of the weapon. If i'm sort of on-target, it would seem the super-laser featured on /. the other day would be a MUCH more feasible and efficient weapon

      --
      Beer, now there's a temporary solution -- Homer Jay S.
    40. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by EABird · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just so it is understood... ...current quantum theory states that electrons do not "orbit" the nucleus of an atom in as in a Newtonian model, but rather they exist in all possible states and positions within specific energy boundaries. Electrons by their very nature exhibit the both the properties of a particle and a wave. In fact, by quantifying any of those properties, the other qualities of the electron can not be measured. The problem of Schroedinger's Cat is a great explanation of this collapse of the wave function.

    41. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      what!!! naw you would get better fuel efficientcy from anialation....

      but speaking of a cheap renewable source of fuel, I think hydrogen fuel cells would be most enviro friendly as they would exaust H2O....

      "hey bobby!!! go wash the car and don't for get to fill 'er up before you put the hose away"

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    42. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by GreyPoopon · · Score: 1

      OK, so that makes it great for things like space travel (ala "Star Trek") that require lots of energy with very low mass. But I guess the trick here would be to find a way to STORE anti-hydrogen (or any kind of antimatter) that doesn't require constant usage of large amounts of energy -- some sort of inert form, right? Any possibilities of this? I mean, we wouldn't want the beasty to leak out and contact real matter while people are standing around, would we?

      --

      GreyPoopon
      --
      Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?

    43. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by rekoil · · Score: 1

      Yes, but hydrogen atoms are the simples atoms in existence (1 proton, 1 neutron, 1 electron). As such, it should be the easiest type of antimatter to create. Manufacturing larger anti-atoms might now prove to be worth the effort - an anti-helium atom reaction will generate only 2x the energy of an anti-hydrogen atom, and chances are it will cost more to generate a singel anti-helium atom than two anti-hydrogen atoms.

    44. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by rekoil · · Score: 1

      Oops...I meant to say, "Manufacturing larger anti-atoms might NOT prove to be worth the effort." Must...slow...down...typing. :/

    45. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't have much of an idea myself here either, but here is my guess =).

      Assuming the above poster is correct, and im sure he is, about this being 100% efficient. I wold say that once we learn more about anti-matter, and how to control and product it easier, then we could create a bomb of some sort that didn't have to use a large core to create a large explosion, because you get 'more bang for your buck' as they say. The things that they were talking about above are thoughts that are more towards using anti-matter as fuel for a propulsion device of some sort, and you wnat to be able to have better control and be able to only use a certain amount so it doesn't all blow up. I can imagine if they figure this stuff out, that they could make quite a nasty explosion with anti-matter..

    46. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If the behaviour of antihydrogen differed even in the tiniest detail from that of ordinary hydrogen, physicists would have to rethink or abandon many of the established ideas on the symmetry between matter and antimatter.



      I am not in any way knowledgable in this area, i find it interesting, but I dont know what im talking about. =)



      Anyway, lets say we study anti-hydrogen atom, all their properties should be completely opposite of a normal hydrogen atom. We know a lot about the hydrogen atom right now, as we have been able to see and study it for a while. I would imagine a lot of the observations of hydrogen were just that though, observations. Im sure there was quite a bit of study with hydrogen and how it reacts with other kinds of atoms, but you take all that, and thats just one perspective of the situation.



      Now my question is, if they find anti-hydrogen atoms to act different in some ways, couldn't that also mean that we just didn't know that about hydrogen until we could have it react with something like anti-hydrogen? If it does act different, does that automatically mean that the theory of how anti-matter and matter work needs rethinking? It seems to me the smart thing to do is take this new reaction that you found by testing anti-hydrogen with hydrogen, and try to test hydrogen again with other kinds of atoms to see if you can 'verify' what you found out with the anti and normal hydrogen tests. I guess what im getting at is that i would be suprised to see them give up so quick =).

    47. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by Temkin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's my understanding that anti-matter makes for a poor weapon. First because of cost. If you can afford to produce and contain anti-matter in appreciable quantities, you can certainly make a conventional nuke for much less.


      Secondly, anti-matter does not release it's energy in as useful a way as fission/fusion does. Anti-matter annihilation releases gamma rays. With fission/fusion some of the MC^2 appears as momentum imparted to the daughter products, which is instant heat. The gammas compton scatter hither and yon, and don't transfer their energy to as small a space. In short fission/fusion goes bang. Antimatter goes poof. Which isn't to say that "poof" wouldn't make a useful weapon. YMMV...


      Temkin


    48. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by Relic+of+the+Future · · Score: 1
      Uhh, no, anti-matter doesn't create anti-energy, and the Casmir effect and worm-holes have nothing to do with this.

      (What high-school physics failures mark these things up as insightful?)

      --
      Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.
    49. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by adipocere · · Score: 1
      Incorrect.

      As Feynman was quick to point out in his Six Not So Easy Pieces, only some of the properties are reversed: spin, charge, baryon (or lepton) number, and so forth. Other properties, such as mass, remain the same. Anti-matter does not mean anti-mass in the slightest. Antimatter will still fall in a gravitational field. F=ma still holds, not F=-ma.

      As the mass is the same, the energy is the same. E=mc^2 is the baby version of a larger equation which also accounts for momentum. Anti-matter does not create "negative energy" of the kind needed to stabilize the throat of a wormhole.

      As to the Casimir Effect, that's a whole 'nother ball of wax utterly unrelated to antimatter. The Casimir Effect is an odd side-effect of quantum mechanics coming up against surfaces made of conductors. The Casimir Effect is attractive for two plain boring plates of metal, but repulsive fo r two hemispherical shells. It's all dependent on the geometry of the conductors. It's also incredibly weak and will be useful only in the nano-realm, not for the "Hey, we need another neutron star in orbit over here" macroengineering required to even consider the unlikeliness of traversable wormholes.

      Those alone are problematic. I believe Kip Thorne had some information on how they would require such things as, "Oh, yeah, you had to have a black hole there at the beginning of time" and "You need exotic [not anti] matter to keep it from collapsing" as well as "the throat is about the width of a proton."

      Not to mention the annoying causality effects of a wormhole. With the proper usage, you could create a Closed Timelike Curve, go back, and prevent yourself from entering the wormhole. Instant paradox.

      Antimatter isn't that exciting, I'm afraid, outside of Star Trek and investigating parity violation.

    50. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 2
      Err, not quite. An antimatter warhead would, when released, combine with any surrounding normal matter and release energy equivalent to 100% of their combined masses. It's like a battery bomb; you stick the energy into it here, you release it way over there. But in this case the yield is orders of magnitude greater than any fision/fusion weapon and it's much easier to scale it up; that is, you just include more antimatter. Detonating it is just a matter of turning off the containment field.

      The fun part is in manufacturing all the antimatter in the first place. In a perfect system, to generate 1 gram of antimatter, you have to spend 1 gram's worth of energy to do it. Particle accelerators don't do this very efficiently; it takes many times more energy to make antimatter than they get out of recombining it.

      But, if they found a way to generate it with >50% efficiency, then there's no problem. I start with 1 gram of antimatter, combine it with another gram of normal matter and thus get 2 grams of energy. As long as I can use that to generate more than one new gram of antimatter, then I have a loop that takes in any kind of normal matter and gives out energy.

      --
      Dyolf Knip
    51. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by Wargames · · Score: 1

      "annihilating kilogram's worth of hydrogen atoms would liberate 9,000 terajoules of energy"

      That would tend to make the coffee pretty dern hot.

      --
      -- Each tock of the Planck clock is a new world and here we are still life. --
    52. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would make a really big cash settlement when you spill it on yourself too

    53. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by Hektor_Troy · · Score: 1

      Isn't 1 joule defined as the energy required to increase the temperature of 1 gram of water 1K?

      Anyway, my prefered way of "visualising" the enormous energyoutput is to tell people just how many km^3 water you would be able to boil (starting at 0 C (fluid) ), but anihilating half a kilogram of antimatter (resulting in a kilogram of matter being anihilated). But since I'm aparantly not remembering my physics right, would someone post the correct amount of water?

      --
      We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
    54. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by AndrewRUK · · Score: 1

      --- if they found a way to generate it with >50% efficiency, then there's no problem. I start with 1 gram of antimatter, combine it with another gram of normal matter and thus get 2 grams of energy. As long as I can use that to generate more than one new gram of antimatter, then I have a loop that takes in any kind of normal matter and gives out energy. ---

      Surely you must create equal ammounts of matter and anitmatter, as, for each particle you create, you must also make one of it's anti-particle, and vice-versa. Otherwise, how can properties like charge, up-ness, strangeness, etc. be conserved, as they must be. Thus the 2g of energy must (if we have 100% convertion) create 1g of matter and 1g of anitmatter. So you can't just magic energy out of nothingness

      (btw, ianan(uclear)p(hysicist), so feel free to correct me if you are one :-) )

    55. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by CheezyD · · Score: 0

      The chain reaction in a modern warhead is only in the fision part. That smaller explosion then implodes the fusion part of the weapon (at least that's how they explained it on PBS :P ).

      I assume they can get around any inefficiencies in the matter/antimatter mix by using several small cells, similar to a car battery. Instead of releasing one big wad of antimatter, it would release several smaller ones simultaneously.

    56. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't 1 joule defined as the energy required to increase the temperature of 1 gram of water 1K?

      That's the definition of a calorie.

    57. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 2
      In principle, yes, you are correct. You must have the other gram of ordinary matter to combine with the antimatter to then convert into energy. Thus conservation of matter and energy is maintained.

      But why would I need to 'create' ordinary matter? As you may have noticed, it is rather naturally abundant.

      --
      Dyolf Knip
    58. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by Hektor_Troy · · Score: 1

      So I guess my post should get moderated as "-1 dunce"

      --
      We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
    59. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by cronik · · Score: 1

      Ummm, basic chem anyone? H has no neutron, 1+ 1- thats it.

      --
      Information wants to be free like speech wants to be free, not like we want beer to be free.
    60. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hydrogen = 1 proton, 1 electron
      Deuterium = 1 proton, 1 neutron, 1 electron
      Tritium = 1 proton, 2 neutrons, 1 electron (unstable, tends to decay quickly)

      Water = H2O
      Heavy Water = D2O (or sometimes DOH, depending on the purity. Pun not intended)

    61. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by radja · · Score: 2

      wasn't Stephen Hawking, it's from a poem:

      Perils of Modern Living
      Harold P. Furth

      Well up above the tropostrata
      There is a region stark and stellar
      Where, on a streak of anti-matter
      Lived Dr. Edward Anti-Teller.

      Remote from Fusion's origin,
      He lived unguessed and unawares
      With all his antikith and kin,
      And kept macassars on his chairs.

      One morning, idling by the sea,
      He spied a tin of monstrous girth
      That bore three letters: A. E. C.
      Out stepped a visitor from Earth.

      Then, shouting gladly o'er the sands,
      Met two who in their alien ways
      Were like as gentils. Their right hands
      Clasped, and the rest was gamma rays.

      //rdj

      --

      No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
      --Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
    62. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by Xilman · · Score: 1

      If you have a decent amount of antimatter, a kilogram say, it doesn't matter (pun intended) whether it takes a millisecond or a minute for it all to be converted to energy.

      A kg of energy is about that which is released by a 200 megaton bomb. Putting that much energy into a small volume is going to raise the temperature of the immediate surroundings quite substantially. I recommend wearing Ray-Bans and standing well back. A hundred km should be adequate.

      Paul

      --
      Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate
    63. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by AndrewRUK · · Score: 1

      As I understand it, you can't create antimatter without creating matter. Of couse, if any /. reading nuclear physisists want to correct me, feel free.

    64. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by Wargames · · Score: 1

      McDonald's Gets Revenge On Frivolous Lawsuits!!!

      --
      -- Each tock of the Planck clock is a new world and here we are still life. --
    65. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nukes make for a poor weapon, because of cost. If you can afford to produce and store nuclear weapons in appreciable quantities, you could certainly make conventional TNT for much less.

    66. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by Dirtside · · Score: 2

      But if the energy release is slow enough, then the energy can be absorbed by the surrounding environment gradually, rather than as a destructive explosion. If I light a puddle of gasoline, it will burn, not explode -- but if I vaporize the gasoline and then ignite it, it will explode, even though it's the same quantity of gasoline (the fact that ALL of the gasoline combusts at once in gaseous form, while only the surface of the gasoline combusts in liquid form, is the distinction there). My point with the antimatter is that unless ALL of the antimatter reacts with matter at once, the energy release is going to be much more prolonged. Yeah, any given energy release over a short enough period of time is going to be destructive, but the explosion caused by a containment field dropping and the explosion caused by an antimatter *bomb* are going to be significantly different, I would think, for the reasons given in my earlier post.

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    67. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by Captain_Jackass · · Score: 1

      Except that deutrium, an isotope of hydrogen has one neutron.

    68. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      deuterium fraction of hydrogen on earth: 0.015%

    69. Re:AntiHydrogen atom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's old technology. I deal with Terawatt systems every day.

  8. You think that's something??? by Festering+Leper · · Score: 0

    You should see what i find in my particle trap :)

    --
    if you want people to think you know what you are talking about, just put ".com" at the end of everything you say.com
  9. Happened to me once.... by Yoda2 · · Score: 0

    I thought I had traped some antiprotons once. Turned out to be Cheerios. Oh well, live an learn.

  10. Not soon enough... by Exantrius · · Score: 1

    from the antimatter-weapons-coming-soon dept

    ... My Midterm starts in an hour...
    /ex

    1. Re:Not soon enough... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then why are you reading Slashdot?! Study! Quickly!

    2. Re:Not soon enough... by discstickers · · Score: 1

      15-211 at CMU?

      --
      I have a shitty sig!
    3. Re:Not soon enough... by Exantrius · · Score: 1

      Nahh, I wish...
      Econ at UCSC...
      Lets say it all together

      "while (1){
      printf ("I hate midterms");
      }
      "

    4. Re:Not soon enough... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      quit and do something productive - like e.g. creating anti-matter.

  11. Since then by TheFlu · · Score: 2, Funny

    The research, which was sponsored by the RIAA, has initiated talks with the trapped atoms, but unfortunately refused to let them go free until they pay their proper licensing fees.

  12. Does this solve the following problem: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you eat pasta with antipasto, do they cancel each other out, leaving you still hungry?

    1. Re:Does this solve the following problem: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i think it's far more dangerous to eat pasta with pesto in close proximity to anitpasto. rumor has it that this is the basis for the doomsday device devloped by the soviets in the late 1970's.

  13. anti-hydrogen + anti-oxygen? by sgtron · · Score: 2, Funny

    Hmm, if we combine anti-hydrogen and anti-oxygen then we could make anti-water! A new sports drink for the new millenium...

    --
    No todo lo que es oro brilla
    1. Re:anti-hydrogen + anti-oxygen? by DeadVulcan · · Score: 3, Funny

      anti-water! A new sports drink for the new millenium...

      Yeah, and heartburn like you wouldn't believe...

      Oh, the possibilities for tag lines: "It's got BITE!" "A real taste explosion!" "It has quite a kick to it, doesn't it?"

      --
      Accountability on the heads of the powerful.
      Power in the hands of the accountable.
    2. Re:anti-hydrogen + anti-oxygen? by ShooterNeo · · Score: 2, Informative

      A water bottle full of anti water (assuming the bottle had an outer shell of normal matter, with perhaps magnetic coils or something to keep an inner cylinder of antimatter containing the matter), when drunk (actually you'd never taste it or see anything after you opened the lid) would release about 6 megatons of energy, enough to obliterate your whole city.

    3. Re:anti-hydrogen + anti-oxygen? by Yet+Another+Smith · · Score: 2

      Put it in your super-soaker and annihilate the competition!

      --
      if ($it != $onething) {$it = $another;}
    4. Re:anti-hydrogen + anti-oxygen? by Geekboy(Wizard) · · Score: 1

      It gives you anti-refreshment. I guess they can put that in Beer instead of regular water, and get people to drink more (no more need to have free pretzels ;-)

      I wonder what the BAC would be after that. One shot Jack, one anti-beer, one shot Jack, one anti-beer. BAC=0.0

    5. Re:anti-hydrogen + anti-oxygen? by Maran · · Score: 1

      Can we make anti-beer? And would it give you an anti-hangover, thus canceling out the effects of over indulgence?

      Maran

    6. Re:anti-hydrogen + anti-oxygen? by ShavenYak · · Score: 1

      6 megatons? You must not be very thirsty. I'll take a 375ml bottle of antiwater, please. This, of course, hass a mass of 375g, and annihilates with 375g of matter. Total mass = 750g or .75kg

      e = mc^2
      e = .75kg * (3*10^8m/s)^2
      e = 6.75*10^16 joules

      A megaton is roughly 4*10^15 joules. So, it's about 17 megatons. Perhaps you were only drinking a coffee cup of antiwater?

      --

      Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
    7. Re:anti-hydrogen + anti-oxygen? by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      I was assuming a 12 ounce bottle, which is about the size of a coke can. I guess I just wasn't thirsty enough. So my calculations were correct, since 12 ounces is ~.34 kilograms according to my trusty TI-85 conversion utility.

  14. anti matter by rigau · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Im not a physics major so excuse me if this is a stupid question but exactly how dangerous is this? is anyone taking this into account before we collapse the fabric of the universe or something like that. the article says that a lot of energy ca be released whe an anti whaever comes in contact with its positive counterpart. Usually things that release a lot of energy can be very dangerous and the more energy the more so they are. Gasoline is dangerous when it releases energy but uranium is more dangerous when it releases energy.

    1. Re:anti matter by krugdm · · Score: 2

      I believe the article mentions that the potential energy that could be released would not be enough to even "warm up a cup of coffee."

    2. Re:anti matter by Schwamm · · Score: 1

      In the article they say that the amount of anti-matter that they might have isn't even enough to heat a small cup of coffee.

      Down the line, if they manage to generate enough anti-matter to actually do something with, well... Even that would be hard. You need to isolate the anti-matter with magnetic fields so anything anti-stuff you build from anti-matter would have to be isolated.

      Honestly, we're so far from that stage anyway that until they can get enough energy going to pop popcorn, I'm not going to worry about it.

    3. Re:anti matter by syzxys · · Score: 1

      According to the article, it's only "a couple thousand atoms" so you probably wouldn't even notice if it hit you. Ordinary objects (e.g. pretzel, human being) contain at least 10 orders of magnitude more atoms. Personally, I'd be more worried about the containment apparatus blowing up.

      before we collapse the fabric of the universe or something like that

      Antimatter behaves just like ordinary matter, except (a) opposite electric charge, (b) opposite parity (left-right orientation, e.g. of spin), (c) opposite direction in time (whatever that means). I wouldn't worry. Besides, how would we stop these people anyway? :-)

      ---
      NEW! Crash Windows NT/2000/XP from any account using only printf!
    4. Re:anti matter by Quixadhal · · Score: 1

      Also not having a strong physics background, but if anti-particles annihilate themselves when coming into contact with their positive counterpart, one would assume that an anti-atom would also release the energy used in the strong-force bond of the anti-particles. Hence, we'd have a tiny version of a nuclear reaction.

      Can anyone who IS a physics person describe how this might really work?

    5. Re:anti matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I doubt we rip the fabric of time and space any time soon... that would require more power than we can even theoretically generate with theoretical generators that we have imagined in science so far. Though you do have to worry abou that torroid black hole generator that goes online soon in europe.

      Remember, anti-particles exist through out the universe as a result of certain energy/mass exchanges and reactions... they are shortlived as even in a vacume in deep space there are particles a plenty and they react violently in self immolating fashion upon interaction with them.

      I am worried as to how they are trapping these pesky little buggers. It takes alot of energy to do that I would think, and what happens if containment fails (even for the few microseconds)... blammo! Particle for particle, there is no higher amount of energy released (theoretically) than through the interaction of "normal" and "anti" matter. A few particles could still produce prodigious amounts of rapidly released energy.

      I do think that this is tre cool though. This technology, combined with fusion (which is getting closer, though no reactor has yet to produce more power than it consumes) could give us the stars. I read a recent article where fusion as a practical power source on earth in reasonably compact and affordable fashion is less than 50 years out. Comine that with Ionic engines (you can hoist alot of ionic fuel into orbit with nearly unlimited power on tap from fusion) or a p/Ap engine and you get some serious speed.

      I also read an interesting article recently by CERN scientist involved in gravimetric research... their aP research is tied into this somehow as they theorize that Gravity is a dimensional wave that can be recreated. Now that is very cool.

    6. Re:anti matter by lordaych · · Score: 1

      The cool thing about anti-matter is that it annihilates perfectly with matter, releasing pure energy. It's essentially the cleanest-burning reaction in the Universe. When an electron and a positron (anti-electron) collide, for example, two gamma rays are released, and absolutely nothing else. The potential applications for a 100% efficient matter-to-energy system are endless; "they" have been scratching their heads for years figuring out a way to combine anti-matter and regular matter to form a sort of propulsion system for spacecraft. As of now the only way to go is ionic propulsion, which generates the amount of force that a piece of paper laying flat on your hand does. Imagine instead a thruster blasting out high-energy gamma rays. Whee! Black holes generate anti-matter on a regular basis, this is how light escapes in the form of "hawking radiation." Unless they created an equivalent amount of anti-matter to the mass of the Earth, there is little risk for destroying our planet. The energy conserved in the strong nuclear bonds within the subatomic particles is converted into pure light, which is only dangerous if you've got an extraordinarily massive amount of "combustion" going on.

    7. Re:anti matter by xercist · · Score: 2

      You can't get more energy out of the system than you put into it. They used energy to create these antiparticles, so they know how much would be created if they came in contact with normal matter.

      --

      --
      grep "xercist" /dev/random ...you'll find me in there someday
    8. Re:anti matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A better explanation would be, remember how matter and energy are equivilant? Well, when matter and antimatter touch, they annihilate each other. But matter can't just disappear, so it is coverted COMPLETELY into energy. Which is an improvement over normal fission or fusion.

    9. Re:anti matter by dougmc · · Score: 2
      one would assume that an anti-atom would also release the energy used in the strong-force bond of the anti-particles.
      Fusion releases energy created as strong bonds overpowers electromagnetic repulsion. Requires atoms with few protons (fewer than iron has.)

      Fission releases energy as electromagnetic repulsion overcomes the strong force. Requires atoms with lots of protons (more than iron has.)

      Anti matter and matter obliterating each other releases energy from *everything*. The particles are totally destroyed, converted into energy. All the energy stored in any sort of bond, as well as any mass not created as part of a bond is released.

      Fission and fusion convert less than 1% of the material into energy. Antimatter/matter anhillations convert 100% of the energy.

    10. Re:anti matter by Kiffer · · Score: 1
      Unless they created an equivalent amount of anti-matter to the mass of the Earth, there is little risk for destroying our planet.

      Umm you mean totaly converting the mass of the earth to enrgey ... I'm sure that it would take a lot less to just blow it in to bitts the size of my head. and even less to jusst blow the first 1km of surface off...
    11. Re:anti matter by Viking+Coder · · Score: 2

      This is somewhat of a mis-interpretation.

      I believe a correct interpretation would be to say that in detonating an anti-matter explosion, it's theoretically possible to get out exactly twice as much as you put into it.

      It's like by making one anti-particle, you've instantly turned it and one normal particle into an atomic bomb.

      E = (m + anti-m) * c^2

      That's part of the joy of anti-matter engines. They're maximally efficient in using their fuel. You only have to bring half of your fuel with you! You can scoop up free hydrogen as you go along.

      --
      Education is the silver bullet.
    12. Re:anti matter by parnasus · · Score: 1
      ...(c) opposite direction in time (whatever that means)

      This is a rather simplistic way of looking at it, but an analogy may help.

      Let's say you were to film a bowler rolling his bowling ball down the lane. As the you watch the movie run forward, the ball has a certain velocity, spin, orientation, etc. If the film was run backwards, the ball's properties would be reversed. If one were to apply this same process to matter/antimatter, it would appear that antiparticles are just regular particles moving backwards in time.

      During annihilation, both particles disappear and a great deal of energy is realeased. If the processed were viewed in reverse, it would appear that matter and antimatter "condense" out of energy. This un-annihilation looks similar to what happened shortly after the big bang when matter and energy decoupled.

      --
      --If you code for the exceptions, the rules fall into place
    13. Re:anti matter by krlynch · · Score: 2

      No, that isn't correct. Starting from just matter (as this experiment does), for every anti-matter particle that we make, we also create one matter particle (roughly speaking ... really, we are talking about conserved particle number, but let's ignore the details, shall we?). You produce antimatter by taking a high energy beam of matter, running it through a target (generally a thin sheet of metal of some sort). Collisions between matter particles in the beam and sheet liberate the kinetic energy in the beam particle, and that energy sometimes emerges in the form of particle antiparticle pairs. Thus, if we take a proton beam and train it on a target, we sometimes make antiprotons through the reaction p+p ==> p+p+p+anti-p (we could also make electron-positron pairs, or neutron anti-neutron pairs, etc). We get just as much "new" matter as "new" antimatter. Since we have to make the antimatter in the first place, we can't get out any more than we put in in the first place.

    14. Re:anti matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Out of interest, what is the atom count in your average pretzel?

    15. Re:anti matter by CheezyD · · Score: 0

      If one were to apply this same process to matter/antimatter, it would appear that antiparticles are just regular particles moving backwards in time.

      Grrr ... I'm thinking about this now and it's giving me a headache.

      Is it possible antimatter actually exists in antitime? Maybe the reason it's such a pain in the ass to find and/or produce is that we used it all up in the future. We can basically just wait and we'll find the crap all over the place, until of course, the anti-bigbang. Time, anti-time, 8 dimentions, women...
      /me's head explodes.

    16. Re:anti matter by Viking+Coder · · Score: 2

      I stand disappointed. =( You've certainly used enough jargon to convince me that you're right - plus what you've said just makes sense.

      My only real point was that from the standpoint of raw ingredients going in to a reaction, nothing that we know of is more powerful than anti-matter. If you have to pick one fuel to bring along with you on your spaceship - it's going to be anti-matter. (The other half of the reaction is just matter, and that's everywhere!)

      --
      Education is the silver bullet.
    17. Re:anti matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you mean? An African or European pretzel?

  15. Wow, antimatter atoms already by syzxys · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Last time I heard about any "really new" developments in antimatter, they were just figuring out how to contain 10-100 protons (circa 1992) (I know, I'm dating myself, whatever. :-) This is really cool news.

    Still, even a million atoms is really physically small. I wonder

    Anyway, just my $0.01. :-)

    ---
    NEW! Crash Windows NT/2000/XP from any account using only printf!
    1. Re:Wow, antimatter atoms already by AJWM · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A gram of hydrogen contains about 6x10^23 atoms. Therefore, a "few thousand" weighs about 10^-20 grams -- much less than even the smallest virus.

      As for energy release -- it'd take about a gram of anti-hydrogen suitably reacted with normal matter to produce the equivalent of a small nuclear bomb (if released all at once) or the energy expended by an largish satellite launch vehicle (if released over a period of several minutes).

      Make the math simple, call what they've got the equivalent of 10^-20 of a 10 kiloton nuke (10^10 gm TNT equivalent), then they've got the equivalent of about 1/10 nanogram of TNT. I wouldn't be too worried just yet.

      --
      -- Alastair
    2. Re:Wow, antimatter atoms already by Sir+Tristam · · Score: 2
      how much it weighs?
      Well, 6.02e23 hydrogen atoms weigh 1 gram, so 1e6 hydrogen atoms should weigh 1.66e-18 grams. A standard paperclip weighs about a gram. If anti-matter exhibits anti-gravity, then it would weigh -1.66e-18 grams.
      whether it's visible to the naked eye?
      Even if you make it solid, no. Maybe if you had a few billion times more atoms and really good eyes...
      how much energy it would give off if you mixed it with hydrogen
      A million hydrogen atoms and a million anti-hydrogen atoms have a combined mass of 3.322e-18 grams. Converting total mass to energy (e = mc^2) gets an energy of .29859 g m^2/s^2, or 7.1317e-5 calories (not dietary Calories; those are different). This is enough to raise the temperature of one gram of water 0.0713 degrees Celsius.
      how long it will be till someone makes a weapon out of it?
      Probably a while.

      Chris Beckenbach

    3. Re:Wow, antimatter atoms already by kavau · · Score: 1
      how much it weighs?

      exactly as much as ordinary hydrogen. That is, 1.67E-27 kg per atom.

      interesting optical properties

      again, exactly the same as ordinary hydrogen

      how much energy it would give off if you mixed it with hydrogen?

      a single hydrogen-antihydrogen pair would burst into a flash of 0.15 nanojoule (1.5E-10 Joule). That means, to boil a quart of water, which has a latent heat of 2500 joules per gram, you'd need about 1.5E16, or ten million billion antihydrogen atoms. This might seem a lot, but keep in mind that a coke can filled with hydrogen gas has about 1E28 atoms. Enough to vaporize a medium-sized lake.

      how long it will be till someone makes a weapon out of it

      that would be quite impractical, since a particle trap uses up a lot of energy. Ordinary nuclear bombs are much easier to store and quite as efficient.

    4. Re:Wow, antimatter atoms already by ocie · · Score: 2

      how much energy it would give off if you mixed it with hydrogen [clean-air.org]?

      Probably negligible compared to the amount of energy needed to create it in the first place.

      --
      JET Program: see Japan, meet intere
    5. Re:Wow, antimatter atoms already by Cinnibar+CP · · Score: 1

      Well, 6.02e23 hydrogen atoms weigh 1 gram, so 1e6 hydrogen atoms should weigh 1.66e-18 grams. A standard paperclip weighs about a gram. If anti-matter exhibits anti-gravity, then it would weigh -1.66e-18 grams. I dunno, let's follow this logic a little further... Reverse gravity implies that antimatter is repelled from normal matter by a gravity-like force, and in all likelyhood is attracted in a similar manner to other antimatter. I wonder how the rules of gravity function with this substance, but on the same premise... How does one measure it's MASS? Is it anti-mass? Does it therefore require less than zero force to accellerate it in a straight line? ... I dunno, you can wander around this in logical circles, throwing the words "Anti-this" and "Anti-that" around, but I don't believe that Anti-matter is directly related in any way to "Anti-gravity" in the context that you describe it here.

    6. Re:Wow, antimatter atoms already by ChenLing · · Score: 1

      I wonder if they will be able to see how antimatter interacts with the gravitational field. It has been theorized that antimatter will go "up" in a gravitational field, and not down. This was hard to prove previously since if you only had anti-protons or anti-electrons (positrons), the electic repulsion overrode any minute differences due to gravity...but with neutral anti-atoms, it might be possible to detect which way they go under gravity.

      --
      "You have the option of insanity. I do not. And that makes me crazy!" - Brian to Angela, My So-Called Life
    7. Re:Wow, antimatter atoms already by Ig0r · · Score: 2

      All forces on antimatter are just the same as they would be on matter, but electromagnetic charges are opposite, there's nothing really special about it other than that.

      --
      Soma: because a gramme is better than a damn.
  16. no big deal by x1l · · Score: 0

    oxiclean is made of this stuff. just ask billy mays.

  17. How Cool Is That? by skinney · · Score: 1

    Very, Very Cool!

    ~Shane

  18. Beating plowshares into swords by The+Ape+With+No+Name · · Score: 5, Informative
    from the antimatter-weapons-coming-soon dept.


    I know that the dept tag is supposed to be funny, but the real benefit of this research is insight into very powerful propulsion systems. No? Not very sustainable at our current rate but definitely the next step toward reaching deeply into space.
    Of course, anti-matter engines are waaaaaaaay off, but I think that we should see from the next-stop-Crab-Nebula dept. rather than from the I-frag-way-too-much dept.

    --
    Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
    1. Re:Beating plowshares into swords by DamonMower · · Score: 1

      Ceterum censeo: delenda est Carthago.

      I agree wholeheartedly.

      --
      Qui me amat, amet et canem meum.
    2. Re:Beating plowshares into swords by rschwa · · Score: 2, Funny

      but the real benefit of this research is insight into very powerful propulsion systems. No?

      Not until we find a good source of dilithium crystals to control the reaction in the warp core.

    3. Re:Beating plowshares into swords by uberdave · · Score: 1
      Not until we find a good source of dilithium crystals to control the reaction in the warp core.

      Dangit! Where did I leave that deed to that dilithium mine...


    4. Re:Beating plowshares into swords by geekoid · · Score: 2

      Or used to power our homes.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:Beating plowshares into swords by naasking · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Of course, anti-matter engines are waaaaaaaay off

      Actually, we already have anti-matter engines, they're just not very sophisticated. Pennsylvania State University and NASA are investigating these drives. The drive could power a mission to Mars in 120 days. That's: go to Mars (30 days), stay for 30 days, and come back (30 days). Sum: 120 days. That's awesome.

      Ah, here we go:

      Antimatter Catalyzed Micro Fission/Fusion

      NASA Press release

      Antimatter drives

      ANTIPROTON-CATALYZED MICROFISSION/FUSION PROPULSION SYSTEMS FOR EXPLORATION OF THE OUTER SOLAR SYSTEM AND BEYOND

    6. Re:Beating plowshares into swords by Rupert · · Score: 2

      That's: go to Mars (30 days), stay for 30 days, and come back (30 days). Sum: 120 days

      Wow. 3/1 time dilation. How close to c do you have to get to lose the other 30 days?

      --

      --
      E_NOSIG
    7. Re:Beating plowshares into swords by b1ng0 · · Score: 1

      For a nice overview of anti-matter propulsion check out http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/prop12ap r99_1.htm

    8. Re:Beating plowshares into swords by hawk · · Score: 5, Funny
      >That's: go to Mars (30 days), stay for 30 days,
      >and come back (30 days). Sum: 120 days.


      Is it any surprise these folks keep running into planets?


      :)


      hawk

    9. Re:Beating plowshares into swords by krlynch · · Score: 2

      Sorry to burst your bubble and those of the others in this post, but the production of these small amounts of anti-hydrogen give no insights whatsoever into the future of propulsion systems, or power systems, or weaponry, or anything of the kind. The only things that this experiment tell us about are fundamental physics, namely tests of our theoretical understanding of the fundamental symmetry properties of nature: there is the definite prediction that anti-hydrogen in a trap should behave in every way like hydrogen in the same trap. If it DOESN'T we've learned something interesting; if it DOES then we will have yet more confirmation of what we already think we know. Everything that a physicist is going to be able to tell you about more mundane "practical" applications or R&D with anti-matter were determined decades ago (in the thirties and forties), and making practical use of antimatter is purely an engineering challenge.

    10. Re:Beating plowshares into swords by geekoid · · Score: 2

      actually my bubble is about the fact that they have made another step towards creating and ontaing anti-matter, sure its a small step, but is a lot farther then we where in the 40s.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    11. Re:Beating plowshares into swords by naasking · · Score: 3, Informative

      Is it any surprise these folks keep running into planets?

      That was my (huge) bad. You'd think 4 yrs of engineering would teach me to add. ;-)

    12. Re:Beating plowshares into swords by cameldrv · · Score: 1

      I thought you were joking about relativistic effects from going so fast.

  19. Important stuff by joshv · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The theory goes that anti-hyrdogen should have all the same observable physical properties that hydrogen does. If we can start to manufacturer and store non-trivial quantities of the stuff we can actually start to test whether or not this is true. We can see if it has the same obsorbtion spectrum as hydrogen, the same atomic weight, etc...

    If there is a difference we might be able to use it to confirm or disprove our assumption that the entire universe is made of 'normal' matter. For example, if there is an observable difference between the absorbtion spectra of hydrogen and anti-hydrogen, we'd have a test to determine if a distant galaxy was made of anti-matter. If there is no difference, well, we've found a very expensive way to heat a small cup of coffee.

    -josh

    1. Re:Important stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Anti hydrogen does not have the EXACT SAME properties as regular hydrogen. The important difference is what happens when you mix it to regular hydrogen.

      In one case, nothing happens, but in the other case 911 will look like a peaceful summer picnic.

  20. Warp-Drives are next� by Gambit-x7x · · Score: 0

    What out Scotty here we come

    --
    Who controls the information, controls the world...
  21. Yup by wiredog · · Score: 3, Informative
    It'd be 100% pure unadulterated MC^2

    Yummy on Cheerios.

  22. In Related News... CERN Disappears by Myriad · · Score: 5, Funny
    In related news the CERN research facility was blown off the map yesterday in what experts are calling a catastrophic power failure.

    Around 9:30 last night a burrowing squirrel shorted out electrical lines causing an initial power surge followed by a blackout.

    Experts believe that researchers had the magnetic containment field generators connected to a household UPS, which proved unable to keep the field in place.

    The result of the containment failure has been described as being very similar to that of a "collapsing hrung." Unfortunately nobody has been able to identify what a hrung is, nor why one should choose to collapse on the CERN facility.

    --
    "They do not preach that their god will rouse them, a little before the Nuts work loose." Kipling, 'The Sons of Martha'
    1. Re:In Related News... CERN Disappears by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you trying to be funny? Because no one gets it...

    2. Re:In Related News... CERN Disappears by BlueMonk · · Score: 1

      ... still baffled by the fact that the whole place went up with less energy than is required to heat a cup of coffee, the investigators have taken to drinking frappuccino.

    3. Re:In Related News... CERN Disappears by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Since you mention the collapsing hrung, here's another fitting Douglas Adams reference:


      "When an experimental setup at CERN shot up through the roof engulfed in a ball of orange flame, the usual people tried to claim responsibility. First the IRA, then the PLO and the Gas Board. Even Swiss Nuclear Fuels rushed out a statement to the effect that the situation was completely under control, that it was a one in a million chance, that there was hardly any radioactive leakage at all and that the site of the explosion would make a nice location for a day out with the kids and a picnic [...]"


      Stolen and modified from "The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul", 1988

    4. Re:In Related News... CERN Disappears by Zathruss · · Score: 1

      Oh my God, its true.. There actually are people who haven't read "the guide".

    5. Re:In Related News... CERN Disappears by geekoid · · Score: 2

      I was there when it happend, I mean I was supposed to push the cart nice and gently into the core, but I hit the side and cause a reaction.
      Then I had to go to someother dimension and blow up a giant fetus that sho energy globs at me, man what a day.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  23. How cool is that? by ackthpt · · Score: 1

    My bags are packed, let's blow this hotdog stand, when do we leave for Alpha Centauri?

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  24. Power for the masses by Walterk · · Score: 1

    So, when do we get to see anitmatter powered stuff? Should be good to power a decent size beowulf cluster for some time. Or space travel. Or to some any energy crisis at hand. Or replace nuclear power stations, and whatever filthy mannter or producing energy us puny earthlings use.

    1. Re:Power for the masses by Derkec · · Score: 2
      Should be good for an energy crisis?


      No, I can promise you that this cost them a pile more energy to make then they would ever get out. It might be good for space travel since we could store lots of energy made on Earth in a small area on a spacecraft. If you want 'free' energy, I'd be waiting for fusion, but don't hold your breath.

    2. Re:Power for the masses by Walterk · · Score: 1

      but Morbo says us puny earthlings are doomed anyway. but Morbo also presents the news, makes one wonder. Even though our puny human minds aren't any match for his.

    3. Re:Power for the masses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Morbo demands answers!

    4. Re:Power for the masses by Walterk · · Score: 1

      Morbo won't get any. So there.
      I wonder... can Morbo with his superiour brain spell correctly?

  25. their first clue was... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the enormous explosion when the opened the lid.

  26. I just hope... by hypergreatthing · · Score: 1

    that whatever power supply they have to keep those particles stored never goes out. Because if it does, they're going to have a loud bang.

    1. Re:I just hope... by antar · · Score: 1

      Well.. we all had science in school, didn't we?

      mass of H (and anti-H): 1,00797 u
      When an anti-H gets annihilated, that breaks up an H too, so,
      mass converted at annihilation: 2*1,00797 = 2,01594 u

      E=mc^2
      1u = 1,66054 * 10^-27 kg

      E = 2,01594*1,66054*(10^-27)*c^2 =
      1,00356995*10^-10 J for one atom.
      They say they have a few thousand atoms, say they have, 10.000, that would result in 1,00356995*10^-6 J of mass to be 'converted' to 'pure' energy.
      For comparision: a lightbulb uses about 40W = 40 J/s.
      I don't know how quick the annihilation would be, but with this little energy released, I guess you won't blow up that much; no loud bang ...unless the universe collapses, that is :)

      But.. uhm.. I skipped science classes quite often (it was easy), so don't pin me down on this ;)

      And er.. pretty please mod me up a little... need some karma... some punk modded one reaction at -1, just after I signed up... now all my reactions appear at 0.

  27. Wow by wiredog · · Score: 2

    If an antimatter galaxy collided with this galaxy that'd ruin your whole day, wouldn't it?

    1. Re:Wow by Cuthalion · · Score: 1

      Haha.

      A serious answer to your jokey question is that it wouldn't really. When galaxies 'collide' they mostly just pass through one another. Consider for a moment what percentage of a galaxy is actually matter (0% to a fairly large number of decimal places), and then this makes sense.

      --
      Trees can't go dancing
      So do them a big favor
      Pretend dancing stinks!
    2. Re:Wow by Clay+Mitchell · · Score: 1

      well that doesn't take into account of gravity.

      for instance, while the sun takes up 1414397073539882700 KM, the effect of it's gravity, which (for the purpose of this example) goes all the way out to pluto, effects 880568861396154242060686347361 KM of space. that 622575426568 times the amount of space the sun actually takes up.

      so uh, it's likely nothing would bump into anything else, there probably would be some detrimental effects due to stuff running into other stuffs gravity well...

    3. Re:Wow by Clay+Mitchell · · Score: 1

      note: my math is probably terribly wrong, but you get the idea :)

    4. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but then colliding with a regular galaxy could ruin your day in pretty much the same fashion...

    5. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... but not nearly as much fun! ;)

  28. It'd be fun if it has negative gravity by Dr.+Manhattan · · Score: 2
    Although it's strongly expected that antimatter will respond to and generate gravity in the same way as normal matter, it's never been experimentally verified because no one's ever had enough antimatter, moving slowly enough, to measure the force of gravity on it. This sounds like it might be a big step towards performing this experiment.

    If it did have negative gravitic mass, that would have all kinds of funky consequences. Maybe we could stabilize wormholes, and get faster-than-light travel and time travel. Fun to think about, anyway.

    --
    PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
    1. Re:It'd be fun if it has negative gravity by sharkey · · Score: 2

      ObDilbert:
      Yeah, aging supermodels would buy it as a topical breast-lifting cream.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  29. anti-matter galaxies in our universe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    possible?

    1. Re:anti-matter galaxies in our universe? by renehollan · · Score: 2
      --
      You could've hired me.
  30. Does anyone have a real link? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    suggesting that the charged antiparticles had bound together into neutral antihydrogen atoms.
    I'm sorry, how do two things of the same polarity bind together to form neutral polarity?

    He can't be sure how many atoms they trapped, but says you would get only a tiny amount of energy by combining the antimatter with matter--not even enough to warm a small cup of coffee.
    How many football fields is that?

    [Expl: I don't really care so much whether you give me me metric or english units, but by god, give me something!. Okay, in this case I'll go for units in terms of "hundredths of a warp drive." Sigh.]

    P.S.
    Antimatter atoms, among the most elusive matter in the Universe, has been captured for the first time.
    Am I the only one who thought that this was so ungrammatical it couldn't possibly have been proof-read once?

    Anonymous J. Coward
    Professor of Entymology [sic]
    University of Timbuktoo

    1. Re:Does anyone have a real link? by strags · · Score: 2

      I'm sorry, how do two things of the same polarity bind together to form neutral polarity?

      positron = positively charged electron
      anti-proton = negatively charged proton

      positron + anti-proton = neutral anti-hydrogen

  31. How much do you wanna bet....... by Y-Crate · · Score: 5, Funny

    ......one of the first things some scientist did after they managed to do capture the stuff was suddenly yell "Antimatter containment is failing! We're gonna have to eject the core!!!!!!!!" before falling to the floor laughing hysterically?

    You know there has to be someone, somewhere who is just dying to be the first person to say that.

    1. Re:How much do you wanna bet....... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But they probably said it in french or german - given that Cern is in France and Switzerland... I

    2. Re:How much do you wanna bet....... by RKloti · · Score: 1

      Or more specifically French since Geneva is in the French-speaking part of Switzerland.

    3. Re:How much do you wanna bet....... by regen · · Score: 2

      They will probably name the first particle they discover the "vertitron" (or any other particle of the week)

    4. Re:How much do you wanna bet....... by mcjulio · · Score: 1

      To the universal translator, everything is English.

    5. Re:How much do you wanna bet....... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Slashdot is split between intelligent people, and people for whom the only light they see is that of their television.


      You, sir, are in the latter portion of that sample.

    6. Re:How much do you wanna bet....... by sharkey · · Score: 2

      Hell, I want to be the first to be able to say:

      "I canna do it, Cap'n, I dinna hae tha power!"

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  32. neutral antiatoms by ndevice · · Score: 1

    As far as I understand, positrons and probably anti-ions would be affected by an electric/magnetic field and therefore can be controlled somewhat.

    An anti-hydrogen would be a neutral antiatom, and the only way you could move it would be if you were to physically push it somewhere. The problem now might be that after you create the stuff you can't move it around anymore without an explosion.

    And ever try keeping hydrogen in a jar? It doesn't want to stay in a jar for very long. I'm thinking that anti-hydrogen would behave in the same way, and once it gets out, normal atmosphere has normal hydrogen all over the place.

    Of course the guys at CERN will be smarter than I am here, so they probably have some way out of this problem, but they haven't mentioned it in the new scientist article.

    1. Re:neutral antiatoms by hygieia · · Score: 1

      Although neutral anti-atoms do not have an electric charge, the electric charge of the antiproten and the positron 'circling' around it is not evenly distributed. It is still not affected by an electric field, but it may be deflected or contained by a magnetic field.

      Also look at the home page of theATRAP experiment.

  33. Typical Slashdot editor, not reading the story. by Rogerborg · · Score: 2
    • How cool is that?

    It's lukewarm. Didn't you read the article?

    • "He can't be sure how many atoms they trapped, but says you would get only a tiny amount of energy by combining the antimatter with matter--not even enough to warm a small cup of coffee."

    Seriously though, we're never going to power a warp drive with that. And let's face it, that's what we really care about, right? So we can all become starship engineers, get neat uniforms, and boldy go and score with hot alien chicks.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    1. Re:Typical Slashdot editor, not reading the story. by geekoid · · Score: 2

      with a few thousand of them? no. with a few kilograms, yes.
      1 kilo will produces, about 9000 terajoules.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Typical Slashdot editor, not reading the story. by crsm · · Score: 1
      According to this site just 140 nanogram of this stuff would be able to fuel a 120 days Earth/Mars roundtrip.

      Thats a heck of a Tiger in the Tank :-)

  34. This is cool.....well hot but whose counting.... by CDWert · · Score: 2

    Alright AM freaks, I must admit this is one of the cooles things Ive read on Slashdot in a long time. Certainly one of the most important happenings in the particle physics world for a while IMHO.

    Now, unfortunatley they said they dont even have enough to warm a cup of coffee, How long before weapons research in the US grbs ahold of this ? Or have they already.

    To me this is akin to the first sussefull refinment of weapons grade Plutonium and Uranium.
    Unfortunatley at the moment it requires too much enery to be usefull as an energy storage medium, but could be really cool for Interstellar travel,

    NOW My question, Will Anti-Hydrogen react with say Normal Lithium to create energy or will its positron shell react with at a minimum the elecrton shell of the Lithium ?

    If it dosent , storage should be easier than the trap they are now using,

    --
    Sig went tro...aahemmm.....fishing........
  35. Underwritten by Mr. Coffee? by dinotrac · · Score: 2
    OK. I want somebody to explain just why these guys are figuring out how much anti-matter it takes to heat a cup of coffee.

    Make nuclear proliferation seem like peanuts if the next Mr. Coffee can start a chain reaction that ends the universe.

    With or without cream.

    1. Re:Underwritten by Mr. Coffee? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well one aspect could be to study the spectrum of the antimatter, to see if there is some differnce between normal matter. This could then help to explain why there seems to be no antimatter in the universe and in the end explain why we are here at all...

    2. Re:Underwritten by Mr. Coffee? by Cinnibar+CP · · Score: 1

      OK. I want somebody to explain just why these guys are figuring out how much anti-matter it takes to heat a cup of coffee.

      Arbitrary choice of energy consumption for comparison. They obviously chose between that, and the amount of energy required to refridgerate a Jolt Cola.

      True geeks like these are tremendously concerned about getting thier caffine fix in a world where oil supplies are dwindling (Oil=Heat=Hot Water=Java)

      Obviously, the fact that they drink thier Jolt at room temperature like some of us influenced thier decision.

    3. Re:Underwritten by Mr. Coffee? by geekoid · · Score: 2

      Todat, Mr. Coffee, tomorro, MR. Fusion.
      IMHO its really the best way to power my time machine.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:Underwritten by Mr. Coffee? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's easy:

      The cup of coffee is the medium for their prototype quantum computer!

  36. Not a real news by rocksh · · Score: 0

    1996 ...ANTIHYDROGEN ATOMS HAVE BEEN CREATED at CERN: www.aip.org/enews/physnews/1996/split/pnu253-1.htm

    --
    >
  37. In related news... by dasmegabyte · · Score: 5, Funny

    the universe has brought suit against the estate of Albert Einstein, claiming that fission is illegal under the DMCA, and that fair use of elementary particles applies only to cold fusion.

    --
    Hey freaks: now you're ju
    1. Re:In related news... by duren686 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wow, cold fusion is like the daikatana of slashdot.

      --
      Y2K Compliant since the late 1890s
  38. Slashdot = Slapstick by Luminair · · Score: 1

    It says a lot about the readers of a site that posts something like this, and all the most popular posts are slapstick humor about ATOMS.

    Maybe Slashdot shouldn't be posting such complicated articles for a bunch of people that don't know Protons from Positrons

    And it's a trend, too.

    1. Re:Slashdot = Slapstick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hey moe, what'cha got in the can there ?

  39. Drop It!!! by EccentricAnomaly · · Score: 2


    The theory goes that anti-hyrdogen should have all the same observable physical properties that hydrogen does.


    I can't wait until they drop some of the anti-hydrogen atoms to whether they fall down or fall up.

    Positron and antiprotons are charged and weigh almost nothing, so electromagnetic forces on them are waaay larger than gravity and you can't really tell if they fall up or down.

    I know current wisdon is that antimatter will fall down... but wouldn't it be cool if the anti-matter fell up, essentially having a negative gravitational "charge"

    --
    There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
    1. Re:Drop It!!! by Sarcazmo · · Score: 1

      Well every time I drop normal Hydrogen, it falls up.

      :)

      I guess you mean in a vacuum.

  40. Re:Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good to see the trolls can rip off Kuro5hin diaries.

  41. Hey, get real by BlueUnderwear · · Score: 2
    [I know this was supposed to be funny, but]

    These were only some hundred atoms, nothing more. Even if they did collide with matter, the damage would not be any worse than if you put a Windows XP CD-Rom into your nuker. Remember, they created those anti-atoms, and conservation of energy dictates that the annihilation of said anti-atoms cannot release any more energy than was needed to create them in the first place.

    --
    Say no to software patents.
    1. Re:Hey, get real by FortKnox · · Score: 1

      Remember, they created those anti-atoms, and conservation of energy dictates that the annihilation of said anti-atoms cannot release any more energy than was needed to create them in the first place.

      To get all philosophical, how do you know?
      The only reason we trust in that law is that it has never been broken, at least, not that we have noticed...
      We are playing with particles we don't know a whole lot about. Who knows what may happen?

      Its like creating mini-black holes in a lab. We only have theories of black holes. Is creating one a good idea? And how do you know you've created one if all you've done is observe them before?

      As a disclaimer, I'm no scientist, nor am I a philosopher, just an engineer. This is just my take on it.

      --
      Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
    2. Re:Hey, get real by JoeRobe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Incidentally, I'm a physicist and a philosopher:)

      We do even better (or worse, depends on your perspective) than knowing hands down if energy is conserved - we declare it to be conserved, then create our physical laws around such a claim. This is one aspect of the "current scientific paradigm". It is so engrained in our thought that we have even predicted the existence of other particles as a result of it. Pauli, hanging on to the principle that energy is conserved, predicted the existence of a small, neutral, lightweight particle, the neutrino. It would take us 26 years after Pauli's prediction to verify the existence of the neutrino.

      Incidentally, a whole lot of the theories that have been experimentally verified (especially in thermodynamics) have made use of the conservation of energy. So if energy isn't conserved, then it is very very nearly conserved.

      While I'm not saying that energy is undoubtedly conserved, we've done pretty well relying on it thus far. No huge problems have come about that force us to disagree with that assumption. Then again, we all thought mass was conserved until E=mc^2 came about...

      As far as mini-black holes are concerned, I wouldn't worry...we can just make a bunch of mini-white holes, put the two together, and they'll cancel out, right? ;)

      JoeRobe.

      --
      The best way to predict the future is to invent it.
    3. Re:Hey, get real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Even if they did collide with matter, the damage
      >would not be any worse than if you put a Windows
      >XP CD-Rom into your nuker.

      Or in your computer, for that matter...

      *runs away*

    4. Re:Hey, get real by BlueUnderwear · · Score: 1

      Actually, the damage caused by 100 anti-atoms annihilating themselves with 100 atoms would be far less than the damage caused by the accidental installation of an XP CD on my computer...

      --
      Say no to software patents.
    5. Re:Hey, get real by Bodrius · · Score: 2

      I think there have been sufficient attempts at breaking the Law in question (perpetual motion machines, for example) to make anyone feel said trust is warranted.

      Also, everything we know about those particles is based pretty much in that law. If we discard the law, we may not even know if those particles exist... we have to come up with a whole new physics science to explain those measurements in the first place.

      --
      Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
    6. Re:Hey, get real by Bodrius · · Score: 2

      Yup. But there's a big difference between releasing a big amount of energy, and releasing a big amount of energy in a small space in very short time.

      Explosives don't come out of nowhere, but they are quite more dangerous than the work that was put into their creation.

      --
      Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
    7. Re:Hey, get real by ElderKorean · · Score: 1

      Remember, they created those anti-atoms

      Yes, they created the anti-atoms - but they didn't have to create the regular ones, they are already there.

      So the combination of the two could release double the energy that was put into their creation. Though I doubt that the creation process is 100% efficient.

    8. Re:Hey, get real by Broccolist · · Score: 1

      Hm, my understanding of black holes is that creating one would decidedly be a very bad idea, as it would have the consequence of utterly destroying the planet (and I don't mean just the surface). Fortunately, creating a black hole would take so much energy that we will never be able to create one in the lab, unless we find some way to harness all the power of the sun or something on that scale.

    9. Re:Hey, get real by BlueUnderwear · · Score: 2
      Yup. But there's a big difference between releasing a big amount of energy, and releasing a big amount of energy in a small space in very short time.

      True enough. But in this case, the amounts of energy were so ridiculously small (equivalent to what is needed to heat a small cup of coffee) that a worst they might have wrecked the enclosure, or maybe the room where it stood, but in no case the whole CERN facility.

      Explosives don't come out of nowhere, but they are quite more dangerous than the work that was put into their creation.

      • Much more energy has been put into the creation of (a useful quantity of) explosives than into the creation of these mere 100 atoms of antimatter.
      • Explosives may have been "created" but from materials which were already quite loaded with (chemical) energy to begin with. Nuclear bombs have been created (directly or indirectly) from Uranium, which is already quite loaded with energy in its natural state. However, in the case of anitmatter, the particle/antiparticles pairs were created from pure energy (kinetic energy by colliding other particles, or gamma rays). So, I'd think it is a safe bet to say that in this case, no more energy was released than was needed for their creation.
      --
      Say no to software patents.
    10. Re:Hey, get real by BlueUnderwear · · Score: 2
      Yes, they created the anti-atoms - but they didn't have to create the regular ones, they are already there.

      Nope. There are a number of constants which need to be conserved in every particle reaction. The most obvious is electric charge, but there are others which are little less known: leptonic number, baryonic number, etc.

      Conservation of these quantities implies that, yes, they had to create a same amount of regular matter along with their antimatter.

      So the combination of the two could release double the energy that was put into their creation.

      Even if this were true, twice the energy needed to heat a small cup of coffee would still not have sufficed to inflict any serious damage ;-)

      --
      Say no to software patents.
    11. Re:Hey, get real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Black holes in effect evaporate. Less massive black holes evaporate faster than more massive black holes. Small black holes evaporate in fractions of a second. Black holes are not going to destroy the Earth.

  42. First step. by Restil · · Score: 2

    Trapping and storing animatter is the first necessary step for utilizing it as an energy source. It wouldn't make much sense to use it planetside as it takes more energy to generate it than it would provide for us, but for space vehicles it would be invaluable.

    -Restil

    --
    Play with my webcams and lights here
    1. Re:First step. by geekoid · · Score: 2

      thats not enitirely true.
      the difference in energy might be a reasonable trade off to do away with all the nuclear, coal, and damn energy sources. each one evaluted insipendantly, of course.
      would you pay a half cent more per kilowatt if it replace a coal plant? I would.
      would you pay even maony if it replaced a nuclear plant? I would.(i am not "anti-nuclear", but nuclear plants are very expensive to operate)
      what if it gets to a point where you could go buy a "cell" take it home and do away with the grid?
      of course if oit costs 10 time more, then it would be only used planetside when it space savings are worth the price. i.e. powering lasers in the battle field.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:First step. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assuming you could get an antimatter power plant (on a grid or for just your home), where do you get the antimatter from? Antimatter factories, which use more energy than their produced antimatter contains (thermodynamics and all). Where do these factories get their power from? Coal, oil, fission, solar, wind, etc.

      You're right in that it'd be useful for replacing batteries and fuel tanks in portable stuff, but antimatter will NEVER power your house.

    3. Re:First step. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From what I remember, once we have the intitial conditions to produce the antimatter, it should'nt be too hard to produce a chain reaction to create more of the antimatter, thus the only cost is the initial reaction. Any further knowledge on this?

  43. Some thoughts by ShooterNeo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    First, the method they are using to create the antiparticles is rather inefficient...I believe the proportion of energy expended vs energy stored in antiparticles is something on the order of 10^4.

    A far more efficient method involves concentrating an intense pulse of light into a small enough space, to the point that the energy actually becomes matter. This has been demonstrated.

    With efficient free electron lasers, it may be possible to mass produce antimatter on a large scale in this manner, making possible a greater number of experiments, as well as allowing manned interplanetary expeditions (and in theory interstellar).

    Antimatter would make an excellent weapon in addition, since one would have the equivalent of a nuke that could be used on very small scales. You could in theory use it to make, say, antitank bullets that could be fired from a handheld gun. No heavy isotope decay products would be left to contaminate the battlefield, thus avoiding the nastiest side effect of nuclear bombs.

    The big problem with antimatter annihilation, however, is that the energy released comes out in the form of high energy gamma rays. While the energy is there, it is difficult to harness in a practical device, and in the weapon example the gamma rays might irradiate everyone on the battlefield including the wielder of the weapon while doing little actual damage to the tank.

    Finally, doing large scale chemistry experiments using antimatter versions of the elements could be rather dangerous...you'd probably need a kilo or more of the stuff, which would have rather catastrohpic results if it were allowed to interact with normal matter.

    1. Re:Some thoughts by dachshund · · Score: 1
      You could in theory use it to make, say, antitank bullets that could be fired from a handheld gun.

      Of course, the equipment needed to contain the anti-matter until it's used could conceivably negate any portability advantages.

    2. Re:Some thoughts by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      True that, most of the storage schemes would require a hefty amount of additional equipment. Theorizing with non-existent technolgy, one might be able to create antimatter versions of say, iron, and keep it suspended inside a simple vacuum chamber surrounded by magnetic coils. Or some other solid material, relying on electrostatic force to keep it from touching the outsides. This chamber could be very, very small, fitting in a metal slug and powered by a batery for an actual weapon. A small robot would carry a single one of these (the robot might be smaller than a bird) and be able to destroy any single target up to a certain size. By varying the amount of antimatter in the bullet, this robot hunter could have as much firepower as an entire army yet be able to sneak around in a theoretical futuristic battlefield. By this point, of course, it is rather unlikely that humans would be fast enough or tough enough to do anything but spectate in wars of this nature (like spectating using remote sensors while they hide underground and wait for the outcome of the war)

    3. Re:Some thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Atomic powered handgun ammunition has been possible for quite a while, using some of the Americium isotopes that have quite low critical masses. A handgun with a dial-a-yield control on it, with smart ammunition that would know its
      range to target, and not create a blast so big it killed the user...now that would be a handgun...

    4. Re:Some thoughts by rben · · Score: 1

      I always thought the nastiest side effect of nuclear bombs was all the death and destruction... but that's just me.

      --

      -All that is gold does not glitter - Tolkien
      www.ra

    5. Re:Some thoughts by Doctor+K · · Score: 4, Informative

      About the free electron laser part ... it is well beyond present FEL technology. And the technology you describe would have difficulty making anti-protons.

      Suppose you want to create electron-positron pairs via counter-streaming FEL lasers. For the physics buffs out there, the reaction would be similar to the Compton backscattering of light off virtual electron-positron pairs (this non-linear vacuum light interaction was demonstrated at SLAC a year or so ago).

      The FEL laser would have to operate well into the hard gamma (photon energy exceeding the rest mass of the electron). Current multi-pass FEL technology has been demonstrated up to the ultraviolet (~250 nm I think is the current record). Multi-pass X-ray FELs are near impossible to make because of the difficulty of producing high quality laser cavities for X-rays.

      Single pass X-ray FELs (which rely on an electron beam instability instead of a cavity) have been proposed but not yet demonstrated. If I recall correctly, the SASE-FEL program at SLAC to build a $100M dollar X-Ray SASE-FEL (with a 100m long wiggler) did not receive funding.

      That is not to say we are incapable of artifically making hard gamma rays. The aforementioned non-linear light interaction obtained the photons for the experiment by Compton scattering of low energy photons off an ultra-relativistic electron beam. But this would probably be pretty inefficent method to try to create antimatter on a large scale (inefficiencies in electron beam acceleration and cross section issues for both the Compton scattering and the non-linear interaction).

      The other possibility would be to try to do a multi-photon interaction to create the electron-positron pairs. In this method, an incredible high electric field is created such that it becomes energetically favorable for electrons-positron pairs to form to shield out the field. I think this has also been demonstrated with some of the extremely high intensity chirped pulse amplification lasers. However, the effectiveness isn't anything to write home about yet.

      And given the protons mass is 1836 times that of an electron, to create them on a large scale (i.e. micrograms) is not anything I expect to see in the near future.

      Kevin

    6. Re:Some thoughts by krlynch · · Score: 2

      I believe the proportion of energy expended vs energy stored in antiparticles is something on the order of 10^4.

      And there is just no way around that ... these are inherently quantum mechanical processes, and you have absolutely no control over what comes out after you put the energy in. It doesn't matter WHAT method you decide to use ... you can't choose what the reaction products are going to be, and hence you can never make it more efficient than a fraction of a percent or so.

    7. Re:Some thoughts by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      Incorrect, 99% efficiency is possible. (well, technically half of that creates matter, which isn't too useful) You CAN choose what the reaction products are going to be in the mentioned laser example..you WILL get a chunk of matter and a chunk of antimatter, and energy level determines what form it will take.

    8. Re:Some thoughts by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      That would be the "main effect" of a nuclear bomb. Well, main purpose of one if you want to quibble over semantics. Besides, death and destruction can be recovered from relatively quickly after it empties out parts of the world, but permanent poisoning preventing biological organisms from living properly cannot.

  44. Don't get your panties in a knot just yet.... by wunderhorn1 · · Score: 2

    Fortunately, the researchers at CERN probably were physics majors, so they knew that while, yes, when antimatter collides with matter and disappears it releases (comparatively) huge amounts of energy, they only have a few thousand atoms collected together in their trap.

    If you remember anything form high-school physics, you'll know that's not many.

    Or, as the researcher interviewed put it, "you would get only a tiny amount of energy by combining the antimatter with matter--not even enough to warm a small cup of coffee."

    --
    Karma: Bored. (Thinking about resurrecting the "Anyone else is an imposter" joke.)
  45. Let's hope these guys have a clue! by Medievalist · · Score: 2
    From the article:
    "It's hard to see how you could avoid having some antihydrogen in there," says Gabrielse. He can't be sure how many atoms they trapped, but says you would get only a tiny amount of energy by combining the antimatter with matter--not even enough to warm a small cup of coffee.

    From Sir Ernest Rutherford's speech to the British Association for the Advancement of Science in 1933:
    The energy produced by the breaking down of the atom is a very poor kind of thing. Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine.

    Do they have an UPS on that particle trap?
    --Charlie
    1. Re:Let's hope these guys have a clue! by sweet+reason · · Score: 1

      In 1933 they had no data on matter-antimatter collisions. Now we have vast amounts.

      --
      Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. -- A.E.
    2. Re:Let's hope these guys have a clue! by sharkey · · Score: 2

      talking moonshine

      They're just good 'ole boys
      Never meanin no harm
      Beats all you ever saw,
      Been in trouble with the law,
      Since the day they was born!

      Oh, Lord, please give me an antimatter powered General Lee.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  46. Imagine, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a beowulf cluster of anti hydrogens. Or even funnier These

  47. but how... by TheBoquaz · · Score: 1

    I'm curious how they are trapping these neutral particles.

    Once they form atoms, shouldn't they not be as easy to trap using magnetic fields?

    Does anyonw know how they do this?

  48. Ok... by xercist · · Score: 2

    So you can use a magnetic field to trap positrons and/or antiprotons, because they have a charge, but when they form antihydrogen they become neutral. How, exactly, do you store a neutral molecule of antimatter? My understanding is the pennig trap doesn't work this way.

    --

    --
    grep "xercist" /dev/random ...you'll find me in there someday
    1. Re:Ok... by sweet+reason · · Score: 1

      How, exactly, do you store a neutral molecule of antimatter?

      Here's a way from Triumph. Use light pressure from lasers tuned to the type of atom to be stored.

      --
      Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. -- A.E.
    2. Re:Ok... by krlynch · · Score: 2

      Even neutral particles can carry intrinsic magnetic dipoles, so you can still trap a sufficiently cool neutral atom in a properly configured magnetic field. You can't trap a "hot" atom this way, because it can just "jump" out of the trap, but a cool enough atom will stay put.

  49. nevermind by ndevice · · Score: 1
  50. Assembled not 'Created' by Cy+Guy · · Score: 1

    The write-up says that team 'created' the antimatter atoms. I wouldn't use the term 'created' too lightly when discussing particle physics. To me 'creating' matter implies they at a minimum converted energy to matter, or to take the term very literally - devised their own mini-Big Bang.

    What they really did was assemble them from anti-electrons and anti-protons

    .

  51. Or... by orcrist · · Score: 1

    Slashdot
    News for Nerds. Stuff that doesn't antimatter.

    --
    San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
  52. How cool is that? by TheGreenLantern · · Score: 5, Funny

    Pretty damn cool, until bearded, evil versions of ourselves start popping up all over the place.

    --

    It hurts when I pee.
  53. Not to be redundant.... by jsimon12 · · Score: 1

    But cool, first we get transparent aluminum, then we get proper antimatter, whats next? warp drive right?

  54. heres the funny! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why did the monkey fall out of the tree?

    It was dead.

    Why did the parrot fall out of the tree?

    It was stapled to the monkey.

  55. Dr. Cochran's Warp Drive: Matter-Antimatter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Within 1 decade, we will achieve warp drive.
    It is based on matter recombining with antimatter,
    giving the thrust that is necessary for
    intergalactic propulsion. We shall boldly
    go where no man has gone before, just like
    Dr. Zephram Cochran says.

  56. Eye for an ant eye... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Poor ants! How could they? I bet this is going to anger those animal rights activists...

    Let the flames begin!
  57. anti Sb? by Menoyoda · · Score: 5, Funny

    Call it Mony?

    1. Re:anti Sb? by IDontLikeYou · · Score: 0

      hahah none of my coworkers got it. those dumbases.

    2. Re:anti Sb? by durland · · Score: 1

      mod this fucker up! apparantly, the moderators didn't get it either

    3. Re:anti Sb? by shogun · · Score: 2

      Meanwhile McCarthy and now Bush have banned the production of Antimatter Am.

  58. Re:Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what is "kuro5hin"? it sounds japanese. the idea intrigues me very much. please add me to your E-MAIL list. i am luvableshithead@aol.com thanks.

  59. Not an energy source... by g.a.g · · Score: 1

    Antimatter would be an energy storage medium, akin to hydrogen in the dreams of the hydrogen society. Remember, the antimatter has to be manufactured at (huge?) cost, just as the hydrogen that is burning so clean has to be produced somewhere, somehow.

    Just my 0.02 rants.

    --
    Hurricane Application Group, Dept of Meteorology Control, Ministry of Proactive Defense
  60. Wonderful progress! by tshoppa · · Score: 2

    Now that anti-hydrogen is so easily made, I just have to wait until they make anti-oxygen too. Combine them to make anti-H2O, and when I drink it it'll make thirsty...

  61. Great news for humanity! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The ability pro mass produce anti-x atoms would enable antimatter engines; that way we would be able to send humans off to distant stars, just in time before bush destroy the planet.

  62. In Related News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The White House announced today that they were officially adding Switzerland to the "Axis of Evil," citing the Swiss antimatter program as a significant violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; a White House spokesman called antimatter devices "the ultimate weapons of mass destruction" and went on to describe the anonymity provisions of the Swiss banking system as "designed as if to empower clandestine networks of remote operatives." The spokesman refused to comment when asked whether a U.S. invasion of Switzerland was imminent.

  63. mod parent up: perfect! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    you hit the nail on the head there.. :) .. Doesn't antimatter = does matter!!

  64. Interesting Idea But.... by The+Scooter+King · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't that just make you more thirsty?

    --
    Everything's been downhill since the TRS-80
    1. Re:Interesting Idea But.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don t worry about getting thirsty.
      An antiyou could probably use
      an antiglass of antiwater, but, assuming you
      re made of water, you would just be blown away :)

    2. Re:Interesting Idea But.... by protonman · · Score: 1

      Exactly. But what would anti-alcohol do when you're sober?

      --
      The man of knowledge must be able not only to love his enemies but also to hate his friends.
  65. Quantum Phsyics by Gyorg_Lavode · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I can't remember much of my quantum physics since it's been a year or 2, but I"m goin to pull out the book and see if I can help. First, the difference between a particle and antiparticle is that the antiparticle has the exact same properties but an opposite charge (and other properties which are opposite signed)

    energy released: (Energy is released when an antimatter particle comes in contact with it's opposite particle) e- + e+ (electron plus a positron) releases rougly 1.022MeV of energy
    a proton plus an antiproton releases 2 * 938 MeV or 3 * 10^-10 joules per reaction. (The energy is released as photons)

    The problem with detecting them is that light and anti light are identical.

    Now lets see what energy of 1kg of protons woudl release: 1kg * 1proton/(1.67*10^-24 gm) = 5.69*10^26 protons

    5.69*10^26 protons * 3*10^010 J/(proton reaction) = 1.78 * 10^17 J or about 50 billion Kilowatts

    --
    I do security
    1. Re:Quantum Phsyics by Gyorg_Lavode · · Score: 1

      I meant Kilowatt hours, not Kilowatts for those who follow units.

      --
      I do security
  66. uh-oh by enrico_suave · · Score: 1

    Don't cross the streams... crossing the streams would be bad =P

    E.

    --
    Build Your Own PVR/HTPC news, reviews, &
    1. Re:uh-oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats exactly what they did... cross a stream of anti protons with a stream of anti electrons... is this what Egon was afraid of?

  67. dilithium crystals by NitsujTPU · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yeah yeah, but we won't go anywhere if we can't get some dilithium crystals captain!

    1. Re:dilithium crystals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to the molecular orbital theory, dilithium does actually exist, but it ain't in crystals, it's only just an amorphous metal like good old common "mono" lithium.

  68. Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    News for nerds. Stuff that antimatters.

  69. Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How does gravity interact between matter and anti-matter? Anti-matter, I guess, (gravatationally) attracts other anti-matter. Does anti-matter also attract matter, or does it repel?

    thx

  70. your sig.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
    you did mis one.. F1rst p0st:

    All your f1rst p0st Beowulf cluster of grits are belong to Cowboy Neal.

    1. Re:your sig.. by colmore · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      All Cowboy Neal's f1rst p0st beowulf cluster of grits are belong to goatsex natalie portman penis bird.

      --
      In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
  71. Get it for Xmas!!!! by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 2


    From CERN toys! Antihydrogen kit! Some assembly required.

    Contents: 1 antiproton, 1 positron. 1 magnetic bottle.

    WARNING: Contents are volatile.

    --
    Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
  72. Re:Question by Gyorg_Lavode · · Score: 1
    Gravity reacts in the same way.

    Force comes in Gravity, electromagnetic, stong and weak neuclear if I remember correctly. Because antimatter is only different in sign and not mass, gravity does not effect it differently.

    --
    I do security
  73. I was just thinking about that this morning. by mikeee · · Score: 2

    The hot water tap here at work isn't quite hot enough to make decent tea; I was thinking it would be nice if there were something you could just add to heat the water with no waste product.

    Sodium was all I could think of, and obviously a bad idea for several reasons, but some anti-water ought to work nicely!

  74. Warp Drive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The news is truly fantastic. Dr. Zephram
    Cochran will develop the warp drive with this
    new technology. The warp drive works by combining
    matter and anti-matter in a containment field.
    The ejected particle stream will propel starships
    near the speed of light. Pluto and back in 1
    hour.

    1. Re:Warp Drive by PD · · Score: 2

      More likely that the evil Spock from the alternate universe will mind meld with us and turn us into Windows freaks.

      "In every revolution, there is one man with a marketing plan." - Bill Gates, to the evil Spock

    2. Re:Warp Drive by zaffir · · Score: 1

      /me grabs the fishook sitting on the bridge That's assuming the ship, let alone the passengers, could actually withstand the inertia from accelerating that fast.

      --
      "Upon attaching the waterblock to my penis, I began to notice that I know nothing about computers." -- JRockway
    3. Re:Warp Drive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why we've got inertial dampers.

      Waht? Nobody's invented those yet?

    4. Re:Warp Drive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Particle stream?

      Matter + anti-matter = energy. Lots of it.

      Energy --> warp field --> bending of space

      What particle stream?

    5. Re:Warp Drive by lazarius · · Score: 1

      My chemistry teacher got this wrong today too (parent post got it right)... the reason it's called Warp Speed is it actually Warps space (using an extension of the wormhole theory - or is that proven yet? I can't remember).
      Anyway, he claimed that by the time anything actually reached Warp factor something it would be all energy, although the warping of space means that it is fast (c^x fast) relative to something outside of the warp bubble.

      Anyone know what happens when warp bubbles collide?

      On second thought, anyone know if matter + antimatter actually does = lots of energy? I thought that they were going to do some kind of experiment with that but I never heard any more.
      MIKE

      --
      Beware the JabberOrk.
    6. Re:Warp Drive by klm20 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Everyone assumes that matter + antimatter produces lots of energy.

      Unfortunately, every time someone tries to prove it, there are no survivors.

    7. Re:Warp Drive by zaffir · · Score: 1

      Heh, The Physics of Star Trek = good book. I should finish it sometime.

      --
      "Upon attaching the waterblock to my penis, I began to notice that I know nothing about computers." -- JRockway
    8. Re:Warp Drive by Capsaicin · · Score: 2, Informative
      the evil Spock from the alternate universe

      But the Spock in the alterative universe wasn't really evil (unlike the evil Kirk et. al.). That was the whole point of that episode, in both universes he was neither good nor evil, but logical.

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    9. Re:Warp Drive by Richard+Platt · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Mass-energy equivalence is demonstrated all the time in particle accelerators, where particle-antiparticle pairs are formed by high-energy collisions. The threshold energies required are mc^2 (in the centre-of-mass frame, more beam energy than mc^2 is required for a stationary target because it recoils and carries some of the energy off). So, yes. matter + antimatter does indeed = lots of energy...

      As for the stuff about warp theory... well, people have tried applying general relativity to find ways of travelling FTL, though without accepted success yet... have a search for Alcubierre (though it could be utter crap, I don't know enough about GR to comment!)

    10. Re:Warp Drive by tomstdenis · · Score: 1

      Actually "mr. smartass", warpdrive doesn't work by travelling very fast. The concept is that you warp space around you to travel a short distance which just happens to be a shortcut through warped space (hence the name).

      Its impossible with current physics to go faster than the speed of light. However, its not impossible to find shortcuts. So instead of travelling the 10^17 km [or whatever it is] to pluto you'd be traveling say 10^14 km at 30,000km/h or something. From a standstill that would look like you are 1000*30,000 = 30,000,000 km/h

      etc..

      Tom

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    11. Re:Warp Drive by arsaspe · · Score: 5, Informative

      On second thought, anyone know if matter + antimatter actually does = lots of energy? I thought that they were going to do some kind of experiment with that but I never heard any more.

      Well, if we took .005 grammes of antimatter (quite a lot), and mixed it with the equivilant matter, we would be converting .01 grammes (.00001kg) of matter into energy,

      so If we take E=MC^2
      Where M=mass(in kg), C=speed of light (3*10^8 m/s)
      = 1*10^-5* 3*10^8 * 3*10^8
      = 1*10^-5 * 9*10^16
      = 9 * 10^11 Joules of energy

      Which is enough to light 10,000 100 watt light bulbs for about 10 days

    12. Re:Warp Drive by PD · · Score: 2

      Star Trek is just a TV show, and my message was just a joke

    13. Re:Warp Drive by Capsaicin · · Score: 1
      Star Trek is just a TV show

      No way man! You're bumming me out, and all this time I thought it was cinema verité.

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
  75. then again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ... how many terajoules will it take to make those kilos of antihydrogenatoms in the first place??.. :-)

    oops..

    1. Re:then again... by ajna · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's just a little bit more effective (in the destructive sense) to attack your enemies with a burst of energy such as a bomb rather than slowly pump the same amount of energy into their power grid over a number of years...

    2. Re:then again... by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 2
      Easy. You want to make a gram of antimatter, you have to spend a gram's worth of energy to do it. But the thing is, when you recombine it, you get two grams worth of energy. Slight gain there.

      Of course, that's assuming you make the stuff with perfect efficiency, which we are nowhere near. But anything above 50% efficiency (that is, making a gram of antimatter for less than two grams of energy), then you come out ahead and can use the net surplus to make still more antimatter...

      --
      Dyolf Knip
    3. Re:then again... by xercist · · Score: 2

      Hoooold on there.....
      You can't get energy for nothing, just not possible.
      And when you transform energy into matter, you don't just get the half you want. Producing 1 gram of antimatter would simultaniously produce 1 gram of normal matter. And it would take 2 grams of energy to do it (at perfect efficiency)

      Now I'm not an engeneer of this stuff - so someone that knows more please correct me, but as I understand it's not possible to produce *only* a gram of anti-matter. The universe must be balanced, no?

      --

      --
      grep "xercist" /dev/random ...you'll find me in there someday
    4. Re:then again... by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 2
      You can't get energy for nothing, just not possible.

      And where did I say otherwise? I'm as familiar with the 1st Law of Thermodynamics as the next guy. Use one unit of energy to create antimatter, recombine it with normal matter, and you get the energy from the antimatter back as well as turning the normal matter into pure energy. The books are balanced.

      And when you transform energy into matter, you don't just get the half you want. Producing 1 gram of antimatter would simultaniously produce 1 gram of normal matter.

      Now there you are correct. But such is the state of things today. If (yes, big 'if') it were possible to generate antimatter without its normal counterpart, then the books would still be balanced. The energy gained from an efficient antimatter power plant would come from the normal matter used, since it is commonly found and wouldn't have to be created.

      If, however, such a development never happens then antimatter would be 'only' an extremely compact means of storing energy.

      --
      Dyolf Knip
  76. Ioffe-Pritchard traps and more by ndevice · · Score: 1

    for more math than you probably want to look at, you can try:

    http://sdphca.ucsd.edu/pdf_files/PHP04331.pdf

    It's a paper on how to trap neutral atoms and it's pretty neat the way they get the fields to cancel out.

  77. Treknologies? by elrond1999 · · Score: 1

    All the Star Treknologies are coming together now. First Transparent Aluminum, now antimatter. Whos working on the plasma coils and the transporter??

    1. Re:Treknologies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't someone already do a rudimentary transporter (transporting a proton or something)??

      Too...many...Trek-tech-related..../. stories.....

    2. Re:Treknologies? by Falcor · · Score: 1

      Plasma coils already exist, they're used for MagnetoHydroDynamic power taps in experimental fusion reactors. Or maybe they're not...

      And, believe it or not, IBM placed an advertisement (could have been april fools, I suppose), that they can replicate a uniform-molecule object (I.E. a steel bolt) kind of like a transporter, or maybe a replicator, so I suppose it would be safe to say IBM is working on that.

      You can beam yourself to Hawaii, but you have to purchase your program 30 days in advance. (Tron)

    3. Re:Treknologies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, just look at the following page of the conferences of the German Physical Society and look for the work of L.Brahms, R. Barclay and co-workers.

      http://www.dpg-tagungen.de/archive/2000/p_18.htm l# 5

      have fun.

    4. Re:Treknologies? by Hammerself · · Score: 1
  78. anti-atoms by BlueboyX · · Score: 2

    I remember reading an article a few years back on scientists combining anti-protons and anti-electrons to make anti-electrons. At the time they were still playing with the data they got, but the figured they made about 12 anti-atoms.

    These guys are interesting in that they actually got the stuff to hold still for a while.

    --
    "Never, never suspect the dreams within the dreams of dreaming children." ~The Amazon Quartet
  79. Oh the HUMANITY! by fr2asbury · · Score: 2, Funny

    I can see it now. Our first Anti-Hydrogen space ship explodes upon landing, so we switch to Anti-Helium, because it's safer. ;-)

    Jonathan

    1. Re:Oh the HUMANITY! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hey, isn't that what happened to that airship, the Hindenberg?

    2. Re:Oh the HUMANITY! by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      Actually, no, but the hydrogen was blamed for the disaster.

    3. Re:Oh the HUMANITY! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jake, get off of slashdot!

    4. Re:Oh the HUMANITY! by sharkey · · Score: 2

      Then the inventor goes and sues the band that's the idol of anti-drug users everywhere for using the name AntiZeppelin.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  80. Hang On, Now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just how many joules of energy are expended to (1) create antimatter and (2) contain it? Is there an eventual payoff beyond using a massive particle accelerator to warm a cup of coffee, or is this another "hydrogen economy"?

  81. Only a matter of time.... by Orangedog_on_crack · · Score: 1

    ...before the propeller heads collect enough of this stuff to transmute their lab into a very large, smoldering crater when they lose their magnetic confinement. Okay, maybe that would be way more antihydrogen than they could ever realistically hope to produce. I just don't want to live anywhere near the facillity that ever does.

    1. Re:Only a matter of time.... by schimmi · · Score: 1

      Oh please no matter near this antimatter....

    2. Re:Only a matter of time.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think realistically a facility to do large scale production of and experimentation with anti-matter would have to be built on another planet... or maybe on Antarctica. Otherwise the risks are just too great.

  82. A box by sglane81 · · Score: 1



    A box to put your anti-particles in.

    --
    This is the Internet. You can say "fuck" here. - AC
  83. Re:It makes German zeppelins sink. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh! The humanity!

  84. How much power? by cdgod · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Can anyone sum up how much power it takes to create a gram of antimatter? And how much power would a gram of antimater give when it collides with regular matter?

    Remember E=mc^2 ? So, since you have 1 mass being antimatter and other mass being regular matter, and they both annihilate each other into energy wouldn't the output energy be
    E = kc^2
    where,
    k = Mass of Antimatter + Mass of Regular matter

    So, in the future, even if it costs us 1.9999999 units of energy to create 1 unit of energy worth of antimatter, we would be annihilating it with normal matter (with costs nothing). Then the result would be 2 units of energy. The surplus energy would be minimal (0.0000001 units), but with enough of a kick, we could have this surplus creating more antimatter, right?

    (/end rambling)

    --
    This .Sig is left intentionally humourless.
    1. Re:How much power? by cdgod · · Score: 1

      One more thing.

      Using Normal(tm) matter to annihilate with anti matter will bring new meaning to destroying the environment.

      --
      This .Sig is left intentionally humourless.
    2. Re:How much power? by func · · Score: 1

      Even better, you just use a few thousand antiatoms to set off a microfusion reaction - all of a sudden you've got enough specific impulse to get a probe to Alpha Centauri in 10 years! Very cool!

    3. Re:How much power? by PhuCknuT · · Score: 1

      Basically you're saying we could build a system that takes normal mass as input and returns energy as output. For that to work, you'd need very high efficiency methods for converting energy to antimatter, and for converting the energy released by annihilation to a usefull form. For example, if you had 67% efficiency (1.5 units energy yields 1 unit antimatter), then you'd need >75% efficiency in converting the energy back to a useable form to create more antimatter in order to sustain the reaction. Currently it takes 3 or 4 orders of magnitude more energy than the equivilent antimatter that is created, so it's nowhere near efficient enough. And the efficiency of the energy conversion afterwards is on a similar scale of uselessness. All in all, not possible by any current or even theoretical understanding of physics.

    4. Re:How much power? by evanbd · · Score: 2

      I used to wonder about that too. Then I asked a particle physicist. Turns out the answer is you have to conserve boson count, among other things. also charge. The basic result of which is, you can only create anitparticles in pairs with their corresponding particle. So, efficiency caps at 50%, which kills the scheme. This is because half your usable energy goes into creating not useful regular matter.

    5. Re:How much power? by Richard+Platt · · Score: 1

      Yes, m in that case would be the mass of matter + antimatter (e.g. an electron-positron annihilation, each with rest mass 511 keV/c^2 would produce 1022 keV of energy - actually two 511 keV photons (gamma radiation)).

      And no, you can't use your scheme. Conservation laws basically require matter-antimatter to be produced symmetrically, in pairs, so to create 1kg of antimatter, you'd also need to create 1kg of matter.

      Since you asked, to produce 1g of antimatter you need 1.8 * 10^16 joules (because you make 1g of matter too). A lot. You get the same energy back when it annihilates.

    6. Re:How much power? by AndrewRUK · · Score: 1

      You would need at least 2 units of energy to create 1 unit of energy's worth of antimatter, because you must also create an equal ammount of matter (1 unit of energy's worth.) If we could get out more energy than we put, we would have a perpetual motion machine, and we all know about perpetual mtion machines. (Ok, so it's a perpetual antimatter creation machine, for the pedants out there, but it's the same idea.)

    7. Re:How much power? by xercist · · Score: 2

      1 gram of antimatter + 1 gram of matter, converted directly to energy

      well,
      E = mc^2
      and the units for that are
      E (1 joule) = m(1 kilogram) * c (3x10^6 meters/second) ^ 2

      so 1 joule = (1kg*m^2)/(s^2)

      anyway,
      m = (2/1000) kg
      c = 3x10^6 meters/second
      c^2 = 9 x 10^12 meters^2/seconds^2

      E = 1.8 x 10^10 joules

      There you go - eighteen billion joules of energy. Now creating this matter is going to take more than that, because remember the second law of thermodynamics - you can never acheive 100% efficiency.

      And, of course, that means you can't get more than you give either. When you convert energy into mass, you create both antimatter *and* normal matter. You can't just create one.

      --

      --
      grep "xercist" /dev/random ...you'll find me in there someday
  85. Isn't antihydrogen electrically neutral? by dpilot · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So how do you keep a neutral particle in an electromagnetic field? Ionize it, and it's just an antiproton, again. It would seem to me that the lightest *anti-atom* you could keep in an electromagnetic field would be singly-ionized antihelium. (After all, doubly-ionized antihelium is just an anti-alpha particle, or is that alpha anti-particle?)

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    1. Re:Isn't antihydrogen electrically neutral? by belg4mit · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well see, there's this bit about the positron
      not being localized, with a non-uniform
      probablity density to boot. So while globally
      electrically neutral locally the magnetic
      fields do not cancel.

      NMR (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance), used in Chemistry and other fields, relies upon
      the magnetic properties of certain nuclei
      (1H, 13C...) to determine the structure of
      an intact molecule.

      --
      Were that I say, pancakes?
    2. Re:Isn't antihydrogen electrically neutral? by rasilon · · Score: 1

      The atom is not a point charge, it is polarisable
      with suitably large magnetic fields. We aren't talking about household magnets here -- containment fields make NMR look wussy.

  86. Stop abusing the laws of thermodynamics!! by Gonzago · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty damn sure it doesn't take 10 Megatons of energy to construct a nuclear weapon!

    1. Re:Stop abusing the laws of thermodynamics!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it does if you have to create the fissionable/fusionable matter from scratch.

      this is kindergarten (e.g. 1st year physics) stuff, guys. wake up.

    2. Re:Stop abusing the laws of thermodynamics!! by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 1

      You're right, it takes more. Most of it was supplied by the Universe via the force of gravity in the creation of higher elements. Humans just exploit that stored energy.

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
  87. Bad Joke #12 by 4of12 · · Score: 3, Funny

    So, uhh, why does this matter?

    <ducks while running out door>

    --
    "Provided by the management for your protection."
    1. Re:Bad Joke #12 by geekoid · · Score: 2


      Enough of That nonsense.
      ;)

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  88. Anti-hydrogen hot air blimp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Any different than a normal hydrogen blimp? Just as good boyancy? Combustability?

  89. all your antimatter... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...are belong to us

  90. Lets hope there are right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    about the energy released by putting antimatter and normal matter together. otherwise we will be hearing how the state of Massachusetts disappeared on the news.

  91. I hope the researchers are better at math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The drive could power a mission to Mars in 120 days. That's: go to Mars (30 days), stay for 30 days, and come back (30 days). Sum: 120 days.

    30 + 30 + 30 = 90, not 120

    1. Re:I hope the researchers are better at math by errxn · · Score: 1

      Maybe he was just factoring in the relativistic effects of travelling at such a high velocity....

      --
      In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
    2. Re:I hope the researchers are better at math by astr0boy · · Score: 1

      maybe he can't add...

      --

      -----
      so i says to mable, i says

    3. Re:I hope the researchers are better at math by shogun · · Score: 2

      Maybe he was just factoring in the relativistic effects of travelling at such a high velocity....

      If they are losing one third of the travel trip due to time dilation to get to just the next planet they must be taking one hell of a scenic route, ie a a few laps of the Kuiper belt or the like at the very least.

    4. Re:I hope the researchers are better at math by naasking · · Score: 1

      maybe he can't add...

      Ya, they don't teach us that junk in engineering... ;-)

  92. Cool! Now all we need is dilithium crystals (HA!) by MrJerryNormandinSir · · Score: 1

    Ahh all we need now is a wat to regulate matter->antimatter flow.

    On s serious note my I have a cousin on my grandmothers side that work at CERN (never migrated over to the US, his family stayed in the
    OLD country). I believe his last name is Cochi

  93. The best line in the article... by chrissam · · Score: 1

    ... is the very first sentence, which says that antimatter is "the most elusive matter in the universe." Elusive indeed! So elusive that it's not matter at all!

    --
    Is it okay to cry "Movie!" in a crowded firehouse? --Steve Martin
  94. Virus Size by Quizme2000 · · Score: 5, Funny

    A gram of hydrogen contains about 6x10^23 atoms. Therefore, a "few thousand" weighs about 10^-20 grams -- much less than even the smallest virus.

    Western Digital 120 GB HD = 1.32 lb (+/- 0.14 lb)

    120 GB = 598.742 g
    122, 880 MB = 598.742 g
    125829120 KB = 598.742 g
    128,849,018,880 Bytes = 598.742 g (+/- 63.5029g)

    12 byte virus = 4.6^-10 grams (+/- .43^-10 grams)

    Yep, the smallest virus would still be about twice as heavy as the cluster of antimatter atoms

    --
    "Get them before they get....
    1. Re:Virus Size by Cinnibar+CP · · Score: 1

      Yep, the smallest virus would still be about twice as heavy as the cluster of antimatter atoms

      Yeah, but at the rate that we increase space-to-weight ratios on hard drives, that won't hold true for long.

    2. Re:Virus Size by sean23007 · · Score: 2

      2 byte virus = 4.6^-10 grams (+/- .43^-10 grams)

      Yep, the smallest virus would still be about twice as heavy as the cluster of antimatter atoms


      Actually, that makes it about 2*10^11 times heavier, not twice. Proves your point, though.

      --

      Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
    3. Re:Virus Size by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought that HD manufacturers decided to adhere to *metric* GB. E.G. 1 GB = 1*10^9 bytes.

      Of course, there's some extra 'slack' space for bad sectors & such, but still...

      I guess that's why people came up with that mebibyte and gebibyte stuff ('binary' GBs, the kind you calculated).

  95. If you want some actual information... by gder · · Score: 3, Informative

    http://www.fnal.gov/ This is the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory. They have extensive information on particles, particle physics, and how they collider works in general. A very good read if you really want to find out about gluons, quarks, leptons, and all of their asociated anti-particles. G-der gder@gder.net

    1. Re:If you want some actual information... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But I can't find a link for the experiment that originally created anti-hydrogen at Fermilab. From what I heard, the CERN experiment was based on a Fermilan experiment that produced the anti-hydrogen, but failed to observe them, as they were looking for something else at the time.

  96. Anti-matter effect. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, you can test right now the effect on anti-matter! ..and, you mostly already faced an anti-matter reaction with matter.
    How, When?
    You (Matter) + Your girlfriend (Anti-Matter) == some kind of big explosion from time to time.
    And, the Anti-Matter and this example is somehow not so stable...hard to control, hard to understand.

  97. Imagine... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a Beowulf cluster made of antimatter!

  98. Antimatter properties? by apocalysque · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Does antimatter exhibit anti-gravitational forces? One thing I've always been facisnated with, is the idea of anti-gravity. The way I see it, if there are north and south polarities with magnets, why can't we find the equivalent repellent gravitational force?

    1. Re:Antimatter properties? by MrJerryNormandinSir · · Score: 2

      Antigravity.. You should about the work of
      Townsend Brown. He actually has a patent for
      antigravity. Also do research on the Serl Disk.

  99. New Scientist. by global_diffusion · · Score: 1

    I know that anti-hydrogen has been around for awhile, but still I caught myself being suspicious because the source was New Scientist. Oh man. It's funny how the mind works...

  100. Second law of thermodynamics by volsung · · Score: 2
    Just as reminder to people reading this thread, you can use antimatter as an energy carrier (like a battery or fuel cell), but not as an energy source (like fossil fuels or solar power) since we have to make it. So anitmatter doesn't imply free energy for everyone, but perhaps means lots of energy available in one place.

    (Note: I'm not implying the parent doesn't understand this already. I just wanted to head off a misconception before it started.)

    1. Re:Second law of thermodynamics by geekoid · · Score: 2

      sure, but whynot a little bit in a home power supply?
      You basically need to heat water, create steam, spin turbine.
      Thats assuming you can't get the rection it self to directly turn the turbin.
      I wonder if you could creat the turbine blades out of anti-matter and just shoot a controll beam og postive paticla onti the blades of the turbines, which would release a small amount of energy.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Second law of thermodynamics by Mr_Matt · · Score: 2

      Excellent point...thanks for making it. The post I replied to didn't even consider the energy required to create the anti-matter, but merely the energy to contain the anti-matter, which at current time, is itself greater than the energy released from the matter-anti-matter reaction. Tack on the energy cost of creating the antimatter, and it's even more of a loss.

      The real question, in my mind at least (and as you seem to have intuited), is should M/AM become a feasible technology, where will we get the antimatter from? And if we can't get it, does antimatter matter anymore? *groan* :)

      --


      But what does my opinion matter, I just vote here. It's not like I have any money or anything.
    3. Re:Second law of thermodynamics by volsung · · Score: 2

      That's probably the biggest problem. Making antimatter from particle accelerator beams is fantastically inefficient and low volume. I'm not aware of any other method of antimatter production.

    4. Re:Second law of thermodynamics by teaserX · · Score: 1

      hmmm...wouldn't the blades decay and fall apart? Probably better to piont hhe beam at the water and let the steam turn the blades. ;)

      --
      We really need your help
      http://www.gofundme.com/help-sherry
    5. Re:Second law of thermodynamics by Winged+Cat · · Score: 1

      Unless one can find a natural source of antimatter. Which seems unlikely in this solar system, granted, but there have been possibilities sighted around the galaxy...

    6. Re:Second law of thermodynamics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the sun emits plenty of anti-neutrinos from beta(-) decay. unfortunately they have a very low mass and are not easy to "catch"

  101. Amendment by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 2

    I much overestimated the destructive capability of several thousand anti-hydrogen.

    That aside, I'm still curious how they plan to get rid of the stuff, especially as they refined the production capabilities and are able to create more of the stuff?

  102. Re:Matter AntiMatter by hazen_vs · · Score: 1

    Ok, so it's a big reaction enough if you can get like a coke can of the stuff, I say find a way to generate tachyons and then use those to "push" your ship beyond light speed. Remember, basic physics, a gamma-ray will only leave it's point at c not c. Tachyons (if we could make and find them ) although therotical would produce engines capable of F.T.L. travel.

    --
    Peace can only come as a natural consequence of universal enlightenment ~Tesla
  103. When can I power my laptop with these? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That would be the ultimate fuel cell.

    Absolutely no emissions.

    Marko

  104. I hear you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Blah blah blah, yachaty schmakaty, yadda yadda. Bleh bleh jargon jargon. Sounds good. Why don't we do that then? Have your people call my people and we'll do lunch. Bye.

  105. in other words.. by rebelcool · · Score: 2

    its going to be a couple years before i can go to walmart and buy a tank of antimatter. Damn.

    --

    -

  106. Re:anti matter not 100% efficient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I saw on PBS that matter/antimatter reactions are less than 100%. Their evidence is that the universe wasn't completely destroyed during the big bang. It's close, but it favors matter slightly, so in effect, the leftover crap from a matter antimatter reaction...is us.

  107. Too bad antimatter is so pricey by Guppy06 · · Score: 2

    Antimatter propulsion would make even nuclear rockets seem like not much more than a rubber-band airplane. But until we can mass-produce the stuff fission still seems to be the most cost-effective thing we have.

  108. A very important step by reelbk · · Score: 1

    Trapping anti-particles is essential if we ever want to explore the outer reaches of our solar system. It's the perfect source of energy since annihilation releases all the energy from matter. There isn't a better clean energy source out there since the only product from annihilation is pure electromagnetic radiation. Once antimatter is produced in mass quantities, we will reach a new technological plateau.

    --
    - A real programmer uses $ cat > a.out
  109. no pictures were available, but... by msouth · · Score: 2

    ...they got some great negatives.

    --
    Liberty uber alles.
  110. Careful now! by railyard · · Score: 1

    I read somewhere that a teaspoon of antimatter, if exposed to ordinary matter, would produce an explosion so great it would blast the atmosphere from the earth. Granted we are far from a teaspoon of antimatter, but it is certainly something to keep in mind when reading about eager physicists creating this stuff. Lets hope these CERN folks aren't a cocky bunch.

  111. Re:Matter AntiMatter by MoogMan · · Score: 1

    Hmm, surely you're tachyon drive would zoom off into the distance and the rest of your matter would do nothing? Since the only thing that can travel faster than the speed of light as we know are tachons and definitely not standard matter at any rate :/

  112. Long ago, positronium, a one-half-anti atom... by CycloOx · · Score: 1

    I recall doing quantum electrodynamics calculations for the positronium atom (one electron and one positron) in the 1960's.I seem to recall that experimentalists had already made the stuff; it's easier working with positrons than with antiprotons. Beyond cool, the whole idea was to check quantum electrodynamics in other systems. It's still the best theory every: six decimal point agreement between theory and experiment.

  113. Re:slashdot has reached a new low by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    or the fact that someone modded this down and the parent up AGAIN. retards.

  114. Re:a little alchemy here? by charon_on_acheron · · Score: 1

    So you want to make GOLD atoms by hitting LEAD atoms with three anti-protons?

    First, it seems that the anti-protons would react with any particles (as opposed to anti-particles) that they contact. But since anti-protons have a charge, they might not hit what you want. Using anti-nuetrons would be better, being neutral, so the electrons and protons don't affect it. But what if the first anti-particle just hit a neutron in the lead atom, and made an isotope, but don't degrade the atom down to a gold atom? You would probably have to use more than three to get the required reduction in protons to turn lead into gold.

    Now for the second part. What would be the effect on an atom when several anti-particles are fired at it? The explosion would be very tiny to our observation, since we are made of billions of atoms, but to the atom itself, it would be catastrophic. Compare it to a house. There are wood 2-by-4s in the walls, holding everything together. An anti-2-by-4 comes flying in, contacts a wall, and annihilates itself along with the point of the wall it touched. Total conversion of matter and anti-matter into energy. How much energy do you think those two items have? Would it be enough to destroy the house? Probably.

    So for an atom, you would have the remainder of the neutrons, protons, and electrons, even though they weren't hit with the anti-matter, sent spinning out of control like Darth Vader at the end of Star Wars. No gold for you.

    Good idea though.

  115. eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What happens if a single antimatter atom touches the Earth? End of the Earth?

    1. Re:eh? by bromoseltzer · · Score: 1

      Not at all: The end of one atom on earth. An antiparticle or anti atom can only anihilate one normal particle or atom, giving off a gamma ray.

      --
      Fiat Lux.
  116. Space flight is where it's at by Rolgar · · Score: 1
    So far, this (like fussion) results in a net loss in energy for our current level of technology. Also, both technologies are somewhat dangerous do to the large amounts of energy involved. Think of the A-bombs of World War II, the 3-mile island and Chernobyl meltdowns and you will have an understanding of what is going on. That is, we are attempting to control very volatile technology (that has been already been developed for use in war in the case of fussion) for cheap power. However, many hold hope that cold fussion or antimatter will become a cheap alternative to fossil fuels.

    One place where these technologies will be needed is deep space, where solar power is useless. The ability to carry large amounts of energy in a small amount of matter becomes crucial. Otherwise, the more matter you have to take, the more fuel you will need to go. The biggest obstacle to a trip to Mars, right now, is that current fuels do not have a high enough thrust-mass ratio. Antimatter and fussion have much better ratios, and a small tank of either could do more than a modern power plant, and we could build a large reserve here and send that along instead of the entire production process.

    1. Re:Space flight is where it's at by Com2Kid · · Score: 2

      Nice thing about space;

      Once you get started you keep on going.

      (minus the occasional correction for gravity interferance and such. )

      Remember, minimal friction.

      The majority of the fuel used up in a space mission is used for taking off, landing, taking off again, and finaly landing back on earth.

      What is really needed is a nice space station and some sort of highly efficent method to get people up to that space station. The shuttles could either just be launched once, or built up there to begin with.

      Antimatter's efficency at burning IS higher then current fuel technologies though.

      (NO fuel CREATES more energy then it took to make it. You can't reverse entropy folks, EVER. Everything is just a battery if you want to look at the long term picture.)

    2. Re:Space flight is where it's at by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once you get started you keep on going.
      (minus the occasional correction for gravity interferance and such. )


      Yes but space has disadvantages too: to come to a stop at the destination you have to use the same amount of fuel as for acceleration (unless you do dangerous tricks like athmospheric braking). Also distances in space tend to be quite large, so to get anywhere in a reasonably time, you have to accelerate to rather high velocities.

      You also need energy for other things than propulsion: life support etc. needs energy too; all the RTGs (radio thermal generators) that sit on the deep space probes are used as energy source for on-board systems other than propulsion (except for small maneuvering/attitude correction).

  117. Re:a little alchemy here? by archmedes5 · · Score: 1

    Anti-2x4's? hehehe, the posting is fine, but the thought of an anti-2x4 just struck me as funny. :)

  118. Cartman by emmons · · Score: 1

    And of course there will be one nice, friendly Eric Cartman running around singing christmas carols and giving everyone compliments. :)

    --
    Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
  119. Signature grammar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That should be "Get those bananas away from me, idiot!".

    "Bananas" is not posessive, and "idiot" should have a comma before it.

  120. Re:a little alchemy here? by JabberWokky · · Score: 2
    First off, I was thinking of creating some things that are a wee bit more exotic than gold - imagine dialing up exact isotopes by simply walking up to your chamber and dialing up the number of protons, electrons and neutrons you want in the mix.

    Would it be enough to destroy the house? Probably

    Yes, and it seems to me that it would blast the atom apart, but - atoms are quite capable of emitting quite large bursts of energy and stay together, and houses are held together by nails, not the weak nuclear force. I've got no idea... I can visualize most of the forces involved, but I have no idea what the equation would look like (heck, thinking about it, I don't even know of the top of my head what form the energy produced is). Thus my plea for a physics geek to think about it for a second or two.

    --
    Evan

    --
    "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
  121. Very easy way to tell ;-) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok, they THINK they have? How can you tell?

    Just evacuate a few square kilometers area around the building then remotely cut the electricity to the place, then when the electromagnetic bottle that's holding the antihydrogen in place collapses, you'll soon be able to tell if you really had any antimatter or not.

  122. Offtopic Personal Journal response by castlan · · Score: 1

    Your journal did not llow me to respond, so I had to post here to communicate with you. Since this discussion is "illicit" (offtopic) I am more concerned with raising issues than presenting a clear and concise argument. Please keep that in mind.

    I do not disagree with the basic argument of your journal entry, but with your first assertion, regarding the definition of the term piracy.

    Piracy is the boldly commited illegal act of violent misappropriation of goods or property, as in robbery. Robbery, a public act, when commited in transit over distribution channels, originally over the high seas, is piracy, though it can also apply to hijacking an airplane, or carjacking a delivery truck. The violence of robbery is enough to demonize it, but the large scale of violence makes it a more effective term than "software robery."

    "Software piracy" is a misnomer, as is "software theft". Your arguments apply to the phrase software theft, which would be individual acts or crimes. The term software piracy leverages a loaded word which is more damning than simple theft, as piracy alludes to a violent large scale operation, akin to "organized crime" taking place over unpopulated areas such as the open ocean, or as it were, the Internet.

    "Software theft" really amounts to unauthorized reproduction of information media. It seems the closest analog of this behaivor before the Internet became a pubic medium would be linked to the behaivor allowed by the Gutenberg Press - copying the Bible for mass distribution against the will of the "catholic" church, which restricted biblical access to ordained priests, so as to preserve their power structure.

    This metaphor is not quite correct either, because there is a differnce between the archaic church as it existed centuries ago, and the modern day entertainment media production and distribution houses. This differnce is admittedly ideological, and not as subject to linguistic corruption. I'd say it falls somewhere in the spectrum of the ideologies of Capitalism versus Communism (economically, not with respect to practices of governance.) In contrast, the organized church did use this restriction as an improper form of goernance.

    Another interesting attempt at demonizing unauthorized media distribution is the term bootlegging as applied to software. This term seems more accurate than "software piracy" especially in light of your journal post, as bootlegging doesn't involve embezzlement or theft(preventing useage by the rightful owner) but smuggling or illegal distribution. Bootlegging is also not as associated with violent behaivor, so wasn't as succesful (sensational) a term as was piracy. Bootlegging is a bit too crude of a term, as software bootlegging deserves a more refined term. The software itself is not contraband, as was prohibition era alcohol. The question is whether "bootlegging" is based on the act of possessing an illict substance with transportation being incidental, or illegal transportation with possesion being incidental. This might be considered in light of how in some States* alcohol is/was legal to possess for personal use, but not to transport/sell. Similarly in some places alocohol consumption wasn't criminal, just possesion. Both of these two situations seem engineered to "grandfather" those who had obtained alcohol prior to it becoming illicit, but to dry out future uses of alcohol.

    One last interesting phrase to consider is "pirate radio". In contrast to using a legal medium to illegally distribute, this refers to illegally using a medium to distribute otherwise legal material. This would illustrate that the term "piracy" is far overused, in danger of corruption beyond resonable definition, which is unfortunate considering the source of the corruption. Being a natural language, useage determines the definition of words, published dictionaries are more akin to surveys then definitive useage manuals. The benefit of useing a natural language over a synthetic language, is the inherent flexibility makes it powerful. The problem arises when mass media uses its power to derail a language by propogating contrary or distorted definitions. The end result is the worst kind of synthetic language, because the expressive power is deliberately crippled with regard to issues that the media house has a vested interest in. In this regard, the insidious corruption of language (piracy, hacking, free, communist, punk, nigger, holocaust, civil disobediance, liberal, and just about every other "loaded" word you can think of) is at best unfortunate, and at worst just as bad as the orignial "catholic" church restricting mass reproduction of the Bible in order to opress civilization.

    Slashdot Moderators: If you have read this far, but were offended, then you at least found this post interesting. So if you can't think of a response, perhaps you should moderate this as interesting so that another may see it and post an appropriately damning response. If you mark this as offtopic despite my warning in the title, then you are likely doing the community a disservice. If you feel this is simply a troll with no redeeming content, then moderate it as a troll unworthy of public resonse. I don't think "Insightful" would be appropriate for this post.

    1. Re:Offtopic Personal Journal response by Dirtside · · Score: 2

      Thanks for the reply -- I think that /. already archived my journal entry (it treats them like articles), so "no new comments can be added". Blearg. I've added another new journal entry for the purpose of comments, if you'd like to duplicate your post here in my journal. (If you do respond to that one, I'll duplicate this post there.)

      I guess I'm not sure what your point is... I was merely pointing out the common definitions of the words "piracy" and "theft", I wasn't trying to justify their usage. Yes, traditionally "piracy" refers to pillage and plunder on the high seas; but "piracy" in terms of "software piracy" is defined correctly in the journal. I should have made it more clear that I was referring to software piracy, rather than generic piracy.

      I certainly DON'T think that people should be using the word "piracy" for anything that analogizes poorly to piracy (such as unauthorized copying of copyrighted material), or isn't ACTUAL, sea-borne piracy; but people will keep using it, and we have to deal with it :) Generally speaking I use the words "copying" and "copy" rather than "piracy" and "pirate", since it doesn't place a value judgment on the actions, and helps prevent stigmatizing by those I'm communicating with.

      You seem like you know what you're talking about, so I'll ask you here (although, again, respond in my journal please :))... what do you think should be done about the whole situation? It's technically infeasible (and socially unpopular) to try and prevent people copying and sharing media content, but take it too far and you end up with the less-content-produced-because-you-can't-make-money situation (at least, in theory). What's the ideal social setup?

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
  123. Since we're in blue-sky territory... by dachshund · · Score: 1
    Theorizing with non-existent technolgy, one might be able to create antimatter versions of say, iron, and keep it suspended inside a simple vacuum chamber surrounded by magnetic coils. Or some other solid material, relying on electrostatic force to keep it from touching the outsides.

    It would have to be one hell of a magnetic bottle in order to be portable and avoid the possibility of material/chamber contact under the potentially extreme accelerations of the battlefield. In order to justify all the overhead of the containment equipment, a robot might want to carry enough ammunition to do significant damage. That'd require a significant amount of material. Multiply the power of one antimatter "bullet" by the number of bullets contained in an entire magazine. Now imagine if one of these robots was hit by fire from another robot-- its entire magazine could react at once. That'd be a hell of a blast.

    There would probably have to be some tradeoff in balancing the number of shots one robot could fire against the size of the explosion that would occur if something went wrong. I imagine this would have some impact on the usefulness of the weapons, considering that you might wind up having to use many robots (each with their own containment equipment and all the other overhead).

    1. Re:Since we're in blue-sky territory... by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      The containment equipment would be small enough to fit inside an individual bullet. The explosion would be big enough to likely destroy the robot that fired the shot, that's why each robot only has 1 bullet. (and also, to prevent the chain reaction like you mentioned) Since the mass of the antiparticles would be extremely small, and the magnetic flux extremely concentrated, it wouldn't actually have to be that powerful a bottle.

    2. Re:Since we're in blue-sky territory... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      =~ s/robot/soon to be dead soldier/g

  124. But on the other hand by JCCyC · · Score: 4, Funny

    How the hell are we going to draw square number -1 in the Periodic Table of Elements?

    1. Re:But on the other hand by mscout1 · · Score: 0
      How the hell are we going to draw square number -1 in the Periodic Table of Elements?


      We don't need to. Anti-matter has a real, positive mass. It is al so irrelevent to the periodic table. Anti-H will react the same as regular H when reacting with other Anti-atoms.

      (When it reacts with matter, both are converted to energy, but thats another story!)

      --
      ------- I saw a VW Beatle the other day. The vanity Plates said "FEATURE"
    2. Re:But on the other hand by chfleming · · Score: 2, Funny

      Technically, I suppose you would flip the table over and write on the back. Left-right reversed, symmetry breaking, and all that.

      Just be sure no to touch the two sides together. :)

    3. Re:But on the other hand by seanellis · · Score: 1

      Easy: on the other side of the paper.

  125. Gee, it's good you pointed this out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure that these full-time hotshot physicists would never have thought of that possibility. Better send them your warnings, and tell them whether a quarter of a teaspoon would be safe. Maybe you could lend them the teaspoon.

  126. Uhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...annihilation might be clean but how do you propose to produce antimatter cleanly?

  127. kiloton, megaton? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... of a 10 kiloton nuke (10^10 gm TNT equivalent)

    I might be tired, but last I checked kilo was 1000 g, and ton was 1000 kilo. Added together I get a 10 kiloton charge (what in the US is called a "tactical nuke" I believe) to become 10^7 g of TNT. 10^10 g would then become more like 10 megaton of TNT. Now that's a nuke!

  128. Analysis of Warp Drive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes. Particles. Warp fields are science fiction. There is no such thing.

    Zephram Cochran will not invent a faster-than light engine. He will invent a engine that
    approaches the speed of light.

    In the matter-antimatter combustion chamber, matter and antimatter will combine, ejecting
    a stream of particles. A magnetic coil will focus the stream into a beam emanating out of
    the exhaust manifolds.

    Pluto and back in 1 hour!

    1. Re:Analysis of Warp Drive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok.. i'm really curious as to what particles CAN be ejected.
      Look at it mathimatically (-1) and (+1) equal O
      so if you take a -H and a +H you get no matter...
      but the law of conservation of matter and energy states that your matter must go somewere.. into entrgy.. so lots of energy cuz its 100% conversion from matter to energy

    2. Re:Analysis of Warp Drive by Pooua · · Score: 1
      i'm really curious as to what particles CAN be ejected. Look at it mathimatically (-1) and (+1) equal O so if you take a -H and a +H you get no matter... but the law of conservation of matter and energy states that your matter must go somewere.. into entrgy.. so lots of energy cuz its 100% conversion from matter to energy

      Electrons and positrons annihilate neatly into pure photons, but protons and anti-protons produce several other sub-particles, in addition to gamma rays.

      http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/msad12no v97_1.htm

      --
      Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
    3. Re:Analysis of Warp Drive by Pooua · · Score: 1
      Zephram Cochran will not invent a faster-than light engine. He will invent a engine that approaches the speed of light. ... Pluto and back in 1 hour!

      Although one should note that it takes light 4 hours to get to Pluto from Earth, or nearly 8.5 hours round-trip. (Just for reference, it takes light only 8 minutes, 18 seconds to go from Sun to Earth.)

      --
      Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
  129. BURN! by gnovos · · Score: 2

    Is it just me, or does it sound like a lot of fun to catch these anti-hydrogen on fire and create antifire. Or smash them together and create antifusion. Sure, we could just annihilate them to make energy, but wouldn't it be such a greater testament to technology (not to mention our sense of irony) if we went through all the trouble of making antimatter just to turn it into a inefficient antiinternal-combustion engine?

    --
    "Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
  130. just so long... by Kurayamino-X · · Score: 1

    just so long as they dont start playing with antimass-specrometers and end up blowing innocent scientists into alternate realities. i'll be happy.

    --
    ...I got nothing.
  131. Uh... by Sly+Mongoose · · Score: 2
    "How cool is that?"

    Likely to be quite hot if their containment field collapses...
  132. This is old by HanzoSan · · Score: 1, Troll



    This has been done before already this isnt anything new.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
  133. English at CERN by danro · · Score: 1

    A friend of mine is currently working at CERN (no, she is not involved in this project).
    Since she doesn't understand french one bit better than me (that is, not at all) I would presume that they speak english a lot of the time.

    CERN happens to attract bright young things from all over Europe you know...

    --

    "First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
    1. Re:English at CERN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe English is one of their official languages. they have a few other special rules not available to other centres in the region, for example their own fire service, and special border controls since the tunnels (of LEP at least) cross into France, special vehicle licensing stuff too.

      also plenty of US involvement at CERN, and japanese. and to a lesser extent other non-European countries.

    2. Re:English at CERN by hoytt · · Score: 1

      Of course they speak English. English is THE language for the scientific world. Another thing, CERN doesn't only attract ppl from Europe, given itssize and the new LHC due in 2006 it'll attract particle physicists from all over the world.

  134. Two things. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) Is anti-hydrogen evil, and does it have a pointy beard?

    2) Let it out. It's cruel to keep it locked up in there.

  135. Anti Tea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can't warm a cup of coffee? Then it's not useful until the lab can brew up a cup of really hot tea.

  136. Shh.. Don't Tell Him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "..collapse..universe..."

    Shh... Nobody tell him how much energy the Sun is throwing around. He's not a physics major.

  137. 30 x 3 = 120 for suitable large values of 30? by Manaz · · Score: 2

    Hmmm.

    You don't by chance work for Intel, do you? Or perhaps used to, around the time when the first Pentium processors came out?

    2+2=5 for suitably large values of 2 and all?

  138. You've got anti-matter? by LazyBoy · · Score: 1

    Well we've got anti-anti-matter!

    --

    If Chaos Theory has taught us anything, it's that we must kill all the butterflies.

  139. OK. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great source of energy, further testing, seems to have worked... Ok, let's cut the chase, shall we?

    Are the Enterprise's reactor plans ready? What about hull? Shields? Artificial gravity? (search for superconducting levitation and do it upside down, you silly).
    It's time to boldly go... yada, yada, yada...

  140. Antimatter AV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Adam Venus accidently made an antimatter penis and when he brought it in contact with his real (small) penis it exploded.

    1. Re:Antimatter AV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Adam Venus Has no penis Coz atoms made him cry. Anti Penis matter, we dont lie.

  141. Antimatter Bomb Yield..... by BeerHunter · · Score: 1

    Aww come on, there's a little bit of Beavis in every one of us....

    In an admittedly crude comparison to Hiroshima, where the area of destruction was somewhere near 3 miles and 1% of the matter in the bomb was converted to energy, would an antimatter bomb of equal size destroy 300 miles of landscape? Leave a crater 50-100 miles deep? Is that insane or what?

    On the other side of the coin, would a bomb the size of a pack of smokes (a stick of gum?) destroy the entire sprawl of Los Angeles?

  142. oh!!!! by loconet · · Score: 1

    Ah, i thought the title said "Animation of Atoms captured"!, I've been looking for a damn link to the animation on the article for the past 10 minutes

    --
    [alk]
  143. imploding research labs vs. total thought control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    At least antimatter, if it gets out, will implement this infamous Hubley proposal for imploding labs to kill everyone involved when dangerous tech goes awry.

    The alternative, "cognotechnology" (actually discussed in that article and weirdly apparently funded by your tax dollars), doesn't seem too promising... otherwise presumably it would be given away free to corporations to fund! ;-D

  144. pour some for your homies! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  145. How do you get rid of antimatter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can hardly put it in the trash bin, now can you? If your experiment produces a few kilos more than you expected ... then you are in for some enlightment.

  146. Stop being so short sighted by webtree · · Score: 1

    Not at our point of contact, but do you know how to make the plutonium atoms from scratch.
    NO! They were formed from the big bang and creation and all that blowing up, crashing, melting stuff.
    We only took an existing highly formed element and modified it into a weapons grade tool.
    So it could very well have taken 10 Megatons of energy over several million million years give or take.

    Could it not....

    --
    "I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
    1. Re:Stop being so short sighted by ahodgson · · Score: 1

      I'm no scientist, but AFAIK all elements heavier than hydrogen are created in stars and during the deaths of stars as part of stellar evolution.

      Hydrogen is the only element thought to have existed shortly after the big bang.

  147. Umm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I believe the proportion of energy expended vs energy stored in antiparticles is something on the order of 10^4.

    Are you really such a preening elitist idiodic fuck that you feel the need to try to appear smarter by saying "10^4" instead of "1000"? Do you really think anyone is going to read your shit and say, "WOW, how baffling and mysterious -- this guy must be a g.d. GENIOUS!"

    Get the hell over yourself, bitch.

    1. Re:Umm... by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      Actually, the source I read put it that way. As for why I try to make my points sound clear, coherent, and informed : I'm trying to get karma, and sometimes I don't have anything really clever to say but want the mod points :).