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?"

23 of 475 comments (clear)

  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?

  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.

  3. 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
  4. 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 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

    2. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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'
  7. 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.

  8. 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
  9. 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

  10. 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 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

  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. anti Sb? by Menoyoda · · Score: 5, Funny

    Call it Mony?

  14. 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.

  15. 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....
  16. 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.

  17. 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?

  18. 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