Slashdot Mirror


Scientists Create Di-positronium Molecules

doxology writes "The BBC reports that scientists have been able to create di-positronium molecules. A di-positronium molecule consists of two positronium atoms, exotic atoms which are made from an electron and a positron (the anti-particle of the electron). A potential use of these molecules is to make extremely powerful gamma-ray lasers, possibly on sharks."

42 of 160 comments (clear)

  1. And doxology ruins the whole thread by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hey! You're supposed to let US make the jokes.

    1. Re:And doxology ruins the whole thread by smittyoneeach · · Score: 2, Funny

      doxology: a hymn or form of words containing an ascription of praise to God
      Perhaps you meant:
      d'enouement: The solution of a mystery; issue; outcome.
      Because if we're not about st00p3d jokes, we're about pedantry. ;)

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    2. Re:And doxology ruins the whole thread by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, I didn't make any mistake.

    3. Re:And doxology ruins the whole thread by johnw · · Score: 2, Informative

      The original article was posted by someone called "doxology"!

  2. Not fair! by hcdejong · · Score: 3, Funny

    If you're going to include all the applicable memes in the blurb, there'll be nothing left for us to post about.

    1. Re:Not fair! by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, I for one welcome our new gamma-ray laser wearing shark overlords!

    2. Re:Not fair! by somersault · · Score: 5, Funny

      In Soviet Russia, electron is anti-particle of positron!

      --
      which is totally what she said
    3. Re:Not fair! by jollyreaper · · Score: 2, Funny

      If you're going to include all the applicable memes in the blurb, there'll be nothing left for us to post about. If they can make an anti-oxygen, that means we can have di-positronic monoxide, anti-water! It's got positronolytes, what anti-plants crave.
      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    4. Re:Not fair! by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 3, Informative

      Dude, I know you don't read the article, but you should at least read the summary. Positronium isn't anti-hydrogen; it's an electron and a positron, not a positron and an anti-proton.

      Chris Mattern

    5. Re:Not fair! by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Funny

      Anti plants? Are you nuts? Anti plants do anti photosynthesis. And while glowing oaks might be cool, their carbon emissions are just way too high.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:Not fair! by jollyreaper · · Score: 3, Funny

      Anti plants? Are you nuts? Anti plants do anti photosynthesis. And while glowing oaks might be cool, their carbon emissions are just way too high. Carbon footprints don't matter, my pasta/antepasta reactor will generate all the clean energy we need. Of course, the carb footprint will be a little high but such is the price of progress.
      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    7. Re:Not fair! by jollyreaper · · Score: 3, Funny

      Dude, I know you don't read the article, but you should at least read the summary. Dude, this is slashdot. We're only half-reading the subject lines.
      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    8. Re:Not fair! by Kynmore · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Have you ever seen what happens to a yeti when 12 containers full of unadulterated gamma rays burst in its stomach?"

  3. Someone get Wheaton in here by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 5, Funny

    If ever there was a topic which he could explain it would be this.

    --
    liqbase :: faster than paper
  4. Re:Sharks by TheThiefMaster · · Score: 2, Funny

    No, we've seen the Austin Powers films.

  5. Re:Sharks by y86 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Err.. does anyone else wonder why specifically sharks?


    Dr. Evil: You know, I have one simple request. And that is to have sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads! Now evidently my cycloptic colleague informs me that that cannot be done. Ah, would you remind me what I pay you people for, honestly? Throw me a bone here! What do we have?

    Its an Austin Powers joke. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118655/quotes/
  6. Possibly on sharks? by fgaliegue · · Score: 4, Funny

    From the end of the summary, the very end in fact:

    [...],possibly on sharks Can the author of the news please elaborate? I just don't see how this discovery possibly relates to an undeservedly frowned upon species of fish...

  7. On the good side by Billosaur · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As a result, there is a huge interest in the technology from the military as well as energy researchers who believe the lasers could be used to kick-start nuclear fusion in a reactor.

    Well, I'm not sure if letting the military get their hands on it is such a good thing, but the use to initiate nuclear fusion could be the key to cleaner power for everyone. The hardest part of initiating fusion has been pouring enough energy in to start the reaction and allow it to become self-sustaining. This discovery might lead to technology capable of generating the necessary energy.

    --
    GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
    1. Re:On the good side by ducomputergeek · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It will probably be military funding that carries out the research. After all, we've mastered creating an uncontrolled, none contained fusion reaction: please see Hydrogen Bombs, Thermonuclear Weapons, fission-fusion weapons, etc.. The holy grail in Weapons research is the true 4th Generation Thermonuclear bomb that uses some method to trigger the reaction other than a fission weapon. (Personally I like to call them Fusion bombs because most people don't know the difference between a nuclear and thermonuclear reaction...all they hear is "nuclear")

      And if you can use this technology to jump start a sustainable fusion reaction for power, you can use it as a trigger in a Thermonuclear weapon. And why would the military like such a weapon? Because it gives you all the power of an Atomic weapon without all the nasty radioactive side effects. A pure Fusion bomb releases a burst of X-ray's and Gamma Rays at the initial detonation, but those don't cause fall out. It is possible the Neutron Flux might cause some elements to turn into radio active isotopes, but this is going to be limited. However you still get all the bang from the resulting over pressure wave followed by the Thermo Radiation (Also known as Heat).

      Now you actually have a nuclear weapon that could be deployed tactically, i.e. on the battlefield, without all the baggage of current fission-fusion weapons due to the lack of fallout. Also it would create a bunker buster the ability to destroy bio-chem weapons caches if needed as well. (Not many organisms and chemicals are going to survive that inferno). Again all the bang, none of the radio active fall out problems. So you also then have fusion weapons that will likely be used in combat operations. They would have been useful in places like Tora Bora. (Although the real reason Bin Laden is still alive....the price on his head is what? USD 24M. What is a poor member of the Bin Laden clan worth? $500M? Gee you kill Osama, whether a merc/traitor/or POTUS, you really think there is a place on this planet you can hide from that kind of wealth and power?)

      I hereby await the gasps from the slashdot crowd followed by where I got the physics wrong (Sorry the last Physics class I had was AP over a decade ago, so this is to the best of my remembering/understanding)...

      --
      "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
  8. Can you imagine by ciaohound · · Score: 5, Funny

    what would happen if Scotty reversed the polarity on those?

    --
    Oh, yeah, it's not easy to pad these out to 120 characters.
  9. Re:The State of Science Journalism by jollyreaper · · Score: 2, Funny

    '"It's like having a trickle of water filling up a bath and then you empty it out and you get a big flush," said Dr Cassidy.'

    TFA fails to confirm whether or not this involved a series of tubes. I think we need to explain to our tiny scientist the difference between a tub and a toilet. Someone else will have to explain that French thing that shoots water at yer bum.
    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
  10. Re:Marvel comics... by y86 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sweet, one step closer to me getting gamma-induced powers...HULK SMASH....


    Or cancer.
  11. The "optics" of a gamma laser by Wilson_6500 · · Score: 5, Informative

    A gamma-ray laser would certainly have many applications. Maybe the energy density is so high that it becomes irrelevant, but the problem that jumps out at me is that you really can't refract high-energy photons. About all you can do is stop them. I don't see this type of "laser" being used in most applications where you traditionally think lasers would be useful, since you wouldn't be able to easily focus these beams, guide them in fiber, or anything like that. The most useful thing you could do with this type of laser, I would guess, would be ablation--THAT it should be pretty darn good at.

    Anyhow, it'll be interesting to see the radiometry for these lasers in however many years it'll take for them to be in a position where they can even think about that sort of thing. From that, you can figure out the dosimetry if you were to turn one onto a person. In this situation, a medical linac should be to this sort of thing what a flashlight is to a laser in terms of photon flux. When you're talking about gamma photons instead of visible ones, I imagine you could give someone a pretty serious radiation dose in pretty short order. From a military perspective I don't think that putting that in a hand-held weapon would exactly rival bullets (which are pretty good at disabling people quickly, something that radiation couldn't do reliably barring stupidly high doses over large areas of the brain or GI), especially considering the cost. Putting one on a satellite and blasting ICBMs in orbit, however, could be a very different story--you don't have nearly as much atmosphere to get through, and you ought to be able to put an awful lot more energy in that missile with similar fluxes of gamma photons versus lower-energy photons. The gammas would probably significantly penetrate the housing of the missile, too, which could be good or bad--bad in that it spreads out the heating effect you'd get, good in that you can significantly heat things that are behind a few layers of metal.

    Come to think of it, considering that medical linacs have caused serious burns (and then death from ARS) in the past, turning a gamma laser on someone would probably basically burn right through them--so maybe dosimetry really isn't an issue (for the target--for the operators, on the other hand...)

    Anyhow, that's way in the future. For now, all we have are jokes about sharks that can turn people into the Hulk from ten meters.

    1. Re:The "optics" of a gamma laser by marcosdumay · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Putting one on a satellite and blasting ICBMs in orbit, however, could be a very different story"

      I doubt it. If you can't focus the bean, you don't have much chance of using it at distance.

    2. Re:The "optics" of a gamma laser by Overzeetop · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If it's a laser, you don't need to focus it.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    3. Re:The "optics" of a gamma laser by HaveNoMouth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...but the problem that jumps out at me is that you really can't refract high-energy photons
      Of course you can. All you need is a small black hole.
    4. Re:The "optics" of a gamma laser by Watson+Ladd · · Score: 4, Informative

      You actually can focus gamma rays.

      --
      Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for further development.-- Frontinus, 1st cent. AD
    5. Re:The "optics" of a gamma laser by Alioth · · Score: 3, Informative

      It depends. Not all lasers emit a collimated beam without a lens. For example, laser diodes are highly divergent - something like 30 degrees. To get a nice, narrow traditional laser beam with a laser diode, you need a lens.

      Now the gamma laser may well be highly collimated without any additional focusing. But we don't know that for a laser that's not been built and is only theoretically posssible!

  12. Re:The State of Science Journalism by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Funny

    Whatever, just make sure he knows the difference between the tub and the toilet before you invite him to your next party. Don't ask for details, just trust me on this one.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  13. non-shark-related by sexybomber · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I read the article and I still don't get it. How can these positronium atoms possibly be stable? TFA says that they've "merged an electron and a positron", which is impossible, because when the electron and the positron touch, there's a relatively large explosion.

    So ... one of the particles has to be orbiting the other, like a regular atom. But wouldn't it blow up just the same if, say, a stray cosmic ray or a neutrino or something were to smack the nucleus? IIRC, photons are more like normal matter than antimatter.

    Any particle physicists in the house who want to enlighten us?

    1. Re:non-shark-related by Ecuador · · Score: 4, Informative

      First of all, the electrons orbiting around the atom's nucleus is an atomic model that was valid during the first couple of decades of the 20th century. Our atomic models of the last 80 years are not as simple as that.
      You are right about the electron and the positron being able to annihilate each other (producing a couple of photons IIRC, I guess your "explosion" of radiation). However, you are limited to high school level (particles orbiting each other) and Hollywood level (matter-antimater explosions) physics, but you are getting in quantum physics territory, where the particle-antiparticle annihilation does not exactly happen when the particles "touch". In fact we cannot even say that two particles "touch" in the traditional sense of the word.
      Anyway, without being a particle physicist and without RTFA (leaving for work now), I can tell you that I don't see a reason that a positron-electron pair could not survive for a brief time. Where "brief" in physics is measured in ps or at least ns. When you hear physics news like "we created the xxx exotic particle" they are usually referring to something that existed in their accellerator for a picosecond or so...

      --
      Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    2. Re:non-shark-related by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I am a physicist but not a particle physicist. Electrons and positrons are attracted to each other because one is negatively charged and one is positively charged. When they come together they can form a stable state which is a lot like a hydrogen atom, instead of a proton and an electron you have a positron and electron. The stable state is called "positronium". "Stable" is a relative term here, positronium lasts maybe 100 nanoseconds, which is a "long" time in some sense. After that the electron and positron do annihilate one another. When they do, they produce gamma rays of about 1 MeV. I'm not sure how you would make this into a gamma ray "laser", but you could at least produce gamma rays this way.

  14. Why is this an "atom?" by FiveLights · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "These short-lived, hydrogen-like atoms consist of an electron and a positron, a positively charged antiparticle." I would think that an anti-proton and a positron (anti-electron) would be a "hydrogen-like atom." Why is the mating of an electron and an anti-electron considered an "atom?" And what force is keeping them from just annihilating each other? Why do they hook up and hang out, even for a brief time? I read about this on fark and got confused but came here to ask. So please, smart people of Slashdot, explain this to me.

    1. Re:Why is this an "atom?" by Remus+Shepherd · · Score: 5, Informative

      Calling an electron-positron pair an 'atom' is a bit suspect, but not too bad. Any semi-stable collection of elementary particles can be referred to as an 'atom'. They took the analogy even further, saying that when these 'atoms' met each other they formed 'molecules' -- large, electromagnetically bound accumulations of electron-positron pairs. Kinda cool.

      As for what's keeping them from annihilating each other...well, at first it's angular momentum and the Pauli exclusion principle. Both the electron and the positron are fermions, and they must occupy discrete states. Give the pair enough energy and they will occupy a semi-stable state that does not allow them to contact and destroy each other.

      But before long they *do* annihilate each other. That's why it's called an 'annihilation laser'. The matter-antimatter pair collapses, liberating enormous amounts of energy in the form of gamma rays.

      I think 'matter-antimatter annihilation laser' sounds cooler, but there's a certain mad scientist flavor to the 'gamma ray' bit, too.

      --
      Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
  15. Atoms? by Tyler+Durden · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So positronium is an atom composed of an electron and a positron. Is this then an atom without a nucleus?

    Weird.

    --
    Happy people make bad consumers.
  16. Can they take it to three? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Although dipositronium (Ps2) is considered to be a huge advance, scientists will be disappointed to discover that tripositronium (Ps3) will never be as popular as tungsten-diiodide (WII).

  17. Re:The State of Science Journalism by jollyreaper · · Score: 2, Funny

    Whatever, just make sure he knows the difference between the tub and the toilet before you invite him to your next party. Don't ask for details, just trust me on this one. Not to mention my poor fish tank...
    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
  18. Re:Marvel comics... by Scrameustache · · Score: 4, Funny

    Sweet, one step closer to me getting gamma-induced powers...HULK SMASH....


    Or cancer. I realized long ago that the Marvel universe is identical to our own except for one fundamental detail: In our universe, when a freak accident occurs, people die. In the Marvel universe, they get super big, super strong, and oddly colored.
    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  19. Re:Yeah but.. by GameMaster · · Score: 2, Funny

    Land shark, I mean, Pizza...

    --

    Rules of Conduct:
    #1 - The DM is always right.
    #2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
  20. Re:Marvel comics... by Jeek+Elemental · · Score: 3, Funny

    comics in the marvel universe must be pretty depressing, and short.

  21. Re:Marvel comics... by bentcd · · Score: 2, Funny

    comics in the marvel universe must be pretty depressing, and short. No, I think they're rather drawn out and paneful . . .
    --
    sigs are hazardous to your health
  22. Re:mis-post by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2, Funny

    www.shhhh.com

    dot org

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.