Slashdot Mirror


Anti-Matter Created By Laser At Livermore

zootropole alerts us to a press release issued today by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, announcing the production of 'billions of particles of anti-matter.' "Take a gold sample the size of the head of a push pin, shoot a laser through it, and suddenly more than 100 billion particles of anti-matter appear. The anti-matter, also known as positrons, shoots out of the target in a cone-shaped plasma 'jet.' This new ability to create a large number of positrons in a small laboratory opens the door to several fresh avenues of anti-matter research, including an understanding of the physics underlying various astrophysical phenomena such as black holes and gamma ray bursts." The press release doesn't characterize the laser used in this experiment, but it may have been this one.

69 of 465 comments (clear)

  1. Hey! by Robin47 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Watch where you point that thing!

    1. Re:Hey! by MarkRose · · Score: 5, Funny

      Don't lase me, bro!

      --
      Be relentless!
  2. Holy Mackerel! by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Does anyone know how much energy this takes? They mentioned the previous petawatt laser experiment that was decommissioned, but I didn't see where it mentioend the power required for this experiment. If the laser guess by kdawson is correct, we could be looking at a mere 400 joules per 1E11 positrons. Which (if I'm not mistaken) would be an unheard of efficiency for creating antimatter! (Can someone verify? My brain is fried at the moment.)

    What I find interesting is that this level of production is competitive with Fermilab. Even if they ran this twice an hour, they'd handily meet or outstrip Fermilab production.

    Even more interesting is the possibility for mass manufacture of antimatter. By using mass-produced gold targets, you could rotate the materials in and out of the machine every few seconds, creating previously unseen amounts of antimatter. Such a process could easily provide materials for an antimatter catalyzed fission drive. Possibly even enough to power new forms of interplanetary propulsion.

    Am I the only one who's getting really excited about this? /dreamer

    1. Re:Holy Mackerel! by theheadlessrabbit · · Score: 3, Funny

      ...Such a process could easily provide materials for an antimatter catalyzed fission drive. Possibly even enough to power new forms of interplanetary propulsion...

      Am I the only one who's getting really excited about this?

      probably. they still haven't been able to crystallize di-lithium yet.

      --
      -I only code in BASIC.-
    2. Re:Holy Mackerel! by FlyByPC · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even more interesting is the possibility for mass manufacture of antimatter. By using mass-produced gold targets, you could rotate the materials in and out of the machine every few seconds, creating previously unseen amounts of antimatter.

      If true, this is the 1940s all over again -- only on a larger scale. A thimbleful of antimatter would make any H-bomb look like a popgun. (...and yeah, I know we're not yet talking about anywhere near that order of magnitude. Yet.) It would certainly help with space exploration -- but we humans can't even be completely trusted with gunpowder and jet airplanes yet. *sigh*

      --
      Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
    3. Re:Holy Mackerel! by magarity · · Score: 3, Funny

      Possibly even enough to power new forms of interplanetary propulsion
       
      Yeah, because NASA (and similar agencies around the world) have whopping piles of cash laying around for this.
       
      Reporter: What's it like to fly the new spaceship?
      Pilot: Like burning a load of gold as fast as I can!
       
      Yeah, and you think the class warfare rhetoric between the rich and poor nations is bad now?!?

    4. Re:Holy Mackerel! by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 4, Funny

      Just use a zpm to power it.

    5. Re:Holy Mackerel! by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why is everyone so hung up on an energy-positive reaction? Antimatter is the ultimate in fuel for space-propulsion as it produces the highest theoretical amount of energy for the least possible mass. (i.e. 100% conversion - losses to nuetrinos that cannot be captured) This plays well into the rocket formula, giving antimatter drives a specific impulse unattainable with other rocket methodologies. In fact, the far-flung future may see c-ships traveling the stars based on matter-antimatter drives.

      What I want verified is not if this process is energy efficient or not. I want to know if this process is several orders of magnitude more efficient than the current Fermilab and CERN processes.

      Sure, you could use the antimatter to fuel some other reaction as you suggested, but then again we already have fission reactors which produce net positive energy.

      Once again, antimatter catalyzation makes the fuel more efficient for its weight and thus plays well into the rocket formula.

    6. Re:Holy Mackerel! by AKAImBatman · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yeah, because NASA (and similar agencies around the world) have whopping piles of cash laying around for this.

      Yeah, research dollars would never fund anything like that. Except when they do.

      Is it really so hard to click through the links? :-/

      FWIW, there are quite a few antimatter engines on the drawing board. They're only missing one key component: Antimatter. And this new technology may be the key to providing it in spades. (Relatively speaking, of course.)

    7. Re:Holy Mackerel! by frieko · · Score: 2, Funny

      Bah!! We can't trust NASA to burn our gold, there's special agencies for dealing with this sorta thing!

    8. Re:Holy Mackerel! by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If true, this is the 1940s all over again -- only on a larger scale

      Not really. We've already done the whole Cold War/Mutually Assured Destruction thing. Our weapons are already far, far larger than we could ever deploy here on Earth. Making them that much bigger only makes them that much more useless. At best, the only real advantage would be that they could be scaled down.

      Until we start looking at warfare on an interplanetary or interstellar scale, our existing nukes and possible antimatter warheads are going to sit in their silos and go unused. Or in the case of antimatter bombs, I simply hope they're not built. The idea of a large-scale antimatter warhead being prevented from detonation by mere magnetic fields maintained by the nearest power plant is not an appealing idea. Just disrupt the power infrastructure for long enough and we'll blow ourselves to kingdom come. :-/

    9. Re:Holy Mackerel! by zippthorne · · Score: 4, Informative

      60e6*1e3 kcal / c^2= 2.8 kg of antimatter will give any H-bomb look like.. uh.. something that's the same size as an H-bomb. H-bombs have been proposed (and postulated to have been built) that are larger than 60 MT, and a pop-gun typically has only a few Joules, so you'd need many orders of magnitude more than 2 kg of antimatter to make an H-bomb look like a pop-gun. something like.. four times the mass of mount Everest, in antimatter.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    10. Re:Holy Mackerel! by Kagura · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Does anyone know how much energy this takes? They mentioned the previous petawatt laser experiment that was decommissioned, but I didn't see where it mentioend the power required for this experiment.

      The great thing about this for spaceflight isn't that it takes a lot or a little to produce antimatter, but rather that the density of usable energy is orders upon orders of magnitude greater than chemical or electric rockets. Denser energy leads to more fuel carried leads to greater delta v leads to semi-relativist flight leads to hate leads to suffering. These can even be used within the atmosphere to launch rockets from the ground easier than you can say "prompt gamma ray output".

    11. Re:Holy Mackerel! by techno-vampire · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's even worse than that. During a panel at LACon II, back in '84, Dr. Robert Forward said that according to the best calculations, if you dropped a lump of anti-matter on the floor, it wouldn't vanish in a flash of gamma rays, it would sizzle like a drop of water on a hot griddle. You see, the anti-matter can only interact with its environment and annihilate on its surface, and there's this little thing called the "cube-square law" that says that very little of it is going to be on the surface.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    12. Re:Holy Mackerel! by Klaus_1250 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      (60e6 * 1e3 kcal) / (c^2) = 2.7931967 grams. That is about a factor 1000 less.

      The largest H-bomb ever build/detonated, the russian Tsar Bomb, was about 50MT, but capable of 100MT. I never heard of anything larger, but is/was there?

      --
      It only takes one man to change the Wisdom of the Crowd to Tyranny of the Masses.
    13. Re:Holy Mackerel! by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Informative

      Nukes have already been used

      Yeah, once. (Twice if you want to be pedantic.) Then never again. The whole point was that the display of force showed that the weapons were too dangerous to use. As long as the various sides have them pointed at each other, no one dares use them.

      The only reason why the Cold War was so terrible was that the USA and the USSR were both waiting for the other to attack. Since neither one liked each other much (for both idealogical and practical reasons) the chance that an armed conflict would happen between the two powers was pretty darn high. Except that an armed conflict might precipitate into a nuclear war should either side feel backed into a corner.

      Thus the reason why the US didn't win Vietnam. The chance of starting a nuclear war was too great to risk pressing the war to a conclusion. Which raised the (very legitimate) question of why we were even in the conflict to begin with.

    14. Re:Holy Mackerel! by AKAImBatman · · Score: 2, Funny

      That would probably be why I said, "i.e. 100% conversion - losses to nuetrinos that cannot be captured". Apologies for mixing in the minus sign rather than spelling it out. As I mentioned previously, it's late and my frain is bried. ;-)

    15. Re:Holy Mackerel! by Rayban · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What would happen if you aerosolized said cube with a small explosive?

      --
      æeee!
    16. Re:Holy Mackerel! by Ann+Coulter · · Score: 4, Informative

      It should be (60e6 * 1e3 kcal) / (2*c^2) = 1.39659835 since the normal matter that will also be annihilated will contribute to the mass-energy conversion.

    17. Re:Holy Mackerel! by Quantum+Jim · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't think this compares with Fermilab. The fine article is talking about creating positrons, not anti-protons. This isn't the first time I've heard about creating positrons from a laser shown upon a gold foil target. Here are two (from 2004 and 2001 respectively) that I just found on Google Scholar describing a result and a theory behind the positron production:

      http://llacolen.ciencias.uchile.cl/~vmunoz/download/papers/wclpp05.pdf
      http://www-project.slac.stanford.edu/lc/local/PolarizedPositrons/doc/ClassicalPapers/B_Shen-J_Meyer-ter-Vehn-PRE65_16405.pdf

      It also isn't very efficient. They make 10^11 positrons per 400 J of energy input. If those positrons react with 10^11 electrons, they produce gamma rays with the energy 2 * (electron mass * (10^11)) * (c^2) = 0.0163742083 joules. Maybe it is more efficient than Fermilab, but that's still not very much. Since these are light positrons - not heavy anti-protons - I don't think these results would be very useful for fusion. Maybe as a source of gamma rays or as a research tool.

      --
      It is impossible to enjoy idling thoroughly unless one has plenty of work to do.
      - Jerome Klapka Jerome
    18. Re:Holy Mackerel! by techno-vampire · · Score: 3, Funny

      Good question. I presume that the reaction would be somewhat more energetic, but nobody thought to ask, and he didn't say.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    19. Re:Holy Mackerel! by techno-vampire · · Score: 5, Informative
      Nuclear devices in the megatons have only been deployed and detonated in a theater of openly declared war twice.

      If you're referring to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you're wrong. Both of those devices were in the kilotons, not megatons.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    20. Re:Holy Mackerel! by Alex+Belits · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Which eventually lead to the solution of bankrupting the USSR. (Something which would have eventually happened anyway, just much slower.)

      Or, to be exact, it didn't happen.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    21. Re:Holy Mackerel! by Whiteox · · Score: 3, Funny

      It wasn't a war, it was a police action.

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    22. Re:Holy Mackerel! by skavenger · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Pedantic? Really?

      To say nukes were only used once or twice is terribly misleading. Nukes were only used in a military capacity twice. Even more accurately, they were only used in a military capacity against strategic targets twice. They've been used for political posturing and military advancement approximately 2,000 times in various settings and with varied payloads.

      This isn't intended to devalue the magnitude of the decision to effectively annihilate large numbers of human populations or suggest that testing is necessarily equivalent, just to remind you that the tactical application of nuclear weapons is not the only undesirable consequence of developing, distributing, and maintaining those weapons. Even unused nukes have serious consequences to the well being of humans and ecosystems in general.

      The display of force in Hiroshima and Nagasaki demonstrated that the weapons were too morally reprehensible to use against human targets. The militarization of the United States and other nations has prevented critical assessment of the relative danger of these weapons from being reflected in policy until fairly recently. Check the graph on that wiki. Does it seem as if people suddenly became aware of the danger of nukes in 1945, or merely their effectiveness? And I'm not even getting into the tailings piles, superfund sites, government payouts to victims of testing, and so on.

      Pedantic? Try having a complete thought before accusing someone of pedantry. There are more things going on here than the dramatic end of people's lives or your fantasies about interstellar warfare.

    23. Re:Holy Mackerel! by JohnFluxx · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I did the calculations for an earlier post:

      If you accelerate at 9.8m/s^2 for half the journey and -9.8m/s^2 for the second half of the journey (so that it's just like earth's gravity) then you would arrive at the planet after:

      1.94 arccosh(n/1.94 + 1) years

      For n=10.5 light years, this gives 4.9 years.

      For other values of distance:
      4.3 ly nearest star 3.6 years
      27 ly Vega 6.6 years
      30,000 ly Center of our galaxy 20 years
      2,000,000 ly Andromeda galaxy 28 years

      (For distances bigger than about a thousand million light years, the formulas given here is inadequate because the universe is expanding. General Relativity would have to be used to work out those cases.)

      So for someone in the rocket, they could arrive at the planet in 4.9 years.

      If you had an 100% efficient engine (using anti-matter/matter), the fuel required would be:

      d Stopping at: M
      4.3 ly Nearest star 38 kg
      27 ly Vega 886 kg
      30,000 ly Center of our galaxy 955,000 tonnes
      2,000,000 ly Andromeda galaxy 4.2 thousand million tonnes

      I find it fascinating that within a human lifetime (for the people in the rocket) we could travel to another galaxy.

      (I'm a theoretical particle physicist)

    24. Re:Holy Mackerel! by NatasRevol · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Twice?

      For the record, we've dropped nuclear bombs on four countries.

      Japan, Spain, US, Greenland.

      Not all of them were on purpose, but that doesn't mean they weren't dropped.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accidents

      Three of the four countries still have radioactive material on the ground from them. And they just couldn't find it in Greenland.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    25. Re:Holy Mackerel! by jshackney · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Which raised the (very legitimate) question of why we were even in the conflict to begin with.

      You should probably start your quest for answers with the French.

    26. Re:Holy Mackerel! by khallow · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're using the wrong calorie. Should be roughly 2.8 kg. Here's the calculation:

      1 ton TNT == 4.184*10^9 J
      mass equivalent m = 60 megatons TNT/c^2 = 2.5104*10^17 J / (9*10^16 m^2/s^2) ~ 2.8 kg.

      It's commonly misunderstood just how much mass in a nuclear bomb is converted to energy.

    27. Re:Holy Mackerel! by clonan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Umm, all the time frames were quoted as from the point of view of the guy on the rocket.

      He never said the rocket was traveling faster than light.

    28. Re:Holy Mackerel! by JohnFluxx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > you didn't account at all for relativistic effects at all.

      It fully takes into account SR effects.

      > A big question is how come you can travel faster than light
      It doesn't. All times as for the people in the spaceship, as I stated. The reason it takes less time is because of time dilation.

      > when you get to Vega everyone who sent you will be long dead.
      Indeed.

    29. Re:Holy Mackerel! by JohnFluxx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Time dilation and distance contraction. This are special relativity effects.

      For the people on earth, the ship takes 4 million years to travel 4 million light years at close to the speed of light. But for people in the rocket, it can be a very short amount of time.

    30. Re:Holy Mackerel! by JohnFluxx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > You left out where the energy to sustain 1 gee is going to come from

      I gave the calculations for the energy/mass required to sustain 1g.

      > Also with \gamma>>50 the blue shifted microwave background is not looking so nice.....

      Shields :-)

  3. doh! by Digitus1337 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Take a gold sample the size of the head of a push pin, shoot a laser through it, and suddenly more than 100 billion particles of anti-matter appear.

    It's so simple, I wish I'd thought of it!

  4. Lasers by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 4, Funny

    Is there anything they can't do?

    --
    Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
    1. Re:Lasers by superdave80 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's even more amazing when you consider that when lasers were first developed, no one thought they would have much practical use. They were "A solution looking for a problem."
      http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/284158_townes.html

      Now, try to imagine modern technology without lasers...

  5. Hot plasma jets! by Dutchmaan · · Score: 4, Funny

    The anti-matter, also known as positrons, shoots out of the target in a cone-shaped plasma 'jet.'

    Apparently, it seems I can create anti-matter from eating too much TacoBell.

  6. All or Nothing by Jheralack · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I always wondered if they could assemble enough anti-matter to perform a Cavendish experiment if it would prove to be repulsive to regular matter gravitationally. I know the current theory doesn't call for it, but hey, that's why we do the experiments. Very symmetrical (in comparison to the electrostatic force equation), and very cool, if it turned out to be true. On the other hand, somebody should stop these fools now. The next thing they will want to do is bottle the stuff, and regular nukes would be toys in comparison.

    1. Re:All or Nothing by maugle · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Oh, that's a fun thought. On the other hand, I don't really see anyone trying to build an antimatter bomb any time soon, since just keeping one on hand would be incredibly risky:

      Something goes wrong storing a nuke: Area sealed off, that particular spot possibly radioactive
      Something goes wrong storing an antimatter bomb: Area vaporized, that particular spot the center of a city-sized crater

  7. Wow PET scans anyone? by Billy+the+Mountain · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This may open the possibility of cheaper PET scans. Currently, the limitation of PET scans is the answer to this question: "How far away is the nearest Cyclotron?" The half life of the radioactive material used in Positron Emission Tomography, typically Flourine-18, is ~110 minutes. With a laser that can generate positrons, you could have a mobile PET scan unit that would only need to rely on being able to connect to the grid.

    BTM

    --
    That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
  8. Science Journalism Critique FAIL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Either that, or he/she just isn't a good writer -- that statement implies that all positrons are anti-matter and all anti-matter is positrons. Only the first statement is true.

    Nice try, but not true. Your argument would be correct if the statement had read "Anti-matter, also know as positrons...", but it does not. Rather the author says "The antimiater, also known as positrons...".

    This sentence only refers to the antimatter created during this experiment. And, near as I can tell, positrons are indeed the only form of antimatter produced in the experiment.

    The lesson here - don't post smug messages denouncing someones incorrect grammar when their grammar is in fact correct. Check your facts.

  9. Wow! by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 2, Funny

    I am hoping that they can produce enough anti-matter to make a weapon of some kind. An anti-matter bomb would be many many thousands of times more powerful than even a hydrogen bomb, and it gives me great hope to think that a bomb that huge would make America even safer than thousands of nuclear warheads already make it.

    Oh wait, that was just me getting into touch with my inner-Teller.

    --
    Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
  10. Where's the boom? by TheBlunderbuss · · Score: 3, Funny

    Where are the anti matter particles now?
    I would think they're touching matter, since they didn't just harmlessly disappear.

    Isn't there supposed to be an enormous explosion when matter and anti-matter meet?
    Or is that fiction? or friction? Or fission? Or fusion? or confusion?

    1. Re:Where's the boom? by compro01 · · Score: 4, Informative

      You are fantastically overestimating how much they made. 100 billion particles seems like a lot, but it's actually only about 9.1x10^-17 grams (91 attograms). You could likely be physically standing right in front of the thing, in the middle of the spray of particles, and not notice anything.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  11. Quick question for anyone with the knowledge by Hojima · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Does anyone know if this might someday lead to antimatter plants? From a special on discovery, I heard that antimatter has a 100% mass to energy conversion, and uranium/plutonium is very expensive to enrich, so using gold for energy wouldn't be too impractical. This would be very exciting research if it does mean cheap energy at that scale with no pollution.

    1. Re:Quick question for anyone with the knowledge by nebaz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No. While antimatter may have a 100% mass to energy conversion, it takes more energy to create it than it gives off.

      --
      Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
    2. Re:Quick question for anyone with the knowledge by CroDragn · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You can't generate a net positive energy source with antimatter. Best you can hope for is to use the antimatter as a form of energy storage (think battery, fuel, etc). Of course, storage problems make it impractical for nearly every use, so don't expect anti-matter cars... ever. Space travel, however, would greatly benefit from a decent means of generating antimatter, since fuel mass trumps most other concerns in that field and anti-matter provides the most thrust/mass of any theoretical substance.

    3. Re:Quick question for anyone with the knowledge by Pr0xY · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't necessarily think you are wrong here, but I have a doubt. The reason why is that you wouldn't necessarily be "gaining" energy if you got more out than you put in, because you are simply releasing the energy of the destroyed mass.

      As long as the energy required to create the positrons is less than MC^2 (and I would imagine it would be) since anti-matter/matter has a approximate 100% mass to energy conversion, then there should be a net "gain".

      Once again, I don't there energy is being "created" here, but more that the energy of the destroy matter is being released.

      Similar to how nuclear bombs can produce many many megatons of explosive power from a small catalyst. That too is just releasing the energy in the mass.

      Now, making anywhere near efficient use of this energy in anything besides an explosion (bomb/rockets) is another and very important issue.

    4. Re:Quick question for anyone with the knowledge by hvm2hvm · · Score: 5, Informative

      They created billions of positrons with a high power laser. The antimass(?) of a positron is the mass of an electron or 9.1E-31. Let's round it up and say we have 1E+12 positrons. Combine them with 1E+12 electrons, you get
      9.1E-31*2E+12*(3E+8)^2=0.018 J.

      Now I'm guessing the laser used is pretty powerful and that it consumes a lot of energy. If we take the specs of the laser linked in the summary, then it used 150J on one pulse which is not the true amount of energy they put into the device (it says it takes 30minutes between pulses at full power). The energy used is thousands or millions of times greater than the energy gained.

      Of course, lasers might not be the most energy efficient way of creating antimatter but that doesn't change the fact that if you want to turn m matter into antimatter you will need at least 2*mc^2 energy (at least that's my intuitive guess).

      Nuclear devices emit huge amount of energy with relatively small energy inputs because the reaction is selfsustaining, something inside the reaction keeps it alive. What you want is something that destabilizes matter and makes it turn into energy by, say, throwing a special particle at neutrons and/or protons. Turning it into antimatter only to collide it with matter afterwards is just a huge waste of energy.

      --
      ics
    5. Re:Quick question for anyone with the knowledge by hvm2hvm · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sorry, the result for the energy should be 0.16J not 0.018J.
      The rest of the post still stands.

      --
      ics
    6. Re:Quick question for anyone with the knowledge by ultranova · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You can't generate a net positive energy source with antimatter.

      Make hydrogen containers with very thin gold walls - or more likely frozen pellets coated with gold. Bombard the gold with a laser, turning the surface layer into antimatter. Antimatter annihilates with the matter below it and creates an explosion, which heats and compresses the hydrogen, igniting a fusion reaction.

      It is, essentially, the equivalent of a fission-initiated fusion, which is proven to work and work well. The difference is that there's no lower bound to the size of an antimatter explosion - even a single electron and positron annihilate - so you can make the explosion be of suitable size for a power plant. And of course annihilation, as the name implies, doesn't leave behind radioactive materials, just gamma rays.

      Besides, Laser Antimatter Fusion is pretty much the epitome of cool ;).

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    7. Re:Quick question for anyone with the knowledge by Gromius · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You produce anti-matter in anti-matter-matter pairs. Ergo your idea can not work.

      I spent a while thinking if you could exploit the W boson which produces anti-matter - matter pairs of different flavour but I couldnt think of a way. Regardless any way which somebody could come up with would give such a small theoretical energy gain that you would almost certainly lose it through efficiency loses.

    8. Re:Quick question for anyone with the knowledge by marcosdumay · · Score: 3, Informative

      "The antimass(?) of a positron..."

      Anti-matter has mass, ordinary mass, just like matter.

    9. Re:Quick question for anyone with the knowledge by sdpuppy · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Yes, this experiment accomplished - converting energy into antimatter

      The point is having the ability to produce lots of these particles in a directed manner, capture and store them for further study.

      Previously the main source for antimatter was certain types of radioactive decay and nuclear reactions.

      (example: if you go to the hospital for PET imaging - they inject you with radioactive material that decays by emitting anti-electrons = positrons)

      If you want something that could potentially produce energy, this is not it - although in studying the process and the particles we might eventually learn how to produce antimatter more efficiently (to store energy) or perhaps even with net gain by inducing some sort of nuclear reaction.

    10. Re:Quick question for anyone with the knowledge by VoidCrow · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Can I have your babies? Or vice versa? Either would be cool.

    11. Re:Quick question for anyone with the knowledge by rubycodez · · Score: 2, Informative

      inertial confinement fusion with deuterium pellets surrounded by gold has already been done, but antimatter isn't a significant part of the fusion process. Even in this article, the amount of antimatter produced is miniscule

    12. Re:Quick question for anyone with the knowledge by Elladan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I heard on TV that an omnipotent sky monkey plans to torture us all in a volcano forever because some woman made out of a guy's rib ate a snack with a talking snake.

      And that was supposed to be an education show!

    13. Re:Quick question for anyone with the knowledge by Deadplant · · Score: 3, Funny

      You need to channel the matter and anti-matter streams through dilithium crystals.

      I think you need to use anti-hydrogen though, not just anti-electrons.

    14. Re:Quick question for anyone with the knowledge by severoon · · Score: 3, Informative

      Wow...reading this thread makes me a bit sad, and I can only hope that all the participants in this conversation up to now were not exclusively schooled in the US. (Sadly, I suspect it is so.)

      Physics is the study of manifestations and transformations of energy. One of the basic laws of physics is that energy is conserved. If you pump so many GeV of energy in the form of coherent radiation into gold atoms, it seems from this article that some fraction of that energy is converted into positrons. When those positrons collide with electrons in equal numbers (as they're sure to do in this universe given even a very short period of time), the matter-antimatter pair annihilate each other and mass is converted back to radiation energy.

      The amount of energy released in this annihilation is equal to the amount used to create the positrons in the first place, which is necessarily less than the energy of the laser light incident on the gold atoms. Some of that incident light is going to be lost knocking electrons off, knocking gold atoms out, heating the gold, getting absorbed and re-emitted as a different frequency of light, etc. We've only been looking at the actual point of energy transformation, too...if we go even further back in the chain, we have to look into the efficiency of the laser itself. Certainly less than 100% of the energy consumed by the device is emitted as a coherent light beam even before we look at how this beam is interacting with the gold.

      So, by definition, antimatter cannot be a first energy source in this universe. Antimatter could be useful as a means of storing a large amount of energy, but not as an ultimate source. (Unless we find a naturally occurring, ready source of antimatter that we can harvest, which would probably require a wormhole to an alternate universe and a means of controlling that wormhole. Uh oh, queue up the Star Trek / Stargate SG-1 nerds...)

      --
      but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
  12. iDebt by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Funny

    Shoot a laser at the 700b bailout money, and see if a surplus appears.
           

  13. Re:Its time by FooAtWFU · · Score: 2, Funny

    That sounds dangerous. I, for one, am not willing to welcome our new robotic overlords! (Or regular human overlords with robot armies). Intel would need to come up with a scheme to keep the robots from harming people. Some sort of set of axioms... rules... laws, even... that would apply to all the robots they made, in order to keep them in line. Otherwise it would never work.

    --
    The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
  14. Re:that's not true, theoretically by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Where? In some natural magnetic field? Even, then... how are you going to extract it?

  15. Not enough anti-sunlight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    > Does anyone know if this might someday lead to antimatter plants?

    Nah, there isn't enough anti-sunlight for them to grow....

  16. Re:that's not true, theoretically by apostrophesemicolon · · Score: 2, Funny

    with a continuum transfunctioner, silly!

  17. Re:Russia by EdIII · · Score: 2, Informative

    it is a representative democracy

    LOL!!! ROFL!! I laughed so hard my drink came out my nose!

    Representative Democracy? In what possibly way could you misconstrue that? The ruling elite (Elites, Politicians, Corporations, Military Industrial Complex) pass laws ALL THE TIME that no American wants.

    The fact that a small percentage of us voted was just the decision being made between a Douche and a Turd Sandwich. Senators and Congressmen create and pass laws and funding measures all the time that only benefit the corporations.

    Who really wanted the Patriot Act? My god, if you press me I can come up with at least 100 (no exaggeration) acts of congress that are appalling, and offensive to the average American.

    No Sir! Politics in America DOES not represent the interests of the American People, and when it *appears* to do so, it is only because it furthers the goals of those in power to keep them in power.

    LOL.

    Citizen participation in politics only occurs when they are under the illusion (delusion really) that they have any meaningful effect on the outcome. You want to have a real meaningful effect? Sink 100 million dollars into a lobbying firm and hope your "bribe" money is better than the competitions.

  18. "Great Heavens! That's a laser!" by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Yes, Dr. Scott. A laser capable of emitting a beam of pure anti-matter." It looks like we can no longer shout back 'Then it's not a laser!' Yes, some of us are old enough to remember going to the Rocky Horror Picture Show before it was a cult classic.

  19. Magnetic containment won't work by Kupfernigk · · Score: 2, Insightful
    You may not have noticed that same-charge particles repel. Otherwise you could create magnetic containment boxes full of ordinary electrons or nuclei. A simple experiment with a school Van Der Graaf generator will quickly show you just how strong that repulsion gets when even a tiny quantity of electrons are persuaded to gather in one place. To get a significant quantity of positrons or anti-protons, you are ideally going to need a large, geologically stable area, some very big metalwork and a huge budget. None of the current examples are terribly portable, in fact one of them extends under two different countries.

    Of course, if you made do with neutral antimatter you could clump it together, but then your magnetic containment won't work.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  20. Re:Science Journalism FAIL by kmac06 · · Score: 2, Informative

    As the other poster mentioned, they would repel each other, but that's not really the end of the answer. If they could be brought close enough together (which they certainly could), they still wouldn't annihilate, because of conservation laws. For one, charge would not be conserved (two positive charges would disappear). Lepton number conservation (think number of electrons conserved) and baryon number conservation (think number of protons conserved) would also be violated. It's for these same sort of conservation laws that negative electrons don't annihilate with positive protons all the time.

  21. Alien Spacecraft Use Element 115 instead of Gold by Junior+Samples · · Score: 2, Funny

    According to Robert Lazar, former Area 51 physicist, element 115 is used as fuel generating antimatter in an Annihilation Reactor which powers the craft. http://www.boblazar.com/closed/index.html

    Details of Annihilation Reactor operation are here: http://www.boblazar.com/closed/reactor.htm