Slashdot Mirror


Design Starting For Matter-Antimatter Collider

couch_warrior writes "The Register is carrying a story on the early design efforts for the next generation of high-energy particle accelerators. They will be linear, and will collide matter and antimatter in the form of electrons and positrons. The obvious question will be: once we have a matter-antimatter reactor, how long till we have warp drive, and will the Vulcans show up for a sneak-peak?"

191 comments

  1. antimatter by byteframe · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Antimatter is like matter, but with an opposite electrical charge.

    1. Re:antimatter by CarpetShark · · Score: 5, Funny

      Antimatter is like matter, but with an opposite electrical charge.

      Kind of like your karma points for that comment ;)

    2. Re:antimatter by PinkyDead · · Score: 1

      Are you lost?

      --
      Genesis 1:32 And God typed :wq!
    3. Re:antimatter by biryokumaru · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I thought it had something to do with time... Like, positrons were electrons going the other way in time, which is why they annihilate when they collide and produce a photon. Really the electron is hitting a photon and turning around in time. Likewise with pair production. Anyone know if this is right? I honestly think that quantum physics book was chock full of lies...

      --
      When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
    4. Re:antimatter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is a theory on antimatter, yes. The mathematics of that system produce certain observed values quite cleanly. As with everything in this field, it's probably not a very firm theory until we experiment more.

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

      and opposite spin...

    6. Re:antimatter by gr8_phk · · Score: 1

      Actually, IIRC Dirac predicted a particle with negative mass. Depending on how you do the math, opposite charge and negative mass can have the same behavior. It is still an open question how gravity affects antimatter, and some folks are trying to figure a way to measure it.

    7. Re:antimatter by Dragonslicer · · Score: 4, Informative

      I thought it had something to do with time... Like, positrons were electrons going the other way in time, which is why they annihilate when they collide and produce a photon. Really the electron is hitting a photon and turning around in time. Likewise with pair production. Anyone know if this is right? I honestly think that quantum physics book was chock full of lies...

      If I remember correctly, that theory comes from Feynman diagrams. It is a pretty interesting theory, and you can get some other very interesting ideas out of it. As with most other aspects of particle physics, how "true" it is can be debated at length, but the mathematics works, which is probably enough for most physicists.

    8. Re:antimatter by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      and opposite spin...

      For sure! I mean, like they're not really annihilating each other, it's just a game they play. It's for the best anyway.

      Anybody remember that poem about when Dr.Edward Teller met Dr.Edward Anti-Teller?

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    9. Re:antimatter by ShadowXOmega · · Score: 1, Informative

      Anti-Matter is like matter, but with a opposite
      property (spin, charge, etc) that nullify between
      them, releasing photons (and neutrinos and
      another fancy particles)

      Actually, you can collide anything vs anything,
      but you need to see the quark composition of the
      particles to try to predict the outcome (pretty
      hard, cause everything will collide vs
      everything, primarly the target ones, next the
      newly formed particles, just with fewer
      interactions...

      from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter

      "In particle physics, antimatter is the extension of the concept of the antiparticle to matter, where antimatter is composed of antiparticles in the same way that normal matter is composed of particles. For example, an antielectron (a positron, an electron with a positive charge) and an antiproton (a proton with a negative charge) could form an antihydrogen atom in the same way that an electron and a proton form a normal matter hydrogen atom. Furthermore, mixing matter and antimatter would lead to the annihilation of both in the same way that mixing antiparticles and particles does, thus giving rise to high-energy photons (gamma rays) or other particleâ"antiparticle pairs."

    10. Re:antimatter by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      No.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    11. Re:antimatter by Tobenisstinky · · Score: 1

      Citation needed

      --
      wha'? where am i?
    12. Re:antimatter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Here's the basic concept: positive-energy antiparticle travelling forwards in time == negative-energy particle travelling backwards in time. Note that in the 'real' world, only positive energies are possible, so we observe both particles and antiparticles with positive energy.

      In a bit more detail:

      The expression for the propagation of the particle contains an oscillating exponential term:

      exp(-i*E*t)

      where E = energy and t = time (hbar is set to 1).

      Using the equivalence I mentioned above, both energy and time are multiplied by -1 for an antiparticle, so we have:

      exp(-i*-E*-t) == exp(-i*E*t)

      - so the net result is the same in reality.

      Feynman diagrams don't show time flow - just 'beginning', 'middle' and 'end'. However all antiparticles are drawn with 'backwards' arrows to reflect the situation described above. Even though in reality they are travelling forwards in time, we can also think of, say, an electron colliding with a photon and then moving away backwards in time, as alluded to in the GP. It's a piece of mathematical trickery or a fundamental underlying truth, take your pick...

    13. Re:antimatter by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Check in LLNL's annual reports, going back to 1944. In none of them will you find a mention by me of knowledge of a poem about Dr. Teller. In fact, if you scour all academic journals, LoC, and wikipedia, you will not find any mention of my knowledge of any poem, outside of J. R. R. Tolkien's Cat . My non-knowledge of poetry about physicists is quite well non-documented.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    14. Re:antimatter by Dishevel · · Score: 2, Funny

      There can be only 1.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    15. Re:antimatter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    16. Re:antimatter by yurtinus · · Score: 2, Funny

      Redundant? No, it was an honest mistake and I really don't think that moderation was fair. It's quite clear he had meant to type "fr1st p0st!!!" but had his hand offset on the home row by one while he was typing. Growing up on Macs which had the little keyboard indicator nubbies under the middle fingers instead of the index fingers, I would frequently type out something in the IRCs and not realize my mistakeuntil I had already told everybody gege tgat;s wgat tiyr nin saud kast buggt!!

      --
      +1 Disagree
    17. Re:antimatter by lewiscr · · Score: 1

      It could explain why we see more matter than anti-matter. We're less than 50% of the way through time. Think of the matter/antimatter ratio as a universal progress bar...

    18. Re:antimatter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      are there any references for this that you could recommend please?

    19. Re:antimatter by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      Yes! Although the citation is sadly, not complete - there was a point where they shook hands and disappeared (presumably to the accompaniment of four quanta of extremely hard radiation).

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    20. Re:antimatter by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      by biryokumaru (822262)

      I thought it had something to do with time... Like, positrons were electrons going the other way in time, which is why they annihilate when they collide and produce a photon. Really the electron is hitting a photon and turning around in time. Likewise with pair production. Anyone know if this is right? I honestly think that quantum physics book was chock full of lies...

      by Dragonslicer (991472)

      If I remember correctly, that theory comes from Feynman diagrams.

      As I recall, there was a half-way serious proposal by Wheeler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Archibald_Wheeler) that the entire electron+positron (+/- photon? I'm not sure) count of the universe was simply one electron ricocheting forward and backward through time, occasionally meeting itself coming/ going, annihilating and spending part of it's voyage as a photon.
      I remember reading it ... in one of Lawrence Krauss' books, perhaps?
      Sorry to be so vague - I made notes ; they're in my PDA ; my PDA won't boot; and the backup is on the server at home, which I won't see for a couple of weeks.
      Ah, Google helps. Search for "Wheeler electron positron "backwards in time" "

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  2. obvious question by JimboFBX · · Score: 4, Funny

    The obvious question will be: once we have a matter-antimatter reactor, how long till we have warp drive, and will the Vulcans show up for a sneak-peak?"

    Maybe in a Star Trek convention...

    1. Re:obvious question by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      Maybe in a Star Trek convention...

      Hey, don't knock it. If the lowly budget of a star trek convention can afford to have anti-matter reactors lying around, then we all can!

    2. Re:obvious question by teej56 · · Score: 1

      Just watch out for the Klingons.

    3. Re:obvious question by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think the Romulans will beat the Vulcans; the Federation uses antimatter, the Romulan warbirds are powered by black holes. The LHC will be online before they even start building the antimatter accellerator.

      I'm amused at what the press is going to be saying when the thing is nearing completion. They worried about Earth being swallowed by mini-black holes generated by the LHC, they'll probably have "Oh noes, antimatter! The whole solar system will blow up!!!" with the antimatter accelerators.

    4. Re:obvious question by DurendalMac · · Score: 1

      Supercollider? I just met her!

    5. Re:obvious question by jack2000 · · Score: 1

      Surak save us from the ignorant!

    6. Re:obvious question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is just so normal to associate every friggin' thing in this world with Star Trek. Such a mystery why so few on this site have any social skills...

  3. ZOMG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Keptin, I'm giving you all she's got!

    1. Re:ZOMG by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      Keptin, I'm giving you all she's got!

      Don't you think that should be her decision, Scotty?

    2. Re:ZOMG by smoker2 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Chekov.

    3. Re:ZOMG by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      Hahhah, right. I thought Scotty's accent had changed :D

    4. Re:ZOMG by BumpyCarrot · · Score: 1

      Err, did you just combine Chekov and Scotty? Slashdot is reduced to slashfic :(

      --
      Do you see what I did there?
  4. Wrong Question by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The obvious question will be: once we have a matter-antimatter reactor, how long till we have warp drive, and will the Vulcans show up for a sneak-peak?"

    Actually, I think the next question would be: "Now how can get some antimatter?"

    It's my understanding that we can only manufacture ridiculously minute quantities of the stuff, and that may take more energy to make than we'll get out of it anyways.

    1. Re:Wrong Question by StrategicIrony · · Score: 3, Insightful

      antimatter is like molecular hydrogen as a fuel for fuel cells. It's more of a storage device of energy than it is a a way to "produce" energy.

      At this point it's terribly inefficient, but theoretically, it could be a viable means of taking an enormous amount of energy and storing it in a small place. :-)

    2. Re:Wrong Question by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 2, Insightful

      At least you don't need to keep electromagnets powered up to store hydrogen...

    3. Re:Wrong Question by 1s44c · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, I think the next question would be: "Now how can get some antimatter?"

      It's my understanding that we can only manufacture ridiculously minute quantities of the stuff, and that may take more energy to make than we'll get out of it anyways.

      It WILL take more energy than we can get out of it. They have to make the positrons first before destroying them.

      The point of this is to see how the particles behave to validate or disprove current theories. This isn't being done to make an unlimited source of energy.

    4. Re:Wrong Question by Archaemic · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you call hundreds of billions ridiculously minute, then maybe.

    5. Re:Wrong Question by religious+freak · · Score: 1

      Actually, I've always wondered about the dilithium crystals. That's what the scientists should be working on finding!

      Now how do we find the crystals in a different star system without having the warp drive to get to that different star system... hmmmmmm

      --
      If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
    6. Re:Wrong Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Tevatron at Fermilab is a proton-antiproton collider. Particle accelerators that collide matter and antimatter are nothing new. The antimatter doesn't have to be stored for this. It is created at the source and injected into the collider ring.

      PET scans are positron emission tomography. It uses radioisotopes that decay via positron emission to image the body. Antimatter can be produced, it's just really hard to store without it crashing into matter and decaying.

    7. Re:Wrong Question by Eivind · · Score: 1

      "may" ?

      Perpetum mobile isn't invensted, and won't be anytime soon. First creating, then using antimatter is always going to give you back less than what you started with.

      Current production-methods aren't just giving "less" they're giving MANY orders of magnitude less. It's a question of using hundreds of megajoules, and get a few joules back. CERN can produce 10^7 atoms of anti-hydrogen a second, for example, this sounds like a lot, but at that rate it'd take them 2 billion years to produce a single gram.

      Offcourse, the longest anyone has managed to store anti-hydrogen is aproximately 20 seconds anyway.

    8. Re:Wrong Question by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, I do call that minute. Positrons (the cheap stuff) costs ~$25 Billion per gram. "Hundreds of billions" of positrons is a few orders of magnitude less than that (to put it mildly).

    9. Re:Wrong Question by BenihanaX · · Score: 1

      Hundreds of billions (1*10^11) IS ridiculously minute, as there are 6*10^23 atoms in just a gram of Hydrogen. To give you some idea of how great a difference that is, Pluto is on average about 6*10^12 meters (not km) from the Sun. Fortunately we don't need that much for the sorts of experiments they'll be doing.

    10. Re:Wrong Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FDTYGUTGYUOHIO

    11. Re:Wrong Question by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Informative

      Oh yeah, I love that news wire article.. it was repeated dozens of times in different magazines and news papers. Unfortunately, no-one has bothered to actually track down a reference to a scholarly publication for it. In fact, there is none, the technique was presented at a conference and no-one has reproduced it.. there's no papers quantifying exactly how much antimatter was made and at what temperatures.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    12. Re:Wrong Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know that Avogadro's number is 6.02*10^23, right?

      "Hundreds of billions" is on the scale of 100,000,000,000 or 10^11. If you had hundreds of billions of hundreds of billions, you would get up to 10^22, or one order of magnitude less than Avogadro's number. If you take 12g of carbon, it is a very small pile of ash. This pile contains approximately Avogadro's number of carbon atoms. In a small pile you can easily hold in your hand.

      So yes, we can create only ridiculously minute amounts of antimatter on a human scale.

    13. Re:Wrong Question by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      First creating, then using antimatter is always going to give you back less than what you started with.

      Car analogy: We don't spend as much energy refining oil as we can get from the gasoline we make from it.

      Assuming we don't find a similarly cheap way to acquire antimatter, I don't see this ever being useful for much except maybe freeing space stations/colonies from dependency on solar panels, and other long-term high-power battery purposes (and nuclear could fill that role more safely).

    14. Re:Wrong Question by Archaemic · · Score: 1

      This is my point. Ridiculously minute is a relative thing here. Sure, 100 billion is a big number. Sure, Avogadro's number is a LOT bigger. However, I don't imagine they'd be needing quite that many particles for what they're doing. But really, I don't know. I'm not a physicist, I'm just speculating. 100 billion seems like a lot of particles to be smashing together in a linear accelerator, though.

    15. Re:Wrong Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Ask for a bulk discount.

    16. Re:Wrong Question by StrategicIrony · · Score: 1

      Dilithium is just two lithium molecules which would be a squishy soft metal that is reactive with water.

      Not much of a "magic antimatter control device" happening there.

    17. Re:Wrong Question by StrategicIrony · · Score: 1

      Anything that produces more energy than it expends is a non-renewable resource. The energy came from somewhere. Ultimately, it was from the sun.

      So... the only real "renewable" energy in a civilization-scale, is fusion (likely only solar fusion), which limits us.

      Any other technology we come up with are merely creative means of "storing" energy, or releasing stored energy (as is the case with fossil fuels).

    18. Re:Wrong Question by Sockatume · · Score: 3, Informative

      Hundreds of billions still ain't a lot when you're talking about nucleons for use as a fuel. When you annihilate it you should get about ten joules, or enough to raise the temperature of a tiny drop of water by a couple of degrees.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    19. Re:Wrong Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the LHC, one bunch of protons contains 10^11 protons. That's 100 trillion, and there are 2208 bunches in the beam at any given time. [numbers off wikipedia]

      100 Billion is ridiculously minute, at least for now.

    20. Re:Wrong Question by SlayerofGods · · Score: 1

      But that doesn't change the fact that if we have to MAKE the antimatter then it is physically impossible to get more energy out of it then we put in to it. Fusion works because there is hydrogen laying around everywhere. Fission works because there's easy to get uranium. Even fossil fuels work because they're already there for us to dig up. Unless we find some way to gather up natural antimatter this won't be useful way to produce energy.

      --

      Technology, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
    21. Re:Wrong Question by shentino · · Score: 1

      hydrogen:antimatter::refrigerator:electromagnet

    22. Re:Wrong Question by ctetc007 · · Score: 1

      It's my understanding that we can only manufacture ridiculously minute quantities of the stuff, and that may take more energy to make than we'll get out of it anyways.

      Given that entropy is always staying the same or increasing, yes it most probably will take more energy to create that antimatter than what we get out of it.

    23. Re:Wrong Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A positron weighs 9 x 10^-28 g
      So, 100 billion of them weigh 9 x10^-17 g
      Which would make them worth 0.000225 cents

      Now suppose you collide them with an equal number of electrons and annihilate them all.
      According to e=mc2, you would get an explosion equal to... 3.9 micrograms of TNT!

    24. Re:Wrong Question by JosKarith · · Score: 1

      But if the fridge shuts down then - barring some hideously stupid design choices - you would probably have enough time to eject it before it went pop...

      --
      'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
    25. Re:Wrong Question by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      Dilithium is actually a gas. I believe if we compressed it enough into a solid it is possible it could form a crystalline structure. But this clearly wouldn't be stable and you couldn't pass it around in bars.

    26. Re:Wrong Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obviously never heard of PET scans of the brain.

    27. Re:Wrong Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes you need to spend energy to create positrons, but you don't need to spend E=mc to 'produce' electrons, but you do get E=mc out of the electron's disintegration. Half the mass already existed, half of it was created with energy input, all of it is burned, assuming equal mass and ignoring practical inefficiencies E(out) = 2xE(in).

    28. Re:Wrong Question by gadget+junkie · · Score: 1

      now where does ludicrous speed enter the question?

      --
      "If a boss demands loyalty, give him integrity. But if he demands integrity, give him loyalty." (John Boyd, 1927-1997)
    29. Re:Wrong Question by carvalhao · · Score: 1

      "and that may take more energy to make than we'll get out of it anyways."

      Fortunately the law of energy conservation still applies in Slashdot

    30. Re:Wrong Question by CarpetShark · · Score: 4, Funny

      Now how can get some antimatter?

      Easy. We can has anticheezeburger. Can removes cheezeburger, put in matter.

    31. Re:Wrong Question by CarpetShark · · Score: 4, Funny

      theoretically, it could be a viable means of taking an enormous amount of energy and storing it in a small place.

      The same effect can be achieved with a swift kick to the nuts.

    32. Re:Wrong Question by CarpetShark · · Score: 2, Funny

      Positrons (the cheap stuff) costs ~$25 Billion per gram.

      Try ebay.

    33. Re:Wrong Question by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      So, can 225 microcents get you 3.9 micrograms of TNT then, or is this uneconomical?

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    34. Re:Wrong Question by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      It's not obvious that the total energy density when you factor in the containment etc. will actually be all that great. Certainly you'd have to have a project which needed some absolutely mind-blowing energy density requirements to justify the cost.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    35. Re:Wrong Question by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      Half the mass already existed, half of it was created with energy input, all of it is burned, assuming equal mass and ignoring practical inefficiencies E(out) = 2xE(in).
      This assumes that there is a way to make antimatter without producing a corresponding ammount of matter at the same time. I was under the impression that all known ways of making antimatter produced pairs of corresponding matter and antimatter particles.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    36. Re:Wrong Question by Tweenk · · Score: 1

      1 ml of air (or any other gas) at ambient conditions contains about 2.69e18 (in other words almost 3 quintillion) molecules. A hundred billions is 1e14, or 26900 times less.

      Also take note that antimatter was produced in the form of positrons. A positron is more than 50000 times lighter than a molecule of nitrogen. So the reported experiment produced 1/1382498600 of the mass of a milliliter of air. And a milliliter of air weighs about 1.3 mg.

      (Of course air also contains other gases than nitrogen but I'm simplifying.)

      --
      Those who would give up liberty to obtain working drivers, deserve neither liberty nor working drivers.
    37. Re:Wrong Question by necro81 · · Score: 1

      So yes, we can create only ridiculously minute amounts of antimatter on a human scale.

      /snorts
      Not according to Dan Brown.

    38. Re:Wrong Question by necro81 · · Score: 1

      As it is in Star Trek, it is a very useful way to produce energy - if you need a tremendous amount of energy in a relatively small space released in a big hurry. It doesn't need to be a net-energy gain in order for it to be useful. The Hiroshima blast was about 13 kilotons of TNT worth of energy. Just how much energy do you think went into making the bomb?

    39. Re:Wrong Question by dissy · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I do call that minute. Positrons (the cheap stuff) costs ~$25 Billion per gram. "Hundreds of billions" of positrons is a few orders of magnitude less than that (to put it mildly).

      That is really strange to read actually.

      I was recently in the hospital and required a PET scan. PET is positron emission tomography, and uses positrons (antimatter electrons) to peek inside the brain.
      The procedure wasn't fast, and was producing decent sized pictures. Implies lots of particles zipping through my body and to their detector and all that, which seems like a lot.
      Granted, a gram of particles is a hell of a lot of particles, and I don't know how much a PET scan produces.

      But that machine seemed to have no problems generating a lot of antimatter, and does so multiple times daily I have no doubt. If the antimatter really cost $25 billion per gram, I would imagine my insurance company and/or hospital bill would have been much more amusing than it actually was at only a couple grand to insurance, and a couple hundred copay from me.

      Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you are wrong or anything (It is right there in wikipedia after all), and I really don't have any knowledge of exactly how PET scans generate their antimatter (Read: I don't work there, just a happy customer) so I assume there is some major difference I am missing..

      But as I said, a gram of particles is a LOT of particles. Very useful work can result from much much much less. The research in the article might not need anywhere near that amount (or cost) of the stuff.

    40. Re:Wrong Question by toppavak · · Score: 1

      At my alma mater we've produced positron beams as intense as 6e8 positrons per second. AFAIK this is the most intense beam ever generated, yet in the low energy case where electron-positron annihilation generates 2 gamma rays at 511keV each, this would only generate a power output of 1.6e-5 watts (and it takes a 1MW reactor to generate that output). So you are correct in asserting that antimatter is currently a very poor potential energy source.

    41. Re:Wrong Question by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Depends on what you're counting. Hundreds of billions of elephants isn't very minute, but hundreds of billions of electrons are.

    42. Re:Wrong Question by JustinOpinion · · Score: 4, Informative

      In a PET scan, the positrons are produced as a by-product of a nuclear decay. Basically a radioactive isotope is injected into the person, and this isotope decays over time, emitting positrons. The isotopes are usually generated on-site using a cyclotron. The number of positrons emitted during a PET scan is not so large (each blip on the detector is a single decay event), and a cyclotron is relatively expensive. Producing positrons in this way might be cheaper (per particle) than producing them in an accelerator. (Similar techniques are used as a scientific probe, e.g. positron annihilation spectroscopy.)

      But quotes for the "free market cost of antimatter" are based on the fantastic costs of generating it in an accelerator. The reason being that radioactive decay is suitable for producing positrons that emit from a substance (in every direction), but is not a viable way of capturing said positrons and using them for anything else. An accelerator, instead, can generate anti-particles and capture them (e.g. using magnetic fields) and "keep" them somewhere (e.g. in a storage ring). Also worth noting is that accelerators can create not just positrons (anti-electrons) but also anti-protons, and even "true antimatter" such as anti-hydrogen (positrons + anti-protons), albeit for a very, very short time.

      So depending what kind of antimatter you want, where you need it, and whether or not you need is stored, the price can vary. But all known methods for producing any sort of antimatter require significant input of effort and energy, and are correspondingly expensive.

    43. Re:Wrong Question by radtea · · Score: 1

      When you annihilate it you should get about three to the minus ten joules

      Fixed that for you. Protons have a mass of 1.7E-27 kg, c = 3E8 m/s, so 2*mc**2 ~ 3E-10 (the factor of two from the anti-proton).

      The article itself is clearly written for an audience of ignorant yobs, and that's fair enough: ignorant yobs need a gateway into the scientific world as much as anyone. But it ain't "news for nerds", because nerds know that matter-anti-matter colliders have been around for decades.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    44. Re:Wrong Question by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't the efficiency in the reaction itself be very close to 100%? Obviously it costs some energy for transporting and storing the matter and antimatter to be used as fuel and other such overhead, but I had thought that the 2p -> e+ + e- -> 2p reaction had practically zero waste energy. It's been a few years since my last physics class, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

    45. Re:Wrong Question by Sockatume · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Per hundred billion, not per proton. Hence "still ain't a lot".

      (I started at about 10^9 eV per proton, times 10^11, converted to joules.)

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    46. Re:Wrong Question by Gudeldar · · Score: 1

      If you could create antimatter at least 50% efficiency and already have the matter to annihilate it with then you will come out with a net energy gain. The problem would be capturing that energy, which IIRC is mostly neutrinos. Also I'm willing to bet the efficiencies are much lower than 50%.

    47. Re:Wrong Question by Shadowmist · · Score: 1

      You don't have your science straight. Existing weapons have the fuel already available for it, uranium you dig out of the ground, Deuterium and Tritium you siphon out of existing water. Antimatter however is not something that you find in nature... for rather obvious reasons. The only way to make it in physics is to convert Energy into matter which gives you antimatter and matter in equal proportions. Now mind you we're talking a HUGE amount of energy here. So you have to generate all that energy somehow to start with before being able to crank out antimatter. Not to mention there's also the SAFETY issue. Right now antimatter is only made on the molecular scale and basically spends it's short period of time orbiting in a collider before being used as an experiment. Actual macro levels of antimatter would be a serious containment issue and never a material that could be treated so casually that you'd just hand some off to some overly bright Ensign in training for use in a school science project. Upshot... it sounds nice on '60's television but has no practical place for any real engineering use. Nor does lugging around mini black holes for that matter.

    48. Re:Wrong Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is "crystals" It doesn't make sense. How do you differentiate the di-lithium crystals from lithium crystals by lattice structure?

    49. Re:Wrong Question by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      But make sure to check the seller's rating first.

    50. Re:Wrong Question by necro81 · · Score: 1

      My point with the Hiroshima bomb is that the nuclear fuels used have enormous sunk energy costs in mining, refining, enriching, and shaping them into the final weapon. Thirteen kilotons of TNT is the energy equivalent of 15 gigawatt-hours, or a couple thousand gallons of gasoline. How much fuel did the Enola Gay use to deliver the bomb, how much for the Indianapolis to transport it across the Pacific, how much electrical energy to enrich the uranium at Oak Ridge? Overall, orders of magnitude more energy went into the production of that weapon than was actually released by it. But all that energy couldn't be delivered in a compact blow like you get with a nuclear weapon, so, bombs away!

      But getting back to the Star Trek - yes, you need to produce antimatter, and doing so takes a lot more energy than you can recapture from it. But so what? The same could be said for the cryogenic fuels used in rockets and spacecraft. The reason why they get used is because their energy content is much more available and in a more useful form than all the energy that went into producing them.

      By extension, no one serious about the subject considers hydrogen to be an energy source. It can't be mined from the atmosphere or ocean; it must be chemically extracted using yet more energy. It is a fuel, a material means to transport energy in a way that makes (some) sense, even if energy is lost along the way. The same would be true of the anti-matter in Star Trek. It's not the ultimate source of energy, just a carrier of it.

      As for safety, I will definitely conceed that it's difficult, probably intractable. Figuring out a containment method that can fail safely and gracefully is the trickiest bit. But, who knows, that might be a well-established technology by the (real) 24th century.

    51. Re:Wrong Question by Big+Boss · · Score: 1

      Negative review: Seller packaged the item poorly and the containment battery seems to be damag@!%!#&^* .... NO CARRIER

    52. Re:Wrong Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bah! How hard could it be? Take a hydrogen atom and turn it upside down so it's spinning the opposite way!

    53. Re:Wrong Question by damien_kane · · Score: 1

      now where does ludicrous speed enter the question?

      When he has to fight the ticket in court.
      I'm not sure what that has to do with the LHC or CLIC, though.

    54. Re:Wrong Question by damien_kane · · Score: 1

      How much energy was expended at the big bang when the uranium was formed? Or possibly during the shifting and swelling of the Earth's core, if the unranium was created there.
      The point is that although we may not have expended the energy ourselves to create the unranium, plutonium, or whatever we use in any given nuclear weapon, at some point within the history of time there was a great deal of energy expended in the creation of the particular isotope that we're pulling all of the energy from.
      Similarly with fossil fuels, there's a lot of energy from the age of the dinosaurs that was used in making the oil and natural gas we use today, from the fusion reaction in our sun causing photosynthesis in prehistoric plants, to the dinosaurs that ate those plants, to the dinosaurs that ate those dinosaurs; All of that is the organic material which was crushed and melted and burned to create the oil that lays dormant in the ground today.

      It's not as simple as "Oh look, Uranium... We can make free energy now..."

    55. Re:Wrong Question by dissy · · Score: 1

      Basically a radioactive isotope is injected into the person, and this isotope decays over time, emitting positrons. The isotopes are usually generated on-site using a cyclotron. The number of positrons emitted during a PET scan is not so large (each blip on the detector is a single decay event), and a cyclotron is relatively expensive.

      Thank you, that puts a lot of the experience into perspective. I was previously under the incorrect assumption that the machine itself generated the positrons, when they were in the injection before the scan.

      I figured the amount of particles needed for a scan was no where near a gram worth (Not for a single scan anyway.. probably over the machines lifetime you could get closer, but like I said, a gram is a hell of a lot of particles!)

      I see from your wiki link:
      Cyclotron beams can be used to bombard other atoms to produce short-lived positron-emitting isotopes suitable for PET imaging.

      That alone would imply those particular short lived isotopes would not be much use to the type of research the article is referring to, so would rule out any price difference between this method and a larger accelerator.

      (This part is not directed at you, just the GP/GGP etc.)

      I still don't understand why everyone is saying none of these methods would work at all however, simply because it costs energy to create them.
      Maybe if a surplus of energy was the goal, I could see the relation.
      I would imagine this research might even be helpful for such a goal, but this research is for figuring out the particles interactions, not for making energy.
      The extra energy needed to produce the particles is just a 'cost' no different than the rest of the hardware for the experiment.

      It is also a tad upsetting to see my reasonably stated observation and question gets modded troll and off topic, yet the answer in reply gets modded up, when they are the exact same topic. :/
      Why on earth would people with no interest in how the world around them works even want to read a site like slashdot?

    56. Re:Wrong Question by sarahbau · · Score: 1

      The reaction itself would be close to 100%, but there would probably be some loss in harnessing the energy, and if I remember correctly, creating antimatter, or at least our current methods, only captures a very small portion of the particles created. So at best it would still be wasting a lot of energy.

    57. Re:Wrong Question by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I figured that there would be lost energy in a few places, but I'm assuming that the efficiency in the generation stage would improve over time. With enough engineering and technological advancement, matter/antimatter annihilation should eventually be more efficient than just about any energy storage method we have now.

    58. Re:Wrong Question by Knara · · Score: 1

      I always figured that "dilithium" was just shorthand for some sort of more complex formulation for the crystal compounds. At least, that sort of retcon made old Star Trek (i.e. pre-DS9) work well enough in my mind.

    59. Re:Wrong Question by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      That's a cool picture of physicist Hui Chen. She looks like Cyclops from the X-Men.

    60. Re:Wrong Question by netruner · · Score: 1

      And how long before some dumbass makes an antimatter bomb - and then we have antimatter antiproliferation treaties and the UN has to put together a watchdog group and the whole thing goes to hell in a handbasket.

      Next we'll be having to worry about terrorists getting their hands on antimatter - remember, some of these morons don't have an escape plan.

      --



      DISCLAIMER: This post was not checked for speling and grammar- if you complain- you're a whiner
    61. Re:Wrong Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fact, the details of the research you are referring to was published a few months later in Physical Review Letters. Check out the article "Relativistic Positron Creation Using Ultraintense Short Pulse Lasers", H. Chen, et. al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 105001 (issue of 13 March 2009.) In addition, the experiment was subsequently repeated on a different laser (with more energy) at the Laboratory for Laser Energetics at the University of Rochester, where an order of magnitude more positrons were observed.

    62. Re:Wrong Question by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      Well, you may find a cheaper up front price, but you'll get gouged on the shipping.

      --
      +1 Disagree
    63. Re:Wrong Question by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      Instead of chair package contained anti-bobcat... Would not buy again.

      --
      +1 Disagree
    64. Re:Wrong Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      now where does ludicrous speed enter the question?

      Right between ridiculous speed and plaid of course.

    65. Re:Wrong Question by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > And how long before some dumbass makes an antimatter bomb...

      A hundred years or so, I would guess.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    66. Re:Wrong Question by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      But I have heard that the growth is exponential just like fusion reactors to make it with. So I don't think we have that to worry about for a while unless the military wants to build antimatter weapons or something.

      Also, it might be possible to find it, instead of making it. Just an idea.

    67. Re:Wrong Question by Spectre · · Score: 1

      I do NOT want to be on your research team.

      --
      "Flame away, I wear asbestos underwear"
    68. Re:Wrong Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, it's not like it's the most expensive material on the planet or anything..... oh, wait.

    69. Re:Wrong Question by mengel · · Score: 1
      Actually, you don't have to keep electromagets powered up to store antimatter, either. The "Recycler Ring" here at Fermilab stores antimatter with a fixed-magnet ring. The magnets just keep those antiprotons turning around the ring. From http://www.fnal.gov/pub/ferminews/ferminews00-12-15/p3.html:

      The eighth-largest particle machine ever built, the Recycler is the only one of its kind. While its cousins accelerate particles to higher and higher energies, the Recycler will store and condense antiproton beams, keeping the beam energy at a steady 8 GeV. This fundamental difference allowed physicists Gerry Jackson and Bill Foster to propose the use of permanent magnets, and the Recycler ranks as the world's largest assembly of permanent magnets.

      And yes, that is the Bill Foster who is now our Congressman...

      --
      - "History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men" -- Blue Oyster Cult, 'Godzilla'
    70. Re:Wrong Question by lennier · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've always thought the logical solution to space energy needs would be:

      1. Built cluster of giant solar-powered accelerators in close solar orbit, say around Mercury
      2. Automatically refine positrons and antiprotons into cryogenic antihydrogen
      3. Figure out some way of diamagnetic containment using a really strong magnetic field.
      4. Ship tanks of the devil's brew to the outer system
      5. Mix antihydrogen and real hydrogen to make a crude but energetic brute-force rocket. Maybe 1 part anti-H2 to 1000 H2 or something, so you get enough reaction mass. Otherwise it'll all be just gamma rays. That's just a small matter of engineering, anyway.

      6. Explore strange new worlds! Profit from new lifeforms! And if your power supply ever glitches: kablooey! Not much use for lifeboats.

      Look it would make space travel EXCITING and that's the important bit, right?

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    71. Re:Wrong Question by metaforest · · Score: 1

      Every fuel we have developed is stored stellar energy. Period. It all comes from stellar fusion. Period.
      Even our current fusion experiments (D,T, and He variants) and reactor designs are not likely to ever produce useful H + H fusion, let alone higher order fusion of heaver elements. In short, we aren't going to be emulating stellar fusion processes for hundreds of years, if ever.

      Understanding anti-matter reactions might be useful. Using it as an energy storage medium is not likely to be useful here on earth, and it is far more dangerous than fission. However if safely creating, storing and 'burning' few 100 KWH ever becomes competitive with chemical batteries it might be worthwhile. We have a long way to go on that front.

    72. Re:Wrong Question by camazotz · · Score: 1

      That's only going to hurt the early adopters. By 2080, we'll all be carrying $10 portable anti-matter magnetic bottles around to power our neurosynthetic iBrains.

    73. Re:Wrong Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The obvious answer is to ask the matter to capture some antimatter and package it so we humans can handle it?

    74. Re:Wrong Question by khallow · · Score: 1

      If you call hundreds of billions ridiculously minute

      You should. For example, a hundred billion anti-protons is almost 2 tenths of a picogram.

  5. Matter / anti matter reactor is not enough by ivan_w · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Unfortunately, a matter/anti matter reactor is not enough to create an Alcubierre drive.. We still need some Exotic Matter.. And a lot of it..

    So .. go back to sleep.. nothing to see here..

    --Ivan

    1. Re:Matter / anti matter reactor is not enough by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm waiting for ZPMs

    2. Re:Matter / anti matter reactor is not enough by ivan_w · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ZPMs (Zero Point Modules) still won't cut it..

      a ZPM (the SG-1/SGA fictuous device) that's suppose to drain energy from empty space is still a device that (supposedly) gets you free regular energy.. no Exotic matter here.. sorry

      --Ivan

    3. Re:Matter / anti matter reactor is not enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      What you are looking for is matter with negative mass.

      Sadly, this is impossible: Graviton (mediates inertia) and Higgs (mediates mass) particles are their own antiparticles, similar to Photon (mediates electromagnetism). (At least as postulated by current physics)

      You therefor cannot have negative mass any more than you can have "Anti-light."

      What you MIGHT be able to do is create a condition where Higgs or Graviton particles/waves are naturally disrupted, or self-interfering in such a fashion as to give an object unusual properties. (Like entangling a beam of photons with itself so that it causes beam scattering like in traditional holographic imaging, only with gravitational energy, to produce a "gravity hologram".) But to do that you would need to know MUCH more about the particles/waves in question, which we don't.

    4. Re:Matter / anti matter reactor is not enough by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      This isn't a reactor, it's a research collider. As you point out, antimatter engines are way off and warp drive itself is, in practical terms, still a load of bollocks. It's not even clear that an Alcubierre drive could operate at FTL: certainly naturally-existing warpings of space and time (gravity) have never been seen to break relativity.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    5. Re:Matter / anti matter reactor is not enough by slack_justyb · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, a matter/anti matter reactor is not enough to create an Alcubierre drive

      Hell the reaction that they are carrying out yields in the best of times about 500 KeV * 2 (two, due to laws about linear momentum and energy) per reaction. Say we have about million reactions (a million electrons annihilating a million positrons) That only yields somewhere around 7 to 8 x 10^-8 joules * 2 of energy. Hell, I can't even remember what the resulting particle would be in this case so I'm going to just guess it is a photon, really high energy photon so I'm guessing a gamma ray.

      Point being the reaction falls incredibly shy of even powering a light bulb at a million reactions. One hour of a 60 watt bulb = 60 * 36000 = 216000 joules. In fact that is like (2 or 3 * 10^18) / 2 reactions needed just to power one light bulb for one hour.

      I think we've got a way to go before we even use this method for any kind of drive. Also, I'm not even sure that my numbers or my physics are correct. I'm thinking that they are but I'm still waking up, anyone care to chime in?

    6. Re:Matter / anti matter reactor is not enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God, I hate to be /that guy/, but... no. A ZPM doesn't drain energy from empty space, and it doesn't get you free energy. It contains an alternate dimension with a very small universe inside it, purpose built for that specific ZPM, and drains energy from the alternate universe. It's more like a really high capacity battery than a power source.

    7. Re:Matter / anti matter reactor is not enough by adavies42 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, a matter/anti matter reactor is not enough to create an Alcubierre drive.. We still need some Exotic Matter.. And a lot of it..

      Actually, there's a modification to the original version that requires only a few milligrams of exotic matter. Of course, that's still infinitely more than we currently know how to make....

      P.S.: Props to whoever named the footnote anchors on that page after Star Trek captains.

      --
      Media that can be recorded and distributed can be recorded and distributed.
      -kfg
  6. Duh! by andre.david · · Score: 5, Informative

    There's a matter-antimatter collider in production since the 1990's. It's called the Tevatron, it collides protons with antiprotons and it is in Illinois.

    1. Re:Duh! by 1s44c · · Score: 1

      There's a matter-antimatter collider in production since the 1990's. It's called the Tevatron, it collides protons with antiprotons and it is in Illinois.

      And this one is bigger and more powerful. Lets just hope it doesn't come with a 'Designed for windows 7' sticker on the side though.

    2. Re:Duh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or LEP at CERN, or PEP at SLAC. Controlled matter-anti-matter collision is old news.

    3. Re:Duh! by andre.david · · Score: 1

      There's a matter-antimatter collider in production since the 1990's. It's called the Tevatron, it collides protons with antiprotons and it is in Illinois.

      And this one is bigger and more powerful. Lets just hope it doesn't come with a 'Designed for windows 7' sticker on the side though.

      Actually, not really. Neither future linear colliders are expected to have collisions with more than a factor of 2 to 3 more energy than the Tevatron.

    4. Re:Duh! by Gromius · · Score: 4, Informative

      And just to add to this. All particle colliders are mater-antimatter colliders, it just doesnt work otherwise (charge conservation) Thats right, every single particle collider where you are annihilating the particle is matter-antimatter.

      Now before somebody says, but the LHC is proton-proton, you suck, the LHC is actually a quark-anti quark or gluon-gluon collider. Protons are not just 3 quarks, due to the strong interaction there is also a sea of gluons and quark-anti quark pairs which carry the momentum of the proton. At the energies of the LHC, this sea becomes important.

      The article is terrible and horribly confused. Reads like something from the Sun (a gutter British newspaper for non Brits).

    5. Re:Duh! by qc_dk · · Score: 1

      There's a matter-antimatter collider in production since the 1990's. It's called the Tevatron, it collides protons with antiprotons and it is in Illinois.

      And this one is bigger and more powerful. Lets just hope it doesn't come with a 'Designed for windows 7' sticker on the side though.

      Actually, not really. Neither future linear colliders are expected to have collisions with more than a factor of 2 to 3 more energy than the Tevatron.

      How is that not more powerful?

    6. Re:Duh! by qc_dk · · Score: 1

      There's a matter-antimatter collider in production since the 1990's. It's called the Tevatron, it collides protons with antiprotons and it is in Illinois.

      And this one is bigger and more powerful. Lets just hope it doesn't come with a 'Designed for windows 7' sticker on the side though.

      Actually, not really. Neither future linear colliders are expected to have collisions with more than a factor of 2 to 3 more energy than the Tevatron.

      How is this not more powerful?

    7. Re:Duh! by invisiblerhino · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You're absolutely right. To jump on the bandwagon, there's been one since at least the seventies, when CERN modified the Super Proton Synchrotron to be a Super Proton-Antiproton Synchrotron. In the meantime, HERA at DESY collided protons and positrons for years... I don't know the history, so not sure when the first one was. In any case, this is definitely not news. The most interesting things about the forthcoming colliders is not whether they use antimatter: to quote Gerard 't Hooft's replies to physics cranks: "Antimatter is routine, and time travel is impossible." The most interesting thing is what they will discover. Additionally, the article totally misses the point. For some reason, they've latched on to a fairly technical accelerator physics topic. CLIC is not proposed to be built any time in the near future (look out for the International Linear Collider first), and wakefields are a purely electromagnetic effect, nothing to do with space and time warping. They are interesting in themselves, and as a possible future accelerator design (google wakefield accelerator).

      --
      xterm -n 8
    8. Re:Duh! by andre.david · · Score: 1

      Hmm... Power equals energy per unit time. Hence more energy only equates to more power if the time is the same or shorter ;)

      To put things in perspective the LEP to Tevatron energy jump was a factor 9.8 and from the Tevatron to the LHC a factor 3.6, for a total factor 35 from LEP to LHC.

      So, all in all, future linear colliders are not even going to exceed the LHC top energy and will only be a couple of times more energetic than the Tevatron.

    9. Re:Duh! by andre.david · · Score: 1

      ssshhhh...

      If you start telling people there is a sea of antimatter inside all matter, they'll panic and annihilate!

    10. Re:Duh! by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

      Yes, and much short-lived antimatter (and anti-neutrinos) is created all the time in natural processes. Antimatter is not really a big deal for physicists - even if it gets the Trekkies hot at the mere mention of it. Doing matter-antimatter collisions directly is useful though, as you don't have to wade through the other types of events to get the ones of interest.

    11. Re:Duh! by andre.david · · Score: 1

      Doing matter-antimatter collisions directly is useful though, as you don't have to wade through the other types of events to get the ones of interest.

      Though that is true, some of these collisions, like electron-positron are limited as to their outcomes, since there are restrictions on the possible quantum combinations that can be produced from such collisions.

      This is why hadronic machines are discovery machines (more possibilities but more mess) and leptonic machines precision machines (fewer possibilities fewer useless stuff).

    12. Re:Duh! by SomnusAlpha · · Score: 1

      Also there was SLAC http://www.slac.stanford.edu/ and LEP http://hepwww.rl.ac.uk/public/bigbang/file9.html which were electron-positron colliders

    13. Re:Duh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There have been matter-antimatter colliders since the sixties

      AdA Frascati, Italy; Orsay, France 1961-1964

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accelerators_in_particle_physics#Electron-positron_colliders

    14. Re:Duh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And LEP, the former CERN accelerator; LEP stands for Large Electron Positron Collider.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Electronâ"Positron_Collider

    15. Re:Duh! by Rising+Ape · · Score: 1

      I imagine you could conceivably have an e- e- collider too, but given that a) the need for a higher order electromagnetic process would suppress the production cross sections considerably and b) positrons are easy to get hold of compared to antiprotons, then there isn't much point.

      These fancy new e+ e- colliders are all very well anyway, but I love the idea of a muon collider - gets round the pesky synchrotron radiation losses associated with circular electron colliders like LEP. Downside - muons only live for about 2 microseconds in their rest frame. Oh well. With time dilation though, that should be enough to do a fair few laps of the collider.

    16. Re:Duh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, yes you do; the only difference is that the LHC is dominated by gluon-gluon processes and Tevatron is dominated by quark-antiquark processes. You still deal with a ton of the same backgrounds in both cases, ie anything that can be created by the strong force.

      Lepton collisions (electrons and positrons) allow you to cut down on background events so that it's easier to find events of interest. Since leptons don't interact via the strong force, you have much cleaner signals.

    17. Re:Duh! by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Nice explaination, but don't tell your readers they "suck" for not understanding quantum chromodynamics, smartass.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    18. Re:Duh! by Helge+Hafting · · Score: 1

      Accelerating anything charged will get you that synchronous radiation. Electrons, muons or protons. Now, there are neutral muons that don't have this problem, but how would you accelerate those? They don't respond to the electromagnetic forces used to accelerate charged particles . . .

    19. Re:Duh! by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      I heard that relatively small colliders were likely going to pass the LHC's top energy using a waveform collapsing technique. Or did that turn out to be bogus?

    20. Re:Duh! by Rising+Ape · · Score: 1

      Yes, but muons are ~200x heavier than electrons, so the total energy at a given relativistic gamma is 200x larger. Since synchrotron radiation is directly dependent on gamma, not energy or mass, the energy achievable is much larger.

      This is why LEP was limited by synchrotron radiation at ~ 200 GeV but the LHC can do 14000 GeV and has small synchrotron radiation losses even at that energy - protons are about 1800 times heavier than electrons.

    21. Re:Duh! by dkf · · Score: 1

      I heard that relatively small colliders were likely going to pass the LHC's top energy using a waveform collapsing technique. Or did that turn out to be bogus?

      As I understand it (IANAPP) it's not bogus, but it's very difficult to do. It's also much more difficult to use that technique (plasma wakefield acceleration, according to wikipedia) to accelerate antimatter since creating an anti-matter plasma is stupidly difficult anyway, so it's better suited for accelerators that use a stationary target.

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    22. Re:Duh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice explaination, but don't tell your readers they "suck" for not understanding quantum chromodynamics, smartass.

      He wasn't telling his readers that. He was telling those who would claim otherwise about colliders.

      So he was pretty much saying "If you start talking about stuff you don't understand as if you knew something about it, you suck"

    23. Re:Duh! by Gromius · · Score: 1

      My appologies, it came out wrong. I meant before somebody says to me "but the LHC is proton-proton, you suck". It was a slight tongue in cheek reference to the usual level of slashdot responses by people who know nothing about which they are talking about :)

    24. Re:Duh! by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      He's also telling it to readers who innocently carry that misconception in their heads.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    25. Re:Duh! by torako · · Score: 1

      There are no neutral muons. The energy loss due to synchrotron radiaten is only a problem with electrons, the larger mass of the muons pretty much completely takes care of the problem. The radiation loss due to synchrotron radiation is negligible for muons.

    26. Re:Duh! by Late+Adopter · · Score: 1

      You're right, of course. But to add, there are q-q T-channel gluon exchanges that contribute to the QCD background at the LHC.

    27. Re:Duh! by Late+Adopter · · Score: 1

      It's more powerful than the Tevatron, but not more powerful than the LHC, which is strictly speaking true. But one of the improvements in going to an e+e- machine is greater availability of the power that is there. The energy in a hadron that becomes available in a collision is distributed along its "parton distribution function", while the rest remains with the "proton debris". Since an electron is (at all explored energy scales so far) a point particle, you get all the energy, every collision (minus some initial and final state radiation).

      Also, in addition to greater rates to tape for those energies, the physics results have less systematic uncertainty in them, since you don't have to involve a PDF in the calculation.

      And then this is a linear collider, unlike the Tevatron and the LHC (and HERA and LEP), so you could polarize the beam to a much stronger degree if you really wanted to.

    28. Re:Duh! by Late+Adopter · · Score: 1

      Energy losses from synchrotron radiation are suppressed by a factor of mass ^ 4. Muons would be fine, since they're about 200 times heavier than electrons.

    29. Re:Duh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, there have been particle/antiparticle colliders since the 60's. (list) TFA is just retarded.

    30. Re:Duh! by Luyseyal · · Score: 1

      The article is terrible and horribly confused. Reads like something from the Sun (a gutter British newspaper for non Brits).

      Agreed, and did you see this article in the right sidebar? Swedish Lesbians Suck Sperm Banks Dry. Your "The Sun" comparison is right on.

      -l

      --
      Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
    31. Re:Duh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, I'm nearly speechless. That actually sounded intelligent, but as someone who works at a cyclotron, I'm shocked that you believe that.

      You seem to not realize the difference between collisions and annihilations.

      You seem to have read up on things but have misunderstood a lot of it, I suggest you head to your local physics department.

    32. Re:Duh! by Gromius · · Score: 1

      See its this exact type smart arse reply that degenerates slashdot so. Explain what is incorrect rather than making anonymous side remarks. I'm only talking about colliders which annhilate their particles, eg LHC, Tevatron, LEP, CLIC, ILC which are type of particle colliders associated with particle physics. Sure you you have cyclotrons but I dont really consider them particle physics and not really in the scope of colliders like this article was talking about.

    33. Re:Duh! by kmac06 · · Score: 1

      Now before somebody says, but the LHC is proton-proton, you suck,

      The LHC is proton-proton (or really atom-atom). I don't suck. It's not about the particles annihilating, its about them colliding and releasing a huge amount of energy. That energy has to go somewhere, and it goes to producing particles (often matter-antimatter, and those then annihilate (or more often just decay)). Like another poster said, you know enough to sound intelligent, but you're still wrong.

      From another post of yours:

      My appologies, it came out wrong. I meant before somebody says to me "but the LHC is proton-proton, you suck". It was a slight tongue in cheek reference to the usual level of slashdot responses by people who know nothing about which they are talking about :)

      So people like you! You suck ;)

  7. uninformend ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There was a Particle-AntiParticle accelerator already running for years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Electron-Positron_Collider
    and there currently is another one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tevatron and there were some more I'm to lazy to look up.
    The only new thing is the planned Center-of-Mass-Energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity) of hopefully around 1 Tev (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TeV) which forces the design to a linear collider (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_particle_accelerator) due to Bremsstrahlung (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremsstrahlung).

    So if you want a Warp drive or Vulcans you will have to continue sitting in front of your TV-Set but hey I like this much more then having to
    cope with security personal standing on every corner in my city.

  8. How Depressing by DynaSoar · · Score: 1

    The +/- designs are last gen ^ X, not next gen. If The Register followed the history details closely, a good number of computer startups came from a club that met at SLAC, the Stanford Linear Accelerator. Yes, the design is that old and older.

    As for the 'obvious question', if the supposedly obligatory SF reference comes out sounding like so much shite, leave it out, OK?

    Between these two details, TFA could have predated /. by a decade.

    --
    "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
    1. Re:How Depressing by CaseCrash · · Score: 1

      Between these two details, TFA could have predated /. by a decade.

      sweet, so slashdot's catching up then

      --
      No, that link you posted to a web comic we've all seen a hundred times is not "obligatory."
  9. Hello Computer! by ZuchinniOne · · Score: 1

    They should be OK as long as they don't use any of those damned Klingon Crystals. Otherwise they'll need access to the nuclear wessels.

  10. Matter-Antimatter isnt new by Zorpheus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There were already some electron-positron colliders, the LEP for example. I think the new thing about this collider is that it is a linear and for high energy. In an electron/positron synchrotron the particles are flying in circles, permanently loosing energy to synchrotron radiation. This is why a linear design will allow to achieve higher energies.

  11. PET Scan by xenophrak · · Score: 1

    PET scanning uses radioisotope Beta decay to Neutron, Neutrino and Positron, Positron -> Electron annihilation -> Gamma -> detection.

    This is using an existing source of positrons, beta radiation.

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

    The non-trivial stuff is making anti-atoms. That's quite difficult.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter#Artificial_production

    --
    Contrary to popular belief, life is not a bitch. It is far far worse.
  12. Build it in space. by Higaran · · Score: 0

    Here's an idea, I know it gonna cost probably a trillion anyway, so instead of makeing a 10km ring somewhere here on earth, build a lets say 1 or 2 km space station/ring somewhere out in gostationary orbit. You don't need all of the cooling hardware you would normally, and you'll shut up most of the people that are gonna bitch about it blowing up a killing us all. Also your better off, because your allready pretty nuch in a vacume so that another problem that these things have when they are on earth. I don't know, maybe I'm wrong, but I think its a good idea.

    1. Re:Build it in space. by KeNickety · · Score: 1

      You're wrong, cooling is a major issue in orbit (only radiative cooling works), power would also be a major issue and that's not including all of that lovely high energy radiation you get in orbit disrupting your delicate experiment.

    2. Re:Build it in space. by spamtacular · · Score: 1

      until some space-junk slams into it.... ;-)

    3. Re:Build it in space. by SteveFoerster · · Score: 1

      and you'll shut up most of the people that are gonna bitch about it blowing up a killing us all

      I doubt it. Many of those people seemed like the sort who are noisy regardless of whether or not they really have anything useful to say.

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
  13. So how many of you are outside with your telescope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    at this hour in this hemisphere (Western)

  14. "sneak-peak" by 1u3hr · · Score: 2, Interesting
    and will the Vulcans show up for a sneak-peak?

    Peak: top of a mountain.

    And the daily Slashdot malapropism award goes to samzenpus.

    1. Re:"sneak-peak" by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      That's so "Grammar Nazi" that I'm invoking Godwin's Law through a degree of separation.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    2. Re:"sneak-peak" by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      That's so "Grammar Nazi"

      If I'd called him an illiterate moron, that might be justified. But I tried to make the point with a lighter note.

      If you don't care about spelling (not "grammar"), that's fine, but it's not debatable, it's just 100% wrong.

    3. Re:"sneak-peak" by zig007 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Screw that. You both have horribly spelled nicks.

      --
      Baboons are cute.
    4. Re:"sneak-peak" by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      True, I'd always (incorrectly) ascribed pragmatics to grammar. My mistake.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    5. Re:"sneak-peak" by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Wee owl ewes spill chuckers sew wee no hour spilling is core wrecked.

    6. Re:"sneak-peak" by Spykk · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Everyone knows that the Vulcans do not have cloak technology and thus could not sneak the top of a mountain anywhere. Shame on you samzenpus...

  15. Large Electron Positron collider by lindelof · · Score: 1

    ... is what it used to be called. CERN in Switzerland had it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lep

  16. Many other options right now by torako · · Score: 1
    The article, and the summary, is a bit misleading.

    There are always many different designs being investigated, even up to fairly advanced stages. This doesn't mean that any of those is going to be build. You have to realize that in order to make decisions that cost several M$, you have to know what you can do and how to achieve it beforehand, in great detail.

    CLIC is definitely one of the bigger things currently in investigation. The ILC (lepton machine) is another one. There's also big interest in Neutrino Factories, Superbeams, Betabeams, etc.

    What we want to build (maybe in 2020) depends crucially on what the LHC finds and on new results in the neutrino sector (measurement of the 13-angle).

  17. Intergalactic Patents? by secondhand_Buddah · · Score: 1

    It is more likely that a representative from the Intergalactic Patent office will show up and attempt to begin negotiations for royalty premiums.

    --
    Participatory Governance : The only feasible option for a real democracy, where everyone really does have a say.
  18. Read the Register article by Kupfernigk · · Score: 2, Interesting
    For once, read TFA. It's quite amusing. And it isn't about what it seems to be.

    It's about wakefields and the possibility of reducing their external effects by detuning. What makes this interesting is that the proposals for next-gen small accelerators are about deliberately using wakefields to achieve very high acceleration over very short ranges, effectively getting particles to surf on laser-induced wakefields.

    The guy with the proposal also manages to give a spectacularly bad example of detuning - bells, anyone? - which fully complies with the Bad Analogy requirements, i.e. detuning is nothing at all like having lots of bells, and the analogy doesn't provide any insight at all into what is happening. Detuning is more like resting a finger gently on a vibrating guitar string.

    All this article really tells me is that wakefields are very hot in particle accelerator research, and efforts are focussing on reducing their unwanted effects as well as extracting more energy from them.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:Read the Register article by smolloy · · Score: 1

      The article's explanation is quite bad -- wakefields aren't really anything to do with twisting and warping "the very fabric of space-time". They're just the electromagnetic energy left behind by the beam as it traverses these cavities.

      I think his bell analogy is actually quite good. He goes on to say that damped detuning is much more preferable to strong damping, and it is strong damping that is more like resting a finger on a guitar string. The problem he is trying to solve is that of the entire structure of many cells ringing strongly at a particular frequency. This ringing will add coherently, thus lasting long enough to disrupt the next electron/positron bunch.

      His solution is to make each cell ring at a slightly different frequency, thus causing them to add incoherently, and strongly reducing the resultant amplitude.

      Just like a collection of bells ringing with different notes.

  19. Vogons clear it for an Intergalactic Highway by kubitus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    maybe by Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz himself now back to the poetry

  20. Are you out of your vulcan mind ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Annihilation is the only outcome possible !! The Universe will cease to be. Just like it used to !! But if had before ceased to exist, then it must have existed always, or it could not have ceased to exist !! Puny humans !!

  21. Matter - Antimatter? by slack_justyb · · Score: 1

    Okay now correct me if I'm wrong on this, but if I remember correctly, Positrons and Electrons are in the group of Leptons. More generally they are a type of fermion. I understand that fermions make up Baryons and so forth, but aren't we getting ahead of ourselves when we call this reactor a "matter-anitmatter" reactor? Wouldn't it be more fitting to call it a "particle-antiparticle" reactor?

    1. Re:Matter - Antimatter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A positron has the opposite spin, charge, and mass of an electron, hence it's the antimatter equivilent of an electron. Add an anti-proton and you'd have anti-hydrogen, which we've made.

  22. Re:So how many of you are outside with your telesc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The western hemisphere is arbitrary.

  23. Re:Wrong Question - PET by jfb2252 · · Score: 2, Informative

    As preparation for the PET scan you were given an injection with a radioactive tracer which decays via positron emission. The PET scanner doesn't generate any radiation, it simply detects the 511 keV gamma rays produced when the positrons in the tracer annihilate with an electron.

  24. t that's not damped detuning by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1

    Damped detuning is precisely absorbing energy in such a way that the spectrum broadens, the guitar string analogy. "Damped" = removing energy, "detuning" = broadening spectrum.
    This is like a system of resonators all with slightly different peak frequencies which cannot co-excite one another, which is neither damping nor detuning. If you want to see an everyday damped detuning system, look under your car at the engine mounts. Not only do they absorb energy (the rubber is deliberately made with energy-absorbing additives) but as they are compressed their stiffness varies, thus changing the resonant frequency of the engine assembly during the vibration. Does that look like a ring of bells?

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:t that's not damped detuning by smolloy · · Score: 2, Informative

      FYI -- I work on this project, and I work with Roger Jones (the guy in the article), so I know a substantial amount about this.

      Your definition of damping is quite right, but your definition of detuning is, in this case, not really what he means. What he means is taking a cavity, and changing its shape in order to "detune" some cells.

      To explain:

      The cavities are traditionally built in such a way that each cell rings (like a bell) at the design frequency of the accelerating rf. Since all of the cells are identical, the beam will excite exactly the same mode frequencies in each one (like a hammer hitting a bell). Since they are resonant with each other, they can and will ring coherently. Thus the amplitude of these modes will be proportional to N^2 (where N is the number of cells).

      If they are made to have slight differences (detuned) that cause their resonant frequencies to be slightly different (but still within the bandwidth of each other due to their finite Q -- so they *can* excite one another), they will ring incoherently. This causes the mode amplitude to be proportional to N.

      Thus, the amplitude of the incoherent ringing will be lower by a factor of N.

      On top of this, they also add absorbing material to take out some of the power (the damping you refer to), and it is this that fits your guitar string analogy, not the detuning that Roger was referring to in the article. Absorbing material cannot change the frequency of the oscillation -- all it can do is remove energy from it, thus damping it's amplitude.

      To go further, yes the differing stiffnesses of the springs under my car *does* look like a system of bells ringing at different frequencies. They are each ringing at a different "pitch" in order to detune any destructive vibrations. Your car analogy, including the absorbing rubber, is almost perfect! :)

      I think the confusion is coming from the fact that this system can use both the absorbing material that fits your guitar string analogy, and the detuning technique that fit's Roger's bells. His analogy *does* describe the system very well, and I hope you can see that now.

  25. Fermilab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here at Fermilab we have been conduction matter/anti-matter collisions for years. http://fnal.gov/ No Vulcans yet, but some of our scientists can sing Klingon Opera.

  26. Sorry to pop your conspiratorial bubble, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Actually, the technical paper was published a few months later, in one of the most respected scientific journals in the world, Physical Review Letters. Please see "Relativistic Positron Creation Using Ultraintense Short Pulse Lasers" H. Chen, et. al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 102 , 105001(issue of 13 March 2009) In addition to this, these results were also reproduced at the LLE laser facility at the University of Rochester, where an order of magnitude more positrons were observed, over what was reported in the original new release.

  27. Vulcan Contact by scorp1us · · Score: 1
    --
    Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
  28. Does it matter? by $0.02 · · Score: 0

    I wonder if it matters because if it does not mnatter then it antimatters.

    --
    If enithin kan gow rong it whil. (Murfey)
  29. Can't wait for the Tachyon - Tardyon Collider by Torontoman · · Score: 1

    And then we can all flashforward 2 Min 17 Seconds.

  30. In Star Trek mythology, Dilithium has nothing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...to do with Li2 (the actual gaseous form of two lithium atoms covalently bonded). Star Trek's "Dilithium" is a (fictional) trans-uranium element with atomic number 119, and is supposedly a heavy metal with a crystalline structure. I have no clue where its fictional name actually originated from, but it's not directly related to Lithium, element #3 at all. The root word "Dilith" came from something else in Roddenbury's warped imagination, and doesn't mean "two lithiums", more like "two stones" or perhaps something like that.

    Just discussing this stuff here is making me feel all icky like a stupid junior high kid. Blech! I thought I outgrew all this trek crap years ago. Now excuse me while I go and find some brain-bleach to wash out my cranium.

     

  31. Anti-matter Available for Free! by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    But quotes for the "free market cost of antimatter" are based on the fantastic costs of generating it in an accelerator.

    Why pay? - antimatter is available for free! One cosmic ray passes through every cubic centimetre of your body every second that you stand on the Earth's surface and about half are anti-muons. In addition, since they are available everywhere on Earth (and other planets with atmospheres) storage is not a problem - wherever you go there will still be anti-matter there for you!

  32. While testing the stuff.. by mihajul · · Score: 1

    They probably started testing the technology: http://www.russiatoday.com/Top_News/2009-10-08/ufo-halo-sky-baffles.html

  33. Nothing new; colliders are usually like this! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    CERN's LHC is notable for being the first collider that doesn't collide antiparticles. Colliding antiparticles is the standard design.

    You might remember that the tunnel LHC is using was previously occupied by the LEP collider, which stands for "large electron/positron". The Tevatron also collides protons and antiprotons.

    Since protons and antiprotons curve in opposite directions in a magnetic field, it's very convenient to build one set of magnets and use them for `two beams of particles in going in opposite directions.

    LHC, as the first proton/proton collider, has a much more complicated magnet design because it needs to generate two different magnetic fields. But the number of particles it needs is so high that it was impractical (and even more expensive) to generate that many antiprotons.

  34. Gucci ---Caps And Sunglass!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Http://www.tntshoes.com
    1. Made in top materials
    2. With advanced technology and exquisite workmanship
    3. 100% anthentic and original packaging
    4. Hundreds and thousands styles
    5. Price with in shipping fee.
    6. Shipping time: 5-7 days
    7. Also accept drop shipping
    8. Shipping delivery :EMS,DHL,TNT ,and so on ,
    9. The more you order ,the more cheaper price you will get .

    OUR WEBSITE:

                                                            YAHOO:shoppertrade@yahoo.com.cn

                                                                  MSN:shoppertrade@hotmail.com

                                                                        HTTP://www.tntshoes.com