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?"

Comments

obvious question

[JimboFBX]

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...

Wrong Question

[Tubal-Cain]

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.

Re:Wrong Question

[1s44c]

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.

Re:Wrong Question

[Archaemic]

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

Re:Wrong Question

[Tubal-Cain]

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).

Re:Wrong Question

[QuantumG]

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.

Re:Wrong Question

[CarpetShark]

Now how can get some antimatter?

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

Re:Wrong Question

[CarpetShark]

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.

Re:Wrong Question

[JustinOpinion]

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.

Duh!

[andre.david]

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.

Re:Duh!

[Gromius]

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).

Re:antimatter

[CarpetShark]

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

Kind of like your karma points for that comment ;)

Re:antimatter

[Dragonslicer]

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.