Slashdot Mirror


LHC Scientists Create and Capture Antimatter

Velcroman1 writes "Scientists at the Large Hadron Collider have created antimatter in the form of antihydrogen, demonstrating how it's possible to capture and release it. The development could help researchers devise laboratory experiments to learn more about this strange substance, which mostly disappeared from the universe shortly after the Big Bang 14 billion years ago. Trapping any form of antimatter is difficult, because as soon as it meets normal matter — the stuff Earth and everything on it is made out of — the two annihilate each other in powerful explosions. 'We are getting close to the point at which we can do some classes of experiments on the properties of antihydrogen,' said Joel Fajans, a University of California, Berkeley professor of physics, and LBNL faculty scientist. 'Since no one has been able to make these types of measurements on antimatter atoms at all, it's a good start.'"

269 comments

  1. negative first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    negative first

    1. Re:negative first by Thinboy00 · · Score: 1

      negative first

      zeroth

      --
      $ make available
  2. Still on track... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... for destroying the world in 2012.

    1. Re:Still on track... by H3xx · · Score: 1

      First contact with the Vulcans in April 2063.

      --
      "Ubuntu" - an African word meaning "Slackware is too hard for me."
    2. Re:Still on track... by pociaskn · · Score: 1

      I feel like this has the potential to become the next big WMD. Hopefully not in time to make the Aztecs correct, but soon enough. If a hostile nation refines this technology to make antimatter bombs without blowing themselves up, we're done for.

    3. Re:Still on track... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Isn't 2012 going to be from a Dalek is a basement in Utah?

    4. Re:Still on track... by somersault · · Score: 1

      If a hostile nation refines this technology to make antimatter bombs without blowing themselves up, we're done for.

      What's wrong with nukes? Seems a lot more practical and better understood to me. I don't think we'd really be "done for" though, because some other "friendly" nation could nuke them at the first sign of such things..

      --
      which is totally what she said
    5. Re:Still on track... by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      If you read the article, “powerful” explosions yield about 10% of the energy required to create the anti-matter in the first place. So for the energy cost of about ten atomic bombs, you could feasibly make an anti-matter bomb with the energy output of one atomic bomb.

      In other words, it isn’t practical.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    6. Re:Still on track... by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      But an anti-matter bomb just sounds much, much scarier. Most people pretty much believe that if you get even one atom of anti-matter in contact with matter, the whole universe will be destroyed.

      So from a PR/propaganda point of view, a terrorist threatening to let off an anti-matter bomb would be, um, newsworthy.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    7. Re:Still on track... by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      Queue the terrifying "anti-dihydrogen monoxide" FUD posts in 3...2...1...

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    8. Re:Still on track... by Kagura · · Score: 1

      It's not about the energy that goes into its creation. It's about the low mass required to create an enormous blast. You thought 200kg of fissile material was "hardly anything" considering it makes a blast equal to 20,000,000 tons of TNT? Well, 1kg of antimatter gives a 20 megaton blast damage. That's two orders of magnitude difference.

    9. Re:Still on track... by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      It is about the energy that goes into its creation.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  3. Enter Stage Right by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Oh hey everybody, it's Tom Hanks!

    1. Re:Enter Stage Right by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      And... is that a bloody volley-ball?

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    2. Re:Enter Stage Right by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      My thought exactly, should we expect a bombing attempt on the Vatican in about a week?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  4. 2012 by arndawg · · Score: 1

    is getting real close. But does it matter?

    1. Re:2012 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Naw, the real question is, "Does it antimatter?"

    2. Re:2012 by arndawg · · Score: 1

      Does it +/-matter?

    3. Re:2012 by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Don't worry, Gummal will take care of it. Or did will take care of it. Or will did take care of it.

      Or something. Damn, the mechanics of time travel give me a headache.

    4. Re:2012 by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 2, Funny

      Naw, the real question is, "Does it antimatter?"

      Absolutely positively!

      --
      "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
    5. Re:2012 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OMG!

      At least ONE other person has seen that movie AND remembers cheesy lines from it!

      I am NOT alone! I am NOT alone!

      Oh wait.... this is /.

      My goal in life is to somehow use a quote from that movie every single day in normal conversation. So many good lines.

      I drive a big mean fast scary car and regularly use it to imitate the scene where the F-14s overtake the (fake) Zeroes. Except it's me in my monster car overtaking some idiot in a tiny Daewoo or something. They don't know I am coming until I am about to mow them down. And them I am gone. Such fun.

      Sigh.

    6. Re:2012 by naranek · · Score: 1

      I believe this does not antimatter.

      --
      Only dumb birds land downwind.
  5. positive first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    If I reply, will our comments annihilate each other?

  6. antihydrogen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    IANAP.. but..

        I think the temporary capture of antiprotons and antielectrons has been achieved before, since it is relatively easy. It is the significant-duration capture of antihydrogen (i.e. antiproton + antielectron, forming an electrically neutral 'anti-atom') which is new ( ? ). Please correct, and scold, me if I am wrong.

    1. Re:antihydrogen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      To support the above.. Here is a link to a paper referring to confinement of antiprotons. I do not know the date (how do I find it?), but it was apparently already cited back in 1993.

      http://www.springerlink.com/content/r5m0760242k25775/

    2. Re:antihydrogen by gest.hds · · Score: 1

      You are right.

    3. Re:antihydrogen by MozeeToby · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, capturing anti-ions is relatively easy (still quite hard though) since you can just use magnetic fields to confine the anti-matter without it coming into contact with the walls of the container. Getting the anti-protons and anti-electrons to combine into a single atom that stays at a low enough energy level that it can be contained for a significant amount of time is hard, especially since it is neutral and can't be contained with magnetic fields. They managed it here by producing very, very cold anti-hydrogen so that the energy levels were low enough that they didn't immediately annihilate with the regular matter that made up the container.

    4. Re:antihydrogen by Phroon · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think the temporary capture of antiprotons and antielectrons has been achieved before

      You are correct. For example the Fermilab Antiproton Source, which creates antiprotons and stores them, has been in operation since 1985 [1], while the Fermilab Recycler has held onto a continuous stash of antiprotons for over a month [2]. And these are by no means the very first machines to capture and store antimatter, I'd have to dig though the history a bit more to find an earlier example.

      Production of Anti-hydrogen (antiproton orbited by a positron) seems to have been achieved in 1995 at CERN, with Fermilab confirming production in 1997 [3]. But those atoms were destroyed immediately after being created, this is the first time I've heard of anyone successfully storing anti-hydrogen for any long period of time. So yes, the headline is misleading, we've been capturing antimatter for quite some time, it's the fact that you are capturing the neutrally charged anti-hydrogen (antiproton -1, positron +1, total = 0) that's the real news.

    5. Re:antihydrogen by John+Hasler · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Getting the anti-protons and anti-electrons to combine into a single atom that stays at a low enough energy level that it can be contained for a significant amount of time is hard, especially since it is neutral and can't be contained with magnetic fields.

      I believe you can, by manipulating the dipole moment. Not easy.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    6. Re:antihydrogen by bondsbw · · Score: 2, Funny

      IANAP

      Not a proton? Sorry, due to violent history, antiprotons are no longer permitted to post on these forums. We hope you understand. However, if you feel this policy is threatening or misplaced, please post a message to our Dilithium moderators, and they will be glad to transfer your message once it has been phase-adjusted. We do not intend to inject our own matter/antimatter opinions, or to warp your discussions, but our core values require that we encourage a field of openness. Please do not post trilithium remarks, as this will result in an instant ban and a referral to the nearest Bussard collector.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    7. Re:antihydrogen by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      "But those atoms were destroyed immediately after being created"

      Does not compute..

      --
      Good-bye
    8. Re:antihydrogen by rsborg · · Score: 3, Informative

      "But those atoms were destroyed immediately after being created"

      Does not compute..

      Simple explanation:

      1. Generate antiproton, confine in magnetic field
      2. Generate positron, confine in magnetic field
      3. Manipulate magnetic fields to get them to combine
      4. Combined particles neutralize each other's charge, forming a charge-neutral antihydrogen atom... which is no longer manipulable with magnetic fields ... and quickly reacts with nearby solid matter, annihilating itself.
      5. Newest capability is to use dipole moments to manipulate (weakly) antihydrogen and keep it contained for a longer period.
      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    9. Re:antihydrogen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      all particles have spin yo, charge neutral or not, and spin determines the reaction to magnetic field

    10. Re:antihydrogen by spire3661 · · Score: 0

      Matter can neither be created or destroyed, merely transformed was the point I was trying to make. Considering the topic at hand, the phrase

      "But those atoms were destroyed immediately after being created"

      is a little out of place. I now what he was trying to say, it merely struck me as odd.

      --
      Good-bye
    11. Re:antihydrogen by chichilalescu · · Score: 1

      sorry, but this is not informative. charged anti-particles can be captured with electrostatic fields (and magnetic fields), whereas anti-atoms can only be confined with magnetic fields (because they have a magnetic moment).
      these particular atoms were contained with a magnetic field, they were not "cold enough" to not interact with the container.

      --
      new sig
    12. Re:antihydrogen by Phroon · · Score: 1

      Ahh, I understand the confusion now. I was trying to convey the fact that the anti-hydrogen wasn't around as anti-hydrogen for very long in just a few words. I should have said something to the effect of 'collided with the container' to be more exact.

      I had thought of this issue for a few seconds when typing the post, but decided that as the anti-hydrogen atom was a composite of a antiproton and a positron, you could very well destroy it without destroying the composite pieces merely by separating them, thus allowing me a bit of liberty to simplify my diction.

    13. Re:antihydrogen by Tim+C · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Matter can neither be created or destroyed, merely transformed

      My particle physics is a little rusty, and I only studied it to undergrad level, but isn't an anti-particle annihilated and converted into energy on contact with its "normal" particle?

      In that sense, yes, matter most certainly can be destroyed (though of course *energy* is conserved in all cases).

    14. Re:antihydrogen by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Energy and matter are only different states of the same thing.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    15. Re:antihydrogen by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      Yes, and such annihilations of electrons+positrons produce characteristic bursts of gamma radiation with energy 511 keV when both particles have relatively low energy. The energy of each photon (two are always emitted; gotta conserve energy and momentum!) is equivalent to the rest mass of an electron * c^2.

      Proton/anti-proton annihilation results in a gamma ray of energy 938 MeV.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
  7. If it's antimatter.. by kheldan · · Score: 4, Funny

    ..then does that mean it doesn't matter? :-)

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    1. Re:If it's antimatter.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be a-matter that you're describing. Anti-matter just matters upside down. Or to put it in other words, it eradicates all else that matters.

    2. Re:If it's antimatter.. by cmiller173 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, that is exactly what it does...to matter... it "doesn't" it.

    3. Re:If it's antimatter.. by ADRA · · Score: 1

      Best joke ever

      --
      Bye!
    4. Re:If it's antimatter.. by blair1q · · Score: 1

      That would be "doesn'ts", in English, if it were.

    5. Re:If it's antimatter.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am waiting for more complex applications, particularly in the food technology space.
      I always wanted to see anti-pasta.

    6. Re:If it's antimatter.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think what he was trying to say is
      matter + antimatter = no matter

    7. Re:If it's antimatter.. by lessthaninfinity · · Score: 2, Funny

      So, should we really be calling this "News for nerds. Stuff that antimatters"?

    8. Re:If it's antimatter.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If an antisocial geek meets its complementary diplomat will they annihilate each other?

    9. Re:If it's antimatter.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed, that's why it's on Slashdot, "Stuff that doesn't matter" ;)

    10. Re:If it's antimatter.. by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      matter + antimatter = energy

      FTFY.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  8. Only if... by MallocFork · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now if they could only create antiidiot we could release it and take care of most of the worlds problems.

    1. Re:Only if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...or antipublican.

    2. Re:Only if... by brainboyz · · Score: 1

      You're thinking antitician if you want any change.

    3. Re:Only if... by Hatta · · Score: 1

      If by "take care of the world's problems" you mean "annihilate in a blast of pure energy", then yes.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    4. Re:Only if... by blair1q · · Score: 1

      This is how many problems are already calculated to be best handled.

      Most of the calculations could stand to be checked, however.

    5. Re:Only if... by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Arguably that's the gambling, drinking, and other substance abuse.
      I'm just saying, you don't see statistics professors playing the slots.

    6. Re:Only if... by Robert+Zenz · · Score: 1

      I still love Midnights idea for this.

    7. Re:Only if... by Kjella · · Score: 1

      If we say each idiot ways 80 kgs on average, they'd explode with a force of a 1700 megaton bomb per idiot via E=mc^2. Somehow I doubt there's be many smart people left either, hell some of the million cities will explode with the force of a million gigaton bombs. I think might actually apply as inventing anti-terraforming while you're at it.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    8. Re:Only if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, until we can get the asymmetrical production problem down...

      You would always make a pair: an idiot and an anti-idiot. Apparently the universe favors the idiot, just how it favors matter over antimatter.

    9. Re:Only if... by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      no, he just hates bartenders.

    10. Re:Only if... by bruthasj · · Score: 1

      If antiidiot doesn't exist to take care of most of the worlds problems, what does that make you?

    11. Re:Only if... by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      One antiidiot can only neutralize one idiot.

    12. Re:Only if... by Eivind · · Score: 1

      Surely it must be more than a measly 1800 megatons ? Let's try...

      E = mc^2

      The idiot weighs 80kgs, and he'll annihiliate with an equal amount of matter of the opposite type, thus bringing the total to 160 kg.

      c is aproximately 300.000.000 m/s

      So we get E = 160 * 3000000000^2 = 144000 petajoules

      Now, a megaton is 4.2 Petajoules. So we get 144000/4.2 = 3500 megatons.

      Hmm, looks like my initial intuition was off: you're right. 1700 megatons for the idiot. (and double that if you include the matter he reacts with)

    13. Re:Only if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      careful what you ask for...

    14. Re:Only if... by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's right, blow up the planet. Didn't you read the "powerful explosions" part ?

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    15. Re:Only if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The question is, do you really want to see the results when you come into contact with it? I don't think I'm a complete idiot but I also don't trust my judgement..

    16. Re:Only if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think this antiidiot of yours would have to be produced in a blooming smorgasbord of plurality to account for all the idiots it would have to combine with.

      Then again, IANA social Physichiatrist, so I'm not sure if the ratio of idiot to antiidiot needed for a good cleanse is 1:1.

    17. Re:Only if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're probably going to need to create a few more than one!

    18. Re:Only if... by RancidPeanutOil · · Score: 1

      We already do have that - too many powerful explosions would result for it to be practical.

  9. last get by Nadaka · · Score: 4, Funny

    This would have been a better joke if you said "last get" instead.

    1. Re:last get by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      I thought matter/antimatter represents a different symmetry to time reversal? Or maybe it all just washes out in the great big limiting Haar measure of all things?

    2. Re:last get by Thinboy00 · · Score: 1

      I thought matter/antimatter represents a different symmetry to time reversal?

      Actually, it doesn't, believe it or not!

      --
      $ make available
  10. Anti-matter behaves as expected, like matter by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The core is negative/neutral mass and the orbit is positive mass. Naturally, anti-matter electrical conductors conduct positive particles rather than negative. The questions of behavior that need to be answered is what exactly causes i.e. electroconductivity. Reversing the charges, in theory, won't affect the behavior insomuch as you have X mobile particles and Y non-mobile particles setting up orbits that should be the same (the nature of electrical charge attraction doesn't change), so anti-copper should conduct positrons like copper conducts electrons etc. The reality... we don't know, of course.

    It would be a big thing if someone created anti-copper AND it didn't behave exactly like copper when supplied with an anti-potential from an anti-battery.

    1. Re:Anti-matter behaves as expected, like matter by east+coast · · Score: 1

      I was always under the impression that anti-matter had possitive mass but all of the information was simply the opposite of regular matter. Am I wrong?

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    2. Re:Anti-matter behaves as expected, like matter by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      I have a feeling though that it is slightly more complex than that - it's not "just' that the charges are swapped - otherwise there'd be no reason that "regular" matter seems to have prevailed over antimatter. The positive particles (Protons) also have far more mass than negative particles (Electrons) - so I honestly don't expect anti-copper to behave exactly like copper.

    3. Re:Anti-matter behaves as expected, like matter by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Funny

      It would be a big thing if someone created anti-copper AND it didn't behave exactly like copper when supplied with an anti-potential from an anti-battery.

      Would anti-physicists finally get the polarity correct on the anti-battery or would it still be backwards?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:Anti-matter behaves as expected, like matter by MobyDisk · · Score: 4, Informative

      The positive particles (Protons) also have far more mass than negative particles (Electrons)

      Protons are not antimatter electrons. Positrons are antimatter electronis, and they do have the same mass as electrons. The antimatter opposite of a Proton is an anti-proton. The naming system is inconsistent, probably because the original creators of the names did not know about antimatter.

    5. Re:Anti-matter behaves as expected, like matter by Remus+Shepherd · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, you are correct. The only difference we *expect* to see from anti-matter is that the electrical charge is reversed. The mass, spin states, etc. should all be the same.

      What the scientists are looking for is the slim chance that anti-matter is different in some way. That would be exciting, because it would tell us something new.

      --
      Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
    6. Re:Anti-matter behaves as expected, like matter by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The core is negative/neutral mass and the orbit is positive mass. Naturally, anti-matter electrical conductors conduct positive particles rather than negative. The questions of behavior that need to be answered is what exactly causes i.e. electroconductivity. Reversing the charges, in theory, won't affect the behavior insomuch as you have X mobile particles and Y non-mobile particles setting up orbits that should be the same (the nature of electrical charge attraction doesn't change), so anti-copper should conduct positrons like copper conducts electrons etc. The reality... we don't know, of course.

      It would be a big thing if someone created anti-copper AND it didn't behave exactly like copper when supplied with an anti-potential from an anti-battery.

      Weird post unless you meant for it to be a joke that I didn't get.

      We don't know that the assumption that anti-H behaves like H is true, and there's value in experimentally examining as many aspects of its behavior as we can. I'm not sure why you seem to indicate otherwise.

      But then you go on to imply that electrical properties of anti-copper are the really interesting topic of anti-matter study. You seem to realize how incredibly difficult that would be. I don't understand why you declare one experiment to be uselessly redundant and the other a "big thing."

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    7. Re:Anti-matter behaves as expected, like matter by Intron · · Score: 1

      correct. Mass can't be negative. The particles have opposite charge.

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    8. Re:Anti-matter behaves as expected, like matter by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I should have said matter, not mass. Still unclear, but correct. It's made of matter with a positive/negative charge.

    9. Re:Anti-matter behaves as expected, like matter by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I'm just saying that anti-matter is charge-reversed matter; but charge is really an irrelevant topic for the most part. Electrons (negative charge) are attracted to protons (positive charge). Electrons also move freely, since protons inhabit the nucleus of the matter and electrons orbit. All properties of matter are based on the interaction of electrons with the nucleus-- the orbital levels, valence shells, etc. Swap the charges and, reasonably, you have the same thing.

      If you swap the charges and find out that anti-SiO2 (glass, insulator) is a massive conductor of positrons and anti-copper is a massive positron insulator, something very strange has happened. Moreover, although this is "just conjecture," our existing laws of physics pertaining to chemistry would suddenly fall flat-- suddenly we'd find out that not only relative charge matters, but the DIRECTION of charge is immensely significant. That, to our current knowledge, wouldn't seem like an "interesting result of experimentation" -- it'd seem like completely implausible black magic.

    10. Re:Anti-matter behaves as expected, like matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Charge isn't the only difference between matter and antimatter, otherwise there would be no difference between a neutron and an antineutron (and there is). There's also baryon number.

    11. Re:Anti-matter behaves as expected, like matter by todrules · · Score: 1

      What I want to know is where do you connect the black cable on the anti-battery when your car needs a jump?

    12. Re:Anti-matter behaves as expected, like matter by cbhacking · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Don't we already have materials that care very much about the direction of charge? I suspect you'd have a hard time posting on Slashdot if the silicon in your computer stopped being a semiconductor.

      That's not to say that your claim of "it's just reversed charges; everything else is the same" is wrong, but there's certainly interesting science to be done. If nothing else, there's value in validating our assumptions. Our current models don't really account for antimatter, much like Newton's laws don't account for relativity. That doesn't mean they aren't useful, but it also doesn't mean we should simply accept them as a given instead of testing them in new environments.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    13. Re:Anti-matter behaves as expected, like matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [...]Mass can't be negative.[...]

      That's what she said.

    14. Re:Anti-matter behaves as expected, like matter by t2t10 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The gravitational properties of anti-matter are unknown. People assume that antimatter and matter all attract. However, it is possible that antimatter and matter repulse each other, or even that antimatter repulses antimatter gravitationally. Until it's measured, we won't know.

    15. Re:Anti-matter behaves as expected, like matter by t2t10 · · Score: 1

      Anti-protons have about the same mass as protons but negative charge. And anti-electrons (positrons) have about the same mass as electrons. Anti-copper is expected to behave very similar to copper. Any differences responsible for the imbalance in the universe are likely small.

      (The imbalance is also only presumed; nobody knows for certain, since we just can't tell.)

    16. Re:Anti-matter behaves as expected, like matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > It would be a big thing if someone created anti-copper AND it didn't behave exactly like copper when supplied with an anti-potential from an anti-battery.

      Not really. It would just mean that you forgot to reverse the polarity of the neutron flow.

    17. Re:Anti-matter behaves as expected, like matter by Linker3000 · · Score: 2, Funny

      We will never know since every time an anti-physicist turns up for a meeting with a physicist to discuss their results they both disappear.

      --
      AT&ROFLMAO
    18. Re:Anti-matter behaves as expected, like matter by Apocryphos · · Score: 1

      At least Catholic girls are easy.

    19. Re:Anti-matter behaves as expected, like matter by Asymtote · · Score: 1

      Physicists do this just fine. It's everyone else that uses it wrong. Go ask an auto mechanic how a battery works. They'll tell you that 'stuff' goes from positive to negative. Describing that electrons flow from the negative lead to the positive will make them look at you funny. Negatively charged particles come out of the negative lead. Makes sense to me!

    20. Re:Anti-matter behaves as expected, like matter by Jellodyne · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's a bad analogy -- we believe our existing laws of physics (including relativity) DO account for antimatter. It should behave exactly like regular matter apart apart from the whole charge reversal deal, but we've never had enough to play with to find out. The reason we are asking the question of whether there is a disparity between regular matter and antimatter isn't because of anything we've observed, but because we live in a universe which appears to consist of almost entirely regular matter. The models we have of the early universe should lead to a universe in which neither type of matter is more prevalent. So the question is: are our models wrong or is there something different about antimatter which lead to regular matter dominating the universe?

    21. Re:Anti-matter behaves as expected, like matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      No, they'll define anti-current to be positive in the direction the negative antimatter charge carriers would move if they existed.

    22. Re:Anti-matter behaves as expected, like matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed, there's little reasons to suspect an imbalance at all. If matter and anti-matter made it through the big bang and most of it mutually annihilated, we would expect a sort of "symmetry": A region where matter dominated would annihilate most of the antimatter contained therein and vice versa. And these regions would end up on opposite ends of the universe.

    23. Re:Anti-matter behaves as expected, like matter by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      Neither. Localized concentrations of either kind of *-matter would annihilate the other "contained" kind, leaving a pure region of one kind or the other.

      The answer to this question is to study the remnants of the big bang -- background microwave radiation.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    24. Re:Anti-matter behaves as expected, like matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The core is negative/neutral mass and the orbit is positive mass. Naturally, anti-matter electrical conductors conduct positive particles rather than negative. The questions of behavior that need to be answered is what exactly causes i.e. electroconductivity. Reversing the charges, in theory, won't affect the behavior insomuch as you have X mobile particles and Y non-mobile particles setting up orbits that should be the same (the nature of electrical charge attraction doesn't change), so anti-copper should conduct positrons like copper conducts electrons etc. The reality... we don't know, of course.

      It would be a big thing if someone created anti-copper AND it didn't behave exactly like copper when supplied with an anti-potential from an anti-battery.

      Weird post unless you meant for it to be a joke that I didn't get.

      We don't know that the assumption that anti-H behaves like H is true, and there's value in experimentally examining as many aspects of its behavior as we can. I'm not sure why you seem to indicate otherwise.

      But then you go on to imply that electrical properties of anti-copper are the really interesting topic of anti-matter study. You seem to realize how incredibly difficult that would be. I don't understand why you declare one experiment to be uselessly redundant and the other a "big thing."

      !!!HSOOW

    25. Re:Anti-matter behaves as expected, like matter by Kjella · · Score: 0

      I would say the most exciting thing is *why* there is more matter than anti-matter in the first place, and if we could manipulate that. Imagine a power source that could take matter, find a way to make the charges "swap" - like a catalyst but of some as-of-yet undiscovered nature, then collide it with regular matter. That would be an near-infinite renewable power source. Enough to solve all of Earth's energy issues as well as drive interstellar spacecraft. So I'd say there's interesting opportunities even if it turns out it's just like normal matter, only reversed.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    26. Re:Anti-matter behaves as expected, like matter by froggymana · · Score: 1

      I have a feeling though that it is slightly more complex than that - it's not "just' that the charges are swapped - otherwise there'd be no reason that "regular" matter seems to have prevailed over antimatter.

      How do you know that matter prevailed over antimatter over the *entire* universe? For all we know there could be "anti galaxies" out there that are in far higher numbers than regular galaxies, vice versa, or perhaps there is an exact equal amount of both its just that they haven't met yet.

      --
      "To prevent this day from getting any worse, I'll just read ERROR as GOOD THING" 1GJU8xLuDKDxEs4KLf8fAGyptoDsqvEsBT
    27. Re:Anti-matter behaves as expected, like matter by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Enough to solve all of Earth's energy issues as well as drive interstellar spacecraft. So I'd say there's interesting opportunities even if it turns out it's just like normal matter, only reversed.

      maybe you'd only need a few grams of antimatter to push a craft to/past the speed of light(?)

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    28. Re:Anti-matter behaves as expected, like matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While the mass can't be negative, it hasn't been experimentally shown that anitmatter reacts to gravity in the same manner as regular matter does.

    29. Re:Anti-matter behaves as expected, like matter by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      ... perhaps even we're the tiny aberration in a primarily anti universe!

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    30. Re:Anti-matter behaves as expected, like matter by bruthasj · · Score: 1

      Just call it Negaton.

    31. Re:Anti-matter behaves as expected, like matter by Kjella · · Score: 2, Interesting

      maybe you'd only need a few grams of antimatter to push a craft to/past the speed of light(?)

      We can't get to or past the speed of light, the power requirements increase asymptotically (that is, they grow towards infinity) as we approach light speed. And even at E=mc^2 its power is limited, it's estimated that 10 grams can make us reach Mars in one month. To get to a reasonable fraction of lightspeed we'll probably need tons, it also depends on how good we can make the engines use it.

      What you must understand is that we're extremely far from interstellar travel today. In practice we just get them a little past Earth's escape velocity of 11km/s or 0.004% of lightspeed, and the fuel required to push the other fuel makes increasing that hopeless. At that rate it would take ~100,000 years, by slingshotting around Jupiter we can get it down to 70,000 years but that's a one trick pony. Anti-matter is theoretically thousands of times stronger, meaning at least in theory we could have ships making the trip in 100 years or less.

      There are other theoretical designs which are - in the world of the already extremely theoretical - much more realistic than anti-matter though, but most of them are in the "many hundred or even thousands of years" range. Like for example designs based on a fusion reactor, that we still don't have a working version of. Anti-matter is just waaaaaaay out there as the ultimate theoretcial drive.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    32. Re:Anti-matter behaves as expected, like matter by wideBlueSkies · · Score: 1

      OK, we have the car analogy. When do we get the Nazi reference?

      --
      Huh?
    33. Re:Anti-matter behaves as expected, like matter by mywhitewolf · · Score: 1

      Rubbish, the first person to split an atom was in 1933. we then used them in a vessel to stay underwater indefinitely in 1951 what we need is a war that involves space to really kick start the process again. You can't predict scientific advancement with any consistency. how many people thought we would be traveling in flying cars by now? how many of the same people saw the internet as a catalyst for huge technological advancement in the private sector?

    34. Re:Anti-matter behaves as expected, like matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IAAP and you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about

    35. Re:Anti-matter behaves as expected, like matter by dwye · · Score: 2, Informative

      How do you know that matter prevailed over antimatter over the *entire* universe?

      Because if there was an antimatter region next to a matter region, the two should interpenetrate some, and the pair annihilation region (from the overlapping interstellar gasses) would put out gamma rays at predictable energies. As there are no such regions visible, any antimatter regions must be quite small (i.e., too small to matter -- the exact minimum size of course depends on your detectors, but is certainly well below the size of a galaxy).

    36. Re:Anti-matter behaves as expected, like matter by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      The only difference we *expect* to see from anti-matter is that the electrical charge is reversed. The mass, spin states, etc. should all be the same.

      Tell that to the anitneutron. Mass is (or should be) the same, yes, but reversing the electrical charge definitely is not the only difference.

    37. Re:Anti-matter behaves as expected, like matter by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      Semiconductors care about the direction of *flow*, not charge. Batteries, afaik, only pump electrons, not positrons.

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    38. Re:Anti-matter behaves as expected, like matter by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      i.e., too small to matter

      I see what you did there. :)

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    39. Re:Anti-matter behaves as expected, like matter by Remus+Shepherd · · Score: 1

      The antineutron is not an elementary particle. It is composed of three anti-quarks. Each antimatter quark differs from its matter counterpart by only a reversed charge, but they do not combine to form a perfect counterpart to the neutron.

      But you're right -- the difference in the anti-neutron might be enough to give antimatter some slight differences. We can account for those. The exciting differences would be any we didn't anticipate.

      --
      Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
    40. Re:Anti-matter behaves as expected, like matter by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Fascist!

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    41. Re:Anti-matter behaves as expected, like matter by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      maybe you'd only need a few grams of antimatter to push a craft to/past the speed of light(?)

      We can't get to or past the speed of light, the power requirements increase asymptotically (that is, they grow towards infinity) as we approach light speed. And even at E=mc^2 its power is limited, it's estimated that 10 grams can make us reach Mars in one month. To get to a reasonable fraction of lightspeed we'll probably need tons, it also depends on how good we can make the engines use it.

      What you must understand is that we're extremely far from interstellar travel today.

      Yeah, I know you are right, we haven't even got out into our own solar system let alone anywhere else. Maybe one day we will stop spending our energies on territorial exploits and actually *expand* our territory outside our gravity well.

      I guess I was being nostalgic, thanks for the reality check though.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  11. Calling Tom Hanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will he save us?

  12. The Neutrinos... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...are mutating.

  13. Matter/Antimatter balance. by camperdave · · Score: 1

    In the early moments of the big bang, there were supposedly equal amounts of matter and antimatter created. This promptly annihilated leaving behind whatever imbalance there was in the relative amounts. This leftover matter is what the universe is made up of now.

    However, a particle and antiparticle won't annihilate if they do not come in contact with each other. If one half of the big bang were matter rich and the other half was antimatter rich, and were kept apart, then half the universe could be antimatter and half matter. Is there a way of detecting this?

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    1. Re:Matter/Antimatter balance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, fly to the edge of the universe. When you cross the threshold and violently explode, congratulations; you've discovered the other half of the universe is anti matter.

    2. Re:Matter/Antimatter balance. by mibe · · Score: 1

      I thought one of the objectives of the LHC was to generate Big Bang-like conditions in order to determine why there is matter at all - ie, why was there an imbalance at all? With respect to your "halves" hypothesis, I don't rightly know. Seems to me that since photons are massless, there should be no anti-photons (they aren't made of matter, so how could they be made of anti-matter), and since all of our detection relies on detection of photons we are incapable of distinguishing antimatter from a distance. That said, I don't see how a Big Bang could generate neat areas of one or the other - it's an explosion right?

      Oh! Unless every galaxy is made of matter or antimatter without any intermingling as a result of random transient "clumps" in the primordium of the universe (like the clumps of oil in an agitated oil-water mixture), while the vacuum in between is the result of a more even distribution of the two. But again, more Big Bang research is required. Science is fun!

    3. Re:Matter/Antimatter balance. by Intron · · Score: 2, Informative

      Read "Worlds-Antiworlds: Antimatter in Cosmology" (1966) by Hannes Alfvén. Its the original discussion of this topic.

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    4. Re:Matter/Antimatter balance. by qwijibo · · Score: 1

      If there's an anti-photon, would that mean that black holes are just anti-matter stars?

    5. Re:Matter/Antimatter balance. by MozeeToby · · Score: 2, Informative

      There would have to be a region of space where the matter and anti-matter interfaced, which would produce significant amounts of gamma radiation. We don't see any such interface in the visible universe (I believe current understand says that if it were there our tools are powerful enough to see it) so it would seem that the part of the universe we live in is all matter. I suppose it's possible that the interface lies somewhere outside of our visible universe though.

    6. Re:Matter/Antimatter balance. by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Things is, apparently there weren't equal amounts of matter and antimatter created. Supposedly the symmetry between matter and antimatter is not the case at very high energies, like just after the Big Bang.

      Antimatter areas of the Universe would had to be reconciled with some pretty fundamental stuff (for which there is quite a lot support - enough so they would probably had to be far beyond our horizon / observable Universe, in which case: no, we can't observe them and it doesn't matter, they don't exist for us)

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    7. Re:Matter/Antimatter balance. by eleuthero · · Score: 1

      Maybe this explains the news last week about a gamma ray halo around the galaxy - though honestly, science news is so often old hat, there's probably been an explanation for it for years (like the recent "discovery" of a new language that has been in the database for the last decade).

    8. Re:Matter/Antimatter balance. by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Photons aren't matter.

      More generally, photons don't care if they're going between matter and antimatter.

    9. Re:Matter/Antimatter balance. by painandgreed · · Score: 2, Interesting

      However, a particle and antiparticle won't annihilate if they do not come in contact with each other. If one half of the big bang were matter rich and the other half was antimatter rich, and were kept apart, then half the universe could be antimatter and half matter. Is there a way of detecting this?

      I believe the easiest answer to this is that in the very early universe, things were hot enough that everything was an ion (the first 300,000 years). Oppositely charged particles would have collided and where particles of like types of matter would not annialate, different types of matter would. Given the conditions of the early universe being so compact, one can consider it mixed and uniform. Thus, when the universe cooled to the point that normal matter could exist and not be instantly broken back into ions, all the anti-matter was long gone.

    10. Re:Matter/Antimatter balance. by kimvette · · Score: 1

      In the early moments of the big bang, there were supposedly equal amounts of matter and antimatter created. This promptly annihilated leaving behind whatever imbalance there was in the relative amounts. This leftover matter is what the universe is made up of now.

      Who says everything making up the universe now isn't antimatter, and the matter we are comprised of wasn't part of a mass which destroyed a previous universe?

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    11. Re:Matter/Antimatter balance. by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      There would have to be a region of space where the matter and anti-matter interfaced, which would produce significant amounts of gamma radiation. We don't see any such interface in the visible universe

      Background microwave radiation. The interface is all around us, in the depths of distance. The big bang is all around us, billions of lightyears away.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    12. Re:Matter/Antimatter balance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Photons are their own anti-particles.

    13. Re:Matter/Antimatter balance. by TempeTerra · · Score: 2, Informative

      Easy, all the particles would have tiny pointy beards if that were the case.

      --
      .evom ton seod gis eht
    14. Re:Matter/Antimatter balance. by dwye · · Score: 1

      In fact, I believe that the antimatter was mostly gone before there were stable nuclei, and possibly even while the Universe was just a quark soup, well before the microwave background escaped, when neutral ions could first form.

    15. Re:Matter/Antimatter balance. by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      In fact, I believe that the antimatter was mostly gone before there were stable nuclei, and possibly even while the Universe was just a quark soup, well before the microwave background escaped, when neutral ions could first form.

      Sounds good. That would put most antimatter having disappeared in the first three seconds of the universe. However, at that energy, I think that particles and anti-particles were still being created due to relativistic collisions. Any imbalance in the creation of matter versus anti-matter would mean that new anti-matter would be at an even more disadvantage, having to deal with not only the excess of matter from it's own creation, but all the left over matter from previous creations.

  14. CERN != LHC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    ALPHA project is NOT a part of LHC. It is one of many other project at CERN that does not have much to do with LHC.

    1. Re:CERN != LHC by Taibhsear · · Score: 3, Informative

      To make antihydrogen, the accelerators that feed protons to the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN divert some of these to make antiprotons by slamming them into a metal target; the antiprotons that result are held in CERN’s Antimatter Decelerator ring, which delivers bunches of antiprotons to ALPHA and another antimatter experiment.

      source: http://newscenter.lbl.gov/news-releases/2010/11/17/antimatter-atoms/

    2. Re:CERN != LHC by sash · · Score: 1

      To make antihydrogen, the accelerators that feed protons to the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN divert some of these to make antiprotons by slamming them into a metal target

      On the same vein, all CERN things could also be said to be from EDF scientists, since CERN is powered by electrons coming from EDF (the French electricity company).

  15. Antihydrogen production and capture is not new by JoshuaZ · · Score: 4, Informative

    Note that production and capture of antihydrogen is not new. There's been prior work trying to use it to test for possible CPT violations. See for example hussle.harvard.edu/~atrap/Papers/2010/AntihydrogenPhysicsToday.pdf, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005APS..DPPFP1058V and http://www.physics.harvard.edu/Thesespdfs/speck.pdf.

    1. Re:Antihydrogen production and capture is not new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ATRAP has not demonstrated trapped hbar. Production, sure... but the Speck thesis was written long before the magnetic traps for trapping hbar even existed, let alone worked.

    2. Re:Antihydrogen production and capture is not new by martas · · Score: 1

      what does any of this have to do with conditional probability tables?

      /ML student

    3. Re:Antihydrogen production and capture is not new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Previous reports from ATHENA (now ALPHA) and ATRAP demonstrated the production of antihydrogen. This is the first report of trapped neutral antihydrogen atoms. This work opens avenues to start making direct and precise comparisons between subtle features of atoms and anti-atoms.

    4. Re:Antihydrogen production and capture is not new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      While it is true that antihydrogen was produced before, it is not true that it was captured or trapped. This paper is the first report of trapped antihydrogen.

  16. Not the LHC (Summary and title are incorrect) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Antiprotons are relatively low-energy phenomena, being produced at 1 GeV. The LHC is a HIGH-energy facility, using energies 7000 times higher. Using the LHC to make antiprotons would be ridiculous overkill and counter-productive, since the ALPHA experiment needs antihydrogen at rest. Not every experiment at CERN uses the LHC. In this case, the cool bit of machinery is the Antiproton Decelerator (AD) and ALPHA's magnetic trapping system.

    1. Re:Not the LHC (Summary and title are incorrect) by Taibhsear · · Score: 0

      It takes hydrogen atoms from the LHC and diverts them to the ALPHA experiment. So it's not the whole of the LHC but it is a small part of it.

  17. Pix or it didn't happen. by RealGrouchy · · Score: 4, Funny

    If they really created antihydrogen, they should prove it by taking a photo.

    We'll have to be extra cautious that they don't just take a photo of regular hydrogen and apply a negative filter to the image.

    - RG>

    --
    Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
    1. Re:Pix or it didn't happen. by AdamThor · · Score: 1

      Actually, anti-hydrogen looks exactly like hydrogen, but with a goatee. It's usually taking advantage of this fact by surprising regular hydrogen's friends with evil acts. The fact that the two annihilate each other if they ever meet is why you never see them both in the same take...

      --
      -- "Oh. This guy again."
  18. Antimatter bomb anyone? by davidwr · · Score: 1

    Once you get enough antimatter contained in one small area, it's not hard to release the containment field.

    Sometimes, even little thing make big boom.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  19. Link to the release from IBL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    http://newscenter.lbl.gov/news-releases/2010/11/17/antimatter-atoms/

    Editors, please!

  20. Fox News, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Stopped reading after the first sentence...

    Scientists working on the big bang machine in Geneva have done the seemingly impossible: create, capture and release antimatter.

    The "machine" in question does have a name, you know?
    BBC News also has coverage,
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11773791

    1. Re:Fox News, really? by BlindSpot · · Score: 1

      You went further than me... I didn't even click the link once I saw that it was Fox News!

      Thanks for BBC link.

  21. cant wait for warp drives! by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 0, Troll

    I would like to hear what real world applications could come from this though....in what instance could MAN (instead of GOD) use this to do stuff with....? Isn't the possible massive explosion that could rip the universe apart a sign that maybe we should leave this one alone for awhile, until we have a few more astute scientists available, like many a few 100 years???

    1. Re:cant wait for warp drives! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You coward. In a few hundred years people like you would be saying the exact same thing.

      Our sun will go supernova. Long before that, we will get wiped out by asteroids. We *need* to figure out as much of the universe as possible, as quickly as possible, if we are to have any chance of preserving our species beyond these events.

    2. Re:cant wait for warp drives! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would take a lot more antimatter than humans can create to, as you put it, create a "massive explosion that could rip the universe apart". Consider that the universe has seen the deaths of any number of supernovae and the births of various black holes, and none of them has been able (so far) to do it.

    3. Re:cant wait for warp drives! by falldeaf · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wait, wut? Are you try to say, 'If man had been meant to mess with anti-matter, GOD would have given us anti-matter containment systems built into our hands!"? :)

      --
      check out the Mp3 Garbler I built!
    4. Re:cant wait for warp drives! by s122604 · · Score: 1

      "what instance could MAN (instead of GOD) use this to do stuff with.?"

      From TFA:
      ""Trapping any form of antimatter is difficult, because as soon as it meets normal matter — the stuff Earth and everything on it is made out of — the two annihilate each other in powerful explosions."

      There you go. If there exists even the slightest possibility that something like this can be weaponized (and I'm not even pretending to be smart enough to make that call) you can be damn sure there will be no shortage of research into the manner..

      Just look at the Manhattan project, atomic weapons had been theorized for a long time, but WW2 turned out to be the kind of spare-no-expense kick-in-the-pants motivator, that made them a reality, far faster than anyone (of those who even thought they were possible, which was by no means a unanimous assertion) had previously imagined...

      "Isn't the possible massive explosion that could rip the universe apart a sign that maybe we should leave this one alone for awhile"

      eh, we had some of the same fears about atomic weaponry, and its not like that stopped anyone...

    5. Re:cant wait for warp drives! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Massive explosion; rip the universe apart? Sorry, no, that's isn't ever going to be possible for man kind to do. First, you won't get any more energy out than you put it, and due to not having any efficient way to put it in currently, we really can't get that much out. But even with a 100% efficient process, you would have to convert half of all the matter in the universe to antimatter, and somehow get it to collide with the rest to even come come close to ripping it apart. You just simply don't understand the scale, or the physics involved. Don't be surprised, 99% of the entire world falls into that category. Heck, I only fall into the tiny portion that understands that I don't understand the scale.

    6. Re:cant wait for warp drives! by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

      ummmm, not quite, more like there needs to be a wee bit more research before we actually start playing with the stuff.

  22. Dan Brown by Thelasko · · Score: 1

    Finally some truth to a Dan Brown novel.

    --
    One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
  23. A link to Fox News? But not the CERN site? by aztektum · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'm not trying to rag on Fox News here, but why link them and not CERN's press release page?

    Clicky

    --
    :: aztek ::
    No sig for you!!
    1. Re:A link to Fox News? But not the CERN site? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      interestingly enough, this happens one year in the future according to that article... Geneva, 17 November 2011

    2. Re:A link to Fox News? But not the CERN site? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also not to call out Fox News, since I feel it's more of a general indication of science reportage in mainstream media, but I think it's astonishing that the Fox article basically takes this illustration of the magnetic bottle and simplifies it to the level of its own illustration, which is an antihydrogen atom kept in suspension by eight bar magnets.

    3. Re:A link to Fox News? But not the CERN site? by jayme0227 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Because then we wouldn't be able to go laugh at (or cry because of) the comments at FoxNews.com.

      Some of my favorites from this article:

      Forget terrorists, nukes, and germ warfare. These guys are the real threat. I hope these a*holes dont end up messing everything up before my kid has a chance to live a whole life.

      They don't. The modern scientist is just an imaginative liar.

      Physicist and Nobel Prize winner Dr. Jason Lisle has proven that the earth doesn't have to be billions of years old for light to reach us from distant stars. His theory of Anisotropic Synchrony Convention proves that light traveled at an infinite velocity at the moment of creation. Thus, we can be comfortable with the fact that the earth turned 6,014 years old on Oct. 23. Thanks to the theory of Amyotrophic Lateral Convection, the truth of the Bible in verified.

      14 billion years ago? Where do they come up with that ridiculous number? The universe was made in 6 days by God, thousands of years ago. It is in the Bible. Now they claim to have the substance of Lucifer? End of the year is coming and I guess it's time to dole out new grants.

      The way it looks, some of these guys are just good trolls. However, I've been around long enough to know how hard it is to distinguish extremists from those pretending to be extremists.

      --
      But then I realized the cable was blue, so I only gave it one star. I hate blue.
    4. Re:A link to Fox News? But not the CERN site? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Don't you see the correlation, sending thousands of Slashdot readers to Fox News has about the same explosive effect as when anti-matter comes in contact with normal matter. Just read some of the comments under the article on Fox and compare/contrast.

    5. Re:A link to Fox News? But not the CERN site? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      read that whole link. knew all that all ready. and NOT ONE SINGLE WORD on how this is just another SOCIALIST FASCIST ZARATHUSTRIAN LIBERAL ATTEMPT to take my GUN AND FORCE my WIFE TO HAVE AN ABORTION by the GUNPOINT of MY VERY OWN (NOW HUSSEIN OBAMAS) GUN.

      no thanks. i want news not lies. fox news tells me what to think and its always right. Glenn Beck is the only true scientist and his says this will destry us all.

    6. Re:A link to Fox News? But not the CERN site? by DocHoncho · · Score: 1

      Physicist and Nobel Prize winner Dr. Jason Lisle has proven that the earth doesn't have to be billions of years old for light to reach us from distant stars. His theory of Anisotropic Synchrony Convention proves that light traveled at an infinite velocity at the moment of creation. Thus, we can be comfortable with the fact that the earth turned 6,014 years old on Oct. 23. Thanks to the theory of Amyotrophic Lateral Convection, the truth of the Bible in verified.

      Sadly this one is "real":
      http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/anisotropic-synchrony-convention
      I didn't actually read it, but it seems pretty elaborate.

      From the website:

      The distant starlight problem is resolved if we accept that Genesis is using the anisotropic synchrony convention (ASC) rather than the Einstein synchrony convention. The resolution is simple: under ASC, the one-way speed of light when directed toward earth is axiomatically infinite, even though the round-trip speed of light remains 3 × 108 m/s. Thus, the light from stars that are created on the fourth day will naturally reach the earth essentially instantaneously.

      Well DUH! Of course Moses was thinking about Anisotropic Synchrony Convention and special relativity when he wrote Genesis. IT'S IN THE BIBLE FOLKS! And in the beginning, God created Anisotropic Synchrony Convention. Damn scientists and their lies.

      --
      Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
    7. Re:A link to Fox News? But not the CERN site? by MartinSchou · · Score: 1

      Physicist and Nobel Prize winner Dr. Jason Lisle has proven that the earth doesn't have to be billions of years old for light to reach us from distant stars. His theory of Anisotropic Synchrony Convention proves that light traveled at an infinite velocity at the moment of creation. Thus, we can be comfortable with the fact that the earth turned 6,014 years old on Oct. 23. Thanks to the theory of Amyotrophic Lateral Convection, the truth of the Bible in verified.

      Okay ... so evolution is merely a theory, but Anisotropic Synchrony Convention is fact, because it can be verified by another souds - the Bible.

      Interesting ...

      Here's my proposal: When you turn 12 you have to pick a side:
      * Religion/superstition (and here I include astrology and the like)
      * Science
      You're free to choose whichever you want, but once you've picked a side, you don't get to use the stuff from the other side.

      That means if you pick religion you don't get to use the scientific progress that has happened since the Bible was written.
      On the other hand, if you pick science, you don't get to find comfort in the idea of eternal life after death.

      Of course, that just means that as people of science we don't recognize Catholic priests as comforters of souls, but we do recognize them as charlatans and child molesters.

    8. Re:A link to Fox News? But not the CERN site? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      It also means that you get to start from scratch, since the study of genetics, heredity, and the eventual discovery of DNA started in a catholic monk’s pea patch.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  24. Dumb Question by toastar · · Score: 1

    How do you trap a neutral antiparticle?

    1. Re:Dumb Question by plover · · Score: 4, Funny

      How do you trap a neutral antiparticle?

      Tell him that his neutral anti-girlfriend is pregnant.

      --
      John
    2. Re:Dumb Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you trap a neutral antiparticle?

      Tell him that his neutral anti-girlfriend is pregnant.

      Or that the test came back "negative"

    3. Re:Dumb Question by amRadioHed · · Score: 3, Funny

      Really, that sounds more like the answer to "How do you get a neutral antiparticle to skip town and never be heard from again".

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    4. Re:Dumb Question by ilsaloving · · Score: 4, Funny

      A neutron walks into a bar. He goes up to the counter and asks the bartender, "How much for a beer?"

      The bartender looks the neutron up and down and says, "For you? No charge."

    5. Re:Dumb Question by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      How do you trap a neutral antiparticle?

      Very carefully!

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  25. No; "powerful explosions" belongs to literature by sznupi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    First, most of the energy released in matter-antimatter annihilation is carried away by neutrinos.

    Secondly...CERN covered this on one occasion:

    The inefficiency of antimatter production is enormous: you get only a tenth of a billion (10-10) of the invested energy back. If we could assemble all the antimatter we've ever made at CERN and annihilate it with matter, we would have enough energy to light a single electric light bulb for a few minutes. ...

    Can we make antimatter bombs?

    No. It would take billions of years to produce enough antimatter for a bomb having the same destructiveness as ‘typical’ hydrogen bombs, of which there exist more than ten thousand already.

    Sociological note: scientists realized that the atom bomb was a real possibility many years before one was actually built and exploded, and then the public was totally surprised and amazed. On the other hand, the public somehow anticipates the antimatter bomb, but we have known for a long time that it cannot be realized in practice.

    --
    One that hath name thou can not otter
    1. Re:No; "powerful explosions" belongs to literature by confused+one · · Score: 1

      It would take billions of years to produce enough antimatter

      [reality off] Not so, Starfleet put a station in close orbit to the Sun so that they could use the intense solar radiation to provide the necessary power for the anti-matter production facility. This also adds a measure of safety in the unlikely event of an accident, since it's off-world. [reality on]

    2. Re:No; "powerful explosions" belongs to literature by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Sociological note: scientists realized that the atom bomb was a real possibility many years before one was actually built and exploded, and then the public was totally surprised and amazed. On the other hand, the public somehow anticipates the antimatter bomb, but we have known for a long time that it cannot be realized in practice.

      Absolutely believable. Much of the public didn't realize that heterosexual people could catch AIDS until Magic Johnson caught it, and much of the public didn't realize that there was such a thing as DNA until the OJ Simpson trial. My favorite quote was from the manager of the Bakery where I worked at the time. "It's not a gay disease anymore. If Magic Johnson can get it, any of us can." I have to say, I was simply astonished.

    3. Re:No; "powerful explosions" belongs to literature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think we should research it anyway. Lets call it....Project Genesis.

    4. Re:No; "powerful explosions" belongs to literature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'm not sure why you're surprised the public anticipates an antimatter bomb? Haven't you seen Star Trek? Are you also surprised that the public anticipates warp drive?

    5. Re:No; "powerful explosions" belongs to literature by butalearner · · Score: 1

      The inefficiency of antimatter production is enormous: you get only a tenth of a billion (10-10) of the invested energy back. If we could assemble all the antimatter we've ever made at CERN and annihilate it with matter, we would have enough energy to light a single electric light bulb for a few minutes. ...

      Can we make antimatter bombs?

      No. It would take billions of years to produce enough antimatter for a bomb having the same destructiveness as ‘typical’ hydrogen bombs, of which there exist more than ten thousand already.

      Sociological note: scientists realized that the atom bomb was a real possibility many years before one was actually built and exploded, and then the public was totally surprised and amazed. On the other hand, the public somehow anticipates the antimatter bomb, but we have known for a long time that it cannot be realized in practice.

      I really have to wonder about this. Isn't the whole point of advancement of science learning to do things people didn't think was possible? Sure we suck at producing antimatter now, and even perfecting the current method won't help much. But who's to say we don't invent a completely different technique later? We already know a relatively significant amount of antimatter is created in solar flares. Sure they reach temperatures in the tens of millions of degrees, but we've created plasma at over a billion degrees at Sandia. Can we really say that humanity will never be able to create or capture antimatter more efficiently than we can now?

    6. Re:No; "powerful explosions" belongs to literature by sznupi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      1: Did we somehow escape the Archimedes' principle of buoyancy? I mean - come on, it's over two thousand years old, surely with our scientific and technological progress we should be able to build ships which are not constrained by it!

      Problem is, people seem to assume (and wish) how our dreams from works of fiction should inevitably come true, if we only "work hard enough"... but Real World(tm) has practical limits; ignoring them won't do us any good (however pleasant it seems now to live beyond sustainability - though, truth be told, perhaps most of humanity lives on detritus already)

      Just look at those airplanes from "our" times (/. & unicode links...), as imagined ~130 years ago (depiction no doubt influenced by rapid advances in (sub?)marine technology, capturing imagination of observers) - we can build them! (take a Harrier, remove wings and canopy), but it would be a horrible idea, at the least. Probably something similar gave us Shuttle (designers of which raised on scifi of ~1940s, inspired by rapid advances in aircraft technology & with lots of shiny spaceplanes) - which, in light of its purpose, is somewhat analogous to flying boats (not many those around nowadays)

      2: http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    7. Re:No; "powerful explosions" belongs to literature by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      People thought DNA was a gay disease?

    8. Re:No; "powerful explosions" belongs to literature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Sociological note: scientists realized that the atom bomb was a real possibility many years before one was actually built and exploded, and then the public was totally surprised and amazed. On the other hand, the public somehow anticipates the antimatter bomb, but we have known for a long time that it cannot be realized in practice.

      That does make perfect sense when you think about it -- the public are basically your anti-science.

    9. Re:No; "powerful explosions" belongs to literature by Auto_Lykos · · Score: 1

      With regard to the sociological note. It's a half truth. H.G. Wells wrote about something similar to atomic bombs in a 1914 novel (The World Set Free) when there was no understanding of how an atomic bomb would actually work. In fact, there are newspaper articles from the 30's reporting about the wondrous possibilities of nuclear energy. Strangely enough, Leo Szilard, the man who hypothesized the chain reaction as the real basis of a nuclear weapon, read that book a year before his discovery. This was 1933. Mainstream acceptance of the possibility of a bomb was not until after the first fission was actually achieved: 1938. The bomb project began in 1940. Around this time, Niels Bohr (that Niels Bohr) estimated that building a bomb was a practical impossibility as it would require the industrialized output of most of a nation to get sufficient amounts of enriched uranium. He concluded it could be done but only in far future (much like an antimatter bomb). When he joined the project and saw the shear amount of resources the American's were devoting to the project and the advances being made, he changed his mind.

      For instance, after spending roughly the cost of the LHC on the first uranium separation facilities at Oak Ridge, (fun fact: a significant portion of the USA's silver coinage reserve was melted into calutron's for magnetic separation) the facility, which consumed about 15% of United State's electrical output, was producing about a pound of U-235 a day, enough for a bomb every 6 months.

      The LHC or ALPHA is like a mass spectrometer. It's a scientific tool. Technically, you can also use a mass spectrometer to enrich the uranium to make an atomic bomb, but it would take about a million years to make enough. See the similarities?

      It is a bit disingenuous for CERN to say "we" can't make antimatter bombs. If "we" means CERN then it's absolutely true, but to comment in an overall sense of "we" would be yet another foolish misunderstanding of the abilities of an industrialized nation to accomplish something when incredibly dedicated to it.

      The real reason we won't see anti-matter bombs is in CERN's quote though. A hydrogen bomb is plenty "good enough".

    10. Re:No; "powerful explosions" belongs to literature by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>People thought DNA was a gay disease? /sigh...

      HIV is a retrovirus.

    11. Re:No; "powerful explosions" belongs to literature by sznupi · · Score: 1

      What H.G. Wells wrote is a very good example because of its complete implausibility, on the most basic logical level. NVM techno babble - "continuing explosion" defies the concept of "explosion" itself. Wasn't even more destructive than chemical bombs (what good is a continuos explosion in the same place? If anything, it would be quickly contained by its own crater / cave). And Niels Bohr had other motives to express doubt.

      The proportion of U-235 in the ore was simply astronomical in comparison to our "sources" of antimatter. How is that philosopher's stone going? With a dream that old, and technically possible now... BTW, CERN/LHC is very much an international effort.

      Even if we had a method of obtaining it many orders of magnitude more efficiently than our (quite good) understanding of physics allows - it doesn't resolve the biggest showstopper, containment. And even disregarding also that / assuming it can be done - there's a very fundamental problem with any bomb which needs to be very actively stopped from exploding at all times (while not being more powerful than quite inert and handy fission/fusion devices)

      Antimatter catalyzed explosive devices might be within a realm of possibility. But Niels Bohr would have something to say about that as well...

      Another example: confusing scifi teleportation with particle statistics effect.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
  26. The LHC is in for trouble from the PETAM by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 3, Funny

    LHC Scientists Create and Capture Antimatter

    PETAM (People for the Ethical Treatment of Antimatter) are not going to be pleased with this. Especially the bits about physicists staging pit-bull style "dog fights" between matter and antimatter, and placing quantum mechanics based bets to the outcome of the duels.

    Remember, children, "God does not play dice!"

    And let that antimatter roam free! No capture, no antimatter!

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    1. Re:The LHC is in for trouble from the PETAM by Webz · · Score: 1

      I'm offended you would make light an issue of such gravity! This isn't a laughing anti matter!

  27. For those two who do not know what LHC does by houghi · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j50ZssEojtM
    It explains in easy to understand words what it does.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  28. Antimatter Engine? by mrnick · · Score: 1

    The article, although limited on scientific data, is interesting. It makes me wonder how much and at what rate they capture antimatter? What circumstances are required to ensure that antimatter is present to trap?

    If one can readily trap antimatter you wouldn't need to store it long. Instead control matter antimatter collisions and harness the explosive power. What would it be called? an engine? a reactor? a generator? Hmmmmmm...

    --

    Encryption: I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to encrypt it...
    1. Re:Antimatter Engine? by Lost+Penguin · · Score: 1

      "Instead control matter antimatter collisions and harness the explosive power."
      "What would it be called?"

      Ragnarök

      --
      I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
  29. Good for them! by powerlord · · Score: 1

    demonstrating how it's possible to capture and release it

    Actually I think it shows a lot of forethought that they are trying to keep from depleting the local pool of Antimatter by trying to institute "Catch and Release" rules.

    If more Sport Physicist follow suit, they are less likely to find government intervention and the need for Licenses before they go Colliding their own particles.

    --
    This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
  30. Now get us some dilithium crystals by fishexe · · Score: 2

    ...and we'll have Warp Drive! Huzzah!

    --
    "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    1. Re:Now get us some dilithium crystals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and we'll have Warp Drive! Huzzah!

      It wouldn't work. First you have to invert polarity of the containment field by modulating subspace frequency.

  31. Really? by Taibhsear · · Score: 1

    A story about the LHC and you link to Fox News? Come on now...

    1. Re:Really? by Taibhsear · · Score: 4, Informative
    2. Re:Really? by HappyDrgn · · Score: 1

      I read this from a few sources today, including fox, and I can't really find fault in the reporting from fox news on this topic; Seems just as complete as any other source I've read.

    3. Re:Really? by Lanteran · · Score: 1, Troll

      Its just really popular to hate fox news on slashdot.

      --
      "People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.
    4. Re:Really? by mywhitewolf · · Score: 1

      i think its mutual.

  32. Megatron? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now what? We sit back and wait for Megatron to come down and take the antimatter formula from us? Hot damn, people! WHY did you go crowing this on the internets when you know perfectly well that Decepticons are listening in?

  33. Quoting an American about a European Experiment? by stevedcc · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Then at least disclose that it's a European experiment. We spent billions on it, credit where its due please. Americans generally work on the principle that if nothing is said about location, it's American. Quoting an American regarding the experiment reinforces this view.

    --
    todo - The developer's equivalent of confession: "Forgive me Father, for I have sinned..."
  34. I was confused: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...because as soon as it [anti-matter] meets normal matter — the stuff Earth and everything on it is made out of...

    I am so glad you cleared that up for me.

  35. Link to the Original by ONto · · Score: 3, Informative
    quote>

    Please use this link http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101117/full/468355a.html it was the original. Tired of the FOX News links.

    1. Re:Link to the Original by Taibhsear · · Score: 1

      Whoops, I probably should have looked for the original. Thanks. Would mod up but I don't have points right now.

  36. First time? by Gnaget · · Score: 2, Informative

    Scientists have captured antimatter before. I recall an interview with a physicist (I believe Colbert Report) who mentioned they had antimatter captured before. Doing a quick Google search, I found references to captured antimatter going back to 2002: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1957-antimatter-atoms-captured-for-the-first-time.html

  37. Hold on a minute here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Wait, first they told me that the LHC was trying to make a dangerous black hole, and now they tell me they're trying to launch antimatter projectiles. I don't get it, are they trying to make a Romulan Warbird or the Starship Enterprise?

  38. How much can you catch before... by jmichaelg · · Score: 1

    When have you caught so much anti-matter that releasing it would cause a serious problem? How much is too much?

    1. Re:How much can you catch before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well Ewen McGregor had something about the size a Pringles can when he lit up the night sky above the Vatican. And that was a BFE. So, I would say about as much as would fit in a Pringles can...

  39. Can I have my blaster now? by erroneus · · Score: 1

    All I want is a beam or bolt of antimatter that I can launch at my enemies and the occasional bird or squirrel. I'm guessing the beam or bolt would have to be encapsulated with something to prevent reaction with the atmosphere prior to hitting the target and I assume it would be some sort of energy field. So now let's do that so I can have my blaster!

    Also... lightsaber? Where is my lightsaber?

    1. Re:Can I have my blaster now? by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 1

      I think that was plasma, not antimatter.

  40. Someone call Dr. Langdon... by DoubleParadoxx · · Score: 0

    I'll be keeping my distance from the Vatican for the next few days. Then again, I always keep my distance from the Vatican.

    1. Re:Someone call Dr. Langdon... by interval1066 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "Then again, I always keep my distance from the Vatican."

      Too bad, the Vatican is a warehouse of historical art and documents that span almost 20 centuries, from ancient Celtic gold captured by Roman Emperors to some of the most exquisite illuminated French manuscripts ever known. Sculpture by Michelangelo, paintings by Titian, medieval tryptics chased with gold filigree, original manuscripts by pagan authors such as Plato, Cato, and Virgil... really amazing stuff. But you'll never see it as you have obviously made the wise choice of avoiding Christian Ground Zero. They might zap you with their evil baptism rays. Good for you.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    2. Re:Someone call Dr. Langdon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nota bene: the "evil baptism rays" work wherever there is water. Luckily, baptism has never been proven to be deadly.

  41. Re:Quoting an American about a European Experiment by clone53421 · · Score: 1

    Then at least disclose that it's a European experiment.

    Well, the headline did start right off by saying it was the LHC. And I’m pretty sure I’m not the only one who knows that the LHC is in Europe.

    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  42. Re:What would it be called? by dhammabum · · Score: 1

    A bomb. I wonder how long it will take to produce it.

    --
    I am not a robot. I am a unicorn.
  43. Arg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is Cartman on my phone!!!!

  44. Smart Answer by mangu · · Score: 1

    Don't.

  45. Ultimate geek prank by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Rather than sodium flush a little antihydrogen down the toilet.

  46. Slashnot by blair1q · · Score: 1

    News for nuffers. Stuff that antimatters.

  47. RTFA by Khashishi · · Score: 5, Informative

    They use the magnetic moment of the antihydrogen. They trap it for about 1/6 of a second, which isn't very long, considering we can trap charged antiparticles for weeks in Penning-Malmberg traps. But it's still impressive.

    1. Re:RTFA by Ihlosi · · Score: 4, Insightful
      They trap it for about 1/6 of a second, which isn't very long

      In particle physics, that's still about half an eternity.

  48. Had me SCARED for a second there.... by rts008 · · Score: 1

    Actually, anti-hydrogen looks exactly like hydrogen, but with a goatee.

    I misread that as goatse, and panicked!
    Oddly enough, your comment still worked with my inadvertent substitution.

    I think I've spent too much time on /. :-)

    --
    Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
  49. Time symmetry by janwedekind · · Score: 1

    In the beginning anti-matter and matter fused to create energy which resulted in human life.
    The process of physicists using energy to separate matter and anti-matter is just the same process occurring in negative time.
    If we see more and more of this, it will be proof that the universe is coming to an end.

    1. Re:Time symmetry by Beelzebud · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes yes, but what has this got to do with TimeCube?!?!

  50. The ANTI HYDROGEN NUCLEAR REACTOR by b4upoo · · Score: 1

    Yep, it's on the way. It's a reverse process that will suck all the electricity out of every wire, home, office and factory and bring it all back to roost at the reactor for later use. However the anti time equation suggests that sooner and later have no meaning at all.

  51. Phase one is complete by Arancaytar · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Now off to the Vatican and call Dan Brown.

  52. Warp factor 9, Mr. Sulu by DontBlameCanada · · Score: 1

    Now we just need to invent Warp Coils and Gene Roddenberry's triumph over all the nay-sayers will be complete. According to the Star Trek chronology, Zefram Cochrane invented the first warp drive in 2063, so this ability to generate anti-matter is right on the time-table.

    All couples with the last name Cochrane should immediate start procreating and naming all their children "Zefram". Bedside audio tapes of theoretical physics are suggested "night-night" aids.

  53. Just my speculation.... by mrops · · Score: 1

    Could it at all be possible that during the big bang, equal amounts of matter and anti-matter were created.

    Due to the huge explosion (ok big bang), matter went one way and the anti-matter the other way. trillions and trillions of lightyear away, anti-matter humans are trying to figure out what the F happened to all the matter.

    1. Re:Just my speculation.... by RobNich · · Score: 1, Interesting

      On the anti-matter side of the universe, they just call it "matter".

      --
      Hello little man. I will destroy you!
    2. Re:Just my speculation.... by rubycodez · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not likely, we have a special image of the universe 400,000 years after it formed, the CMB from the "surface of last scattering" which shows that it was matter dominated (and very uniform) when it was 1/1100th it's present size.

    3. Re:Just my speculation.... by jacob1984 · · Score: 1

      Not likely, we have a special image of the universe 400,000 years after it formed.

      Could you provide a link? That's fascinating.

    4. Re:Just my speculation.... by rubycodez · · Score: 5, Informative

      NASA's page is good, see the last 3 paragraphs under the title "surface of last scattering"

      http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_cmb.html

      then could read the whole page from the beginning, good stuff.

    5. Re:Just my speculation.... by ArundelCastle · · Score: 1

      Not likely, we have a special image of the universe 400,000 years after it formed,

      Is it one of those images that you have to fuzz your vision to see the sailboat? I fucking hate those.

    6. Re:Just my speculation.... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      On the anti-matter side of the universe, they just call it "matter".

      Oh, and how precisely do you know this to be true?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    7. Re:Just my speculation.... by evocarti · · Score: 1

      Interesting read - but I don't think it totally rules out anti-humans that are outside of our observable universe.

      If I understand correctly, the unobservable portion of our universe was a product of the inflationary epoch, which started and ended less than a second after the Big Bang

    8. Re:Just my speculation.... by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      also doesn't rule out an anti-matter universe blasted backward in time from the big bang, or into other dimensions we can't access

    9. Re:Just my speculation.... by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      Never mind, it doesn't matter.

  54. Re:Personally... by interval1066 · · Score: 2, Informative

    "...I love how these articles talk about THEORIES like they are pure facts. "

    Not facts, theories. You do however seem to be laboring under some false pretense that scientific method is some kind of ramshackle rim-shot affair, like it doesn't really work, and is only for people who study it. People like you show what an astounding divide exists between science and the lay populace. Not that Science hasn't tried to bridge that divide, People like Sagan and Hawking have tried to do it. Those effort obviously weren't enough. A theory isn't an idea that a person, say YOU, came up with while smoking dope one day and in your haze supposed that an atom in your thumb is like the Solar System.

    Most theories are 90% fact. They are fact right up to the point that experiments can be devised to prove them, then there often comes a point where there is no experiment that can be performed to prove it. Take for example relativity; Einstein was able to show that light is bent by gravity because Arthur Eddington went to the North Pole to observe light from a star bent by an eclipse in 1919. Even that wasn't enough; when atomic clocks and jets were invented in the 1950's a further aspect of relativity was shown. In the field of physics, by the way, quantum theory is the most successful theory ever advanced, it explains 95% of every aspect of physics for the topics it covers.

    This idea you uneducated wretches have that the empirical method is a bunch of guys in white coats talking about crap is just that, crap. You Don't Know What You're Talking About.

    --
    Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
  55. How do we know? by Pro923 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How do we know that the universe is dominated by matter versus anti-matter? What is the scientific reason that we know that the next galaxy over isn't made completely of anti-matter versus matter?

    1. Re:How do we know? by John+Hasler · · Score: 3, Informative

      The space between our galaxy and the next one over is not empty. It contains extremely rarified gas. If the next galaxy was made of antimatter there would be a transition region where matter and antimatter would mix, collide, and emit easily detected gamma rays.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    2. Re:How do we know? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/11/10/1458245/Massive-Gamma-Ray-Bubbles-Discovered-In-Milky-Way?from=rss

  56. Antiobligatory... by Scatterplot · · Score: 1, Redundant

    The antimatter, for one, welcomes me as it's new overlord.

  57. Gotta love the sarcasm.. by cheros · · Score: 3, Informative

    At http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/30577 you can read a slightly sarcastic piece about what it would take to hold the quantities that Dan Brown used in his books.

    Nice wry write-up - I like the details..

    --
    Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
    1. Re:Gotta love the sarcasm.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Went to see that movie at the behest of a coworker, who, upon seeing the LHC and antimatter props and things, declared that the world was going to end and she was going to visit France and the Vatican one more time before they blew it up.

      Me, I just wanted my damn $6 back. That was a terrible movie. But nothing other than par for Mr. Hanks. He stopped being funny when he stopped cross-dressing on sitcoms, and possibly before that.

  58. Is it really anti-matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do they know we aren't the ones made of anti-matter and what they created is mere matter?

  59. Anti-Hydrogen Bomb by digitalPhant0m · · Score: 1

    So, then the Anti-Hydrogen bomb would be sort of an oxymoron then?

  60. No, not at all possible by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Could it at all be possible that during the big bang, equal amounts of matter and anti-matter were created.

    No. It is one of the Sakharov conditions on the Big Bang. While your suggestion of "random" separation is technically possible the odds against it happening are so vanishingly small that it would be more reasonable to explain the extinction of the dinosaurs by spontaneous suffocation caused by no oxygen molecules entering any dinosaur's lungs just by "random chance".

    Even if you ignore the odds of it happening then there would still have to be a border between the matter and anti-matter that would be devoid of mass and we don't see a band stretching throughout the universe like this nor do we see it in the cosmic microwave background. So not only is your theory overwhelmingly improbable it is inconsistent with data.

  61. That's no neutron by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 5, Funny

    The bartender looks the neutron up and down and says, "For you? No charge."

    Of course if the bartender had been a particle physicist and looked him up and down then he would have said: "Hey you're no neutron, you are a quark short. That'll be full charge for you, you pion!"

  62. Atom, not particle by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    How do you trap a neutral antiparticle?

    You don't (easily) but fortunately an atom is not a single particle but a system of two charged particles and so you can use atomic traps which rely on EM fields as well as absorption and emission of EM radiation.

  63. Does if fall up? by DCFusor · · Score: 1

    And would it not be a CPT violation if it didn't, or would that only happen if the thing it was falling up away from was also antimatter? I don't see how they'll tell in this trap how gravity affects the stuff -- trapping forces are many G equivalent. But that's really the important question, not does it have the same visible spectra, which almost certainly, it does. And wha? Who said most of the energy of annihilation goes off as neutrinos? That's ignorant. e+ and e- colliding makes two gamma rays of 511 mev each. Protons, being much heavier and all, probably make quite the shower of particles created from the high energy photons. Which then decay. Some, but not most of the energy would go off in neutrinos. Just like in beta decay. And yes, I AM a physicist.

    --
    Why guess when you can know? Measure!
  64. What a bunch of idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Why not just make a container out of anti-matter? Problem solved.

  65. I once met an electron... by TheZed · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... who thought he was a positron.

    "Are you sure?", I asked.

    "I'm positive".

    *ducks*

  66. Annihilate Inaccurate Story by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 4, Informative

    No but I wish it were possible to annihilate all the inaccuracies in the story! Alpha has NOTHING to do with the LHC other than happening to be in the same lab. These guys need to get the anti-protons down to almost zero velocity so starting with the highest energy machine on the planet would be stupid.

    In fact Alpha uses the Anti-proton Decelerator which uses the CERN Proton Synchrotron (PS) which is one of the low energy machines at CERN accelerating protons to only 25 GeV - which is so low in energy that the protons have to be accelerated by another machine, the SPS, before they can even be injected into the LHC for final acceleration!

    1. Re:Annihilate Inaccurate Story by Datamonstar · · Score: 1

      Nerd overload. I feel tired after your nerdgasm, jeez.

      --
      The eternal struggle of good vs. evil begins within one's self.
  67. where have I seen this before? by juan2074 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Who knew Angels & Demons was going to be a true story?

  68. In other news by slapout · · Score: 0

    Antimatter is now for sell on eBay...

    --
    Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
  69. Observation by fishbowl · · Score: 1

    When asked in interviews, the scientists very clearly say there are no practical applications of this research. On one hand, no one involved seems to have any pie-in-the-sky free energy speculation. On the other hand, it's pretty obvious that there's a conscious effort being undertaken not to talk about the elephant in the room. I suppose it should be comforting that antimatter research doesn't have a Leo Szilard.

    Still we can be pretty sure that not everyone is watching this research with the idea that it is _entirely_ driven by pure scientific curiosity, as the LHC scientists make a point of mentioning.

    --
    -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  70. the world's smallest... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wait for it... ;) "atom" bomb
    very useful for nuking all those microscopic space fleets that came with H2G2 games that got released when people thought the little bag was empty.

  71. Question for the anti-particle crowd... by Khyber · · Score: 1

    Is there such thing as an anti-photon? If so, what would be the outcome of the collision of an anti-photon with a photosynthetically-reactive wavelength against chlorophyll in a plant?

    Would the plant react typically and start making sugars, or would we look at destruction of the matter at that area?

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    1. Re:Question for the anti-particle crowd... by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      No, there is no such thing as an anti-photon. Also, even if there were, it would not annihilate protons and electrons, only photons; similarly a positron can only annihilate an electron, not a proton or anti-proton, and so on.

      On the other hand in the right conditions photons can "annihilate" into particle/anti-particle pairs; all that is required is that energy and momentum be conserved.

  72. Re:The Onion by monkyyy · · Score: 1

    no they have the same rate of accuracy, of infinitely close to ~0

    --
    warning pointless sig
  73. Link trap by dugeen · · Score: 1

    That's the last time anyone on Slashdot tricks me into clicking through to Faux News. Now I have to wash my computer.

  74. Why use magnetic fields by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since all matter charged or not interacts with an electric field, why not use it for containment? Is it because a strong enough electric field would start arcing sparks that they don't use it, or some other reason?

    1. Re:Why use magnetic fields by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Electric and magnetic fields are just different ways to experience the same phenomenon. If you are moving relative to the charge (or if the quantity of charge is changing), you see both an electric field and a magnetic field. If you are not, you see only an electric field.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  75. Call me when they create anti-AIDS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm still waiting.

  76. monatomic Hydrogen? by prograde · · Score: 1
    I'm quite surprised that the hydrogen atoms didn't condense in to molecular Hydrogen (H2). Monatomic Hydrogen is remarkably unstable at any temperature above 1K. If they isolated 38 atoms for 1/6 of a second, that seems like plenty of time for chemical reactions to take over (i.e. formation of H2).

    From the article at Nature:

    To trap just 38 atoms, the group had to run the experiment 335 times.

    I'm guessing that the 38 atoms that they isolated were during different runs of the experiment.

  77. Since we now have anti-matter, we need to get us some Photon Torpedos to use on our enemies.

  78. Modern reality of internation science by snowwrestler · · Score: 1

    Like most big physics done at CERN, ALPHA is a broad collaboration between many nations.

    http://alpha.web.cern.ch/alpha/

    --
    Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.