Slashdot Mirror


Physicists Build Bigger 'Bottles' For Antimatter

intellitech writes "Once regarded as the stuff of science fiction, antimatter — the mirror image of the ordinary matter in our observable universe — is now the focus of laboratory studies around the world. While physicists routinely produce antimatter with radioisotopes and particle colliders, cooling these antiparticles and containing them for any length of time is another story. Clifford Surko, a professor of physics at UC San Diego, who is constructing what he hopes will be the world's largest antimatter container, said physicists have recently developed new methods to make special states of antimatter in which they can create large clouds of antiparticles, compress them and make specially tailored beams for a variety of uses."

119 comments

  1. Pure antiproton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Can they be pure antiproton? Absolutely pure?

    1. Re:Pure antiproton by peragrin · · Score: 0

      it better be absolutely pure. because if even one atom is normal matter the whole thing goes bang, and maybe big bang.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    2. Re:Pure antiproton by Spad · · Score: 1

      Not really, if only one atom is normal matter then it will annihilate with one atom of anti-matter - the rest of the anti-matter will continue to exist without posing a mortal threat to anyone nearby.

    3. Re:Pure antiproton by russotto · · Score: 4, Informative

      it better be absolutely pure. because if even one atom is normal matter the whole thing goes bang, and maybe big bang.

      Unless I've done the math wrong, annihilation of one hydrogen/anti-hydrogen pair yields about 3*10^-9 joules. Not much of a bang.

    4. Re:Pure antiproton by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

      A bit of whoosing going on here, eh commodore?

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    5. Re:Pure antiproton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're off by an order of magnitude ( 2*(1.673 x 10^-27 kg)(3 x 10^8 m/s)^2 = 3 x 10^-10 J). Coincidentally, your argument has increased in validity by one order of magnitude.

    6. Re:Pure antiproton by afabbro · · Score: 1

      They say there's no devil...

      --
      Advice: on VPS providers
    7. Re:Pure antiproton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3^10^-9 Joules is 500 MeV. For comparison, your off-the-shelf dynamite gives you 2eV per molecule, and nuclear bomb gives out 2MeV per atom. One atom may not be much, but the whole container may be worth a lot.

    8. Re:Pure antiproton by LordVader717 · · Score: 1

      Yes, you're wrong. It's 3*10^-10 Joules.

    9. Re:Pure antiproton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe but some of the comments are quite interesting.

    10. Re:Pure antiproton by russotto · · Score: 1

      Doh! Damn slide rule makes me keep track of the decimals myself. There's gotta be a better way...

    11. Re:Pure antiproton by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      Kinda reminds me of the whole Ghostbusters "Don't Cross the Streams (or the Universe will end)" bit. I dunno, maybe it's just because I'm such a fan of Carl Sagan, but things like antimatter and matter colliding will cause space to warp in on itself or something like that just seem patently riduculous. I think a lot of these things where we say absurd scenarios like that are just from a poor understanding of the subject in general, so we greatly highball our estimations, we exaggerate, we dream.

  2. 'science fiction'? by fractalrock · · Score: 1

    Antimatter has been known and studied since the 1930s or so. I suspect that any science fiction that included antimatter as a subject was written during or after that time. I hate stupid /. headlines.

    1. Re:'science fiction'? by eobanb · · Score: 1

      Tell that to Dan Brown.

      --

      Take off every sig. For great justice.

    2. Re:'science fiction'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the science fiction there wasn't about antimatter per se. It was about building a container to contain antimatter. If my recollection serves me right the novel "Angels and Daemons" included an antimatter container as one of the plot line's core components.

    3. Re:'science fiction'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      ... the novel "Angels and Daemons"...

      I see someone's posting from work :)

    4. Re:'science fiction'? by wurp · · Score: 0

      While positrons were experimentally confirmed in 1932, I don't think that qualifies as "antimatter". When people speak of matter they're typically talking about atoms. Antiprotons were not confirmed by experiment until 1955, and there were no reliable reports of anti-atoms until 1995.

      I would say until we have millions or billions of anti-atoms to play with, we can't say we have really studied antimatter. Most of the high level properties of atoms we see day-to-day are emergent from millions of atoms interacting, and can't really be tested on one atom at a time.

      What we have studied so far are various anti-particles, and some anti-atoms.

    5. Re:'science fiction'? by AdrianKemp · · Score: 1

      I don't entirely disagree with what you're saying, but without knowing your physics background I think you may be missing info on what the main goal of antimatter study is.

      The primary point of interest currently is to determine why matter exists and antimatter doesn't (that is, why the universe is made of matter and antimatter is essentially non-existent). Everything about antimatter *should* be the same as matter, except for opposite charges. If we confirm that with a single atom then we can safely extrapolate the behavior of antimatter in large amounts. If on the other hand, we determine that antimatter is *not* the same as matter (quark masses differing for instance), there will be an entire new branch of physics and many current theories will have been proven wrong.

      So although there may* come a time when studying large amounts of antimatter is important, I think it is actually quite fair to call this "studying antimatter".

      *will, let's face it the universe is made of matter for a reason... I'm 100% confident that we will find some small but fundamental difference.

    6. Re:'science fiction'? by wurp · · Score: 1

      I have a BS in physics, but I'm not sure it matters for this discussion. I do think you have a point. I guess it depends on what you mean by antimatter study.

      My personal opinion is that matter and antimatter are entirely symmetrical, and it is only chance that our galaxy is made up almost entirely of matter. The figures I've seen thrown around suggest that only one in a billion "extra" atoms of matter were required to see the distribution we see today, and I think that during early inflation it would have been easy for what was once a symmetrical matter/antimatter pair to be separated and leave part of the universe matter and part antimatter.

      (I don't know any reason to believe distant galaxies are made of matter rather than antimatter. To my knowledge, we only detect distant objects by light or gravitational effects. Photons are their own antiparticle and antimatter behaves the same as matter gravitationally, as far as we know, so we can't tell the difference.)

    7. Re:'science fiction'? by AdrianKemp · · Score: 1

      II don't know any reason to believe distant galaxies are made of matter rather than antimatter.

      Now that's an interesting thought... I hadn't considered that possibility. I agree that there is no way to tell the difference between matter and antimatter at that kind of distance. The tiny amount of space debris flying around wouldn't annihilate enough of anything to be noticeable, so isolated clumps of matter and antimatter would appear to be the same.

      Most arguments I've seen about matter/antimatter is that they should have been attracted to each other and annihilated immediately at the big bang. Obviously though that doesn't actually happen every (or even most) of the time, since we're capturing the stuff with relative ease.

      The only reason I can see to question the co-existence would be that if a matter galaxy collided with an antimatter galaxy the energy released would.... well frankly I'm not even sure what it would do, it would be enormous but at the same time the distance between galaxies is equally enormous.

      You have given me something to ponder for many days, I thank you :)

    8. Re:'science fiction'? by wurp · · Score: 1

      Most arguments I've seen about matter/antimatter is that they should have been attracted to each other and annihilated immediately at the big bang.

      Well, anti-atoms are neutral. It's true that charged particle/antiparticle pairs would have strong attraction, and should have been created near one another, but random interactions would carry some minute portion of them far enough to combine to a neutral form (e.g. an atom) that would have no attraction over any kind of distance.

      You have given me something to ponder for many days, I thank you :)

      You're very welcome!

  3. Bigger bottles are great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I got me a couple a 40's.

    1. Re:Bigger bottles are great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forties are gooood.

      But I had to give them up after they gave me insatiable urges to watch Kung-fu movies, eat fried chicken and watermelon, leer at overweight Caucasian women, steal things, decorate my house with animal prints, install subwoofers and gold rims on my Geo Metro and crank'em 'till the trunk and doors rattled off, sue my employer for discrimination,dance (very well), buckle my pants below my buttcheeks, develop great muscle tone, grow a big dick, play ball for the NFL and the NBA, watch BET, join NAACP, and braid my hair... ...to name a few.

      Running to the store to get a case of 40s right after I hit submit....

  4. Rocky Horror Predicted it first! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Beams of Pure Anti Matter!

  5. Using antimatter... by Codex_of_Wisdom · · Score: 2

    "...make specially tailored beams for a variety of uses."
    Read: blowing stuff up.
    I love science!

    1. Re:Using antimatter... by Strider- · · Score: 2

      Hey now.. this isn't Mythbusters.

      --
      ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
    2. Re:Using antimatter... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      If it weren't so damn expensive, it'd probably give those crazy kids over in high-density rocket fuels something to chew on, as well...

    3. Re:Using antimatter... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Blowing stuff up in a highly precise way. I'm thinking of ultra-precise machining of mirrors or lenses. Ion streams are already used for this, but they are very slow and don't work on most materials. A positron beam would be faster, and could cut through anything with electrons in. Which means anything.

    4. Re:Using antimatter... by francium+de+neobie · · Score: 1

      A trillion positrons is still a very microscopic amount of particles and mass when macro phenomenons (i.e. blow things up) are concerned. You probably wouldn't feel anything if all that was dumped onto your tongue.

    5. Re:Using antimatter... by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      It wont blow up anything. Or will it? Sounds like a myth that needs busting to me.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    6. Re:Using antimatter... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I probably wouldn't feel anything either if a stick of dynamite was exploded on my tongue ;)

  6. Idiots. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Idiots are going to blow us all to Kingdom Come. You know this is just the first step in making a planet buster bomb.

    1. Re:Idiots. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Hey, competition is important. You don't think that the LHC guys are going to get off their asses and deliver that planet-devouring black hole that they've been holding out on us about if they don't know that the UCSD antimatter team has a competing PhDed existential threat in the works, do you?

    2. Re:Idiots. by MozeeToby · · Score: 5, Informative

      Idiots are going to blow us all to Kingdom Come. You know this is just the first step in making a planet buster bomb.

      To produce enough anti-matter to match the destructive potential of the Tsar Bomba hydrogen bomb, you would need the energy output of a gigawatt power station for 6.6 years. And that is assuming perfect production and storage which we are no where close to achieving. In reality, it takes orders of magnitude more energy to crate anti-matter than can get out of the annihilation of that anti-matter, so the actual length of time would be closer to 600 years than 6.

      So, sorry, no earth shattering kaboom just yet.

    3. Re:Idiots. by Konster · · Score: 1

      You'd only need a bit over 1kg of matter and a bit over a kg of antimatter to equal the output of Tsar Bomba.

    4. Re:Idiots. by Shemmie · · Score: 3, Funny

      I have a bag of sugar - we're half way there!

    5. Re:Idiots. by vlm · · Score: 1

      Idiots are going to blow us all to Kingdom Come. You know this is just the first step in making a planet buster bomb.

      To produce enough anti-matter to match the destructive potential of the Tsar Bomba hydrogen bomb, you would need the energy output of a gigawatt power station for 6.6 years. And that is assuming perfect production and storage which we are no where close to achieving. In reality, it takes orders of magnitude more energy to crate anti-matter than can get out of the annihilation of that anti-matter, so the actual length of time would be closer to 600 years than 6.

      So, sorry, no earth shattering kaboom just yet.

      You've answered the total energy problem, but not the power problem. For example a stick of dynamite and a piece of cake have about the same total energy content, its just dynamite releases it at a literally supersonic rate, whereas it takes hour (years?) to use the chemical energy from a piece of cake in my tummy.

      Its entirely possible a Tsar Bomba sized antimatter bomb would slowly "burn" like the worlds scariest refinery fire. Might take "a long time" to fully react as a tiny bit blows a very clean vacuum around itself by the gammas heating the air, repeat as an oscillator. Oh it would be very destructive, but probably take many orders of magnitude longer than a nuke to react.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    6. Re:Idiots. by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      So perhaps an antimatter bomb would work sort of like the nuclear weapons envisioned by H. G. Wells in The World Set Free. He imagined nuclear weapons as no more powerful that ordinary explosives, but they continued to explode for days.

      So the total amount of energy released would be similar to a nuclear weapon as we know them, but not instantaneous. It would be a very effective device for some creative tactical uses, imagine a fire that burns with the power of a conventional bomb for days on end that you can't put out.

      --
      Eat the rich.
    7. Re:Idiots. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      I imagine it would depend on the state of the antimatter and the surface area in contact with ordinary matter. But fast - enough heat and you'd get antimatter vapor, which would rapidly expand from the heat produced and intermix with a large volume of air.

    8. Re:Idiots. by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

      Honestly this is the first post to make me genuinely laugh in a long time.

    9. Re:Idiots. by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Is salt anti-sugar? Cause I have a kilo of that.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    10. Re:Idiots. by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      Now all you need is a bottle of lemon juice (anti sweet).

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    11. Re:Idiots. by Kjella · · Score: 1

      As far as I know H-bombs are made using a traditional atom bomb as trigger. Use the H-bomb as trigger to the antimatter bomb, I figure a multi-megaton blast will mix matter and anti-matter and set off a ton of reactions at the same time. I'm guessing gigaton range...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    12. Re:Idiots. by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      First you get the sugar...

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    13. Re:Idiots. by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      Theoretically you could make a hydrogen bomb powerful enough to be a "crust buster" at the least. You just need a *lot* of lithium and Deuterium, and a pretty big fission trigger or triggers, or even a hydrogen bomb trigger.

      But the biggest deployed H bomb by the US was 25Mt yield and weighed less than 10tonns IIRC. So by a lot, I don't really mean a lot compared to the size of the planet. In fact 25 tonns of LiD can produce a bomb of over 1 GTon (1000Mt) and would be a cube 3 meters on each side. You still need a trigger, hohlraum and tamper. This is too small to be a true doomsday device. But you get the idea. If you hide it in a warehouse, say 30x10x10, you are a 100x more powerful and need 2700tons of LiD--so we getting up to a 1000Gt yield.....

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    14. Re:Idiots. by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      Proton Anti-proton annihilation does not result in gamma rays. Protons are made out of quarks, so you get more interesting results. The primary products are on average an even split of all 3 Pions, +, - and 0. The 0 decays almost immediately to gammas, and there goes 1/3 of your energy. However these are high energy gammas and will deposit there energy in a fairly short range in dense (ie higher than air) medium, and still quite confined in air (ie miles). The + and - Pions have quite a long life time (2.6e-8 s mean life time) and are traveling almost at the speed of light. They can travel many meters in free space. However since they are charged they dump there energy into matter very quickly. Heating the sounding mass to insane temperatures. Finally the changed Pions decay into muons and neutrinos.

      Now you have a ball of matter heated to millions even billions of degrees. This emits massive amounts of x rays which then heats a even bigger ball of matter. It should be noted in conventional nukes, the initial hot ball of plasma heats a larger ball of matter via x rays. This "secondary" ball of heated material expands creating the destructive shockwave.

      It would be very easy to ensure rapid mixing of matter and antimatter. There are many instabilities that aid the mixing.

      Note that as with conventional nukes, they do rely on dumping energy into surrounding matter. In a vacuum like in space, the effects are very different and pretty much attenuated compared to "surface work".

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    15. Re:Idiots. by atrain728 · · Score: 1

      H-bombs are set off that way because the energy cost to set off a nuclear fission/fusion chain reaction is quite high. There is no such problem with anti-matter. In fact, a far more likely scenario is the use of anti-matter to set off a H-bombs (replacing traditional methods) allowing for much, much smaller H-bombs.

  7. Cleaning up nuclear waste and other stuff... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So could you make anti-nuclear waste, and combine it with nuclear waste, end up with lots of energy and no mess? I suppose it could be any anti-matter, just use nuclear waste and any other undesirable stuff for the "matter" side of the equation.

    1. Re:Cleaning up nuclear waste and other stuff... by ShooterNeo · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes but I think the antimatter annihilation reaction would cause side reactions that would release neutrons and create more nuclear waste...

      In practice, though, the reason highly radioactive nuclear waste even exists as a problem is because it ISN'T waste - it's unburned fuel. More than 99% of the energy in the nuclear fuel is still remaining, which is why the waste can emit dangerous levels of radiation for thousands of years.

    2. Re:Cleaning up nuclear waste and other stuff... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Sure. But the energy cost of manufacturing antimatter would be more than the energy produced.

    3. Re:Cleaning up nuclear waste and other stuff... by jack2000 · · Score: 1

      Why don't they, y'know, USE it?

  8. UCSD by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

    Woot, go UCSD!

    Ushering in the apocalypse since 1960!

    We did a lot of nuke and miltech stuff, especially during the Vietnam War era. I didn't get to do much cool stuff when I was there, just an interference resistant videoconferencing system for soldiers in the field, and some work with severed rabbit hearts kept alive and beating in a vitrious solution...

    The Red Shoe was apparently the 4th sign of the Apocalypse, and the Stuart Art collection is rumoured to have another piece as well, though gazing upon it is rumoured to induce permanent insanity.

  9. So easy by trollertron3000 · · Score: 0

    This is sooo easy actually. You just use tachyons and Geordi's visor with a quantum entaglement garage door opener.

    --
    Tiger Blooded Bi-Winning Machine
  10. Deathrays by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

    ...they can create large clouds of antiparticles, compress them and make specially tailored beams for a variety of uses."

    And mad scientists all over the world rejoice at the thought of building their first orbital, antimatter death ray.

    On a less sinister note, if they can guide an anti- beam in a controlled manner to impact a regular beam they could take the first steps towards some sort of epic anti-matter based propulsion system.

    1. Re:Deathrays by russotto · · Score: 1

      On a less sinister note, if they can guide an anti- beam in a controlled manner to impact a regular beam they could take the first steps towards some sort of epic anti-matter based propulsion system.

      The Tevatron has been doing that for years. So far, the earth has not moved.

  11. Dilithium ? by arbies · · Score: 1

    I assume this means that they've also perfected the use of di-lithium? and, I can't believe that I'm the first one in this bunch to mention dilithium..

    1. Re:Dilithium ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dilithium tends to form into crystals. Who wants that? You really nead Trilithium. Its slightly less stable, but infinitely more useful. Imagine powering an entire fleet of space/time bending interstellar craft with a few ounces of Trilithium. The difference between Lithium, Dilithium and Trilithium, is as big a difference as the difference between three Tylenol 1's and one Tylenol 3. Trilithium Baby! Its a Blast!(tm)

  12. Long-term build-your-own e+ bomb by davidwr · · Score: 2

    How much antimatter do you need to make a bomb that will, say, take down an medium-to-high-rise apartment complex?

    Once the technology to create and contain antimatter indefinitely is available AND is small enough to fit on a tabletop, how long before some terrorists buys a condo and sets up a "slow bomb" that will detonate in 10 or 20 years, after it's created and stored enough antimatter to take out the building when it goes boom?

    OK, maybe he's okay if it doesn't take out the building, he just wants to scare people, so he buys 10 condos around town and 10 years later there's 10 explosions and 10 severely damaged buildings staggered seemingly randomly over the course of a month, and everyone is wondering "OMG, does my neighbor have a bomb in the basement?"

    Of course, by then we won't be saying OMG, but I digress.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:Long-term build-your-own e+ bomb by sanosuke001 · · Score: 1

      creating and storing are completely different. You still need a particle accelerator to create antimatter. Nobody is doing that in their living room anytime soon, if ever.

      --
      -SaNo
    2. Re:Long-term build-your-own e+ bomb by sanosuke001 · · Score: 1

      So, I should have RTFA (it is /., do you blame me?) and they talk about positrons from radioactive sources. Still, according to [link="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT_equivalent"]wikipedia[/link], 43MT = 1kg Antimatter. Also according to wikipedia, strontium-90 is most commonly used for positron creation. it's half life is 28.90 years. I think more damage could be done by just using the strontium you collected.

      --
      -SaNo
    3. Re:Long-term build-your-own e+ bomb by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      How much antimatter do you need to make a bomb that will, say, take down an medium-to-high-rise apartment complex?ll

      Well, given the definition of matter and antimatter, I guess you would need a medium-to-high-rise load of antimatter to take care of the matter stuff.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    4. Re:Long-term build-your-own e+ bomb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To completely remove the building from existence, yes. But each positron/electron collision releases a pair of gamma rays, which will go on to collide with other atoms... Suffice it to say that the energy released by a small annihilation is comparable to a massive conventional explosion.

    5. Re:Long-term build-your-own e+ bomb by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      1.02MeV, if I recall correctly, to make positrons. Doable in the living room. But containing them isn't, so all you could do is irradiate samples with a positron beam and see what happens. Potentially fun, but not explodey fun.

    6. Re:Long-term build-your-own e+ bomb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. Follow the Equation E=MC^2 So, if you want a fun exercise, take 1Kg of matter times 299 792 458 m/s^2
      works out to about 9*10^16 Joules, or about 21 Megatons of TNT , (Hiroshima was about 20 Kilotons)

      IANAPP (I am not a particle physicist)

      So remember E=MC^2 Next time you see the transporter in Star Trek "beam" a 70 Kg person,
      or "replicate" (uses same tech as transporters) a 1kg plate of food and drink (about 2lbs )

      Captcha: anodes

    7. Re:Long-term build-your-own e+ bomb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No self-respecting terrorist believes that in a decade's time he'll still be fighting for his cause. They think that blowing stuff up will result in rapid political change. Seriously - that's what they think. This time next year Islam will rule the world, thinks Osama. And God bless him, he never gets disheartened. You'd think after all this time with so little success, he might get a bit down - maybe even suicidal. But no, he soldiers on...

    8. Re:Long-term build-your-own e+ bomb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What would happen if you fired a high-powered positron beam at a slight angle to an electron beam with both firing in the same general direction? Something on the order of 5,000,000,000 watts continuous for each beam? I think it'd be a lot of gamma radiation, but it would also be heat and thrust - impulse drive anyone?

    9. Re:Long-term build-your-own e+ bomb by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      How much antimatter do you need to make a bomb that will, say, take down an medium-to-high-rise apartment complex?ll

      Well, given the definition of matter and antimatter, I guess you would need a medium-to-high-rise load of antimatter to take care of the matter stuff.

      It depends on what you mean by take down. The Hiroshima bomb released about 1.5 mg of mass for enough kilotons to flatten a building.

    10. Re:Long-term build-your-own e+ bomb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much mass do you think is converted into energy when a 'standard' A-bomb goes off? (Hint: it's a damn sight less than the mass of the shit that gets obliterated in the blast)

    11. Re:Long-term build-your-own e+ bomb by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      Of course, when really annihilating the apartment complex in such a way you would create such an explosion (a fuckton of gamma rays, absorbed by the earth, this absorption heats the rock so it evaporates) you would at least dislodge our dear planet from it's orbit and probably rip it to shreds completely. While an interesting science project not something you'd get funding for.
      May be combined with sharks with frikking lasers on their heads of course.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    12. Re:Long-term build-your-own e+ bomb by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Antimatter releases energy when it annihilates itself on contact with matter. It is not the annihilation aspect that people are interested in, but the energy released-- so 1 lb of antimatter is going to have an explosive force greater than pretty much any other 1 lb device we could come up with.

      According to Wikipedia (look at Hiroshima @15kT, and compare to the note on antimatter (1kg=42 MT)), 1 gram of antimatter should be more than sufficient to level a city block. If you got a "medium-to-high-rise load of antimatter", I think you would be in a position to destroy a good chunk of the planet.

    13. Re:Long-term build-your-own e+ bomb by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      Why would Osama have any concern? He got rapid political change after all, and was quite sucessfull in destryoing his opponents up to now.

    14. Re:Long-term build-your-own e+ bomb by hawkfish · · Score: 1

      Well, given the definition of matter and antimatter, I guess you would need a medium-to-high-rise load of antimatter to take care of the matter stuff.

      Yeah just like you would need a similar load of nitro to take it down...

      Or you could just put it somewhere structural in the basement.

      --
      You will not drink with us, but you would taste our steel? - Walter Matthau, The Pirates
  13. Landfill Problem Solved by Nukedoom · · Score: 1

    Get a vat of antimatter, and throw it at a landfill. Storage problem solved. Who cares about "logistics." It's science motherfucka's.

    1. Re:Landfill Problem Solved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great, we can turn ordinary waste into radioactive waste.

  14. the energy could disrupt nearby atoms by davidwr · · Score: 1

    Anti-proton wanders through normal matter and hits a proton. Boom, 2 anti-protons gone, lots of energy created. The atom the proton was in not only lost a proton but its nucleus may be shattered as well. Depending on the atom, this may result in a net release or absorption of energy.

    In any case, I wouldn't want to be a nearby atom.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:the energy could disrupt nearby atoms by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

      What energy must an antiproton have to get past the repulsion caused by the electrons of the target atom(s)? I imagine it would eventually annihilate with someone on its way through normal matter, but how far would it get?

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    2. Re:the energy could disrupt nearby atoms by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

      Oops, that should say something .

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    3. Re:the energy could disrupt nearby atoms by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      Your forgetting that we really are talking about a *single* proton (~1GeV of rest mass) or even a million protons, its nothing compared to us. All the antimatter ever produced in the history of mankind is not enough energy to light a light bulb for more than a few minutes. We are around high energy events like this all the time from background radiation, especially if you live in Denver or spend a lot of time at the top of mountains or in airliners.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    4. Re:the energy could disrupt nearby atoms by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      IANAP but my guess is negligible energy.

      As far as classical electromagnetism is concerned, if you consider a classical model of a uniformly, negatively charged sphere of radius R, balanced by a positive point charge at center, there is no electric field acting on a negative charge outside the sphere. Once inside it, an electric field comes out of the center and gets stronger the deeper in it goes. So an antiproton has no trouble there.

      You can solve Schrodinger's equation for the case of a point positive charge surrounded by antiprotons in orbitals. (An antiproton could theoretically occupy an s, p, d, f antiproton orbital briefly, if you ignore the fact that it will annihilate when it finds the nucleus.) Both electrons and antiprotons are leptons and have to satisfy the Pauli exclusion principle. But since electrons are not antiprotons they won't see each other that way (i.e. like bricks) and the antiproton should fall right through bound electrons without worrying about which orbitals are occupied.

  15. anything? by davidwr · · Score: 1

    Will it a positron beam cut through my pile of neutron-star matter?

    More seriously, will it cut through muonic atoms that have no electrons?

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:anything? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He specifically said "with electrons in"

    2. Re:anything? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Hmm... given that the neutrons can decay into protons and electrons, I suppose... ask a physicist. Positon-neutron annihilation might be possible, but it's beyond my knowledge of the field.

    3. Re:anything? by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      Hey, my cold fusion machine could make use of some of that muonic atoms you have...

  16. 1212 is coming? by davidwr · · Score: 1

    Ushering in the apocalypse since 1960!

    The first 50+ years were just for practice!

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  17. DON'T CROSS THE BEAMS! by davidwr · · Score: 1

    if they can guide an anti- beam in a controlled manner to impact a regular beam

    Don't cross the beams. Trust me. It will be bad.*

    *Blatant copyright violation.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:DON'T CROSS THE BEAMS! by illumastorm · · Score: 1

      Don't forget to tell them about the Twinkie.

  18. Message from the "Other" matter. by rocker_wannabe · · Score: 3, Funny

    Speaking for the antimatter, I believe that there is a misconception. We don't appreciate being called the "anti" matter. We are the other-matter to you. From our perspective, you are the antimatter! You don't like it very much when someone calls YOU antimatter do you. I wish we could all just get along but it was not meant to be. We will continue to annihilate any of you that try to contact us. Please! Just leave us alone!!!!

    Thank You

    --
    "Meaningless!, Meaningless!" says the Teacher. "Utterly meaningless!"
    1. Re:Message from the "Other" matter. by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      Seriously dude, you're pretty damn negative. What's the matter, want your positrons back?

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    2. Re:Message from the "Other" matter. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are more positrons where those came from. Don't mess with us or you'll have more gamma radiation than you know what to do with!. I'm telling you now, this universe isn't big enough for the both of us. We are the only matter that matters! Death to all electrons!

    3. Re:Message from the "Other" matter. by Billlagr · · Score: 1

      Maybe we should be referring to 'Matter A or Matter B'. Or the Fighting Mongooses. That's a cool team name.

    4. Re:Message from the "Other" matter. by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      I propose Matter A and Matter One, or we will have the same problem with deciding which matter is matter B.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    5. Re:Message from the "Other" matter. by sjames · · Score: 1

      Fine, from now on you are UNCLE matter.

  19. sharks by mevets · · Score: 2

    Can they mount the anti-matter beam emitters on sharks? That would be awesome.

    1. Re:sharks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they could mount them on anti-sharks

    2. Re:sharks by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

      This sounds interesting:
      >and the creation of much larger bursts of positrons which could eventually enable the creation of an annihilation gamma ray laser.

    3. Re:sharks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Make it so.

      Engage.

  20. Re:Last! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You just won first place in a retard contest.

  21. Been done before.... by twebb72 · · Score: 1

    I witness this first hand; the first one was built in the 1980s in NYC. Quite simple really. Load a trap here, open, unlock the system. Insert the trap, release, close, lock the system. Set your entry grid, neutralize your field and... the light is green, the trap is clean..

    1. Re:Been done before.... by LongearedBat · · Score: 1

      You saw the Ghost busters in action, first hand? And I thought it was just a movie.

  22. Is it just me...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    58 comments on the topic of anti-matter and not one Star Trek reference. Suddenly I feel very old.

  23. The Perils of Modern Living by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 3, Funny

    Well up above the tropostrata
      There is a region stark and stellar
      Where, on a streak of anti-matter
      Lived Dr. Edward Anti-Teller.

      Remote from Fusion's origin,
      He lived unguessed and unawares
      With all his antikith and kin,
      And kept macassars on his chairs.

      One morning, idling by the sea,
      He spied a tin of monstrous girth
      That bore three letters: A. E. C.
      Out stepped a visitor from Earth.

      Then, shouting gladly o'er the sands,
      Met two who in their alien ways
      Were like as lentils. Their right hands
      Clasped, and the rest was gamma rays.
    -- Harold P Furth

    --
    Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
  24. annihilation gamma ray laser! by DamnStupidElf · · Score: 1

    What could possibly go wrong?

  25. Interesting question. by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

    I'm sure there's a temperature below which a mixture of matter and antimatter would be stable, but I haven't a clue as to what it is (other than that it is likely to be low).

    Might be some really interesting chemistry here...

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    1. Re:Interesting question. by LordVader717 · · Score: 1

      Not really as the system would nevertheless be in an excited state, and would thus have a finite rate of decay.

    2. Re:Interesting question. by Mt._Honkey · · Score: 1

      There is not, they will annihilate at any temperature. For specific arrangements there can be states that live longer than other states. For example, positronium, the bound state of an electron and a positron (basically hydrogen but with the protron replaced by a positron), lives much longer before annihilation when it is in a higher energy state. The ground state has an annihilation lifetime of only 125 ps, compared to 1.1 us for the 2S state.

      Why doesn't slashdot display the mu ascii character?

      --

      Don't Bogart the fish sticks
    3. Re:Interesting question. by rollzone · · Score: 1

      hello. i'm too stupid to understand if this is cold fusion.

  26. Re:LEAVE THE ANITMATTER ALONE... by Unkyjar · · Score: 1

    Well, regardless of moderation. I thought this was funny.

  27. politics by postermmxvicom · · Score: 1

    This has been discussed many times here. It goes something like this: Carter [or whoever] made an executive order that says we can't use the stuff, because, in doing so, we would be able to make more nuclear weapons material or something. So, the stuff is really useful, but we aren't legally allowed to use it. So it is only waste in a legal sense. tl;dr if this was China [or some other developing country or France probably] we would be using it. Also, all of the above was reconstructed from my memory of barely read posts about this, so don't take it as gospel, but it should be enough to help you find the real answer on google or something.

    --
    One last thing: Sometimes I wonder; "Is that someone's signature? Or do they type that at the end of each post?"
    1. Re:politics by jack2000 · · Score: 1

      Ah thanks anyway. Damned politics, always getting in the way of science and engineering.

  28. Physicists win! by LongearedBat · · Score: 1

    Russians down bottles of vodka, lone jocks in the wilderness down bottles of Solo, but physicists down bottles of antimatter. Now who's da man, eh?

  29. A nice guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I met Cliff at a conference last year, he's really friendly and down-to-earth, perfectly happy to answer questions from a foolish young PhD student. I ended up writing a simulation that seems to work perfectly for one of the earlier versions of his 'bottles'.

    The 'Surko trap' is very common in the positron scattering experiment world, by the way. We use them here, for example. He's a household name in this particular niche.

  30. Half Life anyone? by orcus · · Score: 1

    "I never thought I'd see a resonance cascade, let alone create one."

    --
    First they burn books, then they burn people.
  31. In space no one can hear whooshing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In space no one can hear the Star Trek reference whooshing over their heads.

    Damn it. I wrote the GP. It was the first time I ever got first post. I made a cool Star Trek original series reference and the first ten people didn't get it.

        Jeff Moss

  32. Aperture Science by headbone · · Score: 1

    "and the science gets done and we make a neat gun for the people who are still alive." Woot! Let there be cake.

  33. It's not clear you could make a useful bomb by sean.peters · · Score: 1

    ... out of anti-matter even if you had a big supply of it. Some simulations have indicated that as the antimatter began to contact matter, the energy of the initial annihilation reactions would drive the antimatter away from the site where the reaction began. So... you have a bottle of anti-matter, you "open" the "bottle", annhilations begin... and the antimatter is driven back into the bottle. Alternatively, you make the bottle disappear all at once, and the annihilation "flame front" proceeds somewhat slowly (in relative terms) into the mass of anti-matter. In either case, you wind up with something more like a big "whoosh" than a bang. I used to have a link where this was discussed... unfortunately can't find it now.