Slashdot Mirror
Anti-Matter Belt Discovered Around Earth
hydrofix writes "A thin band of antiprotons enveloping the Earth has been spotted for the first time. The find, described in Astrophysical Journal Letters [arXiv] (Note: abstract free, full text paywalled), confirms theoretical work that predicted the Earth's magnetic field could trap antimatter. The antiprotons were spotted by the Pamela satellite launched in 2006 to study the nature of high-energy particles from the Sun and cosmic rays. Aside from confirming theoretical work that had long predicted the existence of these antimatter bands, the particles could also prove to be a novel fuel source for future spacecraft — an idea explored in a report for NASA's Institute for Advanced Concepts."
In 2.5 years (of which they were in the south atlantic anomaly something like 5% of the time) they found 28 antiprotons.
Has anyone checked at the planning office to see if they are planning to put in a bypass?
That's sooooo adorably naive! Everybody knows that if it turns out to be a useful power source, the governments of the world will compete with one another to turn it into a weapon. Space Race 2.0: Fuck The Manhattan Project, Shit Just Got Real!
Talk about naive. SkyNet will use it against us while we bicker between ourselves whether or not to put the anti-matter weapons on sharks or just in the hands of evil corporations.
In other news. General Products press conferences states that visiting Earth could void the warranty on your GP hull.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law - Aleister Crowley
I do believe shit just got Anti-Real.
no it's moving to non government space flight.
Any way I will hate to see a cheap / corner cut china space ship fall apart mid way to mars. china 3 gorges dam may fail in real big way soon.
Good job, dude! I was wondering what you'd been up to since your work in Dr. Tongue's 3D House of Stewardesses!
#DeleteChrome
Unless the summary is talking about the journal instead of the arXiv article it's not paywalled, I don't think I've ever seen anything on arXiv that is. It's kind of the point. Anyway, if you can't be bothered looking for the PDF link (top right) this will take you straight to the paper.
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
Also, several articles mention "billions" of anti proton around the Earth. That is still less than a joule. Bring a sugar cube into orbit, you'll have more fuel than if you captured all the anti-particles that orbit around the Earth.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
I remember an excellent interview a long time ago by a researcher in antimatter who was asked about weapons. His reply was 2 fold insightful:
1) Who cares, we already have tactical nukes which can fit into a brief case, how much smaller do we really need to get?
2) It's very very difficult to mix anti-matter instantaneously with a large quantity of matter. You would most likely just get a sustained very hot burn not an explosion. It's the old Fuel/Air conundrum. Per gram gasoline has more explosive power than gun powder. But you have to mix it to get it to react.
They didn't find antimatter, they found anti-protons. Matter is what happens when particles arrange themselves a certain way. A few stray protons doesn't constitute matter: neither do some stray anti-protons.
Furthermore, they've found a whopping 28 of them in two years' research. Even if they'd found 28 atoms of anti-hydrogen (which would require that each anti-proton also have a positron), the amount is utterly irrelevant in terms of power generation. 28 atoms of anti-hydrogen (which I point out again that this is not) wouldn't produce a reaction capable of running a AA-battery flashlight.
I believe that the BBC has fallen victim to sensationalism and/or ignorance. It's pretty much what I've come to expect from the world press.
Thank you for trying to piss in their party, but the sensationalist/ignorant here is you.
Had you properly read TFA (or the original explanation) you would have found that
- You obviously don't know WTF is Pamela
- Pamela spent around 2% of its time in the South Atlantic Anomaly
- It detected 28 protons because that's within its capabilities (protip - particle detectors don't know an atom from an anti-atom BECAUSE IT'S NEUTRAL)
- "Protons doesn't constitute matter" What, they don't have mass? Protons fit squarely in the definition of matter, unless you are being sensationalistic or forgot the definition of matter.
And by the way, try to buy 28 antiprotons from CERN and see how much they ask for it
how long until
hmm, 28 particles in three years, maybe not. That pretty much misrepresents the full article.
From section 4:
"The factor of proportionality between the antiproton flux and the number of detected antiproton
candidates, corrected for selection efficiencies and acquisition time, is by definition the gathering
power of the apparatus.
The apparatus gathering power was calculated to be significantly
reduced with respect to the geometric factor (http://pamela.roma2.infn.it/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=28&Itemid=256
The actual PAMELA instrument is fairly small(roughly 1.3 m x .5m) and has esentially no intake manifold.
From section 5:
During about 850 days of data acquisition (from 2006 July to 2008 December), 28 trapped
antiprotons were identified within the kinetic energy range 60–750 MeV. Events with geomagnetic
McIlwain coordinates (McIlwain 1961) in the range 1.1 L 1.3 and B 0.216 G were selected,
corresponding to the SAA. The fractional livetime spent by PAMELA in this region amounts to
the 1.7% ( 4.6 109 s).
My understanding is that that 850 days is time live for the instrument and 1.7% is percent of time in the SAA at geomagnetic ranges of interest. Right? So, 4.6X10^9 seconds works out to about 145 years. 1.7% of 850 days is 14.25 days. Quite a discreapency. Can someone else shed light?
So, you have an instrument with a very small physical intake and no collection system. Limited time at the target site as well. Given these factors, I would have to imagine that a larger more complex system could collect meaningful volumes. Might want to give that Buzzard ram scoop idea a second look.
The paper from Draper:
I like their estimations of collection rates. There should have been better treatment of power requirements vs. yeilds of the system. And, they at least could have given a nod to the Sci-Fi popularization of the same idea.
Now, lets wait too see some realistic propulsion system concepts.