Antimatter Atoms Captured 476
Whamo writes: "Researchers at CERN think they have created and stored thousands of antiatoms in a particle trap. The researchers first used powerful magnetic fields to trap antiprotons then exposed this to a beam of positrons. Initial results indicate that at least some of the antiparticles have bound together to become neutral antihydrogen atoms. How cool is that?"
AntiHydrogen atom? (Score:2, Interesting)
Wow, antimatter atoms already (Score:5, Interesting)
Last time I heard about any "really new" developments in antimatter, they were just figuring out how to contain 10-100 protons (circa 1992) (I know, I'm dating myself, whatever. :-) This is really cool news.
Still, even a million atoms is really physically small. I wonder
Anyway, just my $0.01. :-)
---NEW! Crash Windows NT/2000/XP from any account using only printf! [zappadoodle.com]
Re:a little help here? (Score:2, Interesting)
The only way they can test it is if they fire off a single hydrogen atom in there and note the massive explosion followed by all the other anti-particles flying out of containment and then destroying the rest of the normal matter in anti-matter-matter annihilation.
For all they know, firing a stream of positrons at anti-protons created normal atoms (since this is all theory)
What I wonder is how they're gonna get rid of several thousand anti-hydrogen!
Re:how cool? (Score:2, Interesting)
Some thoughts (Score:4, Interesting)
A far more efficient method involves concentrating an intense pulse of light into a small enough space, to the point that the energy actually becomes matter. This has been demonstrated.
With efficient free electron lasers, it may be possible to mass produce antimatter on a large scale in this manner, making possible a greater number of experiments, as well as allowing manned interplanetary expeditions (and in theory interstellar).
Antimatter would make an excellent weapon in addition, since one would have the equivalent of a nuke that could be used on very small scales. You could in theory use it to make, say, antitank bullets that could be fired from a handheld gun. No heavy isotope decay products would be left to contaminate the battlefield, thus avoiding the nastiest side effect of nuclear bombs.
The big problem with antimatter annihilation, however, is that the energy released comes out in the form of high energy gamma rays. While the energy is there, it is difficult to harness in a practical device, and in the weapon example the gamma rays might irradiate everyone on the battlefield including the wielder of the weapon while doing little actual damage to the tank.
Finally, doing large scale chemistry experiments using antimatter versions of the elements could be rather dangerous...you'd probably need a kilo or more of the stuff, which would have rather catastrohpic results if it were allowed to interact with normal matter.
Re:AntiHydrogen atom? (Score:3, Interesting)
Anti-matter/matter is a 100% conversion of matter into energy, and unlike a nuclear explosion where the only way to get energy out of a core is by a massive, simultanious event, you can in theory feed a controlled amount of anti-matter into a suitable 'reactor', and produce a controlled reaction. Due to the near perfect mass/energy conversion, you can generate a lot of power from a very small amount of fuel, meaning things like fueling spaceships become a lot more practicle since you don't have to lug around thousands of tons of chemical fuel everywhere you go.
Of course, a few hundred atoms of anti-matter isn't much, and won't generate much energy. In time though, research like this will hopefully lead to the ability to generate large amount of anti-matter, allowing us access to a very powerful form of stored energy to do all sorts of cool things - one of the first I'm sure will be anti-matter weapons.
Re:Wow, antimatter atoms already (Score:4, Interesting)
As for energy release -- it'd take about a gram of anti-hydrogen suitably reacted with normal matter to produce the equivalent of a small nuclear bomb (if released all at once) or the energy expended by an largish satellite launch vehicle (if released over a period of several minutes).
Make the math simple, call what they've got the equivalent of 10^-20 of a 10 kiloton nuke (10^10 gm TNT equivalent), then they've got the equivalent of about 1/10 nanogram of TNT. I wouldn't be too worried just yet.
then again... (Score:2, Interesting)
... how many terajoules will it take to make those kilos of antihydrogenatoms in the first place??..
oops..
Re:Beating plowshares into swords (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, we already have anti-matter engines, they're just not very sophisticated. Pennsylvania State University and NASA are investigating these drives. The drive could power a mission to Mars in 120 days. That's: go to Mars (30 days), stay for 30 days, and come back (30 days). Sum: 120 days. That's awesome.
Ah, here we go:
Antimatter Catalyzed Micro Fission/Fusion [uaf.edu]
NASA Press release [nasa.gov]
Antimatter drives [uaf.edu]
ANTIPROTON-CATALYZED MICROFISSION/FUSION PROPULSION SYSTEMS FOR EXPLORATION OF THE OUTER SOLAR SYSTEM AND BEYOND [psu.edu]
Re:a little help here? (Score:2, Interesting)
Let's all assume (correctly) that a particle of 'normal' hydrogen has a neutral charge by having a single Proton and a single Electron. By definition, aparticle of anti-hydrogen has a neutral charge, as well. Seeing as both of these partcles have neutral charges, does it not stand to reason that they will not be attracted to one another due to opposite charges? Maybe my high-school physics classes were a little basic, but it sounds like there's more to do than just introduce hydrogen to anti-hydrogen for there to be a reaction between to two particles with neutral charges. Unless there's some sort of anti-neutral (?!) charge that I'm missing, this doesn't seem dangerous.
Not until you think a little deeper. There are lots of other particles that are *not* neutrally charged that could be used to release energy in the fashion we're all thinking. Further still, this may change chemistry as we know it, as we now might (keyword here, "might") have the ability to mix one anti-element with a different 'normal' to get some desired results.
As someone else suggested, how would anti-water work? Could it still be used to put out a fire? I don't think you'd want to drink it (as the body is over 70% 'normal' water, anyway), but I'm sure it could have some uses. Ta-da! The science of anti-chemistry is born!
Just some random thoughts. If I'm incorrect in my assumptions, let me know. Don't flame me. I'm not that smart, really. I just ask lots of questions.
Antimatter properties? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:AntiHydrogen atom? (Score:2, Interesting)
It's my understanding that anti-matter makes for a poor weapon. First because of cost. If you can afford to produce and contain anti-matter in appreciable quantities, you can certainly make a conventional nuke for much less.
Secondly, anti-matter does not release it's energy in as useful a way as fission/fusion does. Anti-matter annihilation releases gamma rays. With fission/fusion some of the MC^2 appears as momentum imparted to the daughter products, which is instant heat. The gammas compton scatter hither and yon, and don't transfer their energy to as small a space. In short fission/fusion goes bang. Antimatter goes poof. Which isn't to say that "poof" wouldn't make a useful weapon. YMMV...
Temkin
Re:Hey, get real (Score:2, Interesting)
We do even better (or worse, depends on your perspective) than knowing hands down if energy is conserved - we declare it to be conserved, then create our physical laws around such a claim. This is one aspect of the "current scientific paradigm". It is so engrained in our thought that we have even predicted the existence of other particles as a result of it. Pauli, hanging on to the principle that energy is conserved, predicted the existence of a small, neutral, lightweight particle, the neutrino. It would take us 26 years after Pauli's prediction to verify the existence of the neutrino.
Incidentally, a whole lot of the theories that have been experimentally verified (especially in thermodynamics) have made use of the conservation of energy. So if energy isn't conserved, then it is very very nearly conserved.
While I'm not saying that energy is undoubtedly conserved, we've done pretty well relying on it thus far. No huge problems have come about that force us to disagree with that assumption. Then again, we all thought mass was conserved until E=mc^2 came about...
As far as mini-black holes are concerned, I wouldn't worry...we can just make a bunch of mini-white holes, put the two together, and they'll cancel out, right?
JoeRobe.
Re:Warp Drive (Score:2, Interesting)
As for the stuff about warp theory... well, people have tried applying general relativity to find ways of travelling FTL, though without accepted success yet... have a search for Alcubierre (though it could be utter crap, I don't know enough about GR to comment!)