CERN Ups Antimatter Confinement Record to 15+ Minutes 206
A team at CERN has vastly increased its ability to confine antimatter, says an article published today at Scientific American. Last year, the same researchers managed to trap atoms of antihydrogen. "But," says the SciAm report, "the antihydrogen had at that time been confined for less than two tenths of a second. That interval has now been extended by a factor of more than 5,000. In a study published online June 5 in Nature Physics, the ALPHA group reports having confined antihydrogen for 16 minutes and 40 seconds. The more relevant number for physicists, who often deal in powers of 10, is 1,000 seconds."
If that's not playing God, (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:If that's not playing God, (Score:5, Informative)
since they've to date confined less than 400 anti-atoms, there is no danger of any kind of weapon being built with this kind of technology in the next few decades. Antimatter is horribly energy-intensive to make, well known stat you can check at wikipedia is at the current production rate at CERN it would take 100 billion years to make a gram of the stuff. We're not going to get the hundreds of tons for a fast starship drive this way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
nope, they're getting better at *storing* it, but there's no changing the fearsome energies to make it. We could make antimatter until the Sun burns out, and the total wouldn't be enough to blow your nose, let alone blow up a building.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right. With the money required to create an anti-matter bomb, you could afford to carpet bomb the world with nukes. And at this time, that doesn't seem likely to change anytime in the next hundred years - at least!
Re:If that's not playing God, (Score:5, Interesting)
The most thorough treatment of the subject I've seen is that of Robert Forward (who did a study on the subject commissioned by the military). His findings were to the effect that if antimatter production were treated as an engineering problem rather than a scientific one, production of useful quantities would be entirely feasible using incremental and reasonably-foreseen advances on existing technology.
Whether or not you buy his argument in full, there's no doubt that we throw away most of the energy involved in creating antimatter, and much of that needlessly (as we only know how to capture a very small portion of the results). As such, the claim that "there's no changing" the power requirements is false on its face.
So what you're saying is (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You're pretty sure about that, are you? One microgram of antimatter reacting with one microgram of matter would liberate as much energy as detonating 43 kg of TNT. About 4 nanograms would liberate as much energy as a hand grenade. I don't know how much antimatter we could "make" until the Sun burns out (that's a pretty long time), but it wouldn't take very much anti-matter to be enough to blow your nose. Something well below the picogram range I would say.
Re: (Score:2)
But 1 gram of hydrogen is 6 * 10^23 atoms. So yes, unless there is some big leap in production capacity it will be centuries before we can even produce a useful amount for a weapon.
Re: (Score:2)
We've so far managed 400 atoms worth worldwide. If we do that a mere 6*10^20 more times we'll have enough for something a bit more powerful than Fat Man (but only a bit).
So, let's be really generous and assume 400 atoms a year. When the sun swells and engulfs the earth in about 5*10^9 years, we'll have produced about 3 picograms worth.
That's enough to blow your nose OFF, so you're technically correct. However, if we want an antimater bomb, we'll have to step it up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Fissile material with vast stores of potential energy occurs naturally. Every subatomic particle of weaponized antimatter would have to be synthesized using orders of magnitude more power than the weapon would have. Before you create enough antimatter to light a bulb, you could wipe out most of humanity with ordinary nuclear weapons. Regardless how easy it will become to produce or store antimatter, it will always take more energy than it is worth.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Would you care to elaborate what the 2nd law of thermodynamics has to do with energy storage? Especially in case of anti matter?
However you are right regarding the cost of antimatter production.
Re: (Score:2)
How much it is worth will determine the market. ...
I know enough people who would pay everything they have to get a few grams. Imagine a trip to mars under full 1 g acceleration
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't that be an anti-matter dark sucker?
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, in a few short years we've gone from picoseconds to 16 seconds.
Re:If that's not playing God, (Score:4, Funny)
16 minutes (closer to 17), not sixteen seconds.
Speaking of 17 minutes, I'm waiting for someone to write a short story about someone needing to crack a NTLM password before an antimatter bottle loses containment.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Ha! You Americans with your old-fashioned units of "years" and "hours" and so on ... get with the programme people!
If you had 28 grammes of sense you would just take 6 dekaseconds to learn the Systeme Internationale - it's not that hard.
Re: (Score:2)
As I often say, no unit can be taken seriously unless it can be kept in a jar in France! However, I'm still trying to figure out where they keep that 300,000 kilometer long jar with the second in it.
actually (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
At the current rate of progress it should be a useful method of storing energy for weapons or space travel in about 15 years. It's not linear. They're doing good work here. I don't know why you think a starship would require hundreds of tons of antimatter. That's an awful lot.
We don't need any new weapons. We've enough applied physics to immolate the world already and enough applied chemistry and biology to wipe out the survivors. Of course weapons will be made, but we're past the point where they m
Re: (Score:2)
We all pretty much know who has the antimatter.
The Illuminati right?
Re:If that's not playing God, (Score:4, Interesting)
there is no danger of any kind of weapon being built with this kind of technology in the next few decades.
And you base this on what? Not so long ago, they couldn't store antimatter at all. Going from nothing to something is a bigger hurdle than going from storing small amounts for short times to storing militarily useful amounts for a long time.
Antimatter is horribly energy-intensive to make, well known stat you can check at wikipedia is at the current production rate at CERN it would take 100 billion years to make a gram of the stuff.
If someone figures out how to convert electricity to stored antimatter (halflife of storage, say being on the order of decades to centuries) at a 1% efficiency, then the current electricity output of the US (roughly a terawatt averaged over a year) could produce a kilogram of antimatter every 7-8 months or so. That's equivalent to a bit over 40 megatons of bomb (including the kilogram of regular matter which also gets converted to energy).
Still that's roughly 3 billion usd per megaton of explosive power (just in energy cost at $0.05 per kWh). I see antimatter bombs not filling the roles of the 250kton-1 megaton bombs (or larger), but things on the order of compact 0.1-1 kiloton bombs (useful for shattering deep underground structures). Much cheaper and fills a niche that currently isn't covered by nuclear or conventional weapons.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Long story short. You get something very similar to a normal nuke, without the neutr
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, did you read your own post? (Score:2)
then
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need anti-atoms for weapons. Regular old anti-particles will do; they're much easier to confine, and they're made naturally all the time. See my recent post [slashdot.org] that points out some of the natural ways antiparticles are produced.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have mod points but can't give one to you! Dang it!
Re: (Score:2)
since they've to date confined less than 400 anti-atoms, there is no danger of any kind of weapon being built with this kind of technology in the next few decades
I believe the term you're looking for is "moonshine". That is the traditional way of dismissing a scientific discovery still in it's infancy yet only twenty years away from changing the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Now if they'd created and confined matter with a negative energy, THEN I'd be very surprised.
Re: (Score:2)
Beta+ decay isn't a particularly high energy process. It happens in the brain of anyone who has ever had a PET scan, and they live to tell the tale.
What about negative mass? (Score:2)
if they'd created and confined matter with a negative energy, THEN I'd be very surprised.
Imagine negative mass, it's attracted to normal mass but normal mass is repelled by negative mass. A piece of negative mass near a piece of normal mass will be under constant acceleration.
Somewhat like a geek near a pretty girl.
Re: (Score:2)
Simple. Store it in a room arranged by a very bad Fung Shui [wikipedia.org] decorator.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, please.
Equal parts of matter and anti-matter were created in the Big Bang, and anti-matter is created regularly as part of Beta decay. It isn't "not of this universe".
It is quite amazing, though. I agree with you there.
Re: (Score:2)
If the two were created in equal amounts, why is the universe we see mostly positive matter? There was possibly some effect or interaction in the first few picoseconds to skew the balance in favor of the stuff we're made up of, otherwise the universe would have been reduced to a hot photon soup pretty fast by runaway annihilation.
Re: (Score:2)
That is currently one of the biggest unanswered questions in the world of science. Theoretically, equal parts of matter and antimatter where created during the big bang. Why they didn't annihilate each other hasn't been explained yet.
Re: (Score:2)
The universe should be soup anyway. Something went went wrong with the recipe, and it got lumpy. Given the essential improbability of our existence, I don't have a problem with all the extant matter being hither and all the extant antimatter yonder, on the galactic or galactic-cluster scale.
Re: (Score:2)
Boltzmann brains? If that were true, I wonder why my imagination created all the bastards this world has... :)
Re: (Score:2)
Its playing physicist, not playing god (Score:2)
If that's not playing God, then I don't know what is. These guys are no longer playing with the stuff our universe is made of, they're now playing with what it's /not/ made of. That's quite amazing, if you ask me.
My understanding is that the universe is made of both matter and antimatter, just much more of the former and not so much of the later. Matter is just more prevalent and has therefore survived the annihilations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The universe is made of both matter and antimatter. It's just that there turned out to be more matter for some reason that still hasn't been discovered. Since we're made of matter, we don't see any antimatter nearby as it would annihilate us.
Re: (Score:2)
Translated:
I am Anonymous Coward. I do not understand metaphor.
All instances of the word "God" refer invariably to literal belief in the being described in the King James Version of the Bible (on sale now at a bookstore near you!).
Re: (Score:2)
If you can read and write standardized English, thank the King James Bible. Few people are aware of this now 400 years after its publication. Happy anniversary, KJV!
The KJV is freely (as in libre and beer) available in many formats (PDF, plain txt, MS Word DOC and RTF, to name a few) over this new-fangled communications and data exchange medium called the Internet, for use on your PC or data pad. Printing? Now that may cost for materials and time/labor.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
According to numerous studies, while its not impossible to be intelligent and believe in god, it automatically deducts about 20 IQ points to have such a belief. Making your claim of believing in god and being intelligent less believable.
Re: (Score:2)
According to numerous studies, while its not impossible to be intelligent and believe in god, it automatically deducts about 20 IQ points to have such a belief.
Huh? Citations of numerous publications or it didn't happen. Making stuff up doesn't automatically get you positive karma, even on /..
More provacatively: Only stupid atheists think anyone who believes in God is much more likely to be less intelligent than they are.
I weep for you, sir or madame.
Re: (Score:2)
I worded it poorly, and 20 I did see somewhere in a study that measured athiests vs christians vs muslims vs Buddhists, with one or two other metrics thrown in. In relation to the Wikipedia article I can be arsed to dig up right now its actually just 6 points.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Well,
nevertheless it is a stupid asumption that atheists are more intelligent than believers. If at all, then people that are intelligent above average, are more likely to be atheists.
Re: (Score:2)
Thats how it is worded in the studies. I guess it must be less inflammatory that way.
However you just said the same thing twice.
Re: (Score:2)
According to numerous studies, while its not impossible to be intelligent and believe in god, it automatically deducts about 20 IQ points to have such a belief.
OK, formally calling shenanigans. This is just more "conventional wisdom" bullshit and it needs to be boldly refuted to one's face. See here [wikipedia.org]. Comparing the quotes of Nyborg vs. Lynn (who have done similar research and worked together) is interesting:
Nyborg: "I'm not saying that believing in God makes you dumber. My hypothesis is that people with a low intelligence are more easily drawn toward religions, which give answers that are certain, while people with a high intelligence are more skeptical."
Lynn: "
Re: (Score:2)
Where to start, given your failure to rebut my claims, your lack of self-awareness (not recognizing yourself in that particular XKCD with your own "rapid-fire" responses to me).... Sigh. In some ways, we are more alike, you and I.
One day you will be wiser, youngling, one day.... That will be a pleasing day for you :) Blessings.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll see about linking to those studies once I'm finished re-imaging my laptop.
I'm laughing quietly to myself now thinking about you re-imaging your laptop. Is that the special one you store all your atheist dogma and theology on? As Dr. Evil would say, is it an... evil... laptop? Semi-evil? Quasi-evil? The margarine of evil?
Re: (Score:2)
Gotta love the usual religion bash. Let other people be, maybe? Maybe some of us are quite intelligent, is that at all possible?
What's funny to me isn't the religion bashing (which is a bit shop-worn by now, isn't it?). What's funny is the KJV bashing.
Breaking news: All translations of the original Hebrew and Koine Greek scriptures say the same thing, though one can argue some are expressed in the modern languages in a more liberal or more conservative way. The KJV is falling out of favor for its use of courtly or "Elizabethan" English, but is still the basic English bible of many Christian churches around the world. Its use (or
Powers of ten (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't read slashdot anywhere near as much as I used to. And on this brief foray to sample from the pool of away-from-maintream reporting, what am I met with - an exciting progression in scientific endevour twisted into a painfully patronising slashdot summary.
See you in another 10^3 days, hopefully there will be some improvement, but I won't be holding my breath :/
Re:Powers of ten (Score:5, Funny)
Well thank god you logged in long enough to register your disgust. How else would we have know to be appropriately sad for being deprived of your magnificent presence ?
Re: (Score:2)
You make a fair point. But also; welcome to the internet ;)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Slashdot: News for YOUR MOM, stuff that EVEN FOX NEWS PASSED ON
Unacceptable. (Score:5, Funny)
I, for one, will not be voting for anybody who can't promise that 25% of the world's antihydrogen will be doing 20-to-life in our very own 'SuperMax' high energy physics institutes.
Re:Unacceptable. (Score:5, Funny)
And then where will we be, Mr. Smartypants American Patriot? There is a reason that the world hates us.
Re: (Score:2)
You put antimatter in a SuperMax prison with all sorts of hardened criminals and you'll get ANTIHEROs.
Will they shoot first, or will they let Greedo take the first shot while doing a weird head-dance around the blaster bolt?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You fool! You put antimatter in a SuperMax prison with all sorts of hardened criminals and you'll get ANTIHEROs.
And then where will we be, Mr. Smartypants American Patriot? There is a reason that the world hates us.
Bad superhero jokes?
Re: (Score:2)
Chill. It doesn't matter.
Re: (Score:2)
What doesn't?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
it blows at the of 38min give or take (Score:2)
I know what this is really about... (Score:2)
"Those bastards at Fermilab have discovered the Higgs Boson [discovermagazine.com] before we did! It's time to initiate... Plan Z."
"Sir, you't seriously mean to--!"
"Oh, but I do. PREPARE THE ANTIMATTER BOMB!"
[Disclaimer for the perdantic: I know the 150GeV bump is probably not the Higgs boson.]
next (Score:2)
Only 15 minutes (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am somehow not in any way against that prospect. Beam them all up, god.
Booooooooooring! (Score:2)
The end of the world will happen ... (Score:2)
when they manage to synthesize Anti-Christ for more than a few seconds.
The Incredible Powers of Ten (Score:2)
And what if their work doesn't involve base ten numeracy? What if they live on a planet where people only have eight fingers... and digits?
Which way does antimatter fall? (Score:4, Insightful)
How close are they to being able to tell whether antimatter falls up or down?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, here we are again with the journalistic conversions:
~100 m => 328.08 ft
Re: (Score:2)
Ahem, that's 328.083989501 ft. Let's get the conversion straight.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, here we are again with the journalistic conversions:
~100 m => 328.08 ft
No, a journalistic conversion would be:
100m = about a football field
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't say about that, but in the other LoC units, it's about 28500
No it isn't... (Score:2)
IT'S A TRAP!
Re: (Score:2)
9000. It's over 9000. [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you can see antimatter. Except for transparent antimatter (actually, that is a pretty interesting thought, anyone know if anyone has done any reliable work on what the likely physical properties of antimatter elements would be) and, of course, the antimatter only present in microscopic amounts. As it turns out, we've only worked with it in microscopic amounts so far. If you were in a situation where you were dealing with a macroscopic amount of antimatter and you were looking right at it, you'd have to
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, antimatter should look and act exactly like matter, except for the whole explosion thing when it interacts with matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Does it have an electric charge, for instance, or the concept of electric charge does not apply?
Antimatter is more or less defined by having an opposite (electric or other type) charge from regular matter. (Some electrically-neutral particles (like neutrons) have antiparticles through being composed of antiparticles of their composite particles; some are their own antiparticles (photons); some are still up for debate (neutrinos, apparently (TIL)).
Does it interact with the known forces of the universe just like matter?
Antimatter is presumed to have the same mass (in both senses) as matter, and thus to interact with gravity identically, but this is only just now becoming di
Re: (Score:2)
What happens when antimatter is hit by a photon?
Brown Like Dan (Score:2)
Yes, but it will turn your pants Brown, like Dan
Re: (Score:2)
...That's actually really scary.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. If you have a nice antimatter storage you will beam it atom wise or in small chunks out of it into your engine. Thus you have a constant acceleration and not an orion style one.
Doubtful (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah and it's not like anyone is going to repeat Hitler's mistake and go for the civilian applications first. Debts? What debts? Our DEBTS are now backed by ANTIMATTER WEAPONS!