Absolutely Bonkers Experiment Measures Antiproton Orbiting Helium Ion (arstechnica.com) 27
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: In Wednesday's issue of Nature, a new paper describes a potentially useful way of measuring the interactions between normal matter and exotic particles, like antiprotons and unstable items like kaons or elements containing a strange quark. The work is likely to be useful, as we still don't understand the asymmetry that has allowed matter to be the dominant form in our Universe. But the study is probably most notable for the surprising way that it collected measurements. A small research team managed to put an antiproton in orbit around the nucleus of a helium atom that was part of some liquid helium chilled down to where it acted as a superfluid. The researchers then measured the light emitted by the antiproton's orbital transitions.
[...]
At temperatures above the point at which liquid helium becomes a superfluid, the transition created a broad peak instead of a sharp one. The peak narrowed as the temperature dropped, and it eventually separated into two distinct peaks at the transition temperature. This separation -- called the hyperfine split -- is caused by interactions between the antiproton and the helium nucleus. The fact that it can be detected with this level of precision indicates that an experimental system can be used to tell us about both the antimatter and the fundamental physics behind these interactions. Why did this experiment work when previous attempts to measure the properties of molecules in liquid helium failed? The researchers suggest their success is mostly due to the fact that they were essentially measuring an odd form of helium in a pool of helium. In the other cases, researchers measured a molecule that was dissolved in the helium, producing very different behavior. (One suggestion is that the helium forms a cage around any molecules dissolved in it, and the cage is large enough to allow the molecule to move around freely.)
The researchers are excited about the idea that this process could be used more generally to get these sorts of measurements. Technically, any moderately sized, negatively charged particle could be put in orbit around a helium nucleus, provided it can be slowed down enough -- the researchers specifically mention "negatively charged mesons and hyperons that include strange quarks." The authors suggest that helium with an unusual nuclear composition would also work.
[...]
At temperatures above the point at which liquid helium becomes a superfluid, the transition created a broad peak instead of a sharp one. The peak narrowed as the temperature dropped, and it eventually separated into two distinct peaks at the transition temperature. This separation -- called the hyperfine split -- is caused by interactions between the antiproton and the helium nucleus. The fact that it can be detected with this level of precision indicates that an experimental system can be used to tell us about both the antimatter and the fundamental physics behind these interactions. Why did this experiment work when previous attempts to measure the properties of molecules in liquid helium failed? The researchers suggest their success is mostly due to the fact that they were essentially measuring an odd form of helium in a pool of helium. In the other cases, researchers measured a molecule that was dissolved in the helium, producing very different behavior. (One suggestion is that the helium forms a cage around any molecules dissolved in it, and the cage is large enough to allow the molecule to move around freely.)
The researchers are excited about the idea that this process could be used more generally to get these sorts of measurements. Technically, any moderately sized, negatively charged particle could be put in orbit around a helium nucleus, provided it can be slowed down enough -- the researchers specifically mention "negatively charged mesons and hyperons that include strange quarks." The authors suggest that helium with an unusual nuclear composition would also work.
"Absolutely bonkers?" (Score:3)
Really? That's a title for an article about this type of experiment?
When my aunt went nuts and hit my uncle with a cast iron skillet, that was absolutely bonkers.
When I witnessed a holstien cow murder another cow, that was absolutely bonkers.
When I saw a four foot three girl take down a six foot seven dude with one punch, that was absolutely bonkers.
An experiment like this is interesting, scientifically different from the norm, and seems very exciting, but I would not, under any circumstances, refer to it as 'absolutely bonkers.'
Maybe Slashdot should consider hiring a real editing staff again? Or at least take volunteers that have some form of concern for the English language.
Re: (Score:1)
Just kidding, the editors are rubbish at DOING THEIR JOB.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? That's a title for an article about this type of experiment?
Yes, that is the title at ars technica.
Re: (Score:2)
If Ars Technica is the bar? I can't even even make a joke about it.
Fabuslously bonkers (Score:3)
An equally bonkers experiment is to measure H-minus ion plus a photon. H-minus 2 electrons and a proton. What's more interesting about this is threefold. First it doesn't have any excited states. Just a ground state. Second, it's not neutral so it interacts with time varying electric fields. third, and most interesting of all. The electric field of a photon interrogating it is comparable to the electric field binding the ground state, (it's weakly bound which is why no excitd states). SO when you ex
Re: (Score:2)
For the entire history of the site, the prevalence of unsupported opinion, misinformation, and outright lying has led many observers to conclude that there is no factual information presented at all. A much smaller contingent has maintained there is externally verifiable information posted, but the vast amount of utter bulls
Re: (Score:3)
The title is pretty stupid. "Amazing" or "incredible" might have been a lot better than "bonkers". What I find incredible about this is that it involves playing around with matter in amazing ways. We have a periodic table of elements and a theoretical periodic table of anti-elements. Technically we have a non-theoretical periodic table of anti-elements, but all we have on it is a few isotopes of anti-hydrogen and anti-helium. It may well be possible that we can create anti-matter versions of all of the regu
Re: (Score:2)
it could be a step towards stable forms of exotic matter that could have some pretty useful properties. Maybe not, but who knows.
I think the interesting point is whether the exotic matter is actually any different to our regular matter, provided the anti-matter makes anti-molecules with other anti-matter. Say you had anti-hydrogen, with an positron associated with an anti-proton, and anti-oxygen, made in a similar way. Would the resulting anti-water behave like the water we know? All I am doing is changing the signs of charges from positive to negative, or vice versa. Of course, you would have to test the properties of the anti-matte
Re: (Score:2)
It would be very interesting to know what the properties of antimatter elements would be. I think that it's quite likely that some antimatter elements and compounds would be a lot easier to handle (still very difficult though) than raw subatomic anti-matter. Anti-water, for example, would be a polarized molecule, and masses of it would presumably have surface tension and have the potential to be manipulated through electromagnetic forces like regular water. Antimatter iron would presumably be ferromagnetic
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
After reading the article the editor was probably thinking they should paint the bike shed yellow.
Re: (Score:2)
I am inclined to think "absolutely bonkers" could be appropriate, because I have never heard of this form of matter before. Anti-matter and matter interacting without instant mutual destruction sounds like science fiction, like the power source of the Starship Enterprise.
There is a bit of a problem with the summary, where the anti-protons are described as "orbiting" the nucleus. A common graphical image of an atom is of electrons orbiting around a nucleus, like planets round a star. It was proved long ago t
Re: (Score:2)
What have you been doing for the last 20-odd years?
BTW, the "Absolutely bonkers" bit seems to come from this "arstechnica" site, which really does not seem to want to attract readers, producing shit like this. Oh well, their bankruptcy ; nothing important was lost.
Re: (Score:2)
This was indeed an objection to the Bohr model of the atom. Under "classica
Re: (Score:2)
My university courses did indeed cover the problems of the Bohr model, and the development of quantum theory. My reading of the history is that many physicists considered the mathematics to be correct, but absolutely bonkers. You get the right results by cranking the formulae, but you have no idea what is being described by the maths. Do we really understand how atoms work, because we have accurate mathematical models? What does it actually mean, that a particle can be an energy field?
Re: (Score:2)
DROP WHAT YOU'RE DOING (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
(Positrons and electrons are leptons, not hadrons ; they don't have a top/bottom, up/down, or charm/strange value.)
Re: (Score:1)
Can it be used to store anti-matter? (Score:2)
From the description of the process, it appears a safe way to store anti-protons. Have them orbit a Helium atom and the Helium will cage them in, protecting it from other normal matter.
Obviously this protection will not be 100%, but if this is a safe way to store anti-matter, it could be a game changer. Assuming we ever find a way to produce antimatter in say milligrams rather than # of atoms.
Re: (Score:2)
Well it does demonstrate storing antimatter (Score:2)
If I knew this earlier... (Score:2)
I could've solved all those tough equations with some anti-x & anti-y factors ...
Not Bonkers but Worrying (Score:2)
Why did this experiment work when previous attempts to measure the properties of molecules in liquid helium failed? The researchers suggest...
If you do not actually know for certain how your experiment works that is generally not a good sign and does not inspire confidence in the results.