# CERN Traps Antimatter



## K. Riehl (Jun 7, 2011)

I saw this story originally listed as the 21st headline in the New York Times.

Am I missing something? Shouldn't this be front page news?

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/06/antimatter-atom-held-trapped-for-15-minutes.ars


----------



## PTeppic (Jun 7, 2011)

It was at the BBC's news site (albeit one of many "front page" stories but there's no real way of proving it).

If there's a dodgy young priest who's secretly son of Benedict XVI then we're in trouble and Dan Brown becomes prescient...


----------



## Nik (Jun 7, 2011)

Uh, there's still little enough of the stuff that the first whiff of anything less than ultra-high vacuum would consume it almost harmlessly...

AFAIR, they're still at the 'counting nucleii' plasma stage. It isn't even 'nano', never mind 'microscopic'... 

Still, that's enough to do basic Science-- Finding if it falls down (*), measuring magnetic moment more accurately etc etc...

(*) IIRC, one of the proposed 'Theories of Everything' holds that terrene & contra-terrene matter (to use the old terminology) should gravitationally repel -- Think Cavourite. This, incidentally, would contribute both to the apparent lack of anti-matter in our neighbourhood ( 'Supercluster' scale ) and the expansion of universe...


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Jun 7, 2011)

The think I have is which particular lump of Anti Matter is it.

IE what type of atom?

If it's just an anti proton on it's own what defines it as anti matter, rather than a particle that destroys other particles. *Anti* not being the required property to do it.

It's not sufficient to say this is anti matter because it's like those other particles we've made: and these do the same thing, so they must be anti matter too.

Also, if there are vast areas of anti matter in the universe, what happens to light when it passes through?


----------



## Vertigo (Jun 7, 2011)

Well I guess that is why they need to capture some to see what it's behaviour is so we can understand better how it all fits in.


----------



## Nik (Jun 7, 2011)

This may help... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter
and, bearing in mind protons & neutrons are made of quarks...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark

As I understand it, protons and anti-protons aka positrons annihilate each other because their constituent quarks have opposite charge. Reactions are not limited to those between an atomic nucleus and its *exact* 'anti' counterpart. So, eg that between a helium4 nucleus (2P+2N) and a positron (-P) would zap one proton to leave a shower of P & N nucleon debris in addition to the P/-P annihilation's characteristic gamma rays...

( It's been a long, long time since I did that short course on 'Nuclear & Radiochemistry' (sic), and quarks came much later... )


----------



## Metryq (Jun 7, 2011)

This is still just a crude first step. We must also learn how to bottle uncle-matter and alma mater.


----------



## PTeppic (Jun 7, 2011)

TheEndIsNigh said:


> The think I have is which particular lump of Anti Matter is it.
> 
> IE what type of atom?



Anti-hydrogen, according to BBC.


----------



## chrispenycate (Jun 7, 2011)

> As I understand it, protons and anti-protons aka positrons annihilate each other because their constituent quarks have opposite charge. Reactions are not limited to those between an atomic nucleus and its *exact* 'anti' counterpart. So, eg that between a helium4 nucleus (2P+2N) and a positron (-P) would zap one proton to leave a shower of P & N nucleon debris in addition to the P/-P annihilation's characteristic gamma rays...



Positrons are anti electrons, not anti protons. Antimatter is made up with anti protons in its (anti?) nucleus, surrounded by a cloud of positrons (well, since it's anti-hydrogen, a cloud of positron). When it meets 'normal' matter, the positron annihilates itself with an electron, and the anti-proton with a proton, producing a fairly massy photon…
Or would that be two photons, one for each particle¿



> Also, if there are vast areas of anti matter in the universe, what happens to light when it passes through?


 Much the same as when it passes through a standard dust cloud; some is absorbed, some passes through, a little is reflected. Photons have no charge; an anti-star, doing the standard fusion reactions with antihydrogen to antihelium, would be indistinguishable in light emission from its ordinary matter equivalent.

Unless there are antiphotons generated, which annihilate normal energy as the matter does its opposite.

But no, in CERN they're detecting energy bursts, not power cuts.


----------



## Nik (Jun 7, 2011)

"Positrons are anti electrons, not anti protons"

Too true. My bad. Regret brain-glitch...


----------



## RJM Corbet (Jun 8, 2011)

But seriously, as KR observes, this is one of those events that gets a paragraph in the inside pages at the time, but is likely to go down in the history books as a major breakthrough to a new form of energy, like Marie Curie's discovery of radium ...


----------



## Starbeast (Jun 8, 2011)

K. Riehl said:


> I saw this story originally listed as the 21st headline in the New York Times.
> 
> Am I missing something? Shouldn't this be front page news?


 
This is incredible news! I'm surprised not much was said about it, instead the media jabbers about pointless celebrity crap and about politicians caught doing something crooked or disgusting.


----------



## skeptical (Jun 9, 2011)

It is not qualitatively new. Physicists have been making antimatter in various forms for a long time. Just that this time, it is more atoms and they are kept without annihilation for a longer period. This permits some investigation of the properties of anti-matter, so is of considerable scientific interest.

For anyone who thinks this might be a new source of energy, think again. For every joule of energy gained by annihilating the stuff, there are thousands of joules consumed in making it.

It is vaguely possible, and using a big stretch of the imagination, that if humanity became really, really, really good at making and storing antimatter, it could be carried on a space vehicle as an energy source. But that is one hell of a big stretch.


----------



## Metryq (Jun 9, 2011)

Well, it wouldn't be a new "source" of energy, but it might be a way of concentrating it for applications where mass is important, like spaceships. The fuel would cost a lot, but the speed and power of antimatter might be more economical for many missions. (Lighter ships, significantly lower life support mass, etc.)


----------



## Starbeast (Jun 9, 2011)

Metryq said:


> Spaceships. The fuel would cost a lot, but the speed and power of antimatter might be more economical for many missions. (Lighter ships, significantly lower life support mass, etc.)


 
That's just what I was thinking. Hopefully it will help us to excell human efforts into the further reaches of outer space.


----------



## skeptical (Jun 9, 2011)

There is a very long way to go from making a couple hundred anti-hydrogen atoms, and storing them for a maximum of 15 minutes, to making enough to be a viable energy source, and storing them for possibly years at a time.

Maybe humans will do it, but it is also extremely likely we will *never *develop that technology.


----------



## J-WO (Jun 9, 2011)

A bomb however...


----------



## Metryq (Jun 9, 2011)

skeptical said:


> but it is also extremely likely we will *never *develop that technology.



Perhaps, but betting on technology hasn't worked out too well for many futurists. I've been reviewing the _John Adams_ mini-series, and it occurred to me that those events were not all that long ago, even when compared to a human lifetime. Yet it was only a couple decades prior to the events in the movie that Franklin made his kite experiment. Around the turn of the 20th century electricity was being used for brute force applications like lighting and running motors. Before that century was over, electricity was being used in very subtle ways from radio to computers to imaging systems that help us plumb the structure of matter.

Antimatter is no longer some fictional construct, like Eistein-Rosen bridges. We know that it is naturally generated in lightning storms, and researchers have learned to "bottle" it for a whole 15 minutes—an eternity for scientists accustomed to working in fractions of a second so short one could not perceive them. Perhaps even _practical_ solutions will not be _economical_, but then we may learn to apply the research in other ways. For example, the magnetic bottling may facilitate fusion reactors, and then people will look at Iron Man's chest piece and say, "That's like something my granddad used to read about in comic books!"


----------



## Starbeast (Jun 10, 2011)

J-WO said:


> A bomb however...


 
That was my concern too, I was afraid goverments would only see it as a great weapon.


----------



## Metryq (Jun 10, 2011)

Starbeast said:


> That was my concern too, I was afraid goverments would only see it as a great weapon.



Ridiculous. Thermonuclear weapons can be built far more cheaply in yields that are already "too big" for anyone's needs. As Skeptical pointed out, the manufacture and storage of antimatter is expensive, difficult, and consumes a great deal of power. 

Perhaps mankind will one day harness antimatter as a power source and for other applications far too subtle for anyone to imagine today. And there may be some spectacular accidents along the way (at the off-world laboratories on lunar farside). But don't hold your breath waiting for a _Star Trek_-style photon torpedo.


----------



## Starbeast (Jun 11, 2011)

Metryq said:


> Ridiculous. Thermonuclear weapons can be built far more cheaply in yields that are already "too big" for anyone's needs. As Skeptical pointed out, the manufacture and storage of antimatter is expensive, difficult, and consumes a great deal of power.


 
Great, I was worried for moment. I guess I read too many novels as a kid, I could imagine what would happen when matter and antimatter would come in contact with each other. I always remembered my science teacher in high school would say it can cause both a mighty explosion and implosion at the same time.


----------



## RJM Corbet (Jun 11, 2011)

No, I think you're right SB. Since when was cost a factor when it comes to new weapons?


----------



## Metryq (Jun 11, 2011)

RJM Corbet said:


> No, I think you're right SB. Since when was cost a factor when it comes to new weapons?



It's always a factor. War is expensive. So when a bunch of new wet-behind-the-ears recruits straight out of boot were dumped on the front lines, their sergeant told them there were not enough weapons to go around. "Just point your fingers like a pistol and shout BANG! BANG!" he advised.

With that, the fresh meat was tossed into the grinder. One private found himself separated from the rest of his platoon amidst all the mayhem. Just then, a ferocious dreadnought came charging over a hill, foaming at the mouth and raging like a demented animal. Scared spitless and knowing he did not have long to live, the private cocked his thumb and pointed at his assailant, his voice squeaking an octave or two as he shouted "BANG!"

To the private's surprise, his enemy stumbled and fell, twitched once, and was still. Laughing hysterically when he realized he was still alive, the private then charged brazenly over the battlefield dropping a score of enemy soldiers, "BANG! BANG!" He was unstoppable.

Then another big brute came charging at him and the private shouted, "BANG! BANG!" But the guy kept coming! "BANG! BANG!" He shouted again, to no effect. He worked the slide of his finger and checked his thumb—maybe it was jammed. "BANG! BANG! BANG!" He screamed in desperation.

The human avalanche hit the private like a speeding truck and trampled him into the mud. As he passed over, the private heard the guy grunting, "TANK! TANK! TANK!"


----------



## Starbeast (Jun 11, 2011)

RJM Corbet said:


> No, I think you're right SB. Since when was cost a factor when it comes to new weapons?


 
I know one thing for sure, weapons cost money, human lives cost nothing.


----------



## RJM Corbet (Jun 12, 2011)

... and history is written in blood.

(ha ha Metryq )


----------



## Vertigo (Jun 12, 2011)

Trim that down a bit Metryq and you've got a brilliant 75 word story there (just have to wait for the right topic)


----------



## RJM Corbet (Jun 12, 2011)

'This is my rifle, this my gun ...'


----------

