Atoms of anti-matter trapped for first time.

[Ash Small]

Anti-hydrogen atoms have been trapped/stored for the first time at CERN.

http://newscenter.lbl.gov/news-releases/2010/11/17/antimatter-atoms/

 

[Kevin_Axion]

This is very interesting, I'd rather them discover the mechanism for CP-Violation but this is almost as profound.

 

[jal]

This article is much better than the one from CERN which starts with a typo (November 2011)
http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2010/PR22.10E.html[/URL]

Antimatter atoms produced and trapped at CERN
Geneva, 17 November 2011. The ALPHA experiment at CERN1 has taken an important step forward in developing techniques to understand one of the Universe’s open questions: is there a difference between matter and antimatter? In a paper published in Nature today, [URL]http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature09610.html[/URL] the collaboration shows that it has successfully produced and trapped atoms of antihydrogen. This development opens the path to new ways of making detailed measurements of antihydrogen, which will in turn allow scientists to compare matter and antimatter.
Antimatter – or the lack of it – remains one of the biggest mysteries of science. Matter and its counterpart are identical except for opposite charge, and they annihilate when they meet. At the Big Bang, matter and antimatter should have been produced in equal amounts. However, we know that our world is made up of matter: antimatter seems to have disappeared. To find out what has happened to it, scientists employ a range of methods to investigate whether a tiny difference in the properties of matter and antimatter could point towards an explanation.
One of these methods is to take one of the best-known systems in physics, the hydrogen atom, which is made of one proton and one electron, and check whether its antimatter counterpart, antihydrogen, consisting of an antiproton and a positron, behaves in the same way. CERN is the only laboratory in the world with a dedicated low-energy antiproton facility where this research can be carried out.
The antihydrogen programme goes back a long way. In 1995, the first nine atoms of man-made antihydrogen were produced at CERN. Then, in 2002, the ATHENA and ATRAP experiments showed that it was possible to produce antihydrogen in large quantities, opening up the possibility of conducting detailed studies. The new result from ALPHA is the latest step in this journey.
Antihydrogen atoms are produced in a vacuum at CERN, but are nevertheless surrounded by normal matter. Because matter and antimatter annihilate when they meet, the antihydrogen atoms have a very short life expectancy. This can be extended, however, by using strong and complex magnetic fields to trap them and thus prevent them from coming into contact with matter. The ALPHA experiment has shown that it is possible to hold on to atoms of antihydrogen in this way for about a tenth of a second: easily long enough to study them. Of the many thousands of antiatoms the experiment has created, ALPHA’s latest paper reports that 38 have been trapped for long enough to study.
“For reasons that no one yet understands, nature ruled out antimatter. It is thus very rewarding, and a bit overwhelming, to look at the ALPHA device and know that it contains stable, neutral atoms of antimatter,” said Jeffrey Hangst of Aarhus University, Denmark, spokesman of the ALPHA collaboration. “This inspires us to work that much harder to see if antimatter holds some secret.”
In another recent development in CERN’s antimatter programme, the ASACUSA experiment has demonstrated a new technique for producing antihydrogen atoms. In a paper soon to appear in Physical Review Letters, the collaboration reports success in producing antihydrogen in a so-called Cusp trap, an essential precursor to making a beam. ASACUSA plans to develop this technique to the point at which beams of sufficient intensity will survive for long enough to be studied.
“With two alternative methods of producing and eventually studying antihydrogen, antimatter will not be able to hide its properties from us much longer,” said Yasunori Yamazaki of Japan’s RIKEN research centre and a member of the ASACUSA collaboration. “There’s still some way to go, but we’re very happy to see how well this technique works.”
“These are significant steps in antimatter research,” said CERN Director General Rolf Heuer, “and an important part of the very broad research programme at CERN.”
Full information about the ASACUSA approach will be made available when the paper is published.
For further information on ALPHA experiment, please read here: [url]http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/30577[/url]
Pictures available here: [url]http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1307522[/url]
Footage available here: [url]http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1307524[/url]

edit insert:
[url]http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.3036[/url]
Antihydrogen formation dynamics in a multipolar neutral anti-atom trap
G.B. Andresen, etc.
(Submitted on 16 Feb 2010)
Antihydrogen production in a neutral atom trap formed by an octupole-based magnetic field minimum is demonstrated using field-ionization of weakly bound anti-atoms. Using our unique annihilation imaging detector, we correlate antihydrogen detection by imaging and by field-ionization for the first time. We further establish how field-ionization causes radial redistribution of the antiprotons during antihydrogen formation and use this effect for the first simultaneous measurements of strongly and weakly bound antihydrogen atoms. Distinguishing between these provides critical information needed in the process of optimizing for trappable antihydrogen. These observations are of crucial importance to the ultimate goal of performing CPT tests involving antihydrogen, which likely depends upon trapping the anti-atom.
*---
I tried to get more info about Cusp trap and SM-trap, (spherical multipole magnetic field or is it Minimum Magnetic Field Trap), without much success.
Can these traps be used on the perfect liquid?
jal

 

[zomgwtf]

What exactly is this useful for? Media and non-scientists are blabbing on about collosal amounts of energy being released. While this may be true is it not also true that the amount of energy required to create the anti-matter and atoms is much greater than what comes out of it?

 

[Plebeian]

May be one day we can create a biological entity made up of entirely anti-matter.

 

[drankin]

Can anyone tell me how much energy is released during annilhation of a single hydrogen and antihydrogen atom. And compare it to something I, a non-physicist type, can relate to?

 

[encorp]

I'm surprised there isn't more discussion on this topic on these forums, unless I've missed the threads on it?

Or is this just not a big deal as the media is making it out to be? Which is what I suspect.

 

[drankin]

I'm surprised there isn't more discussion on this topic on these forums, unless I've missed the threads on it?

Or is this just not a big deal as the media is making it out to be? Which is what I suspect.

I'm surpised too but I do believe it is a really big deal. It will answer a fundamental question about the extent that the standard model applies to the physics of matter.

 

[Redbelly98]

Can anyone tell me how much energy is released during annilhation of a single hydrogen and antihydrogen atom.

Sure, just use this famous equation:

E = m c²​

The mass of a hydrogen atom is 1.674 × 10⁻²⁷ kg
So m is twice that (1 hydrogen + 1 antihydrogen atom), or 3.34 × 10⁻²⁷ kg
c = 3.00 × 10⁸ m/s

Square c and multiply by m, and you get the energy in Joules:

E = 3.01 × 10⁻¹⁰ J​

And compare it to something I, a non-physicist type, can relate to?

It's a tiny, miniscule amount of energy by everyday standards. It's enough energy to power a 60 W lightbulb for only 5 trillionths* of a second.

I estimate that it is about 10 millionths of the kinetic energy of a housefly.

If an electric company charges 0.10 $(US) per kilowatt-hour of electricity, then this energy would be the equivalent of 8×10⁻¹⁸ dollars, or

$ 0.000000000000000008​

-----

*using the USA definition of 1 trillion = 1,000,000,000,000 or 10¹²

 

[drankin]

Sure, just use this famous equation:

E = m c²​

The mass of a hydrogen atom is 1.674 × 10⁻²⁷ kg
So m is twice that (1 hydrogen + 1 antihydrogen atom), or 3.34 × 10⁻²⁷ kg
c = 3.00 × 10⁸ m/s

Square c and multiply by m, and you get the energy in Joules:

E = 3.01 × 10⁻¹⁰ J​

It's a tiny, miniscule amount of energy by everyday standards. It's enough energy to power a 60 W lightbulb for only 5 trillionths* of a second.

I estimate that it is about 10 millionths of the kinetic energy of a housefly.

If an electric company charges 0.10 $(US) per kilowatt-hour of electricity, then this energy would be the equivalent of 8×10⁻¹⁸ dollars, or

$0.000000000000000008​

*using the USA definition of 1 trillion = 1,000,000,000,000 or 10¹²

Ah thanks, the articles were talking about a great amount of energy being released during annilhation. To a layman like me I'm left scratching my head, "like splitting atoms, nuclear explostion?". But the scale is apparently extremely small.

 

[nismaratwork]

Ah thanks, the articles were talking about a great amount of energy being released during annilhation. To a layman like me I'm left scratching my head, "like splitting atoms, nuclear explostion?". But the scale is apparently extremely small.

We're talking about ONE hydrogen atom... ask Redbelly98 what the maximum fission or fusion yield for U238 or Pu... it's going to be small. The trick is getting lots of those atoms together, and the energy adds up... just like a firecracker vs. a bomb... or a grain of a grain of a grain of black powder vs. a 1000 pound bomb.

You must think in terms of relevant scale, and compare that way. If you made a bomb of antimatter where the explosive portion of the bomb had the same number of atoms as in a given nuclear warhead... you're going to get something far more energetic. Remember, fission and fusion play with the binding energies of the relevant atoms, but annihilation gives you the FULL yield of mass into energy.

I would note that it would be cheaper and easier to nuke the Earth into lifelessness, than it would be to produce and store enough anti-hydrogen to make a firecracker.

 

[Redbelly98]

We're talking about ONE hydrogen atom... ask Redbelly98 what the maximum fission or fusion yield for U238 or Pu... it's going to be small. The trick is getting lots of those atoms together, and the energy adds up... just like a firecracker vs. a bomb... or a grain of a grain of a grain of black powder vs. a 1000 pound bomb.

Agreed. If you make it one gram of hydrogen & antihydrogen, instead of 1 atom of each, then take the energy numbers I posted and shift the decimal point over 23 places.

I'll add that to make the antihydrogen in the first place, you also need to consume at least as much energy as is produced by the matter-antimatter annihilation. To be useful, we would need a naturally occurring source of antimatter, which does not exist.

 

[nismaratwork]

Agreed. If you make it one gram of hydrogen & antihydrogen, instead of 1 atom of each, then take the energy numbers I posted and shift the decimal point over 23 places.

I'll add that to make the antihydrogen in the first place, you also need to consume at least as much energy as is produced by the matter-antimatter annihilation. To be useful, we would need a naturally occurring source of antimatter, which does not exist.

@bolded... Yet we were all less than a light second from the trapping and storage of this atom... I find that "trippy".

In general it's the "problem" with antimatter, but then we've hardly exhausted the limits of chemical and nuclear binding energies, so it not a problem. I sleep better at night knowing that there isn't a gram of anti-hydrogen in one place. :yikes:

 

[zomgwtf]

I've done a bit more researh into the topic and found that the amount of energy released is extremely high. I believe two orders of magnitude higher than the best fission process. However it is extremely inefficient.

First inefficiency comes from actually producing the atoms, very few anti-particles made make it to be able to even create an atom.
Then in the annihilation lots of energy is lost to neutrinos, about 50% I've read.
Then there's the cost of production, it is incredibly expensive to create this tsuff and requires a lot of energy. The amount of energy which goes into creating these particles is much greater than the amount of energy released.

If any of this is wrong could someone point me in the right direction.

Now, the thing is though that it is very light. So possibly it could be used as a fuel at some very distant point in the future?

I found that even the full amount of atoms ever created if they were used to power something would power a light bulb for a few seconds.

 

[nismaratwork]

I've done a bit more researh into the topic and found that the amount of energy released is extremely high. I believe two orders of magnitude higher than the best fission process. However it is extremely inefficient.

First inefficiency comes from actually producing the atoms, very few anti-particles made make it to be able to even create an atom.
Then in the annihilation lots of energy is lost to neutrinos, about 50% I've read.
Then there's the cost of production, it is incredibly expensive to create this tsuff and requires a lot of energy. The amount of energy which goes into creating these particles is much greater than the amount of energy released.

If any of this is wrong could someone point me in the right direction.

Now, the thing is though that it is very light. So possibly it could be used as a fuel at some very distant point in the future?

I found that even the full amount of atoms ever created if they were used to power something would power a light bulb for a few seconds.

I assume you mean efficiency as a bomb, right, otherwise in whatever form the energy is radiated, the efficiency is 100%.

It's too bad that every time there's movement in high energy physics that we all think about the A-Bomb... the fact is the application here has nothing to do with bombs or reactors, just study.

If we harnessed Deuterium+Tritium fusion today we wouldn't know what to do with that much energy, never mind anti-matter.

 

[zomgwtf]

I assume you mean efficiency as a bomb, right, otherwise in whatever form the energy is radiated, the efficiency is 100%.

I wasn't talking about a bomb... but I guess it could be applied to a bomb...

 

[Plebeian]

Maybe all the anti matter that formed during the big bang mixed with matter and converted into energy?

But then according to the big bang equal amounts must have been created which means hardly any matter would be left over after they reacted.

 

[encorp]

Maybe all the anti matter that formed during the big bang mixed with matter and converted into energy?

But then according to the big bang equal amounts must have been created which means hardly any matter would be left over after they reacted.

There would be zero matter if that were the case.

This is exactly what physicists are trying to figure out hehehehe

 

[nismaratwork]

There would be zero matter if that were the case.

This is exactly what physicists are trying to figure out hehehehe

I for one, am thrilled that we're not all diffuse radiation... yet... but it is really puzzling why we're not. Good thing we can catch anti-hydrogen for study.

@Zomgwtf: Gotcha, not a bomb. When you're talking about efficiency then... think about this:

If I want to deliver the maximum amount of energy to a given region, the efficiency of my device would be measured by how much of what I put it, made it to that region. Efficiency is a function of context, as I said, unless you just mean that annihilation is a perfectly efficient reaction, which is true. What was the context you were thinking of in terms of your statement of efficiency, because obviously I missed your point.

 

[Plebeian]

There would be zero matter if that were the case.

This is exactly what physicists are trying to figure out hehehehe

Maybe there was little more matter formed during the big bang and ended up forming the present day universe?

Or may be the energy created due to the reaction of matter and antimatter converted to the mass that exists today?

May be the energy released after the reaction manifests itself as dark energy? (but then all the energy created by such reactions in the lab would imply that it is dark energy :p

I is confuzzled.

 

[Ash Small]

A lot of articles on this subject, including the article I linked to at the beginning of this thread, refer to the 'fact' that anti-matter travels backwards in time.

Would this imply that at the moment of the big bang, matter not in contact with anti-matter started traveling forwards in time, while anti-matter not in contact with matter started traveling backward in time, so that only matter and anti-matter in direct contact at the time of the big bang was anhialated?

And that since the big bang the universe is full of matter, but before the big bang it is full of anti-matter?

Matter and anti-matter have to be in the same place at the same time in order to anhialate.

(This is all pure speculation, of course.)

 

[Borek]

Maybe there was little more matter formed during the big bang

That's exactly the problem. So far we know nothing that could suggest WHY there would be a little bit more matter. All we know suggests perfect symmetry between both, which means we should see equal amounts of matter and antimatter. But that's not the case, so we know we are missing something.

 

[zomgwtf]

@Zomgwtf: Gotcha, not a bomb. When you're talking about efficiency then... think about this:

If I want to deliver the maximum amount of energy to a given region, the efficiency of my device would be measured by how much of what I put it, made it to that region. Efficiency is a function of context, as I said, unless you just mean that annihilation is a perfectly efficient reaction, which is true. What was the context you were thinking of in terms of your statement of efficiency, because obviously I missed your point.

What I was trying to say was that the amount of energy and effort put into making anti-matter/anti-atoms is many times greater than the amount of energy that can be taken during annihilation, regardless of the amount of anti-matter that's used in the annihilation. First the amount of energy that is put into even making anti-atomic particles make a much larger amount of particles than make it to be able to be used by us (many times greater). As well after the annihiliation much of the energy is taken by neutrinos so that's even more lost 'output' energy. This is all just stuff that I read from papers however, it might be completely wrong maybe I understood it wrong that's obviously possible.

 

[mheslep]

Agreed. If you make it one gram of hydrogen & antihydrogen, instead of 1 atom of each, then take the energy numbers I posted and shift the decimal point over 23 places.

I'll add that to make the antihydrogen in the first place, you also need to consume at least as much energy as is produced by the matter-antimatter annihilation. To be useful, ...

Since anti-matter releases roughly 1000X more energy per gram than does the fission of U-235, it has some appeal for space travel. And the energy is all electromagnetic (no waste to bury!). Hey, sounds like an idea for a sci-fi theme! The trick currently is in speeding up the production rate from http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/368/1924/3671.full" , which equates to 100 billion years per gram of production.

we would need a naturally occurring source of antimatter, which does not exist.

On earth.:tongue: