Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Anti-matter weapons

  1. Jul 20, 2005 #1
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 20, 2005 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    I think this is crackpot material.
  4. Jul 20, 2005 #3


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    IMO, this is rather impractical since anti-matter production rates are extremely low (IIRC < pico-grams/yr) so it would take roughly >1000 years to get on the order of nano-grams - and that would have to be anti-hydrogen of some form.

    IIRC, there is not satisfactory storage system for any quantity of molecular antihydrogen. This would require bringing anti-protons and positrons to rest in a magnetic container - in molecular form. :rolleyes:
  5. Jul 20, 2005 #4
    Iam puzzled as to why anyone would present a paper which is obviously outdated?
  6. Jul 21, 2005 #5
    If we can store plasma in an electromagnetic field, what about anti-plasma?

    Edit: And if we really had to make loads of anti-matter for military reasons, I think it would be more a matter of cost than of time. I'll be honest, I don't have a clue how we make anti-matter, but presumably we can build a device that does it. So, it should make sense that we could make more of those devices. After that, it's just a factor of having enough available energy. As I said, it all comes down to money, and anti-matter isn't needed on an economic or military scale yet, so one shouldn't be surprised that we aren't presently making much. It's a little like saying the oil production rates of the 1600s would hold steady throughout the rest of the millenia.
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2005
  7. Jul 21, 2005 #6


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Anit-matter is produced in accelerators, in which protons collide with other protons at combined kinetic energies > 1.88 GeV, while electrons are collided with combined kinetic energies > 1.022 MeV.

    from http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2001/CR-2001-211116.pdf [Broken] pdf file (click on to open or save target as)

    from Antimatter production - Wikipedia. See also Antimatter as fuel on same webpage.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  8. Jul 21, 2005 #7
  9. Jul 22, 2005 #8
    I have a question. From the link cited above: http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2001/CR-2001-211116.pdf [Broken]
    I read that at CERN, 26GeV "protons" (with quark structure uud) are made to collide with a copper wire (having very complex quark structure). The collision thus produces "antiprotons" (with quark structure u^u^d^, where ^ = symbol for antiquark)

    My question is, from where does the (u^u^d^) come from that is observed in this collision, the "proton", the "copper", both, or neither ? That is, how can two "matter" entities form "antimatter" ? Thanks for any help you can provide.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  10. Jul 26, 2005 #9
    Quote:The high-energy protons are then focused into a 2-mm beam and directed into a 3-mm diameter, 11-cm long copper wire target. The relativistic protons collide with the target nuclei, producing a spray of
    gammas, pions, kaons, and baryons, including antiprotons.

    They are a 'By-Product' of certain events, at certain times.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  11. Jul 29, 2005 #10
    Thank you Spin Network -- clearly the antimatter observed is a "by-product" of "certain events"-- but this does not answer my question.

    I wish to know the "dynamics" of the "certain event(s)" -- i.e., what model of nuclear physics explains how the antimatter is formed ? -- it has to be one of these logical possibilities:(1) the antimatter observed derives from the proton projectile, (2) the antimatter derives from the copper target, (3) it derives from a quark combination of both projectile + target, (4) it derives from neither projectile nor target. Are we saying that QCD and the Standard Model cannot explain the "dynamics" ? My interest in this question derives from the possibility that the "antiproton" exists as a parton quark structure within the proton projectile.
  12. Jul 29, 2005 #11
    Why couldn't the antimatter just develop from a virtual particle interaction or a decay of a virtual particle in a high-energy environment? Once you start making real particles out of kaons and other peculiar beasts you can probably get the components for a whole host of anti-protons.

    In order to answer that question specifically you would either have to look it up (and I don't have time at the moment) or simulate it yourself, which would require a vast amount of computer power.
  13. Jul 29, 2005 #12
    My limited knowledge is based on my own personal theory, it would not be useful to divulge what I cannot prove, yet.

    Saying that, of the choices above I would contend that (3) is most likely.
  14. Jul 29, 2005 #13
    Thank you danAlwyn & Spin Network. First, I do not think the antiproton can be formed by pions since they decay into muons not up-down quarks--we need up-down antiquarks to form antiproton. Likewise the kaon does not have a down quark (only up and strange)--hence neither can it form antiproton. But perhaps Lambda is a possibility if the antiproton comes from the zero-point vacuum.

    One of my motivations for this question is the following paper which suggests that "antiprotons" are real structures already within nuclei (that is, not formed by reaction), just released from either the projectile or target or both ?--a radical point of view--see Antibaryons in Nuclei, Phy Rev C 71, 2005 cited below. I would like to suggest that the antiproton is a real entity within 1-H-1, the proton.

    Physical Review C
    Vol: 71, Issue: 3, March 04, 2005
    pp. 035201 - 035232

    Title: Antibaryons bound in nuclei
    Authors: Mishustin, I. N.a; Satarov, L. M.a; Bürvenich, T. J.b; Stöcker, H.a; Greiner, W.a Affiliations: a. Frankfurt Insitute for Advanced Studies, J.W. Goethe Universität, D-60054 Frankfurt am Main, Germanyb. Institut für Theoretische Physik, J.W. Goethe Universität, D-60054 Frankfurt am Main, Germany

    Abstract: We study the possibility of producing a new kind of nuclear system that in addition to ordinary nucleons contains a few antibaryons (B<over>-</over>=p<over>-</over>,Λ<over>-</over>, etc.). The properties of such systems are described within the relativistic mean-field model by employing G-parity transformed interactions for antibaryons. Calculations are first done for infinite systems and then for finite nuclei from 4He to 208Pb. It is demonstrated that the presence of a real antibaryon leads to a strong rearrangement of a target nucleus, resulting in a significant increase of its binding energy and local compression. Noticeable effects remain even after the antibaryon coupling constants are reduced by a factor of 3–4 compared to G-parity motivated values. We have performed detailed calculations of the antibaryon annihilation rates in the nuclear environment by applying a kinetic approach. It is shown that owing to significant reduction of the reaction Q values, the in-medium annihilation rates should be strongly suppressed, leading to relatively long-lived antibaryon-nucleus systems. Multinucleon annihilation channels are analyzed too. We have also estimated formation probabilities of bound B<over>-</over>+A systems in p<over>-</over>A reactions and have found that their observation will be feasible at the future GSI antiproton facility. Several observable signatures are proposed. The possibility of producing cold multi-quark-antiquark clusters is discussed.

    Publisher: American Physical Society
    Item Identifier: 10.1103/PhysRevC.71.035201
  15. Jul 29, 2005 #14
    I haven't had a chance to read the paper yet, but it may not a huge bearing on our current problem, there theory seems to involve the anti-baryon being held inside the nucleus. A real proton doesn't seem to be able to "hold" a real anti-baryon in the same way, because that would make the single proton into an antiproton, and hence make it unstable. The oldest production of antiprotons currently known is:

    p + p -> p + p + p + antiproton

    This does not depend on the existence of a nuclei for stabilization purposes. All you have to do it create two up quarks, two anti-up, one down and one anti-down. I don't know what the cross-section is off hand, but pp collision generated antiprotons may be a large part of the LHC, so they should know.

    It's certainly easier than generating that blasted Higgs.

    Edited to actually address the question.
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2005
  16. Aug 1, 2005 #15
    A real proton doesn't seem to be able to "hold" a real anti-baryon in the same way, because that would make the single proton into an antiproton, and hence make it unstable.

    Of course, what do we mean by "proton" ? It is now well known that the proton has much more internal structure than three valence quarks (uud). Also are the mesons in the proton sea, and the strange quark recently found.

    I now study a model of the atomic nucleus by the late nuclear physicist R. Brightsen that views the proton as being the outcome of a quantum superposition of nucleon clusters. One form is to combine a matter [PNP] cluster with an antimatter [N^P^] cluster, where ^ = antimatter. The quantum outcome is a real [P] superposed state bound to an imaginary [NP][N^P^] state. In quark dynamics this resolves into a 6-antiquark bag (d^d^d^u^u^u^) rotating against a 9-quark matter bag (uuuuudddd)--that is, the concept of the nucleon and free quark disappears--the "bags" become the fundamental building blocks of nuclei. It is predicted that formation of colorless pions (d^u) or (u^d) allow for the matter and antimatter bags to bind (via interaction of positive mass and negative mass by gravity and antigravity), leaving (uud) = 1-H-1 (the proton) as the real quantum superposed (unbound) state that we observe. Thus the Brightsen model predicts potential for anti-baryon structure within 1-H-1, plus (important for low energy fusion reactions) that anti-deuteron structure is also part of the internal structure of 1-H-1.
  17. Aug 2, 2005 #16
    I don't think it's crackpot stuff at all.

    In fact, I'm rather excited by the possibilities presented in the paper.

    Let's get to work!
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook