Can Antimatter Be Trapped in Thunderstorms?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Ananuk
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion centers on the feasibility of trapping antimatter produced during thunderstorms. It highlights that thunderstorms can generate antimatter through high-voltage reactions, specifically e- → e+e-. However, the practical challenges of capturing this antimatter, such as its rapid annihilation and the low energy yield (approximately 4 Watts per event), render the endeavor economically unviable. The conversation concludes that while the theoretical aspects are intriguing, the actual benefits of trapping antimatter from storms do not justify the effort or resources required.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of high-voltage physics and particle interactions
  • Knowledge of antimatter production mechanisms in natural phenomena
  • Familiarity with Penning traps and their applications in particle physics
  • Basic principles of energy conversion and efficiency in physical systems
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the mechanisms of antimatter production in thunderstorms
  • Explore the design and functionality of Penning traps for antimatter containment
  • Investigate the energy yield and efficiency of antimatter reactions
  • Examine current applications and limitations of antimatter in energy generation
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, researchers in particle physics, and anyone interested in the practical applications of antimatter and its potential energy sources.

Ananuk
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
My question may be a naive but I'm going to ask it anyway. If we now have the ability to trap antimatter what is stopiping us from using them to trap the antimatter produced in thunderstorm? Or other areas for that matter? Is there a way that we can come up with to inject a trap into a storm?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Ananuk said:
My question may be a naive but I'm going to ask it anyway. If we now have the ability to trap antimatter what is stopiping us from using them to trap the antimatter produced in thunderstorm? Or other areas for that matter? Is there a way that we can come up with to inject a trap into a storm?
Welcome to the PF.

How do thunderstorms produce antimatter?
 
berkeman said:
How do thunderstorms produce antimatter?

You have a few million volts, so you can have the reaction e- → e+e-e-.

Ananuk said:
If we now have the ability to trap antimatter what is stopiping us from using them to trap the antimatter produced in thunderstorm?

The fact that flying in a thunderstorm is freaking dangerous.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: CalcNerd and berkeman
Vanadium 50 said:
You have a few million volts, so you can have the reaction e- → e+e-e-.
Thanks! Is that only in the lightning strike path, or everywhere between the charged cloud and the ground?
 
You've got to get the antimatter into the penning trap. Probably not impossible, but tremendously difficult, considering that said antimatter will annihilate fairly quickly.

The question to ask is: To what end?

What could we learn from trapping antimatter from storms? Is it worth the time and the cost?
 
I believe that it is most important to continue the "to what end" investigation. We already know that the collusion of matter and antimatter create an enormous amount of energy, and we know that we can trap said antimatter, so the question is...how do we contain and harness the energy created by the collision?
 
Also to answer Bergman I think it happens only between the stratosphere and the storm.
 
Sorry berkman autocorrect and all.
 
Ananuk said:
I believe that it is most important to continue the "to what end" investigation. We already know that the collusion of matter and antimatter create an enormous amount of energy, and we know that we can trap said antimatter, so the question is...how do we contain and harness the energy created by the collision?
There's just no way that would be worth doing.

2*511 keV per e+e- pair. This paper reports http://arxiv.org/pdf/1505.03782.pdf order
5.0×1012 positron annihilations per second in a 2000m radius volume for each event, each of which lasts 0.2s. So the total power is a whopping 4 Watts. And that's not including the fact you're not going to collect all the positrons and you cannot convert that to electricity with 100% efficiency. Even plus or minus a few orders of magnitude, this isn't worth it.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2*511keV*5*10^12+/0.2s

I did the calculation, and found the paper because I knew you wouldn't take my word for it. But you could have done this for yourself.

Frankly if the power from antimatter was worth it, we'd be using the many terrestrial sources of positrons to power things. The fact that we're not should tell you something.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: CalcNerd
  • #10
Ananuk said:
I believe that it is most important to continue the "to what end" investigation. We already know that the collusion of matter and antimatter create an enormous amount of energy, and we know that we can trap said antimatter, so the question is...how do we contain and harness the energy created by the collision?
We aren't even using the electrical power of the thunderstorms, because it's not economical. Collecting their antimatter is even worse.
 
  • #11
berkeman said:
Is that only in the lightning strike path, or everywhere between the charged cloud and the ground

I don't think this is completely understood. In particular, cause and effect is not so clear: when you have a stroke, you have large currents that produce these showers. But when you have these showers, you also have ionization, which can trigger a breakdown. And for good reasons (and the ones the OP pooh-poohs) it's difficult to instrument thundershowers in detail.
 
  • #12
This thread started with the question:
Ananuk said:
If we now have the ability to trap antimatter what is stopping us from using them to trap the antimatter produced in thunderstorm?
That question has been answered and the thread is closed.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
10K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K