Generating anti-matter through neutrinos

[storminmormin14]

I've seen a few articles that describe neutrino interactions creating anti-particles and that those neutrinos are originating from deep space nuclear reactions. Could neutrinos from a fusion reactor be harvested/used to generate anti-hydrogen? Maybe by circulating protons around a fusion reactor.

 

[phinds]

Since neutrinos can move unimpeded through something like a light-year of lead, I think "harvesting" them might be a bit of a problem.

 

[mfb]

No way. To create anti-hydrogen, the neutrinos would need an energy of several GeV, this rules out fusion as origin (just gives a few MeV at most) - you are just left with a few neutrinos from cosmic rays where you need huge detectors to see them at all. And there is no way to capture the reaction products.
To make things worse, all fusion reactions planned in reactors here do not release neutrinos at all because those weak processes are way too rare. You would just get some very low-energetic neutrinos from tritium decay.

 

[storminmormin14]

Is there any other way to adjust the quark spin in a proton to create the anti particle without smashing them in a particle accelerator?

 

[mfb]

No, and that question does not make sense at all. Can you make an apple out of a banana by spinning it in a specific direction?

 

[storminmormin14]

Is there any alternative method to convert protons into anti protons. One that doesn't involve neutrinos or particle collides.

 

[ZapperZ]

Is there any alternative method to convert protons into anti protons. One that doesn't involve neutrinos or particle collides.

Are you really trying to learn something, or are you just shooting at random things in the dark? This is because, from what I've been reading, it looks more like the latter. A lot of the things you put together in a sentence make no sense at all!

Zz.

 

[mfb]

Neither neutrinos nor particle colliders are "methods to convert protons into antiprotons".

 

[storminmormin14]

I was just curious about the various methods of antimatter generation and thought perhaps that there may be a way to convert regular matter into it's oppositely charged counterpart without the massive energy requirement that we currently see from the LHC. And earlier when I was talking about quark spin I was confused between proton-neutron stuff not proton-anti-proton conversion.

 

[ZapperZ]

I was just curious about the various methods of antimatter generation and thought perhaps that there may be a way to convert regular matter into it's oppositely charged counterpart without the massive energy requirement that we currently see from the LHC. And earlier when I was talking about quark spin I was confused between proton-neutron stuff not proton-anti-proton conversion.

I think you are confused on a number of other issues as well, besides being unresponsive to the direct question being asked of you.

In addition, there are many examples of "antimatter generation" that doesn't use a particle accelerator or collider. Where do you think the "p" in PET scans come from? These are positrons generated by the chemicals injected into a human body. There's no accelerator/collider in our bodies last time I checked. Yet, I've shown you an example of an antimatter generation here.

Zz.

 

[mfb]

In addition, there are many examples of "antimatter generation" that doesn't use a particle accelerator or collider. Where do you think the "p" in PET scans come from? These are positrons generated by the chemicals injected into a human body. There's no accelerator/collider in our bodies last time I checked. Yet, I've shown you an example of an antimatter generation here.

As far as I know, all PET-radioisotopes are produced with the help of accelerators, even if the accelerators do not produce the positrons directly.

I was just curious about the various methods of antimatter generation and thought perhaps that there may be a way to convert regular matter into it's oppositely charged counterpart

No, at least not within current physics. There is a conservation law for baryons (like protons and neutrons)- the difference "baryons minus antibaryons" stays always the same in every known process. You cannot convert a baryon to an antibaryon, and to create an antibaryon you also have to make a new baryon, and that requires high energies.
Positrons are easier, but then you are limited to radioactive decays (beta+ decays).

 

[ZapperZ]

As far as I know, all PET-radioisotopes are produced with the help of accelerators, even if the accelerators do not produce the positrons directly.

Sure, but as you said, this is mainly to produce the isotope. The positron is produced in the body when the isotope decays. This means that this antimatter production was not produced in an accelerator.

The same could be said with pair production. All I need is some gamma photons going through a high-density solid. I don't care if that gamma photons came from a nuclear decay or from an accelerator. This is another example where antimatter can be created without an accelerator.

Zz.

 

[snorkack]

As far as I know, all PET-radioisotopes are produced with the help of accelerators, even if the accelerators do not produce the positrons directly.

K-40 is natural, though the branching fraction of positron emission sucks.

No, at least not within current physics. There is a conservation law for baryons (like protons and neutrons)- the difference "baryons minus antibaryons" stays always the same in every known process. You cannot convert a baryon to an antibaryon, and to create an antibaryon you also have to make a new baryon, and that requires high energies.
Positrons are easier, but then you are limited to radioactive decays (beta+ decays).

And lepton number is also conserved. You cannot create a positron without also creating a neutrino or an electron. It is just convenient that creating a neutrino does not require much energy.

 

[SpaceCowboy187]

Perhaps if we could generate an environment resembling the energies of the early universe. At a high enough energy baryon number is no longer conserved. Specifically when the electromagnetic, weak and strong forces were overlapping, or not dissociated anyways. But that type of energy I imagine is completely unobtainable in any practical way.

 

[Drakkith]

Perhaps if we could generate an environment resembling the energies of the early universe. At a high enough energy baryon number is no longer conserved. Specifically when the electromagnetic, weak and strong forces were overlapping, or not dissociated anyways. But that type of energy I imagine is completely unobtainable in any practical way.

Not even the LHC is capable of generating that kind of environment.

 

[SpaceCowboy187]

The highest temperature achieved by the LHC is 4 trillion kelvins I believe. This temperature would correspond to about .3 microseconds of universe. Electroweak separation occurred at a temperature about 10,000 times higher than that, so I think you're right.