Increased efficiency Antimatter production

[BL4CKB0X97]

Hi

Does anyone know of any papers about Increased efficiency Antimatter production, as I am interested in this area.

Apologies if it's in the wrong area. Thanks.

 

[rootone]

Here is a link to an article concerning antimatter production in general.
https://phys.org/news/2015-05-physicists-ways-antihydrogen-production.html
The article refers to this paper:
http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.183201
However that journal requires an subscription.

 

[mfb]

Antiprotons, neutral antihydrogen, or more exotic antimatter? The paper @rootone linked is about adding a positron to antiprotons. Here is a follow-up discussion, freely accessible.

For antiproton production, shooting high-energetic protons at a target and trying to capture as many antiprotons as possible is the most efficient way we have available. Maybe some results from MICE, a muon cooling experiment, can also be applied to antiprotons.

 

[rootone]

It would be interesting to know how the antiprotons get contained at the LHC until they need to be used.

 

[Comeback City]

For antiproton production, shooting high-energetic protons at a target and trying to capture as many antiprotons as possible is the most efficient way we have available.

Reading on this process, I have learned that 2 high-energy protons are converted into 3 protons and an antiproton. Does the extra proton and antiproton come from the "high energy" being converted into mass?

 

[mfb]

It would be interesting to know how the antiprotons get contained at the LHC until they need to be used.

The LHC does not use antiprotons.

There are other CERN accelerators which capture and slow them down for research.
Synchrotons can store protons and antiprotons in the same way, you just have to reverse the magnetic fields.

Reading on this process, I have learned that 2 high-energy protons are converted into 3 protons and an antiproton. Does the extra proton and antiproton come the "high energy" being converted into mass?

Yes.

 

[rootone]

The LHC does not use antiprotons.

Well, it's not a bad idea if it could be possible.

 

[Comeback City]

Well it's not a bad idea if it possible.

I say let's call up our friends in Geneva and tell 'em!

 

[mfb]

Well, it's not a bad idea if it could be possible.

It wouldn't help much at the LHC energies, and it would lead to a much lower luminosity as you can't get as many antiprotons as you can get protons.

Tevatron and SPS, which ran at a much lower energy, used proton-antiproton collisions.

 

[rootone]

.. you can't get as many antiprotons as you can get protons..

Why not though?, I guess that is work in progress

 

[Vanadium 50]

Well, it's not a bad idea if it could be possible.

It's a terrible idea. Apart from the problem that the beam design won't work, switching to antiprotons gets you less beam, and therefore fewer interesting events. There is a reason why this was considered for the LHC - and rejected.

 

[rootone]

OK fair enough, no chance of an antimatter destroyer of the robot controllers then,
/jk. /sorry

 

[mfb]

Why not though?, I guess that is work in progress

You get protons out of a hydrogen bottle.
We don't have an antihydrogen bottle.

It was studied of course, but the advantage per collision (some events have a higher probability to occur) would be small compared to the huge disadvantage of a lower collision rate.

 

[rootone]

OK got it, thanks.