Musings on penning traps and geonium atoms

[parabol2112]

musings on penning traps and geonium atoms ...

so, last night at the bar, i got into a long, unwanted conversation with somebody about their plan to create an "antigravity" machine. to gauge his intelligence about *actual* physics, i asked him if his antigravity machine was also a perpetual motion machine. he replied "yes, of course" and i started scanning the bar for somebody to bail me out of the conversation.

then i started musing about some of this "star trek physics" stuff, and remembered that by using a Penning device, we can trap a single electron in a quadrupole field and make incredibly precise measurements of the properties of single electrons. from reading on wikipedia, i found that the "fake" atom in the trap with no nucleus is called Geonium, after J. Wheeler's ideas on purely gravitational-EM objects with no actual "mass", only a region of high curvature.

http://hussle.harvard.edu/~gabrielse/gabrielse/papers/1984/GeoniumWithoutAMagneticBottle.pdf

--this talks about the properties of the "geonium" atom inside a penning trap, using "relativistic mass increase" to confine the electron *without* a container.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geonium_atom

--Wikipedia (i admit, it often distorts physics explanations) says that "the role of the nucleus is played by adjusting an external field."

So, what I'm wondering is this -- if we can apply an *external* field in a Penning trap and create "false mass" to trap a single electron, what prevents us from simply turning up the intensity of the external field (presumably increasing the voltages of our quadrupole magnets in the trap), and create the "false mass" of two, or a hundred, or a zillion atomic nuclei, by using an extremely large power source?

Just to take this to an extreme -- let's say we could build a "modified penning trap" that could generate a very large "false mass" field, comparable with the mass of the Earth, or some such. since we have control (presumably) of the positive and negative charges -- electrons, fake protons and such -- what would be the properties of the "object" inside the trap? a highly-charged, non-neutral, high-mass piece of matter ... ?

anyone on these Forums who would like to tear this idea apart, please be my guest.

 

[eljose79]

Hello there,

First of all, I commend you for trying to steer the conversation away from pseudoscience and towards actual physics. it can be frustrating to encounter people who claim to have groundbreaking ideas without understanding the basic principles of physics.

Regarding your musings on Penning traps and Geonium atoms, I can provide some insights as a physicist who has worked with these systems. While it is true that a Penning trap can confine a single electron without a container, this is not due to the creation of "false mass" as you mentioned. In fact, the concept of "false mass" is not a widely accepted term in physics and can be misleading.

In a Penning trap, the electrons are confined by a combination of electric and magnetic fields. The electric field creates a potential well that traps the electrons, while the magnetic field prevents them from escaping through cyclotron motion. The strength of these fields determines the stability of the trap and the number of particles that can be trapped.

So, to answer your question, increasing the intensity of the external fields in a Penning trap would not create "false mass" or additional atomic nuclei. It would simply make the trap more stable and potentially allow for the trapping of more particles.

As for your extreme scenario of creating a "modified Penning trap" with a very large "false mass" field, it is important to note that the properties of the trapped object would still be governed by the laws of physics. It would not magically become a highly-charged, non-neutral, high-mass piece of matter. The properties of the trapped particles would depend on their charges and the strength of the external fields, but they would still be subject to the laws of electromagnetism and quantum mechanics.

I hope this helps clarify some of your questions. While it is always exciting to think about the possibilities of new technology and scientific advancements, it is important to ground our ideas in the known laws of physics. Keep asking questions and exploring new ideas, but always remember to approach them with a critical and scientific mindset.