FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Antimatter





wonderflyagent002
Antimatter
how many of you know what it is.

In particle physics, antimatter is matter that is composed of the antiparticles of those that constitute normal matter. If a particle and its antiparticle come into contact with each other, the two annihilate.This gives rise to high-energy photons (gamma rays) or other particle–antiparticle pairs. The resulting particles are endowed with an amount of kinetic energy equal to the difference between the rest mass of the products of the annihilation and the rest mass of the original particle-antiparticle pair, which is often quite large. each matter particle is said to have have an antiparticle.

Well, at the formation of the universe, a lot of matter was produced. but an equal amount of antimatter was produced. Physist paul dirac's theory(which got him the nobel prize) states the existence of a completely new Universe made out of antimatter!

Antimatter could be the next form of alternate source of energy. 1 gram of antimatter could power up the city of new york for 1full day. Tell me if any of you get more information on antimatter
einstein
i knew abt this. its too good, isn't it??? really smashing!!!
Sappho
Quote:
They point out that in 2004, the annual production of antiprotons at CERN was several picograms at a cost of $20 million. This means to produce 1 gram of antimatter, CERN would need to spend $100000000000000000000 and run the antimatter factory for 100 billion years.


So yea i want that gram of antimatter you are speaking of, you could prolly buy off the whole world. Smile
jb2_86_uk
Sappho wrote:


So yea i want that gram of antimatter you are speaking of, you could prolly buy off the whole world. Smile


...and then power it for a few seconds Very Happy

JB
HoboPelican
Sappho wrote:
Quote:
They point out that in 2004, the annual production of antiprotons at CERN was several picograms at a cost of $20 million. This means to produce 1 gram of antimatter, CERN would need to spend $100000000000000000000 and run the antimatter factory for 100 billion years.


So yea i want that gram of antimatter you are speaking of, you could prolly buy off the whole world. Smile


Yeah, but you have to remember, once they start rampin' up production, costs will drop. Wink

Now we just have to fine tune HiPAT so that the packaging (normal matter) doesn't come into contact with the product (Antimatter). Wink
rorasa
Our universe has anitimatter equal to matter.
Our galaxy contains matter.
Our world contains matter too.

So, if we can create one gram of antimatter for create electricity,

how many we have to pay to create antimatter and
how can we sure that it won't blow off the whole power plant.

This may be much more dangerous and expensive than nuclear power.
Bikerman
wonderflyagent002 wrote:
Antimatter
how many of you know what it is.
...errr...me sir!
Quote:

Well, at the formation of the universe, a lot of matter was produced. but an equal amount of antimatter was produced. Physist paul dirac's theory(which got him the nobel prize) states the existence of a completely new Universe made out of antimatter!

Err...not the one that I know of. Dirac's important work was to introduce Special relativity into the Schrodinger equation to produce the Dirac equation.

While this does indeed predict anti-matter, this was a later development and not the reason for the Nobel prize...
Quote:

Antimatter could be the next form of alternate source of energy. 1 gram of antimatter could power up the city of new york for 1full day. Tell me if any of you get more information on antimatter


http://livefromcern.web.cern.ch/livefromcern/antimatter/academy/AM-travel01.html
uunter
wonderflyagent002 wrote:
...at the formation of the universe, a lot of matter was produced. but an equal amount of antimatter was produced. Physist paul dirac's theory(which got him the nobel prize) states the existence of a completely new Universe made out of antimatter!

Antimatter could be the next form of alternate source of energy. 1 gram of antimatter could power up the city of new york for 1full day. Tell me if any of you get more information on antimatter


Are you asking for information on how to produce and use antimatter? If so, it's produced constantly at particle accelerators (see Bikerman's link). And if you've ever had a PET scan, you've had anti-matter inside your body. (PET = positron emission tomography, and positron = anti-electron.) But if you're interested in using antimatter as a source of energy, I'm afraid you're out of luck. Producing antiparticles takes just as much energy as is released by letting them annihilate with matter, plus enormous costs due to less-than-perfect efficiency. And as strange as it is, given the apparent symmetry of matter and anti-matter, our universe is made almost entirely of matter, so there's little chance of finding, let alone harnessing, a natural source of antimatter.

rorasa wrote:
Our universe has anitimatter equal to matter.


That is incorrect, though as far as I know, nobody has explained why. The universe, thus far, has been observed to contain almost no antimatter at all. (This is a good thing, because, as you point out, it would be REALLY dangerous. But don't worry about anti-matter warfare--if you have access to the amount of energy necessary to produce a gram of antimatter, anyhow, there are much easier and more effective ways to channel it into destruction. Very Happy )
Revvion
rorasa wrote:
Our universe has anitimatter equal to matter.


That is incorrect, though as far as I know, nobody has explained why. The universe, thus far, has been observed to contain almost no antimatter at all. (This is a good thing, because, as you point out, it would be REALLY dangerous. But don't worry about anti-matter warfare--if you have access to the amount of energy necessary to produce a gram of antimatter, anyhow, there are much easier and more effective ways to channel it into destruction. Very Happy )[/quote]


I once read that it has to do with something like the big bang Confused it said then when and if that happend most likely that was the point anti-matter decreased. (NOTE: not my opinion)
Bikerman
Revvion wrote:

I once read that it has to do with something like the big bang Confused it said then when and if that happend most likely that was the point anti-matter decreased. (NOTE: not my opinion)


The explanation is complex. I can try to summarise it for you if you are interested - it will take me a while, so say yes only if you are genuinely interested Smile

Chris
Assiez
The problem with antimatter is that to create it you need to put more enegery in that you would be able to eventually get out of it. Sure it would be helpful to power spaceships and such where space constraints is huge, but on Earth I'm thinking that fusion would still dominate the world's power supplies. Or better yet we could build a Dyson Sphere....that'd be awesome

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere
Mithrandir
Just like anything else, as the technology progresses it will become cheaper and easier to make larger quantities of the antimatter.
Bikerman
Mithrandir wrote:
Just like anything else, as the technology progresses it will become cheaper and easier to make larger quantities of the antimatter.


Er..possibly, though I'm not sure about that.
The economic 'law' that things become cheaper as volume increases is familiar to all computer users - the formalised version is called Moore's Law :
Quote:
'The complexity of integrated circuits, with respect to minimum component cost, doubles every 24 months.'

It is attributed to Gordon E. Moore, a co-founder of Intel.

The production of antimatter, however, is a different ball game.
Antimatter is currently produced in small amounts by large particle accelerators - CERN being the foremost. In order to make a useful type of antimatter - anti-hydrogen, for example, - you need to produce anti-protons. Recent data released by CERN shows their facilities are capable of producing 107 antiprotons per second. At this rate of production it would take around two billion years to produce 1 gram of antihydrogen.
There is also the matter of storage. Antimatter produced at CERN is done so for scientific study, but the problem is, of course, that anti-matter immediately annihilates when in contact with more familiar 'plus' matter. When anti-hydrogen meets hydrogen, for example, you get annihilation and energy. Comtaining anti-hydrogen, therefore, is a daunting task. CERN has managed to keep anti-hydrogen for a maximum of a few seconds before it inevitably 'disappeared' in a puff of smoke (forgive the imagery, I know it is nothing like that in reality, but it makes the point).
CERN's website says this :-
Quote:

"If we could assemble all the antimatter we've ever made at CERN and annihilate it with matter, we would have enough energy to light a single electric light bulb for a few minutes."


I would not start buying shares in anti-matter firms just yet if I were you.

Regards
Chris
Soulfire
Antimatter probably isn't the most efficient way of producing energy, at least, not yet - but what the future holds, who knows? Very Happy

I found this tidbit on Wikipedia regarding the "Antimatter Universe" theory.
Quote:
Dirac himself was the first to consider the existence of antimatter in an astronomical scale. But it was only after the confirmation of his theory, with the discovery of the positron, antiproton and antineutron that real speculation began on the possible existence of an antiuniverse. In the following years, motivated by basic symmetry principles, it was believed that the universe must consist of both matter and antimatter in equal amounts. If, however there were an isolated system of antimatter in the universe, free from interaction with ordinary matter, no earthbound observation could distinguish its true content, as photons (being their own antiparticle) are the same whether originate from a “universe” or an “antiuniverse”. Hannes Alfvén proposed a variant of this idea when he described a universe dominated by ambiplasma.

But assuming large zones of antimatter exist, there must be some boundary where antimatter atoms from the antimatter galaxies or stars will come into contact with normal atoms. In those regions a powerful flux of gamma rays would be produced. This has never been observed despite deployment of very sensitive instruments in space to detect them.

It is now thought that symmetry was broken in the early universe during a period of baryogenesis, when matter-antimatter symmetry was violated. Standard Big Bang cosmology tells us that the universe initially contained equal amounts of matter and antimatter: however particles and antiparticles evolved slightly differently. It was found that a particular heavy unstable particle, which is its own antiparticle, decays slightly more often to positrons (e+) than to electrons (e−). How this accounts for the preponderance of matter over antimatter has not been completely explained. The Standard Model of particle physics does have a way of accommodating a difference between the evolution of matter and antimatter, but it falls short of explaining the net excess of matter in the universe by about 10 orders of magnitude.

After Dirac, science fiction writers produced myriad visions of antiworlds, antistars and antiuniverses, all made of antimatter, and it is still a common plot device; however, suppositions of the existence a coeval, antimatter duplicate of this universe are not taken seriously in modern cosmology.

The entire Wikipedia Article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter

I find the entire thing very intriguing. I believe an antimatter earth colliding with earth was one possible way to destroy the world completely, although it's highly unlikely to occur, still, nothing can be ruled out.
dburnett557
That would be too easy. apparenty everyone knows about it, but its probably another government ploy to kee gas prices up just liek the hydrogen engine that has been around for years but according to the gov cant work.
Soulfire
dburnett557 wrote:
That would be too easy. apparenty everyone knows about it, but its probably another government ploy to kee gas prices up just liek the hydrogen engine that has been around for years but according to the gov cant work.
Hydrogen can't work, at least not for long-term. It takes more energy to create the hydrogen than it gives back, therefore, it's not an efficient solution.
kimiku
antimatter has its applications though. if the production would be optimize as the have said, it may have more applications,
.
like space travel. since antimatter is rare and fusion/ fission is more abundant, it may be used for a hybrid engine. fusion being very efficient but requires high amount of activation energy. micrograms or even nanograms of antimatter may be used to start the fusion with the help of fission. only ions would be ejected into space.

but since CERN is still at this level, we juz have to imagine.

and yea, if there were antimatter, we wouldn't be able to observe it (unless you are antimatter) since photons would annihilate it.
crimson_aria
I learned about antimatter after reading Angels and Demons. I think it's scary.
legion
If matter and antimatter exist, then the lightspeed should have as opposite the dark speed, right?
Revvion
there is another post about that question see http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-47865.html
Bikerman
legion wrote:
If matter and antimatter exist, then the lightspeed should have as opposite the dark speed, right?


No - - antimatter and matter are entities - they both exist.
Dark is not an entity - it does not exist as such, but is merely the absence of light. Antimatter is not the absence of matter - it is matter of a different sort.

Chris
reddishblue
Antimatter is the equil and opposite of matter, there cauld be an entire parralel universe out there made of it and there is could be be some kind of barrier stoping it from leaking into our positive matter universe.
So just remember if you meet your negative matter counterpart than don't shake their hand.

As for how their is Antimatter in our universe I have no idea how it can exist here Confused
Bikerman
reddishblue wrote:
Antimatter is the equil and opposite of matter, there cauld be an entire parralel universe out there made of it and there is could be be some kind of barrier stoping it from leaking into our positive matter universe.
So just remember if you meet your negative matter counterpart than don't shake their hand.


No - this is not right. Matter and anti-matter are both 'matter' so they are not equal and opposite in that sense.

Matter is divided up into particles called 'Fermions'. There is another type of particle called Bosons which 'carry' - (mediate is the correct term) forces as opposed to being 'normal' matter.

This is going to be impossible without hypertext abilities (the symbols need special characters).....I'll go and knock up a quick html page with the particles on it....hang on Smile

OK - here we go....this link is to a web page which summarises particles and anti-particles.

http://camres.frih.net/particles.htm

Regards
Chris
Panthrowzay
unless the Antimatter zones where colliding actively then they would cause the gamma irratation. But it is possible that there just are no zones touching. or the areas they are colliding in are done colliding. its like holding a fire to a wick it wont light till the flame touches it.
mephisto73
I have some antimatter in my desk drawer right now.
Satori
mephisto73 wrote:
I have some antimatter in my desk drawer right now.

Dude, hook me up! Is it the heady dank antimatter? Cause if not, I'm not interested. If so, put some in an antibox and antiship it to me!
cannibalsmurf
interesting ideas here and I feel it's my job to point out one major flaw in the whole anti-matter universe theory. That would be the most instable universe around since pronton orbiting electrons is NOT a normal state for matter, anti or not. The protons would fly waya and the electron base cannon stay stable for more the a few secons at most out side a magnetic support system, keeping it away from any other particles.
Flynn
cannibalsmurf wrote:
interesting ideas here and I feel it's my job to point out one major flaw in the whole anti-matter universe theory. That would be the most instable universe around since pronton orbiting electrons is NOT a normal state for matter, anti or not. The protons would fly waya and the electron base cannon stay stable for more the a few secons at most out side a magnetic support system, keeping it away from any other particles.


There is a misunderstanding here of what an antimatter atom is like. An example of an antimatter atom would consist of a positron (the antimatter equivalent of an electron) orbiting an anti-proton. This is a real substance called antihyrogen which has been produced in the lab. See e.g.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antihydrogen.

Flynn
Bikerman
Or you could read back a bit (he said modestly) :-)
Panthrowzay
... Antimatter is by far the most dangous substance know to man, it can destroy ANYTHING!
the1991
You cannot produce energy from anti-matter (at least right now). In order to get antimatter, you have to create an antimatter. If you want to create antimatter, it takes vast amounts of energy to create it, and then you have to expend energy to store it in magnetic fields. Finally, upon annihilation, you lose additional energy trying to convert it to usable power (which we all know is an inefficient process).

So lets get this straight:

- energy to make it
- energy to store it
+ energy to annihilate it
- energy to convert to usable power
________________________________________
= huge net losses

if you want any gains, your 1 positive has to overcome all of those negatives.
Bikerman
the1991 wrote:
You cannot produce energy from anti-matter (at least right now). In order to get antimatter, you have to create an antimatter. If you want to create antimatter, it takes vast amounts of energy to create it, and then you have to expend energy to store it in magnetic fields. Finally, upon annihilation, you lose additional energy trying to convert it to usable power (which we all know is an inefficient process).


The possible gain to make it worthwhile would be the energy density you could potentially pack.
For inter-stellar space-drives, for example, one would need as much energy in as small a space as possible....
That's the only app I can currently think of which might be worth the losses...
Chris
the1991
Revvion wrote:
rorasa wrote:
Our universe has anitimatter equal to matter.


That is incorrect, though as far as I know, nobody has explained why. The universe, thus far, has been observed to contain almost no antimatter at all. (This is a good thing, because, as you point out, it would be REALLY dangerous. But don't worry about anti-matter warfare--if you have access to the amount of energy necessary to produce a gram of antimatter, anyhow, there are much easier and more effective ways to channel it into destruction. Very Happy )



I once read that it has to do with something like the big bang Confused it said then when and if that happend most likely that was the point anti-matter decreased. (NOTE: not my opinion)[/quote]


It actually wouldn't be all that dangerous since matter rarely ever collides in our universe. If we had galaxies of antimatter and galaxies of matter, we'd be entirely safe because each has positive energy and obeys the same laws of gravitation. They'd just each do their own thing, and nothing would really come of it unless the matter and antimatter galaxies were to come together.
Bikerman
I actually worked up an explanation of the imbalance a while ago, but it is long and hard going if not science-literate..
I'll dig it out later and post it up.
Chris
Bikerman
OK....dug out the paper I wrote on matter-antimatter. I've polished up a couple of things.
If any physicists spot any howlers in the text then please let me know so I can correct it.
The paper is aimed at the non-scientists but assumes a basic knowledge of metric units and elementary particle names. It contains links to some more advanced reading on String and Standard Model explanations for Baryon number violations so the more advanced reader may find it useful as a pointer.

Cheers
Chris

http://camres.frih.net/resources/GeneralPhysics/early%20universe.html
fashioncrimewave
CP violation is one part of it. Actually there are three conditions required for baryogenesis, first stated by Andrei Sakharov:

1: C & CP violation, to drive the creation of matter over antimatter
2: baryon number (B) violating processes
3: non-equilibrium conditions

The third condition could have been supplied by a phase transition, such as inflation or the electro-weak symmetry breaking phase transition. In the Standard Model, which uses EWSB to supply the non-equilibrium, the amount of asymmetry is too small. However, in a minimal extension to the SM, called the Supersymmetric SM, it is found that the asymmetry can be large enough to match observations.

for a very technical paper (I was one of the authors) that has references to the Sakharov paper, see

http://xxx.arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9911243
redace
I think its quite difficult to get energy from antimatter, because it isn't on every corner:) You must at first create it, and it is not an easy task. This procces is energy consuming. Antimatter is very interesting subject mathematically. Try to look in quantum electrodynamic books.
Ka7raK
As far as i recall, the Vatican was being destroyed with antimatter on Angels & Demons from Dan Brown but it didn't because it was blown-up too far from the ground.

I think antimatter is a pretty ambiguous subject. If it can destroy anything and there's only a very, very small portion of it in the entire world, i wonder why we've produced it anyways. I know the human race loves destroying stuff but there should be some limits to how far we can go and how dangerous we can become. Instead of producing antimatter, we should be focusing in space race and the creation of starfleets to handle alien invaders Laughing .

As a final consideration about antimatter: the Europeans invented it (yes, this is true) but the Americans, the Russians, the Chinese, the Koreans, Middle East, all have brilliant minds able to produce it and they don't do it. How come the darksided minds of this world are not thinking about antimatter to blow up some towers on USA?
ocalhoun
wonderflyagent002 wrote:


Well, at the formation of the universe, a lot of matter was produced. but an equal amount of antimatter was produced. Physist paul dirac's theory(which got him the nobel prize) states the existence of a completely new Universe made out of antimatter!

Therefore, the entire universe would have to be a vacuum function.
(In a vacuum function, a particle and it's antiparticle come into existing by being hit by a photon, eventualy when the two particles come back together, they shoot the photon back in time, where it triggers the vaccum function.)
If a chain of these highly improbable events happened, and happened in a big enough way, the universe could be created in such a way. The universe would then be doomed to eventualy cancel itself out to all but a single photon sent flying back through time...
Bikerman
fashioncrimewave wrote:
CP violation is one part of it. Actually there are three conditions required for baryogenesis, first stated by Andrei Sakharov:

1: C & CP violation, to drive the creation of matter over antimatter
2: baryon number (B) violating processes
3: non-equilibrium conditions

The third condition could have been supplied by a phase transition, such as inflation or the electro-weak symmetry breaking phase transition. In the Standard Model, which uses EWSB to supply the non-equilibrium, the amount of asymmetry is too small. However, in a minimal extension to the SM, called the Supersymmetric SM, it is found that the asymmetry can be large enough to match observations.

for a very technical paper (I was one of the authors) that has references to the Sakharov paper, see

http://xxx.arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9911243


Thanks for that expert feedback. Would you say that my little paper was a reasonable summary for a non-tech audience or would you say that it really should cover the other 2 conditions to avoid misleading people ? I always welcome feedback and criticism from experts so please fire away.

Chris
healyrj
Quote:
In particle physics, antimatter extends the concept of the antiparticle to matter, wherin if a particle and its antiparticle come into contact with each other, the two annihilate —that is, they may both be converted into other particles with equal energy in accordance with Einstein's equation E = mc2. This gives rise to high-energy photons (gamma rays) or other particle–antiparticle pairs. The resulting particles are endowed with an amount of kinetic energy equal to the difference between the rest mass of the products of the annihilation and the rest mass of the original particle-antiparticle pair, which is often quite large.

Antimatter is not found naturally on Earth, except very briefly and in vanishingly small quantities (as the result of radioactive decay or cosmic rays). This is because antimatter which comes to exist on Earth outside the confines of a suitably equipped physics laboratory would inevitably come into contact with the ordinary matter that Earth is made of, and be annihilated. Antiparticles and some stable antimatter (such as antihydrogen) can be made in miniscule amounts, but not in enough quantity to do more than test a few of its theoretical properties.

There is considerable speculation both in science and science fiction as to why the observable universe is apparently almost entirely matter, whether other places are almost entirely antimatter instead, and what might be possible if antimatter could be harnessed, but at this time the apparent asymmetry of matter and antimatter in the visible universe is one of the great unsolved problems in physics. Possible processes by which it came about are explored in more detail under baryogenesis.
Bikerman
The above is another direct lift, this time from :
http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060831035715AAIH7FY

You really should attrib your sources, especially when they are your only contribution.

Regards
Chris
uunter
Ka7raK wrote:
I think antimatter is a pretty ambiguous subject. If it can destroy anything and there's only a very, very small portion of it in the entire world, i wonder why we've produced it anyways.


Did you actually read any of the previous posts, or just the thread title? Antimatter isn't like plutonium, a rare material that you can stockpile and use to make bombs eventually. In most ways it behaves just like ordinary matter, and could theoretically come in all the varieties that normal matter does--but it's impossible to contain for more than a few minutes, because it annihilates on contact with matter, and it takes an enormous amount of energy to produce even the tiny amount at CERN (see Bikerman's posts).

Ka7raK wrote:
the Europeans invented it (yes, this is true) but the Americans, the Russians, the Chinese, the Koreans, Middle East, all have brilliant minds able to produce it and they don't do it. How come the darksided minds of this world are not thinking about antimatter to blow up some towers on USA?


Grammatical point: antimatter was not "invented" by anybody, any more than water or fire. Invention implies designing and creating something that previously did not exist. Factual point: the U.S. does produce antimatter, at its own particle accelerators. However, the only purpose of producing antimatter is to study--crudely put--the way the universe works at its most fundamental level. There is no feasible destructive use for antimatter because it is so short-lived, and so difficult to produce in quantity.

For God's sake, people, read what's already been posted before you post. I apologize for repeating, for those that actually do.
Revvion
wonderflyagent002 wrote:
Antimatter
the two annihilate.This gives rise to high-energy photons (gamma rays) or other particle–antiparticle pairs.


might be a stupid question but would it be possible to destroy nuclear waste this way, i mean if you can change it into different pairs wouldnt it be possible?
Bikerman
Revvion wrote:
wonderflyagent002 wrote:
Antimatter
the two annihilate.This gives rise to high-energy photons (gamma rays) or other particle–antiparticle pairs.


might be a stupid question but would it be possible to destroy nuclear waste this way, i mean if you can change it into different pairs wouldnt it be possible?


No, it doesn't work like that. Take, for example, uranium. That consists of a nucleus with 92 electrons in orbit. You would need a nucleus with 92 positrons and the same number of anti-neutrons and anti-protons as in the nucleus - in other words an anti-uranium atom. Whilst it is certainly possible that such a thing exists, physics has never detected anti-atoms of anything larger than anti-hydrogen. You can't just create anti-versions of matter because we don't know how and even if we did the energy needed would be huge.

Chris
TheSublime
Antimatter is amazing. It provides ten powers of ten more energy per unit mass than nuclear power. Too bad the amount we can make is measured in nanograms...
Bikerman
TheSublime wrote:
Antimatter is amazing. It provides ten powers of ten more energy per unit mass than nuclear power. Too bad the amount we can make is measured in nanograms...


Hmm....in a real sense it IS nuclear power. It provides energy, as does all nuclear power, according to e=mc*c. The difference is that if electrons and positrons are used you can get almost complete annihilation making it close to 100 percent efficient. In normal nuclear reactions things are much messier, especially with heavier particles. Even anti-matter-matter annihilation is less efficient with (say) protons and anti-protons since the reaction sprays out other smaller particles which eventually decay to gamma rays.

Chris
DJDJ
so basicly the verdit is.. antimater anhilation propulsion is only for star wars.. and till CERN figures out a very very effcient was of making antimaater or nasa finds a deposit smwhere in space.. we are stuck with our not so efficinet soruce of power
snowboardude
Theoretically, some form of antimatter - matter reactor would be a good source of power
The Conspirator
snowboardude wrote:
Theoretically, some form of antimatter - matter reactor would be a good source of power

Except for that fact that you would have to contain the antimatter which would use up allot of power.
Physicist
In 1996 physicists at CERN succeded in producing a handful of antihydrogen atoms for a few nanosecends,each consisting of a positron and an antiproton bound together.I think in future we will advance more in this job.
One can speculate that there are galaxies of antimatter,coplete with atoms,molecules, and even with men. One can even contemplate the disaster that would occur if, say, an asteroid freed from such a galaxy collided with (hence annihilating) a section of earth. Thankfully , however, the present view in that not only our galaxy but the universe as a whole consists largely of matter rather than antimatter.This lack of symmetry is disterbing to physicists, who normally expects to find symmetry in nature.
Where is symmetry???
fashioncrimewave
Bikerman wrote:
fashioncrimewave wrote:
CP violation is one part of it. Actually there are three conditions required for baryogenesis, first stated by Andrei Sakharov:

1: C & CP violation, to drive the creation of matter over antimatter
2: baryon number (B) violating processes
3: non-equilibrium conditions

The third condition could have been supplied by a phase transition, such as inflation or the electro-weak symmetry breaking phase transition. In the Standard Model, which uses EWSB to supply the non-equilibrium, the amount of asymmetry is too small. However, in a minimal extension to the SM, called the Supersymmetric SM, it is found that the asymmetry can be large enough to match observations.

for a very technical paper (I was one of the authors) that has references to the Sakharov paper, see

http://xxx.arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9911243


Thanks for that expert feedback. Would you say that my little paper was a reasonable summary for a non-tech audience or would you say that it really should cover the other 2 conditions to avoid misleading people ? I always welcome feedback and criticism from experts so please fire away.

Chris


Chris, I think your webpage is a good summary. I saw that you actually mentioned B violation so that's 2 out of 3. In fact, there is no conclusive answer yet as to when the baryogenesis actually happened. There are a number of models that work, basically what people have tried to do is see if baryogenesis can work with the physics we know (Standard Model) alone, or if they have to add something extra (supersymmetry, GUT, etc.) to make it work. The nature of the phase transitions is hard to determine so it's hard to say which model is actually right. Some type of astronomical observation should eventually help pin this down.
Alkmania
This technology seems very impressive but it needs a lot of work and developing. And I hope that in the future there will be a market for it, costs will have to drop making this profitable.

I also think many people don't believe in a thing called antimatter and maybe the curch doesn't want to see this coming as well since they have their god who created the earth.
Bikerman
'Not believing' in anti-matter is just another form of denial. There is no doubt as to it's existence as it is being produced as we speak at CERN. There can, of course, be debate about exactly what it is and how it fits into the picture we have of the universe, but not about it's existence (unless we want to have an existential mind/body debate which is probably better done in the Philosophy forum).

Regards
Chris
einstein
hey chris, your article contains almost everything there needs to be if a layman wants to know about anti-matter. but i am not sure whether the Quark Freezout occurs at 10^13 K. i read somewhere that its 10^14 K. will have to search it again. please let me know what is the right temperature. Very Happy

however, i still wonder what is the state of anti-matter!!!

it is said to occur in opposite state than that of matter, but i don't know what!!! i guess more research has to be done on it (by me). Wink
Bikerman
einstein wrote:
hey chris, your article contains almost everything there needs to be if a layman wants to know about anti-matter. but i am not sure whether the Quark Freezout occurs at 10^13 K. i read somewhere that its 10^14 K. will have to search it again. please let me know what is the right temperature. Very Happy

Yes, there is some work still being done on the freezeout temp....current figures range from 10e11 to 10e14....I'll correct it later.
Quote:

however, i still wonder what is the state of anti-matter!!!
it is said to occur in opposite state than that of matter, but i don't know what!!! i guess more research has to be done on it (by me). Wink


Not exactly opposite. They are basically the other possible solution for the Direc Equation in relativity. The mass is the same, as is the spin, but the charge is opposite to that of the corresponding matter particle.

Regards
Chris
einstein
thanks for link to the Dirac Equation (i had the window opened on the same thing just before i read this post!!! what a coincidence!!! Very Happy )

but i want to ask you about the state of anti-matter..........i hope you will be able to help me chris........i am just 15 years old, and am not able to get the answer anywhere!!! Crying or Very sad
Bikerman
einstein wrote:
but i want to ask you about the state of anti-matter..........i hope you will be able to help me chris........i am just 15 years old, and am not able to get the answer anywhere!!! Crying or Very sad


Can you be more specific about what you mean ?
einstein
specific??? well, how do i explain something i don't know??? Confused

its just that i want to know in what state anti-matter occurs!!! is it the same as one of the states of matter, or is it something different???
Bikerman
einstein wrote:
specific??? well, how do i explain something i don't know??? Confused

its just that i want to know in what state anti-matter occurs!!! is it the same as one of the states of matter, or is it something different???


If you mean what phase of matter is it (state can be misleading since it occurs in thermodynamics in a different context), then the question is not answerable at present. Until the type of particle (if any) is identified it is not possible to state what phase of matter it will occur in. Indeed the question might not be a sensible one at all since a neutralino or gravatino would not exist as matter in the normal sense of the word.
You'll need a particle physicist to give a more complete answer since this is a very specialised field and my knowledge of the field is sketchy at best.

Regards
Chris
Afaceinthematrix
I learned about antimatter from Dan Brown's Angels and Demons. I found it extremely interesting so after I read the book, I researched it a lot on the internet and such. If you haven't read that book, I'd suggest reading it if your interested in physics, history, or religion because it deals with all three.
carlospro7
I know what it is too. It's kind of hard to believe that it can cause an explosion so big. We have antimatter on this earth, that we have produced and are still doing so right now (in very microscopic amounts). We'd all be gone if something goes wrong. Really interesting subject.
R2.DETARD
I can't believe someone quoted a work of fiction as a source to learn about something that most scientists have little to no idea about.

There is a lot of things that may be proved by an equation like the fact that one number is equal to any other number
That necessarily doesn't mean it has to be true.
einstein
R2.DETARD wrote:
I can't believe someone quoted a work of fiction as a source to learn about something that most scientists have little to no idea about.

There is a lot of things that may be proved by an equation like the fact that one number is equal to any other number
That necessarily doesn't mean it has to be true.


well, Angels and Demons gives quite some information about anti-matter, about who created it, using what,........etc.

also, i can't think how you can say that anti-matter does not exist when it has already been created and many of its features, componenets, etc have been discovered!!!

and how did you come to the conclusion that MOST scientists do not know about anti-matter??? i consider any physicist not knowing something about this, USELESS!!!

and if you REALLY want to know something about anti-matter, read some of my earlier posts in this topic....
coolsmile
Antimatter, it necessary to know what it is made out of and what it does.
Antimatter is made of positively charged electrons and negatively charged protons and if it comes in contact with matter it destroys eachother and releases 100% of the nuclear energy while just splitting an atom releases a small fraction of it. This would create an explosion 1000 times greater than an Hydrogen-bomb!!!
Lord Klorel
For those who have readed the book of Dan Brown's Angels and demons.
1 gram of antimatter has the energy of a nuke bom of 20 kilotons. The kind of bom that destroyed Hiroshima.

When i discovered this i had the greatst fear of all time. When this power came in the wrong hands it could destroy the entire world and beyond.

If it comes in good hands, it would solve our search to energy sources.
Sikon
The current inefficiency of producing antimatter is a factor of millions to billions of times, with the amount of antimatter produced being only barely above zero. As stated in an article here, "CERN pointed out that the amount of antimatter an accelerator laboratory can produce in a year is enough to make a 100-watt lightbulb shine for fifteen minutes."

However, that is for using current accelerators that are designed for particle physics research rather than producing antimatter. Though inefficiencies would still be high, the situation could be improved by orders of magnitude. One of the most famous researchers in the field, Dr. Robert Forward says the following in his book Indistinguishable from Magic:

Quote:
In a study I carried out for the Air Force Rocket Propulsion Laboratory, I showed that if an antiproton factory were designed properly by engineers, instead of by scientists with limited budgets and in a hurry to win a Nobel prize, the present energy efficiency (electrical energy in compared to antimatter annihilation energy out) could be raised from a part in sixty million to a part in ten thousand, or 0.01%, while at the same time, the cost of building the factory could be substantially lowered compared to the cost of the high precision scientific machines. From these studies, I estimated the cost of the antimatter at ten million dollars per milligram.


With inefficiency of production, the antimatter would still be orders of magnitude more expensive than nuclear energy per unit of energy, but it could be useful in some special applications. One current application is some medical use, as described here.

Antimatter also has potential for propulsion. A relatively plausible drive concept using it is the antimatter-catalyzed micro fusion/fission (ACMF) idea. That requires such a miniscule amount of antimatter as to be possible even without any major breakthroughs. For example, one Mars mission concept faster than most alternatives would use just 140 nanograms of antimatter, just 1 / 7000th of a milligram. That is because it would be only used to initiate reactions in fission-fusion pellets, with orders of magnitude more energy within hundreds of tons of nuclear pellet propellant. See the article here.

At 140 nanograms, the preceding amount of antimatter is so miniscule that its energy content is relatively small, outside of it being used as the "catalyst" for the fission-fusion pellets. The energy release of it in matter-antimatter annihilation alone would correspond to it reacting with an equal mass of matter, causing 280 nanograms to be annihilated, neglecting inefficiencies. In that case, the mass-energy relationship of E = MC^2 gives E = (2.8E-10 kg)*(3E8 m/s)*(3E8 m/s) = ~ 2.5E7 J. That figure of 25 MJ is relatively small, equivalent to about 6 kilograms of chemical explosive like TNT at 4000 J / gram. The key difference is how it can be used to ignite the fission-fusion pellets in a manner not possible with chemical explosive. That the concept needs so little antimatter energy is good both for safety and for practicality, since only a limited amount of antimatter could be produced and stored in the near future.
Shin
I first learned about Antimatter is from Dan Brown's book. It's appears to be the next Nuclear power.. As it's predecessor, it's has to be handled with care. Otherwise disaster is waiting to be happened..
Sikon
Since there are so many references to the Angels and Demons fictional book by Dan Brown in this thread, it is worth pointing out that it is the wrong place to learn true information about antimatter. Apparently, that book has the following in part:

Web page on that book wrote:
[...] a canister containing a quarter of a gramme of antimatter — an extremely deadly weapon that could destroy an entire area when in contact with matter. When charged with electricity at CERN, the canister's magnetic field controls the drop of antimatter to float in pure vacuum, ensuring safety; but when it is taken away from its electricity supply, the canister will automatically switch to using its back-up battery, which lasts for only 24 hours.


See the web page about some of the book's errors here, at the real-life CERN accelerator website, written by a real, professional physicist.

For example, the book apparently expects that readers will incorrectly assume that a quantity like a quarter-gram of antimatter could be produced at CERN. That's just wrong. Here is a relevant part of the CERN web page linked above:

Real CERN physicist wrote:
Then, in 2002 experiments managed to produce tens of thousands of antihydrogen atoms, a sufficient number to study this gas in its antimatter form. However, although "tens of thousands" may sound a lot, it's really a very very small amount. You would need 10'000'000'000'000'000'000 times that amount to have enough antihydrogen gas to fill a toy balloon! If we could somehow store our daily production, it would take us 25'000'000 billion years to fill the balloon. The universe has only been around for 13.7 billion years...
So the Angels and Demons scenario is pure fiction.


As implied in my last post, the situation for antimatter production might be much improved with special-purpose equipment eventually, but it would still require far more technology and resources to produce an antimatter bomb equivalent to a nuke than to produce a nuclear bomb of equal or greater yield. What is more plausible to occur within a few decades would be producing antimatter in amounts orders of magnitude less than a gram, such as nanograms to micrograms, along with developing storage technology sufficient for that quantity.
fashioncrimewave
einstein wrote:
i want to know in what state anti-matter occurs!!! is it the same as one of the states of matter, or is it something different???


At present anti-matter that is created at CERN or FermiLab or other accelerators is in the "state" of individual particles in a beam. So, they create a beam of positrons (anti-electrons) at LEP and the Stanford LC, anti-protons at FermiLab and at the new LHC. Also, as mentioned on this topic, there have been some anti-hydrogen atoms created.

Normally when we talk about the state of matter, we mean gas, liquid, solid, plasma, etc. However in this case we are talking about a large number of particles. The anti-hydrogen atoms could possibly be considered a gas, although I don't know if all 10K were generated at the same time in the same "container".

It is entirely possible, although not supported by any current observations, that different parts of the universe are entirely made of anti-matter instead of matter. If a "normal" matter and anti-matter area would start to collide, then large amounts of energy (photons) would be generated. Anyway, if those exotic regions in the universe exist, then all the antimatter would form atoms, molecules, gases, liquids, solids, etc., all of the macroscopic states of matter that we are used to, because there is no "normal" matter around. A common misconception is that anti-matter is unstable, but this is wrong - anti-matter is just as stable as "normal" matter, but in our region of the universe (and maybe everywhere) it's surrounded by so much normal matter that it is difficult to keep it from annihilating to photons.

Hope that's what you were looking for. Smile Glad to see that you're interested!
Bofia
How would you contain anti-matter? anything that it touches would disappear so i don't think its a very feasible source of energy
Bikerman
Bofia wrote:
How would you contain anti-matter? anything that it touches would disappear so i don't think its a very feasible source of energy

No, it would only annihilate the equivalent particle. An anti-hydrogen particle would, therefore, annihilate a hydrogen particle.

Chris
Moonspider
I haven't read all of the threads here, so forgive me if I am posting info already mentioned.

Here is a link to a company that is a "research and development company in the emerging field of antimatter production, confinement and utilization."

Positronics Research, LLC

Respectfully,
M
Afaceinthematrix
R2.DETARD wrote:
I can't believe someone quoted a work of fiction as a source to learn about something that most scientists have little to no idea about.

There is a lot of things that may be proved by an equation like the fact that one number is equal to any other number
That necessarily doesn't mean it has to be true.


I quoted a work of fiction, but it's still valid. I said that I learned of antimatter from Angels and Demons. That's where I heard about it.... after that I went on line and looked it up so that I could learn about it. So after that I learned more about what it is. But if never read Angels and Demons, then I would never have known about it.

Oh, and most scientists know about it and if they don't then they should consider finding a new career.. unless they're a biologist maybe because antimatter has nothing to do with biology but as far as any other type of scientist...
fashioncrimewave
Bofia wrote:
How would you contain anti-matter? anything that it touches would disappear so i don't think its a very feasible source of energy


You can contain antimatter using electromagnetic fields. In a magnetic field, a charged particle feels a force qvBsin(theta), where q is the charge, v is the velocity, B is the magnetic field, and theta is the angle between the v and B vectors. By putting a charged particle in a constant
magnetic field, it will move in a circle (assuming the velocity is perpendicular to the B field, otherwise it moves in a helix). Many particle colliders have storage rings where they store electrons + positrons or protons and antiprotons using magnetic fields; the same magnets work for both - they just travel in opposite directions around the ring. (This is very simplified, but it's the important idea.)

A particle without electric charge is tougher, for example, an anti-neutron. It still has a magnetic dipole moment, so it could be contained by a magnetic field, but to my knowledge no one has done this.
Bikerman
fashioncrimewave wrote:

A particle without electric charge is tougher, for example, an anti-neutron. It still has a magnetic dipole moment, so it could be contained by a magnetic field, but to my knowledge no one has done this.


I presume the anihhilation breaks the colour force in the nucleus and that's what is getting me confused since I thought that was strong enough to resist anything short of relativistic energy enough to form new virtual pairs.....
Can you sketch out anihhilation for me...do the individual up and down quarks act on each other or do the protons and neutrons act on the anti-partner.....?
Dumb question probably I know...but what can I do? Smile

Chris.

I'll pick your brains whilst you are on a roll Smile Can you capture an anti-neutron in conventional matter. In matter antimatter annihilation do matched quarks annihilate (say 1 neutron and 2 protons in a weird nucleus of hydrium Smile..4 up and 2 down...would they annihilate with 2 protons...?
My understanding is that the colour force is strong enough to resist anything short of relativistic energies which would force the creation of new virtual pairs...

I hope that's not too dumb a question....
Chris
Bikerman
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
I learned about antimatter from Dan Brown's Angels and Demons. I found it extremely interesting so after I read the book, I researched it a lot on the internet and such. If you haven't read that book, I'd suggest reading it if your interested in physics, history, or religion because it deals with all three.


LOL....I bought it yesterday and am about to syaty it in an hour or so Smile

It looks interesting..I read the preface quickly...I'll want my money back from you you if I don't become at least a world expert in re normalisation theory before this evening Smile LOL

Cheers
Chris
fashioncrimewave
I'm a little confused about what you're actually asking me, but I'll try to take a shot at it. Let's start with electrons because they're simpler. Most of the arguments are the same for quarks, but nucleons are more complicated.

In the annihilation process there are two quantum states: the initial state is electron & positron, and the final state is two photons. From QED you can calculate the transition probability between the states. For simplicity, let's say that we are in the center of mass reference frame so that electron has energy E and momentum p, positron has energy E and momentum -p. The net energy is E and net momentum is 0. The outgoing photons each have energy E and momentum magnitude p, the photons will travel in exact opposite directions from each other, but not necessarily along the same line that the electron and positron followed before the collision. (that's because the net momentum is 0. in a different reference frame this isn't true because the net momentum isn't 0. but we could get the right answer from the CM frame by doing a Lorentz transformation.)

I'll mention a sticky point here - there is an equal transition probability for the reverse process, 2 photons goes to electron & positron. Therefore if you take two high-intensity lasers with high enough wavelength and shoot them at each other you should be able to make electron and positron pairs. And there are lots of other possible processes: electron + positron -> electron + positron, muon + anti-muon, quark + anti-quark, etc. The difference in electron + positron -> 2 photons is that photons don't exert any forces on each other, so they can fly off in opposite directions forever. Since particle + antiparticle have opposite electric charge, they will keep interacting (scattering) until eventually 2 photons results. (this is ignoring the rest of the universe of course.)

OK, so on to quarks. Quarks have electric charge so they can scatter in the same way as electrons, q + qbar -> 2 photons. (i use bar from here on to mean antiparticle, so xbar is the antiparticle of x.) They can scatter via the color force as well, q + qbar -> 2 gluons, but gluons are not stable,
so "jets" of all kinds of particles come out in the final state, like photons and pions. These particles may annihilate further or not. So quark annihilation is similar to electrons, except we don't always know what form the outgoing energy is in.

Now nucleons, for example p + pbar as is used at Fermilab. What actually happens in an annihilation is that one quark (say u) in the p annihilates with a ubar in the pbar, creating photons or jets. The remaining quarks and antiquarks are not stable, so they will also become jets. (this is because quarks only exist in everyday world as baryons, qqq, or mesons, q-qbar, so you can't have a stable state like qq or qbar qbar.) p + pbar scattering is really much more complicated than q + qbar, because even if you know the momentum of the p, the momenta of all the q's have to be described by a probability distribution.

OK - now on to anti-neutrons. Here is one possible container I can think of: make an anti-neutron trap using a magnetic field. Since the neutron has a magnetic dipole moment mu, its potential energy in a magnetic field H is -(mu)H cos(theta) where theta is the angle between mu and H. The force on the dipole is -grad (PE) = -(mu) cos(theta) grad(H).
(grad is gradient or spatial derivative. if grad(H) is large, then H is changing rapidly. if grad(H) is positive, then H is increasing, and if grad(H) is negative, then H is decreasing.) So if you can make a nonuniform magnetic field, the dipole will be attracted to the region of highest field strength. by making the field strength low->high->low in some direction, the anti-neutron should be trapped in a planar region.

Of course you'd have to make the trap in a vacuum (not impossible) and make the trap in 3 dimensions (might be hard, but I think people have done it for Bose-Einstein condensates). That would be the best try.

I hope that helps somewhat. It's fun for me to try to explain these things, unfortunately, with just text it's hard.

Bikerman wrote:


I presume the anihhilation breaks the colour force in the nucleus and that's what is getting me confused since I thought that was strong enough to resist anything short of relativistic energy enough to form new virtual pairs.....
Can you sketch out anihhilation for me...do the individual up and down quarks act on each other or do the protons and neutrons act on the anti-partner.....?
Dumb question probably I know...but what can I do? Smile

Chris.

I'll pick your brains whilst you are on a roll Smile Can you capture an anti-neutron in conventional matter. In matter antimatter annihilation do matched quarks annihilate (say 1 neutron and 2 protons in a weird nucleus of hydrium Smile..4 up and 2 down...would they annihilate with 2 protons...?
My understanding is that the colour force is strong enough to resist anything short of relativistic energies which would force the creation of new virtual pairs...

I hope that's not too dumb a question....
Chris
The_Gamer294
giovle
Hi,

I've wrote a thesis about the smallest particle. By studying various types of documentation, I discorvered that the universe is built up from 62 elementary particles. I won't bore you by stating them all, but, apart from fotons, gluons (8 types), vectorbosons (3 types), gravitons and higgsbosons, every other particle has an antiparticle. So you have 24 particles that have an antiparticle.

There is a possible explanation for having as much antimatter als matter in the universe. The existance of both does not conflict with the fact that they would annihilate each other.

When you state that ou world consists primarily of matter, as does our galaxy, you don't rule out the possibility of a distant galaxy, consisting primarily of antimatter. It's like a reflection in the water. You can see your own reflection when staring at it from a distance, it's similar to you, but not the same. But when you get closer and touch the surface, it starts to fade and you 'collide' with your image. Oskar Klein, a scientist, stated that the universe consisted of an equal amount of matter and antimatter.

Reply to this if you want to hear the explanation Klein gives to the possibility of the two antiworlds coexisting... I'll have to look up my thesis ...
Bikerman
fashioncrimewave wrote:

I hope that helps somewhat. It's fun for me to try to explain these things, unfortunately, with just text it's hard.

Sorry for not getting back earlier. This is a very good effort and I follow what you are saying - thanks for taking the time to explain in a non trivial way.
I understand the point about text only...it would be nice to have some basic math functionality on the boards. I'm currently working with others on a couple of science websites and this is an issue that has arisen there too. There are (thanks to Indi for pointing this out) some standards emerging for math on the web which may be useful. Until there is a standard which is robust and general, I'm designing some stop-gaps for the sites. One is a new character set which includes many of the standard symbols needed to make sense in any science/math discussion of any depth. I'll make it available freely when completed.

Regards
Chris
Jschoen43
I wonder what it looks like and if its just the opposite of matter would you be able to make like an anti matter box or car or baseball or something. thats wierd to think about cuz when i think of anti matter then i think of nothing because techniquely isnt matter everything in the universe so if its the opposite of matter then shouldnt it be nothing. they need to make a new name for it or something. has anyone ever heard of aero-gel? that stuff looks really cool. i want to learn more about all that
giovle
Jschoen43 wrote:
thats wierd to think about cuz when i think of anti matter then i think of nothing because techniquely isnt matter everything in the universe so if its the opposite of matter then shouldnt it be nothing.

Technically, if you read my previous post (2posts up Wink ) you'll see that the universe is not the whole picture. The universe we know of consists mostly of matter (at least we think it does, let's assume that that's right) and besides that, you also have like an anti-universe, that consists of antimatter. The two co-exist in a manner suggested by Oscar Klein. So antimatter isn't 'nothing' it's actualy a thing with opposite characteristics of the things we know of.
newolder
Antimatter, e.g. positrons, positronium &c, exists in reality and is coped-with well in the standard model*. No requirement to pass a twisted mirror's reflection to see some, there'll be loads of the stuff inside the LHC@CERN this November, chaos permitting. ed.


http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/model.html
Related topics
Da Vinci Code
Star Trek Voyage Elite Force
Any Dan Brown Fans?
How to destroy the Earth
Angels and Demons - Dan Brown
My Prose
Perpetural Energy
newton and his apple
POSITRON ROCKET FOR MARS
Angels and Demons VS. The DaVinci Code
Does technology advance slower than we think?
Black-hole warp
Great inventions/discoveries yet to be invented/discovered
What's the difference between matter and antimatter?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Science -> General Science

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.