CERN physicists trap antihydrogen atoms for more than 16 minutes (w/ video)

Jun 05, 2011
This is an artistic representation of the ALPHA neutral antimatter trap, suggesting the nature of the ALPHA apparatus as a container for antihydrogen. Credit: Chukman So, copyright © 2011 Wurtele Research Group. All rights reserved.

Trapping antihydrogen atoms at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) has become so routine that physicists are confident that they can soon begin experiments on this rare antimatter equivalent of the hydrogen atom, according to researchers at the University of California, Berkeley.

"We've trapped for as long as 1,000 seconds, which is forever" in the world of high-energy particle physics, said Joel Fajans, UC Berkeley professor of physics, faculty scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and a member of the ALPHA (Antihydrogen Laser Physics Apparatus) experiment at in Geneva, Switzerland.

The ALPHA team is hard at work building a new antihydrogen trap with "the hope that by 2012 we will have a new trap with laser access to allow spectroscopic experiments on the antiatoms," he said.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.
UC Berkeley physicist Joel Fajans narrates an explanation of how the ALPHA experiment creates and traps antihydrogen atoms.

Fajans and the ALPHA team, which includes Jonathan Wurtele, UC Berkeley professor of physics, will publish their latest successes online on June 5 in advance of print publication in the journal . Fajans, Wurtele and their graduate students played major roles in designing the trap and other aspects of the experiment.

Their paper reports that in a series of measurements last year, the team trapped 112 antiatoms for times ranging from one-fifth of a second to 1,000 seconds, or 16 minutes and 40 seconds.

Since the experiment first successfully trapped antihydrogen atoms in 2009, the researchers have captured 309.

"We'd prefer being able to trap a thousand atoms for a thousand seconds, but we can still initiate laser and microwave experiments to explore the properties of antiatoms," Fajans said.

In November 2010, Fajans, Wurtele and the ALPHA team reported their first data on trapped antihydrogen: 38 antiatoms trapped for more than one-tenth of a second each. They succeeded in capturing an antiatom in only about one in 10 attempts, however.

Toward the end of last year's experiments, they were capturing an antiatom in nearly every attempt, and were able to keep the antiatoms in the trap as long as they wanted. Realistically, trapping for 10-30 minutes will be sufficient for most experiments, as long as the antiatoms are in their lowest energy state, or ground state.

"These antiatoms should be identical to normal matter hydrogen atoms, so we are pretty sure all of them are in the ground state after a second," Wurtele said.

"These were likely the first ground state antiatoms ever made," Fajans added.

In an antihydrogen atom (top), a positively charged antielectron, or positron, orbits a negatively charged antiproton: the mirror image of an ordinary hydrogen atom (bottom). Credit: Chukman So, copyright © 2011 Wurtele Research Group. All rights reserved.

Antimatter is a puzzle because it should have been produced in equal amounts with normal matter during the Big Bang that created the universe 13.6 billion years ago. Today, however, there is no evidence of antimatter galaxies or clouds, and antimatter is seen rarely and for only short periods, for example during some types of radioactive decay before it annihilates in a collision with normal matter.

Hence the desire to measure the properties of antiatoms in order to determine whether their electromagnetic and gravitational interactions are identical to those of normal matter. One goal is to check whether antiatoms abide by CPT symmetry, as do normal atoms. CPT (charge-parity-time) symmetry means that a particle would behave the same way in a mirror universe if it had the opposite charge and moved backward in time.

"Any hint of CPT symmetry breaking would require a serious rethink of our understanding of nature," said Jeffrey Hangst of Aarhus University in Denmark, spokesperson for the ALPHA experiment. "But half of the universe has gone missing, so some kind of rethink is apparently on the agenda."

ALPHA captures antihydrogen by mixing antiprotons from CERN's Antiproton Decelerator with positrons – antielectrons – in a vacuum chamber, where they combine into antihydrogen atoms. The cold neutral antihydrogen is confined within a magnetic bottle, taking advantage of the tiny magnetic moments of the antiatoms. Trapped antiatoms are detected by turning off the magnetic field and allowing the particles to annihiliate with normal matter, which creates a flash of light.

Because the confinement depends on the antihydrogen's magnetic moment, if the spin of the antiatom flips, it is ejected from the magnetic bottle and annihilates with an atom of normal matter. This gives the experimenters an easy way to detect the interaction of light or microwaves with antihydrogen, because photons at the right frequency make the antiatom's spin flip up or down.

This is an artist's image of the ALPHA trap which captured and stored antihydrogen atoms. Credit: Chukman So

Though the team has trapped up to three antihydrogen atoms at once, the goal is to trap even more for long periods of time in order to achieve greater statistical precision in the measurements.

The ALPHA collaboration also will report in the Nature Physics paper that the team has measured the energy distribution of the trapped antihydrogen atoms.

"It may not sound exciting, but it's the first experiment done on trapped antihydrogen atoms," Wurtele said. "This summer, we're planning more experiments, with microwaves. Hopefully, we will measure microwave-induced changes of the atomic state of the antiatoms."

Explore further: Spin-based electronics: New material successfully tested

More information: "Confinement of antihydrogen for 1000 seconds," Nature Physics, www.nature.com/nphys/index.html

Related Stories

Antihydrogen trapped for first time (w/ Video)

Nov 17, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- In the movie Angels and Demons, scientists have solved one of the most perplexing scientific problems: the capture and storage of antimatter. In real life, trapping atomic antimatter has never ...

Antimatter atoms ready for their close-up

Feb 07, 2011

Two international teams of physicists, including RIKEN researchers (Japan), have trapped and manipulated atoms made out of antimatter, in milestone experiments that should help to reveal why the substance ...

Coldest Antimatter Ever Produced

Jul 06, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- Physicists working at the CERN nuclear research lab on the border of Switzerland and France have generated the coldest particles of antimatter ever recorded.

Recommended for you

Spin-based electronics: New material successfully tested

6 hours ago

Spintronics is an emerging field of electronics, where devices work by manipulating the spin of electrons rather than the current generated by their motion. This field can offer significant advantages to computer technology. ...

A transistor-like amplifier for single photons

Jul 29, 2014

Data transmission over long distances usually utilizes optical techniques via glass fibres – this ensures high speed transmission combined with low power dissipation of the signal. For quite some years ...

User comments : 85

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

thingumbobesquire
1.5 / 5 (29) Jun 05, 2011
In reality, this research is as crucial to the survival of humanity as the space program and yet it will be soon "defunded" like NASA's manned space program if the derivative speculators controlling Obama get their way...
SincerelyTwo
3.5 / 5 (28) Jun 05, 2011
Heyyy look, thingumbobsquire is an idiot, how cute.
Oh yea, NASA contracting out work for independant space company's to take cargo up, that's a sign of giving up on the space program. Oh yea, NASA providing grants to private space programs ... another sign NASA is giving up on space.

What a stupid person. Do you have any idea how bloated and inefficient the government is? Contracting space program work out to private companies is the most cost efficient and effective method to advancing possible.

The decisions are incredibly strategic and intelligent, you're just too naive to see the whole picture, you're blind to reality and filled with paranoia and delusion.

Is it seriously that difficult for you to do some grown-up level research before blabbering on like that?

Let me guess, you're actually hate Obama because he's black, and all this BS is a way of skirting around your real problems? Because where I stand it's amazingly obvious that NASA has not given up on space, at all.
stndspec
4.4 / 5 (19) Jun 05, 2011
@thingumbobesquire While the US is involved and has contributed to the development of the LHC, the fact that this is an international project means Obama has zero control over it. I do agree that CERN efforts are among the most vital of experiments, I also agree we (US) should be spending more tax dollars on space exploration both in the private and gov sectors. Much as I suspect you dislike Obama (based on the fact that you believe he is a threat to things he has nothing to do with), do you really think its he who is responsible for the budget restrictions? Try an out of control, filibustering republican group with no vision or comprehension of what the future holds through science, and zero desire to fund research through the National Science Foundation, but no issues raising the spending levels if its research funded via Dept of Defense. We're having trouble prioritizing as a nation, but Obama was not elected emperor- only so much one man can do against that belligerent crowd.
Bizzles13
4.8 / 5 (8) Jun 05, 2011
Great Job guys!! I for one, am excited to see this kind of progress...don't pay attention to the mindless political hacks.

side note: anti-matter energy "force field" in combo w/ an EMF field ?? (it's getting better for interstellar! :p )
Telekinetic
2.4 / 5 (19) Jun 05, 2011
Seems to me that scientific research has blossomed since the overthrow of George W.(Armageddon? Bring it on!) Bush and "What's in it for me?" Cheney. Stem cell research, the funding of solar and wind electrical generation projects, as well as a new leader with a vision and agenda of scientific advancement aimed at solving problems on a global scale- I'd say this is an exciting era for science. If it weren't for Bush's blunders, there'd be a helluva lot more money for space exploration.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (8) Jun 05, 2011
side note: anti-matter energy "force field" in combo w/ an EMF field ?? (it's getting better for interstellar! :p )

Hardly. The energy it takes to create one atom of anti-hydrogen is atrocious. Don't count on this being the 'interstellat fuel' of tomorrow.

This is important in other respects. wWhen we can store some anti hydrogen atoms for a long time we'll finally be able to test whether antimatter reacts to gravity the same way as matter does.
Telekinetic
1 / 5 (6) Jun 05, 2011
"When we can store some anti hydrogen atoms for a long time we'll finally be able to test whether antimatter reacts to gravity the same way as matter does."

How long a time do you suppose would be long enough?
hush1
1 / 5 (1) Jun 05, 2011
Kudos.
I like the potential implications in understanding very much.
"Rethink" beats a "reboot" hands down.
fmfbrestel
1 / 5 (1) Jun 05, 2011
This exact same article has already been reported and is even on this site: http://www.physor...oms.html

@Telekinetic - From the last article, the scientists seem to think 1000 seconds would be enough, they probably just need to add a cooling device. --
Up next for the ALPHA team are plans to cool a small bunch of antihydrogen atoms in such a way as to allow them to watch as it either rises or falls due to gravity, thus answering one of the more exciting questions regarding antimatter, in perhaps just the next few months.
Baseline
not rated yet Jun 05, 2011
Realistically, trapping for 10-30 minutes will be sufficient for most experiments, as long as the antiatoms are in their lowest energy state, or ground state.


No need to speculate it says what they need in the article.
Doschx
1.8 / 5 (6) Jun 05, 2011
@Bizzles I like the way you think, it would be like ablative armor that releases huge amounts of usable energy when it successfully annihilates micrometeorites in the interstellar void.
Now I may be a physics dunce here but what happens to the kinetic energy in a matter/antimatter collision? Obviously it would have to convert to something else in order to be conserved so... Annihilation Energy plus KE(matter) plus KE(antimatter) = Sumation of Energy released? So... the faster your ship is going the more energy is released therefore the faster you can make your ship go? *queue evil laugh*
rynox
1 / 5 (1) Jun 05, 2011
Silly questions I've always wondered... Is energy released when hydrogen & antihydrogen annihilate, or is it more of a cold annihilation? And what is the resulting product of this annihilation? For example, if you have 1mg of hydrogen & 1mg of antihydrogen annihilate, you have 2mg of what?
Vendicar_Decarian
2.7 / 5 (7) Jun 05, 2011
"In reality, this research is as crucial to the survival of humanity" - ThinTard

While interesting, this research is unlikely to substantially benefit humanity, and with Rabid Conservatives threatening to defund all of government, we can be assured that if the Republican plan succeeds, then all science funding in America will be cancelled.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 05, 2011
"For example, if you have 1mg of hydrogen & 1mg of antihydrogen annihilate, you have 2mg of what?" - rynox

You would have 1.8 E 11 Joules of pure energy that would consist of all known fundamental particles, and which would degrade largely into electrons, protons and their anti-particles (what you started with), along with gamma rays, neutrino's and other less reactive/ more stable particles.

Vendicar_Decarian
2.1 / 5 (10) Jun 05, 2011
"Contracting space program work out to private companies is the most cost efficient and effective method to advancing possible." - Tard of Tards

And that little children is why America is out of the space business but the socialist states of India, China, Japan, Europe and Russia aren't.
_nigmatic10
1.6 / 5 (5) Jun 05, 2011
@vendicar

You are correct. Only a matter of time before most of the private sectors for space programs follow suit and outsource everything too. Then the Us will be a museum.
fmfbrestel
4.9 / 5 (8) Jun 05, 2011
And that little children is why America is out of the space business but the socialist states of India, China, Japan, Europe and Russia aren't.


The reason why we are out of the manned space launch business is because we spent 9 billion on a now cancelled constellation program over the course of 4 years. 9 billion and they didn't even start building anything, just plans. How do you even spend 9 billion without producing anything? SpaceX spent 800 million over 10 years existing and orbited and recovered a capsule. Orbital and Blue Origin have spent similar money and haven't launched yet but at least have equipment built.
Didn't Boeing recently get caught bribing officials while trying to get the new tanker contract from the military? Someone aught to audit Constellation because 9 billion is a lot for a couple rough draft blue prints.
Telekinetic
2.1 / 5 (10) Jun 05, 2011
9 Billion? How about 3 TRILLION dollars as the real cost of the Iraq war? That much could have built us a bridge to Mars.
Turritopsis
1.6 / 5 (11) Jun 06, 2011
Light is perceived as flowing in a straight line through space. Points of mass - singularity - are individual quanta of space time. The integration of all known spacial points is our known universe. The singularity influences in infinite spacial directions. Between spacial points energy travels unidirectionally (radiates), at spacial points it travels spherically due to infidirectional influence of the singularity. Matter is point energy. Point energy has directionality (charge), the charge on earth is uniformly polarized. Antimatter does not naturally exist within earths electric field. On earth antimatter production is energy expensive because of containment. Matter antimatter interstellar annihilators are a realistic drive with excellent potential. Very little is known about matter that makes up the universe, its speculative at best, antimatter may make up roughly half of the verse known, relying heavily on primitive detectors is naive. There is more to it than that.
Turritopsis
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 06, 2011
Empty space could be just as massive as non-empty space. What is space? Without space all points are next to each other. Space is dimensional. Matter also has dimensions. Each point of space has potential - it is neutral - out of neutral points of space matter antimatter is derivable. so how is mass derivable from space. Influence. Causation for matter antimatter derivation is energy. Energy is neither producable nor extinguishable. Energy causes matter and matter causes energy in an infinite interplay loop. Space is unwound - neutral - while matter is wound - charged (dualdirectionally). Light travels in unwound space the same way it does around wound space, the difference is perspective. That's relativity.
dompee
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 06, 2011
since no one seems to want to comment on the article i'll just make a quick simple quote while were wasting our time talking about politics & NASA.....it needs more funding & half a cent for every tax dollar is their current budget and yet as someone pointed out we were still able to "waste" billions of dollars on constellation, Obama scraped Bush's return to the Moon by 2025 plan and propsed we land on an asteroid 1st then put humans on Mars by I believe 2030 but don't quote me...much better direction in my opinion, now we certainly can raise NASA's budget just a bit, we also need the private sector working with NASA...now if only we could get that through congress, ha! Have we wasted enough time on this now? Oh yea that article I read...excellent work!
fmfbrestel
5 / 5 (5) Jun 06, 2011
@Telekinetic - No argument from me about the wisdom (or lack there of) of the Iraq War. Classic threat construction.

@Turritopsis - Wow, too many factual errors to count. Seriously, that reads almost like delusional science fiction - just enough real concepts and science vocabulary to make it sound like you know what your talking about, but all of your key assumptions are just wrong.

1 - "individual quanta of space time" That is pure fiction. Space Time cannot be broken into quanta.

2 - "The singularity influences in infinite spacial directions... Matter is point energy." Now we're starting to get delusional.

3 - "Point energy has directionality (charge), the charge on earth is uniformly polarized." More pure fiction.

I could go on, but it just gets more delusional.
Telekinetic
1 / 5 (6) Jun 06, 2011
@Turritopsis:
How would you plug your interpretation into the Many Worlds Interpretation?
Egleton
2 / 5 (4) Jun 06, 2011
I'll wager 3 pounds of spuds to half a liquorice stick that anti-matter (anti mass, anyone?) makes anti-gravity. This is why it left. It was propelled out of the cosmos leaving us with a lot of energy from annihilation with matter, way back when.
Although I cannot get my head around the topology of negative gravity in space/time. Could the anti-matter have been propelled backwards through time at the same rate as we are being propelled forward? So many questions, such a little brain.
antialias
5 / 5 (3) Jun 06, 2011
While interesting, this research is unlikely to substantially benefit humanity, and with Rabid Conservatives threatening to defund all of government, we can be assured that if the Republican plan succeeds, then all science funding in America will be cancelled.

This work was done at CERN (which is not in the US)

such a little brain.

agreed. Take an introductory science course (or spend 30 minutes on wikipedia) before stating these kinds of hypotheses. You'll easily be able to figure out that they are ridiculous.
thingumbobesquire
1 / 5 (11) Jun 06, 2011
Gentleman. I beg your thousand pardons. To coin a phrase: Obama is no Jack Kennedy! Thanks for your kind consideration (to coin another.)
LKD
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 06, 2011
Good lord. Can you all stop bringing politics into science? I would love to have a nice morning where people don't interfere with educating myself with propagandist rhetoric.

Fermi should really have been utilized for attempts at Anti particle production and containment.

Yes, it costs a tremendous amount of energy to produce this particle, but the point of the effort is that you can then take this particle for a more efficient light weight space propellant.

When this is possible, then we can start talking about space ships, like those in the movies, that flies off and lands on it's own propulsion.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.8 / 5 (11) Jun 06, 2011
"9 billion and they didn't even start building anything, just plans. How do you even spend 9 billion without producing anything?" - FMF

Ask Georgie Porgie Bush who's 4 trillion dollar war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan will produce nothing but 10,000 more dead Americans and a bankrupt nation.

Perhaps that was the plan....

Just as Bankrupting NASA by a failure to adequately fund the stated goals was Bushie's goal.

DontBeBlind
1 / 5 (2) Jun 06, 2011
Vendicar Decarian ! LOL Ty for the good laugh this morning. Good to see some crazy people who dont know jack posting. ty ty ty.
fmfbrestel
1 / 5 (1) Jun 06, 2011
If anti-matter had anti-gravity, wouldnt we be seeing it get ejected from black holes which would be making a ton of the stuff. Or maybe we cant distinguish anti-matter annihilation from the the rest of the hell-hole surrounding an event horizon?
Turritopsis
1.4 / 5 (11) Jun 06, 2011
@fmfbrestel
Delusion is false conceptualization. By definition on the subject matter everyone with an opinion is deluded. No one has the answer. We interpret the world around us and use the same interpretative tools to prove/disprove our intuitive assessment. Convoluted enough yet? The truth is intelligence levels may differ within humans but we are all relatively equal of intelligence when looking from a higher perspective. The average human iq is 100, some humans are below this line while others are above it. An infinite iq is required to know all.

So, I'll agree with you. My point of view may be deluded. But if you think my point of view is wrong you're either not conceptualizing it, or, your delusions stretch far further than mine.
Telekinetic
1.8 / 5 (10) Jun 06, 2011
Gentleman. I beg your thousand pardons. To coin a phrase: Obama is no Jack Kennedy! Thanks for your kind consideration (to coin another.)

Jack Kennedy was a sex addict and son of a Prohibition era rum runner and murderer, so you're right, Obama is no Jack Kennedy.
Turritopsis
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 06, 2011
@Turritopsis:
How would you plug your interpretation into the Many Worlds Interpretation?


It is required. The universe took energy to come into existence. This means the universe was preceded. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Our universe is energetic and it acquired (and might still be acquiring) this energy from something. Stating that the universe emerged from a singularity of infinite mass and density is fine and dandy but what caused this singularity? In a supernova vast amounts of energy are used in creating a singularity. It is a safe bet stating that more is out there than meets the eye. Many worlds may be out there, but with 100% certainty we can say that another world caused ours. This leaves us with 2 knowns. Following this train of thought you'll see that the world responsible for ours emerged from somewhere as well. Most likely scenario is that of infinite worlds comprising the unknown. With 100% certainty we can state that there are many worlds out there.
fmfbrestel
3.8 / 5 (4) Jun 06, 2011
@turritopsis: Thinking it is so does not make it. You are factually incorrect in many places. I called you out on two fictional statements you already made, defend something concrete or stop talking.
Turritopsis
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 06, 2011
@fmfbrestel
1. Can the Higgs field be quantized? How about the Higgs boson?
2. (unaddressed) Take a rock and travel the earth. Let go at the north pole. Does it fall? Southpole? Is there a spot on earth where the rock doesn't fall? No. Seems like gravity is there in infinite directions abound a point of mass (that point being the earth in this example).
3. Give me an example of a massive particle without charge, and not a relatively chargeless neutrino, a true massive particle of zero charge (and not zero net charge as in a neutron).

Your criticism is deconstructive in nature, try communicating in a more civil manner and I'll continue addressing your points in the future. I don't think I have all the answers or some ultimate truth, I just enjoy discussing the thoughts I have. Am I overstepping some boundaries here? I don't regard myself as being better than the next guy, it seems to me that you do.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.8 / 5 (13) Jun 06, 2011
Hardly. The energy it takes to create one atom of anti-hydrogen is atrocious. Don't count on this being the 'interstellat fuel' of tomorrow.
But we will eventually be in control of atrocious amounts of energy by today's standards. A nuclear reactor is an atrocious concentration of energy by the standards of even the 1800s.

Think huge solar power stations in near-sol orbits beaming maser/laser energy to antimatter factories in more suitable orbits. History shows civilization consistantly producing more energy per capita in ever more concentrated form.

Antimatter fuel would be a logical extension of of this, good for powering vehicles of great mobility and range and applicable power. Today's analogue would be the nuclear sub.
fmfbrestel
1 / 5 (1) Jun 06, 2011
@turritopsis -- Neutron? but the biggest lie in that statement is that all charges on the earth are polarized. Which is just flat false.

The earth is not a point of mass. We do not live on a singularity.

The higgs field is not space time. Space time cannot be quantized which you said could be. Dont change the subject. But even if you want to talk about the higgs field fine -- It also cannot be quantized.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.6 / 5 (14) Jun 06, 2011
"Contracting space program work out to private companies is the most cost efficient and effective method to advancing possible." - Tard of Tards

And that little children is why America is out of the space business but the socialist states of India, China, Japan, Europe and Russia aren't.
Govt space efforts are largely military in nature. As such they will cost much more in order to develop the most extreme forms of tech possible.

The shuttle was a military vehicle. The US continues it's military efforts by announcing it's intent to take the 'high ground', that being the asteroid belt, mars moons and such.

Other govts are parsing out the inner system per agreement for strategic security. Commercial devt is being turned over to the private sector where it belongs.

The solar system, like earth itself, will be developed according to Plan. Any squabbles will be Prearranged and will be Constructive in nature. As usual.
Telekinetic
1 / 5 (6) Jun 06, 2011
"Think huge solar power stations in near-sol orbits beaming maser/laser energy to antimatter factories in more suitable orbits."
The inventor of alternating current, Nikola Tesla, proposed this very idea over a hundred years ago. He also claimed that free energy could be harnessed, and some say he demonstrated it. The folks at Westinghouse were not in the business of giving anything away for free and pulled his funding.
Darkboy
5 / 5 (3) Jun 06, 2011
Space time cannot be quantized which you said could be. Dont change the subject.

This is precisely one of the problems in contemporary physics; whether spacetime is discrete or not. Loop Quantum Gravity says it might be so, but please, I ask of you:
do not come with bold, dogmatic claims about something no one knows as of yet.
fmfbrestel
not rated yet Jun 06, 2011
@Darkboy - You're right. Of course it may be, but I was responding to the opposite dogmatic claim that it IS. However our current understanding says that it is not, and claims to contrary need more evidence then "because I just said it".
Vendicar_Decarian
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 06, 2011
"The universe took energy to come into existence. This means the universe was preceded." - Turnip

Your concept of time is limited and is confusing you. Time slows for objects in a gravitational well. Hence there need be no begining. dt -> 0 as r -> 0
Vendicar_Decarian
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 06, 2011
"Space time cannot be quantized which you said could be." - fmf

Why not?
Vendicar_Decarian
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 06, 2011
"Can the Higgs field be quantized? How about the Higgs boson?" - whatever

It is a particle isn't it? Doesn't that imply to you that it is already quantized? If not, then it damn well should.
Telekinetic
1 / 5 (5) Jun 06, 2011
@Vendicar Decarian:
Are you the same Vendicar Decarian who made presidential death threats that nearly got you thrown off of the internet?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (13) Jun 06, 2011
The inventor of alternating current, Nikola Tesla, proposed this very idea over a hundred years ago.
Tesla was a proponent of electrostatic induction. Solar power stations would be coherent electromagnetic transmission:
http://en.wikiped...smission
Telekinetic
1 / 5 (5) Jun 06, 2011
"With the advent of the wireless and Tesla's unique investigations into broadcasting electricity, a dozen or more inventors thereafter announced their own means for transmitting electrical energy without wires."
Wireless power transmission- the essential point I'm making.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.2 / 5 (5) Jun 07, 2011
"I'll wager 3 pounds of spuds to half a liquorice stick that anti-matter (anti mass, anyone?) makes anti-gravity." - Whomever

Anti-matter isn't anti-mass. It is just normal matter which has an opposite charge.

Negative Gravity is quite impossible as it would permit the creation of a perpetual motion machine.
krundoloss
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 07, 2011
"Contracting space program work out to private companies is the most cost efficient and effective method to advancing possible"

I agree, but there is a missing element to this statement. Space Exploration is almost NEVER profitable! So leaving it up to private industry means we will have a bunch of people sending up cheap little craft that achieve this or that. You need a government to fund Space Exploration because:
1. There is little to gain except the advancement of mankind and the boosting of morale for the country responsible, and mankind in general.
2. You need BIG MONEY. Governments have big money, companies can have big money too, but that money is from Investors who want profit in return. Again, there is little profit to be had by private companies going into space.
3. It worked in the 60's, it can work again. We need to drop all support for third-world crapholes and start building the next generation of space craft, a space station, etc.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (13) Jun 07, 2011
"With the advent of the wireless and Tesla's unique investigations into broadcasting electricity, a dozen or more inventors thereafter announced their own means for transmitting electrical energy without wires."
Wireless power transmission- the essential point I'm making.
In regards to what?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.8 / 5 (16) Jun 07, 2011
"I'll wager 3 pounds of spuds to half a liquorice stick that anti-matter (anti mass, anyone?) makes anti-gravity." - Whomever

Anti-matter isn't anti-mass. It is just normal matter which has an opposite charge.

Negative Gravity is quite impossible as it would permit the creation of a perpetual motion machine.
-And yet this is under serious consideration:
http://en.wikiped...timatter
http://www.physic...239.html
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (12) Jun 07, 2011
Space Exploration is almost NEVER profitable! So leaving it up to private industry means we will have a bunch of people sending up cheap little craft that achieve this or that. You need a government to fund Space Exploration because:
And youre wrong because:
1) There is an enormous amount to gain including unlimited room, energy, and resources, not to mention the fact that humankind is doomed if it confines itself to one planet in a single solar system in the midst of a very violent universe.
2) The amount of money in existance is directly proportional to the amount of work being done or intended to be done. Whatever money is needed can be, and is routinely, made available.
3) It worked in the 60s, it can work again. We were both supporting, and warring against, third world crapholes halfway round the globe, and still were able to comfortably put many men on the moon. The tech has matured; time for Big Business to do it in a Big Way through the healthy impetus of competition.
Telekinetic
1 / 5 (6) Jun 07, 2011
@Ghost:
Regarding your own vision of the future-
"Think huge solar power stations in near-sol orbits beaming maser/laser energy to antimatter factories in more suitable orbits"
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.8 / 5 (13) Jun 07, 2011
@Ghost:
Regarding your own vision of the future-
"Think huge solar power stations in near-sol orbits beaming maser/laser energy to antimatter factories in more suitable orbits"
Right. And what does that have to do with anything that tesla ever worked on?
Telekinetic
1 / 5 (5) Jun 07, 2011
Are you kidding? Tesla's works, like the AC that we still use, are real.
"Getting down to basic and simplified apparatus for utilizing such radiant energy as that possessed by the sun's rays, both visible and invisible, we may consider the apparatus of this nature devised by Dr. Nikola Tesla, the well-known electrical scientist. His United States patents on Apparatus for the Utilization of Radiant Energy? bear the numbers 685,957 and 685,958."
Had he lived, I doubt that we would be in need of antimatter factories for space travel. Nice fantasy, though.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (13) Jun 08, 2011
And how pray tell do you expect teslas apparatus to work with what I was discussing, namely transmitting energy from low solar orbit to antimatter conversion facilities farther out? Take your time.
Had he lived, I doubt that we would be in need of antimatter factories for space travel. Nice fantasy, though.
And what exactly do you think stellar radiant energy could be used for in interstellar space? Besides navigation that is?
Turritopsis
1.2 / 5 (5) Jun 08, 2011
The sun ejects antimatter. You can witness, with a naked eye, positrons annihilating with electrons in earths atmosphere. Photons are the joining of negatively and positively charged particles. Antimatter is less strange than it is considered by most to be. In photovoltaic cells holes are the flow of positive charge (positrons). Positron emission tomography is used for medical imaging.

Spin is the distinguishing attribute defining the nature of matter (anti or not). Polarization is spin alignment. Spin produces charge which produces a field (polar), particles align themselves in accordance with the fields they generate which is directly resultant of spin. Antimatters spin is inverse to that of matter (a mirror image).

We can harness antimatter by producing electromagnetic containment fields and use it as fuel, or, we can harness the energy produced when matter and antimatter merge, light.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (2) Jun 08, 2011
Unless we're taking the sun with us on an interstellar journey we must produce an artificial power generator. Solar energy lessens proportionally with distance so harnessing solar energy would get us nowhere fast. Without understanding the Higgs field, space-time, or whatever you'd like to call the medium, to the point of being able to derive particles from neutral space, interstellar and intergalactic travel will remain beyond us.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (2) Jun 08, 2011
"lessens by distance". Our ability to harness the energy lessens with distance (square law). If our solar cells or solar sails are a km in diameter the further we are from a star the less of its energy the sail or cell receives.
Bigblumpkin36
not rated yet Jun 08, 2011
I understand anti matter and matter annihilating one another but doesnt the energy go somewhere? To say the least
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (2) Jun 08, 2011
I understand anti matter and matter annihilating one another but doesnt the energy go somewhere? To say the least


They annihilate in a flash of light. Energy and matter is interchangable as proven by Einstein. Their energy is conserved after annihilation. The theoretical matter antimatter annihilator engine uses gamma radiation (high energy photons, or high energy light) to propel the ship.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (3) Jun 08, 2011
Without energy there is no matter and without matter there is no energy.

Without matter&antimatter there is no light and without light there is no matter&antimatter. Light is the combination of negative and positive spin - a wave - light splits into negative and positive particles. Recombination of negatively and positively charged particles produces light. The splitting of light produces negatively and positively charged particles.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (13) Jun 08, 2011
The sun ejects antimatter
And how would you propose to gather it, capture it, condense it, and transport it in sufficient quantities which would be anywheres near as efficient as collecting conventional solar energy with solar power stations and beaming this energy in the form of coherent photons to locations higher up the gravity well, where it could be converted to the most useful kinds of antimatter for specific applications? Which is what I was talking about.
Unless we're taking the sun with us on an interstellar journey we must produce an artificial power generator. Solar energy lessens proportionally with distance so harnessing solar energy would get us nowhere fast.
Right. And rather than taking some bulk material for conversion along the way, it might prove more efficient to take antimatter instead, which would offer the highest weight to energy ratio, despite the efforts to produce it initially. Because these efforts might prove easier than we might think. Right?
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (2) Jun 08, 2011
@Otto

"right?" Absolutely. Matter antimatter interaction is the only absolute conversion of matter to energy. 100% of the fuel is converted into energy during the interaction, that's why it is labeled as particle annihilation.

The question is though, where is the gas station should the unexpected take place?

If we harnessed a blackhole we could extrapolate the virtual particle pairs in its vicinity while allowing them to annihilate in a directional drive. A blackhole would make the greatest interstellar generator. Its not only that particle antiparticle pairs are found around a blackhole but we could skip space all together by bringing our destination directly to us.

But how do you contain a blackhole without it consuming you and your spacecraft?
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (2) Jun 08, 2011
Laser beams lose intensity over distances. If you had a station capturing solar energy the transmission would require intensifiers to capture and refocus the laser beam. For interstellar travel this would mean intensifiers would need to be taken on the journey and dropped off along the way as to not lose power in interstellar space.

Even beaming energy from the sun to the earth would require a chain of lenses to refocus and intensify the beam.

Beaming energy to the ship is not a real option. The ship needs to be independently powered. Meaning the power source: sun, blackhole, or whatever, needs to be a part of the ship itself.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (13) Jun 08, 2011
If we harnessed a blackhole we could extrapolate the virtual particle pairs in its vicinity while allowing them to annihilate in a directional drive.
And you must admit that, before we have your tech at our disposal, we will have been using antimatter for a very long time where fusion or other power sources would be inappropriate.
Even beaming energy from the sun to the earth would require a chain of lenses to refocus and intensify the beam.
Mirrors could refocus coherent beams.
Laser beams lose intensity over distances.
Thats why AM production facilities would have to be placed in optimum locations.
Beaming energy to the ship is not a real option. The ship needs to be independently powered.
Wholly depends on the mission. As I said, AM would offer advantages over other power sources in some applications.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (2) Jun 08, 2011
True. Fusion (as in star power) will come before blackhole power in all likelyhood. We just need ignition. A self sustained fusion ball. Ball of fire that doesn't require an outside source to keep it merging, burning. A star has gravity containing it. What we need is the inverse of gravity. We need to force hydrogen into itself to the point of reaction. We need hydrogen compressed with force equal to that of the gravity of a star working on it. Hydrogen compressed in a magnetic field. Or. Hydrogen under containment pulse shot by laser. The more pressure particles are under higher the likelyhood of them merging. Blackholes at the singularity have infinite pressure. In the singularity all is one. Outside of the singularity is pressure. As you approach a blackhole your atoms start to merge at some point you become 1 atom and at some point your 1 atom becomes 1 with the blackhole. To produce nuclear fusion we need pressure. Gravity provides this in a star if we want to produce a smaller
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (2) Jun 08, 2011
version we need external compression. External compression is also what we need to create a blackhole. It is hard to say which technology will come first. The Higgs boson is really what we need to discover. It takes alot of energy for fusion to begin. It takes even more energy for it to finish. A blackhole is the ultimate fusion. All of the particles merge into one. That's a blackhole. This is the ultimate end of a star. Unless it rebounds. Unless the particles stabilize and put a halt to the fusion process. Like a neutron star. Or a white dwarf. The star will continue merging fusing until the pressure pulling it together is overcome by the pressure pushing it apart. A blackhole is not overcome. It is 1 singular particle of high mass.

Our fusion reactors need continual compression (closing confining magnets)
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (2) Jun 08, 2011
Or continual pulse blasts from lasers.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (3) Jun 08, 2011
The greatest asset would be a miniature blackhole in orbit around the earth. By feeding it with hydrogen (or deuterium or tritium) fusion will take place and gamma radiation could be harnessed by encasing the blackhole and capturing blasts of energy and beaming them down to earth.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (2) Jun 08, 2011
With fusion there is a lot of waste though. Not all of the matter will be converted to energy. A lot of the hydrogen will just merge to the blackhole. Positrons electrons gamma rays and neutrinos will be ejected and will produce a lot of usable energy.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (3) Jun 08, 2011
When hydrogen fuses to hydrogen charge and photons are given off but helium stays. Helium is still matter not energy.

Blackholes are powerful on their own. We wouldn't need to throw hydrogen in them to get energy out of them. There are many potential ways of harnessing their power.
abhishekbt
4 / 5 (1) Jun 09, 2011
Does the story and the container make anyone else remember the Da Vinci Code, book or movie! Even the image of the container looks similar!
the_greekk
not rated yet Jun 09, 2011
I'll wager 3 pounds of spuds to half a liquorice stick that anti-matter (anti mass, anyone?) makes anti-gravity. This is why it left. It was propelled out of the cosmos leaving us with a lot of energy from annihilation with matter, way back when.
Although I cannot get my head around the topology of negative gravity in space/time. Could the anti-matter have been propelled backwards through time at the same rate as we are being propelled forward? So many questions, such a little brain.

If antimatter had repulsive gravitational forces with matter how would it even annihilate with it in the experiments in cern?
antialias
not rated yet Jun 09, 2011
how would it even annihilate


Just like gravity doesn't prevent two objects from flying past each other (if they are fast enough) antigravity wouldn't prevent matter and antimatter from hitting one another (also provided they are fast enough)

But I'm not counting on antimatter having antigravity effects, because that would necessitate for antimatter to have negative mass...which in turn would not lead to an energy burst when the two come in contact but a 'negative-energy' burst.

While we can create short intervals of negative energy potential - at the cost of longer intervals of cumulatively higher positive energy - we do not observe such negative energy when matter and anti-matter come into contact.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (15) Jun 09, 2011
As you approach a blackhole your atoms start to merge at some point you become 1 atom and at some point your 1 atom becomes 1 with the blackhole.
? Ever hear of tidal forces?
http
://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaghettification

-You should try to temper your prognostications with a few 'what about's and 'maybe if's just in case you're missing some key info?
Turritopsis
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 09, 2011
Thanks Otto but I have accounted for it. As you approach the singularity gravitational forces intensify. This means that the part of you closest to the blackhole will have the most gravitational force acting upon it. This translates to sphagetification.

The atoms comprising your body will fuse into the singularity, further out from the singularity your body will still be under gravitational forces equating to that of a star. Your atoms will literally begin fusing to each other before falling into the blackhole. But there is more to consider. Like the rotation of the blackhole. If the blackhole is rotating at a rate equivalent to light speed the blackhole will shred you up, disintegrate your atoms creating subatomic particles out of them, super-rotating blackholes are known shredders.

A blackhole with slow or no spin swallows up everything. Grb's take place at fast rotating blackholes. BH's whose rotational speed approaches that of light.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2011
Not all blackholes are the same, neither are all hydrogen atoms. Some blackholes are more energetic than others. Some blackholes (slow rotating/nonrotating) ingest matter. Some blackholes (fast rotating/light speed rotating) shred up and throw out matter.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2011
And 1000 characters is not much to describe these matters. Most of the statements I've made are theoretical and should have been labeled as such. I don't mean to sound pompous and that is not my intent but filling the comment with "what abouts and maybe ifs" leaves little room for info. Let's just say that all of that which I state is theoretical in nature. Put it upon yourself to prove or disprove the statements I make.

I definitely feel you though. I should be lighter with the approach. It does sound as if I'm drilling information in instead of bringing matters up.

Let's blame brevity. :)
Silverhill
5 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2011
Turritopsis:
Matter is point energy.
No -- (most) matter has spatial [not "spacial"] extent. (Electrons might be point particles, but we don't yet know for sure.)

the charge on earth is uniformly polarized.
What is meant by the "polarization of charge"?

On earth antimatter production is energy expensive because of containment.
Partially because of that; largely because of the energy needed to create the conditions within which antimatter can condense. Remember that each antiproton costs at least 938 MeV of energy.

What is space? Without space all points are next to each other.
Without space the concept of "points" is meaningless.

Energy causes matter and matter causes energy in an infinite interplay loop.
They do not so much *cause* each other as *be* each other, with interconversion possible.
Silverhill
5 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2011
Photons are the joining of negatively and positively charged particles.
Sufficiently energetic photons can be divided into electrons plus positrons, but low-energy photons can't.

In photovoltaic cells holes are the flow of positive charge (positrons).
No, holes are not positrons. If they were, they would annihilate with local electrons and the semiconductors would not work. The motion of holes is considered as the flow of positive charge with *negative* mass.

Spin produces charge
No, it does not. They are separate aspects of matter. (There are particles with spin but no charge, for instance, even though there are none with charge but no spin.)
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (15) Jun 09, 2011
Let's just say that all of that which I state is theoretical in nature. Put it upon yourself to prove or disprove the statements I make.
Uh no thanks.
I definitely feel you though. I should be lighter with the approach. It does sound as if I'm drilling information in instead of bringing matters up.
Can you feel me thinking that you are a little daffy? Say thanks to silverhill for the tutorial.
SincerelyTwo
1 / 5 (1) Jun 10, 2011
please delete me.

why can't we delete our own messages?
Silverhill
5 / 5 (3) Jun 10, 2011
Turritopsis:
Let's just say that all of that which I state is theoretical in nature. Put it upon yourself to prove or disprove the statements I make.
No, the burden of proof is upon the one making the assertion: YOU.
...Go ahead, now, we're waiting....
fulely
1 / 5 (1) Jul 20, 2011
Relativistic Perturbation Mantle, antimatter from lightning in a twelve foot sphere constructed of LOx and C