Anti-matter containment.

aman · December 21, 2002

Are there any working theories for anti-matter containment in a matter enviroment? I can't imagine containing a gas or liquid but maybe if we have a metal anti-element it can be magnetically suspended in a vacuum.

I read the problem with making anti-hydrogen last for any period of time is its neutral charge as an atom, so it loses magnetic containment and reacts with the walls of the chamber.

It seems we can make plenty but we can't seem to keep it around.

Just aman

Radical Edward · December 22, 2002

yeah, it would have to be magnetic confinement, or perhaps optical molasses.

aman · December 22, 2002

If we developed elemental anti-iron, wouldn't it be easy to contain in a electromagnetic field? If it was ground into fillings and stored in a chamber next to a chamber containing regular elemental iron filings, then each chamber injected one particle at a time into an exhaust cone, it should make a very efficient propulsion system when the particles met.

Electromagnatism is anti-matter neutral, so are photons from microwave energies to gamma ray, maybe the Higgs boson and gluons, also gravity. That's a lot of tools so far to build a containment chamber for the gasses and liquids but the solids will be the easiest.

Just aman

Radical Edward · December 22, 2002

in theory, if you could make a lump of anti-iron or somesuch then you could suspend it in a field. I suspect that it would be hellishly difficult and inefficient to make anti-iron though.

NSX · February 10, 2003

Originally posted by aman
If we developed elemental anti-iron, wouldn't it be easy to contain in a electromagnetic field?

hm...I've been thinking matter - anti-matter collisions too as a way of propulsion [like Star Trek:D ], but why do you want Iron? It's so complex. Why not use a more basic element?

fafalone · February 10, 2003

The larger the atom the more energy released when its annihilated...

NSX · February 10, 2003

But its much harder to make such a complex element...

The atomic mass of Fe is what, 55.845 amu? The atomic mass of Hydrogen is 1.00794 amu;

Why not just get 55 atoms of HydrogeN?

JaKiri · February 10, 2003

Originally posted by NSX
But its much harder to make such a complex element...

The atomic mass of Fe is what, 55.845 amu? The atomic mass of Hydrogen is 1.00794 amu;

Why not just get 55 atoms of HydrogeN?

I don't really see the point of fusing all the way up to iron, as the energy you gain by the fusion of the lighter elements (assuming you can get past break-even in any case) is exactly the same as the mass defecit between the iron and the starting hydrogen (you'll have more hydrogen than iron). Plus it'd be really difficult and overcomplicated and stuff.

And you could control anything using a magnetic field if you ionised it.

NSX · February 10, 2003

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri

I don't really see the point of fusing all the way up to iron, as the energy you gain by the fusion of the lighter elements (assuming you can get past break-even in any case) is exactly the same as the mass defecit between the iron and the starting hydrogen (you'll have more hydrogen than iron). Plus it'd be really difficult and overcomplicated and stuff.

And you could control anything using a magnetic field if you ionised it.

That's what I'm thinking; is there some magnificent property of Iron that I don't see?

aman · February 10, 2003

I was thinking of a stable magnetic element to simplify containment of atoms rather than quantities of ions and their problems.

Every time an atom of of anti-hydrogen has been made it left containment and was destroyed.

Just aman

fafalone · February 10, 2003

Do you have a source on that? From what I've read, they're successfully storing the atoms and doing research on their behavoir.

aman · February 10, 2003

Cern estimates they have 50,000 anti-hydrogen atoms at a time in the chamber because that is how many destruct as they drift out of containment.

http://www.nature.com/nsu/020916/020916-7.html

Just aman

NSX · February 11, 2003

CERN's ATHENA scientists bombard atoms with protons from a particle accelerator to make antiprotons which they catch in a storage ring called the Antiproton Decelerator. This feeds slow-moving antiprotons into a magnetic trap, immobilizing them.

:confused:

I don't understand how shooting protons @ atoms would make anti-particles...anyone care to explain?

JaKiri · February 11, 2003

Originally posted by NSX

I don't understand how shooting protons @ atoms would make anti-particles...anyone care to explain?

It's an upshot of 2 solutions of the Dirac Wave Equation basically.

fafalone · February 11, 2003

I believe you misinterpretted that article. They use the rate of escape to calculate how many are in the trap, just like helium escapes a balloon, but that doesn't mean there aren't any in there.

NSX · February 12, 2003

Originally posted by fafalone
I believe you misinterpretted that article. They use the rate of escape to calculate how many are in the trap, just like helium escapes a balloon, but that doesn't mean there aren't any in there.

Me? Well, if there are already anti-particles in the substance itself, wouldn't it nullify itself?

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri

It's an upshot of 2 solutions of the Dirac Wave Equation basically.

:confused:

Explanation again?

aman · February 12, 2003

Still the anti-hydrogen is not really contained for any real length of time and all self destructs shortly after the measurement maximum is reached.

Anti-protons take a great deal of energy to contain and I'm not sure of any idea for containing ionized anti-elements so I still think the best solution is a magnetic metallic element like anti-iron.

If we ever have the energy to make anti-matter abundant, than why not iron since this will be a little ways in the future.

Also for nsx, the high energy protons are shot at a nickle plate and anti-protons pop out the other side after collisions. I gotta go check on just how that happens.

Just aman

fafalone · February 12, 2003

Anti-hydrogen doesn't disappear that quickly.

aman · February 12, 2003

Your right Faf, I checked and CERN is cooling the anti-hydrogen to 4K and captured the atoms by their magnetic moment in a magnetic trap. They mentioned the atoms were all spin polarized so i need to do a little reading to figure out exactly wht they are talking about. But at ultra low temperatures they can store neutral atoms although it still takes a lot of energy.

I still favor a metal element.

Just aman

NSX · February 13, 2003

Originally posted by aman
Anti-protons take a great deal of energy to contain and I'm not sure of any idea for containing ionized anti-elements so I still think the best solution is a magnetic metallic element like anti-iron.

If we ever have the energy to make anti-matter abundant, than why not iron since this will be a little ways in the future.

But would opposite types of elements display [opposite types[/i] of properties?

ie. Noble gases would be super reactive, etc.?

fafalone · February 13, 2003

Build a jar out of antimatter. Voilà.

JaKiri · February 13, 2003

Originally posted by NSX

But would opposite types of elements display [opposite types[/i] of properties?

ie. Noble gases would be super reactive, etc.?

Antimatter = matter with opposite charge. All other properties (mass, etc) remain the same.

fafalone · February 13, 2003

So how do antiparticles have different decay rates in some instances?

JaKiri · February 13, 2003

Originally posted by fafalone
So how do antiparticles have different decay rates in some instances?

Hmmm?

ps. Look at the post to which I was replying, I think a simple answer suffices.

fafalone · February 13, 2003

http://physicsweb.org/article/news/5/3/1/1

Sign In

Anti-matter containment.

Recommended Posts

aman

Radical Edward

aman

Radical Edward

NSX

fafalone

NSX

JaKiri

NSX

aman

fafalone

aman

NSX

JaKiri

fafalone

NSX

aman

fafalone

aman

NSX

fafalone

JaKiri

fafalone

JaKiri

fafalone

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Browse

Activity

Important Information