aman Posted December 21, 2002 Share Posted 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted December 22, 2002 Share Posted December 22, 2002 yeah, it would have to be magnetic confinement, or perhaps optical molasses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted December 22, 2002 Author Share Posted 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted December 22, 2002 Share Posted 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSX Posted February 10, 2003 Share Posted 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted February 10, 2003 Share Posted February 10, 2003 The larger the atom the more energy released when its annihilated... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSX Posted February 10, 2003 Share Posted 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted February 10, 2003 Share Posted 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSX Posted February 10, 2003 Share Posted 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted February 10, 2003 Author Share Posted 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted February 10, 2003 Share Posted 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted February 10, 2003 Author Share Posted 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSX Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted 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. I don't understand how shooting protons @ atoms would make anti-particles...anyone care to explain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSX Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted 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. Explanation again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted February 12, 2003 Author Share Posted 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 Anti-hydrogen doesn't disappear that quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted February 12, 2003 Author Share Posted 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSX Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted 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.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 Build a jar out of antimatter. Voilà. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 So how do antiparticles have different decay rates in some instances? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 http://physicsweb.org/article/news/5/3/1/1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now