Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
coke

containing antimatter

Recommended Posts

Actually, I've found they recently discovered an insanely efficient way of making positrons... it works on pair production.

Fire a high power laser (with sufficient energy photons) at a sheet of gold, and make a lot of positrons...see here

"The California researchers estimate that with every shot of their laser, which fires every 30 minutes, they create about 10 billion positrons, also called anti-electrons."

 

Then use an electromagnetic field to contain them. I don't think the gold even gets ruined by this...

I think I have found a way to contain positrons after making them, see picture. No complicated penning trap electromagnets required.

This could be used for anything, batteries, bombs, etc.

Oh, and reverse those magnets' polarities and you can store electrons also...

 

Anyone know why this wouldn't work? I don't...

positron.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now if they could just make negatrons at this rate we might have something going!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Negatrons? don't you mean electrons?

 

They could, and they do!

 

For one thing, the laser method above produces one electron for each positron! It's a pair production!

 

And if you can contain positrons the way above, you can definitely do the same for electrons! Just put the magnets backwards!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I mean negatrons, a negatron is an anti-matter protron>:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My mistake, I misread the meaning of the word, anti proton is what I meant. Kind of a sloppy word, should have neater name, No one says anti electron, they say positron. should be a name for anti proton too.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just so there aren't any loose ends...

Here's a drawing wth both the positrons and electrons.

 

I've never handled antimatter before, but I can't see why this containment system wouldn't work...

Of course it needs to be made very rigid, the repulsive force of the magnets themselves is incredible.

 

Use a titan laser to generate electrons and positrons from photons (light)...

Use a cyclotron and a penning trap to contain the positrons and electrons,

Add permanent magnets on top of the electromagnets.

Remove the penning trap, which is now unnecessary.

Everything in a vaccum of course.

 

Voila! The highest energy density in the world besides energy itself! It will need some more thought as to how to make it into batteries...

 

But to make a bomb out of it, simply tape a stick of dynamite to it and

 

Of course first the laser would have to use up at least that much energy, but still...

antimatter.jpg

Edited by coke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the actual containment, I don't think that the magnets will have any problem keeping the positrons in check.

 

Positrons aren't even that attracted to matter- they are attracted to the electrons in matter, and thus may be attracted to some paramagnetic materials. But they repel protons, so in non-magnetic materials, they should have no attraction or repulsion (although if they get close enough to it, they would annhilate the electrons).

 

So, even a weak magnetic field (a weak repulsion) should be able to keep them from coming too close.

 

I wonder what kind of an effect electrons have on matter... simply static electricity?

Edited by coke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeing the two together like that gives me an idea, if you directed two beams, one electrons and one positrons and made them intersect you would get a beam or at least a flash of gamma rays, right? weapon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seeing the two together like that gives me an idea, if you directed two beams, one electrons and one positrons and made them intersect you would get a beam or at least a flash of gamma rays, right? weapon?

If you did it in the atmosphere your positron beam would annihilate electrons in the air in front of you. The only feasible way to do it would be in space where there's not much to annihilate. Even then, you probably wouldn't need the electron beam -- you'd get enough results letting the positrons hit the electrons in your target.

 

Which brings up another question: Would the positrons even collide with many electrons, or would they likely pass through the target? Atoms are pretty spread-out, after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Idk, cap'n if positrons do annhilate the air right in front of you, what would you get, protons flying around?

That is a nice idea to simply send a positron beam (accelerate the positrons like you do electrons in a crt television)

But I don't think the reaction between positron + an atom is as energetic as positron + electron, though...

 

In any case, it can surely be done to create a flash in a vaccum:

And surely that flash can be focused into a laser...

 

"A split second later the positrons and electrons annihilate each other on contact in a flash of pure energy, called a gamma ray." (source)

 

Question is, the original laser already has high energy photons, possibly gamma....so doing this would simply lose efficiency...

So I suppose the only sense would be if you wanted to say run the laser for 10 minutes at 1,000 volts, then get a 1 second jolt of 600,000 volts worth of gamma rays...

 

I suppose the laser jolt would look something like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDwgsZTQSyM :eek:

thank antimatter for finding the video

Edited by coke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure their is no gamma ray laser but possibly the flash could be used to pump a gamma ray laser, I'm not sure what material would be used to replace the ruby or other crystal that was used in the first light lasers, Possibly beryllium?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if there are like mirrors that reflect gamma. This might be difficult since gamma penetrates almost anything. Or maybe lenses that curve gamma rays. Then you can definitely make the flash of light into a uniform beam...

 

But if not, you actually have an interesting idea: make gamma rays excite some fluorescent or phosphorescent material that emits gamma rays. I have to wonder at the efficiency of this, but pumping would definitely make more uniform rays than the flash, which obviously diffracts in every direction...

 

Is this and radioactive decay seriously the only ways to make gamma rays? Of course, I would prefer annhilation to decay anyday- only electricity needed, no expensive synthetic isotopes.

Edited by coke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
that system won't work. a magnetic pole will not repel a charged particle.

 

Sure it will, why not?

 

Look at the picture below: it's a cathode ray tube (source) and those are electrons running through it, in a near vacuum.

You can see the small black permanent magnet in the right upper corner, its repeling the electron stream, causing it to curve downwards...

 

So, there's one example where a magnetic pole does repel a charged particle.

I don't see how it's any different with positrons.

cath7.jpg

Edited by coke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the arrangement is also pants, you'll fint that there are just as many +(north?) magnetic poles on the inside of that container so if one repels it then the other will attract it.

 

there is a magnetic trap called a penn trap or something that CAN contain antimatter and has been proved to do so as well. it does not look anything like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sure it will, why not?

 

Look at the picture below: it's a cathode ray tube (source) and those are electrons running through it, in a near vacuum.

You can see the small black permanent magnet in the right upper corner, its repeling the electron stream, causing it to curve downwards...

 

The repulsion occurs because the electrons are moving, and the force is perpendicular to the motion. You run into a problem with your geometry because [math]\vec{\nabla}\bullet \vec{B} = 0[/math], meaning your field lines that come from the north pole have to exit somewhere to meet up with the south pole. I don't think it will behave the way you think it will.

 

IIRC you can do 2-D confinement with permanent magnets, but you have to use a coil for the third dimension.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well from what I understand, magnets and electromagnets work have a field like I drew in the picture below...

 

The coils in particle accelerators work this way, there are a series of coils, precisely timed to attract the positrons or electrons or whatever with the poles being on the axis that the particles are traveling...and not having to be perpendicular.

 

And from what I understand, solenoids make a field that behaves the same way as permanent magnets, no?

magnet.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Magnet poles are North and South, and the force on a charge is [math]q\vec{v} \times \vec{B}[/math]. The cross product means the force is perpendicular to the field and to the motion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Magnet poles are North and South, and the force on a charge is [math]q\vec{v} \times \vec{B}[/math]. The cross product means the force is perpendicular to the field and to the motion.

 

So does that mean that picture in post 18 is how a magnet works or not? Or only an electromagnet works that way? It would be nice if a simple field could confirm that electrons are repeled from pole, without having to take lorentz or other forces into account...

 

Forget about the motion. The particles in first two sketches have motion is suppose (i'm aware they travel at 99% speed of light), but not in any organized direction, as they would with perhaps a cyclotron or like in the CRT picture.

 

the arrangement is also pants, you'll fint that there are just as many +(north?) magnetic poles on the inside of that container so if one repels it then the other will attract it.

 

Well see, the magnets are in different orientation such that all the + poles face the center... They should all repel positrons, only thing is maybe the field will somehow get screwed up, because as swansont said there's no place for the poles to meet up or something...

 

 

I found a quote on another thread that sounds similar to my sketch:

The way we hold our anti-matter at Fermilab is after the anti-matter is created it we separate it with a strong magnetic field that then 'pushes' it into a large tank where a strong magnetic field all around it keeps it in the middle of the best vacuum money can buy until we need it for something.

 

Like colliding with some protons.

 

That large tank sounds very similar to this idea...except it uses solenoids, of course... but its less interesting with coils because there are a lot of ways you could do it with them- for one keep spinning around in a cyclotron indefinitely.

Plus they require quite a bit of electricity

Edited by coke
Consecutive posts merged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ran across something that reminded me of this. The brain block I had before of why this won't work as advertised is the Earnshaw theorem which basically says

 

"A collection of magnetic dipoles cannot be maintained in a stable stationary equilibrium condition by the application of static fields alone."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earnshaw%27s_theorem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With your design, how do you get the positrons out safely?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not that there is any way i know of to actually do it with perminant magnets, but is there any way to create a spherical configuration with all of one pole pointing towards the center? or will the poles shift themselves over time. if you could create something with overlapping fields that would in essance make a solid magnetic wall of a single polarity with a void in the center, then the positrons or electrons should simply bounce around off of the barriers. the only problem i could forsee would be that they might try to travel directly along a field line and escape... but could enough overlapping correct this.

 

i'm not quite sure how big it would have to be, but many small magnets spaced close together in a large diameter sphere might work.

 

*edit* read the above post about stable fields. since that basically refutes my concept... could it be possible to use the magnetic mirroring effect of a super conductor to achieve the effect?

 

you'll have to excuse me, i get a little eccentric when it gets late. perhaps i should do a little more research on the forces and concepts at work in the mirroring effect to see if it could be utilized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.