Antimatter Trapped for over Fifteen Minutes - Polidicks

[QUOTE=sltungle;29629374]Having had time to think about this question (I posted it at about 7AM this morning my time) I think I've figured out the first part. I was completely wrong in asking that question in the first place because the photoelectric effect doesn't work the way I thought it did at 7AM in the morning. I don't even know why I asked that. The positrons are directly lost from the material: more aren't created from the energy of the light. Second part I'm still working on. I figure if you had a hydrogen atom, and an anti-hydrogen atom, and you spaced them apart with a distance of a whole number multiple of their first emission wavelength, and the hydrogen atom emitted a wavelength of light, and the anti-hydrogen emitted one of the same wavelength but 1/2 wavelength out of phase you'd end up with the waves destructively interfering in the middle. You wouldn't even know they were there! Fuck yeah, wave functions![/QUOTE] Heisenberg. Also why would your wavelength be "out of phase" by half a wavelength?

[QUOTE=Killuah;29693746]Heisenberg. Also why would your wavelength be "out of phase" by half a wavelength?[/QUOTE] I mean by comparison to the emission spectra of a regular hydrogen atom. Nature tends to like to reverse things when you change between charges (or poles of a magnetic field).

I understand this is a big deal and I don't wanna diminish that fact but... what does anti-matter even do that makes us want it so bad?

[QUOTE=Midas22;29617722]Wasn't there an article a month or so ago with scientists actually becoming doubtful if antimatter even exists?[/QUOTE] PET scan, stands for [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron_emission_tomography"]Positron Emission Tomography[/url] Positron = antimatter counterpart of an electron. Discovered in 1932.

[QUOTE=Swebonny;29617072]Quite fast progress. April month's "Illustrerad Vetenskap", a Swedish science magazine, had an article about this and told about how they managed to trap it for like 30 milliseconds and how awesome that was. Now it's all 15 minutes and shit.[/QUOTE] Illustreret Videnskab or in its English version: Science Illustrated. T's not just Swedish.

This is obviously a MATTER of serious conCERN.

[QUOTE=cqbcat;29619291]I've always wondered how to safely store anti-matter. I mean, that shit explodes when it comes into contact with matter, right? Me thinks, matter has - electrons and + protons. Anti-matter has + electrons and - protons. The one thing both types of matter have that's the same is neutrons, they're neutral. So would it be possible to create a container which has an inside wall consisting of neutrons?[/QUOTE] There are anti-neutrons as they would be made of anti-quarks and still end with a 0 charge. So if any anti-neutrons came into contact with your neutronium containment walls, you'd be pretty screwed.

:psypop:

Correct me if I'm wrong here (I'm an idiot): The main theorised uses of antimatter is as fuel, combining it with matter causes both to annihilate each other and release loads of energy. But doesn't the laws of conservation of energy mean that you'd need the same amount of energy to create the antimatter as the reaction would create? If you subtract wastage due to the various inefficiencies, aren't you left with a process that just eats energy?

[QUOTE=st0rmforce;29716639]Correct me if I'm wrong here (I'm an idiot): The main theorised uses of antimatter is as fuel, combining it with matter causes both to annihilate each other and release loads of energy. But doesn't the laws of conservation of energy mean that you'd need the same amount of energy to create the antimatter as the reaction would create? If you subtract wastage due to the various inefficiencies, aren't you left with a process that just eats energy?[/QUOTE] The main theorised uses of antimatter is to study it and look for differences to normal matter. And yes you are right, laws of conservation of energy means you won't get any more than you needed to produce antimatter. In fact, we need a lot of energy just to create a few atoms of antimatter. All antimatter so far created in the world is only enough to power a light bulb for a few minutes. The energy invested to create it actually is large (e.g. the power consumption of one city/year or even more. I have no actual numbers for that but it's incredibly larger). In short: Antimatter/Matter annihilation is useless without having the antimatter in the first place.

[QUOTE=aVoN;29717098]The main theorised uses of antimatter is to study it and look for differences to normal matter. And yes you are right, laws of conservation of energy means you won't get any more than you needed to produce antimatter. In fact, we need a lot of energy just to create a few atoms of antimatter. All antimatter so far created in the world is only enough to power a light bulb for a few minutes. The energy invested to create it actually is large (e.g. the power consumption of one city/year or even more. I have no actual numbers for that but it's incredibly larger). In short: Antimatter/Matter annihilation is useless without having the antimatter in the first place.[/QUOTE] Uh, excuse me sir, but I'm a science journalist, and you can take your elitism elsewhere, because the public needs to know that scientists are on the verge of using anti-matter propelled dolphin wormholes to colonize mars and cure cancer. Another 'scientist' with another 'agenda'. [editline]10th May 2011[/editline] Seriously though, the amount of things that state anti-matter is *the* propulsion system of the future... sigh. Seems a bit difficult for that to ever occur.

[QUOTE=Contag;29717148]Seriously though, the amount of things that state anti-matter is *the* propulsion system of the future... sigh. Seems a bit difficult for that to ever occur.[/QUOTE] Who knows what we will discover in the future? This is just another step forwards in understanding antimatter. So its a step towards finding the first step towards antimatter propulsion. Lots of little steps.

[QUOTE=st0rmforce;29717333]Who knows what we will discover in the future? This is just another step forwards in understanding antimatter. So its a step towards finding the first step towards antimatter propulsion. Lots of little steps.[/QUOTE] The thing about antimatter is that it could act as a very very power-rich fuel source. No, producing antimatter won't give you any free energy, but it could provide a way of storing a LOT of energy in its most concentrated form, which might be good for spaceship propulsion etc. Kind of like the reason we use batteries. What I'm saying is, it might one day be useful for us to make large quantities of antimatter. Of course, if we can scoop up naturally occurring antimatter, even better. All pretty unlikely in the near future, but whatever.

Antimatter and matter compleetly annihalate eachother if they encounter an opposite of the same type. (They annihalate partly when they encounter na different element) In this annialation the weight of the atom gets turned into 100% energy. To put this into perspective: In a nuclear reactor/bomb only a very small percentage 0.000000001 etc of the mass gets turned into energy following E=mc^2, (energy released is the mass that is turned times the lightspeed to the second power. Now imagine this mass being turned not being 0.00000001% but 100%, that is the ammount of power you could get from annihalating matter with antimatter. [editline]9th May 2011[/editline] Just to add i dont know for sure that energy created with annihalation also follow e=mc^2

[QUOTE=taipan;29718875]Antimatter and matter compleetly annihalate eachother if they encounter an opposite of the same type. (They annihalate partly when they encounter na different element) In this annialation the weight of the atom gets turned into 100% energy. To put this into perspective: In a nuclear reactor/bomb only a very small percentage 0.000000001 etc of the mass gets turned into energy following E=mc^2, (energy released is the mass that is turned times the lightspeed to the second power. Now imagine this mass being turned not being 0.00000001% but 100%, that is the ammount of power you could get from annihalating matter with antimatter. [editline]9th May 2011[/editline] Just to add i dont know for sure that energy created with annihalation also follow e=mc^2[/QUOTE] Even still, antimatter needs to be produced somehow, and since most, if not all, processes to create anything in general are not 100% efficient, let alone antimatter production, you need more than the energy you get out of it to make it. Like rechargeable batteries, you put in more energy than you'll actually get from using it to charge it, as heat is lost in both charging it, and during use(though that's not exactly my point here).

[QUOTE=Turnips5;29718734]The thing about antimatter is that it could act as a very very power-rich fuel source. No, producing antimatter won't give you any free energy, but it could provide a way of storing a LOT of energy in its most concentrated form, which might be good for spaceship propulsion etc. Kind of like the reason we use batteries. What I'm saying is, it might one day be useful for us to make large quantities of antimatter. Of course, if we can scoop up naturally occurring antimatter, even better. All pretty unlikely in the near future, but whatever.[/QUOTE] Though if you use antimatter to store energy, I'm guessing if you have a useful amount of it and the containment fails, you're a bit screwed.

Magnets FTW.

[QUOTE=Uber|nooB;29720107]Though if you use antimatter to store energy, I'm guessing if you have a useful amount of it and the containment fails, you're a bit screwed.[/QUOTE] Truly. :v:

[QUOTE=Killerelf12;29720068]Even still, antimatter needs to be produced somehow, and since most, if not all, processes to create anything in general are not 100% efficient, let alone antimatter production, you need more than the energy you get out of it to make it. Like rechargeable batteries, you put in more energy than you'll actually get from using it to charge it, as heat is lost in both charging it, and during use(though that's not exactly my point here).[/QUOTE] You dont know if producing antimatter takes the same ammount of energy .

[QUOTE=taipan;29757627]You dont know if producing antimatter takes the same ammount of energy .[/QUOTE] The same amount of energy as what?

[QUOTE=taipan;29757627]You dont know if producing antimatter takes the same ammount of energy .[/QUOTE] Well if it didn't, you'd be creating energy. Which is physically impossible. It will require more energy than you get out of it, no matter if it's antimatter, a rechargeable battery, etc.

I want to know if anti-matter looks any different from regular matter. [editline]11th May 2011[/editline] Ah, never mind, I looked it up and apparently it looks no different from matter. Still awesome though.