Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

LHC Scientists Create and Capture Antimatter

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the I-want-my-warp-drive dept.

Science 269

Velcroman1 writes "Scientists at the Large Hadron Collider have created antimatter in the form of antihydrogen, demonstrating how it's possible to capture and release it. The development could help researchers devise laboratory experiments to learn more about this strange substance, which mostly disappeared from the universe shortly after the Big Bang 14 billion years ago. Trapping any form of antimatter is difficult, because as soon as it meets normal matter — the stuff Earth and everything on it is made out of — the two annihilate each other in powerful explosions. 'We are getting close to the point at which we can do some classes of experiments on the properties of antihydrogen,' said Joel Fajans, a University of California, Berkeley professor of physics, and LBNL faculty scientist. 'Since no one has been able to make these types of measurements on antimatter atoms at all, it's a good start.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

negative first (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34260102)

negative first

positive first (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34260148)

If I reply, will our comments annihilate each other?

last get (4, Funny)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 3 years ago | (#34260226)

This would have been a better joke if you said "last get" instead.

Re:last get (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 3 years ago | (#34261192)

I thought matter/antimatter represents a different symmetry to time reversal? Or maybe it all just washes out in the great big limiting Haar measure of all things?

Dumb Question (1)

toastar (573882) | more than 3 years ago | (#34260512)

How do you trap a neutral antiparticle?

Re:Dumb Question (4, Funny)

plover (150551) | more than 3 years ago | (#34260888)

How do you trap a neutral antiparticle?

Tell him that his neutral anti-girlfriend is pregnant.

Re:Dumb Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34260992)

How do you trap a neutral antiparticle?

Tell him that his neutral anti-girlfriend is pregnant.

Or that the test came back "negative"

Re:Dumb Question (3, Funny)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 3 years ago | (#34261012)

Really, that sounds more like the answer to "How do you get a neutral antiparticle to skip town and never be heard from again".

Re:Dumb Question (4, Funny)

ilsaloving (1534307) | more than 3 years ago | (#34261042)

A neutron walks into a bar. He goes up to the counter and asks the bartender, "How much for a beer?"

The bartender looks the neutron up and down and says, "For you? No charge."

Re:Dumb Question (0, Offtopic)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 3 years ago | (#34261166)

How do you trap a neutral antiparticle?

Very carefully!

Still on track... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34260130)

... for destroying the world in 2012.

Enter Stage Right (1, Insightful)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34260140)

Oh hey everybody, it's Tom Hanks!

Re:Enter Stage Right (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 3 years ago | (#34260170)

And... is that a bloody volley-ball?

2012 (1)

arndawg (1468629) | more than 3 years ago | (#34260144)

is getting real close. But does it matter?

Re:2012 (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34260280)

Naw, the real question is, "Does it antimatter?"

Re:2012 (1)

arndawg (1468629) | more than 3 years ago | (#34260322)

Does it +/-matter?

Re:2012 (2, Interesting)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 3 years ago | (#34261246)

Don't worry, Gummal [slashdot.org] will take care of it. Or did will take care of it. Or will did take care of it.

Or something. Damn, the mechanics of time travel give me a headache.

antihydrogen (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34260172)

IANAP.. but..

    I think the temporary capture of antiprotons and antielectrons has been achieved before, since it is relatively easy. It is the significant-duration capture of antihydrogen (i.e. antiproton + antielectron, forming an electrically neutral 'anti-atom') which is new ( ? ). Please correct, and scold, me if I am wrong.

Re:antihydrogen (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34260318)

To support the above.. Here is a link to a paper referring to confinement of antiprotons. I do not know the date (how do I find it?), but it was apparently already cited back in 1993.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/r5m0760242k25775/

Re:antihydrogen (1)

gest.hds (1934474) | more than 3 years ago | (#34260378)

You are right.

Re:antihydrogen (3, Informative)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 3 years ago | (#34260472)

Yes, capturing anti-ions is relatively easy (still quite hard though) since you can just use magnetic fields to confine the anti-matter without it coming into contact with the walls of the container. Getting the anti-protons and anti-electrons to combine into a single atom that stays at a low enough energy level that it can be contained for a significant amount of time is hard, especially since it is neutral and can't be contained with magnetic fields. They managed it here by producing very, very cold anti-hydrogen so that the energy levels were low enough that they didn't immediately annihilate with the regular matter that made up the container.

Re:antihydrogen (4, Informative)

Phroon (820247) | more than 3 years ago | (#34260770)

I think the temporary capture of antiprotons and antielectrons has been achieved before

You are correct. For example the Fermilab Antiproton Source, which creates antiprotons and stores them, has been in operation since 1985 [1] [fnal.gov] , while the Fermilab Recycler has held onto a continuous stash of antiprotons for over a month [2] [fnal.gov] . And these are by no means the very first machines to capture and store antimatter, I'd have to dig though the history a bit more to find an earlier example.

Production of Anti-hydrogen (antiproton orbited by a positron) seems to have been achieved in 1995 at CERN, with Fermilab confirming production in 1997 [3] [wikipedia.org] . But those atoms were destroyed immediately after being created, this is the first time I've heard of anyone successfully storing anti-hydrogen for any long period of time. So yes, the headline is misleading, we've been capturing antimatter for quite some time, it's the fact that you are capturing the neutrally charged anti-hydrogen (antiproton -1, positron +1, total = 0) that's the real news.

If it's antimatter.. (4, Funny)

kheldan (1460303) | more than 3 years ago | (#34260174)

..then does that mean it doesn't matter? :-)

Re:If it's antimatter.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34260270)

That would be a-matter that you're describing. Anti-matter just matters upside down. Or to put it in other words, it eradicates all else that matters.

Re:If it's antimatter.. (5, Funny)

cmiller173 (641510) | more than 3 years ago | (#34260272)

Yes, that is exactly what it does...to matter... it "doesn't" it.

Re:If it's antimatter.. (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#34261170)

That would be "doesn'ts", in English, if it were.

Good for them! (1)

powerlord (28156) | more than 3 years ago | (#34260592)

demonstrating how it's possible to capture and release it

Actually I think it shows a lot of forethought that they are trying to keep from depleting the local pool of Antimatter by trying to institute "Catch and Release" rules.

If more Sport Physicist follow suit, they are less likely to find government intervention and the need for Licenses before they go Colliding their own particles.

Re:If it's antimatter.. (1)

ADRA (37398) | more than 3 years ago | (#34260758)

Best joke ever

Only if... (5, Funny)

MallocFork (738134) | more than 3 years ago | (#34260176)

Now if they could only create antiidiot we could release it and take care of most of the worlds problems.

Re:Only if... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34260374)

...or antipublican.

Re:Only if... (1)

brainboyz (114458) | more than 3 years ago | (#34260464)

You're thinking antitician if you want any change.

Re:Only if... (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#34260806)

If by "take care of the world's problems" you mean "annihilate in a blast of pure energy", then yes.

Anti-matter behaves as expected, like matter (3, Interesting)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 3 years ago | (#34260228)

The core is negative/neutral mass and the orbit is positive mass. Naturally, anti-matter electrical conductors conduct positive particles rather than negative. The questions of behavior that need to be answered is what exactly causes i.e. electroconductivity. Reversing the charges, in theory, won't affect the behavior insomuch as you have X mobile particles and Y non-mobile particles setting up orbits that should be the same (the nature of electrical charge attraction doesn't change), so anti-copper should conduct positrons like copper conducts electrons etc. The reality... we don't know, of course.

It would be a big thing if someone created anti-copper AND it didn't behave exactly like copper when supplied with an anti-potential from an anti-battery.

Re:Anti-matter behaves as expected, like matter (1)

east coast (590680) | more than 3 years ago | (#34260304)

I was always under the impression that anti-matter had possitive mass but all of the information was simply the opposite of regular matter. Am I wrong?

Re:Anti-matter behaves as expected, like matter (4, Informative)

Remus Shepherd (32833) | more than 3 years ago | (#34260428)

No, you are correct. The only difference we *expect* to see from anti-matter is that the electrical charge is reversed. The mass, spin states, etc. should all be the same.

What the scientists are looking for is the slim chance that anti-matter is different in some way. That would be exciting, because it would tell us something new.

Re:Anti-matter behaves as expected, like matter (1)

Intron (870560) | more than 3 years ago | (#34260454)

correct. Mass can't be negative. The particles have opposite charge.

Re:Anti-matter behaves as expected, like matter (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 3 years ago | (#34260570)

Sorry, I should have said matter, not mass. Still unclear, but correct. It's made of matter with a positive/negative charge.

Re:Anti-matter behaves as expected, like matter (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34260346)

I have a feeling though that it is slightly more complex than that - it's not "just' that the charges are swapped - otherwise there'd be no reason that "regular" matter seems to have prevailed over antimatter. The positive particles (Protons) also have far more mass than negative particles (Electrons) - so I honestly don't expect anti-copper to behave exactly like copper.

Re:Anti-matter behaves as expected, like matter (4, Informative)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 3 years ago | (#34260406)

The positive particles (Protons) also have far more mass than negative particles (Electrons)

Protons are not antimatter electrons. Positrons are antimatter electronis, and they do have the same mass as electrons. The antimatter opposite of a Proton is an anti-proton. The naming system is inconsistent, probably because the original creators of the names did not know about antimatter.

Re:Anti-matter behaves as expected, like matter (4, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#34260384)

It would be a big thing if someone created anti-copper AND it didn't behave exactly like copper when supplied with an anti-potential from an anti-battery.

Would anti-physicists finally get the polarity correct on the anti-battery or would it still be backwards?

Re:Anti-matter behaves as expected, like matter (1)

todrules (882424) | more than 3 years ago | (#34260972)

What I want to know is where do you connect the black cable on the anti-battery when your car needs a jump?

Re:Anti-matter behaves as expected, like matter (3, Insightful)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 3 years ago | (#34260434)

The core is negative/neutral mass and the orbit is positive mass. Naturally, anti-matter electrical conductors conduct positive particles rather than negative. The questions of behavior that need to be answered is what exactly causes i.e. electroconductivity. Reversing the charges, in theory, won't affect the behavior insomuch as you have X mobile particles and Y non-mobile particles setting up orbits that should be the same (the nature of electrical charge attraction doesn't change), so anti-copper should conduct positrons like copper conducts electrons etc. The reality... we don't know, of course.

It would be a big thing if someone created anti-copper AND it didn't behave exactly like copper when supplied with an anti-potential from an anti-battery.

Weird post unless you meant for it to be a joke that I didn't get.

We don't know that the assumption that anti-H behaves like H is true, and there's value in experimentally examining as many aspects of its behavior as we can. I'm not sure why you seem to indicate otherwise.

But then you go on to imply that electrical properties of anti-copper are the really interesting topic of anti-matter study. You seem to realize how incredibly difficult that would be. I don't understand why you declare one experiment to be uselessly redundant and the other a "big thing."

Re:Anti-matter behaves as expected, like matter (1, Interesting)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 3 years ago | (#34260664)

I'm just saying that anti-matter is charge-reversed matter; but charge is really an irrelevant topic for the most part. Electrons (negative charge) are attracted to protons (positive charge). Electrons also move freely, since protons inhabit the nucleus of the matter and electrons orbit. All properties of matter are based on the interaction of electrons with the nucleus-- the orbital levels, valence shells, etc. Swap the charges and, reasonably, you have the same thing.

If you swap the charges and find out that anti-SiO2 (glass, insulator) is a massive conductor of positrons and anti-copper is a massive positron insulator, something very strange has happened. Moreover, although this is "just conjecture," our existing laws of physics pertaining to chemistry would suddenly fall flat-- suddenly we'd find out that not only relative charge matters, but the DIRECTION of charge is immensely significant. That, to our current knowledge, wouldn't seem like an "interesting result of experimentation" -- it'd seem like completely implausible black magic.

Re:Anti-matter behaves as expected, like matter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34260958)

Charge isn't the only difference between matter and antimatter, otherwise there would be no difference between a neutron and an antineutron (and there is). There's also baryon number.

Re:Anti-matter behaves as expected, like matter (2, Interesting)

cbhacking (979169) | more than 3 years ago | (#34261150)

Don't we already have materials that care very much about the direction of charge? I suspect you'd have a hard time posting on Slashdot if the silicon in your computer stopped being a semiconductor.

That's not to say that your claim of "it's just reversed charges; everything else is the same" is wrong, but there's certainly interesting science to be done. If nothing else, there's value in validating our assumptions. Our current models don't really account for antimatter, much like Newton's laws don't account for relativity. That doesn't mean they aren't useful, but it also doesn't mean we should simply accept them as a given instead of testing them in new environments.

Calling Tom Hanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34260242)

Will he save us?

The Neutrinos... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34260264)

...are mutating.

Matter/Antimatter balance. (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 3 years ago | (#34260302)

In the early moments of the big bang, there were supposedly equal amounts of matter and antimatter created. This promptly annihilated leaving behind whatever imbalance there was in the relative amounts. This leftover matter is what the universe is made up of now.

However, a particle and antiparticle won't annihilate if they do not come in contact with each other. If one half of the big bang were matter rich and the other half was antimatter rich, and were kept apart, then half the universe could be antimatter and half matter. Is there a way of detecting this?

Re:Matter/Antimatter balance. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34260368)

Sure, fly to the edge of the universe. When you cross the threshold and violently explode, congratulations; you've discovered the other half of the universe is anti matter.

Re:Matter/Antimatter balance. (1)

qwijibo (101731) | more than 3 years ago | (#34260642)

If there's an anti-photon, would that mean that black holes are just anti-matter stars?

Re:Matter/Antimatter balance. (1)

eleuthero (812560) | more than 3 years ago | (#34260914)

Maybe this explains the news last week about a gamma ray halo around the galaxy - though honestly, science news is so often old hat, there's probably been an explanation for it for years (like the recent "discovery" of a new language that has been in the database for the last decade).

Re:Matter/Antimatter balance. (1)

mibe (1778804) | more than 3 years ago | (#34260460)

I thought one of the objectives of the LHC was to generate Big Bang-like conditions in order to determine why there is matter at all - ie, why was there an imbalance at all? With respect to your "halves" hypothesis, I don't rightly know. Seems to me that since photons are massless, there should be no anti-photons (they aren't made of matter, so how could they be made of anti-matter), and since all of our detection relies on detection of photons we are incapable of distinguishing antimatter from a distance. That said, I don't see how a Big Bang could generate neat areas of one or the other - it's an explosion right?

Oh! Unless every galaxy is made of matter or antimatter without any intermingling as a result of random transient "clumps" in the primordium of the universe (like the clumps of oil in an agitated oil-water mixture), while the vacuum in between is the result of a more even distribution of the two. But again, more Big Bang research is required. Science is fun!

Re:Matter/Antimatter balance. (2, Informative)

Intron (870560) | more than 3 years ago | (#34260504)

Read "Worlds-Antiworlds: Antimatter in Cosmology" (1966) by Hannes Alfvén. Its the original discussion of this topic.

Re:Matter/Antimatter balance. (2, Informative)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 3 years ago | (#34260700)

There would have to be a region of space where the matter and anti-matter interfaced, which would produce significant amounts of gamma radiation. We don't see any such interface in the visible universe (I believe current understand says that if it were there our tools are powerful enough to see it) so it would seem that the part of the universe we live in is all matter. I suppose it's possible that the interface lies somewhere outside of our visible universe though.

Re:Matter/Antimatter balance. (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#34260724)

Things is, apparently there weren't equal amounts of matter and antimatter created. Supposedly the symmetry between matter and antimatter is not the case at very high energies, like just after the Big Bang.

Antimatter areas of the Universe would had to be reconciled with some pretty fundamental stuff [wikipedia.org] (for which there is quite a lot support - enough so they would probably had to be far beyond our horizon / observable Universe, in which case: no, we can't observe them and it doesn't matter, they don't exist for us)

CERN != LHC (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34260334)

ALPHA project is NOT a part of LHC. It is one of many other project at CERN that does not have much to do with LHC.

Antihydrogen production and capture is not new (4, Informative)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 3 years ago | (#34260338)

Note that production and capture of antihydrogen is not new. There's been prior work trying to use it to test for possible CPT violations. See for example hussle.harvard.edu/~atrap/Papers/2010/AntihydrogenPhysicsToday.pdf [slashdot.org] , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005APS..DPPFP1058V [harvard.edu] and http://www.physics.harvard.edu/Thesespdfs/speck.pdf [harvard.edu] .

Re:Antihydrogen production and capture is not new (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34260938)

ATRAP has not demonstrated trapped hbar. Production, sure... but the Speck thesis was written long before the magnetic traps for trapping hbar even existed, let alone worked.

Not the LHC (Summary and title are incorrect) (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34260340)

Antiprotons are relatively low-energy phenomena, being produced at 1 GeV. The LHC is a HIGH-energy facility, using energies 7000 times higher. Using the LHC to make antiprotons would be ridiculous overkill and counter-productive, since the ALPHA experiment needs antihydrogen at rest. Not every experiment at CERN uses the LHC. In this case, the cool bit of machinery is the Antiproton Decelerator (AD) and ALPHA's magnetic trapping system.

Re:Not the LHC (Summary and title are incorrect) (0)

Taibhsear (1286214) | more than 3 years ago | (#34261204)

It takes hydrogen atoms from the LHC and diverts them to the ALPHA experiment. So it's not the whole of the LHC but it is a small part of it.

Pix or it didn't happen. (4, Funny)

RealGrouchy (943109) | more than 3 years ago | (#34260342)

If they really created antihydrogen, they should prove it by taking a photo.

We'll have to be extra cautious that they don't just take a photo of regular hydrogen and apply a negative filter to the image.

- RG>

Re:Pix or it didn't happen. (1)

AdamThor (995520) | more than 3 years ago | (#34260912)

Actually, anti-hydrogen looks exactly like hydrogen, but with a goatee. It's usually taking advantage of this fact by surprising regular hydrogen's friends with evil acts. The fact that the two annihilate each other if they ever meet is why you never see them both in the same take...

Antimatter bomb anyone? (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 3 years ago | (#34260352)

Once you get enough antimatter contained in one small area, it's not hard to release the containment field.

Sometimes, even little thing make big boom.

No; "powerful explosions" belongs to literature (4, Interesting)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#34260560)

First, most of the energy released in matter-antimatter annihilation is carried away by neutrinos.

Secondly...CERN covered this [web.cern.ch] on one occasion:

The inefficiency of antimatter production is enormous: you get only a tenth of a billion (10-10) of the invested energy back. If we could assemble all the antimatter we've ever made at CERN and annihilate it with matter, we would have enough energy to light a single electric light bulb for a few minutes. ...

Can we make antimatter bombs?

No. It would take billions of years to produce enough antimatter for a bomb having the same destructiveness as ‘typical’ hydrogen bombs, of which there exist more than ten thousand already.

Sociological note: scientists realized that the atom bomb was a real possibility many years before one was actually built and exploded, and then the public was totally surprised and amazed. On the other hand, the public somehow anticipates the antimatter bomb, but we have known for a long time that it cannot be realized in practice.

Re:No; "powerful explosions" belongs to literature (1)

confused one (671304) | more than 3 years ago | (#34261242)

It would take billions of years to produce enough antimatter

[reality off] Not so, Starfleet put a station in close orbit to the Sun so that they could use the intense solar radiation to provide the necessary power for the anti-matter production facility. This also adds a measure of safety in the unlikely event of an accident, since it's off-world. [reality on]

Link to the release from IBL (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34260362)

http://newscenter.lbl.gov/news-releases/2010/11/17/antimatter-atoms/

Editors, please!

Fox News, really? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34260402)

Stopped reading after the first sentence...

Scientists working on the big bang machine in Geneva have done the seemingly impossible: create, capture and release antimatter.

The "machine" in question does have a name, you know?
BBC News also has coverage,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11773791 [bbc.co.uk]

cant wait for warp drives! (0, Troll)

hesaigo999ca (786966) | more than 3 years ago | (#34260424)

I would like to hear what real world applications could come from this though....in what instance could MAN (instead of GOD) use this to do stuff with....? Isn't the possible massive explosion that could rip the universe apart a sign that maybe we should leave this one alone for awhile, until we have a few more astute scientists available, like many a few 100 years???

Re:cant wait for warp drives! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34260528)

You coward. In a few hundred years people like you would be saying the exact same thing.

Our sun will go supernova. Long before that, we will get wiped out by asteroids. We *need* to figure out as much of the universe as possible, as quickly as possible, if we are to have any chance of preserving our species beyond these events.

Re:cant wait for warp drives! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34260540)

It would take a lot more antimatter than humans can create to, as you put it, create a "massive explosion that could rip the universe apart". Consider that the universe has seen the deaths of any number of supernovae and the births of various black holes, and none of them has been able (so far) to do it.

Re:cant wait for warp drives! (2, Funny)

falldeaf (968657) | more than 3 years ago | (#34260562)

Wait, wut? Are you try to say, 'If man had been meant to mess with anti-matter, GOD would have given us anti-matter containment systems built into our hands!"? :)

Re:cant wait for warp drives! (1)

s122604 (1018036) | more than 3 years ago | (#34260722)

"what instance could MAN (instead of GOD) use this to do stuff with.?"

From TFA:
""Trapping any form of antimatter is difficult, because as soon as it meets normal matter — the stuff Earth and everything on it is made out of — the two annihilate each other in powerful explosions."

There you go. If there exists even the slightest possibility that something like this can be weaponized (and I'm not even pretending to be smart enough to make that call) you can be damn sure there will be no shortage of research into the manner..

Just look at the Manhattan project, atomic weapons had been theorized for a long time, but WW2 turned out to be the kind of spare-no-expense kick-in-the-pants motivator, that made them a reality, far faster than anyone (of those who even thought they were possible, which was by no means a unanimous assertion) had previously imagined...

"Isn't the possible massive explosion that could rip the universe apart a sign that maybe we should leave this one alone for awhile"

eh, we had some of the same fears about atomic weaponry, and its not like that stopped anyone...

Dan Brown (1)

Thelasko (1196535) | more than 3 years ago | (#34260488)

Finally some truth to a Dan Brown novel.

A link to Fox News? But not the CERN site? (4, Informative)

aztektum (170569) | more than 3 years ago | (#34260490)

I'm not trying to rag on Fox News here, but why link them and not CERN's press release page?

Clicky [web.cern.ch]

Re:A link to Fox News? But not the CERN site? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34260994)

interestingly enough, this happens one year in the future according to that article... Geneva, 17 November 2011

Oh god it's all becomming true. (-1, Redundant)

thegarbz (1787294) | more than 3 years ago | (#34260538)

Shouldn't someone call Tom Hanks before all of this gets out of hand?

The LHC is in for trouble from the PETAM (3, Funny)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 3 years ago | (#34260566)

LHC Scientists Create and Capture Antimatter

PETAM (People for the Ethical Treatment of Antimatter) are not going to be pleased with this. Especially the bits about physicists staging pit-bull style "dog fights" between matter and antimatter, and placing quantum mechanics based bets to the outcome of the duels.

Remember, children, "God does not play dice!"

And let that antimatter roam free! No capture, no antimatter!

For those two who do not know what LHC does (2, Informative)

houghi (78078) | more than 3 years ago | (#34260576)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j50ZssEojtM [youtube.com]
It explains in easy to understand words what it does.

Antimatter Engine? (1)

mrnick (108356) | more than 3 years ago | (#34260578)

The article, although limited on scientific data, is interesting. It makes me wonder how much and at what rate they capture antimatter? What circumstances are required to ensure that antimatter is present to trap?

If one can readily trap antimatter you wouldn't need to store it long. Instead control matter antimatter collisions and harness the explosive power. What would it be called? an engine? a reactor? a generator? Hmmmmmm...

Re:What would it be called? (1)

dhammabum (190105) | more than 3 years ago | (#34261136)

A bomb. I wonder how long it will take to produce it.

Now get us some dilithium crystals (2)

fishexe (168879) | more than 3 years ago | (#34260598)

...and we'll have Warp Drive! Huzzah!

Re:Now get us some dilithium crystals (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34260864)

...and we'll have Warp Drive! Huzzah!

It wouldn't work. First you have to invert polarity of the containment field by modulating subspace frequency.

Really? (1)

Taibhsear (1286214) | more than 3 years ago | (#34260618)

A story about the LHC and you link to Fox News? Come on now...

Re:Really? (1)

HappyDrgn (142428) | more than 3 years ago | (#34261222)

I read this from a few sources today, including fox, and I can't really find fault in the reporting from fox news on this topic; Seems just as complete as any other source I've read.

Megatron? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34260628)

Now what? We sit back and wait for Megatron to come down and take the antimatter formula from us? Hot damn, people! WHY did you go crowing this on the internets when you know perfectly well that Decepticons are listening in?

Quoting an American about a European Experiment? (1, Insightful)

stevedcc (1000313) | more than 3 years ago | (#34260634)

Then at least disclose that it's a European experiment. We spent billions on it, credit where its due please. Americans generally work on the principle that if nothing is said about location, it's American. Quoting an American regarding the experiment reinforces this view.

Re:Quoting an American about a European Experiment (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 3 years ago | (#34261050)

Then at least disclose that it's a European experiment.

Well, the headline did start right off by saying it was the LHC. And I’m pretty sure I’m not the only one who knows that the LHC is in Europe.

I was confused: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34260766)

...because as soon as it [anti-matter] meets normal matter — the stuff Earth and everything on it is made out of...

I am so glad you cleared that up for me.

First time? (2, Informative)

Gnaget (1043408) | more than 3 years ago | (#34260828)

Scientists have captured antimatter before. I recall an interview with a physicist (I believe Colbert Report) who mentioned they had antimatter captured before. Doing a quick Google search, I found references to captured antimatter going back to 2002: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1957-antimatter-atoms-captured-for-the-first-time.html [newscientist.com]

Hold on a minute here (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34260840)

Wait, first they told me that the LHC was trying to make a dangerous black hole, and now they tell me they're trying to launch antimatter projectiles. I don't get it, are they trying to make a Romulan Warbird or the Starship Enterprise?

How much can you catch before... (1)

jmichaelg (148257) | more than 3 years ago | (#34260898)

When have you caught so much anti-matter that releasing it would cause a serious problem? How much is too much?

Re:How much can you catch before... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34261268)

Well Ewen McGregor had something about the size a Pringles can when he lit up the night sky above the Vatican. And that was a BFE. So, I would say about as much as would fit in a Pringles can...

Can I have my blaster now? (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#34261002)

All I want is a beam or bolt of antimatter that I can launch at my enemies and the occasional bird or squirrel. I'm guessing the beam or bolt would have to be encapsulated with something to prevent reaction with the atmosphere prior to hitting the target and I assume it would be some sort of energy field. So now let's do that so I can have my blaster!

Also... lightsaber? Where is my lightsaber?

Re:Can I have my blaster now? (1)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | more than 3 years ago | (#34261104)

I think that was plasma, not antimatter.

Someone call Dr. Langdon... (1)

DoubleParadoxx (928992) | more than 3 years ago | (#34261008)

I'll be keeping my distance from the Vatican for the next few days. Then again, I always keep my distance from the Vatican.

Personally... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34261142)

...I love how these articles talk about THEORIES like they are pure facts. How about we, as scientists and intelligent beings, set about attempting to PROVE said theories before we go around talking about them this way. Since when did theories gain the "true until proven untrue" status?

Arg (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34261252)

Why is Cartman on my phone!!!!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?