Breakthrough in antimatter production

(home.cern)

21 points | by doener 4 days ago

4 comments

  • pfdietz 2 days ago
    It increases the rate of production of neutral antihydrogen from antiprotons and positrons by a factor of 8. It doesn't increase the efficiency of production of antiprotons, which is the extremely inefficient, energy intensive part.
    • SiempreViernes 23 minutes ago
      They cut production time to a given number of anti-atoms from 10 weeks to 7 hours by improving the electron cooling, just from this fact it is a bit rich to insist the anti-proton generation is the limiting factor.

      Going to the paper itself we can observe that the CERN Antiproton Decelerator can deliver 10^7 antiprotons every 2 minutes. Remembering it previously took 10 weeks to capture 10^4 anti-atoms, I hope you forgive me for not agreeing that the antiproton generation is the source of important inefficiencies.

    • throwawayqqq11 2 days ago
      The output got increased by a factor of 8, did the energy consuption increase proportionately? If not, its an efficiency gain.
      • tsimionescu 1 hour ago
        If you have a process where it takes 5MW to produce one component and 80KW to convert that component into the final product, and you increase the efficiency of the second step 8 times so it only takes 10KW, that's real and awesome, but still almost irrelevant to the overall efficiency of the process. I have no idea what the actual numbers are, just stating the general concept.
        • XorNot 1 hour ago
          Conversely efficiency is a lot less important if it unlocks capability you otherwise don't have at all.

          Antimatter is a unique element: nothing else can do what it does. The game changer would be producing industrially useful amounts for further experimentation.

          (Antimatter chemistry would be incredibly interesting and quite possibly a practical way to actually use antimatter - shoot the beam into a reaction or solid matrix to do interesting reactions due to the electronic properties before it annihilates).

          • tsimionescu 1 hour ago
            This article is about an efficiency gain, not about any new source of antimatter or any newly discovered property or reaction. And, getting industrial levels will require massive efficiency gains, so we're back to this discussion.
            • XorNot 11 minutes ago
              It's about a production rate increase, not an efficiency gain.
  • aeve890 1 hour ago
    What are the civilian applications?
    • contravariant 35 minutes ago
      None for the foreseeable future I hope.
      • fragmede 20 minutes ago
        Why is that? I must have missed the episode of black mirror you watched that would make that a bad thing.
    • SiempreViernes 20 minutes ago
      Performing precision tests of fundamental physics by verifying that antimatter behaves as predicted by standard theory.
    • secult 1 hour ago
      PET scan (You have to wait for civic applications of the newly discovered technologies for a while, but the "technology transfer" from CERN to practical applications has a few notable examples.)
      • joelthelion 51 minutes ago
        PET doesn't use antimatter, at least it doesn't use it directly. It uses regular radioactive tracers.
        • secult 20 minutes ago
          Indeed, it would be quite difficult to smuggle some antimatter to a tumor. I'm saying that research in this particular area eventually led to practical application, PET scans.
        • Romain_Winler 34 minutes ago
          PET stands for Positron Emission Tomography. The radioactive tracers emit positrons (antimatter), which then annihilate with electrons to produce the gamma rays that are detected. So it does use antimatter, just indirectly through the decay process.
          • joelthelion 14 minutes ago
            I am familiar with PET. As we both agree, PET does not use antimatter directly, so this article is irrelevant to it (which is what the original comment was asking about).
  • emmavis 1 hour ago
    In simple terms for humanists, does that brings us closer in anyway to scifi engines?:)
    • lolive 1 hour ago
      Isn't it the path to a yet deadlier bomb ? #alwaysLookOnTheBrightSideOfLife
      • lazide 4 minutes ago
        In all (realistic) interplanetary space travel - not to mention interstellar - the difference between the largest bomb/death ray anyone has ever experienced and a better drive, is purely a matter of where you aim it and when/how you throttle it up.

        Not actually that different for rockets now, frankly, we just usually don’t operate direct nuclear fission/fusion drives right now for this very reason and our own sense of self preservation.

        There certainly are plans on the drawing board!

        It would take 23 grams of antimatter to produce the effect of a 1 megaton nuclear bomb, and the biggest factor stopping someone is both production of the matter itself (improving) and actual shielding technology (magnetic bottles good enough to effectively trap that much antimatter are huge and extremely energy consuming right now - much bigger than a fusion bomb of equivalent power).

        Theoretically, it should be possible to store that much in a thermos bottle, however. We just need better superconductor technology.

      • GCUMstlyHarmls 1 hour ago
        Just be-fore you draw your terminal breath ♫
      • YouAreWRONGtoo 17 minutes ago
        [dead]
    • adrianN 1 hour ago
      The most realistic sci-fi engines are nuclear pulse engines where you ride the shockwaves of thousands of fusion bombs to reach a few percent of the speed of light. Those we could probably build right now if we were willing to spend the money. Replacing the fusion bombs with antimatter bombs would be a nice improvement for the basic design
      • mr_mitm 1 hour ago
        Is there a way to slow down using fusion bombs? Even if you manage to bring thousands of fusion bombs with you? Sounds like this is only a sensible approach for sending probes, which will then zip by their target at huge speeds.
        • xavxav 1 hour ago
          you just need to speed up in the opposite direction by flipping around and firing bombs on the other side.
          • ajuc 42 minutes ago
            Which means if we get discovered by an alien probe it will look a lot like getting on the wrong end of a nuclear war.

            I remember there was a quote from some sci-fi universe that there's "no such thing as an unarmed space ship".

            • arethuza 31 minutes ago
              I believe that is the "Kzinti Lesson" from Larry Niven:

              "A reaction drive's efficiency as a weapon is in direct proportion to its efficiency as a drive."

              https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WeaponizedExhaus...

            • froh42 29 minutes ago
              If you can get any kind of spaceship up to speeds to reach other stars within reasonable time - you've got an amazing weapon. Just ram into something at full speed. Ok, if you have enough energy to correct course to aim, only.
      • emmavis 41 minutes ago
        Thanks for explanation!
      • nrhrjrjrjtntbt 56 minutes ago
        How do you do that and not die?
        • ajuc 51 minutes ago
          Long stick and radiation shield between you and the bombs
    • Ygg2 1 hour ago
      No. Unless you find a chunk of antimatter or a way to break the laws of physics.
  • nubinetwork 22 minutes ago
    And what do we do with it? This isn't star trek, I can't just go shove this into my warp drive and blast off... /shrug