Settings

Theme

Physicists trap a single antimatter particle for a month

scientificamerican.com

345 points by mooreds · 116 comments

Reader

25 threads
nickpinkston

Very cool! There's some wild ideas about antimatter capture in space via giant arrays of superconducting magnets trapping naturally occurring antimatter.

Apparently, nanograms / micrograms is enough to create a "antimatter catalyzed" fission/fusion propulsion system with enormous specific impulse / efficacy.

PDF: https://www.niac.usra.edu/files/studies/final_report/1071Bic...

fsh

Exciting results. The electron's magnetic moment is probably the most precise standard model prediction, and Gabrielse's group has measured it with 13 digits of accuracy. The positron is predicted to have exactly the same magnetic moment, but this has not been measured since 1987. With the new trap, they should be able to finally match the electron's precision.

foobarbecue

I don't get how they know they have exactly one in there. I mean they're measuring the magnetic field but how on earth do you make sufficiently precise measurements to detect a single particle!?!

Edit: this is explained pretty extensively in the paper (https://cfp.physics.northwestern.edu/documents/2026OnePositr...). I'm gonna need to do some background reading though...

  • maho

    The simple explanation: The positrons fly around the trap center. In the z-direction, this is a simple "up and down" oscillation. There are electrodes in the top and bottom of the trap called the "end-caps". The end-caps are connected to each other with a large resistor (technically, a coil forming an LC resonator with the parasitic capacitance, but on resonance it looks like a large resistor).

    When the positrons are at the top, they attract negative charges into the top end-cap. This is called an "image charge". When the positrons are close to the bottom end-cap, the image charge into bottom end-cap. This forms a current, the "image current". The more positrons you have, the larger the image current.

    Since the image current (on the order of femtoamperes) has to flow through the large resistor, it is turned into a voltage that can be amplified and measured by cryogenic amplifiers. But it has a second effect: The voltage "back-acts" on the positrons, damping their motion. If you have more positrons in the trap, this damping gets stronger, because each positron experiences the back-action of all other positrons.

    In the paper, you can see pictures of the driven axial motion, where you take an RF excitation and sweep the frequency over the resonance, recording the positrons' amplitude as a response. The more positrons you have, the "wider" this resonance, because of the damping effect.

    As you reduce the number of positrons by doing a "dip" (making the trap really shallow, hoping that some, but not all, positrons escape), you can see the width getting smaller and smaller in discrete steps. That's how you know you are dealing with individual particles.

    I haven't worked on Gabrielse's setup, but I have worked on other, very similar (better, ha!) experiments 10 years ago. I don't see what's so special about this trap, but putting antimatter into it always makes for a nice headline.

  • gus_massa

    Relevant paragraphs, near figure 4, page 3:

    > In order to determine ωz and the number of trapped positrons, the axial oscillation of a positron is driven with oscillating potentials applied to the trap electrodes. The frequency of the drive ωd is swept through resonance with ωz.

    > For the center-of-mass axial motion of more than one positron, the damping (and hence the observed signal width) increases in proportion to the number of particles. A confirmation that only one positron is trapped comes from spin flip observations that are discussed presently

  • sandworm101

    They let it go and listen for the pop? Let it fall from the magnetic containment and you should see a predictable emission as it collides with some normal matter. Detecting single photons is what detectors are all about.

    • tomrod

      This made me laugh very hard. Thank you.

      I think this is a fascinating technology. I wonder if it is currently energy positive (so that we can engineer it into a functional source) or at least if it can be extended to be captured in bulk (antimatter rockets!).

      • sandworm101

        Energy positive? That made me laugh. Making antimatter is more energy negative than building a 747 out of gold. They burn through enough power to light a town in order to capture a literal handful of antimater particles.

        In a rocket it would not be useful. It has the energy but would emit it as all sorts of highly penetrating radiation rather than hot gas for a rocket nozzle to turn into thrust.

        One particle has enough energy to, maybe, if it hit a speck of dust it might result in a perceptible twitch of that speck of dust... if you were watching the spec under a good optical microscope.

        • vlovich123

          I know you’re being facetious but a 747 made out of gold is going to be ~24 billion dollars if you are doing a weight conversion. A 747 by itself is ~$400 million. The entire CERN annual electricity cost is $~25-50M.

          No way this experiment had that kind of funding. I would bet the experiment itself had a few million dollars in funding at most + another few for the salaries. Max 10M all in. Probably closer to 2-5M. Expensive but not prohibitive like a 747. But for a single particle.

          Scaling up no one really knows because we only do this for single particles and that’s really inefficient. At scale it’s unclear what it could look like.

          • sandworm101

            But electrons/positrons cannot become fuel. Positrons repel each other. So to make any real amount of antimater, beyond counting individual particles, you need anti-protons to keep the positrons happy and containable at scale. Creating the sort of anti-hydrogen one might want to collect as fuel, THAT requires golden 747s of energy.

            • vlovich123

              I could be wrong but my understanding is that’s purely a function of our technological limitations in how we create antimatter, not in the fundamental energy required. Our tech of a particle acceleration is ~1e9 times less efficient than the actual energy required because most of the energy is lost, not converted. A gram would be $~6.2M/gram if we could get to 1% energy conversion efficiency. No one bothers of course to even try because it’s not worth it - expensive, difficult, and huge energy losses. Fusion reactors for space ships will probably come before antimatter gets cracked as a battery source.

        • gus_massa

          In this case they are using 22Na that produces positrons. A quick search says that they cost like $50-$300. (I guess I'm in yet another list now.) I used one in the physic lab a few years ago. They are good enough to get a few blips in a Geiger counter or something similar.

          I agree that if someone wants to make enough antiprotons and positrons to make enough antimater to power a rocket, the cost is prohibitive and there is absolutely no hope to make it cost efficient.

          • suzzer99

            They really missed out on a chance to go with 'negatrons' instead of antiprotons.

            • dekhn

              That would too easily get confused with positrons (anti-electrons).

            • greenbit

              Or even "notorp". Notorps could have been a thing.

        • mr_toad

          Positrons aren’t useful because they annihilate to produce gamma rays, which can’t be contained. However, anti-proton annihilation produces a bunch of particles, including pions, which could be contained in a magnetic bottle and directed for thrust.

        • sdeframond

          Veritasium made a video about CERN's "antimatter factory"

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jjp3WC8Unj8

        • pennomi

          “A literal handful of antimater particles” would be quite potent, even if your hands are very tiny.

        • tomrod

          I appreciate your comment as it sets expectations on what the technology can do today.

          What would need to be true for the capability of creating and using antimatter to become feasible?

    • BobbyTables2

      Sounds like that classic joke about a hunter finding his friend unconscious - the one where the dispatcher asks if the friend is dead…

stuaxo

That antimatter particle when it gets to the end of the universe late: "you won't believe what happened to me..."

dguest

Direct link to article: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.08147

tootie

It's funny because I just read about One Electron Theory which is a fun thought experiment. But if it's true then you'd assume there's also One Positron. And we've got it. So if anyone has had a successful PET scan in the past month, maybe the theory is disproven.

  • femto

    In the One Electron Theory the positron is just the One Electron moving backwards in time. No separate positron!

  • unrented7977

    The lone electron can occupy multiple points in space by traveling backward and forward through time

mattanimation

Quantunamo Bay

ahwvd37js

I guess the antimatter subscription expired after a month?

bilsbie

What happens if an anti proton hits a normal hydrogen atom?

networkOne

Hope Aristotle with his 'telos' is wrong, and the antimatter particle does not have a purpose to annihilate itself with a +-matter particle. The universe will complain if it doesn't.

snailshare

Does this hurt the positron?

androiddrew

I kind of want to know how they safely deal with its release (destruction)

  • gus_massa

    As the sibling comments say, it's a single positron so the energy released is tiny. I tried to find positrons sources in common life, the best I could find was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron_emission_tomography The relevant paragraph are

    > For a typical dose (245 MBq) of FDG, one of the most common radiotracers used for PET neuroimaging and cancer patient management,[48] the effective radiation dose is 4.7 mSv.[49]

    and

    > This limitation restricts clinical PET primarily to the use of tracers labelled with fluorine-18, which has a half-life of 110 minutes and can be transported a reasonable distance before use.

    Where "245 MBq" means 2*10^8 positrons per second for. And "110 minutes" means a half disappears every 2 hours, so the total sum is equivalent to 4 hours but I'm missing some small constant and they ae probably averaging the dose. I guess "3 hours" is a good compromise but multiply it by 2 or 4 if you prefer a smaller or bigger number. Anyway, 3 hours are 10^4 seconds, so the total numbers of positrons in a PET is approximately 2*10^8 * 10^4 = 2*10^12.

    • Sharlin

      And whether it’s a positron or an electron (beta+ or beta- decay) doesn’t seem to matter that much as far as equivalent dose is concerned, the energy deposited is only fractionally higher in the case of a positron. (But PET can only work with positrons because it’s exactly the pairs of 0.511 MeV annihilation gammas that it’s designed to detect!)

    • Razengan

      > I tried to find positrons sources in common life

      Good. Reject electrons. Positive vibes only.

  • SwellJoe

    It's one particle. It's not a bomb.

    • brippalcharrid

      Yes, you'd need another 6x10^15 of them to even act as a trigger for a battlefield thermonuclear weapon to destroy something like a tank, apparently.

  • goda90

    Ejecting the warp core is a common strategy.

  • ungovernableCat

    E=mc*2 but m is really really tiny

  • Retr0id

    If it's a single particle I don't think there's much to worry about?

  • analog31

    In addition to knowing how much stuff is released by one particle, we have a decent handle on how much is needed in order to be dangerous, due to us being constantly bombarded by various cosmic rays. That's how we can say that it's not dangerous.

    The article is behind a paywall, but it seems likely that the bigger safety concern is whatever produced the large quantity of particles needed to have a chance of trapping just one. And those kinds of experiments are conducted in regulated facilities for good reason.

lol8675309

That seems super safe. At least they are wearing gloves.

dataflow

> Every time they bang into something, there’s a chance of annihilation, but it doesn’t always happen

This goes against everything I've ever been told about antimatter. So a positron and electron can collide and not annihilate each other? How does that work? What happens to them in that case, and why does everybody say otherwise?

  • gus_massa

    There is like a 60% chance that they annihilate on the spot and a 40% chance that they form "positronium" that is similar to an Hydrogen atom but with an electron+positron instead of electron+proton. The positronium has a half life of less than a millisecond, so if you blink they go away and you can ignore the intermediate "positronium" step. More details https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positronium#Formation_and_deca...

    But it's more weird. In the research article they explain that they make positronium, then use microwaves to excite the positronium so it's bigger and the electron and positron are not very close and they don't colide (I think this increase the half-life), then they put the positronium inside the cyclotron and when they turn it on the electron escapes but the positron get's trapped.

  • Ono-Sendai

    I think in the case where they don't annihilate they will just scatter off each other.

LoganDark

> As soon as antimatter meets matter, the two tend to annihilate each other.

Tend to... Is there even any scenario at all in which they wouldn't?

DoctorOetker

whats up with all the comments making analogies with AI torture repository?

One might measure the "amount of computation going on" as a proxy for consciousness, but "number of dissipative logic gates" can't be right since one can construct larger reversible circuits containing the same computation (and hence dissipation is a poor measure), although one could then use the total number of bits (including trash bits) as the measure.

but I don't understand why particle physics?

having all other comments (at the time of writing) be about consciousness of individual particles, seems to indicate these commenters specifically believe particle physics or antimatter to directly describe consciousness?

Or is this some kind of "disinfo inoculation campaign" to render us immune to "sentient rights propaganda"?

  • jatora

    It's definitely just jokes due to using the word 'trap'. You might need to get some sleep lol

  • boothby

    Don’t worry! If the single electron theory is correct, then this torture only represents an infinitesimal portion of its total lifetime, which is actually experienced in reverse and so it may feel increasing relief over time rather than increasing anxiety over being trapped.

  • KPGv2

    I don't see comments on SI's website. I assume you mean here. Those are jokes.

    • swores

      To be fair, I can see why they didn't realise that considering none of them are remotely funny.

CamperBob2

Similar work is done at the CERN LHC facility, where they can deliver antimatter to your door. Got a couple of hours? Check out Marco Reps' tour: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yibef6nLCv8

Or cut to the chase at the 'antimatter factory', at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yibef6nLCv8&t=3186s

pizzafeelsright

of course the cyclotron going clockwise.

drsalt

...and will have to deal with the consequences

bozdemir

That's matter cruelty. We need more ethical ways to study those poor things. Does anyone know what happened after the experiment ? Did they finally let it go?

jimnotgym

I hope they took precautions against the Camerlengo stealing it

chrisjj

Needs reporting to the RSPCA.

:)

lifeisstillgood

The parents of the anti-matter particle then freeze time just as the containment is about to explode, allowing Picard and Geordi to wander around the facility looking for clues - until one scientists head slowly turns - they are also awake !!

shireboy

The Ackbar Effect

condour75

It probably got Copenhagen syndrome

Keyboard Shortcuts

j
Next item
k
Previous item
o / Enter
Open selected item
?
Show this help
Esc
Close modal / clear selection