SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic

Posted: Aug 08 2011 07:08 pm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14405122

A thin band of antimatter particles called antiprotons enveloping the Earth has been spotted for the first time.

The find, described in Astrophysical Journal Letters, confirms theoretical work that predicted the Earth's magnetic field could trap antimatter.

The team says a small number of antiprotons lie between the Van Allen belts of trapped "normal" matter.

The researchers say there may be enough to implement a scheme using antimatter to fuel future spacecraft.

The antiprotons were spotted by the Pamela satellite (an acronym for Payload for Antimatter Matter Exploration and Light-nuclei Astrophysics) - launched in 2006 to study the nature of high-energy particles from the Sun and from beyond our Solar System - so-called cosmic rays.

These cosmic ray particles can slam into molecules that make up the Earth's atmosphere, creating showers of particles.

Many of the cosmic ray particles or these "daughter" particles they create are caught in the Van Allen belts, doughnut-shaped regions where the Earth's magnetic field traps them.

Among Pamela's goals was to specifically look for small numbers of antimatter particles among the far more abundant normal matter particles such as protons and the nuclei of helium atoms.

Much more info in the link above.

Posted: Aug 09 2011 01:20 am

Wow, that is pretty fascinating. Cool shit.

Joined: Dec 06 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 11244

I still don't get how antimater really works. I think I just don't like the idea of naming something as the absence of matter and then suggesting that it has physical properties.

Posted: Aug 09 2011 09:42 am

GPFontaine wrote:

I still don't get how antimater really works. I think I just don't like the idea of naming something as the absence of matter and then suggesting that it has physical properties.

im with you, GP. im totally lost as to what it is since i cant put any tangible value to it.

Joined: Dec 06 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 11244

username wrote:

GPFontaine wrote:

I still don't get how antimater really works. I think I just don't like the idea of naming something as the absence of matter and then suggesting that it has physical properties.

im with you, GP. im totally lost as to what it is since i cant put any tangible value to it.

See, the thing is, it can be measured and it does exist... so why is it named anti?

Posted: Aug 09 2011 11:23 am

GPFontaine wrote:

username wrote:

GPFontaine wrote:

I still don't get how antimater really works. I think I just don't like the idea of naming something as the absence of matter and then suggesting that it has physical properties.

im with you, GP. im totally lost as to what it is since i cant put any tangible value to it.

See, the thing is, it can be measured and it does exist... so why is it named anti?

If my poor memory on the matter serves right, it has to do with the fact that antimatter is made up of antiparticles, which are particles that are the same mass but an opposite charge of it's opposite particle, which is why I guess they are named antiwhatever. You may have heard of their names before. Positron (antielectron), negatron (antiproton), and antineutron (no cool name for that one it seems). Honestly though, I'm probably wrong, so feel free to lambaste me. I never really got all that far into particle physics (it being high school physics and all).

2011 SNES Champ Joined: Dec 04 2006 Posts: 1929

Antimatter + matter = light + a lot of energy. Think of it as nuclear fusion, but 200 times more powerful.

And BlazingGlory is right, except I never heard about negatron, only antiproton.

The "absence of matter" apparently has physical properties, though I don't really understand much : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy

Posted: Aug 09 2011 07:47 pm

lavalarva wrote:

Antimatter + matter = light + a lot of energy. Think of it as nuclear fusion, but 200 times more powerful.

And BlazingGlory is right, except I never heard about negatron, only antiproton.

The "absence of matter" apparently has physical properties, though I don't really understand much : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy

So the "absence of matter" is not the "matter of absence?"

Posted: Aug 09 2011 09:39 pm

lordsathien wrote:

lavalarva wrote:

Antimatter + matter = light + a lot of energy. Think of it as nuclear fusion, but 200 times more powerful.

And BlazingGlory is right, except I never heard about negatron, only antiproton.

The "absence of matter" apparently has physical properties, though I don't really understand much : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy

So the "absence of matter" is not the "matter of absence?"

That was horribly painful to read No... just no.

.

Posted: Aug 09 2011 10:37 pm

BlazingGlory wrote:

lordsathien wrote:

lavalarva wrote:

Antimatter + matter = light + a lot of energy. Think of it as nuclear fusion, but 200 times more powerful.

And BlazingGlory is right, except I never heard about negatron, only antiproton.

The "absence of matter" apparently has physical properties, though I don't really understand much : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy

So the "absence of matter" is not the "matter of absence?"

That was horribly painful to read No... just no.

.

i think he was quoting The Boondocks.

the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence

Posted: Aug 10 2011 03:11 am

username wrote:

BlazingGlory wrote:

lordsathien wrote:

lavalarva wrote:

Antimatter + matter = light + a lot of energy. Think of it as nuclear fusion, but 200 times more powerful.

And BlazingGlory is right, except I never heard about negatron, only antiproton.

The "absence of matter" apparently has physical properties, though I don't really understand much : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy

So the "absence of matter" is not the "matter of absence?"

That was horribly painful to read No... just no.

.

i think he was quoting The Boondocks.

the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence

Which itself was quoting Donald Rumsfield.

Wizard Joined: Jun 12 2009 Posts: 4209

If my understanding of it is right, antimatter doesn't refer to it actually being an absence of matter or anything (terrible wording, but it's late and I can't think properly). As was stated before, antimatter actually means a particle of the same type as regular matter, but with a completely opposite charge. That's why it clashes so powerfully with regular matter.

Posted: Aug 11 2011 05:34 am

The absence of matter? There is no such thing. How could you scale it?

Wizard Joined: Jun 12 2009 Posts: 4209

i'll_bite_your_ear wrote:

The absence of matter? There is no such thing. How could you scale it?

Well, that's the point. But there are still a lot of people out there who believe it means just that.