[HN Gopher] Antiproton Orbiting Helium Ion ___________________________________________________________________ Antiproton Orbiting Helium Ion Author : hexo Score : 120 points Date : 2022-03-16 16:11 UTC (6 hours ago) (HTM) web link (arstechnica.com) (TXT) w3m dump (arstechnica.com) | tlogan wrote: | Question: would antiproton with antielectron orbiting around it | be stable as normal hydrogen atom? | | Did somebody made an experiment like that? | [deleted] | Pulcinella wrote: | Yes. It should be indefinitely stable as long as it does not | come into contact with regular matter. | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antihydrogen | nuccy wrote: | If antimatter was created during the Big Bang (and it was, we | actually just don't know why there is more matter than | antimatter [1]) it could exist in issolated-enough patches of | the Universe. Photons, gravitational waves or neutrinos | coming from those regions would not differ in any way, so we | would not be able to identify those regions, up until they | merge with normal-matter-filled ones (which is unlikely due | to accelerated expansion of the Universe [2]). | | 1. https://home.cern/science/physics/matter-antimatter- | asymmetr... | | 2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_expansion_of_ | th... | | Edit: as a matter of fact experiments, like the one described | in the posted paper, allows to shed some light on the | properties of antimatter and why there is more matter in the | Universe (matter-antimatter anisotropy). | breuleux wrote: | > it could exist in issolated-enough patches of the | Universe. Photons, gravitational waves or neutrinos coming | from those regions would not differ in any way, so we would | not be able to identify those regions, up until they merge | with normal-matter-filled ones | | Interesting. So how do we know there actually is more | matter than antimatter in the universe? Couldn't there be a | roughly equal number of sufficiently isolated pockets of | each? | Sharlin wrote: | It is a well-known hypothesis, but space is not empty | enough for it to be consistent with observations at least | within our observable universe. If there really were | antigalaxies or anticlusters out there, we would expect | to observe characteristic gamma ray photons from the | matter-antimatter boundaries where the extremely sparse | but still existing intergalactic medium would interact | and annihilate. | jl6 wrote: | What a bummer - to send an intergalactic probe to a far-off | supercluster only to find it's made of antimatter and you | cannot interact with it (if you survive the close encounter | long enough to find this out). | [deleted] | lmilcin wrote: | Yes and yes. | | As far as we know anti-atoms (antihydrogen in this case) are as | stable as normal atoms. | | To the point where it creates interesting questions -- if | antiatoms are exactly as normal atoms, why we have abundance of | normal matter but not antimatter? | starwind wrote: | AFAIK, anti-hydrogen is very stable on its own and only gets | annihilated because it quickly comes in contact with matter. | | > In November 2010, the ALPHA collaboration announced that they | had trapped 38 antihydrogen atoms for a sixth of a second, the | first confinement of neutral antimatter. In June 2011, they | trapped 309 antihydrogen atoms, up to 3 simultaneously, for up | to 1,000 seconds. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antihydrogen | fasteddie31003 wrote: | So could we make a rocket engine out of this? We would need to | store antiprotons and then shoot them at helium, right? | Robotbeat wrote: | Muons can do something similar, and it has the effect of reducing | the effective radius of the atom, which can catalyze fusion. | | Which makes me wonder... is antiproton catalyzed fusion a thing? | Does the antiproton last long enough? Muons are inefficient to | produce. Can antiprotons be made significantly more efficiently? | marcosdumay wrote: | > is antiproton catalyzed fusion a thing? | | I imagine on any geometry you can create the anti-proton will | be absorbed by the nucleus much quicker than another nucleus | can. | | On what is easier to produce, currently muons are much easier. | ISL wrote: | It is much more difficult to produce antiprotons than muons. | | Furthermore, my guess is that the proton-antiproton | annihilation rate is much faster than the rate of antiproton- | catalyzed fusion. Muon catalysis doesn't have the annihilation | channel (the heavy negatively-charged particle is _always_ | close to one H /D/T nucleus), so it will catalyze fusions all | day until it decays. The antiproton can simply annihilate. | | That said, antiprotons probably would catalyze fusion at some | rate. Whether it is higher or lower than muon catalysis, I'm | not sure. If the antiproton orbital radius is too small, it may | actually lower the capture cross-section for a neighboring | hydrogen, even if the post-capture fusion cross-section is | (almost certainly) higher. | ben_w wrote: | I'm not sure about antiproton _catalyzed_ fusion, but I have | heard of antiproton induced fission induced fusion: | https://space.nss.org/wp-content/uploads/Space-Manufacturing... | jesuslop wrote: | Seems it'd have to be ultra-hot and ultra-cool at the same time | kurthr wrote: | Ok, now have a bosonic anti-alpha (two neutrons and two anti- | protons) orbit in a He4 Bose Condensate! | croddin wrote: | This makes me wonder, if we had a significant amount of anti- | hydrogen (but not enough to make a star), what would be the most | complicated thing we could build out of it, and how would we go | about doing so? (I also asked on: | https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/699258/building-...) | amelius wrote: | As fuel for a reactor? And just colliding it with normal | matter, driving a steam engine would be enough. | nynx wrote: | I'm not sure what you mean by enough to make a star. Stars | don't have antimatter in them. | renewiltord wrote: | One would expect a sufficiently large amount of antihydrogen | to form an antistar. | croddin wrote: | I just mean that most elements besides hydrogen are made in | stars, theoretically with a very large amount of hydrogen you | could make an antimatter star, but without doing that, what | elements, molecules etc would we be able to make, if we had | access to a large amount of anti-hydrogen that was contained | so that it would not annihilate with our matter. | chasil wrote: | Positive beta decay can and does happen, so while this | assertion is correct for all intents and purposes, it is not | strictly accurate. | | One of the potassium-40 decay paths is the emission of a | positron, and this does happen in the human body. Stars with | potassium-40 metalicity would see this beta decay as well. | | "Very rarely (0.001% of events), it decays to 40Ar by | emitting a positron (b+) and a neutrino." | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium-40 | amelius wrote: | Looks like semiconductor physics is about to get more | interesting. Now we have electrons, holes, and antiprotons ... | AnimalMuppet wrote: | You do _not_ want antiprotons in your semiconductors. They will | orbit much more tightly than the electrons; there is nonzero | overlap of their wavefunction with the protons in the nucleus. | There will be interactions (annihilations), and those will | _not_ be good for your semiconductor device. | [deleted] | londons_explore wrote: | Could this lead to a storage mechanism for anti-protons? | fsh wrote: | Antiprotons can be stored pretty much indefinitely (many years) | in cryogenic Penning traps. This is done by the BASE | collaboration at CERN [1] who are actually neighbors of the | group that the article is about. | | [1] https://base.web.cern.ch/ | ethbr0 wrote: | CERN: the only place you can pop over to your neighbor to ask | for a cup^H^H^Hstream of antiprotons. | ISL wrote: | I don't think they're presently operating the antiproton | source, but for decades one could get them at Fermilab, | too. | | https://www.fnal.gov/pub/tevatron/tevatron-operation.html | amelius wrote: | How close does an anti-proton have to come to a proton to become | annihilated? | | And, when a ball of matter and anti-matter collide, will they | completely annihilate, or will the initial impact blast them | apart such that parts will stay intact? Does initial speed | matter? Would we be able to partially annihilate a proton? | hexo wrote: | Antiparticles have oposite quantum numbers, so it means they | also have oposite electric charge. Basicaly, they would attract | as much as possible and, you know, kaboom. This is a compostite | particle made of quarks, which under annihilation produce their | gauge particles - gluons. These quickly undrego hadronization - | will pair-up to produce mesons. These are unstable af so they | decay. Ultimate fate is photons, electrons, positrons and | neutrinos. Even, antiproton can annihilate with neutrons, which | makes sense given similar internal structure. Keep in mind that | during conversions energies are preserved. So that when lighter | particles are produced, they move faster. So yes, it would be | ripped apart, kind of. | amelius wrote: | > Antiparticles have oposite quantum numbers, so it means | they also have oposite electric charge. Basicaly, they would | attract as much as possible and, you know, kaboom. | | This is true, but an electron and nucleus also have opposite | charge, yet the electron typically doesn't drop into the | nucleus all the time. | scrumbledober wrote: | This seems like something that wouldn't even be written about in | sci-fi books because it just doesn't make sense to ever be | possible. It seems impossible to even imagine the implications. | | I also can't imagine future chemistry students needing to | memorize two separate sets of electron and antiproton orbitals. | Pulcinella wrote: | Note that this isn't the first time these kind of "exotic" | atoms have been created. | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exotic_atom | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiprotonic_helium | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antihydrogen | gus_massa wrote: | From Wikipedia: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiprotonic_helium | | > _The antiproton can thus orbit the nucleus for tens of | microseconds, before finally falling to its surface and | annihilating._ | | From the research article: | https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04440-7 | | > _The resonance parent states (37, 35) and (39, 35) have | microsecond-scale lifetimes, whereas the daughter state (38, | 34) has an Auger width GA [?] 21 MHz (ref. 7; Fig. 1b)_ | | The life of the antiproton here is too short to make an | interesting chemistry experiment, but it's long enough to | measure the spectral lines. | ethbr0 wrote: | Dumb question: Why does the antiproton fall to the nucleus' | surface, after orbiting? | photochemsyn wrote: | The stranger case is really the electron, which just sits | there and never falls to the nucleus (that's the original | conundrum of the model of the atom as negative electrons | orbiting a positive nuclear center). Physicists applying QM | to the hydrogen electron found that the electron could only | exist in certain energy levels, and drew the analogy of | standing waves to explain it, hence 'wave equations'. The | electron is no longer a point orbiting another point, but a | wave function delocalized over the entire orbital. | | These electron quantum rules don't work the same for an | antiproton, which is 1800X more massive than an electron. | There's probably some other factors, like the antiproton | can get close enough to the nucleus for strong force | effects etc. | Sharlin wrote: | An electron orbital overlaps with the nucleus, though; | any bound electron can in a very real sense be said to | exist partly inside the nucleus all the time. But | electron-nucleon physics don't care. In particular the | electron does not feel the residual strong force. The | situation is different with a bound antiproton, however. | If the antiproton wavefunction ends up sufficiently | overlapping with the wavefunction of one of the nuclear | protons, they will annihilate. | fsh wrote: | It doesn't. The ground state orbital of the antiproton is | in principle stable, just like the electron orbitals in a | regular atom. The difference is that antiprotons can | annihilate with protons from the helium nucleus when they | get too close. This is why the experiments observe orbitals | with high quantum numbers where the overlap between the | antiproton wavefunction and the nucleus is small. | infogulch wrote: | I think this is a great question because not too long ago | we struggled with the opposite question: How can electron- | based molecules exist at all? (Funny that now I have to | differentiate it from antiproton-based molecules...) The | old model of atoms where electrons 'orbited' | classically/astronomically interpret the electron as | literally circling around the nucleus, and because a moving | charge radiates energy electromagnetically it should shed | it's orbital energy until it reaches the nucleus. This was | a big conundrum way back before we settled on quantum | mechanics, which solves this by recognizing that electrons | 'orbit' is more like an acoustic standing wave and that | there are a small number/ _quanta_ of available states that | the electron can possibly exist in. Electron orbitals are | not continuous or near-continuous, they are very much | _discrete_ , and there is some minimum activation energy | required to shift between the various orbital states. | | This quora answer actually looks like a reasonable | description of the issue past physicists faced: | https://www.quora.com/Why-do-electrons-in-an-atom-keep-a- | dis... | | So I'd guess that the reason why the antiproton's orbit | decays is because its orbital energy levels are "continuous | enough" that its orbital energy can decay smoothly down to | zero. Maybe this is related to the fact that the electron | is relatively massless compared to the antiproton. | | I think it's cool that we found a state of matter where the | old model of atomic orbital motion that we interpreted as a | paradox might be a physically accurate description in this | circumstance. | puzzledobserver wrote: | I am not a physicist, but I suppose it is because the | s-orbital has an amplitude peak at r=0? | | In other words, it is not so much the antiproton falling to | the nuclear surface as much as the antiproton finding | itself at the nuclear surface. | | EDIT: The context is that the antiproton was in an orbital | with large principal and azimuthal quantum numbers. Still, | there would be some non-zero probability of the antiproton | finding itself close to the nucleus, no? | jbay808 wrote: | Could we keep it perpetually in an excited state that has | no amplitude at the centre? | marcosdumay wrote: | It reaches the nucleus by a process of tunneling. You can | never completely stop it, but it reacts exponentially to | you increasing a barrier. | jbay808 wrote: | An excited state isn't a barrier, it's a state with a | higher energy than ground state. Several non-ground-state | orbitals have a wavefunction whose amplitude drops to | zero toward the centre. | | An electron won't tunnel to a location where its | wavefunction amplitude is zero. | TobTobXX wrote: | Not too literate in this, but I'd say that the mass of a | proton is large enough so that quantum effects (such as the | quantization of of energy) become less relevant than | classical mechanics (which lets the antiproton get pulled | toward the proton). | | Correct me if I'm wrong though. | tsimionescu wrote: | You're wrong. Mass has nothing to do (as much as is known | at this time) with quantum effects being important or | not. Quantum mechanics would (as far as we know) work the | same for a 1kg particle as they do for a 1eV particle. | | Instead, the difference is that the antiproton can | interact with a proton and annihilate, while an electron | can barely interact with a proton or neutron outside of | the EM attraction. | noasaservice wrote: | My rudimentary guess is either due to the strong and/or | weak forces combined with lack of orbital/shell velocity. | | The antiproton is negative. | | The protons with neutrons are collectively positive. | | The orbital velocity of the antiproton is slower than that | of an electron (being something like 180x more massive). | | And along with above, the - and + charges attract strongly. | So the antiproton orbit rapidly decays to the nucleus. | gus_massa wrote: | The idea is that electrons, muons and antiprotons have | stable orbitals, where they can stay forever. For one | electrons, muons or antiprotons, they have the same shape | and classification, but they don't have the same size. They | are all stable. | | It's a bad idea to imagine them like a planet orbiting | around the Sun, or that they suddenly make a turn and | decide to head to the nuclei, or that they are going in | spirals until they colide. | | In some case, electrons can interact with the nuclei, and | the nuclei absorbs them, one proton changes into a neutron | and the process releases a neutrino | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_capture But the | electron is in a stable orbital and suddenly it interact | with the nuclei. | | Something similar happens with the antiproton. The | antiproton is in a stable orbital and suddenly it interact | with the nuclei and is annihilated. | BitwiseFool wrote: | It's been a long time since chemistry and physics class, but | isn't "orbital" in this context not the same thing as | gravitational orbits? I was told the concept of orbitals | represented where an electron could exist around a nucleus | and that it wasn't actually traveling in a path bound by the | gravity of the atom. So in this context, how is it actually | falling into it's surface? Is it just tunneling into contact? | [deleted] | gus_massa wrote: | The important force is the electromagnetic, gravity is very | weak and you can ignore it in these systems. | | For only _one_ electron or one antiproton, the orbitals | have the same shape and classification. The only difference | is that the size depends on the mass, so the orbital to put | the antiproton are much smaller than the orbitals to put | the electrons. Note that something similar happens with | muons that have an intermediate mass and the orbital to put | them have an intermediate size. | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_radius | | It's more difficult when you have _many_ electrons or muons | or antiprotons. (I guess nobody had measured a system with | many muons or antiprotons.) If you have many electrons, the | problem is that you must calculate the attraction of the | nuclei and the repulsion of the other electrons, so the | orbitals change. In particular, the filling rules https://e | n.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_configuration#Atoms:_... | don't follow the energies of the orbitals of an isolated | electron. | | In a system with many muons or antiprotons, all of them | will be closer and the repulsion will be bigger, and I | expect weird filling rules. | | Electrons: 1s_up, 1s_down, 2s_up, 2s_down, ... | | ???Antiprotons: 1s_up, 2s_up, 1s_down, 2s_down, ... ??? | | It is possible to calculate the filling order for muons and | antiprotons numerically, but I'm too lazy do do the | calculation now and also the standard programs [1] [2] have | a lot of hidden assumptions to make the calculations with | electrons more efficient and I'm not sure how difficult is | to tweak the entry files to calculate this fast enough. [3] | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_(software) | | [2] | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSI_(computational_chemistry) | | [3] Perhaps it's implemented and I just need to RTFM, but | otherwise it looks too straightforward for a PhD thesis, | but it may be a nice undergraduate thesis. | hateful wrote: | Disclaimer: Not a physicist, but have been watching many | youtube videos. So please correct me if I'm thinking of | this wrong. | | An electron is bound to the nucleus by the electromagnetic | force, but is not a round ball, but a wave distribution of | probabilities. | | I don't know if it's the actual case, but I've been | thinking of all "particles" like "waves" in a pool. Small | disturbances in the fields (e.g. electromagnetic), like | jumping in a pool. The electron IS the disturbance, because | to us that is what we can measure (and we can only measure | one place at a time). So the electron doesn't rotate around | the nucleus - instead its a wave in the same area where the | nucleus is. The electron's "probability wave" disturbs the | space around the nucleus - including inside it, and 1000 | miles away from it. It's just has way more disturbance in | certain places - AKA "the shell" its in. Just like any | wave, it "fades" with distance but who's to say where the | wave ends. | | In fact, that wave isn't exactly the same for every | electron. Each "shell" is waving at a different amplitude | (is amplitude the right analogy?) - and you can only have | so many "waves" add up in a shell simply because there's no | more room because of the length of each wave (like a | spiral-o-graph). You can only put another wave in the gaps | of the previous wave (if you did put two in the same place, | it would double and be part of the next shell, right?). And | when an electron's amplitude changes, e.g. is lowered, the | total energy can't be destroyed, so the difference is | emitted as another wave of the difference - that wave is a | photon. And the same applies when a photon is added to that | wave. Like rowing in the water - the exiting wave and the | rowed wave is added together. I think of Photons are | partial Electrons. They are like the "wake" of an electrons | wave change. | rndphs wrote: | More or less the right idea. There are actually two | fields at play here. The electromagnetic field and the | electron field. The electron field gets quantised into | electrons and the electromagnetic field quantised to | photons. The electron field and the electromagnetic field | are fundamentally separate fields, but they do interact. | Any particle field with a charge can interact with the | electromagnetic field. It's the charge that the electron | field carries that "leaves a wake" in the electromagnetic | field. In this sense photons are no more partial | electrons than they are partial protons. | | In an atom, the electron state energy comes from the | electric potential energy due to the electron's charge | sitting in the electric field produced by the nucleus. | The further out the charge is, the higher the potential | energy (and hence the lower the binding energy). This is | distinct from the electron amplitude. The electron | amplitude is essentially how much electron is present at | a point, and lowering it violates conservation laws | (lepton number, mass, charge). | pdonis wrote: | _> how is it actually falling into it 's surface? Is it | just tunneling into contact?_ | | Kinda sorta. As fsh responded elsewhere in the thread, the | difference between the antiproton and an electron is that | the antiproton can annihilate with one of the protons in | the helium nucleus (since it's an exact antiparticle of the | proton, whereas an electron is not). The probability of | this annihilation happening per unit time depends, roughly | speaking, on how much the antiproton's wave function | overlaps with the wave function of the protons in the | nucleus, which in turn depends on which orbital the | antiproton is in. But the overlap will be nonzero in _any_ | orbital, which means that this configuration is kind of | like a radioactive atom: the question is not whether it | will decay--eventually it will--but how long it will take | on average. The "half-life" of the antiproton | configuration in this experiment was on the order of | microseconds, which is quite long for an antiproton. | jmyeet wrote: | So a free neutron will decay into a proton and an electron. This | already confuses me because the only difference between the | nucleons is an up quark (uud vs ddd) and an electron an a lepton | is a fundamental particle. | | But an electron in an atom won't merge with a proton to form a | neutron. There seems to be some hand waving here around the | strong nuclear force and zero energy state that I don't really | understand. | | But in a neutron star the forces are so great that I believe this | can happen (or how else does neutronium form?). | | And now we see an antiproton can annihilate a proton. Doesn't | this have the same zero energy problem? | | Can someone ELI5? | ladams wrote: | Worth noting that a neutron decays into a proton, an electron, | AND an electron anti-neutrino, so that lepton number is | conserved (electron is +1 and anti-neutrino is -1). This | interaction conserves charge and baryon number as well. | myself248 wrote: | ITYM ELI27.... | [deleted] | vikingerik wrote: | Electrons in an atom do merge with a proton to form a neutron. | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_capture | [deleted] ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-03-16 23:00 UTC)