stevenalowe4 minutes ago
Unclear on the size of the apparatus require to secure the 92 anti-protons - did it occupy the entire truck?
voidUpdate4 hours ago
If containment was to fail, it the total energy released would have been approximately 2.766 * 10 ^ -8 J, so it wasn't particularly dangerous
steve_adams_8624 minutes ago
It would be trivial to reroute power from the secondary systems to the forward shields anyway
techsystems17 minutes ago
[dead]
comrade12344 hours ago
What is that in firecrackers?
Gemini says a firecracker releases 150 J, so yeah not a lot.
Anonbrit4 hours ago
It's a fraction of the energy released when an unlit fire cracker is dropped an inch. Basically unmeasurable
voidUpdate4 hours ago
Wolfram Alpha says its approximately the kinetic energy of a mosquito in flight
schindlabua3 hours ago
Which seems suprisingly high given that it's 92 protons worth of antimatter!
dandellion3 hours ago
Definitely, I've had a mosquito hit me while flying and you can actually feel it hit your skin.
api3 hours ago
E=mc^2 and c^2 is a big number.
nextaccountic8 minutes ago
indeed, but note that c^2 is just a factor to convert between units here and is completely arbitrary (or rather, c is so high because our units are human scale)
indeed, in the most natural systems of units in this area, we set c = 1 as to simplify the equations
nikhilisvalid2 hours ago
Wolfram Alpha says it's approximately _one-sixth_ the kinetic energy of a mosquito in flight
tczMUFlmoNk2 hours ago
When we're talking scales like 10^-23, "one" and "one sixth" are comparable enough to warrant an "approximately".
idiotsecant2 hours ago
I'm not sure! One is just barely within human scale and one isn't. I think I could feel the impact of a mosquito on a sufficiently sensitive patch of skin. I'm not sure I could do the same with one sixth of a mosquito. Its like the difference between something I can lift (100 lb) and something I definitely cannot lift (600lb)
dylan6043 hours ago
Baby steps on our way to a Dan Brown scene lighting up the night sky
vivid2423 hours ago
It was on the radio here (I live on its route)- the ‚receiving’ physicist said it would be way less than what we catch anyway from daily cosmic radiation.
AnimalMuppet3 hours ago
For 92 protons? So 3*10^-10 J per proton?
For a tiny number, that is still insanely high...
[deleted]3 hours agocollapsed
swiftcoder3 hours ago
I definitely was expecting "transported" to be some kind of teleportation when I clicked this link. Too much sci-fi!
rbanffy3 hours ago
Much safer than Starfleet fuel tanks.
MengerSponge2 hours ago
Surprisingly, teleportation is easier.
drob5183 hours ago
Totally sounded like Star Trek. LOL. I imagined Mr. Scott yelling something about the transporters not being able to lock onto the antimatter.
diwank27 minutes ago
Angels & Demons anyone?
csense3 hours ago
From a layman's point of view antimatter seems like an ideal spacecraft fuel. It's as energy dense as E = mc^2 allows, and if you have infrastructure to make it, the only input you need to produce it is electricity.
Being able to transport it seems like an important piece of that puzzle.
Production and storage would need to be scaled by many orders of magnitude, but that's merely an engineering problem...right?
pfdietzan hour ago
The confinement scheme used here is likely a Penning Trap. Such devices are limited in the amount of antimatter they can store by the Brillouin limit. The energy stored will be no more than the magnetic energy of the field of the trap, and so much less than the explosive yield of a mass of TNT (say) equal to the mass of the trap.
[deleted]13 minutes agocollapsed
bovermyer2 hours ago
From a layman's point of view, I'm more interested in antimatter's potential as a weapon.
Not necessarily because I want to use it, but because I have a vague idea of what it's capable of, and what that would mean in the hands of certain groups capable of producing it.
pfdietzan hour ago
The big advantage of nuclear weapons is they are very cheap per unit of energy yield. Bang for the buck, if you will.
Antimatter production is so inefficient that they will be much more expensive per unit energy yield.
garciasn13 minutes ago
There are a lot of completely random statements about how much a gram costs floating around out there. Anywhere from $60T to $3,000T.
According to, Michael Doser, a prominent particle physicist at CERN, "one 100th of a nanogram [of antimatter] costs as much as one kilogram of gold."
S: https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2023-02-19/antimatter-fa...
ReptileManan hour ago
Not that great. Chances are you will destroy your country before you destroy some other.
mastersummoneran hour ago
That's just an engineering problem as well.
fragmede9 minutes ago
Not to be dramatic, but wouldn't that level of destruction threaten all life on Earth? After the immediate destruction of the first county, extreme climate change would cause the same kind of problems as nuclear winter would, no?
amelius2 hours ago
> ideal spacecraft fuel
If you're ok with the looming threat of total annihilation.
I suppose at least it will kill you faster than your neurons can communicate so you wouldn't even notice.
teiferer2 hours ago
> If you're ok with the looming threat of total annihilation.
Don't you have that problem with any energy-dense fuel? It's just that it doesn get more dense than that, so you can be very space and weight efficient.
It's like everybody saying that a hydrogen car is a rolling bomb because of the energy stored in the hydrogen. Well, sure, but gasonline has just as much energy stored. Which is the whole point of fuel. To store energy. It's not like you are bringing 100x as much energy with you just because it's hydrogen. So that doesn't make an ICE car any less of a bomb...
Tadpole9181an hour ago
Surely you understand there's a difference?
Liquid gasoline does not spontaneously explode like an action movie. You can put a match in the fuel tank and (presuming infinite oxygen availability) it'd just start a small fire. Heck, may even just give a little puff and then put out the match.
Antimatter in any sufficient fuel quantity, the moment it breaks confinement, will completely annihilate and release ALL it's energy in a single moment, setting off a chain reaction to the remaining antimatter. It's like sitting on an armed nuclear bomb, where you rely on electrified, highly sophisticated containment equipment never failing a single time for months to years... In a radiation-heavy environment known for causing sophisticated electronics to have errors.
And, yes, hydrogen cars were looked at critically because of the perception they can Hindenburg (I'm unsure if it's true or not). Which is a good example because you don't particularly see any hydrogen blimps anymore - we made them illegal because they're dangerous.
im3w1lan hour ago
Volatility and energy content are not necessarily related.
antonvsan hour ago
Antimatter is a completely different story.
The difference is that antimatter annihilates with any normal matter that it comes into contact with. This means you can't just put it in a tank, the way you can with hydrogen. You can't e.g. combine it with some metal to make a metal hydride to make it safer to store, the way you can with hydrogen.
At an absolute minimum, you need extremely strong magnetic confinement and an extremely hard vacuum. And even then, you're going to get collisions with stray atoms and annihilation events which release gamma rays and other radiation products - although shielding is probably the least of your worries in this scenario.
A typical research lab at a university or large corporation can't make a vacuum strong enough to store even tiny quantities of antimatter for more than a few minutes, and they can't produce the magnetic confinement strength required to store macro quantities of it, either.
So the question with an antimatter-powered car is not if it's going to destroy the surrounding region and bathe it in hard radiation, but how many milliseconds (or less) it will take before that inevitably happens.
But probably luckily for us, this is all moot, because we have no way of producing enough antimatter for this to be an issue. If all the antimatter that's ever been created by humans annihilated simultaneously, only scientists monitoring their instruments closely enough would notice, because it's such a microscopic amount.
Edit: for perspective, you'd need about 7 billion times the 92 antiprotons transported in the truck in the story to produce the energy produced by a single grain of gunpowder.
micwan hour ago
You can easily put it into an antimatter tank ;-)
antonvsan hour ago
Only if you wear antimatter gloves while doing it.
Also, now your tank is just fuel as well.
crooked-v2 hours ago
If you're on a spacecraft you're sitting on a tank of rocket fuel anyway. It's the same problem, just slightly less total.
sigmoid102 hours ago
Average human threat perceptions simply aren't useful here. People will also make wild assumptions about what kind of catastrophic thing could happen in aviation and then happily enter their car to drive somewhere without a thought in the world. In fact noone thought about designing gasoline fuel tanks in a safe way before we had cars. Not even really until people started burning. If we're already thinking about transporting antimatter safely today, this kind of technology will probably have an even better track record than planes.
queuebert2 hours ago
Antimatter reactions are about a million times more powerful than conventional combustion. They surpass even nuclear explosions in energy release. That means even a small mishap becomes a large mishap.
ComputerGuruan hour ago
You can carry exactly (or roughly) as much energy in the form of antimatter as you would energy in the form of fuel.
amelius24 minutes ago
The problem is that a tiny leak will eat away your spacecraft, thereby making the situation worse.
amelius2 hours ago
Except rocket fuel lines are often leaking, and the most common cause of launch delays.
With antimatter the tiniest leak will annihilate your ship.
d_silin3 hours ago
Very tough engineering problem. Amount transported is 92 atoms. A mole (1 gram) of anti-hydrogen is 6.23x10^23 atoms.
wiredfool3 hours ago
When I visited CERN, they mentioned that there were some large number of protons in the ring at a time, and the runs would last a significant amount of wall clock time. (Don’t remember the exact numbers, but I think it was like 10^19 atoms of H, and days of wall clock)
The upshot was, it was likely that less than a mol of hydrogen had been run through the ring.
d_silin2 hours ago
If humanity doesn't perish in the next hundred year and masters interplanetary spaceflight, antimatter drive is the logical next step in propulsion after fusion.
Interstellar spaceflight will become (barely) feasible once spaceships can reach velocity between 0.02 to 0.1c are possible. Even assuming non-100% conversion efficiency, antimatter has enough energy density to provide this capability.
JumpCrisscrossan hour ago
> antimatter drive is the logical next step in propulsion after fusion
Maybe. Beamed propulsion makes a hell of a lot more sense in the solar system.
yibg2 hours ago
Not familiar with the subject so genuine question. HOW would antimatter be used as fuel? There is energy released in matter antimatter annihilation, but where would the force to move a spacecraft come from?
jjmarr2 hours ago
> Various antiproton-powered rocket systems have been proposed. All of which rely on the particles released to supply direct thrust or to heat a working fluid by interparticle collisions or by heating a solid core first [14]. There is also the possibility to use the heated working fluid to generate electricity for electric propulsion systems [14].
> Following Fig. 9, beam core and plasma core configurations can produce direct thrust by directing the charged particles produced into an exhaust beam using a magnetic nozzle. Gas core systems use the energy released from the reaction to heat a gas that is exhausted for thrust. Finally, solid core configuration heats a metal core like Tungsten that acts as a heat exchanger to a propellant that is then exhausted from a regular nozzle.
Not the same paper, but goes into more detail.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266620272...
daveguy2 hours ago
The always excellent PBS Space Time recently did an episode on antimatter drives:
[deleted]an hour agocollapsed
BiraIgnacio2 hours ago
my absolutely-non-expert guess is that it would work much like any other fuel? Combine with matter, get a lot of head out of it and use that in the best way we know.
goda902 hours ago
Use the antimatter as an electricity source to power ion thrusters, maybe?
adrianN2 hours ago
Black holes are good star ship engines because they turn everything into Hawking radiation.
throwaway8943452 hours ago
Can you elaborate? Why is HR useful for starship engines?
adrianN42 minutes ago
nkriscan hour ago
I suppose they mean if you could harness Hawking radiation to do useful work, then you could use any matter as fuel.
[deleted]35 minutes agocollapsed
AStrangeMorrow2 hours ago
I am curious about how much energy needs to be expanded to contain the anti-matter. Say it the matter/anti-matter is to be used for propulsion/energy generation can we reach a threshold were we are actually energy positive
brumbelow3 hours ago
“Antimatter in a truck” is great headline material, but the actual advance is portable precision instrumentation.
CERN can make/store the antiprotons, but not measure them as cleanly as they want because the facility itself introduces tiny magnetic fluctuations. So this is really a story about moving the sample to a quieter lab, not moving toward sci-fi antimatter batteries... for now
zahlman44 minutes ago
Yeah, it's really impressive to me that they can make antiparticles, put them in a container, count them, transport them and count them again.
GolfPopper3 hours ago
Nonetheless, "moving antimatter by truck" is pretty SF. More grounded than epic space opera, but stillvery cool.
dekhn2 hours ago
It almost could be a Hollywood movie in the vein of Sorceror. Couple of grizzled CERN vets transporting a volatile load of antimatter across a post-apocalyptic wasteland while being chased by energy terrorists.
imhoguy3 hours ago
Next milestone: put it in Warptruck™ as fuel
antonvs30 minutes ago
A certain car company CEO is about to announce the availability of that in "5-10 years"
sincerely2 hours ago
AI slop account
brumbelow22 minutes ago
wtf? you're slop lol
nout2 hours ago
I was once transporting antipasti and no one wrote HN post about it :(
spbaar2 hours ago
I make a pasta/antipasta joke every time I'm at an italian resteraunt and no one ever laughs :(
Rooster61an hour ago
Annihilation of Italian food is nothing to laugh at, and is in fact a tragedy
dylan604an hour ago
I thought the entire point of being given a plate of Italian food was to annihilate it, followed by some tiramisu.
NanoWar2 hours ago
One cannot image what would happen if antipasti and pasti collide!
rmujica2 hours ago
oh, the canolli!
[deleted]36 minutes agocollapsed
aftbit3 hours ago
How could we make enough antimatter to do something useful? Would we need to go hang out near the sun or deorbit Jupiter's moons with superconducting coils to get enough energy?
throwaway290an hour ago
The more important question is not could we. it's should we
luc_3 hours ago
Setting the plot for Angels and Demons... :D
Mirror: https://archive.ph/JkeMp
[deleted]34 minutes agocollapsed
brendanfinan3 hours ago
eternauta3k3 hours ago
What would a universe with equal amounts of matter and antimatter look like?
a-priori3 hours ago
It would develop into "regions" of space that are entirely matter and others that are entirely antimatter. The boundaries between them would glow as stray particles drift between the regions and are annihilated by contact with the opposing particles.
The fact that we don't see these glowing boundaries in space is evidence that there are not antimatter regions and that the visible universe is almost entirely composed of matter.
PowerElectronix3 hours ago
It would depend on how it's distributed. If it's very homogeneous, totally anihilated. If there are galaxies of matter and galaxies of antimatter, more or less like us with a bit more background radiation.
isolli3 hours ago
How do we know there are no antimatter galaxies far away from us?
dodobirdlord2 hours ago
Mass in the universe appears to be (very) roughly uniformly distributed, so even if there are large bodies of antimatter far away in the universe there would have to be a transition boundary somewhere between here and there where the universe goes from being mostly matter to being mostly antimatter. The universe is big and stuff would sometimes cross this boundary and get annihilated, and if this happened it would be the brightest thing in the sky, briefly outshining entire galaxies. We’ve been watching the sky for a while now and have never observed a bright visual event with the spectral signature of a matter/antimatter annihilation, so we assume there is not such a transition boundary, and by extension that the universe is made up of mostly matter out to the edge of the observable universe.
MengerSponge2 hours ago
Great explanation. One thing to add: annihilation happens with a very specific energy. Even if it was very far away and redshifted and dim, a "bubble" with a very uniform color (photon energy) would be plainly visible.
NitpickLawyeran hour ago
There's a great episode about this on History of the Universe yt channel - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJGaqe5t14g
It talks about symmetries, but has a nice story about this exact hypothetical scenario. (Someone else already replied why this probably isn't possible in our observable universe, but the episode is cool so I thought I'd share)
rbanffy3 hours ago
Very, very bright.
drob5183 hours ago
Annihilated.
Sardtok3 hours ago
Sounds like the start of research ending in antimatter bombs.
NitpickLawyer2 hours ago
Unless we'd be fighting literal alines in space, and need a weapon for them, I think this would be many many many orders of magnitude too expensive / tricky for earth use. We have plenty of non sci-fi big boom sticks already as it is...
zahlman42 minutes ago
The energy used in creating and containing this antimatter was many orders of magnitude greater than it would release on collision with matter.
M95D2 hours ago
The most expensive bomb ever.
alansaber4 hours ago
Only 92 antiprotons but still an exciting feat
observationist3 hours ago
You (briefly) have an antiproton in your possession around once a day, assuming you get an average amount of sunlight. Some days, you might even have two!
cluckindan3 hours ago
This just in: seasonal affective disorder confirmed to be caused by antiproton deficiency
ck239 minutes ago
antimatter is not what the average person thinks it is from science-fiction
https://www.youtube.com/@pbsspacetime/search?query=antimatte...
cozzyd3 hours ago
pssh, antineutrinos are transported all the time!
MengerSponge2 hours ago
That's a contentious statement! We're not sure if they are or aren't.
More accurately: we aren't sure if antineutrinos are the same or different from neutrinos!
d--b2 hours ago
Every time I read one of these, I am amazed by how much stuff superconductivity allows, and how limited we are because it needs ultra low temperatures.
M95D2 hours ago
The disadvantages of water-based life.
fatbird3 hours ago
Imagine the poor post-doc in the back of the truck, no seatbelt, watching and noting anything going on, while the driver is doing donuts in a parking lot to really stress-test the magnetic containment.
[deleted]4 hours agocollapsed
chuckadams3 hours ago
Tell me this involved dilithium crystals. Please tell me this involved dilithium, I want to live in Gene's future.
rbanffy3 hours ago
No. That would have created a warp field around the container.
antonvs27 minutes ago
She canna take much more, cap'n
[deleted]2 hours agocollapsed
ozim3 hours ago
Stop, driver should have license for hauling antimatter and as far as I believe no one is giving those out. That’s major offense in trucking industry.
elil173 hours ago
Yes, only anti-truckers can haul anti-matter since normal CDLs only let you transport ordinary matter. You have to be very careful not to let the anti-trucker go to a ordinary truck stop because things really go down if they run into a ordinary trucker.
kakacik3 hours ago
There is some good greta joke hidden there but I had enough dovnvotes for today
rbanffy3 hours ago
Actually it should require an anti-license.
post-it3 hours ago
I'm glad we have an expert on Swiss commercial trucking regulations here.
jayrot3 hours ago
I know this is all just tongue-in-cheek, but for the record, they only drove it around for 30 min around the lab site, not on the open roads.
ozim3 hours ago
I only want to charge 1CHF for each charged particle hauled in that transport.
[deleted]3 hours agocollapsed
bitbytebane3 hours ago
[dead]