The concept of antimatter is not really new, it was predicted for the very first time in 1931 by Dirac. One year later, Carl D. Anderson discovered the positron. The antiproton was experimentally confirmed in 1955 by physicists Emilio Segrè and Owen Chamberlain, and the antineutron was discovered in proton–proton collisions at Bevatron by Bruce Cork in 1956. We must wait almost 40 years for produce 9 antihydrogen atoms at CERN through the LEAR (Low Energy Antiproton Ring), where antiprotons (produced in a particle accelerator), were shot at xenon clusters. Unfortunately this experiment produce highly energetic/warm antihydrogen atoms, which were unsuitable for detailed study. In addition the probability for producing antihydrogen from one antiproton was only about 10−19, so the method was forgetted as an alternative to produce large amount of antihydrogen atoms.
Following the primary goal of produce "cold" (a few thousand kelvin) antihydrogen atoms, in 2002 and 2004, experiments were successfully carried out by the ATRAP and ATHENA collaborations at CERN. The last need, trapping magnetically and for a non negligible time the anti-atoms, was achieved by the ALPHA collaboration (also at CERN). In November 17th, the ALPHA team announced that they had magnetically trapped 38 antihydrogen atoms for at least 172 ms.
Untrapped antihydrogen atoms annihilating on the inner surface of the ALPHA trap. These are measured by the ALPHA annihilation detector. The events are concentrated at the electrode radius of about 22.3 mm. The coordinates are defined in the Nature article, Figure 1b
Even if ALPHA experiment is considered only as a proof of principle, it's clear that it will lead to more robust trapping techniques and set the bases for a new era of fundamental physics tests. Two major subjects should be studied : the gravitational behaviour of antimatter (indications are that gravity should act on antihydrogen just as it acts on hydrogen) and the matter-antimatter symmetry (according to fundamental physics theories, antihydrogen should have the same spectrum as ordinary hydrogen). Subjecting these kind of anti-atoms to rigorous spectroscopic examination would constitute a compelling, model-independent test of the charge conjugation/parity/time reversal (CPT) theorem. In order to be able for doing these studies, the goal of 100 anti-atoms trapped on a timescale of seconds shall be reached.
What's about antimatter real-world applications ? Even if the techniques for trapping magnetically the antihydrogen atoms seems to be identified, we are far far away of concrete applications. Actually, the efficiency of these methods is very weak (only 38 anti-atoms were cold enough and slow enough to be confined from the interaction of about 107 antiprotons and 7 x 108 positrons) and the incarceration time is very short. As said Cliff Surko, a physicist at the University of California, the harnessing of antimatter as an energy source remains a far-fetched idea. "The problem is that ... it takes so much more energy to make than you get out that it's pretty inefficient," he said. "And you have to go to great lengths to confine it for a long time." "Even if the efficiency of the trapping process is increased, it is fundamentally limited by the amount of antiprotons that can be generated. Therefore I do not see applications in terms of new energy sources or weapons." So Star Trek-style propulsion system shall be wait.
Animation of how antihydrogen is trapped (voice of Prof. Joels Fajans from UC Berkeley):
Trapped antihydrogen, by G. B. Andresen, M. D. Ashkezari, M. Baquero-Ruiz, and others. Nature Advanced Online Publication, November 17 (2010) (doi:10.1038/nature09610) Trapped Antihydrogen
Recent results on the high-profile Fermilab physics experiment Mini Booster Neutrino Experiment, MiniBooNE, suggest the existence of a new elementary like-neutrino particle: a fourth flavor of neutrino. Scientists previously believed three flavors of neutrino exist, but researchers detected in MiniBooNE more oscillations than would be possible if there were only three flavors.This mean "that there are either new particles or forces we had not previously imagined," said Byron Roe, professor emeritus in the Department of Physics, and an author of the paper "Event Excess in the MiniBooNE Search for ν̅ μ→ν̅ e Oscillations". However this fourth flavor would not interact through the weak force, making it harder to find.
This possible new sterile neutrino is on the mouth of physicists and astronomers because it could possible help to understand the matter-antimatter asymmetry of the universe and why the universe is primarily composed of matter, rather than antimatter. Another non less important conclusion is that results seems to violate the "charge-parity symmetry" of the universe, and then the laws of physics could not be applied in the same ways to particles and their counterpart antiparticles.
Even if the results are statistically significant and confirm previously findings (see LSND experiment), the researchers caution that results over longer periods of time are necessary before any change of the actual standard model.
Recent lattice QCD (Quantum ChronoDynamics) simulations madden at the John von Neumann Institute for Computing in Jülich, Germany, confirms that most of our mass comes from virtual quarks and gluons fizzing away in the quantum vacuum. This last statement is reinforced by the fact that with this lattice QCD method, calculations on the proton mass are wrong by 2% only wrt the value measured by experiments.
According to particle physics, the atoms are made up of protons and neutrons (more than 99% of the mass of the visible universe is made up of protons and neutrons), which are themselves composed of smaller particles known as quarks, which in turn are bound by gluons. Problem is that the mass of gluons is zero and the mass of quarks accounts for only 5%. So, where is the missing 95%?
Once again, theory indicates that the energy coming from interactions between quarks and gluons accounts for the excess mass (thanks to Einstein's E=mc2 equation). Gluons give the strong nuclear force necessary to maintain three quarks together to form one proton or neutron. These gluons are constantly popping into existence and disappearing again and the energy of these vacuum fluctuations has to be included in the total mass of the proton and neutron.
This strong nuclear interaction is very well known, it's described by the equations of QCD (Quantum ChronoDynamics), but there are very difficult to solve in order to obtain actual numbers. Even with the method called lattice QCD, the calculations on virtual quarks (pairs of virtual quarks and antiquarks completes the model of the quantum vacuum) involves a matrix of more than 10 000 trillions numbers and there's no computer on Earth that could store such a big matrix in its memory as told Stephan Dürr, team member of the John von Neumann Institute for Computing in Jülich, Germany. Instead of simulates a three quark proton, Dürr's team has used a two-quark proton. In order to obtains some results, a parallel computer network that can handle 200 teraflops, has been used for almost 1 year. Without the quarks, earlier simulations got the proton mass wrong by about 10%. With them, Dürr gets a figure within 2% of the value measured by experiments.
Thus, Jürr's team present a full ad initio calculation for predicting accurately the masses of protons, neutrons, and other quark based particles using lattice QCD. They suggest that QCD is the theory of the strong interaction, at low energies as well, and furthermore that lattice studies have reached the stage where all uncertainties can be fully controlled. Furthermore, this study confirms the Standard Model (thanks God!) and the fact that most of our mass comes from virtual quarks and gluons fizzing away in the quantum vacuum.
What's next? To confirm another piece of the Standard Model puzzle, that is, to confirm that the Higgs field add also a small amount of mass to individual quarks, electrons and some other particles in the form of virtual Higgs bosons. The Large Hadron Collider will search for these Higgs bosons when it starts up at the middle of 2009. If the "God particle" is not observed next months in the LHC, that will not radically change the Standard Model (it’s just a model and we can adjust it if necessary) or our vision of the Universe; but if it exists, then we could concentrate our efforts in a new vision of the matter: the supersymmetry.
References:
Ab Initio Determination of Light Hadron Masses S. Dürr (1), Z. Fodor (1,2,3), J. Frison (4), C. Hoelbling (2,3,4), R. Hoffmann (2), S. D. Katz (2,3), S. Krieg (2), T. Kurth (2), L. Lellouch (4), T. Lippert (2,5), K. K. Szabo (2), G. Vulvert (4).
(1) John von Neumann–Institut für Computing, Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron Zeuthen, D-15738 Zeuthen and Forschungszentrum Jülich, D-52425 Jülich, Germany. (2) Bergische Universität Wuppertal, Gaussstrasse 20, D-42119 Wuppertal, Germany. (3) Institute for Theoretical Physics, Eötvös University, H-1117 Budapest, Hungary. (4) Centre de Physique Théorique (UMR 6207 du CNRS et des Universités d'Aix-Marseille I, d'Aix-Marseille II et du Sud Toulon-Var, affiliée à la FRUMAM), Case 907, Campus de Luminy, F-13288, Marseille Cedex 9, France. (5) Jülich Supercomputing Centre, FZ Jülich, D-52425 Jülich, Germany.