Antimatter

In modern physics, antimatter is defined

as a material composed of the
antiparticle (or "partners") to the
corresponding particles of ordinary
matter.

In theory, a particle and its anti-particle

(e.g., proton and antiproton) have the
same mass as one another, but opposite
electric charge and other differences in
quantum numbers. For example, a proton
has positive charge while an antiproton
has negative charge. A collision between
any particle and its anti-particle partner
is known to lead to their mutual
annihilation, giving rise to various
proportions of intense photons (gamma
rays), neutrinos, and sometimes less-
massive particle–antiparticle pairs.

Annihilation usually results in a release

of energy that becomes available for heat
or work. The amount of the released
energy is usually proportional to the total
mass of the collided matter and
antimatter, in accordance with the
mass–energy equivalence equation,
E = mc2.[1]
Antimatter particles bind with one
another to form antimatter, just as
ordinary particles bind to form normal
matter. For example, a positron (the
antiparticle of the electron) and an
antiproton (the antiparticle of the proton)
can form an antihydrogen atom. Physical
principles indicate that complex
antimatter atomic nuclei are possible, as
well as anti-atoms corresponding to the
known chemical elements.

There is considerable speculation as to

why the observable universe is
composed almost entirely of ordinary
matter, as opposed to an equal mixture
of matter and antimatter. This
asymmetry of matter and antimatter in
the visible universe is one of the great
unsolved problems in physics.[2] The
process by which this inequality between
matter and antimatter particles
developed is called baryogenesis.

Antimatter in the form of anti-atoms is

one of the most difficult materials to
produce. Individual antimatter particles,
however, are commonly produced by
particle accelerators and in some types
of radioactive decay. The nuclei of
antihelium have been artificially
produced with difficulty. These are the
most complex anti-nuclei so far
observed.[3]
Play media Play media
There are some A video
500 terrestrial showing how
gamma-ray scientists used
flashes daily. the Fermi
The red dots Gamma-ray
show those Space
spotted by the Telescope's
Fermi Gamma- gamma-ray
ray Space detector to
Telescope in uncover bursts
2010. The blue of antimatter
areas indicate from
where potential thunderstorms
lighting can
occur for
terrestrial
gamma-ray
flashes.
Formal definition
Antimatter particles can be defined by
their negative baryon number or lepton
number, while "normal" (non-antimatter)
matter particles have a positive baryon or
lepton number.[4][5] These two classes of
particles are the antiparticle partners of
one another.

History of the concept

The idea of negative matter appears in
past theories of matter that have now
been abandoned. Using the once popular
vortex theory of gravity, the possibility of
matter with negative gravity was
discussed by William Hicks in the 1880s.
Between the 1880s and the 1890s, Karl
Pearson proposed the existence of
"squirts"[6] and sinks of the flow of
aether. The squirts represented normal
matter and the sinks represented
negative matter. Pearson's theory
required a fourth dimension for the
aether to flow from and into.[7]

The term antimatter was first used by

Arthur Schuster in two rather whimsical
letters to Nature in 1898,[8] in which he
coined the term. He hypothesized
antiatoms, as well as whole antimatter
solar systems, and discussed the
possibility of matter and antimatter
annihilating each other. Schuster's ideas
were not a serious theoretical proposal,
merely speculation, and like the previous
ideas, differed from the modern concept
of antimatter in that it possessed
negative gravity.[9]

The modern theory of antimatter began

in 1928, with a paper[10] by Paul Dirac.
Dirac realised that his relativistic version
of the Schrödinger wave equation for
electrons predicted the possibility of
antielectrons. These were discovered by
Carl D. Anderson in 1932 and named
positrons (a portmanteau of "positive
electron"). Although Dirac did not himself
use the term antimatter, its use follows
on naturally enough from antielectrons,
antiprotons, etc.[11] A complete periodic
table of antimatter was envisaged by
Charles Janet in 1929.[12]

The Feynman–Stueckelberg
interpretation states that antimatter and
antiparticles are regular particles
traveling backward in time.[13]

Notation
One way to denote an antiparticle is by
adding a bar over the particle's symbol.
For example, the proton and antiproton
are denoted as p and p, respectively. The
same rule applies if one were to address
a particle by its constituent components.
A proton is made up of uud quarks, so an
antiproton must therefore be formed
from uud antiquarks. Another convention
is to distinguish particles by their electric
charge. Thus, the electron and positron
− +
are denoted simply as e and e
respectively. However, to prevent
confusion, the two conventions are never
mixed.

Properties
There are compelling theoretical reasons
to believe that, aside from the fact that
antiparticles have different signs on all
charges (such as electric charge and
spin), matter and antimatter have exactly
the same properties.[14][15] This means a
particle and its corresponding
antiparticle must have identical masses
and decay lifetimes (if unstable). It also
implies that, for example, a star made up
of antimatter (an "antistar") will shine just
like an ordinary star.[16] This idea was
tested experimentally in 2016 by the
ALPHA experiment, which measured the
transition between the two lowest energy
states of antihydrogen. The results,
which are identical to that of hydrogen,
confirmed the validity of quantum
mechanics for antimatter.[17][18]

Origin and asymmetry

Almost all matter observable from the
Earth seems to be made of matter rather
than antimatter. If antimatter-dominated
regions of space existed, the gamma
rays produced in annihilation reactions
along the boundary between matter and
antimatter regions would be
detectable.[19]

Antiparticles are created everywhere in

the universe where high-energy particle
collisions take place. High-energy cosmic
rays impacting Earth's atmosphere (or
any other matter in the Solar System)
produce minute quantities of
antiparticles in the resulting particle jets,
which are immediately annihilated by
contact with nearby matter. They may
similarly be produced in regions like the
center of the Milky Way and other
galaxies, where very energetic celestial
events occur (principally the interaction
of relativistic jets with the interstellar
medium). The presence of the resulting
antimatter is detectable by the two
gamma rays produced every time
positrons annihilate with nearby matter.
The frequency and wavelength of the
gamma rays indicate that each carries
511 keV of energy (i.e., the rest mass of
an electron multiplied by c2).

Observations by the European Space

Agency's INTEGRAL satellite may explain
the origin of a giant antimatter cloud
surrounding the galactic center. The
observations show that the cloud is
asymmetrical and matches the pattern of
X-ray binaries (binary star systems
containing black holes or neutron stars),
mostly on one side of the galactic center.
While the mechanism is not fully
understood, it is likely to involve the
production of electron–positron pairs, as
ordinary matter gains kinetic energy
while falling into a stellar remnant.[20][21]

Antimatter may exist in relatively large

amounts in far-away galaxies due to
cosmic inflation in the primordial time of
the universe. Antimatter galaxies, if they
exist, are expected to have the same
chemistry and absorption and emission
spectra as normal-matter galaxies, and
their astronomical objects would be
observationally identical, making them
difficult to distinguish.[22] NASA is trying
to determine if such galaxies exist by
looking for X-ray and gamma-ray
signatures of annihilation events in
colliding superclusters.[23]

In October 2017, scientists working on

the BASE experiment at CERN reported a
measurement of the antiproton magnetic
moment to a precision of 1.5 parts per
billion.[24][25] It is consistent with the
most precise measurement of the proton
magnetic moment (also made by BASE in
2014), which supports the hypothesis of
CPT symmetry. This measurement
represents the first time that a property
of antimatter is known more precisely
than the equivalent property in matter.

Natural production
Positrons are produced naturally in β+
decays of naturally occurring radioactive
isotopes (for example, potassium-40)
and in interactions of gamma quanta
(emitted by radioactive nuclei) with
matter. Antineutrinos are another kind of
antiparticle created by natural
radioactivity (β− decay). Many different
kinds of antiparticles are also produced
by (and contained in) cosmic rays. In
January 2011, research by the American
Astronomical Society discovered
antimatter (positrons) originating above
thunderstorm clouds; positrons are
produced in gamma-ray flashes created
by electrons accelerated by strong
electric fields in the clouds.[26][27]
Antiprotons have also been found to
exist in the Van Allen Belts around the
Earth by the PAMELA module.[28][29]

Antiparticles are also produced in any

environment with a sufficiently high
temperature (mean particle energy
greater than the pair production
threshold). It is hypothesized that during
the period of baryogenesis, when the
universe was extremely hot and dense,
matter and antimatter were continually
produced and annihilated. The presence
of remaining matter, and absence of
detectable remaining antimatter,[30] is
called baryon asymmetry. The exact
mechanism which produced this
asymmetry during baryogenesis remains
an unsolved problem. One of the
necessary conditions for this asymmetry
is the violation of CP symmetry, which
has been experimentally observed in the
weak interaction.
Recent observations indicate black holes
and neutron stars produce vast amounts
of positron-electron plasma via the
jets.[31][32][33]

Observation in cosmic rays

Satellite experiments have found

evidence of positrons and a few
antiprotons in primary cosmic rays,
amounting to less than 1% of the
particles in primary cosmic rays. This
antimatter cannot all have been created
in the Big Bang, but is instead attributed
to have been produced by cyclic
processes at high energies. For instance,
electron-positron pairs may be formed in
pulsars, as a magnetized neutron star
rotation cycle shears electron-positron
pairs from the star surface. Therein the
antimatter forms a wind which crashes
upon the ejecta of the progenitor
supernovae. This weathering takes place
as "the cold, magnetized relativistic wind
launched by the star hits the non-
relativistically expanding ejecta, a shock
wave system forms in the impact: the
outer one propagates in the ejecta, while
a reverse shock propagates back
towards the star."[34] The former ejection
of matter in the outer shock wave and
the latter production of antimatter in the
reverse shock wave are steps in a space
weather cycle.
Preliminary results from the presently
operating Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer
(AMS-02) on board the International
Space Station show that positrons in the
cosmic rays arrive with no directionality,
and with energies that range from 10
GeV to 250 GeV. In September, 2014, new
results with almost twice as much data
were presented in a talk at CERN and
published in Physical Review
Letters.[35][36] A new measurement of
positron fraction up to 500 GeV was
reported, showing that positron fraction
peaks at a maximum of about 16% of
total electron+positron events, around an
energy of 275 ± 32 GeV. At higher
energies, up to 500 GeV, the ratio of
positrons to electrons begins to fall
again. The absolute flux of positrons also
begins to fall before 500 GeV, but peaks
at energies far higher than electron
energies, which peak about 10 GeV.[37]
These results on interpretation have been
suggested to be due to positron
production in annihilation events of
massive dark matter particles.[38]

Cosmic ray antiprotons also have a much

higher energy than their normal-matter
counterparts (protons). They arrive at
Earth with a characteristic energy
maximum of 2 GeV, indicating their
production in a fundamentally different
process from cosmic ray protons, which
on average have only one-sixth of the
energy.[39]

There is no evidence of complex

antimatter atomic nuclei, such as
antihelium nuclei (i.e., anti-alpha
particles), in cosmic rays. These are
actively being searched for, because the
detection of natural antihelium implies
the existence of large antimatter
structures such as an antistar. A
prototype of the AMS-02 designated
AMS-01, was flown into space aboard the
Space Shuttle Discovery on STS-91 in
June 1998. By not detecting any
antihelium at all, the AMS-01 established
an upper limit of 1.1×10−6 for the
antihelium to helium flux ratio.[40]

Artificial production
Positrons

Positrons were reported[41] in November

2008 to have been generated by
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
in larger numbers than by any previous
synthetic process. A laser drove
electrons through a gold target's nuclei,
which caused the incoming electrons to
emit energy quanta that decayed into
both matter and antimatter. Positrons
were detected at a higher rate and in
greater density than ever previously
detected in a laboratory. Previous
experiments made smaller quantities of
positrons using lasers and paper-thin
targets; however, new simulations
showed that short, ultra-intense lasers
and millimeter-thick gold are a far more
effective source.[42]

Antiprotons, antineutrons, and

antinuclei

The existence of the antiproton was

experimentally confirmed in 1955 by
University of California, Berkeley
physicists Emilio Segrè and Owen
Chamberlain, for which they were
awarded the 1959 Nobel Prize in
Physics.[43] An antiproton consists of two
up antiquarks and one down antiquark (
uud). The properties of the antiproton
that have been measured all match the
corresponding properties of the proton,
with the exception of the antiproton
having opposite electric charge and
magnetic moment from the proton.
Shortly afterwards, in 1956, the
antineutron was discovered in proton–
proton collisions at the Bevatron
(Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory)
by Bruce Cork and colleagues.[44]

In addition to antibaryons, anti-nuclei

consisting of multiple bound antiprotons
and antineutrons have been created.
These are typically produced at energies
far too high to form antimatter atoms
(with bound positrons in place of
electrons). In 1965, a group of
researchers led by Antonino Zichichi
reported production of nuclei of
antideuterium at the Proton Synchrotron
at CERN.[45] At roughly the same time,
observations of antideuterium nuclei
were reported by a group of American
physicists at the Alternating Gradient
Synchrotron at Brookhaven National
Laboratory.[46]

Antihydrogen atoms
In 1995, CERN announced that it had
successfully brought into existence nine
hot antihydrogen atoms by implementing
the SLAC/Fermilab concept during the
PS210 experiment. The experiment was
performed using the Low Energy
Antiproton Ring (LEAR), and was led by
Walter Oelert and Mario Macri.[47]
Fermilab soon confirmed the CERN
findings by producing approximately 100
antihydrogen atoms at their facilities.
The antihydrogen atoms created during
PS210 and subsequent experiments (at
both CERN and Fermilab) were extremely
energetic and were not well suited to
study. To resolve this hurdle, and to gain
a better understanding of antihydrogen,
two collaborations were formed in the
late 1990s, namely, ATHENA and ATRAP.

In 1999, CERN activated the Antiproton

Decelerator, a device capable of
decelerating antiprotons from 3500 MeV
to 5.3 MeV—still too "hot" to produce
study-effective antihydrogen, but a huge
leap forward. In late 2002 the ATHENA
project announced that they had created
the world's first "cold" antihydrogen.[48]
The ATRAP project released similar
results very shortly thereafter.[49] The
antiprotons used in these experiments
were cooled by decelerating them with
the Antiproton Decelerator, passing them
through a thin sheet of foil, and finally
capturing them in a Penning–Malmberg
trap.[50] The overall cooling process is
workable, but highly inefficient;
approximately 25 million antiprotons
leave the Antiproton Decelerator and
roughly 25,000 make it to the Penning–
1
Malmberg trap, which is about 1000 or
0.1% of the original amount.

The antiprotons are still hot when initially

trapped. To cool them further, they are
mixed into an electron plasma. The
electrons in this plasma cool via
cyclotron radiation, and then
sympathetically cool the antiprotons via
Coulomb collisions. Eventually, the
electrons are removed by the application
of short-duration electric fields, leaving
the antiprotons with energies less than
100 meV.[51] While the antiprotons are
being cooled in the first trap, a small
cloud of positrons is captured from
radioactive sodium in a Surko-style
positron accumulator.[52] This cloud is
then recaptured in a second trap near the
antiprotons. Manipulations of the trap
electrodes then tip the antiprotons into
the positron plasma, where some
combine with antiprotons to form
antihydrogen. This neutral antihydrogen
is unaffected by the electric and
magnetic fields used to trap the charged
positrons and antiprotons, and within a
few microseconds the antihydrogen hits
the trap walls, where it annihilates. Some
hundreds of millions of antihydrogen
atoms have been made in this fashion.

In 2005, ATHENA disbanded and some of

the former members (along with others)
formed the ALPHA Collaboration, which
is also based at CERN. The primary goal
of these collaborations is the creation of
less energetic ("cold") antihydrogen,
better suited to study.

In 2016 a new antiproton decelerator and

cooler called ELENA (E Low Energy
Antiproton decelerator) was built. It takes
the antiprotons from the antiproton
decelerator and cools them to 90 keV,
which is "cold" enough to study. This
machine works by using high energy and
accelerating the particles within the
chamber. More than one hundred
antiprotons can be captured per second,
a huge improvement, but it would still
take several thousand years to make a
nanogram of antimatter.

Most of the sought-after high-precision

tests of the properties of antihydrogen
could only be performed if the
antihydrogen were trapped, that is, held
in place for a relatively long time. While
antihydrogen atoms are electrically
neutral, the spins of their component
particles produce a magnetic moment.
These magnetic moments can interact
with an inhomogeneous magnetic field;
some of the antihydrogen atoms can be
attracted to a magnetic minimum. Such a
minimum can be created by a
combination of mirror and multipole
fields.[53] Antihydrogen can be trapped in
such a magnetic minimum (minimum-B)
trap; in November 2010, the ALPHA
collaboration announced that they had so
trapped 38 antihydrogen atoms for about
a sixth of a second.[54][55] This was the
first time that neutral antimatter had
been trapped.

On 26 April 2011, ALPHA announced that

they had trapped 309 antihydrogen
atoms, some for as long as 1,000
seconds (about 17 minutes). This was
longer than neutral antimatter had ever
been trapped before.[56] ALPHA has used
these trapped atoms to initiate research
into the spectral properties of the
antihydrogen.[57]

The biggest limiting factor in the large-

scale production of antimatter is the
availability of antiprotons. Recent data
released by CERN states that, when fully
operational, their facilities are capable of
producing ten million antiprotons per
minute.[58] Assuming a 100% conversion
of antiprotons to antihydrogen, it would
take 100 billion years to produce 1 gram
or 1 mole of antihydrogen (approximately
6.02 × 1023 atoms of anti-hydrogen).

Antihelium
3
Antihelium-3 nuclei ( He) were first
observed in the 1970s in proton–nucleus
collision experiments at the Institute for
High Energy Physics by Y. Prockoshkin's
group (Protvino near Moscow, USSR)[59]
and later created in nucleus–nucleus
collision experiments.[60] Nucleus–
nucleus collisions produce antinuclei
through the coalescense of antiprotons
and antineutrons created in these
reactions. In 2011, the STAR detector
reported the observation of artificially
created antihelium-4 nuclei (anti-alpha
4
particles) ( He) from such collisions.[61]

Preservation

Antimatter cannot be stored in a

container made of ordinary matter
because antimatter reacts with any
matter it touches, annihilating itself and
an equal amount of the container.
Antimatter in the form of charged
particles can be contained by a
combination of electric and magnetic
fields, in a device called a Penning trap.
This device cannot, however, contain
antimatter that consists of uncharged
particles, for which atomic traps are
used. In particular, such a trap may use
the dipole moment (electric or magnetic)
of the trapped particles. At high vacuum,
the matter or antimatter particles can be
trapped and cooled with slightly off-
resonant laser radiation using a
magneto-optical trap or magnetic trap.
Small particles can also be suspended
with optical tweezers, using a highly
focused laser beam.[62]

In 2011, CERN scientists were able to

preserve antihydrogen for approximately
17 minutes.[63] By 2018, containment
technology advanced to the point of
containing a billion anti-protons in a
portable device to be driven to another
lab for further experimentation.[64]

Cost

Scientists claim that antimatter is the

costliest material to make.[65] In 2006,
Gerald Smith estimated $250 million
could produce 10 milligrams of
positrons[66] (equivalent to $25 billion per
gram); in 1999, NASA gave a figure of
$62.5 trillion per gram of
antihydrogen.[65] This is because
production is difficult (only very few
antiprotons are produced in reactions in
particle accelerators), and because there
is higher demand for other uses of
particle accelerators. According to CERN,
it has cost a few hundred million Swiss
francs to produce about 1 billionth of a
gram (the amount used so far for
particle/antiparticle collisions).[67] In
comparison, to produce the first atomic
weapon, the cost of the Manhattan
Project was estimated at $23 billion with
inflation during 2007.[68]

Several studies funded by the NASA

Institute for Advanced Concepts are
exploring whether it might be possible to
use magnetic scoops to collect the
antimatter that occurs naturally in the
Van Allen belt of the Earth, and ultimately,
the belts of gas giants, like Jupiter,
hopefully at a lower cost per gram.[69]

Uses
Medical

Matter–antimatter reactions have

practical applications in medical imaging,
such as positron emission tomography
(PET). In positive beta decay, a nuclide
loses surplus positive charge by emitting
a positron (in the same event, a proton
becomes a neutron, and a neutrino is
also emitted). Nuclides with surplus
positive charge are easily made in a
cyclotron and are widely generated for
medical use. Antiprotons have also been
shown within laboratory experiments to
have the potential to treat certain
cancers, in a similar method currently
used for ion (proton) therapy.[70]

Fuel

Isolated and stored anti-matter could be

used as a fuel for interplanetary or
interstellar travel[71] as part of an
antimatter catalyzed nuclear pulse
propulsion or other antimatter rocketry,
such as the redshift rocket. Since the
energy density of antimatter is higher
than that of conventional fuels, an
antimatter-fueled spacecraft would have
a higher thrust-to-weight ratio than a
conventional spacecraft.

If matter–antimatter collisions resulted

only in photon emission, the entire rest
mass of the particles would be converted
to kinetic energy. The energy per unit
mass (9 × 1016 J/kg) is about 10 orders
of magnitude greater than chemical
energies,[72] and about 3 orders of
magnitude greater than the nuclear
potential energy that can be liberated,
today, using nuclear fission (about
200 MeV per fission reaction[73] or
8 × 1013 J/kg), and about 2 orders of
magnitude greater than the best possible
results expected from fusion (about
6.3 × 1014 J/kg for the proton–proton
chain). The reaction of 1 kg of antimatter
with 1 kg of matter would produce
1.8 × 1017 J (180 petajoules) of energy
(by the mass–energy equivalence
formula, E = mc2), or the rough equivalent
of 43 megatons of TNT – slightly less
than the yield of the 27,000 kg Tsar
Bomba, the largest thermonuclear
weapon ever detonated.

Not all of that energy can be utilized by

any realistic propulsion technology
because of the nature of the annihilation
products. While electron–positron
reactions result in gamma ray photons,
these are difficult to direct and use for
thrust. In reactions between protons and
antiprotons, their energy is converted
largely into relativistic neutral and
charged pions. The neutral pions decay
almost immediately (with a lifetime of 85
attoseconds) into high-energy photons,
but the charged pions decay more slowly
(with a lifetime of 26 nanoseconds) and
can be deflected magnetically to produce
thrust.

Charged pions ultimately decay into a

combination of neutrinos (carrying about
22% of the energy of the charged pions)
and unstable charged muons (carrying
about 78% of the charged pion energy),
with the muons then decaying into a
combination of electrons, positrons and
neutrinos (cf. muon decay; the neutrinos
from this decay carry about 2/3 of the
energy of the muons, meaning that from
the original charged pions, the total
fraction of their energy converted to
neutrinos by one route or another would
be about 0.22 + (2/3)⋅0.78 = 0.74).[74]

Weapons

Antimatter has been considered as a

trigger mechanism for nuclear
weapons.[75] A major obstacle is the
difficulty of producing antimatter in large
enough quantities, and there is no
evidence that it will ever be feasible.[76]
However, the U.S. Air Force funded
studies of the physics of antimatter in
the Cold War, and began considering its
possible use in weapons, not just as a
trigger, but as the explosive itself.[77]

See also
Antimatter comet
Ambiplasma
Gravitational interaction of antimatter

References
1. "Smidgen of Antimatter Surrounds
Earth" . 11 August 2011. Archived from
the original on 26 September 2011.
2. David Tenenbaum, David, One step
closer: UW-Madison scientists help
explain scarcity of antimatter Archived
28 December 2012 at the Wayback
Machine., University of Wisconsin—
Madison News, December 26, 2012
3. Agakishiev, H.; et al. (STAR
Collaboration) (2011). "Observation of the
antimatter helium-4 nucleus". Nature. 473
(7347): 353–356. arXiv:1103.3312  .
Bibcode:2011Natur.473..353S .
doi:10.1038/nature10079 .
PMID 21516103 .
4. Tsan, Ung Chan (2013). "Mass, Matter,
Materialization, Mattergenesis and
Conservation of Charge". International
Journal of Modern Physics E. 22 (5):
1350027.
Bibcode:2013IJMPE..2250027T .
doi:10.1142/S0218301313500274 .
“Matter conservation means conservation
of baryonic number A and leptonic
number L, A and L being algebraic
numbers. Positive A and L are associated
to matter particles, negative A and L are
associated to antimatter particles. All
known interactions do conserve matter.”
5. Tsan, U. C. (2012). "Negative Numbers
And Antimatter Particles". International
Journal of Modern Physics E. 21 (1):
1250005.
Bibcode:2012IJMPE..2150005T .
doi:10.1142/S021830131250005X .
“Antimatter particles are characterized by
negative baryonic number A or/and
negative leptonic number L.
Materialization and annihilation obey
conservation of A and L (associated to all
known interactions).”
6. K. Pearson (1891). "Ether Squirts".
American Journal of Mathematics. 13 (4):
309–72. doi:10.2307/2369570 .
JSTOR 2369570 .
7. H. Kragh (2002). Quantum Generations:
A History of Physics in the Twentieth
Century. Princeton University Press.
pp. 5–6. ISBN 0-691-09552-3.
8. A. Schuster (1898). "Potential Matter.—
A Holiday Dream". Nature. 58 (1503): 367.
Bibcode:1898Natur..58..367S .
doi:10.1038/058367a0 .
9. E. R. Harrison (2000-03-16).
Cosmology: The Science of the Universe
(2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
pp. 266, 433. ISBN 0-521-66148-X.
10. P. A. M. Dirac (1928). "The Quantum
Theory of the Electron". Proceedings of
the Royal Society A. 117 (778): 610–624.
Bibcode:1928RSPSA.117..610D .
doi:10.1098/rspa.1928.0023 .
JSTOR 94981 .
11. M. Kaku; J. T. Thompson; Jennifer
Trainer Thompson (1997). Beyond
Einstein: The Cosmic Quest for the Theory
of the Universe. Oxford University Press.
pp. 179–180. ISBN 0-19-286196-4.
12. P. J. Stewart (2010). "Charles Janet:
Unrecognized genius of the periodic
system". Foundations of Chemistry. 12
(1): 5–15. doi:10.1007/s10698-008-9062-
5.
13. Canetti, L., Drewes, M., and
Shaposhnikov, M. (2012). Matter and
antimatter in the universe. New J. Phys.
14 (9), 095012.
14. Dolgov, A. D. (2002). "Cosmological
Matter-Antimatter Asymmtery and
Antimatter in the Universe". arXiv:hep-
ph/0211260  .
15. This is a consequence of the CPT
theorem
16. P.A.M. Dirac, Physics Nobel Lectures,
2 324 (Amsterdam-London-New York,
Elsevier, 1933).
17. "Ephemeral antimatter atoms pinned
down in milestone laser test" . Nature. 19
December 2016. Archived from the
original on 20 December 2016. Retrieved
20 December 2016.
18. Ahmadi, M; et al. (19 December 2016).
"Observation of the 1S–2S transition in
trapped antihydrogen" (PDF). Nature. 541
(7638): 506–510.
Bibcode:2017Natur.541..506A .
doi:10.1038/nature21040 .
PMID 28005057 . Archived (PDF) from the
original on 19 April 2017.
19. E. Sather (1999). "The Mystery of the
Matter Asymmetry" (PDF). Beam Line. 26
(1): 31.
20. "Integral discovers the galaxy's
antimatter cloud is lopsided" . European
Space Agency. 9 January 2008. Archived
from the original on 18 June 2008.
Retrieved 24 May 2008.
21. G. Weidenspointner; et al. (2008). "An
asymmetric distribution of positrons in
the Galactic disk revealed by γ-rays".
Nature. 451 (7175): 159–162.
Bibcode:2008Natur.451..159W .
doi:10.1038/nature06490 .
PMID 18185581 .
22. Close, F. E. (2009-01-22). Antimatter.
Oxford University Press US. p. 114.
ISBN 0-19-955016-6.
23. "Searching for Primordial Antimatter" .
NASA. 30 October 2008. Archived from
the original on 16 March 2010. Retrieved
18 June 2010.
24. Adamson, Allan (19 October 2017).
"Universe Should Not Actually Exist: Big
Bang Produced Equal Amounts Of Matter
And Antimatter" . [Link].
Archived from the original on 26 October
2017. Retrieved 26 October 2017.
25. Smorra C.; et al. (20 October 2017). "A
parts-per-billion measurement of the
antiproton magnetic moment" . Nature.
550: 371–374.
Bibcode:2017Natur.550..371S .
doi:10.1038/nature24048 . Archived
from the original on 20 October 2017.
Retrieved 26 October 2017.
26. "Antimatter caught streaming from
thunderstorms on Earth" . BBC. 11
January 2011. Archived from the original
on 12 January 2011. Retrieved 11 January
2011.
27. Scientifi[Link]. "Rogue
Antimatter Found in Thunderclouds" .
Archived from the original on 14 May
2015. Retrieved 14 May 2015.
28. Adriani, O.; Barbarino, G. C.;
Bazilevskaya, G. A.; Bellotti, R.; Boezio, M.;
Bogomolov, E. A.; Bongi, M.; Bonvicini, V.;
Borisov, S.; Bottai, S.; Bruno, A.; Cafagna,
F.; Campana, D.; Carbone, R.; Carlson, P.;
Casolino, M.; Castellini, G.; Consiglio, L.;
De Pascale, M. P.; De Santis, C.; De
Simone, N.; Di Felice, V.; Galper, A. M.;
Gillard, W.; Grishantseva, L.; Jerse, G.;
Karelin, A. V.; Kheymits, M. D.; Koldashov,
S. V.; Krutkov, S. Y. (2011). "The Discovery
of Geomagnetically Trapped Cosmic-Ray
Antiprotons". The Astrophysical Journal
Letters. 737 (2): L29. arXiv:1107.4882  .
Bibcode:2011ApJ...737L..29A .
doi:10.1088/2041-8205/737/2/L29 .
29. Than, Ker (10 August 2011).
"Antimatter Found Orbiting Earth—A
First" . National Geographic Society.
Archived from the original on 10 October
2011. Retrieved 12 August 2011.
30. "What's the Matter with Antimatter?" .
NASA. 29 May 2000. Archived from the
original on 4 June 2008. Retrieved
24 May 2008.
31. "Electron-positron Jets Associated
with Quasar 3C 279" (PDF). Archived
(PDF) from the original on 4 April 2016.

32. "NASA - Vast Cloud of Antimatter

Traced to Binary Stars" . Archived from
the original on 7 March 2016.
33. Science With Integral on YouTube
start FOUR minutes into video: Sagittarius
produces 15 billion tons/sec of electron-
positron matter
34. Serpico, Pasquale D. "Astrophysical
models for the origin of the positron
"excess"." Astroparticle Physics 39 (2012):
2-11.
35. L. Accardo; et al. (AMS Collaboration)
(18 September 2014). "High Statistics
Measurement of the Positron Fraction in
Primary Cosmic Rays of 0.5–500 GeV
with the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer on
the International Space Station" (PDF).
Physical Review Letters. 113: 121101.
Bibcode:2014PhRvL.113l1101A .
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.121101 .
Archived (PDF) from the original on 17
October 2014.
36. Schirber, Michael. "Synopsis: More
Dark Matter Hints from Cosmic Rays?" .
American Physical Society. Archived
from the original on 20 September 2014.
Retrieved 21 September 2014.
37. "New results from the Alpha
Magnetic$Spectrometer on the
International Space Station" (PDF). AMS-
02 at NASA. Archived (PDF) from the
original on 23 September 2014. Retrieved
21 September 2014.
38. Aguilar, M.; Alberti, G.; Alpat, B.; Alvino,
A.; Ambrosi, G.; Andeen, K.; Anderhub, H.;
Arruda, L.; Azzarello, P.; Bachlechner, A.;
Barao, F.; Baret, B.; Barrau, A.; Barrin, L.;
Bartoloni, A.; Basara, L.; Basili, A.; Batalha,
L.; Bates, J.; Battiston, R.; Bazo, J.; Becker,
R.; Becker, U.; Behlmann, M.; Beischer, B.;
Berdugo, J.; Berges, P.; Bertucci, B.;
Bigongiari, G.; et al. (2013). "First Result
from the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer on
the International Space Station: Precision
Measurement of the Positron Fraction in
Primary Cosmic Rays of 0.5–350 GeV" .
Physical Review Letters. 110 (14):
141102.
Bibcode:2013PhRvL.110n1102A .
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.141102 .
PMID 25166975 . Archived from the
original on 19 April 2017.
39. Moskalenko, I. V.; Strong, A. W.;
Ormes, J. F.; Potgieter, M. S. (January
2002). "Secondary antiprotons and
propagation of cosmic rays in the Galaxy
and heliosphere" . The Astrophysical
Journal. 565 (1): 280–296. arXiv:astro-
ph/0106567  .
Bibcode:2002ApJ...565..280M .
doi:10.1086/324402 .
40. AMS Collaboration; Aguilar, M.;
Alcaraz, J.; Allaby, J.; Alpat, B.; Ambrosi,
G.; Anderhub, H.; Ao, L.; et al. (August
2002). "The Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer
(AMS) on the International Space Station:
Part I – results from the test flight on the
space shuttle". Physics Reports. 366 (6):
331–405. Bibcode:2002PhR...366..331A .
doi:10.1016/S0370-1573(02)00013-3 .
hdl:2078.1/72661 .
41. "Billions of particles of anti-matter
created in laboratory" (Press release).
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
3 November 2008. Retrieved
19 November 2008.
42. "Laser creates billions of antimatter
particles" . Cosmos Magazine. 19
November 2008. Archived from the
original on 22 May 2009. Retrieved 1 July
2009.
43. "All Nobel Prizes in Physics" .
Archived from the original on 23 July
2010.
44. "Breaking Through: A Century of
Physics at Berkeley, 1868–1968" .
Regents of the University of California.
2006. Archived from the original on 18
November 2010. Retrieved 18 November
2010.
45. Massam, T; Muller, Th.; Righini, B.;
Schneegans, M.; Zichichi, A. (1965).
"Experimental observation of antideuteron
production". Il Nuovo Cimento. 39: 10–14.
Bibcode:1965NCimS..39...10M .
doi:10.1007/BF02814251 .
46. Dorfan, D. E; Eades, J.; Lederman, L.
M.; Lee, W.; Ting, C. C. (June 1965).
"Observation of Antideuterons". Phys. Rev.
Lett. 14 (24): 1003–1006.
Bibcode:1965PhRvL..14.1003D .
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.14.1003 .
47. Gabrielse, Gerald, and Hartmut
Kalinowsky. The production and study of
cold antihydrogen. No. SPSLC-I-211.
1996.
48. M. Amoretti; et al. (2002). "Production
and detection of cold antihydrogen
atoms" . Nature. 419 (6906): 456–9.
Bibcode:2002Natur.419..456A .
doi:10.1038/nature01096 .
PMID 12368849 .
49. G. Gabrielse; et al. (2002).
"Background-free observation of cold
antihydrogen with field ionization analysis
of its states" . Physical Review Letters. 89
(21): 213401.
Bibcode:2002PhRvL..89u3401G .
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.213401 .
PMID 12443407 .
50. J. H. Malmberg; J. S. deGrassie
(1975). "Properties of a nonneutral
plasma". Physical Review Letters. 35 (9):
577–580.
Bibcode:1975PhRvL..35..577M .
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.35.577 .
51. G. Gabrielse; et al. (1989). "Cooling
and slowing of trapped antiprotons below
100 meV". Physical Review Letters. 63
(13): 1360–1363.
Bibcode:1989PhRvL..63.1360G .
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.63.1360 .
PMID 10040547 .
52. C. M. Surko; R. G. Greaves (2004).
"Emerging science and technology of
antimatter plasmas and trap-based
beams". Physics of Plasmas. 11 (5):
2333. Bibcode:2004PhPl...11.2333S .
doi:10.1063/1.1651487 .
53. D. E. Pritchard; Heinz, T.; Shen, Y.
(1983). "Cooling neutral atoms in a
magnetic trap for precision
spectroscopy". Physical Review Letters.
51 (21): 1983–1986.
Bibcode:1983PhRvL..51.1983T .
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.51.1983 .
54. Andresen; Ashkezari, M. D.; Baquero-
Ruiz, M.; Bertsche, W.; Bowe, P. D.; Butler,
E.; Cesar, C. L.; Chapman, S.; et al. (2010).
"Trapped antihydrogen". Nature. 468
(7324): 673–676.
Bibcode:2010Natur.468..673A .
doi:10.1038/nature09610 .
PMID 21085118 .
55. "Antimatter atoms produced and
trapped at CERN" . CERN. 17 November
2010. Archived from the original on 23
January 2011. Retrieved 20 January 2011.
56. ALPHA Collaboration (2011).
"Confinement of antihydrogen for 1,000
seconds". Nature Physics. 7 (7): 558–564.
arXiv:1104.4982  .
Bibcode:2011NatPh...7..558A .
doi:10.1038/nphys2025 .
57. Amole, C.; Ashkezari, M. D.; Baquero-
Ruiz, M.; Bertsche, W.; Bowe, P. D.; Butler,
E.; Capra, A.; Cesar, C. L.; Charlton, M.;
Deller, A.; Donnan, P. H.; Eriksson, S.;
Fajans, J.; Friesen, T.; Fujiwara, M. C.; Gill,
D. R.; Gutierrez, A.; Hangst, J. S.; Hardy, W.
N.; Hayden, M. E.; Humphries, A. J.; Isaac,
C. A.; Jonsell, S.; Kurchaninov, L.; Little, A.;
Madsen, N.; McKenna, J. T. K.; Menary, S.;
Napoli, S. C.; Nolan, P. (2012). "Resonant
quantum transitions in trapped
antihydrogen atoms" (PDF). Nature. 483
(7390): 439–443.
Bibcode:2012Natur.483..439A .
doi:10.1038/nature10942 .
hdl:11568/757495 . PMID 22398451 .
58. N. Madsen (2010). "Cold
antihydrogen: a new frontier in
fundamental physics" . Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society A. 368
(1924): 3671–82.
Bibcode:2010RSPTA.368.3671M .
doi:10.1098/rsta.2010.0026 .
PMID 20603376 . Archived from the
original on 26 January 2016.
59. Y.M. Antipov; et al. (1974).
"Observation of antihelium3 (in Russian)".
Yadernaya Fizika. 12: 311.
60. R. Arsenescu; et al. (2003).
"Antihelium-3 production in lead–lead
collisions at 158 A GeV/c". New Journal
of Physics. 5: 1.
Bibcode:2003NJPh....5....1A .
doi:10.1088/1367-2630/5/1/301 .
61. H. Agakishiev; et al. (2011).
"Observation of the antimatter helium-4
nucleus". Nature. 473: 353–356.
arXiv:1103.3312  .
Bibcode:2011Natur.473..353S .
doi:10.1038/nature10079 .
PMID 21516103 .
62. Blaum, Klaus, Mark G. Raizen, and
Wolfgang Quint. "An experimental test of
the weak equivalence principle for
antihydrogen at the future FLAIR facility."
International Journal of Modern Physics:
Conference Series. Vol. 30. The Authors,
2014.
63. Antimatter of Fact Archived 17
February 2014 at the Wayback Machine.
The Economist.. 9 June 2011
64. Gibney, Elizabeth (20 February 2018).
"Physicists plan antimatter's first outing —
in a van" . Nature News. Nature. Archived
from the original on 20 February 2018.
Retrieved 20 February 2018.
65. "Reaching for the stars: Scientists
examine using antimatter and fusion to
propel future spacecraft" . NASA. 12 April
1999. Archived from the original on 12
June 2010. Retrieved 11 June 2010.
“Antimatter is the most expensive
substance on Earth”
66. B. Steigerwald (14 March 2006). "New
and Improved Antimatter Spaceship for
Mars Missions" . NASA. Archived from
the original on 22 August 2011. Retrieved
11 June 2010. “"A rough estimate to
produce the 10 milligrams of positrons
needed for a human Mars mission is
about 250 million dollars using
technology that is currently under
development," said Smith.”
67. "Antimatter Questions & Answers" .
CERN. 2001. Archived from the original
on 2008-04-21. Retrieved 24 May 2008.
68. "Manhattan Project: CTBTO
Preparatory Commission" . Archived
from the original on 22 December 2014.
69. J. Bickford. "Extraction of
Antiparticles Concentrated in Planetary
Magnetic Fields" (PDF). NASA. Archived
(PDF) from the original on 23 July 2008.
Retrieved 24 May 2008.
70. "Antiproton portable traps and
medical applications" (PDF). Archived
from the original (PDF) on 22 August
2011.
71. G. R. Schmidt (1999). "Antimatter
Production for Near-Term Propulsion
Applications" . Nuclear Physics and High-
Energy Physics. Marshall Space Flight
Center, NASA. Archived from the original
on 11 March 2014. Retrieved
14 December 2012.
72. (compared to the formation of water
at 1.56 × 107 J/kg, for example)
73. M. G. Sowerby. "§4.7 Nuclear fission
and fusion, and neutron interactions" .
Kaye & Laby: Table of Physical & Chemical
Constants. National Physical Laboratory.
Archived from the original on 5 March
2010. Retrieved 18 June 2010.
74. S. K. Borowski (1987). "Comparison of
Fusion/Antiproton Propulsion systems"
(PDF). NASA Technical Memorandum
107030. NASA. pp. 5–6 (pp. 6–7 of pdf).
AIAA–87–1814. Archived from the
original (PDF) on 28 May 2008. Retrieved
24 May 2008.
75. "Antimatter weapons" . Archived from
the original on 24 April 2013.
76. Gsponer, Andre; Hurni, Jean-Pierre
(1987). "The physics of antimatter
induced fusion and thermonuclear
explosions". In G. Velarde and E. Minguez.
Proceedings of the International
Conference on Emerging Nuclear Energy
Systems, Madrid, June/July, 1986. 4.
World Scientific. pp. 66–169.
arXiv:physics/0507114  .
Bibcode:2005physics...7114G .
77. "Air Force pursuing antimatter
weapons / Program was touted publicly,
then came official gag order" . Archived
from the original on 9 June 2012.

Further reading
G. Fraser (2000-05-18). Antimatter: The
Ultimate Mirror. Cambridge University
Press. ISBN 978-0-521-65252-0.
Schmidt, G.R.; Gerrish, H.P.; Martin,
J.J.; Smith, G.A.; Meyer, K.J.
"Antimatter Production for Near-term
Propulsion Applications" (PDF).
Archived from the original (PDF) on 6
March 2007.

External links
Wikimedia Commons has media
related to Antimatter.

Antimatter (physics) at Encyclopædia

Britannica
Antimatter on In Our Time at the BBC.
Freeview Video 'Antimatter' by the
Vega Science Trust and the BBC/OU
CERN Webcasts (RealPlayer required)
What is Antimatter? (from the
Frequently Asked Questions at the
Center for Antimatter–Matter Studies)
"Angels and Demons" . CERN. Archived
from the original on 27 March 2014.
FAQ from CERN with information about
antimatter aimed at the general reader,
 posted in response to antimatter's
fictional portrayal in Angels & Demons
Antimatter at Angels and Demons,
CERN
What is direct CP-violation?
Animated illustration of antihydrogen
production at CERN from the
Exploratorium.

Retrieved from
"[Link]
title=Antimatter&oldid=846892267"

Last edited 2 days ago by KolbertB…

Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless

otherwise noted.