« | Home | »

Half the Blink of an Eye


A hydrogen atom and an antihydrogen atom

Last week a team of physicists based at CERN announced that they had coaxed a handful of elusive antihydrogen atoms into existence: 38 of them, to be exact. Simply creating antimatter is no longer newsworthy; a competing team fabricated tens of thousands of antihydrogen atoms using a different method back in 2002. What’s new about the latest experiment – the result of five years’ work – is that the fragile atoms stuck around for as long as 172 milliseconds: nearly one-fifth of a second, about half as long as the blink of an eye. And when it comes to atoms of antimatter, that is an astonishingly long time.

When particles of ordinary matter meet their antimatter counterparts, they annihilate each other. This has made it difficult to study antiatoms: unless they can be trapped in isolation from ordinary matter, they will inevitably vanish in a puff of energy. For decades, physicists have used electric fields to trap electrically charged subatomic particles, such as positrons or antiprotons, and subject them to close scrutiny. Positrons, the antimatter counterpart of electrons – they have exactly the same mass, and an equal-but-opposite electric charge – are used routinely in PET (positron emission tomography) scans. Particle accelerators like the Tevatron at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory near Chicago, meanwhile, create their energetic fireworks by smashing trillions of negatively charged antiprotons into ordinary, positively charged protons every fraction of a second.

But an antihydrogen atom (an antiproton bound with a positron) is electrically neutral; the usual traps are worthless. Instead, the team at CERN designed a far more subtle containment device: a specially shaped magnetic field, powered by supercooled, superconducting magnets. The physicists sent ten million antiprotons and seven hundred million positrons into this trap, hoping that the particles would combine into neutral antihydrogen atoms. Three dozen pairs obliged – and stuck around for an unprecedented length of time.

Paul Dirac, somewhat reluctantly at first, introduced the idea of antimatter as a theoretical necessity in the early 1930s. Physicists began to find experimental evidence for positrons soon afterwards, catching glimpses of them in cosmic rays. Antiprotons were first detected in 1955, among the earliest discoveries at the Bevatron accelerator in Berkeley, California. The pride of Berkeley, the Bevatron was a symbol of the new postwar gigantism in particle physics. The Nobel committee acted with unusual dispatch, awarding the physics prize in 1959 to Owen Chamberlain and Emilio Segrè of the Berkeley lab for the antiproton discovery. (Thirteen years later, Oreste Piccioni sued Chamberlain and Segrè, claiming that they had taken his idea for the subtle magnetic field needed to identify the antiprotons while shutting him out of the experiment. The judge threw the case out, arguing that the statute of limitations had expired.)

It took a team of 42 physicists, from 16 institutions scattered across eight countries and four continents, to fabricate and trap the antiatoms in the recent experiment at CERN. They came together in the hope of shedding light on some of the most perplexing questions in modern physics. According to otherwise well-tested theories of particle physics and cosmology, the universe moments after the big bang should have consisted of equal parts antimatter and matter. Yet very quickly, the ratio dropped to one in a billion. Theoretical physicists have concocted dozens of schemes to account for the dramatic imbalance, but so far neither theory nor experiment has produced anything like a compelling explanation.

One way to try to account for the imbalance is to conduct high-precision tests of what is known as the ‘spectrum’ of antihydrogen atoms. Are a positron’s energy levels in an antihydrogen atom precisely the same as the corresponding energy levels of an electron in an ordinary hydrogen atom? The hydrogenic energy levels are among the most carefully measured physical quantities in all of science: they are known to 14 decimal places. The reigning theories of fundamental forces suggest that the energy levels of antihydrogen should be precisely the same, down to the 14th decimal place. Yet those same theories have as yet produced no convincing explanation for the stark imbalance between the amounts of matter and antimatter in the universe. Conducting sensitive measurements of the antihydrogen spectrum could isolate some new and unexpected behaviour of the most fundamental forces of nature, which in turn might offer the first serious clues to explain the matter-antimatter imbalance.

Before such hypersensitive measurements can be made, physicists must first trap hundreds (or more) of the lonesome antihydrogen atoms and make them sit still long enough for minute electromagnetic fields to tickle the positrons and measure the corresponding energy levels. One-fifth of a second isn’t enough time, unfortunately, but it’s a major step in the right direction.

Comments on “Half the Blink of an Eye”

  1. orlp says:

    As matter and anti-matter cannot co-exist, it would seem to be obvious that universe would have to flip one way or the other very early. If the early universe was chaotic (in the technical sense) then the choice which way it flipped could have been the consequence of minute random effects and searching for some systematic bias favouring matter over anti-matter could be futile. Is there some aspect of physics that says that there must be a systematic cause?

    • David Kaiser says:

      Part of the real mystery is that the fundamental laws of physics seem to be thoroughly symmetrical between matter and antimatter. One might imagine some (otherwise unexplained) fluctuation very early on that might have tipped the balance one way or the other, but physicists tend to prefer having some mechanism that could plausibly lead to such symmetry breaking. Not only that, even if one imagined that some random fluctuation happened to nudge the balance one way or the other at some early moment, one would need to fine-tune the fluctuation so as to produce precisely the ratio of matter to antimatter at that moment in order to match observations today. That kind of (unexplained) fine-tuning would require, for example, that at one millionth of a second after the big bang, the universe contained 30 million and 1 quarks for every 30 million antiquarks. (See, e.g., the textbook by Edward Kolb and Michael Turner, The Early Universe [Addison-Wesley, 1990], p. 159.) Even an appeal to random fluctuations would still need to account in some way for the magnitude of the initial imbalance. Hence the mystery!

  2. A.J.P. Crown says:

    Well, if the balance had been tipped the other way, and I and all my surroundings were antimatter instead of being matter, do you know if there would be any difference? Does antimatter behave significantly differently from matter, besides the charges being reversed?

Comment on this post

Log in or register to post a comment.

  • Recent Posts

    RSS – posts

  • Contributors

  • Recent Comments

    • name on Who is the enemy?: Simply stating it is correct doesn't make it so, I just wish you would apply the same epistemic vigilance to "Muslim crimes" as you do to their Hebrew...
    • Glen Newey on Unwinnable War: The legal issue admits of far less clarity than the simple terms in which you – I imagine quite sincerely – frame them. For the benefit of readers...
    • Geoff Roberts on The New Normal: The causes go back a long way into the colonial past, but the more immediate causes stem from the activities of the US forces in the name of freedom a...
    • sol_adelman on The New Normal: There's also the fact that the French state denied the mass drownings of '61 even happened for forty-odd years. No episode in post-war W European hist...
    • funky gibbon on At Wembley: If England get France in the quarter finals of Euro 16 I expect that a good deal of the fraternity will go out the window

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

  • From the LRB Archive

    Edward Said: The Iraq War
    17 April 2003

    ‘This is the most reckless war in modern times. It is all about imperial arrogance unschooled in worldliness, unfettered either by competence or experience, undeterred by history or human complexity, unrepentant in its violence and the cruelty of its technology.’

    David Runciman:
    The Politics of Good Intentions
    8 May 2003

    ‘One of the things that unites all critics of Blair’s war in Iraq, whether from the Left or the Right, is that they are sick of the sound of Blair trumpeting the purity of his purpose, when what matters is the consequences of his actions.’

    Simon Wren-Lewis: The Austerity Con
    19 February 2015

    ‘How did a policy that makes so little sense to economists come to be seen by so many people as inevitable?’

    Hugh Roberts: The Hijackers
    16 July 2015

    ‘American intelligence saw Islamic State coming and was not only relaxed about the prospect but, it appears, positively interested in it.’

Advertisement Advertisement