Re: CERN and thw anti-matter bomb?

From	john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
Newsgroups	sci.electronics.design, sci.physics
Subject	Re: CERN and thw anti-matter bomb?
Date	2026-03-28 12:57 -0700
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<8dcgsk1osm18ok7039gsffklcf0idocol5@4ax.com> (permalink)
References	(4 earlier) <10q6pbk$22c5$1@dont-email.me> <10q6s92$39qv$1@dont-email.me> <10q8l2j$kju2$1@dont-email.me> <smpfsk568bkt3qrfle7p3bem7b69ei9bje@4ax.com> <10q97h9$rrvj$1@dont-email.me>

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On Sat, 28 Mar 2026 11:43:53 -0700, x <x@x.net> wrote:

>On 3/28/26 07:34, john larkin wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Mar 2026 06:28:51 -0700, x <x@x.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 3/27/26 14:19, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
>>>> On 3/27/26 21:29, Martin Brown wrote:
>>>>> On 26/03/2026 22:36, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/26/26 17:55, Martin Brown wrote:
>>>>>>> On 26/03/2026 10:38, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, there isn't enough to blow anything up, not even close..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you're interested, it's possible to visit CERN:
>>>>>>>> <https://visit.cern>. There may be waiting lists. It's
>>>>>>>> very sought after. CERN welcomes over a thousand visitors
>>>>>>>> daily.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What is the half life of an antiproton in a cryo Penning trap?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd have thought that preventing stray hydrogen atoms getting in
>>>>>>> there would be nigh on impossible. Hydrogen even diffuses through
>>>>>>> steel...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How many of the 92 will make it to the end of the journey?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually it's not too bad. The half-life of antiprotons in a
>>>>>> well-evacuated and cooled Penning trap is of the order of
>>>>>> months, once the hottest particles have escaped. Holding on
>>>>>> to antihydrogen is much harder, because you can't use electric
>>>>>> fields to confine it. The half-life of antihydrogen is in the
>>>>>> ballpark of a quarter of an hour.
>>>>>
>>>>> We always had trouble getting the very last traces of hydrogen and
>>>>> water out of ultra hard vacuum systems. Have things improved recently?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm surprised it is that good. I guess to some extent it is like the
>>>>> globular star clusters in astronomy after a few hot ones get expelled
>>>>> and the remaining ones settle down into a sort of equilibrium.
>>>>>
>>>>> Gravitation binds remaining stars ever more tightly but for protons
>>>>> you need an externally applied field to keep them in the middle of the
>>>>> trap.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't have the detailed knowledge. I know that several of the
>>>> experiments using antiprotons can continue to function for a few
>>>> months after the accelerators are stopped. The vacuum is of the
>>>> order of 10nPa. (7.5e-11 torr)
>>>>
>>>> I think the analogy with globular star clusters is a good one,
>>>> except that antiprotons repel rather than attract and indeed
>>>> externally applied electric fields are needed to keep them
>>>> trapped. They use Penning-Malmberg traps. Some experiments
>>>> inject electrons to further cool the antiprotons.
>>>>
>>>> Annihilation requires interactions involving three particles,
>>>> which is rare because there are so few of them. I believe the
>>>> gravitational capture of one body by another also usually
>>>> requires the presence of a third.
>>>>
>>>> Jeroen Belleman
>>>
>>> You know the words 'bending spacetime' almost seem tailor
>>> made to sound bad if you try to apply it to static electric
>>> charges - in other words it is supposed to be strange if
>>> space-time is bent in one direction for a positive electric
>>> charge and it is bent in the opposite direction for a
>>> negative electric charge.
>>>
>>> Nonetheless basic question.  Has anyone tried to subtract
>>> out the electric fields and clearly determine that gravity
>>> derived from regular matter does - attract antimatter rather
>>> than - repel antimatter?
>>>
>>>>
>> 
>> google
>> 
>> does gravity attract antimatter
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> John Larkin
>> Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
>> Lunatic Fringe Electronics
>
>Ok.
>
>So, what is 'AI'?  A generic term for 'technology'
>when a reporter wants to report on something that
>seems technological, but doesn't want to specify
>what the 'technology' is?
>
>Well maybe so, but it also two letters attached to the
>'google' search engine.
>

The google AI search isn't bad. One shouldn't believe it absolutely,
but it usually has credible references and is a good start for
branching out.

I sometimes don't have the just-right words for a search, and the
google AI often furnishes them.


John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics

Back to sci.electronics.design | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

CERN and thw anti-matter bomb? Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-03-26 09:48 +0000
  Re: CERN and thw anti-matter bomb? Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2026-03-26 11:38 +0100
    Re: CERN and thw anti-matter bomb? john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-26 07:46 -0700
    Re: CERN and thw anti-matter bomb? Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-03-26 15:32 +0000
      Re: CERN and thw anti-matter bomb? john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-26 09:01 -0700
        Re: CERN and thw anti-matter bomb? Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2026-03-26 17:42 +0100
          Re: CERN and thw anti-matter bomb? john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-26 10:13 -0700
          Re: CERN and thw anti-matter bomb? Ho Li Phuc <HLP@aol.com> - 2026-03-26 15:46 -0600
        Re: CERN and thw anti-matter bomb? liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-03-27 09:46 +0000
          Re: CERN and thw anti-matter bomb? john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-27 04:13 -0700
    Re: CERN and thw anti-matter bomb? Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> - 2026-03-26 16:55 +0000
      Re: CERN and thw anti-matter bomb? Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2026-03-26 23:36 +0100
        Re: CERN and thw anti-matter bomb? Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> - 2026-03-27 20:29 +0000
          Re: CERN and thw anti-matter bomb? Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2026-03-27 22:19 +0100
            Re: CERN and thw anti-matter bomb? x <x@x.net> - 2026-03-28 06:28 -0700
              Re: CERN and thw anti-matter bomb? john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-28 07:34 -0700
                Re: CERN and thw anti-matter bomb? x <x@x.net> - 2026-03-28 11:43 -0700
                Re: CERN and thw anti-matter bomb? john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-28 12:57 -0700
                Re: CERN and thw anti-matter bomb? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl - 2026-04-03 13:43 +0200
              Re: CERN and thw anti-matter bomb? Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2026-03-28 23:37 +0100
            Re: CERN and thw anti-matter bomb? A Person not authorized to speak <APNATS@cocks.net> - 2026-04-10 16:39 -0600

csiph-web