Life on planet Gliese?

Trapping antimatter could in principle be done without any energy consumption in, say, a magnetic trap, as long as there is no heating of the antimatter. If there is heating, cooling is needed, which will require energy. I don't think it could be done at the moment (although I do wonder how well a giant magneto-optical trap would work in space...should actually be pretty good), but we're working on that.

Quoting myself here, because recently the first trapping of antihydrogen has been demonstrated:

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101117/full/468355a.html
Spoiler :

For physicists, a bit of antimatter is a precious gift indeed. By comparing matter to its counterpart, they can test fundamental symmetries that lie at the heart of the standard model of particle physics, and look for hints of new physics beyond. Yet few gifts are as tricky to wrap. Bring a particle of antimatter into contact with its matter counterpart and the two annihilate in a flash of energy.

Now a research collaboration at CERN, Europe's particle-physics lab near Geneva, Switzerland, has managed, 38 times, to confine single antihydrogen atoms in a magnetic trap for more than 170 milliseconds. The group reported the result in Nature online on 17 November. "We're ecstatic. This is five years of hard work," says Jeffrey Hangst, spokesman for the ALPHA collaboration at CERN.

An antihydrogen atom is made from a negatively charged antiproton and a positively charged positron, the antimatter counterpart of the electron. The objective — both for ALPHA and for a competing CERN experiment called ATRAP — is to compare the energy levels in antihydrogen with those of hydrogen, to confirm that antimatter particles experience the same electromagnetic forces as matter particles, a key premise of the standard model. "The goal is to study antihydrogen and you can't do it without trapping it," says Cliff Surko, an antimatter researcher at the University of California, San Diego. "This is really a big deal."

The ALPHA claim is the first major advance since the creation of thousands of antihydrogen atoms in 2002 by a forerunner experiment called ATHENA and by ATRAP (see 'A brief history of antimatter'). Both experiments combined decelerated antiprotons with positrons at CERN to produce antihydrogen atoms. But, within several milliseconds, the atoms annihilated with the ordinary matter in the walls of their containers.

To prevent that from happening, the ALPHA team formed antihydrogen atoms in a magnetic trap. Although not electrically charged like antiprotons and positrons, antihydrogen — like hydrogen — has a more subtle magnetic character that arises from the spins of its constituent particles. The ALPHA researchers used an octupole magnet, produced by the current flowing in eight wires, to create a magnetic field that was strongest near the walls of the trap, falling to a minimum at the centre, causing the atoms to collect there. To trap just 38 atoms, the group had to run the experiment 335 times. "This was ten thousand times more difficult" than creating untrapped antihydrogen atoms, says Hangst — ATHENA made an estimated 50,000 of them in one go in 2002. To do spectroscopic measurements, Surko estimates that up to 100 antihydrogen atoms may need to be trapped at once.

ATRAP still hopes to reach that goal first. In a paper due out in Physical Review Letters, the collaboration reports that it has efficiently separated antiprotons from the cold electrons that are used to cool them down, a step towards creating slower-moving antihydrogen atoms that might stay trapped for longer. "Rather than trying to demonstrate that we can confine 38 antihydrogen atoms for a small fraction of a second, we are working on new methods to produce and trap much larger numbers of colder atoms," says Gerald Gabrielse, ATRAP's spokesman. "We shall see which approach is more fruitful."

Two other collaborations aim to study antihydrogen. In 2003, the international ASACUSA experiment at CERN proposed a scheme to create a beam of antihydrogen atoms. Yasunori Yamazaki, an atomic physicist at the Advanced Science Institute in Saitama, part of Japan's RIKEN network of research labs, now says the group has produced such a beam and may be able to use it to study the energy levels in antihydrogen without needing to trap the atoms. Another CERN experiment called AEgIS is starting to compare the effect of gravity on antihydrogen with that on ordinary hydrogen. Antimatter is almost certain to fall at the same rate as normal matter, but if it doesn't the results could help scientists to distinguish between alternative approaches to unifying quantum theory with general relativity.


original paper: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature09610

They use a magnetic trap and can store the antimatter for 0.2 s. This isn't much, yet, but once you have antimatter trapped you "just" have to improve the trapping.

Of course, there is still the problem of how to produce large quantities of antimatter.
 
I would say trapping is actually just as big a problem. It is impossible to create a magnetic field which has a stable point (div(B) = 0 always). You can get around that by keeping stuff very very cold and using a mixture of both electric and magnetic fields but it really isn't all that great. Note also that for storing neutral matter you need vastly bigger fields for it to have any effect at all and these become much harder to control.

That said, 0.2s is a respectably long time frame.

No. (static) Electric fields are pointless for neutral atoms as they have no charge. And for magnetic traps you only need a local minimum of the magnetic field and low-field seeking atoms. And there is nothing new to that. BECs are regularly trapped in magnetic traps since over ten years.

The problem is the low trap depth for neutral atoms (a few millikelvins at most) so the atoms must indeed be very cold. But once the atoms are cold (which they achieved in this experiment) you only have to keep them cold, which is usually much easier. Neutral atoms cannot be trapped as long as ions, but trapping times of minutes are possible right now. So I think they will be able to improve the storage time for antihydrogen pretty quickly.
 
Even if there was life in this planet... what are we going to do about it? , travel 20 light-years ? yea, sure.

It's virtually impossible to study life in another distant planet.
 
just bumping my thread for the hell of it. :) I think you all know why. So we have two Gliese threads on the first page. One says 581g, and the other is 581d? Is that correct? Are we talking about the same planet, or different planets in the system?
 
just bumping my thread for the hell of it. :) I think you all know why. So we have two Gliese threads on the first page. One says 581g, and the other is 581d? Is that correct? Are we talking about the same planet, or different planets in the system?

Different planets in the same system.

Yes, that system is a hot topic for astronomers.
 
So the name of planet isn't Gliese.. its 581g or something?
 
Gliese is the star. The planets are the ones designated with letters. Earth could be renamed Solg, for occupying the third orbit. But I think these extrasolar planets are designated in chronological order - in which case Earth would be Sola
 
Ok. So who gets to actually give these planets a real name?
 
when someone lands on them? :) The problem with these planets is no one has actually seen them with their own eyes.
 
Gliese is the star.

Or rather, Gliese 581 is the star; so called because it is indexed as number 581 in a catalogue of nearby stars published by an astronomer named Wilhelm Gliese back in the 1950s.

The vast majority of stars that have been studied don't really have individual proper names outside of a catalogue number, that is mostly reserved for ones that are particularly bright and notable to the naked eye (and these have mostly had their names since antiquity).
 
elephant cells are more efficient energy wise than mouse cells, therefore the other life could be more efficient

What??? They are both mammalian cells.. virtually identical..
 
Lets be glad to embrace difference. All the stars in the universe could have been the same. They all could have been medium, blue stars. Yet, the stars we observe have various colors, shapes, and sizes.

Life could form in an identical-starry universe when you take gravity and distance into account.

There could be an undetectable circumstance about the location of our sun in the milky way. Take oort who began to think outside the box. What scientific elements make us special/right?

The question to consider is not only life on gliese but anywhere. Do we hope there's another civilization out there to meet that's been as luck as us? You might have read the physicists objections too.
 
Back
Top Bottom