Matter vs Antimatter ... doesnt really matter who wins

Matter vs Antimatter

A couple of days ago, I sat through the movie Angels and Demons, a film based on author Dan Brown’s sequel to the famous Da Vinci code. While the film itself kicked so much ass, I couldn’t get my head around all the false information that the writer had stuffed in the plot of the movie.

To avoid spoiling the story for you, I will try my best to stay as far away from it as possible. The movie refers to “Antimatter” as “The God Particle” (don’t worry, this article isn’t about religion Vs science) the film argues that Antimatter can be used as the energy source of the future. To clarify why I think this is simply sci-fi bullshit, I will explain in the next few paragraphs what I found out during my brief research.

First off, do not confuse Antimatter with Dark Matter. Dark matter is an invisible mass that can only be detected by observing its gravitational effects. It does not emit radiation or light. One example of Dark Matter is a black hole. On a side note, larger black holes aren’t identified as such on the basis of their gravitational lensing (a phenomenon in which light bends or warps around the black hole – check the picture).

Now that we’ve established that Dark Matter, as interesting as it is, has nothing to do with this article so let’s focus on the topic.

Matter Vs Antimatter

Matter includes everything you see around you, any object that has both Mass and Volume is classified as matter. It doesn’t really matter how many substances the objects are made off, if those substances interact in a way such that their mass and volume can be known, then that substance is classified as Matter, regardless of the size of the object.

Matter is said to exist in many forms: solid, liquid, gas and plasma, in addition to other theoretical constructs such as Bose–Einstein condensates, Fermionic condensates, and quark-gluon plasma... don't even ask!

Since matter has mass and volume, It occupies space, Antimatter on the other hand; is matter that is composed of the antiparticles of those that constitute ordinary matter…. lost already? Allow me to explain...

The Atom, that is the most basic unit of matter, consists of a nucleus and electrons which orbit around it, the nucleus in turn, contains protons that are positively charged and electrically neutral Neutrons. The cloud of electrons around it is negatively charged.

In the case of Antimatter, Protons and Electrons are simply inverted. The Positron is a positively charged Electron and the Antiproton is a negatively charged Proton. An Antiproton and a Positron can form one Antihydrogen atom in the same way an electron and a proton can form a normal matter hydrogen atom.

When the big bang happened, it’s argued that massive amounts of Matter collided with massive amounts of Antimatter which resulted in the Bang. However, here stands one of the biggest unsolved problems in physics: If matter and antimatter created this universe we live in; WHY are parts of the universe made up almost of matter while other parts are entirely antimatter?

The whole purpose of this article is to say this: if matter and antimatter were to come into contact, it would result in the total annihilation of both which is the case when particles and antiparticles collide. One positive result of such collisions is photon emission i.e. the production of high energy photons and pairs of matter-antimatter which, if harvested, could be used as an energy source.

In antimatter-matter collisions which result in photon emission, the entire mass of the particles is converted to kinetic energy (the extra energy which an object possesses due to its motion).

Generating a single antiproton is immensely difficult and requires particle accelerators and vast amounts of energy—millions of times more than is released once it is annihilated when it comes into contact with ordinary matter. Although matter can be converted into anti-matter, the resulting antimatter is only equal to 50% of the original matter inputted. Balancing this, when that antimatter collides with ordinary matter, energy equal to twice the mass of that antimatter is released. If the conversion process itself weren’t so costly, antimatter production could be 100% efficient.

Most researchers at CERN (the world's largest particle physics laboratory, situated in the northwest suburbs of Geneva ) argue that the 100% efficiency claims are overly optimistic, since the current antiproton production rate is a mere several pictograms to each 20 million dollars spent.

Production costs aside; storage is another major obstacle in terms of harnessing antiprotons. Antiprotons are negatively charged so they tend to repel one another, meaning that they can’t be concentrated in a small volume.

In conclusion to all this scientific blabber, Dan Brown’s idea that it is actually feasible to use antimatter as a source of energy in the near future is…unlikely to say the least. Personally, I think we should invest our hopes into more realistic energy sources like hydrogen fuel cells, Solar and wind power. It is a nice dream though Dan, I’ll give you that.

douf