Great episode! As for the cosmic matter/antimatter dissymmetry Brian mentions at the end; that paradox really depends on how we view the shape of our Big Bang. If indeed our Big Bang was a kind of ‘dumb’ exploding sphere, then indeed we have an issue explaining the observed lack of antimatter. But an exploding sphere is not the default shape of cosmic high energy cosmic structures creating matter and space. Like star birth and galaxy birth, the typical structure actually would involve a high energy disk, with two jets, feeding two lobes of purged matter and radiation on each side. The Cygnus A galaxy would best represent this high energy default shape. If our Big Bang were shaped this way, then obviously the central disk would create a matter lobe on one side (that would be us) and anti-matter lobe on the other. That explains why we can’t see anti matter. Problem solved. The detailed mechanism for dividing matter into both lobes would be the central spinning disk, presenting clockwise electro(weak)-spin on one side, yet viewed from the other side, anti-clockwise spin. This means newly created matter of like electroweak spin would be accelerated away from the disk, but matter of opposite spin (antimatter) would be pulled back to the disk, cross it, and next be pushed outward on the other side. This also means after a quick expansion, half the matter would return to the other side, causing contraction, followed by gradual expansion again. Also, there would be traces of an umbilical cord connecting both lobes even today, which we have in the form of the great attractor, showing preferred cosmic motion. So in all; we can solve the matter anti matter paradox by just revisiting our idea of the shape of the Big Bang.
Great channel, Dr. Keating. I have a twin sister and frequently I think we are the anti twin to each other more often than not. But we haven't eliminated each other so that's good (a -2!). Most times 1 + -1 = 0. But lately it seems we've become 1 + -1 = > 2 but < 3. I'm the "1" of course🙂
I might be very stupid now. But just wondering one thing. Could it be possible for anti-proton to decay in to electron? Let’s say that the neutron isn’t as good at glueing antiprotons in to atoms. When an anti proton is not bound to an atom, it decays in to electron. This maybe could explain some things about missing anti matter and also dark matter. Where there seems to be more mass, than what is seen. If anti protons are filling in for electrons. Then I’m guessing it would show more mass. Also the massive early black holes. I know i might be stupid. I have no scientific background. So please be gentle in your replies. 🙏 😊
sounds cool until the fridge stops working, causing the superfluid to heat up until it becomes regular fluid and you unintentionally create an antimatter bomb. as always, "think of what humanity can do with this 😀" and "think of what humanity can do with this 😱" honestly though a superfluid helium antimatter storage system would make an amazing propulsion method for spacecraft, just have a tiny slow spray of superfluid "hybrid atoms" into a magnetic nozzle with heating and you could have enough delta-V to reach other star systems in 10-20 years and still have enough energy left to blow it up (the entire star system).
@@JedPotts-jv2uxCompared to a space ship, a star is huge and incredibly energetic. A few tons of antimatter exploding might briefly shine brighter than the star, but it would be a localized effect. It would need to be really close to a planet to destroy its atmosphere. The other planets in that solar system would be fine. Destroying a solar system is hyperbole.
"More viscosity means it flows less..." followed by graphic showing syrup as low viscosity and water as high. Seriously. Did no one watch the video before uploading?
What do you mean that it "didn't explode"? Do you mean that this new hybrid atom lasted for a fraction of a millisecond before the matter and anti-matter annihilated, or are you saying that this hybrid atom still exists to this day? There are also many other omissions/problems with this video, which others have described although many of them might just be because no one knows. It's unclear if the unclarity of the video is warrented.
I think an activation energy must be reached to have matter / anti-matter annihilation , they can't just bump into each other , plus there is no way the antiproton can get into the nucleus just as an electron cannot , at least at low energies , and a bound electron really has no chance of entering the nucleus unless under high gravitational pressure
@@edwardmacnab354 if theres an activation energy there must be a middle state of higher energy than both the antiproton orbiting energy and the proton antiproton collision state, i think at this scale its not like that its more like the particles have a position and speed not determined so they kinda has a chance of being in the same place, it does with electron capture, and electron capture can happen when you dont have enough energy to do a beta + decay, also electron proton cannot annihilate cus that would change the leptonic and baronic number and i think it would change the spin too
@@edwardmacnab354 even then it can't happen, Pauli exclusion principal, but yeah we are left with more questions because of the patronizing dumbing down goes way too far, many YT vids are clearly insinuating the audience are ignorant dimwits...not quite all of us are...
It'd be funny if a "great filter" was due to the question of "Why don't these react?" and more and more was put together until a GRB visible from the other side of the galaxy happens.
Imagine if we could stably bind and destabilize anti-particles at will. That would make the best fuel and energy density imaginable. My iPhone could store more energy than a nuclear warhead.
Omg tayzonday my guy! Hey you like science and music look at the n-speres project that just dropped 7 days ago! Oscilloscope music! The entire project and visuals fit on a floppy!
Why do people say "theory" when they actually mean "hypothesis"? A theory describes a phenomenon through rigorous testing. A hypothesis is a prediction based on observations of a phenomenon prior to rigorous testing.
Because those who know what a scientific theory is, even scientists themselves, will switch between the colloquial and technical meanings of theory. It is a bad thing to do as it muddies the water and so many don't even know what a scientific theory is.
There are also antineutrons, which of course, are, like neutrons, electrically neutral. They aren't the same as neutrons, though, because there are other properties they have that are opposite to those of neutrons. I'm guessing this was glossed over here so as not to confuse some of the viewers? Fred
But they didnt replace the neutrons with anti-neutrons. They replaced the electrons with anti-protons to make a 2proton-2neutron-2antiproton helium hybrid atom.
@@sunrazor2622 Of course, but I was referring to the explanation of what anti-helium would consist of. Which would be a nucleus of 2 antiprotons & 2 antineutrons, surrounded by a "cloud" of 2 positrons. While explaining this, he omitted the part about antineutrons, possibly leaving the misimpression that anti-helium would have ordinary neutrons.
I am probably not the first person to think of this but if you take that as a liquid and put it down a little tube and heat it up with will it explode and become a very effective source of energy?
"When antimatter particles like positrons move, they can create electric currents similar to those created by electrons, but with opposite charge flow direction." Unfortunately, this is not termed "anti-electricity". But, this doesn't make me anti-happy. 😆
It is so fascinating that all of Dr. Keatings blinking' and plinkin' effects in his videos is actually made out of actual ELECTRICITY. Can you believe it?
From the graphs at 8:43, the antiprotons are in Rydberg states with ridiculously high principal (n) and angular momentum (l) quantum numbers. This means that the antiproton has an extremely low probability of being near the protons, hence the long annihilation lifetime. When the l value was lowered either by laser excitation or stimulated emission, the annihilation rate went up as there was a greater (but still low) probability of the antiproton being near the nucleus. Normally high lying Rydberg states get quenched by collisions--what this seems to show is that collisional quenching is minimal in a superfluid environment (which makes sense given the other properties of superfluids).
@@RalphDratman An antiproton is about 2000x heavier than an electron, so it's a lot harder to push out. If an antiproton is shot into a fluid of supercritical helium, it will be repulsed by the much lighter electrons, which will eventually cause it to lose energy and get (weakly) captured by one of the helium atoms (by knocking out an elactron).
So, if anti protons (more massive) replaced electrons (less massive) in the electron shell, do they orbit the nucleous at the same speed? Or reduced speeds? This could change the interactive properties of the element. Just as the electron shells determine what types of reactions can occur with the element, anti-protons may alter these reactions in unforseen ways.
@@Nicholasbroughton0420 in the absence of positrons and electrons, as well as being near zero Kelvin’s, there isn’t a lot of orbiting going on. In fact superfluids under atomic magnification are very calm and soothing. Everything is just kinda chillin there. Sorry😅 I had to.
Speed makes no sense in the ground state because the wavefunction of let's say a electron in protium has no angular variation *AT ALL* in the commonly used model. It's entirely stationary and spherical-symmetric.
There is so much going on in the visuals in the background that it distracts from what is being explained. The images that are meant to be part of the explanation are quickly combined with images that are purely entertainment which is an additional distraction making the whole smaller than the sum of the parts.
@@openleft4214 Just listening is rough too, with the constant movie quotes thrown in. I'm not sure why RUclips recommended this channel, but just watching one video is so mentally draining that it's enough for me to tell it not to recommend this channel again.
As I understand it, if scientists had truly understood the nature of electromagnetism--and, in particular, electricity--at the time they were naming the electron, they would have defined its charge as positive.
Producing exotic atoms and exotic matter and even stabilise that stuff is really amazing. Maybe mankind is not far away from building exotic matter factories.
We might want to consider doing that off planet though if we get that far, don't want an accident taking out half a continent. In the lab for study, you're working with very small amounts of it, but if you want a factory or try doing this at industrial scales, a new very serious risk may arise.
11:23 that are entire stars suspected of being made of antimatter. It is still weird that most of it is matter. But, it would be cool if we confirm or deny those hypothesis. Those stars have weird emissions that could align with annihilation in its borders.
Great episode! As for the cosmic matter/antimatter dissymmetry Brian mentions at the end; that paradox really depends on how we view the shape of our Big Bang. If indeed our Big Bang was a kind of ‘dumb’ exploding sphere, then indeed we have an issue explaining the observed lack of antimatter. But an exploding sphere is not the default shape of cosmic high energy cosmic structures creating matter and space. Like star birth and galaxy birth, the typical structure actually would involve a high energy disk, with two jets, feeding two lobes of purged matter and radiation on each side. The Cygnus A galaxy would best represent this high energy default shape. If our Big Bang were shaped this way, then obviously the central disk would create a matter lobe on one side (that would be us) and anti-matter lobe on the other. That explains why we can’t see anti matter. Problem solved. The detailed mechanism for dividing matter into both lobes would be the central spinning disk, presenting clockwise electroweak-spin on one side, yet viewed from the other side, anti-clockwise electroweakspin. This means newly created matter of like spin would be accelerated away from the disk, but matter of opposite electroweak spin (antimatter) would be pulled back to the disk, cross it, and next be pushed outward on the other side. This also means after a quick expansion, half the matter would return to the other side, causing contraction, followed by gradual expansion again. Also, there would be traces of an umbilical cord connecting both lobes even today, which we have in the form of the great attractor, showing preferred cosmic motion. So in all; we can solve the matter anti matter paradox by just revisiting our idea of the shape of the Big Bang.
So, given this as a scientific revelation... could our 'dark matter' be at least partially composed of hybrid matter and that also explain why there is something rather than nothing ? If its in a superfluid state, it may not interact as expected from conventional matter ?
Hello Dr. Keating, I was a bit confused by one thing you said. Did you suggest that the antiproton was in a lower orbital and the electron was in a higher orbital? Why wouldn't they share the lowermost orbital like two electrons would? Or did I misunderstand you?
Nice presentation. It's funny I often think about how we assign our best descriptions to physical systems and then vote new phenomena through that lens. This maybe a great opportunity to test those essential descriptions we have. Keep on the good work.
0:10 Everything we feel and touch is the result of electrons in our fingers repulsing electrons is what we feel and touch. So everything you can feel and touch is 'matter' BUT a better description is it is ELECTRONS, the protons are hidden by the electrons.
@rogerjohnson2562 technically, it's the exchange of force carrying photons between the electrically charged particles that causes what we perceive as touch.
Actually there is no matter, just the extraordinary illusion that your consciousness believes as it builds constructs from thought, which is another illusion. All that exists at a fundamental level is consciousness… matter is just a concept that exists in the matrix!😮👀😂
@@tvviewer4500 now we’re asking the right question… it’s an emergent phenomenon of being emmersed in the delusion of a world made of matter. And it wouldn’t be able to exist without consciousness. So the real question is why consciousness is creating the illusion that affords a concept like matter. The short answer is to experience every possibity it can create. This still leaves us asking the question, what is consciousness… and that is unanswerable here inside the matrix. To properly explore the essence of consciousness one must take the path of the shrooooom. Once you have experienced the dissolution of the matrix we can continue our conversation 😂
This is so interesting. I spent a lot of time filrting with the thought experiment of matter and antimatter existing in a cold state of equilibrium… This has some of a quenching effect :-)
7:40 - I'm fairly sure that you have transposed the viscosity labels. You have labelled cold maple-syrup as having low viscosity whilst hot water is labelled as having high viscosity.
The best videos are ones where the description is so concise and information-rich, AND there is a link to the actual white paper, that I don't have to expend 13min watching the video. (Because I can read faster than anyone can talk - any halfway-decent reader can.)
@5naxalotl If people can just study the body at a quantum scale to see how food and drinks break down in the body And effects it then we can find better food for our body.
@5naxalotl I only know few words. I wish I was smart enough to know more but I don't have that type of memory. I only see things. Add a different angle compared to most. That's why I only believe in a question. Not what I believe or know. Sorry, my words can't be confusing. I hope this was clear if not. I can always video chat. So you can tell me what words are right to use. Or let me know how I am wrong?
I have been waiting for scientists to figure this out for 30 years now. Hoping it has promising applications for the future, instead of being just a one-off discovery. But I'm willing to bet it will have applications.
Were they actually able to replace BOTH electrons as shown in the video? Replacing only one would leave two competing forces, but replacing both would somehow have to deal with simultaneous replacement. This seems to be just as vexing a questions as those asked in the video.
"Everything in the world that you can see, feel and touch is made of matter"?? Really? I can see light. Is it made of matter? I can feel heat - made of matter?
Dr. Keating, I think what is simply going on is the Meissner effect at the atomic scale: liquid helium atoms reject and repel antiproton magnetic fields and so do the electrons, resulting in a 3-body dance between the antiprotons, electrons and helium nuclei.
That's different from what his kid suggested -- that electrons be called negatrons. If different people want to use "negatron" in completely different ways, it's confusing.
@@JohnDlugoszNegatron actually completes the pattern better than anti-proton. Protons are positive, Electrons are negative. Their anti-particles might then be: Negatrons are negative, Positrons are positive.
@ Why are you changing the existing pattern? As scientists already have named things, orbital irreducible particles are “trons” hence electrons. and reducible composite particles in the nucleus are “tons” hence proton.
At the moment of creation, reality split into two. Matter went forward in time to become our positive energy universe. Antimatter went backwards in time to become the negative energy universe. This is the natural conclusion of rule zero of physics, "Everything adds up to nothing."
Just because I had to look up information, incase you don't udnerstand somethign in this video, I looked up these thigns so I could understand certain things: Antiprotons and positrons (antielectrons) are produced through different processes: ### Antiprotons: - **Production**: Antiprotons are typically produced by **colliding high-energy protons with a target material**. This is done in particle accelerators like the **Antiproton Decelerator (AD) at CERN**. When protons hit the target, they produce a variety of particles, including antiprotons. - **Source**: The proton beam used in these collisions often comes from hydrogen gas, which is ionized and accelerated. ### Positrons: - **Production**: Positrons can be produced through **positron emission radioactive decay** or **pair production**. In radioactive decay, a proton-rich nucleus emits a positron. Pair production occurs when a high-energy photon interacts with the electromagnetic field of a nucleus, creating an electron-positron pair. - **Source**: For experiments, positrons are often sourced from radioactive isotopes like **sodium-22 (Na-22)**, which undergoes beta-plus decay to emit positrons. Both antiprotons and positrons are essential for creating antihydrogen atoms and studying antimatter properties Does this help clarify where these particles come from? ---- CERN has indeed produced antimatter, specifically antihydrogen atoms. Here's a bit more detail: ### What They Did: - **Antihydrogen Production**: Scientists at CERN created antihydrogen atoms by combining antiprotons (negative particles) with positrons (positive particles). This was done using the **Antiproton Decelerator (AD)** and **ELENA** (Extra Low ENergy Antiproton) machines. - **Trapping and Studying**: The antihydrogen atoms were trapped in a magnetic trap to prevent them from coming into contact with matter and annihilating. This allowed scientists to study their properties. - **Gravity Experiment**: One notable experiment, the **ALPHA-g**, observed the influence of gravity on antihydrogen atoms. They found that antihydrogen atoms fall to Earth in the same way as regular hydrogen atoms, within the precision of their experiment. ### Appearance and Size: - **Appearance**: Antihydrogen atoms are electrically neutral and stable, so they don't emit light or have a visible appearance like regular matter. They are essentially invisible unless detected with specialized equipment. - **Size**: The size of an antihydrogen atom is the same as a regular hydrogen atom since they are composed of the same types of particles (an antiproton and a positron) but with opposite charges. I think this helped me, since I needed to know where those things come from.
It's interesting to see them moving forward with antimatter. I'm curious when they'll start working with anti-photons to see the equivalent of antimatter light
Because of the mass of the antiproton surely it must orbit close to the nucleus, risking annihilation... but, in the dim recesses of my mind I recall this being done years ago before with something like a negatively charged muon...
For sure: it's 2000 times more massive, which is why the nucleus is small. An antiproton attracted to a regular ion would not form a large cloud like electrons, but would join the nucleus. It would give off x-rays as it fell in and eventually annihilate.
@@regfordca A proton is about nine times the mass of a muon, apparently, So "muonium" is not very comparable to "antiprotonium" or whatever one calls it. And in turn a muon is about 200 times heavier than an electron.
Most of the time, I don't hear them say that matter and anti-matter will explode. It says they will annihilate. Less than explosions, its more like combining two things that suddenly fade out of existence when you merge them. Interesting that you might get something different altogether. I am looking forward to hearing more about this.
This changes a lot. Does it mean that there can be areas in the Universe where matter and antimatter coexist? As far as I know, it is not known where the antimatter disappeared (which in theory should be in the same amount as matter). In reality, there may be areas in the invisible Universe that are made of antimatter that do not explode when they reach the matter part of the Universe.
They had to explain what was happening OR THEY EXPECTED IT WITH THEORY? It would be misleading if there was a theory but stated it the way you did… so who wrote the theory? It’s why they did this.
I gave ChatGPT the paper and your summary in the info. It said, "The summary you've provided is mostly accurate but slightly exaggerated in parts. The referenced experiment at CERN explored antiprotonic helium, confirming that antimatter and matter annihilate predictably under specific conditions. The spectral behavior of these hybrid atoms in superfluid helium allowed researchers to test the symmetry between matter and antimatter. The claim that the findings "defied expectations" might be overstated. While intriguing, the results reinforced established physics, showing no deviations in antimatter behavior relative to matter. Misrepresentation likely arises from enthusiasm or misunderstanding the subtleties of the experiment's implications."
This also make me wander if there's a way to stabilize ultra heavy Elements that are radioactive. This may be the dawn of atomic engineering. Like, could you imagine making a uranium that's not radioactive.
@@mrvilla310 That's planet-bound thinking. Works great when on or around Earth but in terms of intergalactic scales, transposing planetary physics may be folly.
There actually is a way to test that. If we assume that there's some amount of both matter and antimatter, then it should be possible to find places in the universe where they are meeting, annihilating, and giving off a lot of energy. The simple fact that we don't see that means that it must not be happening.
I am a significant consumer of science content, but have mostly ignored Brian Keating because something about his personality just didn't do it for me. But now I see a massive improvement in his content. Between B-roll footage, quips and analogies, and staying appropriately on topic, he has really made a tremendous improvement across all metrics. Very pleased with this content.
10:25 neither of the two 'possible answers' makes sense. The answer probably has more to do with the decay phenomenon where a proton in a nucleus can give off a positron to become a neutron; possibly meaning the only charges in mass are from negtrons and protons. That might also make it easier to explain why our area of the universe seems to be all electrons and puffed up positrons instead of positrons and puffed up electrons.
@rogerjohnson2562 proton decay is only theoretical right now, and hasnt been observed in experiments, which is probably why it wasn't included (not that the explanation doesn't hold merit)
Proton and neutron and not opposite, it just appears that way to the proton. It’s basically a ground. If a neutron was opposite it would be a mirror image of the charge. It’s weird how they all balance.
Brian, there is no such thing as “New Physics.” There is reality and there is math describing reality. If theorists have a wrong idea and their math doesn’t map to reality and they later find math that does describe reality or describe it better, then that isn’t new physics. That is a different understanding of reality. The physics of reality doesn’t change, only human understanding does.
There are too many charlatan "scientists" of today and they all seem to mistake the map for the actual terrain. They are embarrasing and should be placed in the same category as seers, mediums and snake oil salesmen - it is a lot of make believe and fanciful fantasies being presented as "science" to us all the time.
You are being unnecessarily pedantic. When people say "new physics" they are not saying physics has changed, they are saying "newly discovered physics". It is just like if a biologist says "I discovered a new species of frog," they are not saying the species just evolved, they are saying it is newly discovered.
You completely miss the point that "physics" as a discipline is to make a model of our universe. Ideally, as accurate as we can. Yes, it would be great to perfectly emulate it, but they are all models. Physics is not the way the universe operates; it is a discipline dedicated to the modeling of reality. The difference is small but important when we are discussing semantics.
Note that reality can be different for different people. Not everyone is in command of the faculty to perceive anywhere close to reality. Objective reality doesn't exist because to know is to measure and to measure is to disturb so the reality moves away from what the apparatus has measured. Measuring = Quantizing = Communicating, which is always subject to noise. We just quantize the received signal to countable number of eigenvalues by mapping a continuum to a countable number of eigenvalue discretums.
I would think an antimatter mixed Helium atom is more stable because of its higher mass. If the Anti-Proton is taking the place of the electron, that's a lot higher mass to have orbiting a nucleus. And with higher mass comes more inertia to overcome, resulting in a more defined, less probabilistic, negative charge orbit, which would overall stabilize the atom. I don't think being a differing charge would have much of an impact on overall properties unless those overall properties we're examining are the reactions to its environment, which would be charged one way, instead of its opposite way.
I think the anti-protons dissolved in the fluid! Meaning, they now form electron-electron attraction? Electron-anti-proton attraction? I assume the anti-Helium was ionised with no electrons? And the helium has it's electrons on so no charge. Yes the antiprotons should settle in I guess. I reckon they would "sit high" until the electron jumps out, only then would they "settle" into closer bands. This raises the question does any anti-matter explode?
I think the difference is size of the two types of helium have been calculated and even measured (through spectral lines?). Try listening in the right place?
@Ava31415 no dude. You are baby thinking. What happens if you can expand on this? Its literally the bigggest development since actual chemistry. You could make designer atoms. Do you get the ramifications of that? Not to mention virtual atoms. Dude... please educate before commenting.
Colossians 1:16-17 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
In cosmology energy is considered to be mass. Atoms are neutral on the inside. Regular atoms are like a magnet with the plus pole in the center and the negative pole on the outside. That means that under normal conditions all atoms "see" other atoms as a negative charge and like charges repel each other. Only because of atomic valence do atoms combine with each other to form molecules.
My mind goes to the plausibility of creating helium antimatter batteries. One thing I either missed or wasn’t stated in the video: did the anti-helium persist at lower temperatures or just at superfluid temperatures?
Given the latest James Watt results I'd be wary of using the standard explanation of the big bang. There's too much we don't know. Sakharov once suggested that since antimatter is matter traveling in reverse time, there is an anti-universe in the past, stemming backwards from the big bang--but even that model doesn't account for present data. As for chimeric helium stability, I'd like to see the usual suspect addressed first : orbitals ; the issue of recomposition already exists in standard atoms; according to classical physics the electron orbitals should radiate and decay until the electron falls into the nucleus, where P+e --> N+neutrino. Never happens, so why should we get decomposition for P + (-P) ?
What frequency is the spectral line of a proton around a helium? Is it down in the radio because of the higher mass(slower) or is it up in the gamma range because higher mass means smaller shell? They measured that right?
The strong forces of neutrons are not "opposites", whatever that means. Between nucleons, the strong interaction is mediated by the pion, which is a scalar (spinless) particle, which means the strong force between nucleons is _always_ attractive.
So does the introduced antiproton release a photon when it decays to a lower energy state? If so does it's greater mass change the energy that the photon carries away?
For the particles to interact in the way observed there are clearly things going on we do not understand, but I do wonder if the fact that the helium was cooled to the point of superfluidity that the positrons lacked sufficient momentum to overcome the nuclear forces controlling atoms and thus managed to cojoin with some and form stable materials. I would imagine this must have happened in nature at some point. What would be interssting, if they can make sufficient quantities of this "heavy helium", what happens to it as the temperature is raised and the atoms gain thermal energy - do they stay cojoined or do they split apart and annialate each other?
Because of the much higher mass of the antiproton over the electron, one might assume its orbitals are smaller than electron orbitals for hellium. Maybe this is too clasical thinking but with the nucleus being just 100% more massive than two antiprotons, then might think the charge interaction over a much smaller distance imparts more movement to the nucleus.
All particles arise from and exist in quantum foam. This foam consist of particles coming in and out of existence. This implies a modal frequency of ordinary matter. The anti-proton that replaces the electron resonates at a frequency that is exactly 90 degrees out of phase with the proton it orbits, so that it dampens the natural protons frequencies and chaotic movement. No?
Is the fact that helium is inert or the extremely low temperature where this all took place not being considered as factors for no explosion? Perhaps the antimatter was not really antimatter at all, and it is just not well understood.
What particles are responsible for the charge in the nucleus, maybe the spin, keep the nucleus from contact. Like your levitate device doesn't allow the super conductor from dropping to the track.
When electrons "orbit" a nucleus, they form into quantum states and shells. If negitively charged electrons are repkaced by negitively charged anti-protons, what does that do to the configuration of the orbits? What happens in the hybrid version where only one electron is replaced by a positron? How do their quantum states interact? I really only have a surface level of understanding of what is involved here. For instance, I know that in an atom each quantum state can only have at most a single occupant. So the question of whether orbiting electrons and orbiting positrons share the "same" set of quantum states, vs each partical type having separate states, becomes very important when both types are contained in a single atom.
Being more of an engineer than a physicist by nature, MY first thought is: what can I do with what may be (is it?) stable and safe antimatter storage. Not practical storage at that scale, but, baby steps. Hm.
you know that effect that happens when something hot touches something cold and they wont contact because the difference is to large, i would presume that it may function like that, where the parts don't touch
You had me at baryogenesis [and superfluidity]! I was blessed by a "cutting edge" education at UCSD.. I can't wait til your next cutting edge installment
I think I am misunderstanding something. Did they detect the hybrid helium because of spectral lines? I thought the spectral line was an emission of light from an electron jumping between energy states. How does an antiproton jump between energy states when it has 2000 times more rest energy? Wouldn't the hybrid emission line have a different energy value and be incomparable to the helium lines?
Very interesting, questions: -Does this potentially open the door to a method for stabilizing antimatter in a matter world? That could be hugely important. -What happens when this superfluid Helium with antiproton-electron replacement is allowed to heat up? I would presume if superfluidity is the reason for this unexpected stability one could measure an excess of 'heat' at the transition temperature as annihilations begin... or not.
I'm not up to date, but I believe that matter - antimatter collisions resulting in conversion to energy is an 'observational' fact, but the detailed mechanism is not defined. Experimentally, if an electron and a positron (positively charged, antimatter electron) come together momentarily as a positronium atom, the two will spiral around each other, losing kinetic energy, then touch, converting into two or into three gamma rays, depending on if the particles have the same spin direction, or opposite spin direction. I believe this description is more than 50 years old. My point is that both the spin and the kinetic energy of the particles has to be at a lower state, for the two particles to interact. I would expect the temperature of the environment would affect the kinetic energy of the interaction, and might affect the window interactivity and matter to energy conversion.
I wish you had an explanation for why the anti-protoms didn't annihilate with the electrons they were displacing and were also co-orbiting with. -- This goes to my, "What counts as contact," question. All my life, every statement about matter and anti-matter coming into contact is that it causes annihilation. An anti-proton taking up position in an electron's orbital position seems "closer" than contact with the remaining matter particles of the rest of the helium atom.
I wonder, do they have the same orbitals as electrons? And how do they know it's the anti-protons orbiting the protons - and not the other way around? Shouldn't the heavier one "fall" the the center?
Hmm, unlike a fission bomb, the matter -anti matter bomb has a flaw - NO runaway process. That is if two matter - antimatter particles annihilate eachother, the Gamma pulse produced does not encourage further annihilations (or am I wrong?)
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Win a meteorite briankeating.com/yt
say less
Great episode! As for the cosmic matter/antimatter dissymmetry Brian mentions at the end; that paradox really depends on how we view the shape of our Big Bang. If indeed our Big Bang was a kind of ‘dumb’ exploding sphere, then indeed we have an issue explaining the observed lack of antimatter. But an exploding sphere is not the default shape of cosmic high energy cosmic structures creating matter and space. Like star birth and galaxy birth, the typical structure actually would involve a high energy disk, with two jets, feeding two lobes of purged matter and radiation on each side. The Cygnus A galaxy would best represent this high energy default shape. If our Big Bang were shaped this way, then obviously the central disk would create a matter lobe on one side (that would be us) and anti-matter lobe on the other. That explains why we can’t see anti matter. Problem solved. The detailed mechanism for dividing matter into both lobes would be the central spinning disk, presenting clockwise electro(weak)-spin on one side, yet viewed from the other side, anti-clockwise spin. This means newly created matter of like electroweak spin would be accelerated away from the disk, but matter of opposite spin (antimatter) would be pulled back to the disk, cross it, and next be pushed outward on the other side. This also means after a quick expansion, half the matter would return to the other side, causing contraction, followed by gradual expansion again. Also, there would be traces of an umbilical cord connecting both lobes even today, which we have in the form of the great attractor, showing preferred cosmic motion. So in all; we can solve the matter anti matter paradox by just revisiting our idea of the shape of the Big Bang.
Great channel, Dr. Keating. I have a twin sister and frequently I think we are the anti twin to each other more often than not. But we haven't eliminated each other so that's good (a -2!). Most times 1 + -1 = 0. But lately it seems we've become 1 + -1 = > 2 but < 3. I'm the "1" of course🙂
@@Canada4evr which one of you is insane trudeau fan?
I might be very stupid now. But just wondering one thing. Could it be possible for anti-proton to decay in to electron? Let’s say that the neutron isn’t as good at glueing antiprotons in to atoms. When an anti proton is not bound to an atom, it decays in to electron. This maybe could explain some things about missing anti matter and also dark matter. Where there seems to be more mass, than what is seen. If anti protons are filling in for electrons. Then I’m guessing it would show more mass. Also the massive early black holes. I know i might be stupid. I have no scientific background. So please be gentle in your replies. 🙏 😊
Should not have ordered antimatter from Temu...
Or anything else
At least their fireworks are safe for shipping.
@@MagicNumberArg when in doubt order from Acme 🤭
I'll have you know that Temu antimatter is just as good as the real thing.
Why? What’s the matter?
Well, when you mix matter and antimatter you need dilithium crystals to regulate things.
I was forced to mine dilithium on the penal asteroid of Rurapente. It sucked. :C
Careful you don't form a warp bubble 🤣
@@Alondro77 Nice summers.
@@Alondro77 Hahaha I remember my mom letting me skip school so she could take me to a midday showing of that film. Good times!
@@cybervigilante Everyone knows this.
It'd be mind blowing if the only thing needed to store antimatter is a really good refrigerator.
sounds cool until the fridge stops working, causing the superfluid to heat up until it becomes regular fluid and you unintentionally create an antimatter bomb.
as always, "think of what humanity can do with this 😀" and "think of what humanity can do with this 😱"
honestly though a superfluid helium antimatter storage system would make an amazing propulsion method for spacecraft, just have a tiny slow spray of superfluid "hybrid atoms" into a magnetic nozzle with heating and you could have enough delta-V to reach other star systems in 10-20 years and still have enough energy left to blow it up (the entire star system).
@@JedPotts-jv2uxCompared to a space ship, a star is huge and incredibly energetic. A few tons of antimatter exploding might briefly shine brighter than the star, but it would be a localized effect. It would need to be really close to a planet to destroy its atmosphere. The other planets in that solar system would be fine.
Destroying a solar system is hyperbole.
Super cooled and magnetically suspended?
That would basically make it a fuel source if you could simply store it in a fluid mixture, and heat it to cause it to react.
Scientists have been capturing and storing tiny amounts of antimatter at CERN for a while already.
"More viscosity means it flows less..." followed by graphic showing syrup as low viscosity and water as high. Seriously. Did no one watch the video before uploading?
They were making it more funny 😮, video is full of memes and cutaways, disgusting.
@@kkgt6591 "They were making it more funny 😮, video is full of memes and cutaways, disgusting."
Ah yes, funny....
Comment bait imo.
I guess the graphic was done by an arts student?
This is a normal level of accuracy for YT science. As an Engineer/developer/scientist, I find most YT tutorials frustrating.
What do you mean that it "didn't explode"? Do you mean that this new hybrid atom lasted for a fraction of a millisecond before the matter and anti-matter annihilated, or are you saying that this hybrid atom still exists to this day? There are also many other omissions/problems with this video, which others have described although many of them might just be because no one knows.
It's unclear if the unclarity of the video is warrented.
it could mean anything 2 particles annihilating sending 2 photons in opposite directions doesnt sound like what i would call an explosion
I think an activation energy must be reached to have matter / anti-matter annihilation , they can't just bump into each other , plus there is no way the antiproton can get into the nucleus just as an electron cannot , at least at low energies , and a bound electron really has no chance of entering the nucleus unless under high gravitational pressure
@@edwardmacnab354 if theres an activation energy there must be a middle state of higher energy than both the antiproton orbiting energy and the proton antiproton collision state, i think at this scale its not like that its more like the particles have a position and speed not determined so they kinda has a chance of being in the same place, it does with electron capture, and electron capture can happen when you dont have enough energy to do a beta + decay, also electron proton cannot annihilate cus that would change the leptonic and baronic number and i think it would change the spin too
@@gabrielgauchez9435 He also made the rookie mistake of forgetting fourth neutrino flavour
@@edwardmacnab354 even then it can't happen, Pauli exclusion principal, but yeah we are left with more questions because of the patronizing dumbing down goes way too far, many YT vids are clearly insinuating the audience are ignorant dimwits...not quite all of us are...
It'd be funny if a "great filter" was due to the question of "Why don't these react?" and more and more was put together until a GRB visible from the other side of the galaxy happens.
😂Funny?
Imagine if we could stably bind and destabilize anti-particles at will. That would make the best fuel and energy density imaginable. My iPhone could store more energy than a nuclear warhead.
Nah, iPhone powered world will be far worse than a Nuclear wasteland.
Kindly notice that helium has been in 'short supply.' Not to get too into the deep end, but if you look through the 'wider noise'...
Omg tayzonday my guy! Hey you like science and music look at the n-speres project that just dropped 7 days ago! Oscilloscope music! The entire project and visuals fit on a floppy!
Samsung batteries are already close in terms of yield, no?
I'm not sure you'd want that....
Why do people say "theory" when they actually mean "hypothesis"? A theory describes a phenomenon through rigorous testing. A hypothesis is a prediction based on observations of a phenomenon prior to rigorous testing.
Because those who know what a scientific theory is, even scientists themselves, will switch between the colloquial and technical meanings of theory. It is a bad thing to do as it muddies the water and so many don't even know what a scientific theory is.
Because people have become scientifically illiterate.
This test was done at CERN. What constitutes rigorous these days?
@@billymorris3265 When you conduct the same experiment more than twice, maybe? Details get over looked when experiments become "routine".
The layman definition of theory means exactly what the layman thinks when they hear "scientific theory".
There are also antineutrons, which of course, are, like neutrons, electrically neutral. They aren't the same as neutrons, though, because there are other properties they have that are opposite to those of neutrons. I'm guessing this was glossed over here so as not to confuse some of the viewers?
Fred
But they didnt replace the neutrons with anti-neutrons. They replaced the electrons with anti-protons to make a 2proton-2neutron-2antiproton helium hybrid atom.
@@sunrazor2622 Of course, but I was referring to the explanation of what anti-helium would consist of.
Which would be a nucleus of 2 antiprotons & 2 antineutrons, surrounded by a "cloud" of 2 positrons.
While explaining this, he omitted the part about antineutrons, possibly leaving the misimpression that anti-helium would have ordinary neutrons.
I am probably not the first person to think of this but if you take that as a liquid and put it down a little tube and heat it up with will it explode and become a very effective source of energy?
"When antimatter particles like positrons move, they can create electric currents similar to those created by electrons, but with opposite charge flow direction." Unfortunately, this is not termed "anti-electricity". But, this doesn't make me anti-happy. 😆
Epic
@@picksalot1 positricity?
@@peterfireflylund postricity. remove an i so it flows easier when spoken.
Knee slapper ha. Ha ha. Ha.
It is so fascinating that all of Dr. Keatings blinking' and plinkin' effects in his videos is actually made out of actual ELECTRICITY. Can you believe it?
From the graphs at 8:43, the antiprotons are in Rydberg states with ridiculously high principal (n) and angular momentum (l) quantum numbers. This means that the antiproton has an extremely low probability of being near the protons, hence the long annihilation lifetime. When the l value was lowered either by laser excitation or stimulated emission, the annihilation rate went up as there was a greater (but still low) probability of the antiproton being near the nucleus. Normally high lying Rydberg states get quenched by collisions--what this seems to show is that collisional quenching is minimal in a superfluid environment (which makes sense given the other properties of superfluids).
I would have supposed that an antiproton would get "ionized" away and so escape from the nucleus, much more easily than an electron. Not true?
@@RalphDratman An antiproton is about 2000x heavier than an electron, so it's a lot harder to push out. If an antiproton is shot into a fluid of supercritical helium, it will be repulsed by the much lighter electrons, which will eventually cause it to lose energy and get (weakly) captured by one of the helium atoms (by knocking out an elactron).
So, if anti protons (more massive) replaced electrons (less massive) in the electron shell, do they orbit the nucleous at the same speed? Or reduced speeds? This could change the interactive properties of the element. Just as the electron shells determine what types of reactions can occur with the element, anti-protons may alter these reactions in unforseen ways.
The electrons and antiprotons actually don't orbit at all. That's a model which has been outdated for about 100 years.
atomic orbitals dont actually work like that
The word 'orbit' is a misnomer when talking about quantum particles.
@@Nicholasbroughton0420 in the absence of positrons and electrons, as well as being near zero Kelvin’s, there isn’t a lot of orbiting going on. In fact superfluids under atomic magnification are very calm and soothing. Everything is just kinda chillin there. Sorry😅 I had to.
Speed makes no sense in the ground state because the wavefunction of let's say a electron in protium has no angular variation *AT ALL* in the commonly used model. It's entirely stationary and spherical-symmetric.
There is so much going on in the visuals in the background that it distracts from what is being explained. The images that are meant to be part of the explanation are quickly combined with images that are purely entertainment which is an additional distraction making the whole smaller than the sum of the parts.
I totally agree.
Then just listen
These comments are baffling...
Try it at 1.5 speed!
@@openleft4214 Just listening is rough too, with the constant movie quotes thrown in. I'm not sure why RUclips recommended this channel, but just watching one video is so mentally draining that it's enough for me to tell it not to recommend this channel again.
Antimatter Behaving Badly, a new comedy series coming soon to the BBC.
maybe antimatter has anti light and are "eveil
BBC is crazy
So how do these particles act if allowed to return to its gas form?
You have a level of enthusiasm that is contagious, please continue to spread the word. The world needs more people like you to spread the word.
I almost didn't watch this video thinking it was just a fraud or clickbait. I'm glad my curiosity got the best of me.
As I understand it, if scientists had truly understood the nature of electromagnetism--and, in particular, electricity--at the time they were naming the electron, they would have defined its charge as positive.
Producing exotic atoms and exotic matter and even stabilise that stuff is really amazing. Maybe mankind is not far away from building exotic matter factories.
We might want to consider doing that off planet though if we get that far, don't want an accident taking out half a continent. In the lab for study, you're working with very small amounts of it, but if you want a factory or try doing this at industrial scales, a new very serious risk may arise.
@@TheJadeFist well, conservation of energy helps us there... we shouldn't be getting more energy out than we're putting in
11:23 that are entire stars suspected of being made of antimatter. It is still weird that most of it is matter. But, it would be cool if we confirm or deny those hypothesis. Those stars have weird emissions that could align with annihilation in its borders.
Great episode! As for the cosmic matter/antimatter dissymmetry Brian mentions at the end; that paradox really depends on how we view the shape of our Big Bang. If indeed our Big Bang was a kind of ‘dumb’ exploding sphere, then indeed we have an issue explaining the observed lack of antimatter. But an exploding sphere is not the default shape of cosmic high energy cosmic structures creating matter and space. Like star birth and galaxy birth, the typical structure actually would involve a high energy disk, with two jets, feeding two lobes of purged matter and radiation on each side. The Cygnus A galaxy would best represent this high energy default shape. If our Big Bang were shaped this way, then obviously the central disk would create a matter lobe on one side (that would be us) and anti-matter lobe on the other. That explains why we can’t see anti matter. Problem solved. The detailed mechanism for dividing matter into both lobes would be the central spinning disk, presenting clockwise electroweak-spin on one side, yet viewed from the other side, anti-clockwise electroweakspin. This means newly created matter of like spin would be accelerated away from the disk, but matter of opposite electroweak spin (antimatter) would be pulled back to the disk, cross it, and next be pushed outward on the other side. This also means after a quick expansion, half the matter would return to the other side, causing contraction, followed by gradual expansion again. Also, there would be traces of an umbilical cord connecting both lobes even today, which we have in the form of the great attractor, showing preferred cosmic motion. So in all; we can solve the matter anti matter paradox by just revisiting our idea of the shape of the Big Bang.
So, given this as a scientific revelation... could our 'dark matter' be at least partially composed of hybrid matter and that also explain why there is something rather than nothing ? If its in a superfluid state, it may not interact as expected from conventional matter ?
Hello Dr. Keating, I was a bit confused by one thing you said. Did you suggest that the antiproton was in a lower orbital and the electron was in a higher orbital? Why wouldn't they share the lowermost orbital like two electrons would? Or did I misunderstand you?
Nice presentation. It's funny I often think about how we assign our best descriptions to physical systems and then vote new phenomena through that lens. This maybe a great opportunity to test those essential descriptions we have. Keep on the good work.
0:10 Everything we feel and touch is the result of electrons in our fingers repulsing electrons is what we feel and touch. So everything you can feel and touch is 'matter' BUT a better description is it is ELECTRONS, the protons are hidden by the electrons.
@rogerjohnson2562 technically, it's the exchange of force carrying photons between the electrically charged particles that causes what we perceive as touch.
Think you are leaving out the fact that the mass comes from the protons and neutrons…
Actually there is no matter, just the extraordinary illusion that your consciousness believes as it builds constructs from thought, which is another illusion.
All that exists at a fundamental level is consciousness… matter is just a concept that exists in the matrix!😮👀😂
@ what is the thought made out of ?
@@tvviewer4500 now we’re asking the right question… it’s an emergent phenomenon of being emmersed in the delusion of a world made of matter.
And it wouldn’t be able to exist without consciousness.
So the real question is why consciousness is creating the illusion that affords a concept like matter.
The short answer is to experience every possibity it can create.
This still leaves us asking the question, what is consciousness… and that is unanswerable here inside the matrix.
To properly explore the essence of consciousness one must take the path of the shrooooom. Once you have experienced the dissolution of the matrix we can continue our conversation 😂
This is so interesting. I spent a lot of time filrting with the thought experiment of matter and antimatter existing in a cold state of equilibrium… This has some of a quenching effect :-)
7:40 - I'm fairly sure that you have transposed the viscosity labels. You have labelled cold maple-syrup as having low viscosity whilst hot water is labelled as having high viscosity.
yes and moreover he could mention anti-neutron
The best videos are ones where the description is so concise and information-rich, AND there is a link to the actual white paper, that I don't have to expend 13min watching the video.
(Because I can read faster than anyone can talk - any halfway-decent reader can.)
It's not new physics. It's new understanding of physics.
except you can equally define physics as our conceptual model of reality
@5naxalotl If people can just study the body at a quantum scale to see how food and drinks break down in the body And effects it then we can find better food for our body.
@@markhuffman834 sounds like you've been acquiring words instead of understanding concepts
@5naxalotl I only know few words. I wish I was smart enough to know more but I don't have that type of memory.
I only see things. Add a different angle compared to most.
That's why I only believe in a question. Not what I believe or know. Sorry, my words can't be confusing. I hope this was clear if not. I can always video chat. So you can tell me what words are right to use. Or let me know how I am wrong?
This RUclips has been thoroughly peer-reviewed.
I have been waiting for scientists to figure this out for 30 years now. Hoping it has promising applications for the future, instead of being just a one-off discovery. But I'm willing to bet it will have applications.
Were they actually able to replace BOTH electrons as shown in the video? Replacing only one would leave two competing forces, but replacing both would somehow have to deal with simultaneous replacement. This seems to be just as vexing a questions as those asked in the video.
"Everything in the world that you can see, feel and touch is made of matter"??
Really?
I can see light. Is it made of matter?
I can feel heat - made of matter?
Yes. Matter=stored energy=matter=stored energy.
yes, photons have mass, thanks to bosons.
Dr. Keating, I think what is simply going on is the Meissner effect at the atomic scale: liquid helium atoms reject and repel antiproton magnetic fields and so do the electrons, resulting in a 3-body dance between the antiprotons, electrons and helium nuclei.
I'm smelling an awful lot of maybe coming off all of this.
Well, that was fascinating. I'm not sure what kind of application this has other than creating heavier, more expensive helium, but it is fascinating.
2:39 there are several pieces of literature referring to antiprotons as negatrons
Let's just say "Negtrons"
That's different from what his kid suggested -- that electrons be called negatrons.
If different people want to use "negatron" in completely different ways, it's confusing.
@@JohnDlugoszNegatron actually completes the pattern better than anti-proton. Protons are positive, Electrons are negative. Their anti-particles might then be: Negatrons are negative, Positrons are positive.
To actually fit the “pattern” ..wouldn’t the proper nomenclature rename be just protRons
@ Why are you changing the existing pattern? As scientists already have named things, orbital irreducible particles are “trons” hence electrons. and reducible composite particles in the nucleus are “tons” hence proton.
At the moment of creation, reality split into two. Matter went forward in time to become our positive energy universe. Antimatter went backwards in time to become the negative energy universe. This is the natural conclusion of rule zero of physics, "Everything adds up to nothing."
Just because I had to look up information, incase you don't udnerstand somethign in this video, I looked up these thigns so I could understand certain things:
Antiprotons and positrons (antielectrons) are produced through different processes:
### Antiprotons:
- **Production**: Antiprotons are typically produced by **colliding high-energy protons with a target material**. This is done in particle accelerators like the **Antiproton Decelerator (AD) at CERN**. When protons hit the target, they produce a variety of particles, including antiprotons.
- **Source**: The proton beam used in these collisions often comes from hydrogen gas, which is ionized and accelerated.
### Positrons:
- **Production**: Positrons can be produced through **positron emission radioactive decay** or **pair production**. In radioactive decay, a proton-rich nucleus emits a positron. Pair production occurs when a high-energy photon interacts with the electromagnetic field of a nucleus, creating an electron-positron pair.
- **Source**: For experiments, positrons are often sourced from radioactive isotopes like **sodium-22 (Na-22)**, which undergoes beta-plus decay to emit positrons.
Both antiprotons and positrons are essential for creating antihydrogen atoms and studying antimatter properties
Does this help clarify where these particles come from?
----
CERN has indeed produced antimatter, specifically antihydrogen atoms. Here's a bit more detail:
### What They Did:
- **Antihydrogen Production**: Scientists at CERN created antihydrogen atoms by combining antiprotons (negative particles) with positrons (positive particles). This was done using the **Antiproton Decelerator (AD)** and **ELENA** (Extra Low ENergy Antiproton) machines.
- **Trapping and Studying**: The antihydrogen atoms were trapped in a magnetic trap to prevent them from coming into contact with matter and annihilating. This allowed scientists to study their properties.
- **Gravity Experiment**: One notable experiment, the **ALPHA-g**, observed the influence of gravity on antihydrogen atoms. They found that antihydrogen atoms fall to Earth in the same way as regular hydrogen atoms, within the precision of their experiment.
### Appearance and Size:
- **Appearance**: Antihydrogen atoms are electrically neutral and stable, so they don't emit light or have a visible appearance like regular matter. They are essentially invisible unless detected with specialized equipment.
- **Size**: The size of an antihydrogen atom is the same as a regular hydrogen atom since they are composed of the same types of particles (an antiproton and a positron) but with opposite charges.
I think this helped me, since I needed to know where those things come from.
Strong minor in Chemistry from Revelle College, UCSD! "Negatrons" - brilliant! Liked & Subscribed
Does antimatter behave differently than ordinary matter? Does it matter or not matter?
I wouldn't "mind" either way. 😁
Dude Brian Keating is literally just a talking head, an NPC, nothing he says "matters" in the slightest. He is a programmed youtube entertainer.
@@Fnord1984 Actually, Brian Keating is a cosmologist who is doing lots of research. So yes, what he says matters a lot.
Antimatter behaves mostly in the same way than ordinary matter, there are only some subtle differences. Read up on "C symmetry" and its breaking.
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 Has he discoverd anything new about physics at all and if that is the case what is it?
It's interesting to see them moving forward with antimatter. I'm curious when they'll start working with anti-photons to see the equivalent of antimatter light
Are you sure of this? It doesn't seem to make sense. Wouldn't an antiproton have a very different "orbit" when compared with an electron?
Didn't he say exactly that in the video already - that the "orbit" is different?
Because of the mass of the antiproton surely it must orbit close to the nucleus, risking annihilation... but, in the dim recesses of my mind I recall this being done years ago before with something like a negatively charged muon...
For sure: it's 2000 times more massive, which is why the nucleus is small. An antiproton attracted to a regular ion would not form a large cloud like electrons, but would join the nucleus. It would give off x-rays as it fell in and eventually annihilate.
@@regfordca A proton is about nine times the mass of a muon, apparently, So "muonium" is not very comparable to "antiprotonium" or whatever one calls it. And in turn a muon is about 200 times heavier than an electron.
Most of the time, I don't hear them say that matter and anti-matter will explode. It says they will annihilate. Less than explosions, its more like combining two things that suddenly fade out of existence when you merge them. Interesting that you might get something different altogether. I am looking forward to hearing more about this.
This changes a lot. Does it mean that there can be areas in the Universe where matter and antimatter coexist? As far as I know, it is not known where the antimatter disappeared (which in theory should be in the same amount as matter). In reality, there may be areas in the invisible Universe that are made of antimatter that do not explode when they reach the matter part of the Universe.
We don't know that distant galaxies aren't made of antimatter. Physicists assume they're made of normal matter but we can't actually know.
They had to explain what was happening OR THEY EXPECTED IT WITH THEORY? It would be misleading if there was a theory but stated it the way you did… so who wrote the theory? It’s why they did this.
I gave ChatGPT the paper and your summary in the info. It said, "The summary you've provided is mostly accurate but slightly exaggerated in parts. The referenced experiment at CERN explored antiprotonic helium, confirming that antimatter and matter annihilate predictably under specific conditions. The spectral behavior of these hybrid atoms in superfluid helium allowed researchers to test the symmetry between matter and antimatter.
The claim that the findings "defied expectations" might be overstated. While intriguing, the results reinforced established physics, showing no deviations in antimatter behavior relative to matter. Misrepresentation likely arises from enthusiasm or misunderstanding the subtleties of the experiment's implications."
I figured it was going to be a click-baity title.
@@SiriusMined I only wonder when his friends will begin to notice.
i mean, we could call the anti-Proton the "Negatron". in my head canon, the anti-Proton is called the Negatron
12:10 We don't KNOW that other galaxies aren't made of antimatter. There's no way to test that.
I want to know what happens when you try to fuse them to make Helium.
This also make me wander if there's a way to stabilize ultra heavy Elements that are radioactive. This may be the dawn of atomic engineering. Like, could you imagine making a uranium that's not radioactive.
We have to assume the whole universe in homogeneous until evidence to the contrary.
@@mrvilla310 That's planet-bound thinking. Works great when on or around Earth but in terms of intergalactic scales, transposing planetary physics may be folly.
There actually is a way to test that. If we assume that there's some amount of both matter and antimatter, then it should be possible to find places in the universe where they are meeting, annihilating, and giving off a lot of energy. The simple fact that we don't see that means that it must not be happening.
Where did they take the antiprotons from?
I am a significant consumer of science content, but have mostly ignored Brian Keating because something about his personality just didn't do it for me.
But now I see a massive improvement in his content. Between B-roll footage, quips and analogies, and staying appropriately on topic, he has really made a tremendous improvement across all metrics. Very pleased with this content.
What happens to the hybrid helium after it is warmed up? Does it remain stable or annihilate?
Great video, enjoyed it a lot! Very interesting and greatly presented! Thanks!
Glad you enjoyed it!
@@DrBrianKeating Thank you!!
10:25 neither of the two 'possible answers' makes sense. The answer probably has more to do with the decay phenomenon where a proton in a nucleus can give off a positron to become a neutron; possibly meaning the only charges in mass are from negtrons and protons. That might also make it easier to explain why our area of the universe seems to be all electrons and puffed up positrons instead of positrons and puffed up electrons.
@rogerjohnson2562 proton decay is only theoretical right now, and hasnt been observed in experiments, which is probably why it wasn't included (not that the explanation doesn't hold merit)
This format and style of video is nice, should do a bit more of those!
Proton and neutron and not opposite, it just appears that way to the proton. It’s basically a ground. If a neutron was opposite it would be a mirror image of the charge. It’s weird how they all balance.
0:25 i can A-B repeat this all day lol 🤣
How the heck is that even possible...? Protons are 1,835x more massive than electrons and same for anti-protons....
Liking this new style. Love this, yes let's dig into baryogenesis. Perfect research direction.
More to come!
10:57 Equal matter and antimatter? Not if our side of the universe has a predominate spin.
Brian, there is no such thing as “New Physics.” There is reality and there is math describing reality. If theorists have a wrong idea and their math doesn’t map to reality and they later find math that does describe reality or describe it better, then that isn’t new physics. That is a different understanding of reality. The physics of reality doesn’t change, only human understanding does.
There are too many charlatan "scientists" of today and they all seem to mistake the map for the actual terrain. They are embarrasing and should be placed in the same category as seers, mediums and snake oil salesmen - it is a lot of make believe and fanciful fantasies being presented as "science" to us all the time.
You are being unnecessarily pedantic. When people say "new physics" they are not saying physics has changed, they are saying "newly discovered physics". It is just like if a biologist says "I discovered a new species of frog," they are not saying the species just evolved, they are saying it is newly discovered.
He means "new for us" 🤦
You completely miss the point that "physics" as a discipline is to make a model of our universe. Ideally, as accurate as we can.
Yes, it would be great to perfectly emulate it, but they are all models. Physics is not the way the universe operates; it is a discipline dedicated to the modeling of reality. The difference is small but important when we are discussing semantics.
Note that reality can be different for different people. Not everyone is in command of the faculty to perceive anywhere close to reality. Objective reality doesn't exist because to know is to measure and to measure is to disturb so the reality moves away from what the apparatus has measured. Measuring = Quantizing = Communicating, which is always subject to noise. We just quantize the received signal to countable number of eigenvalues by mapping a continuum to a countable number of eigenvalue discretums.
I would think an antimatter mixed Helium atom is more stable because of its higher mass. If the Anti-Proton is taking the place of the electron, that's a lot higher mass to have orbiting a nucleus. And with higher mass comes more inertia to overcome, resulting in a more defined, less probabilistic, negative charge orbit, which would overall stabilize the atom. I don't think being a differing charge would have much of an impact on overall properties unless those overall properties we're examining are the reactions to its environment, which would be charged one way, instead of its opposite way.
Maple syrup has low viscosity and hot water has high viscosity? I've learned something new today! (7:40)
lol
I think the anti-protons dissolved in the fluid! Meaning, they now form electron-electron attraction? Electron-anti-proton attraction? I assume the anti-Helium was ionised with no electrons? And the helium has it's electrons on so no charge. Yes the antiprotons should settle in I guess. I reckon they would "sit high" until the electron jumps out, only then would they "settle" into closer bands. This raises the question does any anti-matter explode?
Please stop with the clips. I'm not a child and I have an attention span longer than that of a goldfish.
Who is forcing you to watch it? Not Brian.
It's 13:00 mins long what are u talking about 😭😭
Wait. not a child? fooled everyone.
As a goldfish this comment offended me
People who use their full names and display photos of themselves and family shouldn’t be this big of pricks on the Internet
The chemistry implications are hilarious and no one is talking
I think the difference is size of the two types of helium have been calculated and even measured (through spectral lines?). Try listening in the right place?
@Ava31415 no dude. You are baby thinking. What happens if you can expand on this? Its literally the bigggest development since actual chemistry. You could make designer atoms. Do you get the ramifications of that? Not to mention virtual atoms. Dude... please educate before commenting.
Colossians 1:16-17
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
Too bad the bible doesn’t mention electrons protons etc just fuzzy meaningless human structures.
Who you talking about? Where can I meet this dude he seems interesting.
@@Fnord1984 Genesis 1:1 through Revelation 22:21 🤗
@@redwolf7227 Interesting. Does it contains instructions for me on how to go about to contact him so I can speak to him directly?
@ I believe all you have to do is pray sincerely.
In cosmology energy is considered to be mass.
Atoms are neutral on the inside. Regular atoms are like a magnet with the plus pole in the center and the negative pole on the outside. That means that under normal conditions all atoms "see" other atoms as a negative charge and like charges repel each other. Only because of atomic valence do atoms combine with each other to form molecules.
It's just Uncle-Matter IDENTIFYING as Aunty-Matter.
Not funnt
My mind goes to the plausibility of creating helium antimatter batteries.
One thing I either missed or wasn’t stated in the video: did the anti-helium persist at lower temperatures or just at superfluid temperatures?
Given the latest James Watt results I'd be wary of using the standard explanation of the big bang. There's too much we don't know. Sakharov once suggested that since antimatter is matter traveling in reverse time, there is an anti-universe in the past, stemming backwards from the big bang--but even that model doesn't account for present data. As for chimeric helium stability, I'd like to see the usual suspect addressed first : orbitals ; the issue of recomposition already exists in standard atoms; according to classical physics the electron orbitals should radiate and decay until the electron falls into the nucleus, where P+e --> N+neutrino. Never happens, so why should we get decomposition for P + (-P) ?
What frequency is the spectral line of a proton around a helium? Is it down in the radio because of the higher mass(slower) or is it up in the gamma range because higher mass means smaller shell?
They measured that right?
Wouldn't the strong charge of the antiproton be opposite of the proton, which could push them apart if they get close enough?
The strong forces of neutrons are not "opposites", whatever that means. Between nucleons, the strong interaction is mediated by the pion, which is a scalar (spinless) particle, which means the strong force between nucleons is _always_ attractive.
So does the introduced antiproton release a photon when it decays to a lower energy state? If so does it's greater mass change the energy that the photon carries away?
Yes.
For the particles to interact in the way observed there are clearly things going on we do not understand, but I do wonder if the fact that the helium was cooled to the point of superfluidity that the positrons lacked sufficient momentum to overcome the nuclear forces controlling atoms and thus managed to cojoin with some and form stable materials. I would imagine this must have happened in nature at some point. What would be interssting, if they can make sufficient quantities of this "heavy helium", what happens to it as the temperature is raised and the atoms gain thermal energy - do they stay cojoined or do they split apart and annialate each other?
So could u use liquid helium in a way similsr to a tokamak or mhd propulsion?
Because of the much higher mass of the antiproton over the electron, one might assume its orbitals are smaller than electron orbitals for hellium. Maybe this is too clasical thinking but with the nucleus being just 100% more massive than two antiprotons, then might think the charge interaction over a much smaller distance imparts more movement to the nucleus.
What type of spectral lines does this anti helium atom have?
All particles arise from and exist in quantum foam. This foam consist of particles coming in and out of existence. This implies a modal frequency of ordinary matter. The anti-proton that replaces the electron resonates at a frequency that is exactly 90 degrees out of phase with the proton it orbits, so that it dampens the natural protons frequencies and chaotic movement. No?
Do antiprotons give off light at the same wavelength as an electron when jumping energy levels?
Is the fact that helium is inert or the extremely low temperature where this all took place not being considered as factors for no explosion? Perhaps the antimatter was not really antimatter at all, and it is just not well understood.
Anti-protaic helium sounds like something that endangers the Starship Enterprise.
What particles are responsible for the charge in the nucleus, maybe the spin, keep the nucleus from contact.
Like your levitate device doesn't allow the super conductor from dropping to the track.
When electrons "orbit" a nucleus, they form into quantum states and shells. If negitively charged electrons are repkaced by negitively charged anti-protons, what does that do to the configuration of the orbits? What happens in the hybrid version where only one electron is replaced by a positron? How do their quantum states interact?
I really only have a surface level of understanding of what is involved here.
For instance, I know that in an atom each quantum state can only have at most a single occupant. So the question of whether orbiting electrons and orbiting positrons share the "same" set of quantum states, vs each partical type having separate states, becomes very important when both types are contained in a single atom.
Being more of an engineer than a physicist by nature, MY first thought is: what can I do with what may be (is it?) stable and safe antimatter storage. Not practical storage at that scale, but, baby steps. Hm.
you know that effect that happens when something hot touches something cold and they wont contact because the difference is to large, i would presume that it may function like that, where the parts don't touch
"Everything you can see is made of matter"
We can only see photons. They aren't made of matter.
You had me at baryogenesis [and superfluidity]! I was blessed by a "cutting edge" education at UCSD.. I can't wait til your next cutting edge installment
When your antimatter is a temu find late night after the bar.
One step closer to matter-antimatter warp cores.
I think I am misunderstanding something. Did they detect the hybrid helium because of spectral lines? I thought the spectral line was an emission of light from an electron jumping between energy states. How does an antiproton jump between energy states when it has 2000 times more rest energy? Wouldn't the hybrid emission line have a different energy value and be incomparable to the helium lines?
Nature strives to have balance.
Very interesting, questions:
-Does this potentially open the door to a method for stabilizing antimatter in a matter world? That could be hugely important.
-What happens when this superfluid Helium with antiproton-electron replacement is allowed to heat up? I would presume if superfluidity is the reason for this unexpected stability one could measure an excess of 'heat' at the transition temperature as annihilations begin... or not.
Scientists missed their chance to call a subatomic particle a Negatron.
I'm not up to date, but I believe that matter - antimatter collisions resulting in conversion to energy is an 'observational' fact, but the detailed mechanism is not defined. Experimentally, if an electron and a positron (positively charged, antimatter electron) come together momentarily as a positronium atom, the two will spiral around each other, losing kinetic energy, then touch, converting into two or into three gamma rays, depending on if the particles have the same spin direction, or opposite spin direction. I believe this description is more than 50 years old. My point is that both the spin and the kinetic energy of the particles has to be at a lower state, for the two particles to interact. I would expect the temperature of the environment would affect the kinetic energy of the interaction, and might affect the window interactivity and matter to energy conversion.
I wish you had an explanation for why the anti-protoms didn't annihilate with the electrons they were displacing and were also co-orbiting with.
--
This goes to my, "What counts as contact," question. All my life, every statement about matter and anti-matter coming into contact is that it causes annihilation.
An anti-proton taking up position in an electron's orbital position seems "closer" than contact with the remaining matter particles of the rest of the helium atom.
I wonder, do they have the same orbitals as electrons?
And how do they know it's the anti-protons orbiting the protons - and not the other way around? Shouldn't the heavier one "fall" the the center?
Hmm, unlike a fission bomb, the matter -anti matter bomb has a flaw - NO runaway process. That is if two matter - antimatter particles annihilate eachother, the Gamma pulse produced does not encourage further annihilations (or am I wrong?)