Antimatter mystery solved

[cosmictraveler]

Washington, Jan 10: Astronomers have traced the source of a mysterious giant cloud of antimatter surrounding the galactic center of the Milky Way galaxy, to binary star systems. <br /><br />The discovery took four years of observations from the European Space Agency's Integral (International Gamma-Ray Astrophysics Laboratory) satellite.<br /><br />What the satellite found was that the cloud of antimatter extends farther on the western side of the galactic center than it does on the eastern side.<br /><br />This imbalance matches the distribution of a population of binary star systems that contain black holes or neutron stars, strongly suggesting that these binaries are churning out at least half of the antimatter, and perhaps all of it.<br /><br />The antimatter is probably produced in a region near the neutron stars and black holes, where powerful magnetic fields launch jets of particles that rip through space at near-light speed.<br /><br />After the antimatter cloud was discovered in the 1970s by gamma-ray detectors flown on balloons, scientists proposed a wide range of explanations for its origin, as such a phenomenon is exceedingly rare in the cosmos.<br /><br />For years, many theories centered around radioactive elements produced in supernovae, prodigious stellar explosions. Others suggested that the positrons come from neutron stars, novae, or colliding stellar winds.<br /><br />But, Integral found that certain types of binary systems near the galactic center are also skewed to the west. These systems are known as hard low-mass X-ray binaries, since they light up in high-energy (hard) X-rays as gas from a low-mass star spirals into a companion black hole or neutron star.<br /><br />Because the two "pictures" of antimatter and hard low-mass X-ray binaries line up, it strongly suggests that the binaries are producing significant amounts of positrons.<br /><br />"Simple estimates suggest that about half and possibly all the antimatter is coming from X-ray binaries," said Georg W <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>It does not require many words to speak the truth. Chief Joseph</p> </div>

 

[schmack]

today its an enigma. Tomorrow it will become a resource. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4" color="#ff0000"><font size="2">Assumption is the mother of all stuff ups</font> </font></p><p><font size="4" color="#ff0000">Gimme some Schmack Schmack!</font></p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

If you can figure out a way to travel to the Shapely Center, and catch a diffuse cloud of Antimatter traveling at a high percentage of C, I will bow and take my hat off for you Sir. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[Boris_Badenov]

I don't believe it is necessary to go there to collect the Anti-Matter Particles, it is only necessary to understand how they are made in such large quantities. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>

 

[richalex]

I think we already understand that. <br /><br />Step 1: Get a bunch of gas<br /><br />Step 2: Get a large, magnetic black hole<br /><br />The reason those regions produce so much more antimatter than our machines on Earth is those regions have much more energy to perform the conversions.

 

[yevaud]

Yeah, or byproduct of collider events.<br /><br />It's just far too cost-inefficient. Or technologically out of reach for some time to come. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[richalex]

Antimatter propulsion is not quite out of our reach. Actually, within 20 years, we may already have launched probes (or even manned space craft) that are propelled in part by antimatter. NASA is conducting research into the storage of antimatter and the design of antimatter rocket engines. Potential sources of antimatter are particle accelerators and the magnetospheres of planets. The reactions that might be used could be basic proton-antiproton reactions, antimatter-induced fission or antimatter-induced fusion. Current levels of antimatter production are roughly adequate for these engines.

 

[yevaud]

Hmm. Our national science establishment isn't investing in many new colliders, and FermiLab will be shut down in the next several years. Unless several dedicated colliders are built, this is not possible. There is no production capacity.<br /><br />There's also the matter of confinement, which even with decades of experience under our belts, is still a wiggy proposition involving only vastly insufficient amounts held for not terribly long periods of time. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[richalex]

The situation is grim for physics research, but we don't actually need accelerators at all to get the antimatter we need. We can collect it from our own magnetosphere, or even Jupiter's magnetosphere. Of course, we could also get Congress to fund some colliders! <br /><br />I'm still annoyed that Congress cancelled the SSC in Texas. That was the start of our downfall in high energy physics research. Now, Europe is surging ahead of us. <br /><br />Anyway, it might be better to produce, collect and store antimatter in space, rather than on Earth. Then, we don't have to worry about storing it through launch from Earth. The natural vacuum of space and the low levels of acceleration encountered in space make the storage of antimatter easier in space than on Earth. <br /><br />Antimatter Space Propulsion at Penn State University (LEPS)<br /><br />Science@NASA: Reaching for the stars<br /><br />Centauri-dreams.org: A Provocative Antimatter Strategy<br /><br />Space.com: Antimatter Power: Reaching for Deep Space<br /><br />NRTS: Overview of the High Performance Antiproton Trap (HiPAT) Experiment<br /><br />NTRS: RF Stabilization for Storage of Antiprotons<br /><br />http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=336507&id=4&qs=Ntt=antimatter&Ntk=all&Ntx=mode%</safety_wrapper

 

[michaelmozina]

I have a basic question/comment here about the detection of gamma rays that maybe someone can explain to me.<br /><br />http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a002700/a002750/ <br />http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a002400/a002462/<br />http://currents.ucsc.edu/04-05/02-21/flashes.asp<br />http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/bruce/era.htm<br /><br />The Rhessi satellite system has observed gamma rays coming from Earth's atmosphere, and also coming from what Dr. Charles Bruce in the late 1940's described as "electrical discharges" in the solar atmosphere during solar flare activity.<br /><br />Wouldn't it be "most likely" that these gamma ray emissions were related to solar flare activity from densely packed stars/planets in the galactic core? IMO the presence of hard x-rays and gamma rays in electrical activity on Earth would suggest to me at least that the gamma rays coming from the galactic core were related to discharge activity on large suns in the core, or between objects in the core. How did they eliminate these planetary and solar gamma rays? How did they determine there was a "cloud" of antimatter, rather than say a "bunch of densely packed, gamma ray emitting stars in that region of the Milky way?<br /><br />I personally believe that these gamma ray emissions from the galactic core tend favor an Electric Universe "interpretation', particularly since Rhessi has pinpointed the location of these emissions from Earth's atmosphere, specifically the come from electrical discharges in the Earth's atmosphere. Perhaps the binary star systems are more electrically active than single star systems? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[richalex]

Off the top-of-my-head--and I'm going on distant memories here--they can tell that anti-matter is the source of these rays based on the precise energy level of the rays. Physical processes have a characteristic electromagnetic spectrum associated with them. For example, when a proton-antiproton or electron-antielectron interaction occurs, the gamma rays emitted have a characteristic energy signature that nothing else in nature has.

 

[michaelmozina]

I believe that this specific positron/electron annihilation signature wavelength is exactly the same wavelength that they observe in the Earth's atmosphere and during solar flares. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[richalex]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I believe that this specific positron/electron annihilation signature wavelength is exactly the same wavelength that they observe in the Earth's atmosphere and during solar flares.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>Positron-electron annihilation radiation of 511 keV has been detected in a few solar flares, meaning that anti-matter was generated in the solar flares. As far as I can see, the detection of 511 keV radiation is specific to positron-electron annihilation; antimatter is being generated in Earth's atmosphere by cosmic ray bombardment.

 

[michaelmozina]

The gamma rays from Earth's atmosphere that were recorded by Rhessi were shown to be directly related to thunderstorm activity, meaning that the gamma radiation was a direct result of electrical discharges in the Earth's atmosphere. I'm just curious how they eliminated or accounted for these types of gamma ray events. Rhessi for instance sees the 511 KeV emissions coming from the sun, but we would not try to suggest that the sun has a "cloud" of anitimatter around it. More specifically, how do they know that these emissions came from a "cloud" of antimatter, and not from suns/planets during electrical discharge activity? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[billslugg]

Michael<br />I think you are confusing cause and effect. Cosmic rays cause small ionization paths, thus stimulating the production of a lightning bolt. The same cosmic ray can also produce an electron-positron pair. I don't rule out that the bolt could produce a pair of particles, but I have never read of a postulated mechanism to do so. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

Referential Article. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/rhessi_tgf.html<br /><br />I think this is the original NASA press release that I read that led me to believe that these were caused by lightening strikes. It does not say anything about cosmic rays. It does suggest that the exact energy release mechanism is not fully understood, but it also suggests it's an electrical discharge phenomenon, not a cosmic ray event. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1009-9271/5/1/007/chjaa_5_1_007.pdf?request-id=TnzTUHfA3BG2kDcW3Ai7Kg<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

It seems to me that we're observing a z-pinch process in plasma from suns and planets. Perhaps some scattering occurs in the interstellar medium, but I see no evidence that these gamma rays are coming from a "cloud" of antimatter. <br /><br />Based on observations of gamma rays near the heart of the galaxy, it would seem to me that we are observing more electrically active areas of the galaxy which emit gamma rays more frequently. These gamma ray emissions are then scattered by the plasma in the ISM. That certainly sounds more plausible to me than believing that an antimatter cloud will survive in the most dense regions of normal matter in this galaxy. Any 'antimatter" cloud like particles would tend to immediately interact with plasma in the interstellar medium and annihilate on contact before forming any 'cloud" of antimatter.<br /><br />I personally think that the electrical discharge explanation is far more likely than believing that an interstellar cloud of antimatter somehow survives in the most densely packed regions of matter in the galaxy. It would make sense to me that these regions tend to emit more gamma rays because these regions are more electrically active than the outer regions of the galaxy. We know that our own solar system produces plenty of gamma rays on a regular basis, so a more densely packed region of solar systems will emit more gamma rays, even without any change in the electrical current flow. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[billslugg]

Yes, Michael, it does say that lightning causes gamma ray bursts and I do not dispute that at all. HOWEVER, the .511 MeV signature of positron-electron annihilation is what we are talking about here, and this article does not mention it as occurring in lightning storms. Two different things. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[richalex]

If the 511 keV radiation were produced by electrical activity in the atmospheres of stars, we would expect to see it coming from every part of the sky that has stars. We don't. We see it coming from a region that is much larger and irregularly shaped than any star; IOW, from a cloud that is 10k light years across. Inside this cloud are stellar binary stars, which now appear to be the source of this cloud. <br /><br />Although antimatter is produced in many events involving stars, we probably cannot detect it with the instruments we have used to detect this cloud. We probably could not detect the antimatter that is created and destroyed in the binary star systems themselves, either, because it is simply too small and weak a signal. We only detect this cloud because it is so big. What we see is not coming from inside the atmosphere of anything like a star or planet, because we could not see it if it were. <br /><br />ETA: Even though the galactic core is the most densely packed region of matter in our galaxy, the interstellar medium of the galactic core is still an ultra-high vacuum. Yes, some antimatter encounters matter in this region--that is how we are able to detect it! But, having many profuse sources pumping out lots of antimatter into the ultra-high vacuum of space for long periods of time allows a large cloud to build, though it is still an ultra-high vacuum. <br /><br />Though I have a slightly difficult time believing that lightning generates antimatter, I can see that terrestrial lightning generates x-rays. It is not too far beyond the realm of belief that lightning might generate small amounts of antimatter (though it is easier to believe that the lightning is simply coincident with cosmic rays, and the cr generate the antimatter). Even so, the amount of 511 keV radiation generated on Earth would be impossible for our sensors to detect from thousands of l.y.s distant. The same goes for the antimatter in solar flares; we could not detect that from the distance

 

[michaelmozina]

Well, let's put all the pieces of evidence together for a moment.<br /><br />http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/bruce/era.htm<br />http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1009-9271/5/1/007/chjaa_5_1_007.pdf?request-id=Eiaby4XA3BGp_B0C3Ai7Kg<br />http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/378174<br /><br />Dr. Bruce demonstrated that there was a speed of travel correlation between solar atmospheric activity, and the propagation speed of lightening strikes here on Earth. We see gamma rays from electrical discharges on Earth.<br /><br />That very same positron-electron annihilation wavelength has been observed in solar flare atmospheric activity in our own sun, which Bruce linked to electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere. So far everything seems to point us back to an electrical discharge source for gamma rays in general, and these specific annihilation signatures too.<br /><br />The galactic core contains a high concentration of suns. These suns would be "predicted' to carry a larger current density near the core than suns in the outside of the spiral arms as the current flows become focused toward the core. We have a known source of these specific wavelengths, specifically solar and/or electrical activity, that does not involve a separate cloud of antimatter. Now where did I put my Occum's razor? I know its around here somewhere. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <br /><br />We also have a great scattering medium in the ISM near the core. We know that our own sun's heliosheath is buffeted by relatively strong interstellar winds, at least they are strong enough to make the heliosheath take the form of a teardrop shape. It' is highly unlikely that any volume of antimatter would <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>If the 511 keV radiation were produced by electrical activity in the atmospheres of stars, we would expect to see it coming from every part of the sky that has stars.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />But we do observe these annihilation wavelengths coming from the closest star to us. Are you trying to suggest that our particular star is unique and that no other star emits these particular wavelengths?<br /><br />There may be a greater concentration of these wavelengths in the core, than anywhere else, but I would have to assume that all stars at least intermittently emit these annihilation signature wavelengths. The concentration of these wavelengths inside a small region near the core would be highly consistent with any EU oriented theory, but I see no way for clouds of antimatter to survive in such a densely packed region of space. The volume of ISM swirl alone must be incredible. <br /><br />http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2005/felines/<br /><br />I just can see an antimatter 'cloud' surviving for any length of time in that kind of tumultuous and fast moving environment. Maybe an antimatter cloud could form out in deep interstellar space, where the ISM might be at a bare minimum, but there is no way that an antimatter cloud could form and remain stable in the core of a galaxy, the most densely packed region of space. There is just too much ordinary matter swirling around the core to interact with antimatter for any volume of antimatter to persist for any length of time IMO.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

FYI, here would be an EU "rewrite" of that same article from an EU perspective.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>"Washington, Jan 10: Astronomers have traced the source of a mysterious gamma rays from the galactic center of the Milky Way galaxy, to binary star systems.<br /><br />The discovery took four years of observations from the European Space Agency's Integral (International Gamma-Ray Astrophysics Laboratory) satellite.<br /><br />What the satellite found was that the gamma ray emitting region of the galaxy extends farther on the western side of the galactic center than it does on the eastern side.<br /><br />This imbalance matches the distribution of a population of binary star systems that contain black holes or neutron stars, strongly suggesting that these binaries are churning out at least half of the gamma rays observed, and perhaps all of them.<br /><br />The gamma rays are probably produced in a region near the neutron stars and black holes, where powerful electromagnetic fields launch jets of charged particles that rip through space at near-light speed.<br /><br />After the gamma ray emitting core was discovered in the 1970s by gamma-ray detectors flown on balloons, scientists proposed a wide range of explanations for its origin, as such a phenomenon is exceedingly rare in the cosmos.<br /><br />For years, many theories centered around radioactive elements produced in supernovae, prodigious stellar explosions. Others suggested that the positrons come from neutron stars, novae, or colliding stellar winds.<br /><br />But, Integral found that certain types of binary systems near the galactic center are also skewed to the west. These systems are known as hard low-mass X-ray binaries, since they light up in high-energy (hard) X-rays as gas from a low-mass star spirals into a companion black hole or neutron star.<br /><br />Because the two "pictures" of gamma rays and hard low-mass X-ray binaries line up, it strongly suggests that the binar</p></blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[richalex]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>But we do observe these annihilation wavelengths coming from the closest star to us. Are you trying to suggest that our particular star is unique and that no other star emits these particular wavelengths?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>No, not at all. I am simply pointing out that your model does not explain why we see the 511 keV radiation coming only from this cloud. <br /><br />The news report that you cited makes the statement, "the gamma ray emitting region of the galaxy extends farther on the western side of the galactic center than it does on the eastern side." It's pretty obvious that the stars of the galactic core are not the source of the 511 keV radiation, apart from these binary stars that are inside the boundaries of the emission region. <br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I see no way for clouds of antimatter to survive in such a densely packed region of space.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>It is only "densely-packed" compared to the rest of the galaxy. It is still an ultra-high vacuum, better than any vacuum that humans could create on Earth. It is the same reason that the stars of colliding galaxies rarely collide; some of the gas does, but even a lot of that remains afterward.