6 ms·

Rogue antimatter found in thunderclouds

115 points by aethertap 11y ago

japhyr 11y ago
This is fascinating. I've only ever really though of antimatter forming in the early universe, at the edges of black holes, and in particle accelerators. I love the thought of them forming in thunderclouds as well, and I'm quite curious to hear about the followup investigations.
- platz 11y ago
  Never would have thought the A-10 could become an instrument of science
  - mhurron 11y ago
    Thundercloud, not Thunderbolt. There's a big difference.
    - ticviking 11y ago
      No they're literally flying an A-10 into the storm to try and measure things.
      - bengali3 11y ago
        > the US National Science Foundation even plans to fly a particle detector on an A-10 ‘Warthog’ wow I missed this the first time reading it. Are A-10s cheaper to operate than a G-V? (costing at least 8,000 per hr)
        speakeron 11y ago
        > Are A-10s cheaper to operate than a G-V? (costing at least 8,000 per hr) Not necessarily, but they're a hell of a lot more robust. Thunderstorms are a really violent environment and no place for an executive jet.
        ericcumbee 11y ago
        and it looks like work has been underway to use an A-10 for just this purpose for a while. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II#Other_uses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunder...
        deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
        bengali3 11y ago
        found some hourly cost of ownership data: A-10 17k per hour, G3 32K per hour. (compared to <6K for a civilian G3) http://nation.time.com/2013/04/02/costly-flight-hours/ http://nation.time.com/2013/04/02/costly-flight-hours/
        SEJeff 11y ago
        And besides, nothing says you mean business by making your appearance in an A-10. Gets them everytime.
  - gigawhat 11y ago
    "The jet will also have its nose-mounted, 30-millimeter cannon removed, opening up more space for scientific instruments." http://blog.ametsoc.org/uncategorized/plane-has-combative-attitude-toward-storms/ http://blog.ametsoc.org/uncategorized/plane-has-combative-at... Given that it's an A-10, it might be more accurate to say that the cannon is having its aircraft removed.
    - aaronbrethorst 11y ago
      Given that it's an A-10, it might be more accurate to say that the cannon is having its aircraft removed. wow, no kidding... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger#/media/File:GAU-8_meets_VW_Type_1.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger#/media/File:GAU-8...
  - ISL 11y ago
    I'd love to have been present at the first conversation where that became a plan. "Well, what's tougher than the plane we've already got? Wait.... What's the toughest plane in the sky? An A-10? Right. Who do we have to talk with to get one of them?" I'm a surprised that the plan isn't to use a UAV. Small things can be really tough, are subject to smaller gradient-driven forces, and, if the airframe comes apart, a brave pilot won't have to die.
- lake99 11y ago
  Positrons are way more common than that, i.e. only in the early universe, black holes, particle accelerators. They are emitted in a kind of radioactive decay, and are the basis of PET scanners.
- tjradcliffe 11y ago
  Thunderstorms can the thought of as being driven by one of nature's particle accelerators. The electric fields in thunderstorms can run up to at least 100 kV/m and maybe more, so getting potential drops well into the mega-volt range over relatively short distances is not too difficult: http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/amu/journals/jamc-2008.pdf http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/amu/journals/jamc-2008.pdf Electron-positron pairs require an energy of just over 1 MeV to be created (the energy of a single electron charge dropping through a potential of 1 MV). So there is more than enough energy kicking around to generate pairs fairly copiously (positrons are always produced with a companion electron in this kind of process, although they may be produced alone in certain types of radioactive decay.) The interesting part of this work is it seems there was a large volume where there were a lot of positrons, and the specific mechanism capable of producing that situation is not known. Really interesting science in an extreme and transient environment!
- tompccs 11y ago
  Bananas are a weak source of antimatter [0] [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium-40 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium-40
  - InclinedPlane 11y ago
    So are human bodies. I can't remember the math right now, but several times an hour your body will produce a positron.
- gus_massa 11y ago
  Some antimatter particles are easy to make locally. For example many radioactive isotopes decay by positron emission (also named positive beta decay). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron_emission http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron_emission Most of the times the positron just collides with an electron and emits a pair of 511eV photons. For example, this is applied in a common medical procedure: Positron emission tomography (PET) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron_emission_tomography http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron_emission_tomography
ChuckMcM 11y ago
I've followed (lightly) this phenomena from the first time I read about it with the FERMI project at NASA [1]. The common attribute seems to be that given a strong enough electric field you can pull apart some particles. [1] http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/GLAST/news/fermi-thunderstorms.html http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/GLAST/news/fermi-thunderst...
johnjac 11y ago
If this blast of gamma rays didn't give us scientist with superpowers, I'm going to start to think comic books aren't true.
higherpurpose 11y ago
Wasn't this already known (or presumed) before?
- tjradcliffe 11y ago
  It's the large volume at high positron density that seems to be the new observation that can't be explained by what we know about positron production in thunderstorms currently.
daniel-levin 11y ago
>> “This was so strange that we sat on this observation for several years” >> "We tried for five years to model the production of the positrons" Why would a scientist withhold data for 6 years? How typical is it for scientists to not reveal data until they can explain it using current models? I would think that Dwyer would have rushed to publicize such fascinating results.
- Scorponok 11y ago
  Publish too early and you get people assuming that you're a crank because you haven't done the research yet.
- justin66 11y ago
  If the most reasonable explanation for the data is an error in measurement...
- beagle3 11y ago
  It mostly depends on how close to tenure they are, and how controversial the data is. e.g. Dan Shechtman, who recently got a nobel for his work in crystallography, was an outcast for a long while because his data did not fit with the prevailing model - to the point that people in his lab refused to peek through his microscope eyeviewer because what he said they will see there should not have been possible. Read http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/jan/06/dan-shechtman-nobel-prize-chemistry-interview http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/jan/06/dan-shechtman... and also http://motherboard.vice.com/read/quasicrystals-are-natures-impossible-matter http://motherboard.vice.com/read/quasicrystals-are-natures-i... (it's about a lot more, but also talks about Shechtman's history) There are a few other cases like this: Robin Warren (Ulcer/Helicobacter connection), Barbara McClintock ("Jumping Genes"). The farther back they are, the harder it is to get the real story, but unfortunately Shechtman's story is far from unique.
  - dcherman 11y ago
    "people in his lab refused to peek through his microscope eyeviewer because what he said they will see there should not have been possible." Ah yes, the ever popular "Nyah Nyah Nyah I can't hear you" scientific method. I wonder how much progress has been held back due to scientists like that.

115 points by aethertap 11y ago

This is fascinating. I've only ever really though of antimatter forming in the early universe, at the edges of black holes, and in particle accelerators. I love the thought of them forming in thunderclouds as well, and I'm quite curious to hear about the followup investigations.

platz 11y ago
Never would have thought the A-10 could become an instrument of science
- mhurron 11y ago
  Thundercloud, not Thunderbolt. There's a big difference.
  - ticviking 11y ago
    No they're literally flying an A-10 into the storm to try and measure things.
    - bengali3 11y ago
      > the US National Science Foundation even plans to fly a particle detector on an A-10 ‘Warthog’ wow I missed this the first time reading it. Are A-10s cheaper to operate than a G-V? (costing at least 8,000 per hr)
      - speakeron 11y ago
        > Are A-10s cheaper to operate than a G-V? (costing at least 8,000 per hr) Not necessarily, but they're a hell of a lot more robust. Thunderstorms are a really violent environment and no place for an executive jet.
        ericcumbee 11y ago
        and it looks like work has been underway to use an A-10 for just this purpose for a while. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II#Other_uses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunder...
        deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
      - bengali3 11y ago
        found some hourly cost of ownership data: A-10 17k per hour, G3 32K per hour. (compared to <6K for a civilian G3) http://nation.time.com/2013/04/02/costly-flight-hours/ http://nation.time.com/2013/04/02/costly-flight-hours/
        SEJeff 11y ago
        And besides, nothing says you mean business by making your appearance in an A-10. Gets them everytime.
- gigawhat 11y ago
  "The jet will also have its nose-mounted, 30-millimeter cannon removed, opening up more space for scientific instruments." http://blog.ametsoc.org/uncategorized/plane-has-combative-attitude-toward-storms/ http://blog.ametsoc.org/uncategorized/plane-has-combative-at... Given that it's an A-10, it might be more accurate to say that the cannon is having its aircraft removed.
  - aaronbrethorst 11y ago
    Given that it's an A-10, it might be more accurate to say that the cannon is having its aircraft removed. wow, no kidding... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger#/media/File:GAU-8_meets_VW_Type_1.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger#/media/File:GAU-8...
- ISL 11y ago
  I'd love to have been present at the first conversation where that became a plan. "Well, what's tougher than the plane we've already got? Wait.... What's the toughest plane in the sky? An A-10? Right. Who do we have to talk with to get one of them?" I'm a surprised that the plan isn't to use a UAV. Small things can be really tough, are subject to smaller gradient-driven forces, and, if the airframe comes apart, a brave pilot won't have to die.
lake99 11y ago
Positrons are way more common than that, i.e. only in the early universe, black holes, particle accelerators. They are emitted in a kind of radioactive decay, and are the basis of PET scanners.
tjradcliffe 11y ago
Thunderstorms can the thought of as being driven by one of nature's particle accelerators. The electric fields in thunderstorms can run up to at least 100 kV/m and maybe more, so getting potential drops well into the mega-volt range over relatively short distances is not too difficult: http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/amu/journals/jamc-2008.pdf http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/amu/journals/jamc-2008.pdf Electron-positron pairs require an energy of just over 1 MeV to be created (the energy of a single electron charge dropping through a potential of 1 MV). So there is more than enough energy kicking around to generate pairs fairly copiously (positrons are always produced with a companion electron in this kind of process, although they may be produced alone in certain types of radioactive decay.) The interesting part of this work is it seems there was a large volume where there were a lot of positrons, and the specific mechanism capable of producing that situation is not known. Really interesting science in an extreme and transient environment!
tompccs 11y ago
Bananas are a weak source of antimatter [0] [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium-40 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium-40
- InclinedPlane 11y ago
  So are human bodies. I can't remember the math right now, but several times an hour your body will produce a positron.
gus_massa 11y ago
Some antimatter particles are easy to make locally. For example many radioactive isotopes decay by positron emission (also named positive beta decay). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron_emission http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron_emission Most of the times the positron just collides with an electron and emits a pair of 511eV photons. For example, this is applied in a common medical procedure: Positron emission tomography (PET) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron_emission_tomography http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron_emission_tomography

ChuckMcM 11y ago

I've followed (lightly) this phenomena from the first time I read about it with the FERMI project at NASA [1]. The common attribute seems to be that given a strong enough electric field you can pull apart some particles. [1] http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/GLAST/news/fermi-thunderstorms.html http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/GLAST/news/fermi-thunderst...

johnjac 11y ago

If this blast of gamma rays didn't give us scientist with superpowers, I'm going to start to think comic books aren't true.

higherpurpose 11y ago

Wasn't this already known (or presumed) before?

tjradcliffe 11y ago
It's the large volume at high positron density that seems to be the new observation that can't be explained by what we know about positron production in thunderstorms currently.

daniel-levin 11y ago

>> “This was so strange that we sat on this observation for several years” >> "We tried for five years to model the production of the positrons" Why would a scientist withhold data for 6 years? How typical is it for scientists to not reveal data until they can explain it using current models? I would think that Dwyer would have rushed to publicize such fascinating results.

Scorponok 11y ago
Publish too early and you get people assuming that you're a crank because you haven't done the research yet.
justin66 11y ago
If the most reasonable explanation for the data is an error in measurement...
beagle3 11y ago
It mostly depends on how close to tenure they are, and how controversial the data is. e.g. Dan Shechtman, who recently got a nobel for his work in crystallography, was an outcast for a long while because his data did not fit with the prevailing model - to the point that people in his lab refused to peek through his microscope eyeviewer because what he said they will see there should not have been possible. Read http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/jan/06/dan-shechtman-nobel-prize-chemistry-interview http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/jan/06/dan-shechtman... and also http://motherboard.vice.com/read/quasicrystals-are-natures-impossible-matter http://motherboard.vice.com/read/quasicrystals-are-natures-i... (it's about a lot more, but also talks about Shechtman's history) There are a few other cases like this: Robin Warren (Ulcer/Helicobacter connection), Barbara McClintock ("Jumping Genes"). The farther back they are, the harder it is to get the real story, but unfortunately Shechtman's story is far from unique.
- dcherman 11y ago
  "people in his lab refused to peek through his microscope eyeviewer because what he said they will see there should not have been possible." Ah yes, the ever popular "Nyah Nyah Nyah I can't hear you" scientific method. I wonder how much progress has been held back due to scientists like that.