• John
  • Felde
  • University of Maryland
  • USA

Latest Posts

  • USA

Latest Posts

  • Flip
  • Tanedo
  • USA

Latest Posts

  • CERN
  • Geneva
  • Switzerland

Latest Posts

  • Aidan
  • Randle-Conde
  • Université Libre de Bruxelles
  • Belgium

Latest Posts

  • Laura
  • Gladstone
  • University of Wisconsin, Madison
  • USA

Latest Posts

  • Richard
  • Ruiz
  • Univ. of Pittsburgh
  • U.S.A.

Latest Posts

  • Seth
  • Zenz
  • Imperial College London
  • UK

Latest Posts

  • Michael
  • DuVernois
  • Wisconsin IceCube Particle Astrophysics Center
  • USA

Latest Posts

  • Jim
  • Rohlf
  • USA

Latest Posts

  • Emily
  • Thompson
  • Switzerland

Latest Posts

  • Ken
  • Bloom
  • USA

Latest Posts

CERN | Geneva | Switzerland

View Blog | Read Bio

Measuring the gravitational constant with antimatter

This might not be the most intuitive way to measure g, the gravitational acceleration constant. Nevertheless, this is what a team of about 50 scientists from the AEgIS collaboration (Antihydrogen Experiment – Gravity, Interferometry, Spectroscopy) is trying to achieve. This might soon become even easier, thanks to a recently approved new project to build ELENA, a new decelerator for antiprotons.

Antimatter is not new at CERN. Strictly speaking, we have been producing particles and antiparticles for decades. But producing full atoms is another story. What is much more recent, is that a small group of about thirty physicists from the ALPHA experiment managed to produce anti-hydrogen atoms and keep them for about 1000 seconds.

Hydrogen is the simplest atom. It is made of one proton and one electron. Anti-hydrogen atoms are identical to hydrogen atoms except that they have a positron (the anti-electron) orbiting around an antiproton. In antimatter, the properties of the antiparticles, such as their mass, are identical to their particle counterpart, except that some other charges, like the electric charge, are inverted. Even electrically neutral particles have their antiparticle. An antineutron is made of three antiquarks (one anti-u quark of charge of -2/3, and two anti-d quarks, each one with a charge of +1/3) while the neutron is made of three quarks: u,d and d.

Producing antiprotons is a piece of cake when you have powerful accelerators like those at CERN. Accelerate protons, send them on to a target and a slew of particles will come out, including antiprotons. These are then channeled into a beam line and directed to the Antiproton Decelerator facility. This is just a large rectangular “ring” where the antiprotons are decelerated using radio frequency cavities and clouds of electrons that slow down the antiprotons by means of small successive collisions. In this way, the antiprotons see their energy reduced by a factor of 35 between their arrival at the decelerator and their delivery to the experiments two minutes later, going from 3.5 GeV down to about 100 MeV. At this point, five different teams, ACE, AEgIS, ALPHA (the ATHENA successor), ASACUSA and ATRAP extract the antiprotons to conduct various experiments.

The ACE experiment studied antiprotons to see if they could be used for cancer therapy. The goal would be to direct them onto the nucleus of cancer cells, where the antiprotons would annihilate when meeting protons from these cells. The energy released would in turn kill nearby cancerous cells. The hope is to provide a treatment that would cause less damage to healthy tissue than in current cancer therapy techniques.

The other four experiments create antihydrogen. For this, they need positrons, which they create from their own radioactive source, namely sodium 22.

The tricky part is to arrange for these two ingredients to meet and bind into anti-atoms. The name of the game here is to decelerate them enough to allow the antiproton to capture a positron. So far, different techniques have been used. The Japanese teams from ASACUSA use electric fields; others use thin aluminum foil to further decelerate the antiproton but at a high cost: many are lost in the process.

This is where ELENA will soon bring a new era in antimatter production at CERN. Recently approved, this new facility, which will be operational in 2015, will allow antiprotons to be decelerated further by another factor of 1000, bringing them to only 100 keV and in much greater numbers: two key ingredients for success.

All this must happen in a very pure vacuum to avoid interactions with regular matter. Otherwise, as soon as matter and antimatter meet, the two annihilate, leaving pure energy behind. Magnetic or electric fields are used in various places of the experimental setups to confine the antimatter and keep it away from any surface.

And what can you do with antimatter once you manage to produce some? Basically, reproduce all the physics measurements done last century with hydrogen atoms. One plan is to study their spectroscopy to see if antihydrogen behaves like hydrogen and emits the same characteristic spectral lines.

But AEgIS has an even more ambitious program. They hope not only to create antihydrogen, but then to direct a beam of antihydrogen onto a series of slits to create fringes by interferometry and measure by how much these fringes move as the antihydrogen atoms fall under the effect of gravity while going across a chamber of known length. The goal of course is to see if gravity (or g) is the same for anti-matter.

This reminds me of this classic joke about a physics student who is given a barometer to measure the height of a building. Her professor expects her to measure the pressure difference and from that, infer the height of the building. But she thinks this is so dumb that instead she suggests to use it as a pendulum and measure its period, or to drop it from the roof and measure the time it takes to fall. But each time, the professor refuses her suggestions. Eventually, she proposes to knock at the door of the building janitor and offer him a barometer as a gift if he tells her the height of the building!

But as Michael Doser, the head of the AEgIS team, put it: “Knocking on nature’s door to ask for the answer is not allowed…”

Pauline Gagnon

To be alerted of new postings, follow me on Twitter: @GagnonPauline or sign-up on this mailing list to receive and e-mail notification.


A view of the ASACUSA experimental setup (photo credit: Michael Doser)


22 Responses to “Measuring the gravitational constant with antimatter”

  1. Stef says:

    Personally i believe it will. Its just as mather is simular to antimather and gravity to anti-gravity.

  2. hibida says:

    I Think this is great. These types of experiments have Nobel prize potential. If gravity for anti-matter turns out to have the opposite sign as gravity does for regular matter then …

    I personally think this will be the biggest discovery of the 21st century. But then again it could turn out that gravity is the same for matter and antimatter. We will have to wait and see.

  3. Wayne O. Aruda says:

    If light has some properties of a “particle” is there such a thing as “anti-light”?

  4. Petes says:

    Ahh gotta love the search for antigravity ;)

  5. Peter says:

    The student in that “joke” was in fact Nils Bohr.

  6. Theptick says:

    I think it is most likely that anti-matter is actually matter with ‘anti’ properties. Bearing in Ming gravity is not a force but a distortion of space exerted by the presence of all matter. As such anti-matter distorts space in the same way as matter, but it’s forces interact with other matter in an inverted manner.

    Gravity can’t be negated as it is a shape not a force, but we can use it’s forces’ interactions to generate propulsion in other ways, therefor deriving the energy to exert force in the opposite direction to gravity’s ‘downhill’ curve.

    • Michael says:

      Exactly,the old newtonian picture of gravity no longer found universality since 1915..So gravity is not a ‘force’(action at distance),at least not simply attractive.

  7. Egbert says:

    @Peter, If it were Nils Bohr as a student, why would the classic joke be transferred to a female student?

  8. David says:

    Is there a possibility that there is such a thing as anti-light?

  9. Christo says:

    Le plus nous découvrons le moins nous nous rendons compte que nous savons.
    Si l’anti lumière est liée à la matière noire, puis nous avons besoin de repenser le modèle complet cosmiques. Il se pourrait fort bien que le photon existent comme une particule de symétrie brisée.

  10. Mike says:

    If there is anti-light (or if it is dark energy), I wonder if the ratio of light to ‘anti-light’ (or dark energy) is inversely similar to the ratio of matter to antimatter (in the natural universe)? I.e. does (light + anti-light)/(matter vs. anti-matter) = 1?

    • Mike says:

      I meant does (light + anti-light) / (matter + antimatter) = 1 ? I don’t know how I managed to throw ‘vs.’ into the above equation…

  11. Mike says:

    OK. Let me start over. NEVER MIND the above equation; scrap it because it makes no sense. I was trying to imply a unitless comparison. I should have wondered if the RATIOS of anti-matter to matter and dark e to light were similar, not the totals of both.

    It would appear that the amount of matter in the universe is greater than the amount of anti-matter, so that the ratio of matter / antimatter is some number greater than 1.

    Similarly, dark energy ‘outnumbers’ light so that dark E / light is also some number greater than 1.

    SO I was wondering if the two numbers are similar, so that:

    (matter / anti-matter) is roughly equal to (Dark E / light). Now there are no units to complicate the idea.

  12. Anti-matter, anti -light,concepts.What I like and find fascinant is the possibility of unification of concepts to create one total .tremendous mission ,good luck ,we follow.

  13. Dana Paxson says:

    This is very exciting, because I can hardly wait to see how antimatter and gravity are coupled. It seems to be running parallel to the amazing neutrino-velocity problem the OPERA experiments have seemingly uncovered. One of the greatest things about physics is its continual ability to astonish even the physicists themselves. Who knows what the next set of data will give us?

  14. Bob Cissna says:

    This sounds like antimatter may be a tool to Space Flight, Flying

  15. Allan Colby says:

    .This grav.constant,should be manipulated as a propulsive technology. Using celestial bodies for propulsion and deceleration. Eliminate the need to carry fuel,a no starter./Or maybe magnetic’s, as a repulsive technology

  16. Simon says:

    @Peter, that is correct the student`s name was Niels Bohr and not a random person. Actually I`ve even read that after the exam, Bohr had to go to the “principals” office to explain was he was so stubborn and just didn`t want to give the correct answer. Funny enough, the principal at that time was Ernest Rutherford. A man who would later give Bohr the change to develop the mathematical framework for the quantum structure of the atom in Manchester University.

    Aside from this it would be interesting to touch the consequences of anti-gravitation. This can potentially point to an anti-universe that was created during the big-bang.

Leave a Reply

Commenting Policy