• John
  • Felde
  • University of Maryland
  • USA

Latest Posts

  • James
  • Doherty
  • Open University
  • United Kingdom

Latest Posts

  • Andrea
  • Signori
  • Nikhef
  • Netherlands

Latest Posts

  • CERN
  • Geneva
  • Switzerland

Latest Posts

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

Latest Posts

  • Vancouver, BC
  • Canada

Latest Posts

  • Laura
  • Gladstone
  • MIT
  • USA

Latest Posts

  • Steven
  • Goldfarb
  • University of Michigan

Latest Posts

  • Fermilab
  • Batavia, IL
  • USA

Latest Posts

  • Seth
  • Zenz
  • Imperial College London
  • UK

Latest Posts

  • Nhan
  • Tran
  • Fermilab
  • USA

Latest Posts

  • Alex
  • Millar
  • University of Melbourne
  • Australia

Latest Posts

  • Ken
  • Bloom
  • USA

Latest Posts

CERN | Geneva | Switzerland

View Blog | Read Bio

Anti-beam me up, Scotty!

While the CERN accelerator complex was being revamped in 2013, the ASACUSA experiment took time to carefully review the data taken in 2012 at the Antiproton Decelerator (AD) facility. This painstaking work paid off and they just announced in Nature having produced the first ever beam of antihydrogen atoms.

In laboratory experiments like the ones conducted at CERN, matter and antimatter are always created in equal amounts. The Big Bang theory predicts that the same quantities of matter and antimatter were also created at the origin of the Universe. However, nowadays, one sees absolutely no trace of this “primordial” antimatter. So what happened to all the antimatter that once was in the Universe?

To answer this question, CERN has a full antimatter program underway at the AD to check if antimatter has the same properties as matter. One of the best ways to do so is to compare antihydrogen atoms with hydrogen atoms. This is the simplest of all atoms, having only one electron orbiting around one single proton.

Antihydrogen atoms are replica of hydrogen atoms but with an anti-electron – called positron – and an antiproton replacing the electron and proton of regular atoms.

All matter emits light when excited just as a piece of metal shines when heated up. The light emitted gives a unique signature for each atom. For example, hydrogen emits and absorbs light of specific frequency when an electron jumps from one energy level to another. It also has a “hyperfine structure” corresponding to magnetic interactions between the nucleus and the electron.

The ASACUSA experiment aims to check the hyperfine structure of antihydrogen. This can be done by observing which frequencies antihydrogen atoms absorb.

asacusa-realThe ASACUSA experiment at CERN (Image: Yasunori Yamakazi )

So here is what ASACUSA did: they produced antihydrogen atoms by first decelerating and cooling antiprotons down to very low temperature. Then they mixed antiprotons with positrons and combined them in a strong non-uniform magnetic field. These strong magnetic fields are necessary to keep antiprotons and positrons from touching any matter. That would cause their immediate annihilation and prevent the formation of antihydrogen atoms.

The next problem was to move the antihydrogen atoms away from this field to be able to study their hyperfine structure. Otherwise, the strong non-uniform magnetic field would mask the tiny effects generated by the magnetic interaction between the antiproton and the positron responsible for the hyperfine structure.

But atoms are neutral and cannot be controlled by electric fields. However, antihydrogen atoms are like tiny magnets. So by using non-uniform magnetic fields, the scientists were able to manipulate these tiny magnets and create a beam of antihydrogen atoms. It was directed towards a small detector located after a microwave cavity and a sextupole magnet.

The sextupole magnet focuses or defocuses antihydrogen atoms on the detector depending on the direction of the antihydrogen tiny magnets.


The ASACUSA setup. From left to right: the magnets (grey) used to produce antihydrogen atoms, the microwave cavity (green) to induce hyperfine transitions, the sextupole magnet (red and grey) and the antihydrogen detector (gold). Credit: Stefan Meyer Institute.

The detector reveals the number of antihydrogen atoms passing through the device after they go through a microwave cavity. It was turned off in 2012 but will be on in the future.  The antihydrogen atoms will only absorb microwave photons having exactly the energy corresponding to its hyperfine transitions. This process will alter the trajectory of antihydrogen atom in the sextupole magnet, and eventually the number of antihydrogen atoms reaching the detector will be reduced.

By counting how many antihydrogen atoms reach the target when the microwave cavity is tuned to specific frequencies, the scientists will determine the frequencies of the hyperfine structure.

ASACUSA now has the proof that 80 antihydrogen atoms made it to their detector. The next step is to see if fewer are observed when the microwave cavity is turned on at the right frequency.

And then we will know if antihydrogen is the exact mirror image of hydrogen. This may reveal if antimatter differs from matter and explain why it has all vanished.

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.


Tags: , , ,

  • Massless boson photons detect no vacuum refraction, dispersion, dissipation, dichroism, gyrotropy. Postulate this is exactly true for fermionic matter (quarks). Parity violations, symmetry breakings, chiral anomalies, Chern-Simons repair of Einstein-Hilbert action suggest vacuum trace chirality toward hadrons. We wonder if hydrogen/antihydrogen hyperfine flips transform as axial or polar events given an improper rotation.

    Will non-zero net output be interpreted as theory violation or as a vacuum diagnostic?

  • Hello,

    you start with a series of assertions which are not particularly relevant here… Hard to comment on that. And as to how a positive difference in the hyperfine structure of antihydrogen will be interpreted, it will all depend on the results. If a statistically significant difference is found, more checks will certainly be conducted. Theorists will have to interpret the results. It’s not for me to speculate on that. Of course, it would be in violation in what we currently know or expect. And what do you mean by vacuum diagnostic? Pauline

  • Laurence Cox

    Will the experiment also change the fields of the sexupole magent so that only anti-hydrogen atoms that have absorbed a microwave photon are focused on the detector, so you see an increase in signal rather than a decrease. I cannot think of a reason why the two measurements should not give mirror image results, but is it possible to do it?

  • Hello Laurence, here is what my colleague who works on the experiment has to say:

    No, it does not work this way. The field gets stronger as the radial position gets larger, i.e., for the high field seeker, the force is always outward. On the other hand, for the low field seeker, it is always inward.

    I hope this helps, Pauline

  • Jim Goodman

    The electric dipole moment should be different.
    Can it be measured in the same environment ?

    Jim Goodman

  • Hello Jim,

    well, I am afraid your statement goes beyond what is currently known. To this day, the electric dipole moment (EDM) is not know even for ordinary electrons and protons. So it is hard to say more at this point.

    ASACUSA present scheme is not sensitive to the permanent electric dipole moment of antihydrogen. On a slightly related topic, but it is completely different, another experiment from CERN at the Antiproton Decelerator, ATRAP has reduced the current error on the magnetic moment of antiproton by a factor of 1000. You can read more here: http://press.web.cern.ch/press-releases/2013/03/atrap-experiment-makes-worlds-most-precise-measurement-antiproton-magnetic

    I hope this helps, Pauline

  • Xezlec

    “And then we will know if antihydrogen is the exact mirror image of hydrogen.”

    That statement is a bit of an overstatement, right? If the response looks the same, that only tells us that it seems like the mirror image of hydrogen so far. Surely there are still other, more subtle, ways that it could differ that wouldn’t show up in that particular test.

  • Indeed, you are perfectly right. A significant difference would be a definitive statement, that is a difference much larger than any possible statistical fluctuation. Even that would need to be cross-checked by an independent experiment. There are other experiments on their way with the goal of doing these kind of spectroscopy studies. But if it seems to be the same as for hydrogen, it will be investigated further, in case the difference is minute. Two other experiments are also underway to check if gravity is the same for antihydrogen. Finally, at least from CERN side, the LHCb experiment is also checking on possible differences between matter and anti-matter. That is also part of the CMS and ATLAS program.

    But you are right. We will need several checks, confirmations, cross-checks etc before we get a definitive answer on this.

    Thanks for pointing this out, Pauline