STUDY OF MUONS PARTICLE COULD CHANGE SCIENCE AS WE KNOW IT

You may never have heard of muons before, but these particles are crucial to our understanding of the universe. In a milestone study published in the journal Nature, researchers announced that they have overcome one of the biggest challenges to studying these fundamental particles. The study heralds a new era of research into the properties and structure of matter and that includes us, humans.

Muons are fundamental particles and are very similar to electrons, but 207 times heavier. That means they carry much more energy than electrons. They are crucial to our understanding of our physical world, because they provide information about the properties and structure of matter.

But studying muons is difficult. Fundamental particles like muons (think the neutrino) are only visible at high energies and for microseconds. Physicists have to use particle colliders and accelerators to glimpse their properties. These instruments slam particle beams together at a very high speed and capture data from the resulting explosions, allowing researchers to peek into the subatomic world. This is exactly what physicists have been doing at the Large Hadron Collider, which infamously smashed proton beams together in order to discover and study the theorized Higgs boson, another elusive fundamental particle.

We'd known about muons for many years, but we never managed to put them into a particle accelerator before. Now, after decades of research, Rogers and a team of hundreds of international scientists have outlined how to get closer to creating a first-of-its-kind particle collider that can blast beams of muons at much higher energies than any existing colliders. The invention has the potential to reveal exotic particles that exist only in theory or even entirely new particles scientists had never thought of before.

When you smash beams of particles together, what happens is you make all sorts of exotic new particles, like force carriers or like novel forms of matter, And by looking at all the different sorts of particles which can be created, we can try and understand things about how matter gets stuck together. How matter sticks together is at the basis of our understanding of how everything in the universe is made, because everything is made of matter.

This result is a fundamental landscape change. It doesn’t happen very often. It’s like a Lego piece, to build our future plans. A piece of lego that you can multiply and play with and use to build new things. We can move forward in previously unexplored ways, But a new piece of lego can change how we are going to arrange it.

Despite their obvious importance, colliders like the famous Large Hadron Collider, are massive instruments that cost huge amounts of money and are very hard to build and manage. So far, there is no particle collider designed for muons, which means there is no way of studying and understanding them (even though muons were among the first particles to be ever discovered, in 1936).

For many years the biggest hurdle for studying muons was that we never managed to put them into a particle accelerator. Well, The researchers cracked the problem of “ionization cooling of muons” — basically cooling the smashing beams of particles so they’re easier for current instruments to capture and analyze, rather than having the muons flying all over the place uncontrollably.

The researchers had to develop a technique which can take this messy beam and turn it into a really nice laser-like beam: cooling the beam. So if you imagine the beam is like a hot gas, it's flying along really fast. What we want to do is reduce the temperature of that gas. The temperature of the muons at production is roughly 10 billion degrees Celsius. We're trying to go from this diffused gas to something which is more like a laser beam. Cooling techniques have been discovered before, but they usually take minutes or hours to do. What they had developed is a radically different sort of cooling, which can take effect on timescales of billions of a second.

The muon collider itself would be similar in scale to either the Tevatron, which was a machine which was built at Fermilab near Chicago, or the Large Hadron Collider. You're looking at a machine which is several kilometres in length, with these extremely strong magnets, and the cost scale is similar to those machines.

Muons themselves are interesting beasts and there are applications which we will really only just starting to understand if we start building beyond accelerators. Muons' properties hint at these future applications. For example, muons are much more penetrating than X-rays, which means they can be used to look inside things that are too thick for x-rays to image. This includes pyramids and volcanoes, for example.

Muons may provide a completely new way to reach further into the energy frontier of particle accelerators that simply cannot be achieved at the present time, and we might not have a way to get there otherwise. But while the study represents a milestone along the road to developing the first-ever muon colliders, don't hold your breath too soon. There are many more years of research ahead for Rogers’ team to turn this into a reality, he says. But when we do get there, what we find may be truly unimaginable.

Read More

What Would Happen If You Detonate A Nuclear Bomb In Space?

Detonating a nuclear bomb seems like a risky business in general, but in the early 1960s, the US and the Soviet Union were busy trying to figure out what would happen if you set one off in space? The answer turned out to be something they didn't really expect. A nuclear blast could cause a high-altitude electromagnetic pulse or EMP, a powerful man-made burst of electromagnetic energy that could basically wipe out communications here on Earth.

It was a whole new way to use the bomb and they kind of discovered it by accident. It all started in 1958 when the US launched its first satellite Explorer 1. NASA scientist James Van Allen equipped it with a Geiger counter, because he wanted to measure radiation at different altitudes, a project he had already been working on using balloons. 

The readings that came back were strange. Radiation levels seemed to increase with altitude, then suddenly dropped to 0, then increase and then suddenly dropped to 0 again. More testing showed that readings that looked like 0 were actually because the radiation levels were so high that the detector couldn't handle it. But that spring Van Allen realized he made a new discovery: that there were at least two belts around the planet between 1,000 and 60,000 kilometres up with extra high concentrations of charged particles like electrons and protons.

Today we call these belts the Van Allen belts and we know that they are mostly made of particles from solar wind and cosmic rays, held in place by Earth's magnetic field. We also know that depending on solar activity there can be more than two of them.

In May of that year, Van Allen presented his discovery at a press conference at the National Academy in Washington DC. Later that day, the US military asked for his help detonating nuclear weapons in the Van Allen belts. US military officials suspected the Soviets were doing high-altitude nuclear tests. And at the time nobody really knew how a high-altitude explosion would differ from one here on Earth. Newly discovered Van Allen Belts added a whole new element because nuclear blasts release lots of charged particles and here with these two huge bands of more charged particles.

The US was worried that interference from the Van Allen belts might hide incoming missiles or that they could somehow be used to steer a blast. So they decided to learn more about how atomic bombs behaved at high altitudes by detonating a bunch of them. During those tests they ended up measuring electric signals so high they thought it was a fluke caused by other flaws in the instruments they were using. But they had to wait a while to figure out what was really happening, because later that year the USSR called for a ban on high-altitude nuclear testing and the US agreed. 

Then in 1961, the USSR started testing their own nukes at high altitudes anyway and the US quickly continued their own, including a test known as Starfish Prime. Starfish Prime was humanity's first hydrogen bomb detonated at a high altitude. It detonated 400 kilometres above a point near its launch from Johnston Island in the Pacific Ocean. It was also the biggest bomb ever set off in space, 100 times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb and with a blast equal to about 1.4 million tons of TNT.

But with so little air around it, it didn't make a fireball. Instead, the charged particles zooming away from Starfish Prime caused a huge Aurora that could be seen for thousands of kilometres around Johnston Island. And then, burglar alarms started going off in Hawaii more than a thousand kilometres away. 27 rockets followed Starfish Prime to gather data and even they weren't equipped to measure what happened. What the US learned was that the oddly high measurement from earlier tests weren't glitches. 

High-altitude nuclear explosions are just very different. In the near vacuum up there, the energy from nuclear blast sends out lots of free electrons. Those electrons create a brief but extremely powerful electromagnetic pulse: an EMP. Starfish Prime's EMP was so strong, it affected the flow of electricity on Earth thousands of kilometres from Johnston Island, causing blackouts and electrical malfunctions in Hawaii and disabling at least six satellites. But that was in a relatively isolated area. 

Today an EMP could be used to disable an entire country. The US commission to study EMPs in 2008 estimated that an EMP attack could kill 90% of the US population within 12 months since so much of the way we live depends on satellites and the electrical grid. The US military ran a few more tests after Starfish Prime, but they kept things a lot smaller and the data from those tests is still classified. 

Only a year later the USSR proposed another moratorium on high-altitude nukes: the Limited Test Ban Treaty of 1963, and we haven't set off any nukes in space since then. So in the end humanity was probably right to be worried about the consequences of detonating nuclear bombs in space, but mainly because they accidentally stumbled upon a way to make the aftermath of the bomb even worse.

Also Read:- How Submarines Work?

Read More

A Particle Detector, ANITA, Has Spotted A New Particle

Antarctic Impulsive Transient Antenna or ANITA is a particle detector. A team of physicists at Antarctica use Antarctic Impulsive Transient Antenna to search high-energy particles from space. ANITA floats on a helium balloon at an altitude of 37 kilometres for about a month at a time and collects radio waves. The way it works is simple. When high-energy particles from space, including lightweight, ghostly particles called neutrinos, interact Antarctica’s ice, which produces radio waves. That radiowaves are picked up by ANITA’s antennas. Now all physicists have to do is look for its frequency, wavelength and all those data to tell which particles radio wave it is.

September 2018 ANITA spotted two unusual signals something that standard physics is at a loss to explain. A team of physicists at Penn State report about this online on September 25 at arXiv.org/abs/1809.09615. The result of that findings hints at the possibility of new particles beyond those catalogued in the standard model, the theory that describes the various elementary particles that make up the matter. We can say that these weird particles from space may defy physicists’ standard model. Now Particle Physicists might be going to modify the standard model or they might have to come up with new.

The two puzzling signals appear to be from extremely energetic neutrinos shooting skyward from within the Earth. A neutrino coming up from below isn’t inherently surprising: Low-energy neutrinos interact with matter so weakly that they can zip through the entire planet. But high-energy neutrinos can’t pass through as much material as lower-energy neutrinos can. So although high-energy neutrinos can skim the edges of the planet, they won’t survive a pass straight through.

The steep angle of the particles’ paths suggests that the neutrinos travelled through several thousands of kilometres of Earth too much for a high-energy neutrino to make it out the other side. That’s according to computer simulations in the new study, by researchers who are not members of the ANITA collaboration. ANITA researchers have been looking for a way to explain the signals with neutrinos, says Derek Fox, a co-author of the study. But according to Fox and colleagues’ simulations, “those attempts must fail.”

A high-energy particle could make such a long trek through the Earth only if it were even more reticent to interact with matter than neutrinos are. A hypothetical heavy particle called a stau, proposed in a theory called supersymmetry could fit the bill, Fox and colleagues say. After being created on the other side of the planet by a high-energy neutrino slamming into the Earth, a stau could make it through unscathed before decaying into lighter particles that would eventually result in the signals detected by ANITA.

“It’s still possible that there is a very mundane reason that we are seeing these events in ANITA,” says ANITA physicist Stephanie Wissel of Cal Poly in San Luis Obispo, Calif. Other spacefaring particles called cosmic rays, which rain down from above, produce similar signatures in ANITA. A basic misunderstanding of the physics behind cosmic rays’ signatures could explain the observations, Wissel says.

Backing up their claim, Fox and colleagues also identify three events in another Antarctic neutrino detector that they say have some similarly puzzling properties. But the leader of that experiment, physicist Francis Halzen of the University of Wisconsin–Madison, isn’t convinced. “These events are of course worth paying attention to,” he says, but he doesn’t see any evidence that they require a new explanation.

What’s needed is more data, physicists say. The ANITA team plans to send the detector up for another Antarctic balloon ride, says ANITA physicist Amy Connolly of Ohio State University in Columbus. “My view is that we should keep trying to find a mundane explanation for these events.”

The standard model has been confirmed time and time again, so physicists are loathe to abandon it without overwhelming evidence. “The case that ANITA is seeing something weird is strong,” says astrophysicist John Beacom, also of Ohio State. But “I always bet for the standard model.”

Still, these events have such extreme energies that they are reaching into realms not accessible at particle colliders like the Large Hadron Collider near Geneva, Beacom says. “There’s a lot we just don’t know about how physics works at these high energies.”

Also Read:- How Dangerous Is AI?

Read More

What Is Higgs Boson ?

You often hear people say that this Higgs gives things mass and that is theoretically or you can say technically true. But why does there have to be something that gives other things mass? You also hear it called the God particle.

Anyway, without understanding Quantum mechanics and Field theory and the Standard model, it is hard to get any deeper than that and understanding those thing is really complex. So it’s hard to explain, but let's dive into it. First, we should learn about Four fundamental forces. Electromagnetism is the most common force in our daily lives. It is also the thing that keeping your phone or pc stick to your hand right now. But there are also other forces, There is gravity and there are the Strong and Weak Nuclear forces.

The world has previously thought that these forces were continuously radiating fields that came out from the source of the force. But Quantum mechanics doesn't allow for continuousness in that way. So what Scientists have realised is that it is not a field in the traditional way of understanding. It is actually a distribution of particles and the strength of any given field is actually the density of those particles at that point. For example, a magnet which we know has a force around it has a high density of these invisible particles called virtual particles snapping In and out of existence around it. The density of the particles is much higher near the magnet and drops off exponentially as you move away. These particles are very weird and wibbly and difficult to conceive of. But because they are constantly snapping in and out of existence they can't exist in the way that normal matter does without violating the law of conservation of energy which says that things can't just start existing. So they are not matters. But these virtual particles are actually particles.






The trick has been to coax them into existence so that we can study them. Because mass and energy are equivalent, given the right circumstances we can dump enough energy into a system to actually make these virtual particles real particles. We do this using particle accelerator and we have done it before. This is how we know that these force carriers particles actually exist. Physicists figures out that they probably should exist and then they created the circumstances necessary, dumped a bunch of energy in and then they did exist and we sad there! There it is!.

So those are the virtual particles that create forces like Electromagnetism. But mass doesn't feel like a force in that way. Mass is just something that you have all the time. Why doesn't there need to be something to explain that? The idea is that the universe is permitted with an even distribution of a force carrier particle for mass and that is called the Higgs field or the Higgs particles. So that is how according to the standard model we now understand forces.

The question is, Is mass a force in the traditional way? Physicists say that it is. Now, this might seems weird to you because mass just seems like a thing. It is a thing that you have. You have molecules and atoms and they have mass. But something doesn’t have mass. A photon doesn't have mass. But it is very similar to an electron at an elementary level. So why does an electron have mass and a photon do not have mass?

So physicists have sort of agreed upon the idea that it is the Higgs field that gives particles mass and some particles interact with it and those do not. But instead of Electromagnetism which radiates from a point, mass doesn't come from. A point source. Your mass would be the same anywhere in the universe. So Idea is that the Higgs field which is the field that gives things mass exist throughout the entire universe. The other way of saying this is that Higgs force carriers the virtual particles the Higgs boson exist at an even density throughout the entire universe. Particles without mass like photon don't interact with Higgs force carriers and so they don't have mass. And then there are other particles like the electron which interact weakly with the Higgs and thus are light and then the top pharmacy which is the heaviest particles that we know of. Interact very significantly with the Higgs field, so it has lost of mass. So that is the idea I hope that you get it.

If You Have Any Queries Then Feel Free To Ask Us Down In The Comment Section And Visit To The Science Thinkers Again. As Always Stay Curious And Thank You

Read More

Machines That Are About The Size Of A Molecules

It is tricky to go more than a few minutes without running into any machine of some sort. Whether it was the toaster you made breakfast with, the train you took into town or the machine you are staring at now. The idea of machines taking over the world isn't post-apocalyptic friction, it already happened. They have transformed society and improved our quality of life. Advances in engineering have gotten us this far, from mass producing refrigerators to travelling to the moon. So What's Next?

Many chemists are actually thinking a lot about making very tiny small machines out of molecules. But how you can move a machine of microscopic scale, which you can barely touch. Well, you have to have some chemical knowledge to control motion on a microscopic scale machine. Thing is this tiny machines about the size of a molecule could revolutionize everything from medicine to materials science, where molecular processes play a big role.

Let's discuss first thing fast, What is a Machine?

A machine is basically any device that takes some Energy input into at least ONE MOVING PART each with DISTINCT FUNCTION. So, in the end, those parts come together to produce a useful motion as an output, called work.

Now, There are some obvious advantages to making machines smaller, like being able to transport them more easily and make them move more precisely. In 1959 Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman talked about THE PROBLEM OF MANIPULATING AND CONTROLLING THINGS ON A SMALL SCALE. By small, we are talking about a few millionths of a millimetre small machines made up of one or few molecules.




Twenty years later, nanotechnology pioneer Eric Drexler came across a transcript of Feynman's lecture on the machine. Then he developed some of the ideas further and in 198, he published a paper called Molecular Engineering An Approach To The Development Of  General Capabilities For Molecular Manipulation.

Eric Drexler imagined molecule-sized machines that could manipulate the reactants of chemical processes on an atomic scale. Not only that he even imagined that those machines could build new materials from the molecules. If you ask me my opinion over that idea I would say That is ASTONISHING, But how to do that?

Engineers have managed to shrink electrical components over the last few decades, like turning computers that of the size of a building into cell phones. Shrinking mechanical components could unlock a similar kind of revolution. BUT building NANOSCALE machines come with totally different challenges than the ones that many engineers deal with.

For starters, when you get down to the size of molecules, objects don't act the way we are used to on everyday scales. Like without careful design, a molecular nut and bolt couldn't be twisted apart easily. The electrostatic forces between the molecules, known as Van Der Waals forces, would attract them together a lot more than frictions affects ordinary nuts and bolts. Another problem is that it is trickier to get the components of a molecular machine to move the way you want.




A tiny molecule of air bumping into a piston in your car engine doesn't really change the way it moves, But that same air molecule might send a machine flying or even destroy it. Even if the damage is not that extreme, the constant bombardment from nearby molecules, known as thermal noise, could make the components move around randomly. That could make controlling their motions pretty difficult even though that's what we need to do for molecular machines to be useful.

Finally, most molecules are linked together with chemical bonds, which form because of electrical attractions between molecules. There are different kinds of chemical bonds, but they tend to be fairly rigid and don't allow for free movement between the two parts and that my boy frustrating, because that the kind of moment every machine rely on! For example, imagine a bunch of water molecules locked into the crystal structure of an ice cube or even clumped together in liquid water. Each negatively charged oxygen atom is attracted to the positively charged hydrogen atoms of nearby water molecules forming hydrogen bonds between them. So to build molecular machines engineers have to figure out a way to utilize a mechanical bond, which our basic chemistry textbook maybe didn't mention.

In a mechanical bond, the shape of the molecules links them. The individual parts of each molecule are not strongly attracted to one another, but they can't separate entirely without breaking the chemical bonds between the atoms within one of the molecules. Kind of like how your key can't accidentally come off your keyring even though they are not physically connected. Scientists had created linked molecules like this in the early 1960s. They were called catenanes chains of two or more connected rings of atoms.

Researchers knew that catenanes existed, but they were rare and really difficult to produce for scientific studies. But in 1983 French chemist Jean Pierre Sauvage made an unexpected discovery.  Sauvage was originally studying chemical reactions that were driven by ultraviolet light and one of those processes involved C-shaped molecules that attached themselves to copper ions, While modelling the reaction, he realized that by tweaking the method, he could produce catenanes from those molecules in much larger numbers than ever before.




The whole process starts by getting a copper ion to bond to the inside of a ring-shaped molecule. Then, a C-shaped molecule can thread through the ring and attach to the same copper ion. In the right kind of environment, another C-shaped molecule can chemically bond to the first one creating a second interlocking ring. The final part of Sauvage's chemical process was to pop that copper ion out. And voila: two molecular ring in one mechanically bound structure. Those ring can freely rotate to one another, just like we want in a machine. Sauvage even extended the process to make knotted chemicals and more complicated chains.

To set things in motion, in 1994 Sauvage's team found a way to use that catenane with a sandwiched copper ion to rotate one of the rings around the other. Because the rings are not uniform they will adjust to more electrically stable positions if the charge of that ions changes. So when that copper ion gets an electron ripped off in a chemical reaction, one of the rings will rotate 180 degrees. It will twist back if the copper ion recaptures an electron. This motion is really important to master if we want to build molecular machines with rotating parts, like something with a molecular propeller that can swim through a liquid.

Around the same time, Chemist James Fraser Stoddart was making progress with a different chemical mechanism. James Fraser Stoddart was well acquainted with the laws of attraction, i.e Positively charged chemical structures are attracted to negatively charged ones. With that, Stoddart's team created a molecular machine called a rotaxane, a ring linked onto a thread. Back in 1991, Stoddart's group made a nearly closed ring of atoms with a lack of electrons. They also made a rod-shaped molecule with two electron-rich sites and bulky silicon-based end cap. When they were put together electrostatic attraction made the ring thread onto the axle, where it could be closed off to form a complete ring with a chemical reaction. Although the positively charged ring was attracted to the negatively charged ring was attracted to the negatively charged sites on the axle, it was not locked in place too tightly with chemical bonds. Because we are talking about molecules here, when the ring had a certain amount of heat energy then it had the energy to move around. So the researchers could make the ring hop between the two negatively charged spots on the axle, while those bulky group kept it from sliding off.

In 1994, Stoddart got even more precise and created two chemically different sites on the axle structure based on molecules called benzidine and biphenol group. Those groups have different electric and chemical properties depending on the acidity or the pH of the surrounding environment. In an acidic environment, the benzidine group becomes positively charged, repelling a ring so it sits on the biphenol group.




So basically, this researchers figured out how to control a ring's movement on an axle in multiple ways. Stoddart's group also used the principle behind these axles to make a molecular elevator that can raise itself a few nanometers and even a molecular muscle that can stretch and contract like our muscle cells.

Now lots of components in normal machines like the cogs in a watch or wheels on a car rely on continuously rotating elements. Sauvage's ring could rotate in response to an input, but couldn't provide a continuous controlled output like a motor.

In 1999, the organic chemist Ben Feringa and his group in the Netherlands achieved just that a continuously rotating machine. They developed a double-sided molecule that acted a bit like motor blades. As we have mentioned thermal noise makes it tricky to control how a molecular component moves. But Feringa's molecule was based on two methyl groups that were designed to only rotate one way around. Every time a pulse of UV light hits one of the methyl groups, it absorbs the light and converts it into kinetic energy. The hit methyl group then rotates around an axis and bends over the other methyl group until it snaps past, so it is blocked from spinning backwards. And You Got The World's First Molecular Motor. As if that was not cool enough, in 2011 Feringa and his group took it even further and used this technique to build a nano car with four rotating wheels.

 Fraser Stoddart, Jean-Pierre, Sauvage and Ben Feringa used clever designs and special environment to solve some of the problems we were having with very basic molecular machines. In 2016, Fraser Stoddart, Jean-Pierre Sauvage, Ben Feringa collectively awarded The Nobel Prize in Chemistry for their work.




We have just begun exploring other machines, we might be able to make on the nanoscale and we know there are plenty of options because nature has been building them for billions of years. Like right now in your body, supper complex molecular machines made of proteins are doing all kinds of things to keep you going. Like your myosins walk along tracks of muscle fibre pulling them to help you contract your muscles. In other cells like sperms or certain bacteria have built-in molecular motors to make their flagella spin around, so they can move through fluids. Those are two of many examples, so scientists have plenty of inspiration for future inventions.



Some researchers have proposed that molecular machines could be used to deliver drugs in the body. For Example, mesoporous particles have lots of little holes that release their contents in response to ultrasound waves. Filled with the right drugs, we could load these particles onto a molecular transport machine to dose tumour with cancer-fighting molecules.

Other researchers have developed a gel with those molecular motors we mentioned, by attaching them to a tangle of long chains of molecules called polymers. When you shine a light on the material or heat it up, the motors reel in the fibres like fishing line, which shrinks the volume of the gel. Because those motors are storing energy in the form of those bundled up molecules, if we could find a way to extract the energy back out, this could be a step towards a new kind of Solar battery.

All that said, we have a long way to go before we were building molecular machine factories or anything beyond these basic experiments. It's still tricky to make these tiny machines in large quantities and there may be other problems with making a bunch of individually developed components work together. But after more research and with more science thinkers, we might have molecular mechanics in our scientific toolkits and machines to help us at every scale of life.
Also Read:-Diagnose Of SEDs In Clustered Environments Unraveling The Stellar Content Of Young Clusters 

Read More

Antimatter | Only Place Where Antimatter Can Survive

The whole world, Actually my bad. The whole Universe is made of matter. Everything is made up of matter, you, me, smartphones, PC, Pizza, Puppies, Black-Holes everything you can possibly think of. But there is also this thing called antimatter. Around the turn of the last century, Einstein was working on the theory of relativity and other physicists were trying to figure out how the tiniest parts of universe worked called Quantum Theory. This was all done with mathematics lots of lots of math.

At one point a physicist named Paul Dirac realized X² = 4 has two answers. 2²=4 &-2²=4  so Answers are 2 and -2, this means if a matter is the positive two, there must be some kind of opposite to fit the negative two - 2. Physicists called this opposit antimatter.

The reason you don't see antimatter around is that at the beginning of the universe matter and anti-matter pop into each other and disappear in a burst of energy. But somehow matter lived through that annihilation. you probably know that all matter is made of protons and electron. Well, the antimatter is made up of antiprotons and positrons. A proton is a positive heavy particle and an antiproton is a negative heavy particle.  Like that Electrons are light and negative where positrons are light and positive. Because of their oppositeness when they touch BOOM energy burst.

Even though they have these opposite charges, in theory, antimatter should be exactly the same as matter. After the Big Bang, the universe should have created equal amounts of matter and antimatter according to physicists. But there is not really any antimatter around. Because, in the first second after the Big Bang, all the matter and antimatter in the newborn universe found each other and Bam annihilation. All the antimatter disappeared in bursts of energy, leaving behind just matter. No one knows why the Big Bang made more matter than antimatter.

But there are scientists who are making antimatter to find out more about it. ALPHA Collaboration group at CERN create antimatter using the particles beams at CERN we convert protons into antiprotons.

 CERN is the Center For European Nuclear Research, It's where the Large Hadron Collider lives. This Antimatter Factory takes protons shooting along the LHS and converts them to antihydrogen, the antimatter version of hydrogen. Then Dr Bertsche and his team trap the antihydrogen to study it.

We know a lot about hydrogen, so we wanna see how antihydrogen might be different. But remember, you can't let antimatter touch matter, ever. No air, no fancy containers nothing that's made of matter. So, the scientists use magnetic fields to hold the antihydrogen inside this trap. They behave like little tiny refrigerator magnets, it looks like a bathtub. but to do so the magnetic field has to arrange. The antihydrogen atoms basically sit in a magnetic bathtub or magnetic bottle. But it's really actually physically shaped like a bathtub and it's about the size of sort of a two-litre coke bottle.

The magnetic bathtub is called a Penning-Malmberg trap. The magnetic field keeps the antihydrogen from hitting the walls of the trap and annihilating. Powerful magnets and leaser force the antihydrogen to get stuck inside the magnetic field like a piece of candy in a bowl. Once they have trapped the antimatter the scientists at the Factory can learn things about this mysterious mirror of our universe.

Disappointingly antimatter is not any kind of miracle form of antimatter it does not have antigravity property. It does not do anything different at all.  If you could build an antimatter table, it would just be a table. That's weird, right?

What if in those few hot moments after the Big Bang the universe was completely made of antimatter? Would it feel exactly the same to us? I mean think about it if antimatter and matter are exactly the same Then what is the difference? If the whole universe was made of antimatter we do call that matter and what we think of as matter would be called antimatter. All the things we call positive are just relative to our experience. Physics get really weird when you get right down to it.

In the end, an antimatter universe based on everything we know would look and feel exactly the same as our own. But more research is needed. Scientists trapped antimatter for the first time in 2010. Now just a few short years later they have learnt to trap more than a dozen antiatoms at a time over and over again. But still, after a bit they have to let the antimatter go then it annihilates and disappears. But even though annihilation sounds like a big, violent, terrible, thing it's actually kind of like a nothing. The scientists see some gamma radiation and that's all it shows.

Practically speaking CERN has only made 10 nanograms of antimatter. All the energy from annihilating it could only power one light bulb for 4 Hours and to make that antimatter takes a billion times more energy than what we get back from annihilating it. There's not a lot of practical application for this antimatter research yet, but antimatter is actually commonly used in a lot of medical techniques such as a Positron Emission Tomography AKA PET scan, it's used for cancer diagnoses.

There are lots of potential application of it. But based on what we know of antihydrogen whether we could do that in future is a big old shrug. At the moment, almost a century after it was first theorized, antimatter research is still in its infancy, but with more research someday we will know more.

Read More

Supersolid | State Of Matter

Well, who can say all the state of matter at once? Solid, Liquid, Gas, SupperSolid, SupperFluid, Bose-Einstein Condensate, Plasma, Excitonium, Fermionic Condensate And holy moly there are lots of states of matter nearly around 70 states of matter that's insane. We are really living in future, don't you think?

Scientists have created, yet another state of matter! It's called SupperSolid and while it sounds like a solid, it's not. SupperSolid is basically a supper fluid that got it's Molecules together.The researchers who created the new state of matter took a Bose-Einstein Condensate made of Sodium gas and used a laser to cool it to near absolute zero. The atoms are moving extremely slowly. An interesting fact a BEC ( Bose-Einstein Condensate ) is a special phase of matter created in 2001 winning researchers the Nobel Prize for Physics. Well once cooled to a BEC, the Sodium FLOWED with ZERO FRICTION. It's like a Supper-Fluid, Which is awesome.The BEC was also superconductive, meaning its electrons moved through it with ZERO RESISTANCE.

In this research, the scientists kept cooling the sodium and at some point, It's arranged into a non-crystalline "Solid". The scientists called it a superfluid flow with"Long-Range Spatial Periodicity Of A Solid."  Those are some fancy science words. Just think of it like a coffee cup filled with a frictionless, superconducting gel that if you could stir it, it would ever stop moving round and round and round, it will never stop going around.



The "Fluid" didn't suddenly become hard, instate, it's not exactly solid think of it like GEL. It's a fluid but it behaves like a solid. They have still got a lot to learn about these fluid / Solid. But according to their paper their supersolid [Quote] "establishes a system with continuous symmetry-breaking properties, associated collective excitation and superfluid behaviour."  Let's break it down. The superfluid behaviour you get is frictionless superconductor. Collective excitations is a fancy way to say quasiparticles, Quasiparticles are a group of particles that behave as if they are ONE because their parts are interacting somehow. Symmetry-Breaking, It's also describing particle movement, Normally in quantum mechanics, symmetry is a big deal and breaking It is a bigger deal.

At the moment, it continues the old saying, " The closer you look the stranger things get."  The states of matter solid, liquid and gas that you have been living with your whole life were never all there were. It's kind of like you are learning math, First, you are taught numbers, then they tell you there are infinitely many numbers, Then they tell you there are infinitely negative numbers too and then you find out there are irrational numbers and imaginary number and you can do calculation with infinities and embed equation into each other.

Matters are like that Solid, liquid, Gas and Plasma exist but It's actually about the molecular arrangement. Solid are interacting heavily, liquids are loosey-goosey and gases are just barely interacting, while plasma is "Free" it can do anything. But on top of those four, there are several more. Cold ones like the Bose-Einstein Condensate and SupperSolid and Hot once like Electron-Degenerate matter or the theorized strange matter and states like time Crystals, which have low energy states and weird effects across time symmetry.

We don't have six or seven states of matter, we have at least a dozen, there are just more out there, experimental, laboratory-only or extreme kind of matter. Our Universe Is Pretty Awesome.

Read More