Films

6° London Hi 10°C / Lo 5°C

Explosive material: Can Angels & Demons make particle physics sexy?

The latest Dan Brown film adaptation stars Tom Hanks, Ewan McGregor – and a lethal substance, antimatter

By Steve Connor

Science on screen: A scene from 'Angels & Demons'

Science on screen: A scene from 'Angels & Demons'

In the beginning there was both matter and antimatter. Matter is the stuff we, and everything around us, is made of, from the biggest galaxy to the smallest speck of dandruff. Antimatter is its weird doppelganger - identical to matter in all respects, except that everything within its atoms is the opposite way round. Negative becomes positive, and left is right.

Now consider this: matter and antimatter can never coexist. Put them together and you get total annihilation. When matter meets antimatter, there is an instantaneous release of explosive energy in the forms of a piercing pulse of light. Antimatter, as blockbuster novelist Dan Brown has discovered, is the perfect ingredient for the Armageddon device - a weapon thousands of times more potent than the most destructive nuclear bomb.

Brown's novel, Angels & Demons, puts antimatter centre stage as the mysterious element of the bomb that is going to destroy the Vatican. Next week a film version – the sequel to The Da Vinci Code – hits cinemas. And director Ron Howard has done his homework. Early on in the planning of the film he contacted and visited the European Organisation for Nuclear Research (Cern) near Geneva. Cern knows a thing or two about antimatter, having made more of it than anywhere in the world - and possibly more than anywhere in the present-day Universe.

The Cern's underground laboratories feature in the film as the place where antimatter is created, which happens to be true in real life. But what is clearly fiction is the idea that scientists can make enough of it to make a bomb and, even more importantly, store it and carry it around from one place to another in some kind of portable device.

As Cern is quick to point out, if all the antimatter it has ever created over the years could be assembled and combined with matter, the total amount of energy released would be just about enough to power a light bulb for a few minutes. The Oxford physicist Frank Close calculates in his new book on antimatter that with existing technology it would take hundreds of millions of years and cost $1,000trn to make just one gram of antimatter.

Then there is the problem of what to do with it once it has been created. Antimatter is exceedingly difficult to store because it reacts explosively with ordinary matter. Huge electromagnetic forces have to be applied to trap the tiniest amounts of antimatter in one place - forces that require hundreds of tons of heavy equipment. Some have suggested that antimatter could turn out to be an unlimited source of clean energy for the future, but as Close says, this is unlikely. "Regrettably, antimatter is not a panacea for 'saving the planet'. Thankfully, neither it is 'the most deadly weapon'," he writes.

So what is antimatter? It would look and feel just like ordinary matter, except you wouldn't be able to touch it without exploding. Its atoms are in reverse to everything we know about atoms, not just negative and positive, but right and left, up and down. "Like the mould that remains when the cast is removed , matter and antimatter are the yin and yang of reality," explains Close.

Theoretical physicists believe that within the first fraction of a second after the Big Bang, when all matter was created, antimatter was made is almost equal amounts. But try as we might, there is no evidence of this antimatter existing naturally anywhere in the visible Universe. Some scientists believe this is because all antimatter, along with virtually all matter, was destroyed in what Close describes as the Great Annihilation within the first fractions of second after the Big Bang.

It was only because there was a slightly higher proportion of matter to antimatter - something like a one in 10 billion particles - that there was any ordinary matter left to form what we know to exist today. In the meantime, the only antimatter we have observed is the stuff that is either created transiently in particle physics laboratories such as Cern, or in the random collisions of Cosmic rays in space.

Paul Dirac, the brilliant if eccentric British physicist, first postulated the existence of antimatter in 1928, although he did not call it by this name. His calculations suggested a particle with an opposite charge to an electron. Other scientists subsequently discovered this "positron" in 1932, the first antimatter particle.

Since then scientists have discovered a range of anti-particles, and in 1995 researchers at Cern produced the first anti-hydrogens by combining anti-protons with positrons. It was the first time any laboratory had created anti-atoms artificially. The news of antimatter quickly spread around the world, and evidently seeded the fertile imagination of Dan Brown.

The antimatter story took a surreal turn when on 24 March 2004 Kenneth Edwards, director of "revolutionary munitions" at a US Air Force base in Florida, gave a scientific talk on the military potential of positrons. A speck of antimatter weighing no more than 50 millionths of a gram and too small to be seen could, for instance, release the explosive power equivalent to the Oklahoma City bomb, which killed 168 people and injured 500 more when it destroyed a federal building.

Fevered speculation in the media suggested that the US military were engaged in secret research to develop an antimatter weapon. But it subsequently turned out that Edwards was only outlining the theoretical potential and there was no serious military programme - or none at least that made scientific sense.

Cern, meanwhile, has embraced publicity surrounding the film, seeing an opportunity to explain the principles of particle physics. In addition to giving Howard personal tuition in antimatter, the lab has allowed its premises to be filmed. Howard has returned the favour by making a more scientifically accurate DVD extra to be released with the film.

"There was nothing we could have done to stop the film being made and we accept that it is a work of fiction," says James Gillies, a Cern spokesman. "They take a few liberties, but we can forgive them for that."

* Antimatter, by Frank Close, is published by OUP Oxford, (£9.99)

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

The answer is NO
[info]zansal wrote:
Thursday, 7 May 2009 at 03:34 pm (UTC)
Angels and Demons and make it look dumb and purile. But sexy? No way.
Destroying the Vatican with antimatter?
[info]sickofstupidity wrote:
Thursday, 7 May 2009 at 03:42 pm (UTC)
Though the science makes it virtually impossible, you kinda wish it wasn't... :o)
Fighting fire with fire
[info]had_it wrote:
Thursday, 7 May 2009 at 04:36 pm (UTC)
Pseudo-Religion vs Pseudo-Science.
A film to offend both creationists and evolutionists alike.
Equal-opportunity stupidity...but it is all in fun, no?
My mother in law wakes me in the morning so I do not need demons.
[info]famulla wrote:
Thursday, 7 May 2009 at 05:02 pm (UTC)
Explosive material: Can Angels & Demons make particle physics sexy?
The latest Dan Brown film adaptation stars Tom Hanks, Ewan McGregor ? and a lethal substance, antimatter
Steve Connor.
The Kamasutra the book and the porno XXX are good stimulators but if you tell me that after seeing Psycho, Exorcist or Agatha Christi, Lad Charley?s Lover, (not the Sexy James Bond,) you are exited; I guess you are in the wrong world and need a medical advice from a well-known veterinary. Only explosive things are the bombs and in these times, I am under the table holding my cats and pet not my wife. I do not think that is funny. I love Angles in the dream but damn man they run away as soon as I wake up. My mother in law wakes me in the morning so I do not need demons.
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla
[info]mr_scummy wrote:
Thursday, 7 May 2009 at 06:03 pm (UTC)

When I first read Angels & Demons I thought it was a good yarn, but the "scientific" parts about particle physics and anti-matter (and the bit about CERN's hypersonic private jet - I wonder if that's in the film?) were so cringeworthy and badly written that they threatened to spoil the story.
[info]sb_uk wrote:
Friday, 8 May 2009 at 04:40 pm (UTC)
quote>>> "Can Angels & Demons make particle physics sexy?"

That we need a film to make physics appear sexy to attract people into making the effort to understand physics is our problem here.

Particle physics or more importantly - the transition to 'mass' from precursor structures will reveal (when extrapolated) the meaning of life to those who care to take the time to investigate 'all of this' for themselves.

Will a film make physics 'sexy'?

---No---
- but a little time spent on imagining how the wave can become a particle *will* -

a truly remarkable transition which is awe-inspiring because it's actually *real* -
is happening
has happened

- is not a flight of unconstrained fantasy.

'Fascinating stuff' (then) which has the potential to yield ...
(in the mind of the thinker) -

has the potential to yield a reality ...
(within his or her mind)

... a reality of far greater personal (from their perspective) interest than the fictional works which draw on the nature of our reality for their inspiration
- a reality of far greater personal {merit,worth,satisfaction,worthiness}.

Simply
(then)

- we're on the verge of discovering that reality is far
*more so* ...
*far* more so ... than the sum total of fictional presentations on future unreal.

http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/LHC/LHC-en.html
->-
"Our understanding of the Universe is about to change ... ... ... "
angelic demons
[info]waxycochleas wrote:
Saturday, 9 May 2009 at 05:47 pm (UTC)
exactly
Can particle physics what?
[info]richardm30 wrote:
Saturday, 9 May 2009 at 11:01 pm (UTC)
Perhaps particle physics can make the Pope look sexy? On the other hand - perhaps not!!
On Balance, Probably Not
[info]balbkubrox wrote:
Monday, 11 May 2009 at 11:34 am (UTC)
If Dan Brown's grasp of physics is anything like the understanding of medieval church history he displays in "The Da Vinci Code", then I hardly anticipate a rush of students signing up for university science courses. Nor would I be very happy with the idea of nuclear power stations being run by physics graduates who'd got their information from him.

I can't be bothered to read his silly book, but I suppose that force fields come into it somewhere. For novelists of Brown's ilk force fields are to science what the Knights Templar are to history - and underground tunnels were to Enid Blyton.

Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date