https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?

R=20010091016 2020-01-08T14:16:16+00:00Z

NASA/CRw2001-211116 AIAA-2001-3361

f
Antimatter Production at a Potential Boundary

Michael R. LaPointe
Ohio Aerospace Institute, Brook Park, Ohio

August 2001
 The NASA STI Program Office... in Profile

Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated to CONFERENCE PUBLICATION. Collected
the advancement of aeronautics and space papers from scientific and technical
science. The NASA Scientific and Technical conferences, symposia, seminars, or other
Information (STI) Program Office plays a key part meetings sponsored or cosponsored by
in helping NASA maintain this important role. NASA.

The NASA STI Program Office is operated by SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientific,

Langley Research Center, the Lead Center for technical, or historical information from
NASA's scientific and technical information. The NASA programs, projects, and missions,
NASA STI Program Office provides access to the often concerned with subjects having
NASA STI Database, the largest collection of substantial public interest.
aeronautical and space science STI in the world.
The Program Office is also NASA's institutional TECHNICAL TRANSLATION. English-
mechanism for disseminating the results of its language translations of foreign scientific
research and development activities. These results and technical material pertinent to NASA's
are published by NASA in the NASA STI Report mission.
Series, which includes the following report types:
Specialized services that complement the STI
TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports of Program Office's diverse offerings include
completed research or a major significant creating custom thesauri, building customized
phase of research that present the results of data bases, organizing and publishing research
NASA programs and include extensive data results.., even providing videos.
or theoretical analysis. Includes compilations
of significant scientific and technical data and For more information about the NASA STI
information deemed to be of continuing Program Office, see the following:
reference value. NASA's counterpart of peer-
reviewed formal professional papers but • Access the NASA STI Program Home Page
has less stringent limitations on manuscript at http://www.sti.nasa.gov
length and extent of graphic presentations.
• E-mail your question via the Internet to
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. Scientific help@sti.nasa.gov
and technical findings that are prelimina D" or
of specialized interest, e.g., quick release • Fax your question to the NASA Access
reports, working papers, and bibliographies Help Desk at 301-621-0134
that contain minimal annotation. Does not
contain extensive analysis. • Telephone the NASA Access Help Desk at
301-621-0390
CONTRACTOR REPORT. Scientific and
technical findings by NASA-sponsored Write to:
contractors and grantees. NASA Access Help Desk
NASA Center for AeroSpace Information
7121 Standard Drive
Hanover, MD 21076
NASA/CRm2001-211116 AIAA-2001-3361

Antimatter Production at a Potential Boundary

Michael R. LaPointe
Ohio Aerospace Institute, Brook Park, Ohio

Prepared for the

37th Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit
cosponsored by the AIAA, ASME, SAE, and ASEE
Salt Lake City, Utah, July 8-11, 2001

Prepared under Cooperative Agreement NCC3-860 and SBIR Contract NAS8--98109

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Glenn Research Center

August 2001
 Acknowledgments

Funding for this research was provided through NASA SBIR Contract NAS8-98109 during the
period April-November 1998.

This report is a formal draft or working

paper, intended to solicit comments and
ideas from a technical peer group.

This report contains preliminary

findings, subject to revision as
analysis proceeds.

Available from

NASA center for Aerospace Information National Technical Information Service

7121 Standard Drive 5285 Port Royal Road
Hanover, MD 21076 Springfield, VA 22100

Available electronically at ht_: / / gltrs.gr¢.nasa.gov/GLTRS

 ANTIMATTER PRODUCTIONAT A POTENTIAL BOUNDARY

Michael
R. LaPointe
Ohio Aerospace Institute
Brook Park, Ohio 44142

ABSTRACT curtailed by an inability to collimate the energetic

photons. With the experimental discovery of the anti-
Current antiproton production techniques rely on high- proton in 1955, attention turned to the use of proton-
energy collisions between beam particles and target antiproton annihilation as an energy source for
nuclei to produce particle and antiparticle pairs, but spacecraft propulsion. The higher rest mass energy of
inherently low production and capture efficiencies ren- the proton-antiproton pair yields 1877 MeV per
der these techniques impractical for the cost-effective annihilation event, compared with 1.02 MeV released
production of antimatter for space propulsion and other by electron-positron annihilation. Equally important, a
commercial applications. Based on Dirac's theory of significant fraction of the proton-antiproton annihilation
the vacuum field, a new antimatter production concept energy appears in the kinetic energy of charged
is proposed in which particle-antiparticle pairs are cre- particles, 35 which may be collimated for direct thrust or
ated at the boundary of a steep potential step formed by used to heat an expellant more effectively than electron-
the suppression of the local vacuum fields. Current an- positron gamma radiation. Several antiproton-powered
timatter production techniques are reviewed, followed rocket designs have been proposed over the past few
by a description of Dirac's relativistic quantum theory decades, ranging from low thrust, high specific impulse
of the vacuum state and corresponding solutions for pion engines to higher thrust, lower specific impulse
particle tunneling and reflection from a potential bar- solid and gas core thermal rockets. 62° Recent modeling
tier. The use of the Casimir effect to suppress local efforts have simulated the performance of magnetically
vacuum fields is presented as a possible technique for confined hydrogen plasma engines heated by charged
generating the sharp potential gradients required for proton-antiproton annihilation byproducts -'_24 and have
particle-antiparticle pair creation. investigated antiproton-boosted fission reactions as a
driver for an inertial confinement fusion rocket. 25"26
INTRODUCTION
Although a number of potential antiproton propulsion
Present chemical engines and electric propulsion concepts have been analyzed, their transition from theo-
thrusters are well suited for near-Earth applications and retical design to experimental validation and practical
robotic space flight, but advanced propulsion use has been constrained by the prohibitive cost of cre-
technologies must be developed to enable fast piloted ating and storing the antiprotons. The following section
and robotic deep space missions. Of all the known discusses current antiproton production methods, and
energy sources, none provides more specific energy outlines near-term prospects for efficient antiproton
than the annihilation of matter and antimatter. The production and storage.
energy released per kilogram of combined matter and
antimatter is nearly 250 times the specific energy Current Antiproton Production Methods
released in nuclear fusion, and over 8 orders of
magnitude greater than the specific energy released in The two leading facilities for antiproton production and
chemical combustion) The possibility of producing storage are the European Laboratory for Particle Phys-
photon rockets using gamma rays from electron- ics (formerly CERN, the Center for European Nuclear
positron annihilation was investigated over half a Research) in Geneva, and the Fermi National Accelera-
century ago," but the efficiency of the engines were tor Laboratory (FNAL) in the United States. At the

NASA/CR--2001-211116 1
 CERNfacility,protons areaccelerated by a linearac- number of upgrades to the current facilities could be
celerator
to50MeV(8x10 -_:J),injectedintoabooster made to improve antiproton production and storage
ringandaccelerated to 800MeV,andthensentto a capabilities. Magnetic fields produced by electric cur-
protonsynchrotron,wheretheyarefurtheraccelerated rents flowing through the metal wire targets could be
to26GeV.Thehigh-energy protons arethenfocused used to keep the spray of antiprotons closer to the target
intoa 2-mmbeana anddirected intoa 3-mmdiameter, axis, reducing their angular spread. Multiple targets
1l-cmlongcopperwiretarget.Therelativistic protons could be employed, with magnetic lenses used to refo-
collidewith the targetnuclei,producing a sprayof cus the antiprotons between each section. Angular cap-
gammas, pions,kaons, andbaryons, includingantipro- ture efficiencies could be improved by going to higher
tons.Onleaving thetarget,theantiprotons haveapeak beam energies, creating a forward-peaked distribution
momentum of 3.5GeV/c,corresponding to a peaken- that allows more antiprotons to be captured. Material
ergyof roughly3 GeV. A shortfocallength,pulsed lenses could be replaced with current-carrying plasma
magnetichornis usedtocapture antiprotonsthathave lenses, which are less likely to absorb the antiprotons
momenta within1.5%of theirpeakvalue,atangles up and would not need active cooling. Using linear rather
to 50 mradfromthetargetcenterline.Thecaptured than synchrotron accelerators to produce the initial
antiprotons
aresenttoa storage ringin burstsof about high-energy proton beams could increase the accelera-
10 7 antiprotons every few seconds, and around 10 I1 tor energy efficiency by an order of magnitude over the
antiprotons can be accumulated before space charge current 5% wall plug efficiencies.
effects scatter the circulating beam. The antiprotons are
sent back to the proton synchrotron, which decelerates Taken together, the potential facility improvements
them to an energy of 200 MeV, and then to the low could result in the yearly production and storage of mi-
energy antiproton ring, where the circulating beam is crogram quantities of antiprotons at a potential cost 27 of
further decelerated, stochastically cooled, and stored. around $6.4x106/_g ($6.4xl09/mg). While these pro-
Similar techniques are used to create antiprotons at duction numbers and costs are approaching those re-
FNAL. quired for ground testing antimatter propulsion con-
cepts, they are not adequate for antimatter-based pro-
During the high-energy collisions, approximately one pulsion systems. Forward 1"2°calculates that antiproton
antiproton is created for every 105-106high-energy pro- propulsion becomes cost competitive with chemical
tons incident on the target. The energy efficiency, de- propellant systems at an antiproton production cost of
fined as the energy released in a proton-antiproton an- approximately $107/mg, and antiproton propulsion be-
nihilation event (1.88 GeV at rest) divided by the en- comes the most cost effective propulsion source avail-
ergy required to create an antiproton, is abysmally low. able if the production costs can be lowered to
On average, CERN creates 1 antiproton for every $2xl06/mg. Because the near term facility modifica-
2.5x106 protons; at an average energy of 26 GeV per tions outlined above are unlikely to produce the neces-
proton, the corresponding energy efficiency is ap- sary reduction in antiproton production costs, a number
proximately 3x10 8. FNAL, which uses a 120 GeV of alternative antiproton production techniques have
proton beam to strike the target, creates 1 antiproton for been suggested. Chapline 2s has proposed colliding
every 3.3x 104 protons, corresponding to an energy effi- heavy ion beams, made up of singly charged uranium
ciency of around 4x10 7. Assuming a "wall-plug" effi- atoms, to produce up to 10 t8 antiprotons/sec. Unfortu-
ciency for each accelerator of around 5%, the total anti- nately, the antiprotons will be emitted isotropically and
proton production efficiencies are roughly 1.5x10 "° for will be very difficult to collect. Equally problematic,
CERN and 2x10 -8 for FNAL. The total annihilation the colliding heavy ion beams will produce a significant
energy contained in 1-mg of antiprotons (roughly amount of nuclear debris and radiation, which would
6xl02° antiprotons) is 1.8x1011 J; an efficiency of have to be safely and efficiently removed from the
1.5x10 -° means that it would take nearly 1.2x10 :° J spray of antiprotons. Cassenti '9 has suggested that the
(3.3x10 t3 kW-hr) to create 1 mg of antiprotons. As- pions generated during the collision of high-energy
suming a conservative energy cost of $0.05/kW-hr, the protons with heavy target nuclei could be redirected
estimated production cost is a staggering $1.6xl0 H per toward the target to increase the number of antiprotons
milligram of antiprotons. Most antimatter propulsion and improve the efficiency of current antiproton pro-
concepts require milligrams to grams of antiprotons, duction techniques. Although promising, the collection
indicating that current antiproton production techniques and redirection of the pions and antiprotons remains a
are inadequate for future spacecraft propulsion applica- major challenge to this concept.
•
uons. .
However, as discussed by Forward 1 a nd Schmidt
et aL, 27 neither CERN nor FNAL were designed as Hora 3° proposed the use of a high intensity laser that
dedicated antiproton production facilities. As such, a could generate sufficiently strong electric fields to

NASA/CR--2001-211116 2
 V
produce proton-antiprotonpairsfromthevacuum, and
Crowe 3j separately
proposed theuseof highintensity
lasersto produce electron-positronpairs. At present,
however, therearenoknownlasers thatcanproduce the ;mo C2
highintensityelectric
fieldsneeded forpairproduction.
Forward 1"2°
andHaloulakos andAyotte 32haveinvesti-
gatedthepossibilityof buildingand operating an anti- 2
proton factory in space, where the proton accelerator :-moc
could be powered by solar energy. However, the esti-
mated cost to produce and store the antiprotons is still
nearly $109/mg, which is a factor of 102 too high for :?

cost-effective space propulsion applications. 32

Rather than rely on high-energy proton beam collisions Figure 1. Energy Levels of the Dirac Equation
with a stationary target, this paper outlines a new con-
cept that may lead to the more efficient production of More generally, in Dirac's theory the vacuum repre-
antimatter in quantities sufficient for propulsion and sents a continuum of negative energy states occupied by
other commercial applications. The proposed technique negative energy particles. Pair creation is the process in
is based upon particle-antiparticle pair production at the which sufficient energy is given to a particle in the
steep potential boundary created by the suppression of negative energy state to raise it to a positive energy
local vacuum field energies. The premise is based on state (creating a real panicle and leaving behind a hole,
Dirac's relativistic theory of the vacuum state, which is or antiparticle); annihilation occurs when the particle
outlined in the following section. The theory underly- falls back into the hole, with the energy carried away as
ing particle-antiparticle pair creation at a potential radiation. The vacuum itself should have zero energy,
boundary is discussed, followed by an explanation of zero mass, and no charge, which is clearly not satisfied
the technique proposed to create the required potential by the simple form of the theory. Instead, there are
step. The paper concludes with an overview of an ex- infinitely many negative energy states, which together
perimental approach designed to demonstrate the feasi- have an infinitely large negative energy, and, in the
bility of this new antimatter production concept. case of electrons populating the negative energy con-
tinuum, an infinitely large negative charge. These dif-
DIRAC'S THEORY OF THE VACUUM STATE ficulties are removed by renormalizing the zero point of
charge and energy in such a way that the vacuum has
Dirac was the first to develop a relativistic wave equa- no mass, energy, or charge. This renormalization proc-
tion that correctly describes the interaction of spin-l/2 ess is not pleasing from an aesthetic viewpoint, but it
panicles, such as electrons and protons. 33 Dirac's equa- does satisfy the constraint that only departures from the
tion contains both positive and negative energy solu- vacuum state are observable and hence relevant.
tions, the latter identified with the continuum energy of
the vacuum state (Fig. 1). As defined by Dirac, the vac- TUNNELING AND POTENTIAL BARRIERS
uum state is characterized by the absence of all real
electrons in positive energy states, but has electrons Related to Dirac's theory of the vacuum is the quantum
filling all negative energy states (the "Dirac sea"). Be- mechanical process of particle tunneling in the presence
cause of the Pauli exclusion principle, real electrons of a steep potential st_p. An overview of this process is
cannot transition into negative energy states since all provided by Greiner, the salient features of which are
such states are already occupied; however, an electron given here.
in a negative energy state can absorb radiation and tran-
sition to a positive energy state, leaving behind a "hole" Consider a spin-l/2 particle (for example, an electron or
in the negative energy continuum. The hole behaves proton) with energy, E, and momentum, p, traveling
like a positive electron and represents the antiparticle of along the z-axis (Figure 2). The particle encounters a
the electron. The creation of an electron and an an- step potential of magnitude V0 that rises to full value in
tielectron (positron) is identified as pair creation and a distance equal to the Compton wavelength of the par-
requires a minimum energy of 2moC 2. Pair annihilation ticle, _,_:
occurs when an electron drops back into the (unoccu- h
pied) hole, with the resulting transition energy emitted _ =-- (1)
moC
as radiation.

NASA/CR--2001- 211116 3
whereh is Planck's constant (6.626xi0 34 J-s), mo is the
particle rest mass, and c is the speed of light. 0
Iffl = A pti c exp (7)

E + m0c 2
V o
0
II
i ":?i...........
where A is a constant and the particle momentum, p,, is
given by:
E
Pl c 4E 2 -- m -" 4
o C (8)

At the potential boundary, part of the particle wave will

be reflected and part will be transmitted. The reflected
Z v
wave solution in Region I is:
Figure 2. Particle incident on a potential step.

0 " _

The Dirac equation describing the propagation of the

particle in Region I is:
_;=B. -p_I c
,
E + moC2
expL n j (9)

3 q_ hc 3 3 3 _ ,
and the transmitted solution in Region II is:
ot ki k ox "ox ox ) 1

where _ is the particle wave function, h is the reduced

Planck constant (h/2n), Hs is the Hamiltonian,
are the standard Dirac matrices.
andr,/_
Noting that the
YJ. =D
Vo -E-moc:
1
0
-p2c exq ] ,,0,
momentum operator/j is given by:

where again B and D are constants. The particle mo-

_ hc( a a +& a +a a ]_hv mentum in Region II is given by:
(3)
P=T[ '_x' -_ _7)-7
p2c=4(E-Vo) _ -moc 4 (11)

the Dirac equation can be written in the more compact The incident and reflected wave functions must equal
form:
the transmitted wave function at the step boundary
(z=0):
,,, q',l:=0 + _,l:=0
r =vz,/l:=o (12)
The Hamiltonian for Region I (zero potential) is the
from which the following conditions are obtained for
total particle energy, E, while in Region II the Hamilto-
the coefficients A, B and D:
nian becomes (E-V0). The Dirac equation for a particle
wave traveling along the +z direction in Region I is A+B=D (13)
then:

[c(a3. _,)+ fimoc2]ll/= Elff (5)

A-B;-D p'( E+m°c2 ]
]

(14)
In Region II, the Dirac equation for the traveling parti-
cle wave becomes: =-D_ I(Vo
(vo -_ E_mocZ
E + moc 2 XE + moc: I =-Dy
_(E_mocZ

[c(6/3 • _,)+ l_moc2]qt=(E-Vo)v (6) where _, is defined as:

The solution for the particle wave function in Region I (15)

is:

NASA/CR--2001-211116 4
Uponrearrangement,
Equations
13and14yield:
__ = _ Vo _oc 2 DD* Y
DD* 2p'-c2 ]
-_=_l--_y
) (16)
] E + moc- (24)
Dividing Equation 14 by the coefficient A and substitut-
ing Equation 16 for (B/A) yields:

D 2 (17)
A 1-y For a potential step V0 > (E+m0c2), the value y>i.
From Equation 23, this indicates that the reflected par-
The particle current j is defined to be: ticle current exceeds the incident particle current in
Region I dJlq>lJtl)- It appears that electrons are entering
j(z) =clg *(z)a_(z)^ (18) Region I from Region II, but there are no electrons ini-
tially present in Region II. This result, known as
where _ut(z) is the adjoint of _(z). The values of lif t& Klein's Paradox, is most often interpreted as particle-
in Region I are: antiparticle pair creation at the potential boundary.

_g_a_ = A*
• ^
p_c
0, E+m0 c2 I
,0,1 exp
) L / n j
Discussion of Results.

Applying a potential V0 > E + m0c 2 raises the energy in

Region II sufficiently for there to be an overlap be-
lffla 2 = A* p__c (19)
tween the negative energy continuum (z>0) and the
E + moC"
positive energy continuum (z<0), as shown in Figure 3:

I_rlt_ t ^3 = A*
( pjc
E+moc:
,0,1,0
I
)
exp
L n j

from which jb the incident particle current in Region I,

is:
.) 2

Jl =-AA" "PlC (20)

E + rno c2

Similarly, the reflected (.j[) and transmitted (Jn) particle

currents are:
E
Jl.r = -BB" 2p_c-
E +mo cz (21) mo c2

jo = DD,I Vo --2p,
E- c2
moc2 I (22)
-moe _
Equations 20-22 can now be used to calculate the re-
flection and transmission coefficients for the particle
wave function impacting the potential boundary. Tak-
ing the ratio of the reflected current to the incident par- Figure 3. Energy Continuum of the Dirac Equation at a
ticle current yields: Potential Barrier. 34 (x) = particle, (o) = antiparticle

When V0 > E + m0c", the particles striking the barrier

from the left are able to knock additional particles out
J; E + moc 2" BB" B 2 _ (1+ ),)2 (23) of the vacuum on the right, leading to an antiparticle
current flowing from the left to the right in Region II
E--+moc--_" and a particle current flowing from right to left in
Region I. This pair creation is depicted schematically
The ratio of the transmitted current to the incident cur- in Figure 3, with the additional particles entering
rent is given by: Region I from the right accounting for the increase in

NASA/CR--2001-211116 5
 returncurrent.Asnotedby Greiner, 34thisprocess is
mostreadilyunderstood as particle-antiparticle
pair
creationat thepotentialbarrierandis relatedto the
decayof thevacuumin thepresence of supercritical I lI "
fields.Whenthepotential functionV0is lessthanE +
moc", theparticlemomentum in Region II is imaginary moc 2
(Eq.11)andthewavesolutionwill beexponentially
damped (Eq.10);all of theincidentcurrentis then _ -mo c2
reflectedbackintoRegionI, andnoparticlecurrentis -_l "U°
transmittedintoRegionII. It is onlywhenV0> E + E _. --m---m-
m0c 2thatthemomentum in Region II becomes realand _Uo+moC_ 1-'-_
theparticlewavefunctioninRegion II againbecomes a
travelingwave.
_Uo_moc2_.,-
Theabove
derivations
maybesummarized
asfollows:

• TheDiracequation is usedtorepresent theevolu-

tionofspin-l/2particlewavefunctions.
• Dirac'sequation permitsbothpositiveandnegative Figure 4. Lowering the vacuum energy via the Casimir
energysolutions;the negative energystatesare effect.
filledwithvirtualparticles, whichprevent particle
transitionsfrompositiveenergystates to negative
energy statesviathePauliexclusion principle.
• Particles
will becompletely reflected fromapoten- VACUUM FIELDS AND THE CAS1MIR EFFECT
tial barrier(¥0)whentheirenergyE < Vo;the
transmitted particlewavefunction is exponentially Dirac's vacuum is a negative energy continuum popu-
damped withinthepotential barrier. lated by particles that prevent positive energy particles
• Forpotential stepswithV0> E+ rn0c 2,anincident from transitioning into the negative energy states. To
particlewill inducepaircreationat thepotential avoid obvious problems associated with infinite vac-
boundary, resulting in a (real)returnparticlecur- uum charges and energies, the vacuum state is renor-
rentanda(real)transmitted antiparticlecurrent. malized to zero; only deviations from the vacuum state
are measurable. As such, the potential step shown in
Thequestion nowarisesasto whether
thiseffectcan Figure 3 represents an applied field measured with re-
actually
beapplied
totheproduction
ofantimatter. The spect to the background vacuum; the energy in Region
potential
stepmustbegreater
thanE+ moc2, where E is II has been raised by the applied field such that the
negative energy states now overlap the positive energy
the total particle energy (rest mass plus kinetic), and the
potential must rise to its full value over a distance com- states in Region I. However, raising the background
vacuum in Region II requires a tremendous amount of
parable to the Compton wavelength of the particle,
energy (V0>E+m0c 2) over a very small distance, which
h/(moc). For an electron, the minimum potential step
is clearly beyond present capabilities. Rathe r than .rais-
height is 1.02 MeV (plus the kinetic energy of the elec,
tron), and the Compton wavelength is approximately ing the vacuum energy in_Region ffl _it _s proposedtha t
2.4x10 -12 m. For a proton, the minimum potential step the same effect can be generated by suppressing the
height is 1876 MeV and the Compton wavelength is relative vacuum energy in Region I, as shown in Fig-
approximately 1.3x10 16 m. These supercritical poten- ure 4. This process can be viewed either as lowering the
positive energy states such that they now overlap with
tials are too large to be generated over such short dis-
tances using laboratory electric fields, but there may be the negative energy states in Region ii, or the back-
ground vacuum in Region I can be renormalized to zero
another option: rather than use externally applied fields
to raise the vacuum energy in Region II, it may be pos- to yield an energy diagram similar to Figure 3. in either
sible to use the Casimir effect to lower the vacuum en- instance, a particle wave traveling from Region I into
ergy in Region I. This concept, shown schematically in Region II will be described by the same Solutions out-
lined in the section above, leading to particle-
Figure 4, may be able to produce the same pair creation
effects depicted in Figure 3 without requiting the appli- antiparticle pair creation at the potential boundary.
Unlike Figure 3, pair production is achieved not by
cation of supercritical external fields. A brief discus-
sion of the Casimir effect is provided below, followed raising the potential but by lowering the relative vac-
uum energy, an effect that might be accomplished
by an outline of a possible experimental test of the pro-
through the use of a Casimir cavity.
posed antimatter production mechanism.

NASA/CR--2001-211116 6
Beforediscussing theCasimireffect,it should benoted constitutes a force of attraction, F, per unit area, given
thatDirac'sinterpretationofthevacuum asacontinuum by: F ! dUt. hc
of negative energystates occupied by negativeenergy A L-" dr. z4 (26)
particles,
thoughsomewhat dated,is not in disagree-
mentwiththecurrentquantum electrodynamic (QED) A more careful analysis leads to the exact relationship
interpretation
of thevacuum asaninfiniteseaof elec- for the force per unit area between the parallel conduct-
tromagnetic radiationpopulated with virtualparticle ing plates: 39
pairs.Because exchange interactionsoccurin Dirac's F /r 2 hc
theory,virtualelectron-positron pairsarecontinuously A 240 z.4 (27)
createdandannihilated in thevacuum; anelectronin a In other words, the vacuum energy density between the
boundor freestatecanfill a virtualholein theDirac
takingitsplace.Renormali- plates is lower than the vacuum energy density outside
sea,witha virtualelectron the plates by an amount equal to the right hand side of
zationof thevacuumenergyandchargeis required Equation 27. For reasonable plate sizes and small
bothin Dirac'soriginaltheoryandin QED,andas separation distances, the change in the vacuum energy
notedby Greiner, 34thephysicalcontentof theDirac density can be appreciable. Assuming the plates have
theoryformsthebasisof currentquantum electrody-
namics.Thisismentioned because theCasimireffectis length L=0.1 m and are separated by a distance of l-gm
(10 nm), the change in the vacuum energy density is
generallydiscussed in termsof theQEDinterpretation approximately
topointoutthat inward pressure 1.3x10 -_ J/m 3, corresponding to an
ofthevacuum state,andit isnecessary of 1.3x10 -4 N/m-" on the plates. For a
boththe DiracandQEDvacuuminterpretations are
separation distance of 0.1-1am (10 -7 m), the change in
complementary. the vacuum energy density is equal to 1.3 J/n'l 3,
The Casimir Effect corresponding to an inward pressure of 1.3 N/m". The
calculations can be carried down to separation distances
that are approximately equal to the cut-off wavelength
As in the Dirac theory, the vacuum state in quantum
of the conducting material, at which point the plates can
electrodynamics is interpreted to be the state of lowest
no longer be considered good electromagnetic
energy. This lowest energy state is not at rest, but fluc-
reflectors.
tuates with a "zero-point" energyY 39 The vacuum fluc-
tuations have measurable effects, including the experi-
Equations 26 and 27 demonstrate that the vacuum en-
mentally observed Lamb-Retherford shift between the s
ergy density between the conducting plates is lower
and p energy levels of the hydrogen atom, and the at-
than the external vacuum energy density. Multiplying
tractive Casimir force that occurs between closely
Equation 27 by the plate surface area (L 2) and the sepa-
spaced uncharged conductors. As discussed by Moste-
ration distance between the plates (z) yields an expres-
panenko et aL, 35 the Casimir effect can be accounted
sion relating the decrease in the vacuum energy be-
for by assuming the force is a consequence of the sepa-
tween the plates compared to the external vacuum field
ration-dependent vacuum field energy trapped between
energy:
the conductors. For example, assume that two square rc2 hcL 2
conducting plates with side dimensions L, separated by AE_ac - (28)
720 _3
a distance z, are placed in a vacuum. In the QED inter-
pretation, the vacuum is teeming with electromagnetic For square plate dimensions of L = 0.1 m and a separa-
radiation (although mathematically the vacuum state is tion distance of 0. l-lam, the change in vacuum energy is
renormalized to zero), hence the plates may be consid- calculated to be 4.3x10 9 J, or roughly 2.7x10 l° eV (27
ered to constitute a cavity that supports vacuum fluctua- GeV). The vacuum energy between the plates is thus
tion modes with wave numbers down to about z -1. The substantially lower than the vacuum energy external to
vacuum energy trapped between the plates is approxi- the plates, or conversely, if the vacuum energy between
mately given by: the plates is renormalized to zero, the vacuum energy

U : ±l hw = (L-z) i hckk2dk ---1L2hc[zK4 _:-3]

_ 2 _, 4 (25)
2 = Uu _ UL
where Uv is the upper energy bound, UL is the lower
energy bound, and K represents a high frequency cut-
off to make the total energy finite. The negative rate of
change of the lower cut-off energy UL with separation z
external to the plates is substantially
vacuum energy between the plates. By adjusting
higher than the
the
plate dimensions and separation distance, it may thus be
possible to significantly suppress the vacuum energy in
a given region and generate a condition similar to that
shown in Figure 4. A particle generated in the sup-
pressed vacuum fields of Region I will see a higher
vacuum field energy outside of the plates, and if the
relative change in the vacuum energy exceeds E+moc 2,

NASA/CR--2001-211116 7
it may be possible to generate particle-antiparticle pairs Equation 32 expresses necessary conditions for a flat
at the vacuum energy step. Because the Dirac solutions parallel plate geometry to form a sufficiently steep po-
hold equally well for electrons or protons, the possibil- tential gradient for particle-antiparticle pair production
ity exists that low energy proton-antiproton pairs might to occur. For electrons, this condition can be written:
be created at the steep potential boundary created by L-_
vacuum field suppression in a Casimir cavity. s----
z ff ---1.56x 1026(m --_) (33)

Creating a Potential Gradient Assuming a plate separation distance z = 10 -7 m and a

gradient length d = 10 "6m, the required plate area, L-', is
The Casimir effect provides an avenue for creating suf- around 0.156 m-'; for square plates this corresponds to a
ficiently large potential steps, but the question arises as side length of approximately 0.4 m. Plates of this size
to whether these steps can be generated over a distance and flatness are well within current manufacturing ca-
comparable to the Compton wavelength of the particle. pabilities, offering some encouragement for experimen-
From Equation 1, the Compton wavelength for elec- tal verification of the proposed concept. For protons,
trons is 2.42x10 12 m, while for protons the Compton L:
wavelength is 1.32x10 _5 m. Either distance is several 3----
z ff 5.26x10 -(m ") (34)
orders of magnitude smaller than any realistic plate
thickness separating the interior and exterior vacuum Using the same plate separation and gradient distances
fields, hence typical fiat plates will not provide a suffi- above would require a plate length of 725 m to provide
ciently steep potential step for pair creation to occur. a suitable potential gradient. However, a number of
Casimir force experiments have been performed over
A possible solution to this dilemma is to create a suit- the past several years with plate separations down to
able potential gradient over a distance larger than the several nanometers, and a reasonable lower limit of 10 .8
Compton wavelength, such that the required step m can be assumed for the plate separation z. The dis-
change in potential occurs over a distance comparable tance over which the potential gradient is formed, d,
to the Compton wavelength. Assuming the required can also be reduced by locally thinning the plate sup-
potential step has magnitude V and the change in vac- port structure; a realistic lower bound on d is thus as-
uum field energy due to the Casimir effect has magni- sumed to be 10 -9 m. Given these values, the plate size
tude AE,,,, the gradient relation can be expressed: for producing the required potential step for proton-
antiproton pair production is around 0.73 m, which is
v _ .... (29) difficult but not impossible to manufacture.
;_, d
where Acis the Compton wavelength of the particle and Ideally, the potential gradient would be formed in a
d is the plate thickness, or more properly the thickness region devoid of plate material; this can be accom-
of the region over which the change in vacuum field plished by designing the Casimir plate with a small hole
energy occurs. For pair production to occur at the step whose diameter is of the same order or smaller than the
boundary, the potential V must exceed E+m0c:, where E plate separation distance. Vacuum electromagnetic
is the total energy of the particle (rest mass plus kinetic fields with wavelengths larger than the hole diameter
energy). Assuming the particle kinetic energy at the will still be blocked by the cavity, but the potential gra-
boundary is small compared to its rest mass energy, the dient formed by the plates is now in a material-free
requirement for V becomes: region that more faithfully reproduces the assumptions
behind Figures 3 and 4. Possible effects due to the
V > 2mo c2 (30) fringing of vacuum electromagnetic fields at the hole
boundaries remain to be evaluated, but this method ap-
Inserting Equations 28 and 30 into Equation 29 yields pears promising to provide the required potential gradi-
the following expression for the plate area, thickness, ents in a material-free region.
and separation as a function of particle mass and Comp-
ton wavelength: Summary. In summary, it appears possible to produce
2moc2 rc2hcL 2 a Casimir cavity geometry that will provide sufficiently
steep potential gradients for particle-antiparticle pair
Z_ = 720_-_d (31)
creation. By introducing a small hole in the plate
which reduces to: material with a diameter similar to the plate separation
distance, a potential step may be created in a material-
L-" -- 4.15x10 44 m° (32) free region, as depicted in Figure 4. Electron-positron
pairs and proton-antiproton pairs can conceivably be

NASA/CR--2001-211116
 generated using this technique, with significantly less target placed outside the central plate hole can be used
infrastructure and presumably lower cost than current to intercept any positrons emitted at the potential
antimatter production methods. boundary. The resulting annihilation of the positrons
with the target material will produce 0.511-MeV
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN gamma rays that can be measured with a detector lo-
cated behind the target.
The following experiment is proposed to evaluate the
possibility of producing particle-antiparticle pairs at a Proton-Antiproton Production
potential boundary created within a Casimir cavity.
The proposed experiment is a modified version of a If successful, the experimental arrangement outlined
similar experiment performed by the author under a above will demonstrate the basic feasibility of the pro-
prior contract to the NASA Marshall Space Flight Cen- posed pair production process. However, for propul-
ter. 4° In that experiment, flat parallel plates were used sion applications it is desirable to produce antiprotons
to form a Casimir cavity to investigate pair creation, but rather than positrons. As previously discussed, the con-
the plate geometries were not properly designed to gen- straints on plate size, flatness, and separation become
erate sharp potential gradients. Based on that effort and significantly more demanding, but remain within the
the additional analysis in this report, the following ex- capability of current manufacturing techniques. For
periment is suggested as a proof-of-concept test. proton-antiproton pair production, square plates with
areas of 0.526 m2 (L = 0.725 m) would have to be sepa-
Electron-Positron Production rated by a distance of l0 -8 m, indicating that the surface
flatness of the plates would have to be on the order of
To investigate the formation of electron-positron pairs, nanometers. Larger plate areas would relax this con-
it is proposed that a Casimir cavity be constructed from straint by allowing larger separation distances, and the
two flat, square metallic plates, each with an area of ability to machine flat surface areas must be traded
1.61xl0 2 m 2 (L = 12.7 cm). From Equation 33, spacing against the fabrication of larger plate dimensions. The
the plates a distance z = l0 -7 m apart should provide a central hole diameter would again be on the order of the
suitably steep potential gradient for electron-positron plate separation distance to provide a material-free po-
pair creation to occur. To create a material free region tential step, and the electron source would be replaced
for the steep potential step, the central region of one with a proton source to provide the particles within the
plate should be thinned down to a material depth d _< cavity. If this scheme is successful, the antiprotons can
10 .7 m, into which a central hole should be drilled per- be captured upon exiting through the hole in the
pendicular to the plate boundary. The diameter of the Casimir plate and stored in portable Penning traps for
hole should be on the order of the plate separation dis- later use.
tance, so that vacuum electromagnetic fields with wave-
lengths larger than the hole diameter will still be CONCLUDING REMARKS
blocked by the cavity plates. On the opposite plate, a
small amount of radioactive material can be deposited A new concept has been described for creating matter-
to act as a source of electrons within the cavity; Ni 63 is antimatter particle pairs at a steep potential boundary.
a readily available commercial source, and the kinetic The potential step is created using the Casimir effect to
energy of the emitted electrons (0.067 MeV) are suffi- suppress the vacuum energy between parallel conduct-
ciently below the rest mass energy of the electron that ing plates. Preliminary calculations indicate that a suf-
Equation 30 remains a viable approximation. Alterna- ficiently steep potential gradient can be formed for rea-
tively, the metallic plate can be irradiated to produce sonable plate dimensions and separation distances. A
subsequent electron emissions within the cavity. preliminary experimental design is outlined as a proof-
of-concept test for the proposed antimatter production
The plate surfaces must be aligned and moved to within scheme. Additional analysis remains to be performed
10 -7 m to form the required potential step, which can be to validate the concept, including an evaluation of ma-
accomplished using commercially available piezoelec- terial and temperature effects on the plate boundaries,
tric transducers. The close separation distance requires the effect of fringing fields on the potential step at the
&
that the surface flatness of the plates not exceed 10 8 m, plate central hole, and the consequences of imperfect
which is a stringent but commercially attainable con- parallel plate alignment on the required potential gradi-
straint. The entire system should be mounted in a vac- ent. Nevertheless, based on the preliminary analysis
uum system capable of achieving a hard vacuum (_< 10 .8 presented in this paper, the proposed concept appears to
torr), and isolated from vibrations. To evaluate whether be a potentially viable alternative to the high-energy
the proposed pair production method works, a small antimatter production methods currently in use.

NASA/CR--2001-211116 9
 REFERENCES 13. Cassenti, B.N., "Energy Transfer in Antiproton An-
nihilation Rockets," in Antiproton Science and Tech-
1. Forward, R.L., Antiproton Amlihilation Propulsion, _, B.W. Augenstein et al., eds., World Scientific,
AFRPL-TR-85-034, Forward Unlimited, Oxnard, CA, Singapore, 1988, pp. 574-602.
1985.
14. Cassenti, B.N., "Conceptual Designs for Antiproton
2. Sanger, E., "Zur Theorie der Photoneraketen" ("The Propulsion Systems," AIAA Paper No. 89-2333, pre-
Theory of Photon Rockets"), blgenieur-Archiv., 21, sented at the 25th Joint Propulsion Conference, Mon-
1953, pp. 213-226. terey, CA, Jui 10-12, 1989

3. Morgan, D.L. and Hughes, V.M., "Atomic Processes 15. Vulpetti, G., and Pecchioli, M., "Considerations
Involved in Matter-Antimatter Annihilation," Phys. About the Specific Impulse of an Antimatter-Based
Rev., D-2 (8), 1979, pp. 1389-1391. Thermal Engine," J. Propulsion and Power, 5 (5),
I989, pp. 591-595.
4. Agnew, L.E., Jr., Elioff, T., Fowler, W.G., Lander,
R.L., Powell, W.M., Segre, E., Steiner, H.M., White, 16. Howe, S.D., and Metzger, J.D., "Antiproton-Based
H.S., Wiegand, C., and Ypsilantis, T., "Antiproton In- Propulsion Concepts and Potential Impact on a Manned
teractions in Hydrogen and Carbon Below 200 MeV," Mars Mission," J. Propulsion and Power, 5 (3), 1989,
Phys. Rev., 118 (5), 1960, pp. 1371-1391. pp. 295-300.

5. Morgan, D.L., Annihilation of Antiplvtons in Hea_3' 17. Forward, R.L., 21st Century Space Propulsion
Nuclei, AFRPL TR-86-OII, Lawrence Livermore Na- Study, AL-TR-90-030, Forward Unlimited, Malibu,
tional Laboratory, Livermore, CA, Apr 1986. CA, Oct 1990.

6. Massier, P., "The Need for Expanded Exploration of 18. Tarpley, C., Lewis, M.J., and Kothari, A.P., "Safety
Matter-Antimatter Annihilation for Propulsion Applica- Issues is SSTO Spacecraft Powered by Antimatter
tions," J. Br. hlterplanetary Soc., 35 (9), 1982, pp. 387- Rocket Engines," AIAA Paper No. 90-2365, 26th Joint
390. Propulsion Conference, Orlando, FL, Jul 16-18, 1990.

7. Forward, R.L., "Antimatter Propulsion," J. Br. hTter- 19. Cassenti, B.N., "High Specific Impulse Antimatter
planetal 3' Soc., 35 (9), 1982, pp. 391-395. Rockets," AIAA Paper No. 91-2548, presented at the
27th Joint Propulsion Conference, Sacramento, CA,
8. Cassenti, B.N., "Design Considerations for Relativis- June 24-26, 1991.
tic Antimatter Rockets," J. Br. btterplanetatT Soc., 35
(9), 1982, pp. 396--404. 20. Forward, R.L., and Davis, J., Mirror Matter: Pio-
neering Antimatter Physics, J. Wiley & Sons, NY, NY,
9. Morgan, D.L., "Concepts for the Design of an Anti- 1988.
matter Annihilation Rocket," Z Br. blterplanetal 3: Soc.,
35 (9), 1982, pp. 396-404. 21. LaPointe, M.R., Antiproton Annihilation Propulsion
Using Magnetically Confined Plasma Engines, Disser-
10. Cassenti, B.N., "Antimatter Propulsion for OTV tation, U. New Mexico, Dept. Chemical and Nuclear
Applications," J. Propulsion and Power, 1 (2), 1985, Engineering, Albuquerque, NM, 1989.
pp. 143-149.
22. LaPointe, M.R., "Antiproton Powered Propulsion
11. Vulpetti, G., "Antimatter Propulsion for Space Ex- with Magnetically Confined Plasma Engines," J. Pro-
ploration," J. Br. hzterplanetary Soc., 39 (9), 1986, pulsion and Power, 7 (5), pp. 749-759.
pp. 391-409.
23. Callas, J.L., The Application of Monte Carlo Model-
12. Forward, R.L., Advanced Space Propulsion Study: ing to Matter-Antimatter Annihilation Propulsion Con-
Antiproton and Beamed Power Propulsion, AFAL-TR- cepts, JPL D-6830, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasa-
87-070, Hughes Research Laboratories, Malibu, CA, dena, CA, Oct 1989.
Oct 1987.

NASA/CR--2001-211116 10
 24. Huber,F., Antimatterie-Annihilationsantriebe fur 32. Haloulakos, V., and Ayotte, A., "The Prospects for
Interplanetare Raumfahrtmissionen, Ph.D. Dissertation, Space-Based Antimatter Production," AIAA Paper 91-
Universitat Stuttgart, Institute fur Raumfahrtsysteme, 1987, presented at the 27th Joint Propulsion Confer-
1994. ence, Sacramento, CA, Jun 24-26, 1991.

25. Lewis, R.A., Newton, R., Smith, G.A., Toothacker, 33. Dirac, P.A.M., Directions in Physics, John Wiley &
W.S., and Kanzleiter, R.J., "An Antiproton Catalyst for Sons, New York, NY, 1978, pp. 1-37, 55-70.
Inertial Confinement Fusion Propulsion," AIAA Paper
No. 90-2760, presented at the 26th Joint Propulsion 34. Greiner, W., Relativistic Quantum Mechanics:
Conference, Orlando, FL, Jul 16-18, 1990. Wave Equations, Springer-Verlag, Inc., Berlin, 1994,
pp. 261-267.
26. Lewis, R.A., Smith, G.A., Toothacker, W.S., Kan-
zleiter, R.J., Surratt, M.S., Higman, K.I., and Newton, 35. Mostepanenko, V.M. and N.N. Trunov, The
R.J., "An Antiproton Driver for Inertial Confinement Casimir Effect and its Applications, Oxford Science
Fusion Propulsion," AIAA Paper No. 91-3618, pre- Publications, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1997.
sented at AIAA/NASA/OAI Conf. on Advanced SEI
Technologies, Cleveland, OH, Sep 4--6, 1991. 36. Weinberg, S., The Quantum Theory of Fields, Voi.
1, Cambridge University Press, 1995, pp. 578-593.
27. Schmidt, G. R., Gerrish, H. P., Martin, J. J., Smith,
G. A., and Meyer, K. J., "Antimatter Requirements and 37. Forward, R.L., Mass Modification Experiment
Energy Costs for Near-Term Propulsion Applications," Definition Study, PL-TR-96-3004, Forward Unlimited,
J. Propulsion and Power, 16 (5), Sep-Oct 2000, Malibu, CA, Feb 1996.
pp. 923-928.
38. Boyer, T.H., "The Classical Vacuum," Sci. Ant., 253
28. Chapline, G. "Antimatter Breeders," J. Br. bzter- (3), Aug 1985, pp. 70-78.
planetary Soc., 35 (9), pp. 423-424, 1982.
39. Milonni, P.W., _uantum Vacuum: An Intro-
29. Cassenti, B.N., "Concepts for the Efficient Produc- duction to Quantum Electronics, Academic Press, New
tion and Storage of Antimatter," AIAA-93-2031, pre- York, NY, 1994.
sented at the 29th Joint Propulsion Conference, Mon-
terey, CA, Jun 28-30, 1993. 40. LaPointe, M. R., Antimatter Production at a Poten-
tial Boundary, NASA SBIR Phase I Final Report, Con-
30. Hora, H., "Estimates of the Efficient Production of tract NAS8-98109, prepared for the NASA Marshall
Antihydrogen by Lasers of Very High Intensities," Op- Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL, Nov 1998.
toElectronics, 5, 1973, pp. 491-501.

31. Crowe, E.G., "Laser Induced Pair Production as a

Matter-Antimatter Source," J. Br. btterplanetary Soc.,
36, 1983, pp. 507-508.

I"

NASA/CR--2001-211116 11
 Form Approved
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188
, ,,,,
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this
collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson
Davis Highway, Suite t204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503.

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE

August 2001 3. REPORT TYPE AND
FinalDATES COVERED
Contractor Report
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS

Antimatter Production at a Potential Boundar3'

WU-755-B4--07-00
6. AUTHOR(S)
NCC3-860
NAS8-98109 SBIR
Michael R. LaPointe

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

REPORT NUMBER

Ohio Aerospace Institute

22800 Cedar Point Road E-12962

Brook Park, Ohio 44142

' 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORINC-dMONITORING

AGENCY REPORTNUMBER

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Washington, DC 20546- 0001 NASA CR--2001-211116
AIAA-2001-3361

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Prepared for the 37th Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit cosponsored by the AIAA, ASME, SAE, and ASEE,
Salt Lake City, Utah, July 8-11, 2001. Project Manager, Dhanireddy Reddy, Power and On-Board Propulsion
Technology Division, NASA Glenn Research Center, organization code 5430, 216-433-8133.

r 12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

Unclassified - Unlimited
Subject Category: 73 Distribution: Nonstandard

Available electronically at htto://_ltrs._rc.nasa._ov/GLTRS

This publication is available from the NASA Center for AeroSpace Information, 301--621--0390.
13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

Current antiproton production techniques rely on high-energy collisions between beam particles and target nuclei to
produce particle and antiparticle pairs, but inherently low production and capture efficiencies render these techniques
impractical for the cost-effective production of antimatter for space propulsion and other commercial applications.
Based on Dirac's theory of the vacuum field, a new antimatter production concept is proposed in which particle-
antiparticle pairs are created at the boundary of a steep potential step formed by the suppression of the local vacuum
fields. Current antimatter production techniques are reviewed, followed by a description of Dirac's relativistic quantum
theory of the vacuum state and corresponding solutions for particle tunneling and reflection from a potential barrier. The
use of the Casimir effect to suppress local vacuum fields is presented as a possible technique for generating the sharp
potential gradients required for particle-antiparticle pair creation.

14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES

!7
Antimatter; Antiparticles; Antiprotons; Propulsion; Matter-antimatter propulsion 16. PRICE CODE

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITYCLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT
OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT
Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89)
NSN 7540-01-280-5500
Prescribedby ANSI Std. Z3g-18
298-102