Talk:Antihydrogen

message: What would the expected consequences of an antihydrogen fusion reaction be ?
Is it possible ?  Would the effects be similar to hydrogen fusion with the exception
of the creation of antihelium instead, or would it be expected to behave differently ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.116.128.56 (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It would behave the same way, theoretically. Practically, it would be very difficult to achieve since it would be almost impossible to keep the antimatter from bumping into matter. Stonemason89 (talk) 05:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: FAQ - Antihydrogen Fusion Reaction ? 

message: On the AntiMatter page it says this was made already in 1995 ! 
Doesn't it say here 2002 ? Which is correct?
Sebastian Haase
:I've just changed the article. You can find a preprint about the experiments in 1995 here. 193.171.121.30 01:45, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old discussions 

message: A potential solution to this problem would be to produce antihydrogen atoms at such a low temperature (perhaps a fraction of a kelvin) that they can be captured in a magnetic trap or a combined rf trap. 
I removed the above text, and its hidden html comment, as it simply told the reader nothing. It was the equivalent of: Problem is AH is too hot; solution is make AH not so hot. That is not a solution. -84user (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  uninformative text removed 

message: and is it ever going to be? I feel like that's saying that nuclear bombs are not available for purchase or that the washington monument is not available for purchase. I would think that that section should be removed. Sompm (talk) 07:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I removed it. -84user (talk) 17:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  available for purchase? really? 

message: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature09610.html ... needs updating. --Kslotte (talk) 22:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been updated.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.121.21.2 (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is this discvery only a one sentence thing? --Kslotte (talk) 17:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Be WP:BOLD! Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 07:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antimatter atom trapped 

message: What is it please tell me. 163.153.221.61 (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Duh. A Molekule, consisting out of two Antihydrogen atoms and one Antioxigen atom. Just replace the particles water consists of, with their respective antimater counterparts. --91.7.128.35 (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, unlike normal water, drinking antiwater should probably be the last thing that crosses your mind. (As it would be if you tried it.) Double sharp (talk) 04:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That reply just made my day better. 2001:56A:F8E1:E00:51FA:1690:29B9:9A88 (talk) 02:59, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antiwater 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Antihydrogen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140203230601/http://www.eiroforum.org/activities/scientific_highlights/201112_CERN/index.html to http://www.eiroforum.org/activities/scientific_highlights/201112_CERN/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120423064823/http://physicsworld.com:80/cws/article/news/2012/mar/07/internal-structure-of-antihydrogen-probed-for-the-first-time to http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2012/mar/07/internal-structure-of-antihydrogen-probed-for-the-first-time;
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It strikes me that a direct scaling up may give readers a slightly wrong impression: no doubt antihydrogen would cost less per gram if we could actually make a whole gram. Double sharp (talk) 10:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a greater concern is that it misleads the reader to think that this is somehow doable at the moment. But even if Antihydrogen could be made stable (which right now isn't a thing), seeing as it is produced at a rate of 100 atoms per second, does it really matter how many particle accelerators are churning it out? Possibly, it could take millions of years to accomplish a gram-worth at that rate. This is a NASA PR stunt, which, honestly, isn't to their credit to publish, nor ours to re-publish. El_C 14:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cost estimate 

message: (A redux from here and here, I suppose.)
I should have brought this up earlier. I suppose it's really a character encoding issue. It seems that Macs can't see the bar of the h-bar symbol. At the very start it looks just like "(H)". The best I can find using a MacBook is as code () on this Element template, but the normal text doesn't render properly. Can anyone using a Mac confirm this? Is this issue specific to my system? -Thibbs (talk) 14:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: @Thibbs: That is odd. The overline is done with text-decoration: overline which is supposedly supported by browsers dating back to Internet Explorer 3. It shouldn't be possible for character encoding issues to cause this sort of problem. Can you see an overline on this sentence? Maybe there are layout or rendering issues of some sort and it's being cut off. Or there might be some other CSS rule overriding it - do you have any unusual browser extensions? Trying a different browser might help. User:GKFXtalk 12:57, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Display issues redux 

message: I mean, it's an atom, right? Given that hydrogen's atomic number is 1, shouldn't it follow that antihydrogen's atomic number would be -1? 2001:56A:F8E1:E00:51FA:1690:29B9:9A88 (talk) 02:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't found any reliable sources extrapolating the concept of atomic number to antimatter atoms in this manner. In a sense, antihydrogen is an atom, but the idea of atomic number −1 is original research as far as I can tell (also seeing as it would literally imply −1 protons, which does not make sense), so it's not appropriate to include in the article. Complex/Rational 15:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean, what is an antiproton but a negative proton? 2001:56A:F8E1:E00:51FA:1690:29B9:9A88 (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: By this logic, what's the atomic number of an antineutron? Double sharp (talk) 10:29, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: -0? I mean, signed zero exists in computing, right? 173.183.228.117 (talk) 03:31, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

text: Well, technically, that's before you add them together. You can have 1 and -1 on both sides of an equation, but once they're on the same side, i.e., once you put the proton and the antiproton into one another, they become 0, or, nothing. 2001:56A:F8E1:E00:51FA:1690:29B9:9A88 (talk) 21:52, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: If I have one proton and another proton, then clearly I have two protons even before I have stuffed them into the same nucleus. So why do I have to wait for annihilation if I have one proton and one antiproton? Double sharp (talk) 11:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You can still have 1 and 1 un-added as well, it would be senseless but possible. 2001:56A:F8E1:E00:517:44ED:7803:78A3 (talk) 11:52, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antihydrogen atomic number?