I'm not really sure what the first paragraph of that article is trying to get at, but the rest of it is more or less correct.
When we talk about matter and anti-matter, we're talking about baryons. Knowing that energy creates both matter and anti-matter in what should be
equal parts, here's a mind twister; almost all the baryons in the universe are matter. What was it about the beginnings of the universe that caused
this imbalance between matter and anti-matter (favoring matter)? Why is it that matter and anti-matter didn't just collide and annihilate each other
as they were created as "normally" happens? Anyone who can answer those questions will be unquestioningly famous because those are amongst the two
most difficult questions in physics. There are some speculations right now, but that's about it.
Originally posted by AlBeMet
Ok I think I see so what your saying is my hole approach is off then?
And if they are making very small amounts of antimatter how is it possible? Does the matter have to be destroyed for this to happen and if it does
wouldn’t that in effect put the matter in the anti matters space in the alternate?
I'm still unclear about the metaphor of the coin holes.
There are a few different ways of creating antimatter. Most of them don't require the destruction of matter, and some even require the creation of
matter (because matter and antimatter usually come in pairs during their creation). Some make use of unstable particles of matter--unstable usually
meaning isotopes--which decay and emit anti-particles, although those antiparticles don't typically last long since they usually quickly find
themselves colliding with particles (which produces pure energy--E=mc^2--the only known process to do so). Plus, that produces vary, vary, vary,
vary, vary small amounts of antimatter. For an example, check out how PET scans work--one of the few technologies we have that makes regular usage of
Another way of doing it is to send a proton or an antiproton (usually the antiproton) off at relativistic speeds (usually greater than 0.2c) towards
an atom of antimatter or matter (usually matter), respectively, and to have them pass by each other just close enough to cause a highly energy
reaction, but not actually colliding and destroying each other. The energy from the reaction should be enough to create a positron (anti-electron),
and sometimes that positron will begin "orbiting" the antiproton to create an atom of antihydrogen. It's an extremely expensive and difficult
process. In fact, all known manners of artificial creation of antimatter are extremely expensive and difficult, except for with decay, but the amount
of antimatter produced is negligible and short-lived. Antimatter is the most expensive substance per unit of measure known to man.
So, of course, that leads to the natural question of where they get all those antiprotons. CERN uses high protons, and bounces them off the nuclei of
iridium atoms, which creates enough energy to create matter-antimatter pairs, some of which are antiprotons. The antiprotons are then separated into
a vacuum with magnets.
It's all super-amazing stuff, and I highly recommend Jim Al-Khaliil's book
Quantum: A Guide for the Complex
for a reading.