Large Hadron Collider finds 1st evidence of the heaviest antimatter particle yet

An illustration shows the creation of antihyperhydrogen-4 in a collision between two nulcei of lead.
An illustration shows the creation of antihyperhydrogen-4 in a collision between two nulcei of lead. (Image credit: Janik Ditzel for the ALICE collaboration)

The world's most massive science experiment has done it again, detecting hints of the heaviest antimatter particle ever found.

This means the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the most powerful particle accelerator ever built, has given scientists a glimpse into conditions that existed when the universe was less than a second old. The antimatter particle is the partner of a massive matter particle called hyperhelium-4, and its discovery could help scientists tackle the mystery of why regular matter came to dominate the universe, despite the fact that matter and antimatter were created in equal amounts at the dawn of time.

This imbalance is known as "matter-antimatter asymmetry." Matter particles and antimatter particles annihilate on contact, releasing their energy back into the cosmos. That implies that if an imbalance between the two hadn't arisen early in the universe, then the cosmos may have been a much emptier and less interesting place indeed.

The LHC is no stranger to paradigm-shifting discoveries about the early universe. Running in a 17-mile (27-kilometer) long loop beneath the Alps near Geneva, Switzerland, the LHC is most famous for its discovery of the Higgs Boson particle, the "messenger" of the Higgs Field responsible for giving other particles their mass at the dawn of time.

The collisions that occur at the LHC generate a state of matter called "quark-gluon plasma." This dense sea of plasma is the same as the "primordial soup" of matter that filled the universe around one-millionth of a second after the Big Bang.

Exotic "hypernuclei" and their antimatter counterparts emerge from this quark-gluon plasma, allowing scientists a glimpse at the conditions of the early universe.

ALICE through the looking glass

Hypernuclei contain protons and neutrons like ordinary atomic nuclei and also unstable particles called "hyperons." Like protons and neutrons, hyperons are composed of fundamental particles called "quarks." Whereas protons and neutrons contain two types of quarks known as up and down quarks, hyperons contain one or more so-called "strange quarks."

Hypernuclei were first discovered in cosmic rays, showers of charged particles that rain down on Earth from deep space around seven decades ago. However, they are rarely found in nature and are difficult to create and study in the lab. This has made them somewhat mysterious.

A large red arch with complex machinary below it

An image of the ALICE detector taken during LHC upgrades in 2019 (Image credit: Robert Lea)

The discovery of the first evidence of the hypernuclei that is an antimatter counterpart of hyperhelium-4 was made at the LHC detector ALICE.

While most of the nine experiments at the LHC, each with its own detector, generate their results by slamming together protons at near the speed of light, the ALICE collaboration creates quark-gluon plasma by slamming together much heavier particles, usually lead nuclei, or "ions."

The collision of iron ions (try saying that ten times fast) is ideal for generating significant amounts of hypernuclei. Yet until recently, scientists conducting heavy-ion collisions had only succeeded in observing the lightest hypernucleus, hypertriton, and its antimatter partner, antihypertriton.

That was until earlier in 2024 when scientists used the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) in New York to detect antihyperhydrogen-4, which is composed of an antiproton, two antineutrons, and a quark-containing particle called an "antilambda."

Now, ALICE has followed this with the detection of a heavier anti-hypernuclei particle, antihyperhelium-4, composed of two antiprotons, an antineutron, and an antilambda.

An illustration of antimatter particles entering the ALICE detector at the Large Hadron Collider.

An illustration of antimatter particles entering the ALICE detector at the Large Hadron Collider. (Image credit: ORIGINS Cluster/S. Kwauka)

The lead-lead collision and the ALICE data that yielded the detection of the heaviest antimatter hypernucleus yet at the LHC actually date back to 2018.

The signature of antihyperhelium-4 was revealed by its decay into other particles and the detection of these particles.

ALICE scientists teased the signature of antihyperhelium-4 out of the data using a machine-learning technique that can outperform the collaboration's usual search techniques.

In addition to spotting evidence of antihyperhelium-4 and antihyperhydrogen-4, the ALICE team was also able to determine their masses, which were in good agreement with current particle physics theories.

The scientists were also able to determine the amounts of these particles produced in lead-lead collisions.

They found these numbers consistent with the ALICE data, which indicates that antimatter and matter are produced in equal amounts from quark-gluon plasma produced at the energy levels the LHC is capable of reaching.

The reason for the universe's matter/antimatter imbalance remains unknown, but antihyperhelium-4 and antihyperhydrogen-4 could provide important clues in this mystery.

Join our Space Forums to keep talking space on the latest missions, night sky and more! And if you have a news tip, correction or comment, let us know at: community@space.com.

Robert Lea
Senior Writer

Robert Lea is a science journalist in the U.K. whose articles have been published in Physics World, New Scientist, Astronomy Magazine, All About Space, Newsweek and ZME Science. He also writes about science communication for Elsevier and the European Journal of Physics. Rob holds a bachelor of science degree in physics and astronomy from the U.K.’s Open University. Follow him on Twitter @sciencef1rst.

  • Unclear Engineer
    Interesting.

    But, this article states theory as fact in many places. I would still like to see statements that replace "is" and "was" with something like "according to the BBT" or "according to the standard quantum model of physics".

    Constantly writing (and teaching) that some theorized condition or event is fundamentally true is teaching people to not think "outside the box".

    But, as clearly indicated in such articles, that "box' is incomplete, even if not completely wrong.

    So, people who think outside that box are going to be needed to advance our scientific understanding.

    For instance, the theory that the universe was created in a flash from pure energy 13.8 billion years ago has major problems, one of which is not being able to explain why there are not equal amounts of matter and antimatter today.

    We need to keep in mind that perhaps the matter we see today was not created 13.8 billion years ago by some process that would also create an equal amount of antimatter. And that includes the possibility that the matter we see today was not created in a Big Band at all.
    Reply
  • Galumph
    Unclear Engineer said:
    Interesting.

    But, this article states theory as fact in many places. I would still like to see statements that replace "is" and "was" with something like "according to the BBT" or "according to the standard quantum model of physics".

    Constantly writing (and teaching) that some theorized condition or event is fundamentally true is teaching people to not think "outside the box".

    But, as clearly indicated in such articles, that "box' is incomplete, even if not completely wrong.

    So, people who think outside that box are going to be needed to advance our scientific understanding.

    For instance, the theory that the universe was created in a flash from pure energy 13.8 billion years ago has major problems, one of which is not being able to explain why there are not equal amounts of matter and antimatter today.

    We need to keep in mind that perhaps the matter we see today was not created 13.8 billion years ago by some process that would also create an equal amount of antimatter. And that includes the possibility that the matter we see today was not created in a Big Band at all.
    I came to the comments to say something similar. The Big Bang model is good, and probably the best explanation for the evidence we have. However, we haven't really had enough evidence to treat it like it is essentially 100% certain. There has always been room for interpretation, for as long as we don't have answers to things like the matter-antimatter imbalance, higher frequency of stellar mergers than predicted, large galaxies/quasars only a few hundred million years after the predicted formation of the universe, the "Lithium Problem", the Final Parsec Problem, and the Hubble Tension. Add to that not yet having detected CMB B-Modes with any certainty, haven't found any unambiguous population III stars, nor confirmed Dark Matter is a new particle. Not to mention that we frankly have no idea what Dark Energy is beyond what we believe it does.

    None of these things invalidate the Big Bang Theory, but it's certainly enough for any practiced scientist to acknowledge uncertainty. Unfortunately, suggesting that any significant detail about the Big Bang is wrong--is career suicide. It's become a culture. Fortunately, JWST has finally cracked some of the cosmologists' resistance to acknowledging we don't know the BBT is 100% correct--and never had enough information to act like we did.

    As somebody with a graduate degree in aerospace engineering, I can understand what evidence we have for the BB--and I have never believed that we can treat it like a foregone conclusion, or even with so much as a 75% certainty. There are just too many assumptions about observed phenomena behaving how we expect it to--when we can't confirm that they do so on a cosmic scale. At some point, it becomes easier to explain the problems with other theories, than it does to come up with hot dark matter and primordial black holes to keep the 13.8 billion year old universe idea alive.

    As such, we really can't say "despite the fact that matter and antimatter were created in equal amounts at the dawn of time" --It's much too far from being something we can confirm, and if we don't observe equal amounts, that's just as much evidence for an anomaly with the Big Bang Theory--as it is evidence for the Big Bang Theory not correctly predicting how matter and antimatter formed.
    Reply