
Rogue antimatter found in thunderclouds - aethertap
http://www.nature.com/news/rogue-antimatter-found-in-thunderclouds-1.17526
======
daniel-levin
>> “This was so strange that we sat on this observation for several years”

>> "We tried for five years to model the production of the positrons"

Why would a scientist withhold data for 6 years? How typical is it for
scientists to not reveal data until they can explain it using current models?
I would think that Dwyer would have rushed to publicize such fascinating
results.

~~~
beagle3
It mostly depends on how close to tenure they are, and how controversial the
data is.

e.g. Dan Shechtman, who recently got a nobel for his work in crystallography,
was an outcast for a long while because his data did not fit with the
prevailing model - to the point that people in his lab refused to peek through
his microscope eyeviewer because what he said they will see there should not
have been possible.

Read [http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/jan/06/dan-
shechtman...](http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/jan/06/dan-shechtman-
nobel-prize-chemistry-interview) and also
[http://motherboard.vice.com/read/quasicrystals-are-
natures-i...](http://motherboard.vice.com/read/quasicrystals-are-natures-
impossible-matter) (it's about a lot more, but also talks about Shechtman's
history)

There are a few other cases like this: Robin Warren (Ulcer/Helicobacter
connection), Barbara McClintock ("Jumping Genes"). The farther back they are,
the harder it is to get the real story, but unfortunately Shechtman's story is
far from unique.

~~~
dcherman
"people in his lab refused to peek through his microscope eyeviewer because
what he said they will see there should not have been possible."

Ah yes, the ever popular "Nyah Nyah Nyah I can't hear you" scientific method.
I wonder how much progress has been held back due to scientists like that.

------
japhyr
This is fascinating. I've only ever really though of antimatter forming in the
early universe, at the edges of black holes, and in particle accelerators. I
love the thought of them forming in thunderclouds as well, and I'm quite
curious to hear about the followup investigations.

~~~
platz
Never would have thought the A-10 could become an instrument of science

~~~
gigawhat
"The jet will also have its nose-mounted, 30-millimeter cannon removed,
opening up more space for scientific instruments."

[http://blog.ametsoc.org/uncategorized/plane-has-combative-
at...](http://blog.ametsoc.org/uncategorized/plane-has-combative-attitude-
toward-storms/)

Given that it's an A-10, it might be more accurate to say that the cannon is
having its aircraft removed.

~~~
aaronbrethorst

        Given that it's an A-10, it might be more accurate
        to say that the cannon is having its aircraft removed.
    
    

wow, no kidding...

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger#/media/File:GAU-8...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger#/media/File:GAU-8_meets_VW_Type_1.jpg)

------
ChuckMcM
I've followed (lightly) this phenomena from the first time I read about it
with the FERMI project at NASA [1]. The common attribute seems to be that
given a strong enough electric field you can pull apart some particles.

[1] [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/GLAST/news/fermi-
thunderst...](http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/GLAST/news/fermi-
thunderstorms.html)

------
higherpurpose
Wasn't this already known (or presumed) before?

~~~
tjradcliffe
It's the large volume at high positron density that seems to be the new
observation that can't be explained by what we know about positron production
in thunderstorms currently.

------
johnjac
If this blast of gamma rays didn't give us scientist with superpowers, I'm
going to start to think comic books aren't true.

