blike Posted September 19, 2002 Share Posted September 19, 2002 This is pretty cool: looks like a team of scientists created a substantial amount of antihydrogen: about 50,000 atoms.(link) I don't think I fully understand antimatter. What is the difference between antimatter and matter? If I had a box of each, how would I know the difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted September 19, 2002 Share Posted September 19, 2002 Originally posted by blike I don't think I fully understand antimatter. What is the difference between antimatter and matter? If I had a box of each, how would I know the difference? One would be a box with some matter in it. The other would be a giant explosion of energy tearing through the crust of the planet. You'd know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted September 19, 2002 Share Posted September 19, 2002 Charge. electron is -1, antielectron (positron) is +1, proton is +1, antiproton is -1. A few other properties are different too (i.e. ones that let you differentiate between a neutron and antineutron) but charge is main one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted September 19, 2002 Author Share Posted September 19, 2002 electron is -1, antielectron (positron) is +1, proton is +1, antiproton is -1. So does this lead to a behavioral difference? Aside from the negative charge being in the nucleus rather than around it.. Why is it so unstable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted September 19, 2002 Share Posted September 19, 2002 Which do you think we'll have first? [ ] Antimatter Powerplants [x] Antimatter Warheads [ ] Antimatter Dishwashers (tricky but possible) [ ] Antimatter Stardrive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted September 19, 2002 Author Share Posted September 19, 2002 You read my mind, I was about to post about the potential for weapons. [x] Antimatter Dishwashers (tricky but possible) Definatly dishwashers. Besides, what kind of sick and twisted race would use latest scientific progress to make weapons of destruction. :scratch: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted September 20, 2002 Share Posted September 20, 2002 the problem with an antimatter warhead, is that there would be no disposal mechanism, and it would be a right pig to maintain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted September 20, 2002 Share Posted September 20, 2002 Originally posted by Radical Edward the problem with an antimatter warhead, is that there would be no disposal mechanism, and it would be a right pig to maintain. But it would be worth it, for entertainment value if nothing else. And it wouldn't be as difficult to maintain as the dishwasher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted September 20, 2002 Share Posted September 20, 2002 Antimatter can be contained in a gravitational field, and I believe they're using some kind of magnetic field to store it too. Antimatter weapons will be practical as soon as producing it in sufficient quantities is practical, storage isn't an obstacle. Of course, short of a sudden revolution in physics, it will be a while before it can be mass produced... 50,000 atoms of anti-hydrogen is 8.3x10-20 grams of anti-H. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted September 20, 2002 Share Posted September 20, 2002 Originally posted by fafalone Antimatter can be contained in a gravitational field, and I believe they're using some kind of magnetic field to store it too. Antimatter weapons will be practical as soon as producing it in sufficient quantities is practical, storage isn't an obstacle. Of course, short of a sudden revolution in physics, it will be a while before it can be mass produced... 50,000 atoms of anti-hydrogen is 8.3x10-20 grams of anti-H. well ignoring gravitational storage, you'd still only be able to store antimatter in the form of ions, namely protons and electrons, since the only way you could store neutrons would be to make a proper atom and ionise it. storage would still be a bit of a pest, particularly if you wanted to use it in some application that required long term storage. You would have to be extraordinarily careful when storing a decent amount of the stuff, as if your containment broke, then I doubt you would be abe to say 'Antimatter storage failing' like they do on star trek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted September 20, 2002 Share Posted September 20, 2002 Why would you have to store it as an ion? CERN and Fermilab don't store their antimatter as ions... and it took them over a year to make the 50,000 atoms, so they did in fact store them long term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted September 20, 2002 Share Posted September 20, 2002 Cern uses an incredible amount of energy to race protons near the speed of light. They collide them with a metal barrier and capture a few anti-protons on the other side made after lucky collisions with neutrons. There has to be a more economical way of creating anti-matter. I can't imagine a more ineffiient return for the energy consumed We use a hydrogen bomb to build a firecracker. I read there is supposedly a cloud of anti-matter to the north and south of galactic center in the Milky Way. Maybe just fly there with some big containment jugs. Just aman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted September 20, 2002 Share Posted September 20, 2002 But it would take an antimatter engine to get there in any reasonable amount of time (still 100s or more years), or a technology that is even farther away than antimatter as fuel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted September 21, 2002 Share Posted September 21, 2002 There is also the propulsion by directed nuclear explosions. It's a lot more messy but it will work on paper. Maybe if we could get near the sun with a large nickel slab and a collector on the far side for containing the anti-matter produced we could have a source closer to us. The sun is like a massive tevetron covered ball, full of streams of protons that sometimes come apart into solar flares and spray into our solar space. A factory on Mercury collecting anti-matter from the sun sounds great to me. I'd go. Just aman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grazzhoppa Posted November 27, 2002 Share Posted November 27, 2002 There is also the propulsion by directed nuclear explosions. It's a lot more messy but it will work on paper. Do we know what will happen with a nuclear explosion in zero gravity? We have seen super-novas and other explosions but nothing close up. And would there be radioactive "fallout" in space? It sounds too messy for the people of NASA. I think antimatter anything is a couple hundred years away. But the first thing to appear would be the weapon for war or the weapon for keeping peace...you could see it either way. Antimatter dishwasher....heheh nothing beats the cleaning power of antimatter meeting normal matter *BOOOOOM* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted November 29, 2002 Share Posted November 29, 2002 Stars are nuclear explosions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSX Posted February 15, 2003 Share Posted February 15, 2003 [x2 ] Antimatter Powerplants [x1 ] Antimatter Warheads [x3 ] Antimatter Dishwashers (tricky but possible) [x4] Antimatter Stardrive Human's are a selfish bunch... hehe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted February 15, 2003 Share Posted February 15, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone Stars are nuclear explosions. pretty poor ones though. stars actually generate less energy than people do, by mass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSX Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 Originally posted by Radical Edward pretty poor ones though. stars actually generate less energy than people do, by mass. You are reffering to fusion right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 Originally posted by NSX You are reffering to fusion right? yeap.... contradictory to popular opinion, it is actually a very very weak and slow process. the thing is, there is an awful lot of sun, and so alot of energy is stored in it, nevertheless, pound for pound, the human body emits and produces more energy than the sun does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSX Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 Originally posted by Radical Edward nevertheless, pound for pound, the human body emits and produces more energy than the sun does. Well, there's a good side to that too; I mean, if fusion were to go at such a rate, I guess our dear solar system's lifespan would be drastically cut short. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1917 Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 What figures are you going on when you say the sun emits less energy pound for pound than a human? these figures are rounded but the sun converts around 700,000,000 tons of hydrogen into 695,000,000 tons of helium per second, the remaining 5,000,000 being converted into gamma rays - this works out at 386 billion billion megawatts (3.86e33 ergs) which in turn works out at 3.51e23 ergs per pound assuming there are 2,200 pounds in a ton. Now if a human of weight say, 180 pounds, was to emit the same figure of 3.51e23 ergs per pound he would have to be emitting a whopping 6.31 e25 joules of energy every second. what is it you mean by the human body emitting and producing energy? the exothermic reactions in cells produce enough enough energy for vital body functions but respiration in itself isnt particluarly powerful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glider Posted February 19, 2003 Share Posted February 19, 2003 Originally posted by Radical Edward the problem with an antimatter warhead, is that there would be no disposal mechanism, and it would be a right pig to maintain. My old XL Ironhead sportster must have been an antimatter bike then. Those bastards! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the GardenGnome Posted February 19, 2003 Share Posted February 19, 2003 Originally posted by blike You read my mind, I was about to post about the potential for weapons. Besides, what kind of sick and twisted race would use latest scientific progress to make weapons of destruction. The atomic bomb was based on E=mc2. That was scientific progress. And just about every country has one. Including the States. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted February 19, 2003 Share Posted February 19, 2003 Originally posted by the GardenGnome The atomic bomb was based on E=mc2. That was scientific progress. And just about every country has one. Including the States. :loser: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now