It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

antimatter, good or bad?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 04:29 PM
link   
I believe if they can figure out a better way to produce antimatter, then it will be the new fuel source. Antimatter certantly does have great capibilities, and only the future will tell what they are used for.




posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by subscorpion
I believe if they can figure out a better way to produce antimatter, then it will be the new fuel source. Antimatter certantly does have great capibilities, and only the future will tell what they are used for.


*repeats self*

You can create matter and anti-matter in equal amounts only (like building houses and hotels in monopoly), and by dumping in energy equivalent to the amount you would receive should the matter and anti-matter collide (conservation of mass, energy, what have you). Thus, using anti-matter as an energy source is pointless.



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 05:18 PM
link   
attack of the ninja! fear it.

We already know how you feel about it...i was stating my opinion.

[edit on 29-3-2005 by subscorpion]



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Sorry if it seems like I'm repeating my opinion, but what I'm saying is a fact. That's how it works.



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amorymeltzer


You can create matter and anti-matter in equal amounts only (like building houses and hotels in monopoly), and by dumping in energy equivalent to the amount you would receive should the matter and anti-matter collide (conservation of mass, energy, what have you). Thus, using anti-matter as an energy source is pointless.


Thats not really important if your using it in a bomb where energy density is more important. You can take along time to make anti-matter and have all its energy released in a blink of a eye. It would also be a ideal source if you wanted to make alot energy in a really small space. Thats very important in things like space travel. Nothing even comes close to the energy density of anti-matter.


There is also natural anti-matter in the universe somewhere. If you could find it and get to it there might not be a need to make it at all. In the begining of the universe matter and anti-matter were created in equal amounts. Its It's possible that there may be antistars or entire antigalaxies out there that are entirely made up of antimatter

[edit on 29-3-2005 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Thats not really important if your using it in a bomb where energy density is more important. You can take along time to make anti-matter and have all its energy released in a blink of a eye. It would also be a ideal source if you wanted to make alot energy in a really small space. Thats very important in things like space travel. Nothing even comes close to the energy density of anti-matter.


I'll give you that. I hadn't thought of it in that way. In that case it's very useful for things, as you said, like space travel. Should've said density earlier... :p



There is also natural anti-matter in the universe somewhere. If you could find it and get to it there might not be a need to make it at all. In the begining of the universe matter and anti-matter were created in equal amounts. Its It's possible that there may be antistars or entire antigalaxies out there that are entirely made up of antimatter


Err, I'm gonna go with no. Matter and anti-matter are created in exactly equal amounts. Makes sense. Why, however, do things exist, and why hasn't all of matter and anti-matter anihilated themselves?

Because of a little known thing called the CP Violation (Charge-Parity). What it says is that anti-matter and matter are created in a ratio of 1,000,000,000:1,000,000,001. While this is pitifully nothing, over billions of years, it adds up, and is largely why the entire universe is matter not anti-matter. If there was anti-matter, well, it'd blow up.



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 08:32 PM
link   
I'd like to start by saying that I am Pro-anti-matter.

But before we get all excited about those possiblities, lets take a look at fusion.
Are you Pro-fusion or Con-fusion.?

I myself am Pro...The fuel being more readily available (it's regular matter). the containment technology is still in it's infancy..but a mistake, here and there would register much lower on the catastrophometer..

Space



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 09:16 PM
link   
If take a few minutes and go to www.americanantigravity.com and look at video of the neutrino energy beam, it will show the foundation of anti-matter generation. Because of some restrictions the film footage is being held back from two locations, The one in US and the Kaska research Lab in Japan and Korea.



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amorymeltzer


Err, I'm gonna go with no. Matter and anti-matter are created in exactly equal amounts. Makes sense. Why, however, do things exist, and why hasn't all of matter and anti-matter anihilated themselves?

Because of a little known thing called the CP Violation (Charge-Parity). What it says is that anti-matter and matter are created in a ratio of 1,000,000,000:1,000,000,001. While this is pitifully nothing, over billions of years, it adds up, and is largely why the entire universe is matter not anti-matter. If there was anti-matter, well, it'd blow up.


Well your entitled to your opinion but many scientist disagree with you one that and belive it is entirely possible that large amounts of anti-matter could exist in the universe. I stick with what experts in the field think.

''We cannot rule out the possibility that some antimatter star or galaxy exists somewhere,"Generally it would look the same as a matter star or galaxy to most of our instruments."

Thats a quote from a Scientist Gerald Share at the Naval Research Laboratory on the subject. If you think you would know better and can rule out the possiblity Id like to hear why.

More anti-matter is also being created all the time in nature " A solar flare in July 2002 created about a pound of antimatter, or half a kilo"

www.space.com...



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 04:20 PM
link   
I've had countless (ok, 4) courses on stuff of this nature, and all teachers have always stated what I am now. I guess we have a clash of experts here, which is perfectly natural. I'm inclined to lean towards my statements, simply because I feel they have more proof on their side, but that is neither here nor there.

May you be the first to find them!


[edit on 3/30/2005 by Amorymeltzer]



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 08:33 PM
link   
I can see your point and they might have a very good case. I always tend to go with the experts that dont rule out possiblities though. Its just the way I am.

I find that when scientist say something is impossible they are almost always wrong and when they say something is Possible they are almost always right.

Science IMHO has a bad track record when they say something is impossible



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 10:00 PM
link   
Great stuff!!!

Amorymeltzer, since you seem to portend yourself the resident knowledgable one...can you help me understand how antimatter lives and interacts with 11 different dimesions?

P.S. I also subscribe to the idea that antimatter is prevelant in the universe, and am obviously an advocate of m-theory.



posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 06:54 AM
link   
It is true that antimatter can give rise to a new generation of weapons of mass destructions. But just imagine if it could be controlled and maybe used as a fuel. Not only will it bring an end to the finite fuels crisis, it may also act as a fuel that perhaps could lead to a new generation of high speed transport, close to the speed of light.

[edit on 7-4-2005 by siddharthsma]



posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 07:01 AM
link   
You have voted ShadowXIX for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have used all of your votes for this month.



posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
I find that when scientist say something is impossible they are almost always wrong and when they say something is Possible they are almost always right.

Science IMHO has a bad track record when they say something is impossible


AMEN to that. There's a difference, I think in this case, between impossible and not happening, but very well said.

Yosemite_Sam: What?



posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 09:36 PM
link   
I am pro anti matter for energy, anti anti matter as a salt replacement....



posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sugarlump
anti anti matter as a salt replacement....


I'll second that.




posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 09:00 PM
link   
New member, so please forgive this post if everyone figured this was a dead thread.

I once attended a seminar given on some speculations on collecting and using antimatter as fuel for a spacecraft. The scheme was to place a collector, basically a large mass of tungsten in a relatively low orbit around the sun where it would use the solar proton flux to generate antiprotons (slowly - efficiency is like a few hundred thousandths of a percent). These are decelerated using lyman-alpha lasers and combined with positrons generated in a similar process to make your antihydrogen. Antihydrogen is supposed to be diamagnetic, so should be containable.

Some example numbers were given, how far from the sun, so big a block, etc, to produce a ton of the stuff in ten years or something like that. Of course, the antimatter itself is just another energy storage medium in the whole system picture, and with the rotten efficiency of the process (I don't even know if the antimatter produced would pay back the decelerators and containment fields), if you wanted to tap solar power, there are much better methods available. But, great rocket fuel. Energy-density wise, anyway.

You could react equal amounts of matter and antimatter to produce a kind of photon drive, which would be the most efficient, but perhaps considering all the trouble it would take to collect all the antihydrogen, a more cost-effective scenario might be to react one part antihydrogen with about 10 parts hydrogen, and use the rest of the heated hydrogen as reaction mass.



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 11:25 PM
link   
antimatter is extremely expensive, in fact it is the most expensive substance on earth. It only exists in small quantities in particle accelerators. and i dont think they have found a way to store it.



posted on May, 1 2005 @ 12:32 AM
link   


It only exists in small quantities in particle accelerators. and i dont think they have found a way to store it.


Of course they have, otherwise everytime they made some, they would blow up their particle accelerator! You contain it in EM fields.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join