Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

Science Anti-matter, new era, or maybe not?

views
     
TSC-Note
post Aug 16 2009, 05:16 PM, updated 17y ago

starry starry night
*******
Senior Member
3,037 posts

Joined: Dec 2007
From: 6-feet under


1g of it can power USA for one full day. and list goes on.

what exactly is this?

» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «


This post has been edited by C-Note: Aug 16 2009, 05:59 PM
Benjamin911
post Aug 16 2009, 05:29 PM

~`~artisan`~
*****
Senior Member
777 posts

Joined: Nov 2007
Do you have any references? If so, it would be a good thing for you to post them in here. smile.gif

AFAIK, if my memory serves me well, there are also conceptual prototype spacecrafts on the drawing board being powered by Anti Matter engines... (With the potential of travelling faster than the speed of light...)
SUS99chan
post Aug 16 2009, 07:20 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
99 posts

Joined: Jul 2008
From: Came from the future Joined : November 2020
only if they have innovated a contraption so advance to contain it.
SUSbalthauser
post Aug 16 2009, 07:23 PM

Enthusiast
*****
Senior Member
725 posts

Joined: Jul 2009
From: Overseer Chamber
QUOTE(99chan @ Aug 16 2009, 07:20 PM)
only if they have innovated a contraption so advance to contain it.
*

I thought we already had it?

Those long tunnel should be able rite.
SUS99chan
post Aug 16 2009, 07:27 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
99 posts

Joined: Jul 2008
From: Came from the future Joined : November 2020
QUOTE(balthauser @ Aug 16 2009, 07:23 PM)
I thought we already had it?

Those long tunnel should be able rite.
*
you mean the hadron collider? it smashes atoms into smaller particles, whilst creating tiny anti matters. but it is not made to contain it.
bgeh
post Aug 16 2009, 08:06 PM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,814 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
Problem is we have no natural source of antimatter in abundance to produce energy, and whatever antimatter we can produce in particle accelerators require more energy input to producing it than we'll ever get out of it from annihilating it.

So no, it's not a 'source'. It is however, a very useful energy transport mechanism which will probably be extremely useful for interstellar travel, whenever that happens.
rexis
post Aug 16 2009, 10:23 PM

*** 7-star status Old Bird ***
*******
Senior Member
3,590 posts

Joined: Apr 2006
From: nowhere


Which means that can be a super duper battery that can power a space ship for inter-galactic travel.

I can imagine 1000 years from now human building planetary collider on moon or somewhere nearer to sun to mass produce antimatter charge.

But when something that is so massively powerful, that could be a two edge sword, 1 gram of it can power the entire USA for 1 day, or it can be used to make something deadly like radiation free nuke.

Just a thought.
Cheesenium
post Aug 16 2009, 10:27 PM

Vigilo Confido
*******
Senior Member
4,852 posts

Joined: Aug 2006
How would antimatter could be a power source?
SUS99chan
post Aug 16 2009, 11:06 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
99 posts

Joined: Jul 2008
From: Came from the future Joined : November 2020
instead of the big leap. why not accentuate on nuclear power? nuclear powered car and so on.
gstrapinuse
post Aug 16 2009, 11:25 PM

Elite
****
Senior Member
696 posts

Joined: Nov 2005
From: Ipoh, Selangor, KL


This anti matter is not stable and cannot appear under normal atmospheric condition....even if it can be mass produced, its gonna involve huge cost to sustain the anti matter in a specially designed chamber with controlled condition....
TSC-Note
post Aug 16 2009, 11:52 PM

starry starry night
*******
Senior Member
3,037 posts

Joined: Dec 2007
From: 6-feet under


well, every great creation/innovation is definitely expensive and usually 'custom-made' at first. but the ball of technology never stops rolling. things get mass-produced and eventually they became a norm in our daily life. what happened to mainframes? gigantic mobile phones? given enough time and effort im sure what we r able to harness is beyond our imagination
Cheesenium
post Aug 16 2009, 11:56 PM

Vigilo Confido
*******
Senior Member
4,852 posts

Joined: Aug 2006
QUOTE(99chan @ Aug 16 2009, 11:06 PM)
instead of the big leap. why not accentuate on nuclear power? nuclear powered car and so on.
*
Nuclear cars?

A nuclear explosion would happen in an accident and you'll get mini Chernobyl everywhere then.

It's not feasible.
bgeh
post Aug 17 2009, 12:08 AM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,814 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(rexis @ Aug 16 2009, 10:23 PM)
Which means that can be a super duper battery that can power a space ship for inter-galactic travel.

I can imagine 1000 years from now human building planetary collider on moon or somewhere nearer to sun to mass produce antimatter charge.

But when something that is so massively powerful, that could be a two edge sword, 1 gram of it can power the entire USA for 1 day, or it can be used to make something deadly like radiation free nuke.

Just a thought.
*
Actually no, most of the energy released in matter-antimatter collisions will be in the form of gamma rays instead, which isn't the easiest thing to convert to 'useful energy'

The reason why antimatter is an extremely good energy transportation system is because almost all (if not all) the mass in antimatter is converted to energy when you collide it with matter. This is unlike nuclear fusion/fission reactions, where only a very small percentage of mass is converted to energy.

And no, particle accelerators are an extremely inefficient method of producing antimatter. If we were to ever mass produce antimatter, we'd probably need a new method of production which probably hasn't been devised yet so far.

This post has been edited by bgeh: Aug 17 2009, 03:14 AM
gstrapinuse
post Aug 17 2009, 12:13 AM

Elite
****
Senior Member
696 posts

Joined: Nov 2005
From: Ipoh, Selangor, KL


QUOTE(Cheesenium @ Aug 16 2009, 11:56 PM)
Nuclear cars?

A nuclear explosion would happen in an accident and you'll get mini Chernobyl everywhere then.

It's not feasible.
*
Haha...mini leakage everywhere in town....more hiroshima effects in the future....
For alternative energy in car, technology like Hybrid cars are emerging nowadays....
kinnolkf
post Aug 17 2009, 03:08 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
59 posts

Joined: Apr 2005
This technology is not confirm yet and i am really curious about it. Heard this from the novel of Angel and Demon. The LHC suffer a breakdown since end of last year when trying to turn on. CERN confirmed that they will only launch it at half power when it ready on end of this year. If the process go smooth, by latest end of 2010 we will have result on the antimatter.

As for how the antimatter power up city. It is similar with the nuclear plan which allow nuclear fussion in a chamber and transfer the heat to liquid( if i am not wrong water) to steam turbine and generate electricity. In this case, just replace the nuclear material with anti-matter. And the great point is, it is zero-emission power plant. That means zero pollution and 100% environmental friendly.

Correct me if i am wrong.. since i am just a Engineering student. Cheers

This post has been edited by kinnolkf: Aug 17 2009, 03:08 PM
dishwasher
post Aug 17 2009, 03:15 PM

heterochromatic babe
*****
Senior Member
851 posts

Joined: Nov 2004


You can't contain anti-matter, not with our current level of technology. Matter and anti-matter will mutually annihilate each other, so even if we can detect, and indeed create, anti-matter, keeping it stable isn't possible. 99chan has already mentioned this and i thought I'd just elaborate for those who don't know what anti-matter really is.
max_cjs0101
post Aug 17 2009, 04:30 PM

Tarp hater and detector
Group Icon
Staff
1,368 posts

Joined: Nov 2004
From: A' Ghàidhealtachd


FYI anti matter can be created but to make a little of that takes a very very long time.
bgeh
post Aug 17 2009, 08:09 PM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,814 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(dishwasher @ Aug 17 2009, 03:15 PM)
You can't contain anti-matter, not with our current level of technology. Matter and anti-matter will mutually annihilate each other, so even if we can detect, and indeed create, anti-matter, keeping it stable isn't possible. 99chan has already mentioned this and i thought I'd just elaborate for those who don't know what anti-matter really is.
*
No we can contain antimatter right now in 'magnetic bottles'

QUOTE
This technology is not confirm yet and i am really curious about it. Heard this from the novel of Angel and Demon. The LHC suffer a breakdown since end of last year when trying to turn on. CERN confirmed that they will only launch it at half power when it ready on end of this year. If the process go smooth, by latest end of 2010 we will have result on the antimatter.

As for how the antimatter power up city. It is similar with the nuclear plan which allow nuclear fussion in a chamber and transfer the heat to liquid( if i am not wrong water) to steam turbine and generate electricity. In this case, just replace the nuclear material with anti-matter. And the great point is, it is zero-emission power plant. That means zero pollution and 100% environmental friendly.

By what do you mean by 'confirmed'?

And no, unless a method is devised to convert gamma rays efficiently to 'useful forms of energy' I suspect it's going to remain a pipe dream at best for now. You can't just replace the nuclear fuel in today's power plants with antimatter and hope it'll work. Also, we have to produce the antimatter in the first place, which requires energy to produce it in the first place, or find some source of it which doesn't produce negligible amounts of antimatter (such as positron emission radioactive material that we have now)
SUSjoe_star
post Aug 25 2009, 09:48 PM

Serving the Servants
******
Senior Member
1,810 posts

Joined: Mar 2007
QUOTE(Benjamin911 @ Aug 16 2009, 05:29 PM)
AFAIK, if my memory serves me well, there are also conceptual prototype spacecrafts on the drawing board being powered by Anti Matter engines... (With the potential of travelling faster than the speed of light...)
*
Nope, faster than light travel would involve the use of hypothetical particles called tachyons to facilitate some kind of travel, all highly speculative stuff.
TSC-Note
post Aug 25 2009, 10:48 PM

starry starry night
*******
Senior Member
3,037 posts

Joined: Dec 2007
From: 6-feet under


faster than light? thats time travel. but what does it mean?
say, if A is travelling at 4 X 10^10 m/s, A is travelling back in time?what abt its surroundings?
SUSjoe_star
post Aug 25 2009, 11:34 PM

Serving the Servants
******
Senior Member
1,810 posts

Joined: Mar 2007
Not necessarily time travel. Thats 1 of the possibilities of faster than light travel, but not a requirement. Relativity and time dilation are the factors you are referring to in your post there, but no idea whats their effect beyond lightspeed.
TSC-Note
post Aug 29 2009, 12:21 AM

starry starry night
*******
Senior Member
3,037 posts

Joined: Dec 2007
From: 6-feet under


this thought just hit me when going thru my spm book..trials nxt week T_T

Mass is amount of matter right?

what abt mass of antimatter? isit a negative value?
bgeh
post Aug 29 2009, 08:05 AM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,814 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(C-Note @ Aug 29 2009, 12:21 AM)
this thought just hit me when going thru my spm book..trials nxt week T_T

Mass is amount of matter right?

what abt mass of antimatter? isit a negative value?
*
It's a positive value.
TSC-Note
post Aug 29 2009, 10:35 AM

starry starry night
*******
Senior Member
3,037 posts

Joined: Dec 2007
From: 6-feet under


QUOTE(bgeh @ Aug 29 2009, 08:05 AM)
It's a positive value.
*
then wat are the main differences between matter and anti-matter?
bgeh
post Aug 29 2009, 03:35 PM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,814 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(C-Note @ Aug 29 2009, 10:35 AM)
then wat are the main differences between matter and anti-matter?
*
The difference which is perhaps the most clear one to us would be the antiparticle equivalents have opposite charges (e.g. positron, a positive electron)
TSC-Note
post Aug 29 2009, 04:13 PM

starry starry night
*******
Senior Member
3,037 posts

Joined: Dec 2007
From: 6-feet under


QUOTE(bgeh @ Aug 29 2009, 03:35 PM)
The difference which is perhaps the most clear one to us would be the antiparticle equivalents have opposite charges (e.g. positron, a positive electron)
*
what makes the charges so special? how exactly does reaction between matter and anti occur?
bgeh
post Aug 29 2009, 11:58 PM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,814 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(C-Note @ Aug 29 2009, 04:13 PM)
what makes the charges so special? how exactly does reaction between matter and anti occur?
*
Well let's talk in conserved quantities here then.

[Assumption: We work in the centre of mass frame, assume that the source of energy has no spin (related to angular momentum) whatsoever, and no charge]

When matter/antimatter is produced, what we have initially is a shitload of energy packed into a small place, which then manifests itself as a particle antiparticle pair. We know charge is conserved, so if one of the particles has charge, then other particle must have opposite charge. Also, we know momentum is conserved, so they both must have opposing momentum. Also, angular momentum is conserved, so if one particle has some spin, the other must have the opposite spin [Note: quantum spin, not classical spin, they're very very different creatures]

How does the reaction occur? Well, it's a quantum process, which almost automatically makes it very weird. Basically it goes through an intermediatary particle, be it a virtual photon (which interestingly enough, has some 'mass'), or some other particles, which are restricted only by the conservation laws I was describing above. Here's the interesting twist: It goes through all these possible pathways, and not only one of them, weighted by the probability of each possible pathway.
TSC-Note
post Oct 15 2009, 09:19 PM

starry starry night
*******
Senior Member
3,037 posts

Joined: Dec 2007
From: 6-feet under


basically they just cancel out each other by releasing energy in the process? just like the conservation of momentum : explosion?

~lynn~
post Oct 16 2009, 12:23 AM

Casual
***
Junior Member
417 posts

Joined: Feb 2009


QUOTE(Benjamin911 @ Aug 16 2009, 05:29 PM)
Do you have any references? If so, it would be a good thing for you to post them in here. smile.gif

AFAIK, if my memory serves me well, there are also conceptual prototype spacecrafts on the drawing board being powered by Anti Matter engines... (With the potential of travelling faster than the speed of light...)
*
o_O
I thought speed of light is the fastest speed achievable?
ZeratoS
post Oct 16 2009, 12:29 AM

Oh you.
******
Senior Member
1,044 posts

Joined: Dec 2008
From: 127.0.0.1


QUOTE(~lynn~ @ Oct 16 2009, 12:23 AM)
o_O
I thought speed of light is the fastest speed achievable?
*
Reminds me of Space Balls when Dark Helmet asks the crew to go faster than Light speed.

Space Balls.

This post has been edited by ZeratoS: Oct 16 2009, 12:30 AM
~lynn~
post Oct 16 2009, 12:42 AM

Casual
***
Junior Member
417 posts

Joined: Feb 2009


QUOTE(ZeratoS @ Oct 16 2009, 12:29 AM)
Reminds me of Space Balls when Dark Helmet asks the crew to go faster than Light speed.

Space Balls.
*
In one of my subjects of study, Communication Systems, when calculating the propagation velocity of the waves traveling in the waveguide, it was calculated to be more than speed of light! o_O

I don't know what it meant, nor how is it possible. :/

TSC-Note
post Oct 19 2009, 02:45 PM

starry starry night
*******
Senior Member
3,037 posts

Joined: Dec 2007
From: 6-feet under


QUOTE(~lynn~ @ Oct 16 2009, 12:42 AM)
In one of my subjects of study, Communication Systems, when calculating the propagation velocity of the waves traveling in the waveguide, it was calculated to be more than speed of light! o_O

I don't know what it meant, nor how is it possible. :/
*
what does this have anything to do with anti-matter, may i ask?
bgeh
post Oct 20 2009, 03:13 AM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,814 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(C-Note @ Oct 15 2009, 09:19 PM)
basically they just cancel out each other by releasing energy in the process? just like the conservation of momentum : explosion?
*
Look, the only thing we can say is, strictly speaking, there seems to be some properties of particles during interactions that are conserved before and after the reaction. Does it cancel out? Sure you can put on that interpretation, but it seems that you're trying to put on some cause and effect here, that the things cancel each other out by releasing energy, when we simply do not know the reasons behind why it occurs. The only thing we can say is that it seems that these quantities are conserved, e.g. mass-energy conservation in a particle-antiparticle interaction, charge conserved, momentum conserved, angular momentum conserved, etc...

And as you can see from mass-energy conservation, if the other conserved quantities cancelled each other out by releasing energy in the process, well we would have additional energy released in a channel other than mass-energy conservation which would mean it's violated, doesn't it?

~lynn~ : Depends whether you use the group velocity or phase velocity

 

Change to:
| Lo-Fi Version
0.0213sec    0.51    5 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 25th November 2025 - 09:23 PM