Topic: OT ~ What's bigger, a Nuke Bomb or an Anti-matter Bomb?  (Read 15655 times)

0 Members and 7 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Stormbringer

  • Global Moderator
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1984
  • Gender: Male
Re: OT ~ What's bigger, a Nuke Bomb or an Anti-matter Bomb?
« Reply #80 on: July 19, 2005, 07:38:56 pm »
limit would be to do with prtability if talking about a weapon  but could be huge if storage for spaceship fuel.

Yeah, something like that... a small release of controlled antimatter would propel a spacecraft to unreal velocities if you could keep it from blowing up the ship...

Quote
Currently we cannot produce even half an ounce of antimatter a year. but 22 KG of antimatter are floating in space between here and jupiter at any given second. and it is constantly replenished by solar radiation and cosmic radiation. some day we may have either lartge production plants or find away to trick ordinary matter into becoming antimatter. the difference is in quark distribution and quark species in the particles. (IIRC) rearrange those in matter and you might get antimatter.

So is that how we produced a half ounce of antimatter, using solar and cosmic artificial machines in labs? And why dont we see antimatter explosions in space if this stuff is lurking around out there?

Quote
as to gravity of an explosion remember all that energy is the equivelent of half a KG of mass. ittakes huge amounts of energy to make a small amount of matter. gravity would be unimpressed by even such a gargantuan explosion because cosmically such an explosion is miniscule.

So we arnt gonna see any time and space fabric bending here, huh?

We do see antimatter explosions in space but since the particles are usually separated by meters only a particle on particle explosion occurs. too small to notice without sensitive detectors. the antimatter comes from cosmic rays coliding with ordinary particles. the products are often antimatter particles that float around until they are struck or strike something. since space is so rarified that takes longer than your would think.

bending space takes tremendous mass liek black holes. or an exotoc material with negative energy density. we may be able to simulate the latter in a lab using certain exotic physical principles. if we can then we can make a warp drive. do a web search on the words alcubierre warp drive. you'll find out what i am talking about.

Offline Braxton_RIP

  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1073
  • Gender: Male
    • Dynaverse.net
Re: OT ~ What's bigger, a Nuke Bomb or an Anti-matter Bomb?
« Reply #81 on: July 19, 2005, 07:52:02 pm »
I need to point out one thing you all have missed.  In all theory, matter and antimatter null each other, this doesn't create energy, but creates an area of nuetrality, which actually would do the damage.  Everything we know suggests that matter and antimatter wouldn't create or release anything, only destroy.
Braxton,
Old Geezer

Typical Fleet:
F-DNL, F-CB, F-CLC
Braxton's Fleet:
F-CVTCR, F-BTR, F-BTL+

Offline Stormbringer

  • Global Moderator
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1984
  • Gender: Male
Re: OT ~ What's bigger, a Nuke Bomb or an Anti-matter Bomb?
« Reply #82 on: July 19, 2005, 07:56:11 pm »
Really? everything i've read says the particles anihilate forming high energy photons. Also nothing not even an antimatter explosion may violate the law of conservation of energy. energy is never created or destroyed only changed.

Offline FPF-SCM_TraceyG_XC

  • Empress of the Empire
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2543
  • Gender: Female
Re: OT ~ What's bigger, a Nuke Bomb or an Anti-matter Bomb?
« Reply #83 on: July 19, 2005, 08:43:38 pm »
I need to point out one thing you all have missed.  In all theory, matter and antimatter null each other, this doesn't create energy, but creates an area of nuetrality, which actually would do the damage.  Everything we know suggests that matter and antimatter wouldn't create or release anything, only destroy.

Can you describe this area of neutrality? Feel free to provide any maths and/or use technical jargon  ;)
Captain FPF-TraceyG, Federation Protection Fleet


SFC2.net Admin member
SFC3.net Admin member
Voting member of the DGA
Member of XenoCorp, Squadron Commodore

Offline CaptJosh

  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 775
  • Gender: Male
Re: OT ~ What's bigger, a Nuke Bomb or an Anti-matter Bomb?
« Reply #84 on: July 19, 2005, 08:56:35 pm »
Last I heard. Matter and anti-matter don't nullify eachother as neither matter nor energy can ever be truly destroyed. Matter can be converted to energ and vice-versa. So when matter and anti-matter meet, they convert completely to energy. A total conversion reaction. This would not create a null zone. It would create an explosion because an explosion is nothing more than something getting very big in a very small timeframe. The reaction is taking two things of a lower energy state and moving them to a higher, albeit more chaotic, state. More energy means it takes more space. Hence an explosion, not a dead zone. Even a singularity isn't a dead zone. A zone with zero energy density cannot exist as we undurstand physics.
CaptJosh

There are only 10 kinds of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.

Offline Braxton_RIP

  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1073
  • Gender: Male
    • Dynaverse.net
Re: OT ~ What's bigger, a Nuke Bomb or an Anti-matter Bomb?
« Reply #85 on: July 19, 2005, 10:20:38 pm »
To be quite honest, this is a subject, with my facination for Star Trek, that I have followed for many years.  It is also a subject, that with the many zelous Sci-Fi lovers, who happen to become scientists, can be tainted with disinformation and fabrication of evidence.

The reports and studies that I have read, and believe to hold some degree of credibility, all indicate the that antimatter is not actaully matter, but more the lack of matter in a place where there should be such.

The most famous, at least to those in the field, experiment done was something like the following (I will water it down a lot, since part of it was a 45 page writeup about a magnet...)

First lets establish the things we know about matter:
1) It cannot be "created" or "destroyed" (Law of Conservation of Mass). I put those in quotes, since they are very relative terms.
2) Matters physical space is mass, and under any gravity, is a constant value.
3) (This one is somewhat hypothetical still, but quantum mechanics is still a relatively new science, so some day it might be a law) Matter seems to be made up of an infinite number of decreasingly small components.

So, knowing that, consider the following.

Basically, the best known way of "generating" antimatter is to apply a beam of high energy photons to an extremely dense magenetic field between a set of plates.  These plates are extremely close together, and interestingly enough, require extreme cooling for the experiment to be done properly.  Now, between the plates is a gas of know type, mass, and isotope, to which the beam is applied.  The distance between the plates is as such that as the gas is energized from the beam of photons, there isn't enough room between the plates for the generation of new photons.

For those who have forgotten, when a photon strikes an atom, it moves or "knocks" the atom's electrons into a higher orbital, or sometimes entirely off of the atom.  During this process the photon is converted to the engery required to move the electron.  When the electron fails to maintain its high energy state, and succumbs to the strong and weak forces in the atom's nucleus, it falls back down to its original or "ground" state.  This process releases a new photon, there by generating electromagnetic radiation, in the various forms of visible light, alpha, beta and gamma radiation, etc.

As I said though, the possitioning of the plates prevents this last part from happening though, which is a violation of the Law of Conservation of Mass, since we "destroyed" a photon.  The only reasonable and logical conclusion is, that by preventing formation of new photons, an alternate partical, in this case an anti electron.

The problem with antimatter is, to be reasonably contained, at the current time, it must be immediately isolated from matter, or it will immediately react with that mater, and annihilate.

Now, the reason you get a null area during a reaction is because you end up with particals with a spin that doesn't follow standard patterns.  Yes, this could be harnessed for energey, by all means.  It would be a lot like take magnets of the same pole, shoving them together and then holding them there.  If you do that, the magnets in your hands will never come into contact, because the force required to move them closer rises exponentally as they get closer.  The same would apply here, which is why scientists think that massive energy would be released in a matter/antimatter reaction.  The result though, would be nuetrally charged particals, which, according to quantum mechanics, would most likely decay back into standard matter over some period of time.

The questions the next generation has to answer is how to generate antimatter efficently, how to contain it, and at what point is the released energy harnessable.


Boy... my fingers hurt.... LOL
Braxton,
Old Geezer

Typical Fleet:
F-DNL, F-CB, F-CLC
Braxton's Fleet:
F-CVTCR, F-BTR, F-BTL+

Offline Braxton_RIP

  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1073
  • Gender: Male
    • Dynaverse.net
Re: OT ~ What's bigger, a Nuke Bomb or an Anti-matter Bomb?
« Reply #86 on: July 19, 2005, 10:25:06 pm »
Sorry, forgot to add why there wasn't enough room to generate new photons.

This part is simple, since electromagnetic energy is described as a partical wave, there has to be room for a full cycle of the wave for it to be generated, thus the area between the plates is smaller than the peaks of the wave.

This is the same reason that your microwave (hopefully) doesn't irradiate your house every time you use it, the holes are smaller than the wave cycle of a microwave.
Braxton,
Old Geezer

Typical Fleet:
F-DNL, F-CB, F-CLC
Braxton's Fleet:
F-CVTCR, F-BTR, F-BTL+

Offline Stormbringer

  • Global Moderator
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1984
  • Gender: Male
Re: OT ~ What's bigger, a Nuke Bomb or an Anti-matter Bomb?
« Reply #87 on: July 19, 2005, 10:30:12 pm »
um that is not the way to create antimatter that i am aware of. your plates seem like casimir plates that by vanderwahl's force creates an area of negative energy density (relative to the area outside the plates) because within certain energy states or certain frequencies cannot materialize from the virtual state. In fact this scheme is the idea behind modifying spatial curvature without large masses using a synthetic negative energy area inside the casimir plates. see Alcubierre's peer reviewed paper on the process.

antimatter is ordinarily a product of high energy particle collisions such as found at places like CERN and FermiLab. the quark make up and spin state of antimatter particles and even their mass has been measured.

Offline Braxton_RIP

  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1073
  • Gender: Male
    • Dynaverse.net
Re: OT ~ What's bigger, a Nuke Bomb or an Anti-matter Bomb?
« Reply #88 on: July 19, 2005, 10:43:34 pm »
um that is not the way to create antimatter that i am aware of. your plates seem like casimir plates that by vanderwahl's force creates an area of negative energy density (relative to the area outside the plates) because within certain energy states or certain frequencies cannot materialize from the virtual state. In fact this scheme is the idea behind modifying spatial curvature without large masses using a synthetic negative energy area inside the casimir plates. see Alcubierre's peer reviewed paper on the process.

antimatter is ordinarily a product of high energy particle collisions such as found at places like CERN and FermiLab. the quark make up and spin state of antimatter particles and even their mass has been measured.

Obviously someone has been reading Wykopedia.
Braxton,
Old Geezer

Typical Fleet:
F-DNL, F-CB, F-CLC
Braxton's Fleet:
F-CVTCR, F-BTR, F-BTL+

Offline CaptJosh

  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 775
  • Gender: Male
Re: OT ~ What's bigger, a Nuke Bomb or an Anti-matter Bomb?
« Reply #89 on: July 19, 2005, 10:48:26 pm »
Here's an idea...

Read this --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-matter

It can explain it better than I can. Possibly better than anyone here.
CaptJosh

There are only 10 kinds of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.

Offline Braxton_RIP

  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1073
  • Gender: Male
    • Dynaverse.net
Re: OT ~ What's bigger, a Nuke Bomb or an Anti-matter Bomb?
« Reply #90 on: July 19, 2005, 10:51:55 pm »
I guess I will just shut up then.
Braxton,
Old Geezer

Typical Fleet:
F-DNL, F-CB, F-CLC
Braxton's Fleet:
F-CVTCR, F-BTR, F-BTL+

Offline Stormbringer

  • Global Moderator
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1984
  • Gender: Male
Re: OT ~ What's bigger, a Nuke Bomb or an Anti-matter Bomb?
« Reply #91 on: July 19, 2005, 10:53:10 pm »
um that is not the way to create antimatter that i am aware of. your plates seem like casimir plates that by vanderwahl's force creates an area of negative energy density (relative to the area outside the plates) because within certain energy states or certain frequencies cannot materialize from the virtual state. In fact this scheme is the idea behind modifying spatial curvature without large masses using a synthetic negative energy area inside the casimir plates. see Alcubierre's peer reviewed paper on the process.

antimatter is ordinarily a product of high energy particle collisions such as found at places like CERN and FermiLab. the quark make up and spin state of antimatter particles and even their mass has been measured.

Obviously someone has been reading Wykopedia.


Not I. i tend to avoid wikipedia. science particulalry the fronteier where it meets speculation is a passion of mine.

Offline Stormbringer

  • Global Moderator
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1984
  • Gender: Male
Re: OT ~ What's bigger, a Nuke Bomb or an Anti-matter Bomb?
« Reply #92 on: July 19, 2005, 10:56:47 pm »
I guess I will just shut up then.

Please don't you appear to know alot about it. but i am curious why your description does not match textbooks and how a PET scanner can work on a void of matter/energy rather than particles as you put it?

Offline Stormbringer

  • Global Moderator
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1984
  • Gender: Male
Re: OT ~ What's bigger, a Nuke Bomb or an Anti-matter Bomb?
« Reply #93 on: July 19, 2005, 11:18:15 pm »
I'm serious though you appear to know more about casimir plates than I do. you must tell me all you know aboutthe theory involving them, relative negative energy density and even your ideas about particles or voids created in between them. it is an important subject to me. i may not think of what happens in there as antimatter but i do recognize what you are saying about a void at least within the plates. please continue. or show me a source where i can learn more.

Offline FPF-SCM_TraceyG_XC

  • Empress of the Empire
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2543
  • Gender: Female
Re: OT ~ What's bigger, a Nuke Bomb or an Anti-matter Bomb?
« Reply #94 on: July 19, 2005, 11:22:21 pm »
So if I could shrink the neon tube in my ceiling small enough, I could turn it into an antimatter generator  ;D
Captain FPF-TraceyG, Federation Protection Fleet


SFC2.net Admin member
SFC3.net Admin member
Voting member of the DGA
Member of XenoCorp, Squadron Commodore

Offline Braxton_RIP

  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1073
  • Gender: Male
    • Dynaverse.net
Re: OT ~ What's bigger, a Nuke Bomb or an Anti-matter Bomb?
« Reply #95 on: July 19, 2005, 11:25:42 pm »
I guess I will just shut up then.

Please don't you appear to know alot about it. but i am curious why your description does not match textbooks and how a PET scanner can work on a void of matter/energy rather than particles as you put it?

Well, to put it simply, what I say won't match textbooks, simply because the whole field is still primarily theoretical.

Sure we know all of these particals are real.  I guess the best way to draw a relation is with the Sun.  We all know that the Sun is a huge ball of matter in a constant state of fusion, right?  Now, we have never seen the inside of the Sun, and for a long while, we probably won't, but that doesn't mean we can't infer things about what the center is like from our knowledge of other things.  Science is not fact, it is just the best explanation person X has at the time that other people will understand and can seem to hold true.

Now, with the PET scanner, your just looking at it the wrong way.  By far, the most common antipartical is the positron, just because its counterpart is the most numerous, the electron.  Positron emission is a normal part of nature, infact, each and every person who reads this thread is not only radioactive, but is emmitting all forms of radiation, but it is in such trace amounts that it doesn't matter.  You looked up a PET scan,so you will have seen that the only radioactive materials... I think they call them radiopharmacuticals or something, sick bastards that they are... are of a specific type.  In most cases, if memory serves, Flourine 18 for the common scans.  Flourine 18 during radioactive decay, by its nature, produces a positron, because it is heavy be a proton in the nucleus.  A proton decays into one neutron because of the weak forces in the nucleus, but the charge must go somewhere, and so a positron is formed.  This positron smashes into an electron, a gluon is formed (which is a nuetral partical) and almost instantly decays back into a pair of gamma rays.

The part about the gluon is always left out of the write-ups about PET scans for two reasons:
A) Medical Doctors don't care how it works beyond the absolute bare minimum, as long as it works.
B) The period of time the nuetral partical is there is so fractional to be inconciquintial.

Oh, and just so you know, positron is synonimous with anti electron.
Braxton,
Old Geezer

Typical Fleet:
F-DNL, F-CB, F-CLC
Braxton's Fleet:
F-CVTCR, F-BTR, F-BTL+

Offline likkerpig

  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2614
  • Gender: Male
Re: OT ~ What's bigger, a Nuke Bomb or an Anti-matter Bomb?
« Reply #96 on: July 19, 2005, 11:38:51 pm »

For the area of effect- I belive the 100MT (biggest ever produced) was estimatd to

92 MT actually.... damn commies!
But all this mumbo jumbo is just (excuse me) farting in the wind.
Likkerpig+Cheap Draft+7-11 Hot Dogs=... well the death threats stopped after a week.
Likkerpig+40 of Rye+Blue rare beef= Hey, they had to remove the asbestos from them buildings anyway, so they deserved to be shut down!
That's destructive power baby!

Now back to your regularly scheduled mental masterbation circle jerk thingy...


(hmmm, Rum+Rare Blade Steak+Whiskey+Smoked Oysters.....)
"Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby."



Offline Braxton_RIP

  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1073
  • Gender: Male
    • Dynaverse.net
Re: OT ~ What's bigger, a Nuke Bomb or an Anti-matter Bomb?
« Reply #97 on: July 19, 2005, 11:41:50 pm »

For the area of effect- I belive the 100MT (biggest ever produced) was estimatd to

92 MT actually.... damn commies!
But all this mumbo jumbo is just (excuse me) farting in the wind.
Likkerpig+Cheap Draft+7-11 Hot Dogs=... well the death threats stopped after a week.
Likkerpig+40 of Rye+Blue rare beef= Hey, they had to remove the asbestos from them buildings anyway, so they deserved to be shut down!
That's destructive power baby!

Now back to your regularly scheduled mental masterbation circle jerk thingy...


(hmmm, Rum+Rare Blade Steak+Whiskey+Smoked Oysters.....)

Thank you for that wonderful  :spam:

 :carmen:
Braxton,
Old Geezer

Typical Fleet:
F-DNL, F-CB, F-CLC
Braxton's Fleet:
F-CVTCR, F-BTR, F-BTL+

Offline likkerpig

  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2614
  • Gender: Male
Re: OT ~ What's bigger, a Nuke Bomb or an Anti-matter Bomb?
« Reply #98 on: July 20, 2005, 12:05:50 am »

Thank you for that wonderful  :spam:

 :carmen:

Hee hee hee, my pleasure. I'm pretty good at it....
 :P
"Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby."



762_XC

  • Guest
Re: OT ~ What's bigger, a Nuke Bomb or an Anti-matter Bomb?
« Reply #99 on: July 20, 2005, 12:41:47 am »
You guys (excpet Hexx, oddly enough) are way off about Tsar Bomba, the Soviet weapon you all keep referring to.

The weapon as tested was a three stage (fission-fusion-fusion) weapon with a nominal yield of 50MT and a maximum yield of 100MT. The extra yield, had it actually been needed for something, would have been achieved via fast fission of a U-238 jacket which would have been added to the design (instead of the lead jacket used as tested). Had it been fired in this configuration it would have increased the world's total fallout from all nuclear tests by 25%.

Of course the thing was so large and heavy it was militarily useless, not to mention that the yield was far more than was needed to destroy any one target in the world.