Thread: Antimatter Bomb?

From reading many articles and info about the possibility of Antimatter being used as a weapon has caught my attention due to the incredibility destructive power such a weapon could posses. Since the annihilating 1g of matter with 1g of antimatter is equal to a yield of 42.8 Kilotons, if a weapon were to annihilate 1kg of matter with 1kg of antimatter it would equal to around a yield of 42.8 Megatons, similar in size to the Tsar bomb .

The blast from the annihilation of 8kg of matter with 8kg antimatter could reach yields of 342 Megatons , which is far larger then any device detonated by man.

As well, the nuclear fallout produced from a antimatter weapon would be massive along with plasma falling on to the Earth's surface.

A few issues.

First, AFAIK, a antimatter bomb would produce no radioactive fallout. High levels of immediate radiation perhaps, but no radioactive materials spread around. Also, plasma wouldn't fall, it'd rise since it's, in some ways, a very hot gas. It also dissipates very quickly.

Second, there are a number of major problems to overcome to build an antimatter bomb. Of the top of my head, I can think of three particularly important ones.

- Antimatter is very hard to produce, especially in quantity. I'd be somewhat suprised if a full kg of it exists on earth ATM.

- Antimatter is even harder to contain, since it'll annihilate the walls of a container too. It has to be stored in magnetic bottles, or something similar. Additionally, it's been proven that no magnetic bottle can be both static and closed. Either the field moves, or the antimatter leaks. This means that even a magnetic bottle isn't completely up to the challenge.

- As soon as the bottle is broken, the outermost antimatter particles annihilate with something, blowing the innermost particles away as well as the other matter in the area. While all the antimatter will eventually annihilate, such an uneven detonation will reduce the effect of the bomb.

So, antimatter bombs and missiles sound impressive, but they aren't practical. Really, even if you could make one, just using the antimatter as a propellant and going really fast might be better. Kinetic energy is still energy and can be very destructive.

Interesting, the difficulties are quite large, but technology is advancing very fast, large amounts antimatter are being produced more efficiently. Containment is probably the biggest problem with it.

Now using Antimatter engines for Spaceships is the best idea, since it would run at 99.9% efficiency, but as with every energy people would also use as a weapon.

Anti matter is not being produced in large amounts.

I believe the worlds current supplies are just about powerful enough to light a lightbulb.

Best of luck with your bomb!

Yeah it would be incredibly inpractical - antimatter is the most expensive substance on earth.

"Antimatter is said to be the most expensive substance in existence, with an estimated cost of $300 billion per milligram."

So trying to make 8Kg? That is definitely not worth the money.

To the OP, why would we want such power to be used as a weapon? Why not use it to help better us and the universe? And others perhaps?

Using it as a power drive for a Starship is a much better idea, but regardless as humans someone will use it to blow something up, and because antimatter turns an equal amount of matter into basicly pure engery it only takes a tiny bit to make a massive explosion.

erm, regarding the fallout, i remembered somewhere that when matter and anti-matter combines, it leads to massive amounts of energy and erm...was it gamma rays? i think some kind of radiation is released....correct me if im wrong... :wink:

No, that sounds right. It's just that gamma rays aren't the same as fallout, which is lingering radioactive matter in the air (radioactive ash and the like). Gamma rays don't linger, and IIRC they don't heavily irradiate matter in the area. They can still cause radiation sickness if you're exposed to the though. I'm a bit sketchy on some of this though, so you might want a second opinion.

Yeah, the "fallout" from a nuclear explosion is mostly the new elements that the uranium or plutonium in the bomb turns into when it undergoes fission. You aren't actually destroying any matter in the nuclear explosion, so all of the bomb's radioactive fuel is still around; but now it has been vaporized and spread all over the place.

That sounds correct as far as electron-positron annihilation is concerned, however, I'm not so sure about other types of annihilations which are more complicated, such as proton-antiproton annihilation. This produces particles that are very short lived, but I am not sure exactly what it is that they decay into. I think the system ultimately decays into neutrinos and positrons - but I am quite unsure about that, would like some other opinions. Neutrinos would have no ill effect on the environment, and the positrons would just annihilate with an electron and give off gamma rays.

It sounds like this bomb would make quite the Light show.

Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee

Yeah, the "fallout" from a nuclear explosion is mostly the new elements that the uranium or plutonium in the bomb turns into when it undergoes fission. You aren't actually destroying any matter in the nuclear explosion, so all of the bomb's radioactive fuel is still around; but now it has been vaporized and spread all over the place.

erm...i was referring to anti-matter bombs but thanks for the input anyways :-D

Originally Posted by MagiMaster

No, that sounds right. It's just that gamma rays aren't the same as fallout, which is lingering radioactive matter in the air (radioactive ash and the like). Gamma rays don't linger, and IIRC they don't heavily irradiate matter in the area. They can still cause radiation sickness if you're exposed to the though. I'm a bit sketchy on some of this though, so you might want a second opinion.

hmm...i thought gamma rays were the most dangerous outside the body due to its high penetration capability? in the body, the order of lethality goes something like this:
1) Alpha
2) Beta
3) Gamma

but outside the body, it seems that this is reversed...and to me, i think that the energies released by the GRs would be sufficient to knock out quite a few electrons from cells and erm (im not sure abt this part) lead to cancer?

@oceanwave, I don't know enough to say if you've got that last part right, but I do know that gamma rays don't linger. They hit and run.

The Radioactivity from the bomb would problay be large enough to kill some people instanley, but would not linger, thats what I'm getting?

Well, something like that at least. I can't say how instantly but, assuming they weren't killed by some other component of the blast, the gamma rays probably would be enough to kill them fairly quickly at least.

I think the system ultimately decays into neutrinos and positrons - but I am quite unsure about that, would like some other opinions.

Wouldn't that create a infinite chain reaction since it produces more antimatter, therefore destroying the universe. Since we have done testing with annihilating small amounts of matter and antimatter I dont think that happens :? .

Originally Posted by Tharghana

I think the system ultimately decays into neutrinos and positrons - but I am quite unsure about that, would like some other opinions.

Wouldn't that create a infinite chain reaction since it produces more antimatter, therefore destroying the universe. Since we have done testing with annihilating small amounts of matter and antimatter I dont think that happens :? .

No. All that would happen to those positrons, is they would annihilate with an electron and give off gamma rays.

So would the Positrons eventually stop being created?

Originally Posted by Tharghana

So would the Positrons eventually stop being created?

The positrons were only made by proton-antiproton annihilation so yes. I'm not an expert at this though - I could have it completely wrong.

I have a idea in mind how this bomb would work.

First, you would have a anti-gas in it like Anti-Xenon or Anti-Radon, kept in a vacum container surrounded by a Super magnet.

Second, the trigger to detonate the bomb would be pipes that lead to the edge of the casing that are vacuum sealed. When detonating the bomb, the seals would be released making the surrounding air rush in and annihilate with the Anti-gas.

I thought of that because I heard some where that making the antimatter and matter mix as much as possible would create the biggest effect :wink:

Anti-matter is proably one of the most amazing theories I've come across in my blissfully short lifespan

After a bit of research I discovered that theoretically a collision of matter and anti-matter causes 100% mass to energy conversion as opposed to the 0.7% in an H-bomb, so following this an Anti-matter bomb of equal size to an H-bomb would produce an explosion around 140 times greater (I wouldn't want to be on the same planet let alone the same continent if one of them went off)

However I was under the Impression that Anti-matter completely nullifies and obliterately Matter while matter does likewise, This would be a contrast to the Conservation on Energy law but since no antimatter exists in our universe it seems pointless to debate that, this would mean that a 1g antimatter bomb would simply erase 1g of matter from existance, meaning it's not worth the effort to make, Invading a country to end up with no country left seems a little daft

Well, antimatter does exist, but an annihilation event does not violate conservation of energy because energy and mass are equivalent. The modern theory isn't quite conservation of energy but conservation of mass-energy. ( and all that.)

(Also, I still call my mom, mom, even though I'm 26. What else would I call her?)

1g of antimatter does take 1g of matter out of existence, but the resulting effect is that it turns into pure energy, making a massive explosion. So you where to set off a Antimatter bomb with 10kg of antimatter, it would likely reach yields around of 353-560 megatones, but it would only destroy 10kg of matter from that place.

I've Been reading up on Gamma Rays, and they seem to be pretty deadly, Since for one it takes around 20ft of solid concrete to stop them, And there ability to break your D.N.A double strands and cause thermal burns.

And that Gamma Rays have three reactions with matter.

These Are Taken from the Wikipedia article 8)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_ray

"In passing through matter, gamma radiation ionizes via three main processes:-

1)"Photoelectric Effect: This describes the case in which a gamma photon interacts with and transfers its energy to an atomic electron, ejecting that electron from the atom. The kinetic energy of the resulting photoelectron is equal to the energy of the incident gamma photon minus the binding energy of the electron. The photoelectric effect is the dominant energy transfer mechanism for x-ray and gamma ray photons with energies below 50 keV (thousand electron volts), but it is much less important at higher energies."

2)"Compton Scattering: This is an interaction in which an incident gamma photon loses enough energy to an atomic electron to cause its ejection, with the remainder of the original photon's energy being emitted as a new, lower energy gamma photon with an emission direction different from that of the incident gamma photon. The probability of Compton scatter decreases with increasing photon energy. Compton scattering is thought to be the principal absorption mechanism for gamma rays in the intermediate energy range 100 keV to 10 MeV. Compton scattering is relatively independent of the atomic number of the absorbing material."

3)"Pair Production: By interaction with the electric field of a nucleus, the energy of the incident photon is converted into the mass of an electron-positron pair. Energy in excess of the equivalent rest mass of the two particles (1.02 MeV) appears as the kinetic energy of the pair and the recoil nucleus. At the end of the positron's range, it combines with a free electron. The entire mass of these two particles is then converted into two gamma photons of at least 0.51 MeV energy each (or higher according to the kinetic energy of the annihilated particles)"

So it seems a large chain reaction would happen, produce many times more Gamma rays then had from the Original Explosion.

Originally Posted by Booms

since no antimatter exists in our universe it seems pointless to debate that

Some forms of antimatter do exist in our universe quite naturally. The positron is the antimatter version of the electron and is produced during the radioactive decay of some elements.

Booms: We use positrons in the medical field, namely Positron emission tomography. In light of that, along with the vast mountain of evidence and proof for it, denying the existence of anti-matter doesn't make the least bit of sense.

Originally Posted by MagiMaster

A few issues.

First, AFAIK, a antimatter bomb would produce no radioactive fallout. High levels of immediate radiation perhaps, but no radioactive materials spread around. Also, plasma wouldn't fall, it'd rise since it's, in some ways, a very hot gas. It also dissipates very quickly.

Second, there are a number of major problems to overcome to build an antimatter bomb. Of the top of my head, I can think of three particularly important ones.

- Antimatter is very hard to produce, especially in quantity. I'd be somewhat suprised if a full kg of it exists on earth ATM.

- Antimatter is even harder to contain, since it'll annihilate the walls of a container too. It has to be stored in magnetic bottles, or something similar. Additionally, it's been proven that no magnetic bottle can be both static and closed. Either the field moves, or the antimatter leaks. This means that even a magnetic bottle isn't completely up to the challenge.

- As soon as the bottle is broken, the outermost antimatter particles annihilate with something, blowing the innermost particles away as well as the other matter in the area. While all the antimatter will eventually annihilate, such an uneven detonation will reduce the effect of the bomb.

So, antimatter bombs and missiles sound impressive, but they aren't practical. Really, even if you could make one, just using the antimatter as a propellant and going really fast might be better. Kinetic energy is still energy and can be very destructive.

Fermi Lab (Batavia) makes antimatter every year, and stores it in motion in the rigns of the accelerator. In fact at a cost of several hundred million dollars, they make enough anti-matter to power a light bulb for hours.

It might be a while before antimatter energy is harness for any macroscopic purpose.

I was thinking with in 20 years antimatter would be being created at a more cost effective amount.

I wouldn't doubt it, but I would doubt that 20 years would be enough for 'more cost effective' to become 'cost effective'. I'd bet that a working commercial fusion plant would bring the cost of antimatter down significantly though, for a variety of reasons. (Among others, antimatter storage and plasma storage face many of the same challenges.)

More on the bomb, The Gamma rays are the second most dangerous part, only to the massive explosion. What I predict might happen is when the bomb is detonated a huge wave of Gamma rays is released into the atmosphere, then followed by a second wave of Gamma Rays when the positrons created collide with electrons, the waves only being milliseconds apart. I also imagine that it would be so blindly bright it could be seen from over the horizon.

Here is a Diagram of what I had in Mind.

What is the mass In grams of 1 AntiRadon Atom, (atomic weight is 222), 6 Nitrogen Atoms and 3 Oxygen Atoms, and how much energy would they make in E=mc^2?

Originally Posted by Tharghana

What is the mass In grams of 1 AntiRadon Atom, (atomic weight is 222), 6 Nitrogen Atoms and 3 Oxygen Atoms, and how much energy would they make in E=mc^2?

one radon atom would mass 3.7e-25 kg and would have an energy equivalence of 3.3e-8 joules

6 nitrogen 14 atoms would mass 1.4e-25 kg and would have an energy equivalence of 1.3e-8 joules

3 Oxygen 16 atoms would mass 8e-26 kg and would have an energy equivalence of 7e-9 joules.

Originally Posted by Janus

Originally Posted by Tharghana

What is the mass In grams of 1 AntiRadon Atom, (atomic weight is 222), 6 Nitrogen Atoms and 3 Oxygen Atoms, and how much energy would they make in E=mc^2?

one radon atom would mass 3.7e-25 kg and would have an energy equivalence of 3.3e-8 joules

6 nitrogen 14 atoms would mass 1.4e-25 kg and would have an energy equivalence of 1.3e-8 joules

3 Oxygen 16 atoms would mass 8e-26 kg and would have an energy equivalence of 7e-9 joules.

So Altogether it would be 11.6e-27 joules?

You wouldn't multiply those. You'd just add them.

I did, 3.3e + 1.3e +7e = 11.6e

8 + 8 = 16 + 9 = 27

Oh. That's not how you add those kind of numbers.

O, that number makes alot more sense so it's 0.000000023 Joules, or is that the mass that I need to plug into E=mc^2?

Oh, that was just a random number as an example. The total would actually be 5.3e-8 or 0.000000053 joules.

If you are planning of getting that energy from combining the anti-Radon with the 6 Nitrogen and 3 Oxygen atoms you will only get 0.000000038 joules of energy. The combined mass of the Oxygen and Nitrogen would only be about 60% of that of the anti-Radon, and thus only 60% of the Anti-Radon atom would contribute to the energy release.

The number of atoms I gave wasn't really exact, but the I'm trying to figure out how much energy would be made when one Anti-Radon atom annihilates it's self with an equal amount of particles in the Air.

Also, since the anti-radon would have to collide with each normal atom of air one at a time, even if the positrons are attracting the electrons it's going to take some time, at least compared something like a radon-anti-radon reaction. I think hydrogen-anti-hydrogen would be even faster.

But the size of the reaction is based on mass, and since it cannot touch the sides, it has to be a gas, so I picked Radon. How much energy would Radon-AntiRadon Create?

U can't make an antimatter bomb because there is no way to keep antimatter but you can make a antimatter bomb creator. And when you succeed to create the bomb, the bomb will bomb. So it's still cannot be a bomb. So if you planned to bomb a country with antimatter, that's the way to do it. You told them to invest your antimatter technology there, and when they succeed they die.

Anyway, I prefer to create an antimatter gun than a bomb. I will use it to vanish people I don't like. Blast them crazily mwahahaha!

Why people like to be a devil than an angle?

Because antimatter only makes thing disappear and it also make your soul and mind anti-ed. Yes, using antimatter gun can kills without pain.

Wrong on most counts there.

First, antimatter can be contained. Or at least, charged anti-particles can be. It still reacts to magnetic fields just like any other charged particles would.

Second, by antimatter gun, do you mean a gun that fires antimatter bullets? If so, it'd hardly be "without pain" any more than any other gun that fires high explosive rounds. Although, it's much more likely that the thing would detonate well before it reached its target.

Finally, while yes, antimatter does in a sense make things disappear, it does that by converting them into pure energy, aka a type of explosion.

Posts in thread of a questionable nature and responding posts have been moved to:

http://www.thescienceforum.com/Antimatter-Bomb(pseudo)-15642t.php

Other posts have been edited to remove reference to the moved posts.

Any posts attempting to continue the discussions of the moved posts in this thread shall be deleted.

Janus