Thread: Antimatter-the feasability

Naturally its accepted that when matter and anti matter connect, their is anhillation, the result being a large amount of energy. I read about anti matter engines-ie, colliding matter and anti matter, woulod release energy that could be directed by magnetism, effectively out of the back of a ship and used for propulsion-is it just me who thinks that, as muchas this is useful for space craft, it is more important to use this potential technology, or push ahead with its development, for use in clean transportation on earth-also, couldnt anti matter-matter reactions be used as a power source on earth. If so, why is anti matter so difficult and expensive to produce?

Originally Posted by goodbrit

Naturally its accepted that when matter and anti matter connect, their is anhillation,

Am I right in assuming from this that any peron who disagree's is unnatural?

Either way Welcome to the forum I would say that when Science and anti-science meet the result is - Psuedo-science.

Originally Posted by goodbrit

the result being a large amount of energy.
I read about anti matter engines-ie, colliding matter and anti matter, woulod release energy that could be directed by magnetism, effectively out of the back of a ship and used for propulsion-is it just me who thinks that, as muchas this is useful for space craft, it is more important to use this potential technology, or push ahead with its development, for use in clean transportation on earth-also, couldnt anti matter-matter reactions be used as a power source on earth. If so, why is anti matter so difficult and expensive to produce?

I think you might like to consider... First you say 'annihilation' then you say 'would release a burst of energy' - don't you therefore mean some form of energy conversion rather than annihilation?

Originally Posted by Megabrain

Originally Posted by goodbrit

Naturally its accepted that when matter and anti matter connect, their is anhillation,

Am I right in assuming from this that any peron who disagree's is unnatural?

Either way Welcome to the forum I would say that when Science and anti-science meet the result is - Psuedo-science.

Originally Posted by goodbrit

the result being a large amount of energy.
I read about anti matter engines-ie, colliding matter and anti matter, woulod release energy that could be directed by magnetism, effectively out of the back of a ship and used for propulsion-is it just me who thinks that, as muchas this is useful for space craft, it is more important to use this potential technology, or push ahead with its development, for use in clean transportation on earth-also, couldnt anti matter-matter reactions be used as a power source on earth. If so, why is anti matter so difficult and expensive to produce?

I think you might like to consider... First you say 'annihilation' then you say 'would release a burst of energy' - don't you therefore mean some form of energy conversion rather than annihilation?

im not to good with the words-but im just wondering-im no anti matter expert but still id find it interesting

I had a sneak feeling that you meant "When anti-matter and matter collide" they cancel - Like -1 and +1 they cancel to 0 no burst of energy there, so if they left a burst of energy behind, my simple mind tells me this energy is 'indescribable' is it positive or is it negative? - is it both and if so why did they not cancel at the instant of origin.

Of course I'm applying classical to quantum but hell everybody else seems to - perhaps zelos wpould comment it's more his field than mine...

When i grow up I would like to be just like you megabrain. You are the best

I thought that when matter and antimatter collide they annihalate releasing 2 photons...

Originally Posted by shawngoldw

I thought that when matter and antimatter collide they annihalate releasing 2 photons...

Would that be positive or negative or both? Matter to me implies atoms. The loss of an atom for the gain of a single photon elludes me.

Let me put it another way , to my certain knowledge nobody has yet difinitively explanied the origin of the universe, that is, the creation of matter and energy, this being so, I question any attempt to explain the dissappearance of matter.

YOur reasoning of just a couple of photons also neglects the atomic weight of differing elements, would hydrogen and uranium atoms when encountering their ant-matter equvalent, each only emit two photons?

I do not say you are wrong, I ask for further explanation.

EDIT:

On a quick review of animatter I see it implies where the two masses are equal yet opposite anihilation only occurs, there would be no photons produced. Any 'photons produced' would be in accordance with einsteins e=mc^2 or e=(m1-m2)c^2 where m1 and m2 are the rest masses of the matter and antimatter.

Originally Posted by Megabrain

On a quick review of animatter I see it implies where the two masses are equal yet opposite anihilation only occurs, there would be no photons produced. Any 'photons produced' would be in accordance with einsteins e=mc^2 or e=(m1-m2)c^2 where m1 and m2 are the rest masses of the matter and antimatter.

Exactly. Unescapeably. Obviously there is no such antimatter, since a such reaction would break the law of preservence of momentum. (2 particles cannot meat unless they move against eachother.)

As far as I have been led to believe. When matter and anti matter collide, their mass is converted to energy that is given off in the form of gamma radiation.

Originally Posted by leohopkins

As far as I have been led to believe. When matter and anti matter collide, their mass is converted to energy that is given off in the form of gamma radiation.

not neccisery if you find matter small enough for visible light it would also be created XD
but since that light particles dont exist it wont happen.

as for the rest it is true.
when a positron and electron meet they start to circle around each other after a very short period of time they annihialte