Anti Matter - our future energy source

[JcX]

We as human, the only intelligent being on Earth, we always improve.

As we see, anti-matter is one of the reliable source of energy in future,

well I'm not saying that would make any sense that we will be able to have it and we can see it.

I'm saying that might be after we're dead for hundred of years, and the technology afford to have this anti-matter technology.

Maybe, your great-great-great-great-great-great grandchildren can have it.

 

So, undeniably, it's possible, just the matter of time.

[Ashoat]

As we see, anti-matter is one of the reliable source of energy in future,

How is it reliable? Again, based on the law of conservation of energy it can be proven that we can't gain energy from using manufactured anti-matter, and it is known that there is not a large enough amount of antimatter on Earth right now. The only physically possible way to even get energy from anti-matter would be to send some sort of spaceship over to Jupiter and harvest antimatter, and then take it back to Earth. This could prove detrimental to Jupiter and would definitely be much harder than just harvesting deuterium and tritium for nuclear fusion.

 

So, undeniably, it's possible, just the matter of time.

It's scientifically impossible. There is no feasible way to get energy from antimatter.

[JcX]

How is it reliable? Again, based on the law of conservation of energy it can be proven that we can't gain energy from using manufactured anti-matter, and it is known that there is not a large enough amount of antimatter on Earth right now.

Yes, based on the law of conservation of energy, energy can't be created. But if you see, the reaction of manufacturing anti-matter is actually kinda like a nuclear reaction, but the amount of energy we get from nuclear fission or nuclear fusion is lower than the energy we get from anti-matter elimination.

The point that you should notice is, in a nuclear fission/fusion reaction, the particle just simply transform into a simpler particle and the rest mass is released as energy (gamma ray), but in anti-matter elimination, the particle totally elinimated and its whole mass is transform into energy. That's the difference when I said anti-matter is the future energy source, IF we can find a way to control its destructive force and how to harvest it in large amount, that's why I said, anti-matter will be an energy source in FAR FUTURE.

[Ashoat]

For the third time, it is scientifically impossible. I'll take the time to prove it to you in junior high physics form.

 

The law of conservation of energy states that you can't gain energy. When you create anti-matter, you are turning kinetic energy into potential energy. Note that due to the law of conservation of energy you won't gain any energy from this - in fact, you will lose energy. Therefore, the creation of antimatter requires more energy than that antimatter contains.

 

It is unfeasible to expect to gain any energy from doing two opposite processes. That is precisely what you are proposing - creating antimatter, and then destroying it. According to the Law of Conservation of Energy, you cannot gain energy from this process.

 

Let me know if you want me to go more in-depth.

[Diggsey]

Where are you thinking of 'getting' this antimatter? Antimatter is generated by splitting energy into matter and antimatter. The exact same amount of energy is released by combining them again as was used to begin with (except that some will not be given off as heat or sound that is not useful). If we managed to find a nearby lump of antimatter in space, then it would be relatively simple to combine it with some matter and use the heat to boil water or some other substance.

 

The problem then is how to get the energy from space to earth. (There is currently no way to efficiently store energy).

 

All that is theoretical, as there is no antimatter anywhere near earth in space, so it won't work.

 

 

 

The future method for generating energy will be one of these:

Nuclear fission

Nuclear fusion

Solar power plants (NOT using solar panels. Look up Solar 1 and Solar 2 on wikipedia to see what I mean)

Some new method nobody knows about yet

[JcX]

For the third time, it is scientifically impossible. I'll take the time to prove it to you in junior high physics form.

 

The law of conservation of energy states that you can't gain energy. When you create anti-matter, you are turning kinetic energy into potential energy. Note that due to the law of conservation of energy you won't gain any energy from this - in fact, you will lose energy. Therefore, the creation of antimatter requires more energy than that antimatter contains.

 

It is unfeasible to expect to gain any energy from doing two opposite processes. That is precisely what you are proposing - creating antimatter, and then destroying it. According to the Law of Conservation of Energy, you cannot gain energy from this process.

 

Let me know if you want me to go more in-depth.

 

Ok, fine, let me counter hit this with some simple mathematical theory.

First, consider the amount of energy used to create anti-matter with our technology in FAR FUTURE, let it be X.

and then when annihilation of matter-antimatter, the energy liberated, E=mc^2, what we get is 2 times stronger than the greatest nuclear fusion energy, let it be Y, so what we get is 2Y.

IF, X is greater than Y, hence it's a practically unreliable energy source.

IF, in our FAR FUTURE, the energy we need to produce antimatter is lower, that is when X is lower until it's lower than Y, X<Y, at that time, what we get is more than any other energy source available on Earth.

IF, we could harvest the source in nearby universe/planets, then we could save more energy and the net energy we get is a positive. It will be a reliable source then.

 

Let me stress on this again, what I'm saying here, would be future basis. ooooppss sorry, it's FAR FUTURE basis.

[jjpriest25]

Honestly, I don't know much at all about anitmatter--barely even heard of it--but from following this topic, and continuing the discussion between djbob and jcx, it seems that the only way that this whole anitmatter thing would work would be if somehow the law of conservation of energy were proved false...Otherwise, by that law, there would be absolutely no point in trying to create antimatter because the energy used to create it would be all you could harvest...

[Diggsey]

@JcX

In your example, X can NEVER be less than Y. The only way to generate antimatter is to do the opposite of what you do when you combine matter and antimatter. eg. EQUAL AND OPPOSITE. Even if absolutely no energy is wasted in the process (also impossible) you will gain nothing overall!

The only reason other power sources work is because the substances are already present to begin with (oil, uranium, etc.). The whole point is that they are not converted back again.

[Ashoat]

Ok, fine, let me counter hit this with some simple mathematical theory.

First, consider the amount of energy used to create anti-matter with our technology in FAR FUTURE, let it be X.

and then when annihilation of matter-antimatter, the energy liberated, E=mc^2, what we get is 2 times stronger than the greatest nuclear fusion energy, let it be Y, so what we get is 2Y.

IF, X is greater than Y, hence it's a practically unreliable energy source.

IF, in our FAR FUTURE, the energy we need to produce antimatter is lower, that is when X is lower until it's lower than Y, X<Y, at that time, what we get is more than any other energy source available on Earth.

IF, we could harvest the source in nearby universe/planets, then we could save more energy and the net energy we get is a positive. It will be a reliable source then.

 

Let me stress on this again, what I'm saying here, would be future basis. ooooppss sorry, it's FAR FUTURE basis.

I did indeed mention earlier that this was the only scientifically feasible way of getting energy from antimatter. In fact, in that same post I explained why the method you just described, while scientifically feasible, is inpractical.

(PS: Where do you get the statistic that matter-antimatter anihilation produces twice as much energy as nuclear fusion?)

 

Anyways, I guess I'll repeat my basic concepts from the previous post while breaking them down further. It is unfeasible to harvest large amounts of antimatter for the following reasons:

• Most antimatter is extremely far away. Based on the idea that the speed of light is the fastest attainable speed, it would take us many, many years to reach anywhere with large amounts of antimatter.
• While some of our local gas giants have some antimatter, the amount is too minute to be feasible for use.
• The energy it would take to get to a location with antimatter, harvest it, store it, return with it, somehow contain its annihilation, and then the energy that will be lost in the process will almost for sure outweigh the benefits of harvesting this antimatter.

Compare the two processes: Nuclear fusion requires an easily obtainable fuel and can without question generate sufficient energy for almost any purpose I can think of (think of the Sun - it is just a huge fusion reaction, and it powers the entire solar system). Matter-antimatter anihilation, however, requires a huge that is harder to get. Why should we generate electrical energy that way?

 

The idea just doesn't make sense.

[JcX]

To djbob:

(PS: Where do you get the statistic that matter-antimatter anihilation produces twice as much energy as nuclear fusion?)

Browse wiki carefully and you will see this statement. It's the foremost highest energy obtainable on Earth now, twice higher than nuclear fusion.

 

And finally ok..... considering the technology now, anti-matter is inpractical, but let me emphasize again on this.

TIME decides everything that I mentioned.

IN FUTURE, we human might have an idea, of how to produce anti-matter or harvest it from somewhere else with low energy cost, so in the end X would be lesser than Y. As simple as that.

But when can we human do that? That's an uncertainty, and I believe we might not be able to do it even after the end of the world.

BUT what I'm saying here is based on assumption, that we human can do it with low energy cost, remember, ASSUMPTION.

 

to diggsey:

If I'm not mistaken, a way to produce anti-matter is from nuclear reaction such as beta-decay and others.

If we could collect both energy liberated from the beta-decay and also the positrons, we could make use of both the energy source and make our lost of energy minimal.

And from what I've learn during high school, I remember there's quite a lot of nuclear reaction that produces anti-matter as by-products, just that we human not able to collect the anti-matter that escaped into thin air and cancelled-out with matter.

IF we could fix all these imperfections of anti-matter, we could make full use of it.

 

AND AGAIN, I stress on this again, what I'm saying is based on assumption that all of these problems can be overcome. THAT WOULD BE BILLION YEARS LATER.

For the meanwhile, what we could do is research more on anti-matter to minimize the energy/finance cost of it.

[Diggsey]

If I'm not mistaken, a way to produce anti-matter is from nuclear reaction such as beta-decay and others.

 

You are mistaken

Antimatter is created by colliding particles in a particle accelerator, and takes a lot of energy to get even a tiny amount of antimatter.

[Ashoat]

To djbob:

(PS: Where do you get the statistic that matter-antimatter anihilation produces twice as much energy as nuclear fusion?)

Browse wiki carefully and you will see this statement. It's the foremost highest energy obtainable on Earth now, twice higher than nuclear fusion.

 

And finally ok..... considering the technology now, anti-matter is inpractical, but let me emphasize again on this.

TIME decides everything that I mentioned.

IN FUTURE, we human might have an idea, of how to produce anti-matter or harvest it from somewhere else with low energy cost, so in the end X would be lesser than Y. As simple as that.

But when can we human do that? That's an uncertainty, and I believe we might not be able to do it even after the end of the world.

BUT what I'm saying here is based on assumption, that we human can do it with low energy cost, remember, ASSUMPTION.

 

to diggsey:

If I'm not mistaken, a way to produce anti-matter is from nuclear reaction such as beta-decay and others.

If we could collect both energy liberated from the beta-decay and also the positrons, we could make use of both the energy source and make our lost of energy minimal.

And from what I've learn during high school, I remember there's quite a lot of nuclear reaction that produces anti-matter as by-products, just that we human not able to collect the anti-matter that escaped into thin air and cancelled-out with matter.

IF we could fix all these imperfections of anti-matter, we could make full use of it.

 

AND AGAIN, I stress on this again, what I'm saying is based on assumption that all of these problems can be overcome. THAT WOULD BE BILLION YEARS LATER.

For the meanwhile, what we could do is research more on anti-matter to minimize the energy/finance cost of it.

Look, I am not denying that such a situation could be possible. What I am saying, however, is that it is extremely improbable.

 

Nuclear fusion's fuel is readily available. Easily twice as available as antimatter. Probably in the range of 10,000 times more available. Why would we use antimatter? If we "run out" of hydrogen we can just steal some from the gas giants. Antimatter is hard to obtain and difficult to use. Hydrogen is easy to obtain, and while significantly harder to use than uranium for nuclear fission it is way easier to use than antimatter.

 

Why would people use antimatter? You can say that it "could" happen, OK. But it could happen that a huge asteroid filled with solid oil starts to orbit the Earth, and we get all our future energy needs from there. Or possibly, we stop using electrical energy altogether and decide to go back to the steam engine days. Or maybe the Moon will crash into the Earth and we'll all die.

 

You need a convincing argument on why this is a feasible solution. Just saying "it could happen" is not proving anything.

[JcX]

You are mistaken wink.gif

Antimatter is created by colliding particles in a particle accelerator, and takes a lot of energy to get even a tiny amount of antimatter.

Dude, go check Wiki, there is stated that

Positrons are also produced via the radioactive beta+ decay, but this mechanism can be considered as "natural" as well as "artificial".

And as I remember from what I've studied in high school Physics, antimatter is a by-product produced from many nuclear reactions, but just we human don't have the way to collect it before it undergoes elimination with matter.

 

To: djbob,

OK, now I got it. Because I just would like to stand on my side, defending that we couldn't deny this possibility that anti-matter could be our future energy source. But when it comes to feasibility, I would stand on your side based on the points you've listed.

Nevertheless, we human, especially scientist always try to improve the sources available, as alternative source or just to increase their fame, they will keep on research until there's a way to fully utilize anti-matter without great energy needed to produce anti-matter. This is the spirit of a scientist, believe in what people believed is impossible, and make it possible.

 

NOTE: I was quite sad today, my cellphone got stolen. But I get my mood back here debating and defending myself. Thanks a lot djbob.

[Diggsey]

Positrons are also produced via the radioactive beta+ decay

 

Exactly

For every positron, you need an antiproton too. Which is produced by the method I said before!

[JcX]

Dear, look at this equation from wiki Beta+ decay

energy + p+ → n0 + e+ + νe

116C → 115B + e+ + νe + 0.96 MeV

 

We get positron by when a particle undergoes beta+ decay, giving out positron, neutrino and neutron.

There's not a need to have a antiproton to undergo beta+ decay to get positron.

There're still a lot of examples of radioactive decay that produces anti-matter(positron, antiproton, etc), but I don't have time to search for that.