Anti Matter - our future energy source

[Diggsey]

You don't need an antiproton for beta decay, you need an antiproton to produce antimatter. (Antimatter = positrons + antiprotons + neutrons)

[JcX]

Fine....

In my definition, anti-matter includes antiprotons, positrons.

If we use antiprotons collide with protons, we still get an amount of energy, is that right?

[Ashoat]

(Antimatter = positrons + antiprotons + neutrons)

You're thinking of an "anti-atom". Matter is not neccessarily composed purely of atoms. You could get energy from anihilating a positron with an electron.

 

However, beta decay is an extremely rare from of radioactivity. Most of it is alpha decay - beta decay is extremely dangerous and rare, and anyways only produces minute amounts of positrons which end up anihilating almost right after they are formed. Furthermore, we have no reliable, containable, replenishible, and readily available source of positron beta decay anyways.

[JcX]

I know beta-decay is rare, but is it extremely rare??

If you see the stability belt of the elements, heavier atom tends to undergo alpha decay, while atom with lower proton number tends to go beta decay (where it's rare), usually they undergo collision to form a bigger and stabler atom.

But can you say it's extremely rare?

 

One thing I agreed is, beta+ decay is extremely rare. But if you see, beta- decay also produce antineutrino, which also is antimatter.

The question is just how we're going to contain the antimatter produced before it gets annihilated. Let the great scientist solve this.

[Ashoat]

Antineutrinos interact with other matter only through the gravitational and weak forces, making them very difficult to detect experimentally.

If they don't interact through the strong nuclear nuclear force, we can't really get that much energy out of them. Furthermore, from what I understand neutrinos are impossible to contain and have an incredibly small mass (hence a small energy output).

 

Let the great scientist solve this.

I argue that this will not be "solved". There really seems to be no rational reason to argue that antimatter will be the energy of the future.

[JcX]

Ok... so the argument never stops... and there'll be no end for it.

IF we human really can develop such technology to utilize the energy of anti-matter,

we wouldn't know, because that might be million years later,

or maybe we couldn't make that happen before we extinct.

 

BUT I do believe that anti-matter could be the future energy source,

because based on theoritical reasons, it's possible to make that, just it might not necessary be practical.

[Ashoat]

based on theoritical reasons

What theoretical reasons? The only things I can think of that known theories can only tell us in this argument are, 1) Matter-antimatter reactions can produce a lot of energy, and 2) Producing antimatter would be result in a net gain of energy.

 

Why do you think that matter-antimatter reactions could be a future energy source? Why are you arguing for this instead of, for instance, harvesting energy from supernova explosions?

[JcX]

Well.... did I said that producing anti-matter is the future energy source?

I didn't, I just saying that antimatter could be our future energy source theoritically, but not just from the artificial production of it, but from all way round that we could collect it, including from the Van Allen belt of the Earth or from the belt of Jupiter, or maybe from supernova explosion if we could.

 

Yea, what I mean theoritical is the net energy gain from antimatter. It's a very reliable energy source to be said IF we could find a way to collect it without much financial cost, and AVOID unnecessary destruction caused by antimatter. That's what I mean by theoritically.

 

If we really could find a way to solve the current obstacle, it indeed could be an energy source.

(djbob: I knew you would say this is impractical, but please, I'm saying this on the basis of possibility, it's possible, but yet, not really proven practical.)

[Ashoat]

What I am saying is that "it is possible" means absolutely nothing. There are ten trillion "possible" ways of getting energy. What's so special about antimatter?

[JcX]

Because the energy liberated from the annihilation process is huge.

If we can minimize the energy required to obtain antimatter, the net energy gain is a profit for anything.

That's what so special about it.

 

*Of course, it's very hard to realize this dream.

[AcidBakeD]

tecnology sucks balls it better get better but u know what they say it gets worse before it gets better =[=]

[hdhdhd]

I wish I could get a antimater run car so I wouldn't need to spend the big bucks on it

[Guest xaav]

You would have a better chance of getting an electricity run car.

[Xoviat]

I reckon we'll end up with overweight individuals being forced to use gym equipment connected to dynamos.

 

There's actually much greater chance of that than antimatter over the next 1000 years.

[xwinuser]

Cold fusion is the next energy source. There seem to be some credible claims that is has been accomplished just recently.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45153076/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/italian-cold-fusion-machine-passes-another-test/

 

http://news.discovery.com/tech/cold-fusion-claims-resurface.html

 

Nothing good ever comes from anti-matter, only cyber men. Don't you guys watch Doctor Who? Geez!