- #1
DarkStar707
- 6
- 0
Please explain the process of matter anti matter and how it could be used in space travel
Puh-leeze. It can be stored in a cannister the size of a tennis ball can and contained with some dry cell batteries. I saw it in Angels & Demons.Phyisab**** said:Of course, storage of >~1g of antimatter in one place would present, I would have to assume, essentially insurmountable risks.
It looks the same as matter. Photons are their own antiparticle, so when an antimatter atom emits a photon it gives no indication that it came from antimatter.jweie29nh said:I have questions about this too. Has anyone ever seen what antimatter looks like
It doesn't. where did you read this?jweie29nh said:and what triggers antimatter to travel back in time?
Of course it does.Firstly anti-matter does not exist in nature.
Neither do Ni-CAD cells or Liquid Hydrogen, but they are an excellent way to power something.Secondly when created, in lab, it takes more energy to create it than what can be yielded from it (thermodynamics). SO it is not viable means of powering anything.
All we need is a magnetic bottle.We need an anti-matter container to store this anti-matter.
DaveC426913 said:Of course it does.
Anti-Meson said:Provide your evidence that anti-matter DOES exist in nature.
Antiparticles are created everywhere in the universe where high-energy particle collisions take place. High-energy cosmic rays impacting Earth's atmosphere (or any other matter in the solar system) produce minute quantities of antimatter in the resulting particle jets, which are immediately annihilated by contact with nearby matter. It may similarly be produced in regions like the center of the Milky Way Galaxy and other galaxies, where very energetic celestial events occur (principally the interaction of relativistic jets with the interstellar medium). The presence of the resulting antimatter is detectable by the gamma rays produced when positrons annihilate with nearby matter. The gamma rays' frequency and wavelength indicate that each carries 511 keV of energy (i.e. the rest mass of an electron or positron multiplied by c2).
There is no possibility to use antimatter as energy ‘source’. Unlike solar energy, coal or oil, antimatter does not occur in nature; we first have to make every single antiparticle, and we have to invest (much) more energy than we get back during annihilation.
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMKTX2MDAF_index_0.htmlAnti-Meson said:EDIT: Dave, you are a PF contributor and supposed science advisor. I thought PF was a serious site promoting education. If you believe this you should stop referencing unregulated WIKIPEDIA and start referencing papers from scientific authority.
Anti-Meson said:For Dave, may I point out this article produced by CERN - http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/en/Spotlight/SpotlightAandD-en.html
Admittedly, it is primarily focused on angels and demons but you will understand why anti-matter does not exist , exist being the key word, in nature.
EDIT: Dave, you are a PF contributor and supposed science advisor. I thought PF was a serious site promoting education. If you believe this you should stop referencing unregulated WIKIPEDIA and start referencing papers from scientific authority.
Yes, an FAQ aimed at the uneducated who want simple answers about a film. Here at PF, it is not good enough to be so general.For Dave, may I point out this article produced by CERN - http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/en/...tAandD-en.html
Admittedly, it is primarily focused on angels and demons but you will understand why anti-matter does not exist , exist being the key word, in nature.
Phyisab**** said:http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMKTX2MDAF_index_0.html
I followed the wikipedia citatation. The statement that antimatter does not exist is an enormous generalization. Of course it exists.
Other astronomers wondered whether more exotic processes were at work... so it was suggested that dark matter was annihilating or decaying into pairs of electrons and positrons, which then annihilated to produce the gamma rays.
The trouble with this idea, however, was that the dark matter particles needed to be much less massive than most theories were predicting.
Phyisab**** said:You are misinterpreting that paragraph.
Anti-Meson said:Elaborate if you wish to win me over.
twofish-quant said:If you are trying to argue that antimatter doesn't exist in nature, that's more or less like trying to argue with someone that thinks the moon doesn't exist. If someone really insists that the moon does not really exist, it's hard to figure out where to begin to convince them otherwise. If you really, really want to argue that anti-matter does not exist in nature, most people in astrophysics will just think you are loony.
I think the majority of people here is misinterpreting my position, in that case I shall clarify, if I haven't done so already.twofish-quant said:If you read the paragraph, you'll see that the open question is on what causes the positrons rather than that there are positrons. Anytime you have a 511 Kev spike, that's a positron annihilation line, there are no known physical processes that produce a 511 Kev spike other than anti-matter annihilation. You can go into http://adswww.harvard.edu/ for more details. (Search for pair production)
No, your position is very clear and unambiguous. You are arguing that antimatter does not exist in nature. That's not true.Anti-Meson said:I think the majority of people here is misinterpreting my position, in that case I shall clarify, if I haven't done so already.
I do not deny the whether of antimatter is real or not, laboratories have shown that anti-matter is real and pair production is such an experiment. What I do deny is that antimatter exists in nature.
Trying to change the meaning of the words you used after-the-fact does not make your original argument any less wrong.Anti-Meson said:By exists I mean...