Antimatter!

[mucat]

If there is an antimatter weapon, it would be a portable (or space-mounted) weapon that converted matter into antimatter during activation. It wouldn't have the antimatter stored, instead creating it all and having it annihilate the surrounding matter almost instantaneously after activation.

Can't be done. (Barring fundamentally new physics, of course.)

You can't turn matter into antimatter; you have to create equal quantities of both at the same time...and to do that, you need to supply energy at least equal to the combined mass energy of the matter and antimatter you create. Which, in turn, is exactly as much energy as will be released when they annihilate...

In other words, in order for your weapon to create antimatter on the spot, it would have to already contain at least as much usable energy as the antimatter annihilation will release. If the machine has access to that much energy, it would be every bit as destructive to just release it, instead of mucking around with antimatter.

The fact that you didn't know that, but still spoke with an authoritative voice on it, kinda calls into question the rest of your equally authoritative-sounding pronouncements. (Not that I necessarily think your follow-up points are incorrect...but when you open by getting a piece of well-understood physics wrong, you lose your credibility to speak with authority on much harder-to-answer questions.)

That said, the antimatter is pretty cool. Maybe if we could get a Higgs-Boson now?

Workin' on it...give the LHC folks a year or two, and we'll see what they've got.

[Meirnon]

Can't be done. (Barring fundamentally new physics, of course.)

You can't turn matter into antimatter; you have to create equal quantities of both at the same time...and to do that, you need to supply energy at least equal to the combined mass energy of the matter and antimatter you create. Which, in turn, is exactly as much energy as will be released when they annihilate...

In other words, in order for your weapon to create antimatter on the spot, it would have to already contain at least as much usable energy as the antimatter annihilation will release. If the machine has access to that much energy, it would be every bit as destructive to just release it, instead of mucking around with antimatter.

The fact that you didn't know that, but still spoke with an authoritative voice on it, kinda calls into question the rest of your equally authoritative-sounding pronouncements. (Not that I necessarily think your follow-up points are incorrect...but when you open by getting a piece of well-understood physics wrong, you lose your credibility to speak with authority on much harder-to-answer questions.)


Workin' on it...give the LHC folks a year or two, and we'll see what they've got.

Physics has been changed before. Maybe the discovery of the Higgs-Boson would warrant the equal conversion and necessary energy, yeah?

Or, maybe we could find a way to utilize tachyons to harness infinite 4th dimensional energy. How this would be possible, I have no clue. :3

[mucat]

Physics has been changed before. Maybe the discovery of the Higgs-Boson would warrant the equal conversion and necessary energy, yeah?

Or, maybe we could find a way to utilize tachyons to harness infinite 4th dimensional energy. How this would be possible, I have no clue. :3

Granted, our understanding of physics has gone through revolutionary changes before, and we expect and hope there are more revolutions to come. Some yet-unknown model may suggest a way to convert matter to antimatter, rather than creating both in equal amounts. We already know that nature (specifically the electroweak force) doesn't quite respect an exact symmetry between matter and antimatter...and we also know that somehow, in the very early universe, there somehow developed a slight imbalance between the two (about ten billion and one particles of matter for every ten billion particles of antimatter...which, after the universe cooled a bit and they all annihilated, left a tiny remaining residue of matter...a damned fortunate break for us, because it's what we're made of. )

I would still say, though, that it's a little early to try to design technology based on yet-undiscovered physics. Also, if there is a way to convert matter to antimatter, it almost certainly happens only at very high energies, far greater than CERN or the LHC can now reach. Which returns to the question...if you want a weapon that carries enough energy to manage on-board creation of antimatter, why not just release that energy instead?

[Teddy]

[...]Maybe it's just me, but I think the fact that it's been so short of a time, and animals have adapted to resist the radiation and fungi developed to become radiotrophic inside of the old reactors is even more reason to disbelieve nuclear eco-holocaust.[...]

Well, there are animals who've failed horribly at adapting to the radiation too. The swallows that live close to the reactor have expended all their anti-oxidants during their migrations, and thus haven't got any protection against the radioactivity. Because of this, they show a lot of mutations and tumors over their bodies. If it wasn't for the constant immigration of swallows each year, the swallow colonies at Chernobyl would go extinct pretty fast.

[Meirnon]

Well, there are animals who've failed horribly at adapting to the radiation too. The swallows that live close to the reactor have expended all their anti-oxidants during their migrations, and thus haven't got any protection against the radioactivity. Because of this, they show a lot of mutations and tumors over their bodies. If it wasn't for the constant immigration of swallows each year, the swallow colonies at Chernobyl would go extinct pretty fast.

Yes, I know about the swallows. The majority of that problem, however, is that they insist on living in the broken down old buildings with thousands of tons of radioactive ash inside of them. I know quite a bit about this as my debate coach debated this exact same part about the swallows in his day (specifically that if left unabated, the structures would collapse and send the radioactive ash into the atmosphere, and then it really would be a human extinction). The simple solution is to fill the structures with a type of poly-foam resin to contain the ash and to keep the birds out. I believe some kind of action like this has already been taken, in fact. As for the birds themselves, it may take them a bit longer to adapt to this adversity of theirs, but I do not doubt at all that they eventually will if left to their own devices.

Granted, our understanding of physics has gone through revolutionary changes before, and we expect and hope there are more revolutions to come. Some yet-unknown model may suggest a way to convert matter to antimatter, rather than creating both in equal amounts. We already know that nature (specifically the electroweak force) doesn't quite respect an exact symmetry between matter and antimatter...and we also know that somehow, in the very early universe, there somehow developed a slight imbalance between the two (about ten billion and one particles of matter for every ten billion particles of antimatter...which, after the universe cooled a bit and they all annihilated, left a tiny remaining residue of matter...a damned fortunate break for us, because it's what we're made of. )

I would still say, though, that it's a little early to try to design technology based on yet-undiscovered physics. Also, if there is a way to convert matter to antimatter, it almost certainly happens only at very high energies, far greater than CERN or the LHC can now reach. Which returns to the question...if you want a weapon that carries enough energy to manage on-board creation of antimatter, why not just release that energy instead?

Two things: 1) Is this a job or a hobby? :D
2) I believe I read in a science journal that the ability to flip matter through the 4th dimension is a possibility of converting it into antimatter. As for the energy needed, there would absolutely need to be some way to harness it in a (relatively) small package. One theory is infinite 4th dimensional energy... harnessing entropy or some awesome science stuff that my philistine knowledge cannot completely explain in the (also relative) technobabble you could easily include in your vernacular, with the use of Tachyons. Maybe even the Higgs Boson. Since time theoretically goes on forever, there would be infinite harness-able energy. The viability and science for this is (again, relative) light-years ahead of what we have now... but it shouldn't be too long as technological innovation follows an exponential curve.

[Lost Demiurge]

Ugghhh, I know.

Such flippant disregard of scientific advancement should be punishable in some rules or other.

Really, I think we should be looking for the sort of rhetoric that could puncture this world-view.

I mean, this is clearly a home-run for science, but he's treating it like it's a punt or something.

::Winces:: Ow. I owned myself.

I blame it on being too early in the morning at the time, and a general lack of caffeine...

[Deth Muncher]

Waiiiiit...I have an idea. And this isn't a currently feasible idea, but:

If anti-matter makes anti-radiation, shouldn't we just dump a bunch of it on places like Chernobyl or in places where nuclear waste is created to dampen radiation? (or at least convert it to light)

[WalkingTarget]

Waiiiiit...I have an idea. And this isn't a currently feasible idea, but:

If anti-matter makes anti-radiation, shouldn't we just dump a bunch of it on places like Chernobyl or in places where nuclear waste is created to dampen radiation? (or at least convert it to light)

Well, first you'd have to be able to generate radioactive antimatter (anti-Uranium or some such), and then you're probably mostly worried about anti-alpha and -beta particles which I'd imagine would, instead of knocking your DNA nucleotides out of whack and causing mutations, would annihilate with whatever part of your body they hit, releasing more gamma rays, probably causing mutations anyway. I doubt it's the best way to go.

[Meirnon]

Well, first you'd have to be able to generate radioactive antimatter (anti-Uranium or some such), and then you're probably mostly worried about anti-alpha and -beta particles which I'd imagine would, instead of knocking your DNA nucleotides out of whack and causing mutations, would annihilate with whatever part of your body they hit, releasing more gamma rays, probably causing mutations anyway. I doubt it's the best way to go.

Even if it's in the name of SCIENCE!?

[Teddy]

Well, first you'd have to be able to generate radioactive antimatter (anti-Uranium or some such), and then you're probably mostly worried about anti-alpha and -beta particles which I'd imagine would, instead of knocking your DNA nucleotides out of whack and causing mutations, would annihilate with whatever part of your body they hit, releasing more gamma rays, probably causing mutations anyway. I doubt it's the best way to go.

Well, to be more precise, there are three kinds of radiation: alfa (a helium nucleus), beta (a free electrone) and gamma (electromagnetic waves, i.e. a kind of light). Radioactive anti-matter would create anti-alfa and anti-beta radiation, but the same gamma radiation. You wouldn't remove the radiation, you would just blow up whatever particle it first hit, which probably would be the air or the ground. And that's assuming that that you'd managed to isolate the original chunk of radioactive anti-matter. The chance of it hitting your body would, however, be nearly nonexistent, since there's so much matter between you and it.

[factotum]

Well, to be more precise, there are three kinds of radiation: alfa (a helium nucleus), beta (a free electrone) and gamma (electromagnetic waves, i.e. a kind of light). Radioactive anti-matter would create anti-alfa and anti-beta radiation, but the same gamma radiation.

And also note that the gamma radiation is by far and away the most dangerous. Alpha particles are blocked by a few centimetres of air, and a car door would be sufficient to stop a beta particle, whereas gamma radiation can penetrate deeply and travel for long distances--you need thick lead walls to block that! Therefore, adding to the most dangerous type of radiation at the site in the vague hope of destroying some of the weaker stuff doesn't seem like a good proposition.

[Teddy]

And also note that the gamma radiation is by far and away the most dangerous. Alpha particles are blocked by a few centimetres of air, and a car door would be sufficient to stop a beta particle, whereas gamma radiation can penetrate deeply and travel for long distances--you need thick lead walls to block that! Therefore, adding to the most dangerous type of radiation at the site in the vague hope of destroying some of the weaker stuff doesn't seem like a good proposition.

Well, one of the greatest dangers that comes with radioactive contamination lies in inhaling or swallowing radioactive particles (especially radioactive iodine is a huge danger), and when it comes to these, the alfa and beta radiation is much worse than the gamma radiation, as these first two are pretty much guaranteed to hit something in your body, whereas the gamma radiation mostly will pass straight through it.

[Eldan]

True, true. But somehow, annihilating the radioactive dust doesn't seem like he most efficient way of dealing with fallout.