OT - Physics Question on Anti-Matter

[Tnargversion2]

Ok, so in the game perspective, some of the components that utilize Anti-Matter Warheads, we're probably talking about very finite amounts of AM, say less than a gram of the stuff? Other wise we would see one hit one kill damage types correct?

If an ounce of AM and an ounce of matter can produce and energy release something like 10 times that of the most powerful nuke or hydrogen bomb ever produced and we were to successefully hit say an aircraft carrier sized vessel, it would be a safe bet that the aircraft carrier would be nothing but ashes, maybe some mangled trushes and support beams here and there, on one hit.

Next question, how large of a device and energy requirement would it take to contain a gram or less of AM. Hypothetical guesses again are welcome, just trying to visualize this in my head.

[Suicide Junkie]

Energy requirement is basically zero.
The device dosen't need to do any work on the antimatter, but simply provide a potential gradient (electromagnetic) to keep it away from the sides of the container.

The size depends on how good your materials science is... how strong/small/light of a magnet can you manufacture?

[shinigami]

Jumping back to the Death Star beam, something of the sort might be possible, just maybe not on that scale.
Physicists have been able to get atoms to flow along a laser. If the laser is powerful enough to vaporise all the stray atoms in its path and allow anti-atoms to flow along the beam to its end you could have an anti-matter tunneling weapon.

[Slick]

While containment is difficult, making antimatter is much more of a challenge. Making a stable antimatter atom has been done. I'm not extremely current on it, but the last thing I read was that scientists were only able to make a few atoms of anti-hydrogen (antiproton combined with an "orbiting" positron). Capturing this antimatter atom in an electric field is hard enough; and making an ounce is completely beyond our current capabilities. Not to mention that it is a really bad idea because, as the math above shows, a problem with the containment vessel will release lots of energy.

[Randallw]

I just ended up thinking about entropy.

I wondered how you could make a profit because to get the energy out you have to spend energy to make the AM. But then the Positive matter has already been made so you only need to make half of it. From there I started thinking about Fusion power where you get the energy out of sea water because the energy was placed into it at the beginning of time or whatever. From there I ended up considering mining sunlight from a star, but that's not infinite either. Eventually even the star will die. So clearly there is no such thing as an infinite energy source. It makes a clear argument for entropy. One day the universe will die. In about a billion years we might flee to another universe, but clearly even that will die. Which is more disturbing, that everything will die eventually or that I am getting depressed about soemthing that won't happen for maybe 14 billion years

[Spoo]

Randallw said:
I just ended up thinking about entropy.

I wondered how you could make a profit because to get the energy out you have to spend energy to make the AM. But then the Positive matter has already been made so you only need to make half of it. From there I started thinking about Fusion power where you get the energy out of sea water because the energy was placed into it at the beginning of time or whatever. From there I ended up considering mining sunlight from a star, but that's not infinite either. Eventually even the star will die. So clearly there is no such thing as an infinite energy source. It makes a clear argument for entropy. One day the universe will die. In about a billion years we might flee to another universe, but clearly even that will die. Which is more disturbing, that everything will die eventually or that I am getting depressed about soemthing that won't happen for maybe 14 billion years

This reminds me of a short story by Isaac Asimov, The Last Question.

[Randallw]

hmm, a pretty obvious conclusion.

I can recall 2 stories such as that one. In one a man in a bar is asked how might a robot live forever and they talk about how it would have to upgrade every once in a while but yes it could last forever. The end of the story lingers over one mans young companion.

Another story that comes to mind is after a war where a computer ran everything some men ask its caretaker if it was unable to solve a problem. He answers that he would then flip a coin to decide.

[Renegade 13]

Randallw said:
So clearly there is no such thing as an infinite energy source.

That's not entirely true. Blackholes represent a massive amount of potential gravitational energy that I'm sure could (eventually) be harnessed by mankind. However, physicists believe that blackholes do "decay" slowly over time, losing mass, so it is possible that even blackholes would eventually all disappear, though that would take hundreds of billions or trillions of years.

[aegisx]

Speaking of infinite energy.. you all should enjoy this if you haven't already.

http://infohost.nmt.edu/~mlindsey/asimov/question.htm

[Suicide Junkie]

Renegade 13 said:

That's not entirely true. Blackholes represent a massive amount of potential gravitational energy that I'm sure could (eventually) be harnessed by mankind. However, physicists believe that blackholes do "decay" slowly over time, losing mass, so it is possible that even blackholes would eventually all disappear, though that would take hundreds of billions or trillions of years.

How is it not true?
How do you plan to get anything out of said hole without reducing the hole's mass-energy?

Just because there is a lot of mass there dosen't mean it is infinite in any way. Where "a lot" is only a handful of stellar masses in many cases.