Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14405122

It would be interesting if we could somehow harvest it. The question would be whether the cost of going that far out would be less than just manufacturing anti-matter synthetically.

"All the antimatter produced at CERN in a year would light a 100-watt bulb for only 15 minutes, Hangst said."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/09/0919_020919_wirantimatter_2.html

Originally posted by Omega Vision
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14405122

It would be interesting if we could somehow harvest it. The question would be whether the cost of going that far out would be less than just manufacturing anti-matter synthetically.

Abundant here is coming from physicists, not economists. They found 28 antiprotons. Now obviously they only searched a fraction of the belt but that should give you an idea of how diffuse this cloud is in practical terms.

I would imagine that the gas giants have even more antimatter trapped in their fields. Jupiter's magnetic field is ginormous.

I can understand the ethical concerns of harvesting the anti-matter, as anti-matter production is harmful to the environment... but if we don't harvest it, the Saudis will. And I'd rather not have my Apple Ant-I-Phone developed by human rights abusers.

I think you're overestimating the Saudis, my friend.

Anit matter gets reported like some mysterious magical stuff when in fact its just some matter with the reverse polarisation of the nuclei

There should be an international ban on antimatter experimentation in quantities over a picogram on Earth especially with this news and with the news of antihydrogen occurring naturally in storm clouds. I don't particularly trust any government or entity with ****ing photon torpedoes nor do I want the next world war to end in a spectacle that'll be seen on the other side of the universe. The Earth doesn't need any more moons.

I think they're having enough trouble with the "ban" demonstrated by the laws of thermodynamics.

Originally posted by Quark_666
I think they're having enough trouble with the "ban" demonstrated by the laws of thermodynamics. Penning and Magnetic Traps are becoming more and more efficient, allowing for longer and greater storage of antimatter and antiparticles and lessening the chances of accidental annihilation.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I can understand the ethical concerns of harvesting the anti-matter, as anti-matter production is harmful to the environment... but if we don't harvest it, the Saudis will. And I'd rather not have my Apple Ant-I-Phone developed by human rights abusers. youre not worried about the soviets?

oh wait theyre not soviets theyre our friends now

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Penning and Magnetic Traps are becoming more and more efficient, allowing for longer and greater storage of antimatter and antiparticles and lessening the chances of accidental annihilation. Meaning their efficiency is in the negative, and they're currently approaching a break-even zero?

Originally posted by AthenasTrgrFngr
youre not worried about the soviets?

oh wait theyre not soviets theyre our friends now Remember: no Russian.

Originally posted by Quark_666
Meaning their efficiency is in the negative, and they're currently approaching a break-even zero?
Unless I'm mistaken, the last I read, anti-matter, be it individual particles or anti-hydrogen or anti-helium could be safely stored for 17 days without annihilating.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Unless I'm mistaken, the last I read, anti-matter, be it individual particles or anti-hydrogen or anti-helium could be safely stored for 17 days without annihilating. I'm not worried that anti-matter will be an unstable version of nuclear power. I don't have faith in its ability to power a flashlight.

It makes a great show, bringing up cynics who were wrong. Great therapy session. That's inspiring.

It doesn't change the fact that you're using evidence that it's benign to demonstrate that its efficient.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Unless I'm mistaken, the last I read, anti-matter, be it individual particles or anti-hydrogen or anti-helium could be safely stored for 17 days without annihilating.

If we didn't lose any of the antimatter at all, got everyone with the capability to cooperate in making the bomb, and increased production capacity a thousand times over, it would take a thousand years to make enough antimatter that it would release as much energy as the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima (about 1 gram) but since antimatter loses most of its explosive power to harmless particles you should probably double that time.

The cost would be enormous, NASA once said the gram we need would cost tens of trillions of dollars, CERN's estimates put it much higher. Then you need to account for building all those new facilities, storing all the antimatter, and paying being to keep it secure.

Within our lifetimes antimatter bombs are less of a concern than a billionaire paying everyone in the world to commit suicide.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Huh, I wonder how much we knew about nuclear decay at that time given that atoms fall apart naturally.

Yeah, but that's kind of the point, isn't it? Who can tell how many things we don't yet know about anti-matter?

All I was trying to say is that saying things like "that's not gonna happen" can be a pretty silly thing to do.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Yeah, but that's kind of the point, isn't it? Who can tell how many things we don't yet know about anti-matter?

All I was trying to say is that saying things like "that's not gonna happen" can be a pretty silly thing to do. Skeptics of ideas that contradict the laws of thermodynamics have an amazing track record for being right (100% so far). And when you responded by retorting that we can store anti-matter.... haha, see, if I sound condescending, that's why
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
He's got a point actually. The breakdown of a single atom of uranium in a nuclear reactor creates the same amount of heat as being struck by a single photon of visible light. It's the chain reaction that he didn't see coming.

Antimatter, on the other hand, doesn't make more antimatter when you set it off.



Huh, I wonder how much we knew about nuclear decay at that time given that atoms fall apart naturally. Well put, sym.

No one sees a difference between painstakingly and expensively creating something in a particle accelerator and harvesting something that occurs naturally both in space and in clouds every time there's a thunderstorm?

Originally posted by Darth Jello
No one sees a difference between painstakingly and expensively creating something in a particle accelerator and harvesting something that occurs naturally both in space and in clouds every time there's a thunderstorm?

Well there's a painstaking and expensive method that's well proven and an even more painstaking and expensive method that is not well proven as well as being much more prone to failure, if that's what you mean.

Originally posted by Quark_666
Skeptics of ideas that contradict the laws of thermodynamics have an amazing track record for being right (100% so far). And when you responded by retorting that we can store anti-matter.... haha, see, if I sound condescending, that's why

I never said anything about storing anti-matter. Though it can be done, just not for a very long time or efficiently.

My bad - I thought I was still talking to Darth Jello. Originally posted by Quark_666
I think they're having enough trouble with the "ban" demonstrated by the laws of thermodynamics. Originally posted by Darth Jello
Penning and Magnetic Traps are becoming more and more efficient, allowing for longer and greater storage of antimatter and antiparticles and lessening the chances of accidental annihilation.
Understand my skepticism now?