Anti-Matter Belt around Earth

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
"The energy produced by the breaking down of the atom is a very poor kind of thing. Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine.” — Ernest Rutherford, shortly after splitting the atom for the first time.

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.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
“There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will.” — Albert Einstein, 1932

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

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.

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.

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.