Anti matter!? How does nationstates think it works?

[Dumb Ideologies]

I don't know what it is but if soft science-fiction has taught me anything then firing it anti-clockwise round a black hole through carbon nanotubes at 2x the speed of light will almost certainly make timey-wimey things happen.

[New DeCapito]

Well, antimatter does not react with light, but reacts with normal matter in such a way that they completely annihilate each other. They could make antimatter bombs that are 100% energy efficient, unlike our nukes which aren't very efficient at all.

[AiliailiA]

Well, antimatter does not react with light

No. That's wrong. You're thinking of dark matter.

, but reacts with normal matter in such a way that they completely annihilate each other. They could make antimatter bombs that are 100% energy efficient, unlike our nukes which aren't very efficient at all.

Actually, it's the opposite. Extracting and enriching uranium costs some energy, but it's basically mining. The energy is there in uranium ores we mine out of the ground. We exploit a non-renewable resource.

Creating anti-matter requires an investment of energy, currently vastly more energy than is embodied in the anti-matter (we create anti-matter in cyclotrons which are very energy inefficient). At best, we could create anti-matter according to E=mc². Even that is hugely less energy-efficient than mining uranium and creating plutonium in a reactor.

Creating anti-matter has practical applications. It's awesome rocket fuel for instance (Star Trek got this: "dilithium" was supposed crystal containing both matter and anti-matter).

And yes it could be a weapon. Energy efficiency does not matter to the merchants of death. But since nukes provide all the strategic deterrence anyone could want, why bother with anti-matter weapons?

[New DeCapito]

Well, antimatter does not react with light

No. That's wrong. You're thinking of dark matter.

, but reacts with normal matter in such a way that they completely annihilate each other. They could make antimatter bombs that are 100% energy efficient, unlike our nukes which aren't very efficient at all.

Actually, it's the opposite. Extracting and enriching uranium costs some energy, but it's basically mining. The energy is there in uranium ores we mine out of the ground. We exploit a non-renewable resource.

Creating anti-matter requires an investment of energy, currently vastly more energy than is embodied in the anti-matter (we create anti-matter in cyclotrons which are very energy inefficient). At best, we could create anti-matter according to E=mc². Even that is hugely less energy-efficient than mining uranium and creating plutonium in a reactor.

Creating anti-matter has practical applications. It's awesome rocket fuel for instance (Star Trek got this: "dilithium" was supposed crystal containing both matter and anti-matter).

And yes it could be a weapon. Energy efficiency does not matter to the merchants of death. But since nukes provide all the strategic deterrence anyone could want, why bother with anti-matter weapons?

Oh, yeah, ok.
But wouldn't it be amazing to repel an invasion from an antimatter universe by firing washing machines and stuff at them?

[AiliailiA]

No. That's wrong. You're thinking of dark matter.



Actually, it's the opposite. Extracting and enriching uranium costs some energy, but it's basically mining. The energy is there in uranium ores we mine out of the ground. We exploit a non-renewable resource.

Creating anti-matter requires an investment of energy, currently vastly more energy than is embodied in the anti-matter (we create anti-matter in cyclotrons which are very energy inefficient). At best, we could create anti-matter according to E=mc². Even that is hugely less energy-efficient than mining uranium and creating plutonium in a reactor.

Creating anti-matter has practical applications. It's awesome rocket fuel for instance (Star Trek got this: "dilithium" was supposed crystal containing both matter and anti-matter).

And yes it could be a weapon. Energy efficiency does not matter to the merchants of death. But since nukes provide all the strategic deterrence anyone could want, why bother with anti-matter weapons?

Oh, yeah, ok.
But wouldn't it be amazing to repel an invasion form an antimatter universe by firing washing machines and stuff at them?

EAT MY JUNK, anti-universe invader SCUM!

*gets lethal dose of gamma radiation*

Oh well. Better rad than dad.

[AiliailiA]

I don't know what it is but if soft science-fiction has taught me anything then firing it anti-clockwise round a black hole through carbon nanotubes at 2x the speed of light will almost certainly make timey-wimey things happen.

In enjoy sci-fi. But always part of me objects that sci-fi is emotional exploitation of science, and trivializes science, and makes us all fools at the helm of science. Drunk on fiction.

Sci-fi is strong fiction. It can be very intoxicating, and I think it usually does not serve real science well.

[Independent Republic of Not My Problem]

I don't know what it is but if soft science-fiction has taught me anything then firing it anti-clockwise round a black hole through carbon nanotubes at 2x the speed of light will almost certainly make timey-wimey things happen.

In enjoy sci-fi. But always part of me objects that sci-fi is emotional exploitation of science, and trivializes science, and makes us all fools at the helm of science. Drunk on fiction.

Sci-fi is strong fiction. It can be very intoxicating, and I think it usually does not serve real science well.

I disagree. I think it helps inspire new generations of scientists and engineers.

[New Aerios]

Well I was writing a factbook about my military that includes antimatter yet how can I do this when I have so little understanding. Science has not made much progress here either and right now its still a very odd subject with many scattered and mismatched beliefs or thoughts.

I personally like the idea that antimatter dissolves regular matter and leaves behind low levels of radiation and that neutral matter can touch both normal matter and antimatter. This is probably 100% fiction for books and games so im curious what you may think about how antimatter works. I would love to see all types of ideas both fiction and non-fiction to hopefully get a better understanding of how it works in the real world and in nationstates.

It's essentially a version of a particle with totally opposite everything. E.g. Protons have a charge of +1 and a baryon number of +1, so an antiproton would have charge -1 and baryon number -1. When matter and antimatter collide, they annihilate, producing a shitload of energy.

In terms of ideas for military use, you'd first have to find a way to keep it suspended in a total vacuum to stop it blowing up immediately. Then you could put it somewhere, remotely disable whatever mechanism keeps it stable, and you've got a very big boom.

[Barboneia]

Well, obviously, you take matter, yeah? And then you make it NOT matter. There you go, you got some anti-matter. It's kind of like anti-pasta when you think about it.

[AiliailiA]

In enjoy sci-fi. But always part of me objects that sci-fi is emotional exploitation of science, and trivializes science, and makes us all fools at the helm of science. Drunk on fiction.

Sci-fi is strong fiction. It can be very intoxicating, and I think it usually does not serve real science well.

I disagree. I think it helps inspire new generations of scientists and engineers.

Good science teaching in school inspires new generations of scientists and engineers.

That sci-fi might also do that, must be balanced against the obvious surge of people believing stuff with no scientific backing, because it's futuristic and sciency. Science fiction has done more harm than good, because for every young person it inspired to become a scientist, it has inspired tens or hundreds of young people to hope for things which they can't have. Faster-than-light travel, matter transporters, what-the-fuck-ever.

The fate of those few scientists will be decided by the decisions of the many more young people who were debauched by science fiction.

Public funding (government funding) of science is critical. It has been since the Enlightenment. Charity and for-profit funding of science have certainly contributed, sometimes and in some countries the non-government patrons have carried the tradition forward in absence of government support. But overall there is one reliable patron of science: government. The government funding of research in universities is the backbone of science since the Enlightenment.

That funding depends on the will of many people who are not scientists. It depends on the will of voters.

And I think science fiction has done more harm than good. For every young person it inspired to become a scientist (or engineer) it put half-baked ideas into the heads of a hundred others. Giving them unreasonable expectations of science, and making them prone to belief in the pseudo-science which now threatens our health and our sanity.

[Shigiel]

I don't know what it is but if soft science-fiction has taught me anything then firing it anti-clockwise round a black hole through carbon nanotubes at 2x the speed of light will almost certainly make timey-wimey things happen.

In enjoy sci-fi. But always part of me objects that sci-fi is emotional exploitation of science, and trivializes science, and makes us all fools at the helm of science. Drunk on fiction.

Sci-fi is strong fiction. It can be very intoxicating, and I think it usually does not serve real science well.

To be fair, it was developing an obsessive interest in sci-fi movies, literature and TV shows that first made me interested in the natural sciences, and I'm now on a natural science "study track." So I think it does serve real science in that sense, by inspiring popular interest in the sciences. But I have had to unlearn a lot of pseudo-science thanks to sci-fi too.

[Dakini]

I personally like the idea that antimatter dissolves regular matter and leaves behind low levels of radiation and that neutral matter can touch both normal matter and antimatter. This is probably 100% fiction for books and games so im curious what you may think about how antimatter works. I would love to see all types of ideas both fiction and non-fiction to hopefully get a better understanding of how it works in the real world and in nationstates.

1. There's no such thing as "neutral matter". There's matter and antimatter and they self-annihilate (matter isn't "dissolved" by antimatter, it's turned into energy).
2. Just because you don't understand antimatter doesn't mean it's not understood by anyone with a working knowledge of physics.

Seriously, antimatter is pretty fucking simple as far as it goes.

[Second Blazing]

Well I was writing a factbook about my military that includes antimatter yet how can I do this when I have so little understanding. Science has not made much progress here either and right now its still a very odd subject with many scattered and mismatched beliefs or thoughts.

I personally like the idea that antimatter dissolves regular matter and leaves behind low levels of radiation and that neutral matter can touch both normal matter and antimatter. This is probably 100% fiction for books and games so im curious what you may think about how antimatter works. I would love to see all types of ideas both fiction and non-fiction to hopefully get a better understanding of how it works in the real world and in nationstates.

Its matter but with a goatee.

[Kelinfort]

Basically matter, but the charges are opposite. Anti matter electrons are positrons. These are quite common emissions from particle accelerators. But to make actual anti matter hydrogen large enough to make a massive explosion would take millennia.

Essentially, matter and anti matter react by annihilating themselves and releasing massive energy, relative to their size.

[Sanctissima]

Basically, it's the opposite of matter. It's like our matter, except oppositely charged.

What's of interest about it is that when a matter and antimatter particle collide (which thankfully, is hard to do), both cancel out each other, and they basically explode into energy. Scientists have discussed harnessing this energy, but we aren't nearly at a point in technological development where we can do so safely.

[Wisconsin9]

Well, antimatter does not react with light

No. That's wrong. You're thinking of dark matter.

, but reacts with normal matter in such a way that they completely annihilate each other. They could make antimatter bombs that are 100% energy efficient, unlike our nukes which aren't very efficient at all.

Actually, it's the opposite. Extracting and enriching uranium costs some energy, but it's basically mining. The energy is there in uranium ores we mine out of the ground. We exploit a non-renewable resource.

Creating anti-matter requires an investment of energy, currently vastly more energy than is embodied in the anti-matter (we create anti-matter in cyclotrons which are very energy inefficient). At best, we could create anti-matter according to E=mc². Even that is hugely less energy-efficient than mining uranium and creating plutonium in a reactor.

Creating anti-matter has practical applications. It's awesome rocket fuel for instance (Star Trek got this: "dilithium" was supposed crystal containing both matter and anti-matter).

And yes it could be a weapon. Energy efficiency does not matter to the merchants of death. But since nukes provide all the strategic deterrence anyone could want, why bother with anti-matter weapons?

Especially since they'd be fail-deadly. Nukes require exact timing on the scale of microseconds to work at all, whereas antimatter practically wants to explode.

[Dakini]

Antimater is actually fairly well understood. A mater-antimater reaction produces energy. A lot of energy.

Not really. Scientists aren't even really sure where it comes from. One of the most important questions in physics is why there is so little anti-matter compared to matter, and scientists have no idea.

Scientists know where antimatter comes from. They also have a lot of ideas to explain the baryon asymmetry, which is totally not in any way related to the problems the OP has with understanding antimatter.

[Trotskylvania]

If I remember correctly, the only really unsolved questions about antimatter are the ever lingering problem of baryon assymetry, and how antimatter reacts to gravitational forces.

[Dragvania]

It would need to mass about 1.25 trillion metric tons to blow up the planet.

Now I seriously want to see someone make a 3d animation of what they think a antimatter bomb will look like i would do it but explosions are not my thing when doing animation. Anyway EXPLOSIONS!!! Because myth busters say they make stuff cooler.

[The Sotoan Union]

I guess fairly well understood can be subjective. I wouldn't call it fairly well understood.

The properties of anti-matter are well understood. Scientists have created anti-hydrogen and anti-helium, and even before that they studied anti-matter arriving in cosmic 'rays'. Anti-matter behaves very predictably. It's ordinary in every way except for being extremely rare.

However, the wider issue of why the universe appears to be made almost entirely of 'right' matter is quite a mystery. The chirality problem.

Well I suppose making bigger quantities of anti-matter and bigger atoms than hydrogen might reveal an "un-ordinariness" about its properties and explain why it's so rare in our universe.

Also we can't make more than tiny quantities of it. We don't understand anti-matter just like we don't understand nuclear fusion. We understand it in theory but we still can't figure out how to do anything with it.

[The Sotoan Union]

Not really. Scientists aren't even really sure where it comes from. One of the most important questions in physics is why there is so little anti-matter compared to matter, and scientists have no idea.

Scientists know where antimatter comes from. They also have a lot of ideas to explain the baryon asymmetry, which is totally not in any way related to the problems the OP has with understanding antimatter.

But they still can't explain it. Those are just theories.

I mean scientists had a lot of theories on what fire was, but all the wrong ones don't mean jack shit.

Are you trying to argue that we understand anti-matter even though one of the most important unanswered in physics is attributed to it, and your evidence for it is that we have theories? Of course we are going to have theories but that doesn't mean any of them are right.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

There's this wonderous thing called 'The Internet' and it is simply full of information, right at your fingertips. Of course we also still have libraries, and books, and science magazines, and all the rest that you could avail yourself of, or even, perhaps, ask some players who seem familiar with it, if they're willing.

Posting here in General, however, is not an ideal solution. Thanks.