#Antimatter reactor free#

NASA’s interest stems from the fact that antimatter could be the ultimate rocket fuel. It seems that the most viable use for antimatter is fuel (a peaceful use, much to any evil scientist's dismay, I am sure).

By studying how the device works, questions about the energy composition and how the particles in the streams interact with outside environments can be answered. So, if we can't use this to shoot at our desk mates (I'm looking at you, Dave) what's it good for? Well, the emissions are very similar to what makes up the jet streams from black holes and pulsars. This is a comparable number to those created by the particle accelerator at CERN. Though the emissions last just 30 femtoseconds, they produce quadrillions of positrons. We just don't have the tech to secure it safely, even if we could somehow acquire it.īuilding on work by researchers at the University of Texas, the team at UM build a device less than a meter long that generates both short bursts of electrons and positrons. Still, the issue of storing that amount of antimatter prevails. That said, the quantities needed for this kind of device (10 −13 gram of antimatter, or 10 11 anti-hydrogen atoms) are definitely more feasible than those required for pure antimatter weapons. This would result in less long-term contamination than conventional nuclear weapons, while packing the same strategic punch.īut the weapons would still cost billions, unless we find a more natural source of antimatter to harvest from. The technology could also theoretically be used to create small and fission-free (very low nuclear fallout) weapons. Ideally, groups like NASA and the US Air Force would like to use these methods to fuel spacecraft. This basically uses small-scale antimatter explosions to trigger 'tiny' nuclear explosions. There's something called antimatter-catalyzed nuclear pulse propulsion. It just wouldn't be fueled by a pure antimatter explosion. There's a slim possibility we could build a sort of antimatter bomb. In the 1966 Batman film, the villains are punched into 'antimatter' by Batman and Robin after being rehydrated from their powder forms. If it shifts the wrong way, if it isn't contained by the magnets and kept stable, the antimatter will come in contact with the sides of the container and will annihilate…well, whoever happens to be carrying it at the time. The next issue you'd run into is containment.

#Antimatter reactor free#

According to Landua, a gram of antimatter would cost approximately a 'million billion dollars.'īut let's imagine a situation where antimatter was free and abundant. So yes, antimatter would be stronger than other explosives, but not quite as catastrophic as some sources indicate.Įven if it were possible to produce antimatter at a faster rate, the cost would be enormous. So as Landua's commentary illustrates, unsurprisingly, an antimatter bomb isn't as spectacular as science fiction makes it seem. For comparison, one pound of antimatter is equivalent to around 19 megatons of TNT. In the Star Trek episode 'Obsession,' one ounce of antimatter reacting with matter is enough to blow up half the atmosphere of an Earth-sized planet. Even if that exploded on your fingertip it would be no more dangerous than lighting a match.'

'If you add up all the antimatter we have made in more than 30 years of antimatter physics here at CERN, and if you were very generous, you might get 10 billionths of a gram.