• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

I'm speechless - US Airforce working on antimatter weaponry

Status
Not open for further replies.

Phoenix

Member
Okay, I just would have thought that we would have figured out that this just isn't a wise course of action to pursue, but we are actually actively trying to build anti-matter based weaponry. Fortunately we're dumb enough as a species to have not figured out adequate containment outside of esoteric magnetic field containment and currently the cost of actually producing antimatter from particle accelerators is incredible (but if you're at war - that doesn't really matter).

A choice section from the article and link follow:

The U.S. Air Force is quietly spending millions of dollars investigating ways to use a radical power source -- antimatter, the eerie "mirror" of ordinary matter -- in future weapons.

The most powerful potential energy source presently thought to be available to humanity, antimatter is a term normally heard in science-fiction films and TV shows, whose heroes fly "antimatter-powered spaceships" and do battle with "antimatter guns."

But antimatter itself isn't fiction; it actually exists and has been intensively studied by physicists since the 1930s. In a sense, matter and antimatter are the yin and yang of reality: Every type of subatomic particle has its antimatter counterpart. But when matter and antimatter collide, they annihilate each other in an immense burst of energy.

During the Cold War, the Air Force funded numerous scientific studies of the basic physics of antimatter. With the knowledge gained, some Air Force insiders are beginning to think seriously about potential military uses -- for example, antimatter bombs small enough to hold in one's hand, and antimatter engines for 24/7 surveillance aircraft.

More cataclysmic possible uses include a new generation of super weapons -- either pure antimatter bombs or antimatter-triggered nuclear weapons; the former wouldn't emit radioactive fallout. Another possibility is antimatter- powered "electromagnetic pulse" weapons that could fry an enemy's electric power grid and communications networks, leaving him literally in the dark and unable to operate his society and armed forces.

Following an initial inquiry from The Chronicle this summer, the Air Force forbade its employees from publicly discussing the antimatter research program. Still, details on the program appear in numerous Air Force documents distributed over the Internet prior to the ban.

These include an outline of a March 2004 speech by an Air Force official who, in effect, spilled the beans about the Air Force's high hopes for antimatter weapons. On March 24, Kenneth Edwards, director of the "revolutionary munitions" team at the Munitions Directorate at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida was keynote speaker at the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts (NIAC) conference in Arlington, Va.

In that talk, Edwards discussed the potential uses of a type of antimatter called positrons.

Physicists have known about positrons or "antielectrons" since the early 1930s, when Caltech scientist Carl Anderson discovered a positron flying through a detector in his laboratory. That discovery, and the later discovery of "antiprotons" by Berkeley scientists in the 1950s, upheld a 1920s theory of antimatter proposed by physicist Paul Dirac.

In 1929, Dirac suggested that the building blocks of atoms -- electrons (negatively charged particles) and protons (positively charged particles) -- have antimatter counterparts: antielectrons and antiprotons. One fundamental difference between matter and antimatter is that their subatomic building blocks carry opposite electric charges. Thus, while an ordinary electron is negatively charged, an antielectron is positively charged (hence the term positrons, which means "positive electrons"); and while an ordinary proton is positively charged, an antiproton is negative.

The real excitement, though, is this: If electrons or protons collide with their antimatter counterparts, they annihilate each other. In so doing, they unleash more energy than any other known energy source, even thermonuclear bombs.

The energy from colliding positrons and antielectrons "is 10 billion times ... that of high explosive," Edwards explained in his March speech. Moreover, 1 gram of antimatter, about 1/25th of an ounce, would equal "23 space shuttle fuel tanks of energy." Thus "positron energy conversion," as he called it, would be a "revolutionary energy source" of interest to those who wage war.


Link to the madness
 

bishoptl

Banstick Emeritus
John Titor saw this coming.

When I say "John Titor", I'm referring to this empty Snapple Lemon Iced Tea bottle on my desk. It is from the future, you see.
 

aaaaa0

Member
Yeah whatever. We can't currently make antimatter in quantities large enough to make this useful, and won't be able to for a long time anyway.
 

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
As if thermonuclear devices weren't enough...

...still, this is a fool's errand. The primary difference between this and nuclear devices is that nuclear devices release stored energy... any antimatter weapon would take the production of controlled energy equivalent to the blast just to make the antimatter in the first place, because, you know, no significant amount of antimatter whatsoever exists naturally in our neck of the universe.
 
D

Deleted member 1159

Unconfirmed Member
Yip, you gonna kill somethin, might as well kill it dead...
 
D

Deleted member 1235

Unconfirmed Member
America needs to make this a bit faster to guard against WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

hang on.....
 

Dilbert

Member
Hitokage said:
As if thermonuclear devices weren't enough...

...still, this is a fool's errand. The primary difference between this and nuclear devices is that nuclear devices release stored energy... any antimatter weapon would take the production of controlled energy equivalent to the blast just to make the antimatter in the first place, because, you know, no significant amount of antimatter whatsoever exists naturally in our neck of the universe.
Yes, but the point would be to cause a) significant local devastation and b) gamma ray damage over a wide area with no permanent fallout. If that met military objectives, the cost -- both in terms of energy investment and dollars -- would be deemed worthwhile.

Of course, since all the antimatter containment I've ever heard about relied on magnetic fields, how bad would it be to develop a stockpile of antimatter weapons...and then have your enemy fire off an atmospheric nuclear blast for the EMP effects? BAD times, methinks.
 

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
-jinx- said:
Yes, but the point would be to cause a) significant local devastation and b) gamma ray damage over a wide area with no permanent fallout. If that met military objectives, the cost -- both in terms of energy investment and dollars -- would be deemed worthwhile.

Of course, since all the antimatter containment I've ever heard about relied on magnetic fields, how bad would it be to develop a stockpile of antimatter weapons...and then have your enemy fire off an atmospheric nuclear blast for the EMP effects? BAD times, methinks.
That's the other thing. Containment has to be 100% stable, secure, and above all CONSTANT or the surrounding area is toast. Of course, the flip side is that you don't have to worry about detonators or anything like that, just let the container break with ground impact and it'll blow.
 

G4life98

Member
hopefully this leads to new energy production tech and antimatter engines...with a minimum of destruction in between.
 

Screaming_Gremlin

My QB is a Dick and my coach is a Nutt
I'm all for it if it can lead to some new energy sources or better engines for future spacecraft. Besides, we can already practically destroy the earth the way it is, we'll just have some new ways to do it.
 

Poody

What program do you use to photoshop a picture?
its really interesting but lets be realistic its not economical and won't be till the next century .
 

explodet

Member
tosscotty.jpg


The containment field is collapsing, Captain!
The whole thing'll blow!
 

sc0la

Unconfirmed Member
Hitokage said:
As if thermonuclear devices weren't enough...

...still, this is a fool's errand. The primary difference between this and nuclear devices is that nuclear devices release stored energy... any antimatter weapon would take the production of controlled energy equivalent to the blast just to make the antimatter in the first place, because, you know, no significant amount of antimatter whatsoever exists naturally in our neck of the universe.
Bingo.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom