Ephemeral Antimatter Trapped for Amazingly Long 16 Minutes

[handsoff241]

---

1. Anti-matter doesn't produce energy but anti-matter interacting with normal matter will produce lots of energy.
2. There probably exists a mirror image of our universe that is exactly the same as ours only that their normal matter is our anti-matter and vice versa for us.

1.How?
2. Where? And how probable is your probably?

[rodsky]

1.How?
2. Where? And how probable is your probably?

1. Source Can antimatter be used as an energy source? | Angels & Demons - The science behind the story

"Although the annihilation of matter and antimatter releases energy, antimatter does not occur in nature: it has to be created. This requires in itself a lot of energy. Even the storage of antimatter requires a lot of energy.

The inefficiency of antimatter production is enormous: you get only a tenth of a billion (10-10) of the invested energy back. If we could assemble all the antimatter we've ever made at CERN and annihilate it with matter, we would have only enough energy to light a single electric light bulb for a few minutes."

2. Not a direct response, but just an insight--even if a probability is only a billionth of something, it's still a probability.

-RODION

[fritzd]

1.How?
2. Where? And how probable is your probably?

1. Here's an example for electron and positron (antiparticle of elctron) annihilation. The end result is highly energy gamma ray radiation and other particles which may decay again to other particles or radiation. Other subatomic reactions annihilate in a different way but you always end up with most of the mass converted to energy. Electron–positron annihilation

Here's the paper for the original experiment in 1961. Phys. Rev. 124, 1851 (1961): Single-Quantum Annihilation of Positrons

2. As sir rodsky said, it's just a hypothesis. An anti-universe of our universe is physically possible but of courses there is no way of proving this for now.

[THE SKULLS]

Can antimatter be used as an energy source? | Angels & Demons - The science behind the story

ahahahaha, mao ra ni na fiction movie nga fact ang details.

bitaw, sa ngalan pa lang na anti-matter. anti jud.
maka-harness ka ug energy kung mo-collide na ang anti sa matter. mura bombardment of unsa pa na dha.

if buhat ta ug dakong makina, then ato i-fuel ang anti-matter, possibly tingali kaayo. pero mahal pa lang kaayo pag-extract aning anti matter oi.

basin ug abundant ni somewhere else.

[rodsky]

Can antimatter be used as an energy source? | Angels & Demons - The science behind the story

ahahahaha, mao ra ni na fiction movie nga fact ang details.

By expressing this statement alone, it is clear you don't have a clear grasp of the meaning and objectives of the literary and cinematic art form known as science fiction. There are indeed good science fiction stories and movies out there that are actually based on real science--it's the BAD science fiction movies that DO NOT follow real-world scientific principles and logic.

-RODION

[THE SKULLS]

Dan Brown is one of my favorite pen man.

About the books iya gisulat, nahan ko sa Deception Point. And I never equated it as a Fiction, kay mura man ug facts gud iya gisulti, aw sagul facts diay. But i was merely entertained. That's all.

[rodsky]

Dan Brown is one of my favorite pen man.

About the books iya gisulat, nahan ko sa Deception Point. And I never equated it as a Fiction, kay mura man ug facts gud iya gisulti, aw sagul facts diay. But i was merely entertained. That's all.

Ayaw palosot Klaro kaayo ang statement nimo "mao ra ni", which is plainly wrong--daghan pod baya ang science fiction stories nga fact ang details.

-RODION

[handsoff241]

Here's an example for electron and positron (antiparticle of elctron) annihilation. The end result is highly energy gamma ray radiation and other particles which may decay again to other particles or radiation. Other subatomic reactions annihilate in a different way but you always end up with most of the mass converted to energy.

Isn't nuclear reactor plants cheaper compared to that antimatter energy? Or is it(antimatter energy) worth the study?

I assume that this question will yield only the bounds of your probability.

Maybe we can use it to annihilate cancer cells?

"Although the annihilation of matter and antimatter releases energy, antimatter does not occur in nature: it has to be created. This requires in itself a lot of energy. Even the storage of antimatter requires a lot of energy.

The inefficiency of antimatter production is enormous: you get only a tenth of a billion (10-10) of the invested energy back. If we could assemble all the antimatter we've ever made at CERN and annihilate it with matter, we would have only enough energy to light a single electric light bulb for a few minutes."

[THE SKULLS]

Ayaw palosot Klaro kaayo ang statement nimo "mao ra ni", which is plainly wrong--daghan pod baya ang science fiction stories nga fact ang details.

-RODION

ngano palosot man?
makatawa man lang ko nimo rods oi. sorry sa OT ha.

and who told you na fiction books can't have facts in it?
pagklaro dha oi.

by the way, if naa lang jud mo-incorporate ani na discovery into launching a ship thru molecular bombardment, basin ma-achieve pa near to speed of light ang gikusgon sa mga craft gamit para exploration sa outer space.

gadula-dula ra ako imagination, pero possibly sad gamiton jud, kay small amount ra gud, then makabuhat ana ka dako na after-effect.

kay sa sapce man gud, assumed to be vacuum or frictionless. ideally. if makakaplag ka'g ingon ani ka sipa^ na initial velocity nga tremendous jud. pastilan. Han Solo jud ka ani ba.

[rodsky]

and who told you na fiction books can't have facts in it?
pagklaro dha oi.

Ikaw. Even if ang issue movie instead of book, when you said "ahahahaha, mao ra ni na fiction movie nga fact ang details" you basically suggested that.

-RODION