How different would matter-antimatter explosion be compared to nuclear

In summary, the antimatter explosion can create a fireball and blast wave, but the formation of the fireball depends on the energy and type of particles released. Gamma rays are more likely to create a fireball if they are absorbed quickly in a small space. Charged pions may contribute to the explosion but are unlikely to form a well-shaped fireball. Uncharged pions will lead to gamma rays which can also contribute to the formation of a fireball. The thickness of the bomb shell and the distance from the ground also play a role in the formation of a fireball.
  • #1
Hurricane93
19
0
Would the antimatter explosion still make a fireball and thus a blast wave ?
If so, then how will the fireball form in this case ?

I mean, matter and antimatter annihilation produce very energetic pions, muons and gamma rays
and some other particles after decaying depending of course on which particle is annihilated. The gamma rays for example are in the 100+ MeV range which is much more compared with the ones we get from fusion for example and so, it has a shorter wavelength, thus penetrating materials easier.

So now, as we all know, nuclear fireball is formed when the energy of the particles are released into the air in a very short time, heating it up and causing these atmospheric changes or "blast" as we call it.

In the case of these very high energetic particles we get from the annihilation, is the same thing going to happen ?
In another way, because the energy of these particles is too high, it will likely travel more in the atmosphere until it loses enough energy to heat the air up, and thus taking much longer times, and therefore, no fireball !

How true can that be ? Am I missing something ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
The bomb shell would absorb a significant fraction of the released photon energy and lead to a fireball afterwards.
If the bomb is big enough, absorption in air (or even decays of muons, if the bomb is big enough) will give a very large, very hot region of air, so you get an even larger fireball.
Old thread with some numbers
 
Last edited:
  • #3
mfb said:
The bomb shell would absorb a significant fraction of the released photon energy and lead to a fireball afterwards.
If the bomb is big enough, absorption in air (or even decays of muons, if the bomb is big enough) will give a very large, very hot region of air, so you get an even larger fireball.
[ul=https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=640940]Old thread with some numbers[/url]

Well, this is some quote I found in the link you gave me :

"Does it mean that the energy of annihilation explosion can be spread out over a large volume of air, not concentrated near the original location of antimatter?

Looks like that."

So, if the explosion or the heat in other words is spear over a large volume, would that still make a nuclear-like explosion ?
Also, how thick should the bomb be to do what you suggest ? and if the pions decay, does that mean their energy doesn't contribute to the explosion so we have to get their energy before decay ?
 
Last edited:
  • #4
Also, how thick should the bomb be to do what you suggest ?
To absorb most photons from neutral pions, something like 10cm of steel should be sufficient. The result would be similar to a conventional nuclear weapon.

and if the pions decay, does that mean their energy doesn't contribute to the explosion so we have to get their energy before decay ?
Charged pions release their energy mainly via nuclear interactions or via the decay to a muon and two neutrinos. The relative fraction depends on the amount of material they have to pass.
Assuming the bomb is not close to the ground, most muons will decay within ~2km, and the resulting electrons will quickly lose their energy and heat the air.
I don't think this gives a well-shaped fireball, but it can heat air significantly. It takes approximately 4MT of TNT-equivalent to heat such a volume (with 2km radius) by 500K. The air close to the bomb will certainly get really hot for MT-scale bombs.
 
  • #5
mfb said:
Charged pions release their energy mainly via nuclear interactions or via the decay to a muon and two neutrinos. The relative fraction depends on the amount of material they have to pass.
Assuming the bomb is not close to the ground, most muons will decay within ~2km, and the resulting electrons will quickly lose their energy and heat the air.
I don't think this gives a well-shaped fireball, but it can heat air significantly. It takes approximately 4MT of TNT-equivalent to heat such a volume (with 2km radius) by 500K. The air close to the bomb will certainly get really hot for MT-scale bombs.

Ok. So to get a conclusion here, gamma rays will need something to absorb them in a little time and a little space to make a fireball. Charged pions are unlikely to form a well-shaped fireball either before or after decay. What about uncharged pions ?
 
  • #6
Uncharged pions lead to gamma rays.
 

1. How is an explosion caused by matter-antimatter reaction different from a nuclear explosion?

An explosion caused by matter-antimatter reaction is fundamentally different from a nuclear explosion in terms of the energy released. When matter and antimatter collide, they completely annihilate each other and convert their mass into pure energy according to Einstein's famous equation E=mc^2. This means that a matter-antimatter explosion would release much more energy compared to a nuclear explosion, which only involves splitting the nuclei of heavy atoms.

2. Would a matter-antimatter explosion have a larger blast radius compared to a nuclear explosion?

Yes, a matter-antimatter explosion would have a larger blast radius compared to a nuclear explosion due to the much higher energy released. The blast radius of an explosion is directly proportional to the explosive energy, so a matter-antimatter explosion would have a significantly larger blast radius compared to a nuclear explosion of the same size.

3. How would the radiation produced by a matter-antimatter explosion differ from that of a nuclear explosion?

The radiation produced by a matter-antimatter explosion would be different from that of a nuclear explosion. While a nuclear explosion releases a combination of thermal radiation, gamma rays, and neutron radiation, a matter-antimatter explosion would primarily release gamma rays due to the complete conversion of mass into energy. Additionally, the radiation from a matter-antimatter explosion would be much more intense and would have a wider range compared to a nuclear explosion.

4. Is it possible to harness the energy from a matter-antimatter explosion for practical use?

It is theoretically possible to harness the energy from a matter-antimatter explosion for practical use, but it is currently not feasible due to the difficulty in producing and storing antimatter. Antimatter is highly unstable and would require immense amounts of energy to produce and contain, making it currently impractical for energy production. However, research is ongoing to find ways to create and control antimatter for potential future applications.

5. Would a matter-antimatter explosion be more destructive than a nuclear explosion?

Yes, a matter-antimatter explosion would be significantly more destructive than a nuclear explosion due to the much higher energy released. The destructive power of an explosion is measured in terms of its yield, which is the amount of energy released. A typical nuclear bomb has a yield of a few hundred kilotons, while a matter-antimatter explosion would have a yield of several megatons or even gigatons, making it much more destructive.

Similar threads

  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
386
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
3
Views
989
Replies
31
Views
16K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Back
Top