Can Antimatter Bombs Cause Explosive Destruction?

  • Thread starter Thread starter member 656954
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Antimatter Bomb
AI Thread Summary
Antimatter bombs, while often depicted as highly destructive in fiction, may not produce the explosive effects typically portrayed. The annihilation process primarily generates high-speed neutrinos and gamma radiation, which may not create a significant explosion without additional reactive materials. Suggestions for enhancing the bomb's explosive potential include using hydrogen or creating fictional materials that react violently to gamma radiation. The feasibility of constructing a portable antimatter bomb remains a challenge, as current technology does not allow for the safe storage or generation of sufficient antimatter. Ultimately, the narrative may require creative liberties, such as advanced containment methods or fictional science, to achieve the desired dramatic effect.
member 656954
I'm back to writing the sequel to my first novel and for reasons of maximum destruction, an antimatter bomb is in play.

But, from various sources an antimatter bomb is not as destructive as the movies - and novels - suggest. Antimatter annihilation results in high-speed neutrinos and a burst of high-frequency gamma radiation, but not much of an 'explosion' it seems.

I'm working through whether the gamma radiation will do the damage I need, but can anyone point me in the direction of how to make it physically 'explosive' as well?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You would be looking for something which reacts violently to gamma radiation, proportionally to its intensity. I don't know whether the gamma burst from annihilation would be able to create a fission reaction from a lump of uranium, simultaneously on all it's atoms due to the intensity & penetrating power of gamma rays. Alternatively, use the "unobtanium" approach and have a fictional material which reacts violently to gamma. It could be a key ingredient in solar sails, or some such.
 
Love unobtanium. Actually writing another story based on that premise, but anyway, thanks @some bloke, that works for me 👍
 
I haven't thought hard about this, but since the energy of individual particles produced in antimatter interactions is larger, they go farther. That probably causes the energy density to fall, even as the energy rises. Makes it harder to have an explosion.

As suggested before, you could make up some material with magical properties to keep this from happening. Or you could just make up a new explosive material. The "rhenium bomb". Or of that's too mundane., the "dilithium bomb". Since one has to invent new science and technology to even make and store enough antimatter to make a bomb, why not go all out?
 
  • Like
Likes Lren Zvsm
Tghu Verd said:
I'm back to writing the sequel to my first novel and for reasons of maximum destruction, an antimatter bomb is in play.

But, from various sources an antimatter bomb is not as destructive as the movies - and novels - suggest. Antimatter annihilation results in high-speed neutrinos and a burst of high-frequency gamma radiation, but not much of an 'explosion' it seems.
Quite a lot of explosion, actually.

Largest source of gamma rays is the neutral pions that escape and decay to photons.

Most energy initially goes to charged pions. And the about 300...400 MeV charged pions have a few dm range in condensed matter.
If pions escape to air and decay, most energy does go to neutrinos, but even then 1/6 goes to electron.
So the yield is always a lot to begin with. And you can limit those modest losses: the losses are maximum if the bomb is small (up to a few cm in condensed matter) and beyond that the pions will escape in some dam of air. The losses are minimized if the bomb is surrounded by a few dm of condensed matter in all directions, where pions are absorbed before they can decay.
 
Thanks @snorkack, I've now had a look into pion decay, but when you refer to "condensed matter", do you essentially mean anything but air?
 
Tghu Verd said:
I'm working through whether the gamma radiation will do the damage I need, but can anyone point me in the direction of how to make it physically 'explosive' as well?
Use Hydrogen. Instead of a fissile core you can trigger a hydrogen bomb either with your matter/antimatter annihilation or by directing gamma radiation.

You can make the H-bomb as large as needed and/or distribute tubs of the hydrogen isotope of your choice at strategic points. Blam! Refer Bikini Atoll for details.

1568069847798.png
 
Last edited:
Klystron said:
What about Hydrogen?

An atomic bomb triggered by antimatter could definitely work. I do try and use current physics where possible, so is a bomb of this kind likely to be small enough for a person to carry?
 
Vanadium 50 said:
Or you could just make up a new explosive material.

Don't know why that hadn't occurred to me, @Vanadium 50. Guess I just got stuck on antimatter as the best 'compact' bomb type, good reminder to get back to the big picture of the plot and not stuck in the weeds of any particular detail.
 
  • #10
Tghu Verd said:
An atomic bomb triggered by antimatter could definitely work. I do try and use current physics where possible, so is a bomb of this kind likely to be small enough for a person to carry?
Using current physics, it pretty much can't be done. Reread post #4. I don't mean that it's not theoretically possible, just not using today's technology.
 
  • #11
Sorry, @phinds, I'm not following. I know that making / storing antimatter is currently beyond our technology, so that's pretty much handwavium in the story because it's set downstream of our timeline and everything we'd think is miraculous or impossible is 'Egan tech', which is to say, developed in the late 2030's and early 2040's.

But which aspect of current physics do I need to ignore - or bend? - for an AM triggered H-bomb?
 
  • #12
Tghu Verd said:
But which aspect of current physics do I need to ignore - or bend?
As we both have said, neither. It's the engineering that is pretty much beyond us (obtaining / storing any significant amount of antimatter for any significant amount of time). AGAIN, reread post #4
 
  • #13
Thanks @phinds, but it was your 'Using current physics, it pretty much can't be done' comment in Post #10 that confused me.

I think of physics as the theory, I get that the engineering / technology aspect is not currently feasible.
 
  • #14
Tghu Verd said:
Thanks @phinds, but it was your 'Using current physics, it pretty much can't be done' comment in Post #10 that confused me.

I think of physics as the theory, I get that the engineering / technology aspect is not currently feasible.
You are correct and my statement in post #10 was poorly worded. Sorry about that.
 
  • Like
Likes member 656954
  • #15
H-bombs and A- Bombs fail safe- i.e. they don't accidentally explode, while an antimatter bomb would detonate on any failure (i.e. it comes into contact with matter). If a culture has the tech to make an antimatter bomb, presumably they could also make a fusion bomb with same yield, it would just be bigger and consume more fuel. The question is then what would justify the risk of the antimatter weapon
 
  • Like
Likes Lren Zvsm and essenmein
  • #16
A fission bomb has a minimum size due to critical mass.
Smallest bomb designed as explosive is W54. While Wikipedia does not disclose the mass of the nuclear core, the whole bomb - core, high explosive and containment - weighs 23 kg. 40 cm long, 28 cm diametre.
The yield of W54 goes up to 1 kT.
Demon Core was 6,2 kg, 89 mm diametre. It went critical twice, aided by reflectors both time. It did not explode either time... but I´ ve seen estimates of yield as much as 70 g, gone to just warming the core and not enough to disassemble the 6 kg.

The possible size of an annihilation bomb depends on the unknown confinement mechanism.
Full efficiency is 42 MT/kg. At that efficiency, a 1 kT bomb needs 24 mg antimatter.

For comparison, weight of safety match head is about 20 mg (without the underlying stick).
How small can you make the trigger mechanism?

If you can hide a bomb the size of a match head and yield of 800 T, it would be effective. Even if you cannot bury it under several cm of Earth and some pions escape to air upwards, those that start down into ground would still be effective, so a bomb whose yield is lessened to just 500...600 T would still be effective.
 
  • #17
BWV said:
H-bombs and A- Bombs fail safe- i.e. they don't accidentally explode, while an antimatter bomb would detonate on any failure

Yeah, I'm thinking that's potential suspense in the story, @BWV. And regarding a more traditional atomic bomb, the plot requires a person-portable, highly-destructive explosive device, essentially something that a mobile infiltration team could carry. Hence the antimatter concept, but I may need to tweak it, depends on how realistic sounding I can make it.
 
  • #18
snorkack said:
How small can you make the trigger mechanism?

If you are referring to the antimatter bomb, @snorkack, I was thinking that just turning off the magnetic containment is the 'trigger'. If you're referring to a conventional atomic bomb, then I'm out of my depth, so would revert to handwavium and keep on trucking.

snorkack said:
If you can hide a bomb the size of a match head and yield of 800 T, it would be effective.

My novel being a sequel, it's not much of a spoiler to note that the bomb is intended to go off in an underground base. So, it's kind of buried, but that's probably not quite what you mean :biggrin:
 
  • #19
IMHO, there are two problems:
First, generate enough anti-matter. It does not come cheap, or in sufficient quantity.
( IIRC, even StarTrek had to hand-wave manufacture via an early version of 'Transporter' technology that re-assembled atoms as their opposites... )
Second, portably contain sufficient quantity to do extensive damage.

Which are why I found Dan Brown's 'Angels & Demons' totally, irredeemably silly...

Due care, please ??
 
  • #20
No comment regarding Brown's novels, but I'm trying hard not to be silly, @Nik_2213, because I find careless sci-fi very annoying myself when I read it.

In terms of manufacture, I am thinking the laser beam / gold foil method to generate positrons is viable. I thought about using a particle accelerator of some kind to create antiprotons, antineutrons, or antihelium, but that's a bit too same-same with regard another aspect of the story, so I decided against it. Though partially ionized antihydrogen, along the lines of ATRAP, might work as well.

The containment is basically an advanced Penning trap and the 'extensive damage' aspect is what this thread is helping me work out. I am imagining, courtesy of @Klystron in Post #7, the inner core being the AM, with an outer shell of compressed tritium so the intensive gamma ray burst of the annihilation fuses the tritium and thus provides the more explosive aspect of the bomb.
 
  • Like
Likes Klystron
  • #21
You're not going to be able to store grams of antimatter in an ion trap for the same reason you can't store grams of matter in an ion trap.
 
  • #22
No mention of plot yet. So, a character designs large magnetrons at Varian in her spare time and equips model Mx9n's with a secondary raceway or magnetic pocket that can contain a few grams of anti-hydrogen/-protons (or positrons possibly cycling in the opposite direction?). Our heroes commandeer a working model, attach the anti-widget and inject anti-matter conatined by the B-fields but only for some limited time frame ostensibly to satisfy some science but also to increase tension. Tick, tick, tick... Run, girl, RUN!

The tritium shells can be hidden in the standard radiation shields, then a resonant cavity depending on the magnetron application, and for the big blast, presuming multiple bangs, the walls of the structure. Better run far...
 
Last edited:
  • #23
some bloke said:
You would be looking for something which reacts violently to gamma radiation, proportionally to its intensity.
Doesn't everything?

That was fun to type, but now I'm curious. Are there forms of matter that don't react violently to excessive amounts of gamma radiation? Thank you.
 
  • #24
Tghu Verd said:
If you are referring to the antimatter bomb, @snorkack, I was thinking that just turning off the magnetic containment is the 'trigger'. If you're referring to a conventional atomic bomb, then I'm out of my depth, so would revert to handwavium and keep on trucking.

My novel being a sequel, it's not much of a spoiler to note that the bomb is intended to go off in an underground base. So, it's kind of buried, but that's probably not quite what you mean :biggrin:
You don´ t need to turn off magnetic containment.
You might have magnetic containment on until it is destroyed by explosion. And the explosion triggered by failure of vacuum containment.
The said vacuum containment being designed to fail on incineration or mechanical mishandling.

How would you like an antimatter bomb whose warhead, magnetic and vacuum containment are designed to fit in fraction of a gram, and a few grams of the rest are camouflage designed to make it look like legitimate trash?

Like a bomb in a pen that looks and functions like an ordinary spent pen, but is designed to explode when burnt or crushed?

Sure, you could pack a pen with chemical explosives, too - only a few grams. In a trash incinerator, it is a minor mischief. In a waste paper basket, it could set the basket on fire or break a few fingers.

But how about a pen designed to explode with yield of many kT?
 
  • #25
Pardon, I did not see all the posts before posting about using a magnetron.

1) Can we read the first novel somehow, without violating privacy? Based on reading your posts, I like your writing style. :smile: FTR I have never been able to finish a Brown novel.

2) Magnetic containment for your antimatter need not resemble that needed for fusion devices. A large magnetron or gyratron made with the benefit of future materials science could believably suffice, especially since you can overload the magnetron since it is going to be destroyed in the blast.

3) You can hide your device inside AND power it from the RF installation using the gaffed magnetron or gyratron. Maybe your story has a collider or just a big RADAR installation underground or sterlizes produce for surrounding habitats.

4) The trigger can be highly scientific and dramatic if your bomb is pre-hidden in an underground installation. A special signal code can be sent to the Antenna of a radar or a special code inserted at the control console of a collider or food sterilizer or whatever fits your world plan.

If your plot requires that characters carry something in, it could be a replacement circuit board a/o chip that sends a coded signal to detonate. As in 3) above, your anti-matter widget can already be installed, waiting for a coded signal to produce anti-matter contained by the powerful magnetic field. Then your device can either detonate when overloaded or when commanded to.
 
  • #26
Klystron said:
If your plot requires that characters carry something in

It does, but they are literally like SWAT, carefully entering a hostile building, so the AM bomb looks like a bomb, I don't need to disguise it. So to the protagonist it looks like "an overlarge insulated water bottle tipped on its side" which already contains the AM.
 
  • #27
Vanadium 50 said:
You're not going to be able to store grams of antimatter in an ion trap for the same reason you can't store grams of matter in an ion trap.

This I don't get, @Vanadium 50. Apparently a Penning trap is used to store AM at CERN, so I'm clearly missing something (which is entirely likely, I'm way outside my knowledge zone!). How would you store AM for periods of months to a few years?
 
  • #28
Let's focus on matter for the moment. If I use an ion trap to store a gram of ionized hydrogen in the size of a water bottle (say a sphere 20cm on a side?) that works out to a charge of 100,000 C, a potential of 5 trillion volts, and a stored energy of 60 kilotons.

This is impossible: 5 trillion volts is enough - way, way more than you need - to turn the Penning trap itself into a puff of plasma.

You can store a few atoms in a trap. Not anything macroscopic.
 
  • Informative
Likes phinds
  • #29
Phinds, you think that's informative? Ask yourself how much more destructive it would be if I swapped antimatter for matter?

About 50% more. That's right - antimatter ions (in this hypothetical configuration) are more dangerous because they are ions than they are because they're antimatter.
 
  • Like
Likes phinds
  • #30
Vanadium 50 said:
that works out to a charge of 100,000 C, a potential of 5 trillion volts, and a stored energy of 60 kilotons.

Ah, yeah, that's not practical. Let me think this through because discussing the whole concept here has triggered a wicked plot idea that could solve the physics / tech issues, meaning I would not have to violate anything but the protagonists trust!
 
  • Like
Likes Klystron
  • #31
I no longer work designing or operating real weapon systems but fiction and history are another story. My idea of embedding the OP's 'bomb' inside the RF device is a play on WWII proximity fuze.

From 1940 we see a continuous-wave radar system with RF generated by a thyratron embedded in an explosive shell hardened for massive accelerations. Proximity devices were so effective they should have been developed for ground transport back in 20th C. if not for security classifications.

[Edit: added picture from 1940. This gadget looks deadly.]
1568241785763.png
 
Last edited:
  • #32
Tghu Verd said:
Antimatter annihilation results in high-speed neutrinos and a burst of high-frequency gamma radiation, but not much of an 'explosion' it seems.
That's true only in space, with no matter around. In your case:
Tghu Verd said:
...the bomb is intended to go off in an underground base.
All the radiation (of any kind) will be absorbed by the ground, heating it up: so 100% will be converted to a definitely big bang.

By some random source from the web 20kt means ~ 1g matter (antimatter) converted to energy.
 
  • #33
Tghu Verd said:
But, from various sources an antimatter bomb is not as destructive as the movies - and novels - suggest. Antimatter annihilation results in high-speed neutrinos and a burst of high-frequency gamma radiation, but not much of an 'explosion' it seems.
What the fuel turns into is not relevant. Nuclear bombs also release their energy largely in gamma rays. The point is all that energy ends up in the surrounding material, heating it up to millions of degrees, which causes it to expand. 99.99999999% of the damage caused by a nuclear weapon is done by the shockwave, not the flash.
 
  • #34
Klystron said:
[Edit: added picture from 1940. This gadget looks deadly.]

Yes it does :nb) (And I'm now on a tangent looking into these, just for fun.)

Rive said:
All the radiation (of any kind) will be absorbed by the ground, heating it up: so 100% will be converted to a definitely big bang.

and

newjerseyrunner said:
99.99999999% of the damage caused by a nuclear weapon is done by the shockwave, not the flash.

Excellent, that's the missing conceptual piece for me. I need a massive bang - it's a big base! - and this addresses my original concern, thanks @Rive and @newjerseyrunner.
 
  • #35
Rive said:
All the radiation (of any kind) will be absorbed by the ground, heating it up: so 100% will be converted to a definitely big bang.

Not any kind. Neutrinos don´ t participate in the bang.

The free path of pions in vacuum before they decay, in the range of 400 MeV energy, is around 10 m. So if you explode antimatter in a room filled with air a few m across, most pions that start off towards the airspace of the room cross the room and are absorbed in the opposite wall or ceiling. Minority of all pions decay in the room and waste part of their energy in neutrinos.

At a minimum, about 1/3 of annihilation energy goes via neutral pions to gammas which are absorbed and 1/6 of the rest goes to electrons/positrons. So absolute minimum 45 % energy into bang. Add energy from pions absorbed in nuclei where annihilation happens, muons that reach condensed matter before decaying... The energy that goes to bang starts from somewhere in 50...60 % if explosion is in midair and goes to maybe over 90 % in an enclosed room.

And even 50 % of 20 kT is a big bang. So is 90 % of 20 kT.
 
  • #36
I've participated in a few posts in this forum and wondered what ever happened to the input, so I thought that if you're interested in how your collective feedback translated to my story, the antimatter discussion sequence is below. I've hidden the text in a 'spoiler' so if you're inclined to ever read the novel you don't need to have advance knowledge, though I also don't think it's a big reveal in the scheme of things, but either way, it's your choice...

“Tin, if we need to do this up close and personal, then we needed something more substantial than the ten of us with whatever guns we can carry. Let’s cut to the chase, how are we going to win this?”

Tin’s mouth curled down slightly, but he nodded. “Excellent question, Guardian. And I guess it might help you to know the end game. So…” He whistled and raised his eyebrows, then looked over us toward the kitchen. We turned to follow his gaze as a low-slung plonk entered the room. It looked like a millipede carrying an overlarge insulated water bottle tipped on its side.

“As I said before, the base is down deep and not even dropping nuclear bombs would do much damage in the time we’d have for that. So, we sneak in, we lay an egg, then we sneak back out before the egg hatches. It that up close and personal enough, Guardian?”

I shrugged and he gave us a cheeky smile. “Any thoughts on what the egg might be?”

I took it upon myself to talk my way through the options. “The water bottle is obviously the egg, but unless you’ve rewritten the laws of physics, Tin, it’s too small to be a nuclear bomb.”

I did not say it, but there just wasn’t enough fissile material there to set off a chain reaction and a dirty bomb would not damage Colossus, not unless up close and personal meant setting it off right next to Colossus and I wasn’t even sure that was possible.

“I’m not sure you can build a wormhole bomb, but if you’ve managed that the war would be irrelevant. You’d not be waiting here. You’d be opening wormholes all over the place, and nobody would be able to catch you out.”

Tin nodded, “That would indeed be amazing, Guardian, but the resources to open wormholes, no matter the size, is well beyond us.”

“Yeah, I figured. Then there’s only one other thing I can think of, and I am not even sure I want to be right. You’ve created an antimatter bomb, Tin.”

It was half a question, but Tin’s eyes lit up and I knew I was right. The mere thought was triggering informational alarms; even a tiny amount of antimatter was extremely dangerous and while it would pack enough punch to do serious damage to Colossus, it would do even more damage to us. I did not try and hide my concern.

“You don’t look happy, Guardian. Yes, it is antimatter, that was clever of you, but rest assured, it is well contained. Very well contained. I am not inclined to blow myself up any more than you would be, I’d guess.”

The others looked confused, but I ignored them. “Exactly how much antimatter is in that bomb, anyway?”

“Five grams.”

Five grams. About a heaped teaspoon of sugar, yet it would release enough energy to challenge most nukes. It was impressive as such things go, but the details bubbling up into my memories told me there was a problem.

“Tin, antimatter annihilation releases lots of gamma rays but not much in the way of an explosion. That base in New Zealand is extensive, so how is your egg going to do any real damage?”

“You need to brush up on your physics, Guardian. Each gram of antimatter releases about twenty kilotons of energy. It is mostly gamma rays, true, but they heat the surrounding area, creating a shock wave as the very bedrock the base is built into liquefies and then explodes from the pressure. But just in case that is not sufficiently destructive, they also provide the energy to fuse an outer layer of compressed tritium, which is guaranteed to make a bang. You are looking at what I am sure is the very first antimatter atomic bomb, a marvel of technology weighing a mere six kilograms.”

I wasn’t skeptical, not really, but it seemed overly complicated. “And you’ve tested this?”

“Of course. There is nothing casual about this, Guardian, all our lives depend on my device being stable for transport, and then going off as planned. I’ve spent years developing this, the bomb works, let’s just leave it at that,” he said, sounding peeved.

Once again, I was left wondering what he was leaving out. You don’t need a physics degree to know that antimatter is dangerous, so bringing it along as some kind of ultimate hand grenade seemed suicidal. Even a nanosecond glitch in the containment field would turn us all to radioactive waste, and Tin knew it. Something about his too smooth delivery rankled, but I couldn’t put my finger on it, so I merely shrugged.
 
  • Like
Likes Rive
  • #37
Small scale anti-matter devices will probably not be doable because the containment has to be perfectly efficient. You can't have even a small amount of leakage because it would produce huge amounts of radiation. We're talking enough radiation that your agents would not want to carry that sucker. An amount of radiation that might set off the car alarm of cars you walked past. So an efficient containment will probably weigh more than a less exotic weapon.

Really big scale, with tech from the far reaches of science fiction, that is interesting. In the Lensman series

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_Lensman
one of the flashier weapons was a 1 km diameter ball of anti-matter. That's a couple 100 million tonnes of anti-matter. It was gathered rather than produced, so that got them a minor advantage. Just dump it onto the planet of the entities you are upset with, and be sure to be far away before it encounters any significant amount of regular matter. The containment was that it was rock.
 
  • #38
Tghu Verd said:
I'm back to writing the sequel to my first novel and for reasons of maximum destruction, an antimatter bomb is in play.

But, from various sources an antimatter bomb is not as destructive as the movies - and novels - suggest. Antimatter annihilation results in high-speed neutrinos and a burst of high-frequency gamma radiation, but not much of an 'explosion' it seems.

I'm working through whether the gamma radiation will do the damage I need, but can anyone point me in the direction of how to make it physically 'explosive' as well?

If you look at how a nuclear weapon works (fusion or fission) you'll find the output of the reaction is not an explosion either. Splitting a U235 with a neutron, for example, results in ~3 more neutrons, some of the energy in gamma, some in the kinetic energy of the fission products and the neutrons. To make this an explosion of the mushroom cloud type requires these moving fission products or the gamma radiation to interact with some matter, by interact I mean rapidly heat to stupid temperatures, and this now super heated plasma creates a massive over pressure, and that is the "explosion". I don't see why anti matter would be different?
 
  • #39
Random curiosity, in my little story also use anti matter extensively. But looking at it, the anti part is only the charged particles, (electrons/positrons and protons/anti protons), there is no "anti neutron", so when say hydrogen and anti hydrogen meet, is it not incorrect to say all the mass is converted to energy? If there are no anti neutrons, is it more correct to say only the mass of electron and proton is converted to energy, leaving a bunch of lonely neutrons?
 
  • #40
Tghu Verd said:
if you're interested in how your collective feedback translated to my story, the antimatter discussion sequence is below.
Just small remarks. Above that 20kt for one gram of matter was not specified as antimatter: thus since that five grams of AM will eat 5 grams of matter too, at the end 10 grams will turn to energy. Maybe you should tell that to your agents in time :nb)...
If you are that wicked type then you can let them notice it latero0)

Also, that 20kt really was some random source on the internet, as 'how many mass turns to energy in an A-bomb'. Maybe you better check it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes member 656954
  • #41
essenmein said:
Random curiosity, in my little story also use anti matter extensively. But looking at it, the anti part is only the charged particles, (electrons/positrons and protons/anti protons), there is no "anti neutron", so when say hydrogen and anti hydrogen meet, is it not incorrect to say all the mass is converted to energy? If there are no anti neutrons, is it more correct to say only the mass of electron and proton is converted to energy, leaving a bunch of lonely neutrons?
No, there are antineutrons too. Charge is just the easiest way to describe this stuff heuristically. Neutrons have a baryon number of 1, while antineutrons have a baryon number of -1. They're made of antiquarks. Anti* means that there is some property of the particle that has the same magnitude as it's regular counterpart, but with a negative sign attached to it. Electrical charge is just one of the properties than can do this.
 
  • Like
Likes Klystron and essenmein
  • #42
newjerseyrunner said:
No, there are antineutrons too. Charge is just the easiest way to describe this stuff heuristically. Neutrons have a baryon number of 1, while antineutrons have a baryon number of -1. They're made of antiquarks. Anti* means that there is some property of the particle that has the same magnitude as it's regular counterpart, but with a negative sign attached to it. Electrical charge is just one of the properties than can do this.

Ah interesting, I should perhaps not have taken my friends word for it. lol.

Off down the wiki rabbit hole I go!
 
  • #43
Rive said:
Just small remarks. Above that 20kt for one gram of matter was not specified as antimatter: thus since that five grams of AM will eat 5 grams of matter too, at the end 10 grams will turn to energy. Maybe you should tell that to your agents in time :nb)...
If you are that wicked type then you can let them notice it latero0)

Also, that 20kt really was some random source on the internet, as 'how many mass turns to energy in an A-bomb'. Maybe you better check it.

All I know is one mega ton of boom is 46.58g of mass equvalent, which is achieved with a 23g antimatter war head.
 
  • #44
essenmein said:
All I know is one mega ton of boom is 46.58g of mass equvalent, which is achieved with a 23g antimatter war head.
Not very useful to try to determine the size of the warhead from the amount of fuel needed. The nagasaki bomb had 6.2 kg of plutonium in it but weighted more than 4000kg.
 
  • #45
DEvens said:
the Lensman series

I absolutely devoured everything E.E. Doc Smith wrote when I was young and took the whole Lensman "irresistible force meets the immovable object" statement as fact for many years! Science fiction, eh, what a genre :biggrin:
 
  • #46
newjerseyrunner said:
Not very useful to try to determine the size of the warhead from the amount of fuel needed. The nagasaki bomb had 6.2 kg of plutonium in it but weighted more than 4000kg.

Nope it's not, this is just the amount of mass converted to energy to reach a given TNT equivalent yield.

In the case of the Nagasaki bomb, very little of the fuel was consumed, of the 6.2kg of Pu, (from wiki) about 1kg of that underwent fission, converting ~1g of matter to energy yielding 21kt.

In the case of anti matter you don't have that fuel efficiency problem, all of it will get "used", if you want one megaton energy release, you need only 23g of antimatter. The nature and size of the thing holding it is the science fiction part :D
 
  • #47
I'm following up on my antimatter bomb for my story, and I wondered whether neutrinos could potentially trigger a detonation? I understand that neutrinos very rarely interact with baryonic matter but does a neutrino interaction trigger annihilation?

If they do, what would be the energy released - my antimatter consists of positrons - and could that trigger annihilation cascade and thus an explosion?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #48
Tghu Verd said:
...my antimatter consists of positrons...
That'll just kill the show. To keep together few grams (!) of positively charged particles, while they are actively trying to rob electrons from anywhere around - by my humble opinion this is far worse than just isolating that AM.
From this point no amount of technobabble will be able to save it.
 
  • #49
Thanks @Rive, as @Vanadium 50 noted in post #28, I already know the whole set up is impossible, I was just wondering whether neutrino interaction would trigger a cascade annihilation. If so, it's a small point for my protagonist to protest upon.
 
  • #50
If protons can store positrons in a stabile way, isn't it possible to contain antimatter with non-barionic stuff?
Or rely on light pressure and neutral anti matter, rather than an ion trap?

(I don't think about hand held AM grenades, but the size of spaceship propulsion at least.)
 

Similar threads

Back
Top