LLNL Claims Cheap Anti-Matter Breakthrough

In summary: It's not clear to me what the energy efficiency of their process was. Can anyone infer it?In summary, a breakthrough at LLNL has been reported that could potentially lead to the production of antimatter at a more efficient and cost-effective rate. However, the current process still has low efficiency and the production of significant quantities of antimatter is still a long way off. There is also no evidence to support the claims that a short-pulse laser could quickly produce large amounts of positrons, or that automating the process would significantly increase production. The energy efficiency of the process is also unclear.
  • #1
sanman
745
24
Making the round of tech sites everywhere, is news of some LLNL breakthrough that could enable the efficient/cheap production of anti-matter:

https://publicaffairs.llnl.gov/news/news_releases/2008/NR-08-11-03.html

Well, seeing as how you can't get a higher-energy-density fuel than matter-antimatter, could this mean we could have rocketships running on the stuff?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
No. First, you need energy to make antimatter, and the amount you put in compared to what you get out makes the cost prohibitive. Second, these are positrons, which don't have much mass, and you can't put too many of them in one place before the electric field becomes so large you can no longer store them.
 
  • #3
Well, they're claiming some unprecedentedly high efficiency.

Furthermore, what if they find a way to do it for anti-protons?

What if significant quantities of anti-hydrogen could be produced?

Furthermore, how much mass would really need to be produced, to become useful for spacecraft ? Not that much, I'd imagine.
 
  • #5
sanman said:
Well, they're claiming some unprecedentedly high efficiency.

Yes, but it's still low in absolute terms. 100 billion positrons have an energy of 0.008J. If the plasma were obtained by plugging the machine into the wall - say 120 V at 10A for only one second (and I can assure you, it took far more energy than this), the efficiency is 0.0007%.

sanman said:
Furthermore, what if they find a way to do it for anti-protons?

Why would this work for anti-protons? The production mechanisms are completely different. The LLNL group isn't even trying to do this for antiprotons.

sanman said:
What if significant quantities of anti-hydrogen could be produced?

What if I could flap my arms and fly to the moon? You can keep saying "what if", but unless this is grounded in data, you are talking about science fiction, not science. Even a 100 billion positrons is not a substantial amount: a billionth of a microgram.
 
  • #6
Well, still, it's a positive step, and a tantalizing glimpse at what might be possible in the future.

A short-pulse laser like a femtosecond-pulse laser could make those 100 billion positrons pretty quickly. Your rate of synthesis would probably be limited by how quickly you could put gold targets in front of the laser. If you could automate the process to speed it up and have it going around the clock, then maybe you could produce more than miniscule amounts over an appreciable period of time.

It's not clear to me what the energy efficiency of their process was. Can anyone infer it?

How much anti-matter would one need, in order to send a space probe to Alpha Centauri nearby?
 
  • #7
sanman said:
A short-pulse laser like a femtosecond-pulse laser could make those 100 billion positrons pretty quickly.

Evidence?

sanman said:
Your rate of synthesis would probably be limited by how quickly you could put gold targets in front of the laser.

Evidence?

sanman said:
If you could automate the process to speed it up and have it going around the clock, then maybe you could produce more than miniscule amounts over an appreciable period of time.

Evidence?
 

1. What is the significance of LLNL's claim about a cheap anti-matter breakthrough?

LLNL's claim about a cheap anti-matter breakthrough is significant because it has the potential to revolutionize energy production and space travel. Anti-matter, when combined with matter, produces a large amount of energy, making it a highly efficient fuel source. However, producing and containing anti-matter is extremely expensive and difficult, which has hindered its practical use. LLNL's claim suggests that they have found a cheaper and more efficient method of producing and containing anti-matter, which could make it a viable energy source.

2. How did LLNL make this anti-matter breakthrough?

According to LLNL, they used a method called "laser-induced antimatter creation" to produce anti-matter. This involves using high-intensity lasers to create a plasma of positrons (anti-matter particles) from a gold target. The plasma is then compressed using another laser pulse, leading to the creation of a high-energy beam of positrons. This method is believed to be more efficient and cost-effective compared to traditional methods of creating anti-matter.

3. What are the potential applications of this anti-matter breakthrough?

The potential applications of this anti-matter breakthrough are vast. It could be used as a highly efficient fuel source for space travel, allowing for faster and more economical space exploration. It could also be used in power plants to produce clean energy, as anti-matter reactions do not produce any harmful byproducts. Additionally, anti-matter could have medical applications, such as in cancer treatment, as it can be used to produce high-energy gamma rays for radiation therapy.

4. Is LLNL's claim about a cheap anti-matter breakthrough scientifically verified?

As of now, LLNL's claim has not been independently verified by other scientists. However, their research has been peer-reviewed and published in a reputable journal, which adds credibility to their claim. Further studies and experiments will be needed to confirm the validity of their findings.

5. What are the potential drawbacks or challenges of using anti-matter as a fuel source?

While anti-matter has the potential to be a highly efficient and clean fuel source, there are still many challenges and drawbacks to consider. The production and containment of anti-matter is extremely difficult and expensive, and it is currently only produced in very small quantities. Additionally, the technology for harnessing and utilizing anti-matter as a fuel source is still in its early stages and will require significant advancements. There are also safety concerns, as anti-matter reactions can be highly destructive if not properly controlled. Lastly, there are ethical considerations surrounding the production and use of anti-matter, as it is a scarce resource and could potentially be used as a weapon.

Similar threads

Moisture increases attributed to humans
    • Earth Sciences
Replies
2
Views
3K
Current and Future AI Threats to Humanity and the Human Response
    • Computing and Technology
Replies
10
Views
2K
New Materials (new china industry),could this be the next bill gates($$$) industry?
    • Materials and Chemical Engineering
Replies
4
Views
8K
What colors and attributes could alien flora & fauna have?
    • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
15
Views
3K
Exhaust and engine accoustics for asthetics and performance
    • General Engineering
Replies
2
Views
6K
Hydrogen-Boron Plasma Toroid Fusion
    • Atomic and Condensed Matter
Replies
4
Views
6K
Hydrogen-boron High Density Plasma Toroid Fusion
    • Mechanics
Replies
3
Views
3K
More candidate cosmic string lens pairs in HUDF
    • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
2
Views
2K
Mathematica This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 226)
    • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
7
Views
2K
Mathematica This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 226)
    • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
7
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top