Positron Generator: Create Anti-Particles & 100% E=MC2?

  • Thread starter Thread starter piddilingjr
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Generator Positron
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the feasibility of generating positrons using high-energy electron beams directed at a positively charged plate in a vacuum, and whether this could lead to a 100% energy-to-matter conversion based on E=mc². Current technology allows for only a small percentage of mass to be converted into energy, with the best colliders achieving around 0.7% efficiency. The potential for creating and controlling positrons is acknowledged, but the energy required to produce the initial electron beam greatly exceeds the energy produced from the resulting particles. The conversation emphasizes the limitations of existing technology and the need for advancements in the field over the next 15-20 years. Overall, achieving a fully efficient energy-to-matter generator remains a theoretical concept at this point.
piddilingjr
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
if you have a beam of high energy electrons ( enough energy to create positrons) that hit plate in a vacuum that was positively charged could you produce anit particles without the particels annihilating it self (hence the vacuum) and have the positivly charge particles suspended in a magnetic field? and could you have a 100% energy to matter generator. for example puting in 5000 watts and getting out 5.5632e-14 kgs of mass? direct e=mc2 or would this system be partly efficient
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You could convert 100% of the mass to energy or vice versa.. BUT not with the technology that exists today or atleast for the next 15-20 years. Correct me if i am wrong but as of today u can convert i guess 0.7 % of mass to energy in the worlds best colliders.
When u burn a paper u are converting around 0.001% or even lesser!
 
rgujju said:
When u burn a paper u are converting around 0.001% or even lesser!

It's worth a taking a moment to do the math before posting... Not everyone reading your post will understand that by "or even lesser", you mean five decimal orders of magnitude. That's the difference between a glass of water and a decent-sized swimming pool.

Besides, 0.00000001% makes your point so much better :smile:
 
piddilingjr said:
if you have a beam of high energy electrons ( enough energy to create positrons) that hit plate in a vacuum that was positively charged could you produce anit particles without the particels annihilating it self (hence the vacuum) and have the positivly charge particles suspended in a magnetic field? and could you have a 100% energy to matter generator. for example puting in 5000 watts and getting out 5.5632e-14 kgs of mass? direct e=mc2 or would this system be partly efficient

There are two questions here: generating positrons, and storing/controlling them to do something interesting with them. If you google for "positron generation" and "positron storage" you'll find a bunch of interesting links, get a sense of just how effective the current techniques are.

No matter what we do, the total amount of energy that we put into creating the initial beam of high-energy electron will far exceed the energy of the massive particles created by the collisions of that beam with its target.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top