1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Slow Burning Antimatter

  1. Oct 24, 2011 #1
    I'm working on a story that involves planting a chunk of antimatter the size of the US capital... well, on the US capital. Unfortunately, I realized that it would probably blow up like an atom bomb the size of the Empire State Building, and would take half the solar system with it.

    The antimatter chunk is actually a Godzilla-esque monster. For my purposes, it's important that it be large, totally made of antimatter, and be able to not dissipate for at least a few days. So, my question...

    Is there a way to slow burn antimatter? Even something flimsy, like "the angle of collision wasn't head on" or "the particles were all colliding with non-matching antiparticles." I want something to appease the particle physicists. I could just flub the energy conversions (c to the power of... 0.25...) but the thought of particle physicists rolling their eyes would drive me crazy.

    Thank you!
     
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2011
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 24, 2011 #2

    Ryan_m_b

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    The moment antimatter touches any matter (e.g the ground and air) it will annihilate.
     
  4. Oct 24, 2011 #3

    Danger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Maybe you could propose a neutral energy field of some sort that would allow only a few atoms of antimatter at a time to seep through into the normal-matter environment.
     
  5. Oct 24, 2011 #4

    Ryan_m_b

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Which would have many other scientists rolling their eyes at such technobabble. The only option for separating matter and antimatter is with vacuum with the antimatter suspended in magnetic fields (which will of course only work if the antimatter is susceptible to magnetic fields e.g. it is anti-iron or made up of ions).
     
  6. Oct 24, 2011 #5

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    (To be clear though - it will only annihilate in equal amounts. To annihilate a chunk the size of the U.S. capital would require it coming into contact with an amount of matter equivalent to the US capital.)

    gatztopher: note that, to get the chunk of antimatter anywh
    ere near the capital from anywhere else, it would already have to have a containment system. If it were simply pushed there from some outer space location, the thing would glow like blazes from all the gas and dust it swept through passing through the solar system.

    So, how did it get to where it is without annihilating? Therein we be your answer. Obviously its existing containment structure is ... leaky.
     
  7. Oct 24, 2011 #6

    Ryan_m_b

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Whilst this is true it's a bit of a quibble, the energy released by a much smaller annihilation would destroy Washington DC. This isn't a very scientific way of working things out (just a fun one) but using http://www.carloslabs.com/node/20" [Broken], e=mc2 and converting joules to kilotonnes it looks like only 1.4 megatonnes or ~37.5g of annihilated matter and matter is enough to destroy the capital.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2017
  8. Oct 24, 2011 #7
    Presumably, Dave meant actual mutual annihilation, rather than "mere" destruction.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2017
  9. Oct 24, 2011 #8

    Ryan_m_b

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Yes I got that. I was just attempting to highlight how the OP may be able to still achieve his plot goal of destroying the US capital without requiring a US capital sized chunk of antimatter.
     
  10. Oct 24, 2011 #9

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Yeah. The OP seemed to get that, suggesting that that much antimatter would be enough to charcoalize a goodly portion of the solar system.
     
  11. Oct 24, 2011 #10
    Y'know, it warped in from another dimension, so I suppose I could go with "it's blanketed by an interdimensional field that only leaks a little matter at a time." I just need to read up on... interdimensional fields... I hope hyperphysics has a page for that.

    And flubbing the conversion factor, I'll leave that to the film version.
     
  12. Oct 24, 2011 #11

    Ryan_m_b

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I feel I should warn you that this makes no sense scientifically. It is purely http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technobabble" [Broken]. That's fine for science fiction of course unless you want your SF to be as plausible as possible.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2017
  13. Oct 24, 2011 #12
    That's one heckuva website. It's even loads on Moscow, the next target!
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2017
  14. Oct 24, 2011 #13
    It's additive technobabble - "the frog genes prevent the T Rex from seeing non-moving objects" - which is better than reformist technobabble - "T Rex's... they just can't see non-moving objects."
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2017
  15. Oct 24, 2011 #14

    micromass

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    If you want to sound scientific then please do not use words like "interdimensional field" or "another dimension". Every scientist reading that will roll their eyes.

    I'm not saying it isn't good SF. But if you don't want scientists rolling their eyes, then talking about dimensions is a no-no.

    In fact, things like "another dimension" make very little sense. A dimension is just a number indiciating the number of free variables in an equation. There are no things like "another dimension".

    Things like "parallel universe" would make much more sense.
     
  16. Oct 24, 2011 #15

    Ryan_m_b

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Either way making it nonsense. Which is fine for SF except you professed a wish to keep it within science or at least believable. That isn't possible if you are going to use this level of technobabble; whilst your explanation of X may be plausible people may shake their heads at A, B, C, D, E...
     
  17. Oct 24, 2011 #16

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    If you want the story to be entertaining (and not very plausible) how about you have your protagonist harvest a micro BH made of anti-matter. It should radiate very slowly in Hawking radiation, and since we know very little about them, you may be able to assert that if you can feed the BH matter, then the energy from matter-antimatter annihilation can overcome the binding energy of the BH and produce a large release of energy of annihilation.

    You can claim (in fiction) that there should be anti-matter BHs because matter and anti-matter were created equally in the BB, and existed "early on" at such densities that would allow micro BHs to form. Like my wife says to me when I complain about some off-the-wall plot device, "Hey, it's only a movie/TV show."
     
  18. Oct 24, 2011 #17

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    In the OP's defense, he hasn't really asked us for a critique on his writing technique.

    Perhaps now would be a good time for the OP to say yea or nay to widening his acceptance of our advice. :smile:
     
  19. Oct 24, 2011 #18
    I definitely appreciate the input, and also, I am open to literary critiquing. I imagine some scientist reading this thread, thinking "Nooooooo, cliche technobabble! And it was so close to being plausible..." and then their eyes roll so hard their neck breaks.

    Right now, the field with low permeability is looking like the best option. I like the antimatter blackhole, but I'm hoping to keep my monster sentient. What would the field be? Magnetic is a possibility, where the creature is subject to magnetism. I'm also thinking about the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Membrane_%28M-Theory%29" [Broken] - the monster's from another "membrane" where all the universe's antimatter had previously disappeared to and that membrane still mostly envelopes it on its inter-universal destruction sprees.

    Edit: Not that that makes any sense according to M theory... I wouldn't know. Touching M theory feels like a can of worms in any case.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2017
  20. Oct 25, 2011 #19
    We know enough about black holes to know that's complete nonsense. You can't "overcome the binding energy". Even if you dumped matter and antimatter in one simultaneously, any annihilation reactions that occur beneath the event horizon will just produce photons and other annihilation products that are just as trapped in the black hole as the particles that annihilated.

    There is really no believable way for some mysterious field to spontaneously prevent an antimatter monster from interacting with the planet it ends up on. And even if you had it, you're apparently talking about a living thing...which would rapidly suffocate on arrival as the field kept it from contact with the surrounding atmosphere...which would only annihilate with the matter of its lungs in any case.

    Why must it be antimatter? I'm having a hard time seeing how the plot could require this. What's the difference to the plot if it can't sear a distant planet's surface?

    As an example of one alternative...it's from a parallel universe, it could be made from quite familiar matter that is stable in that universe, but due to slightly different physical constants is unstable in ours. The instability could set in as soon as it reaches our universe, with the monster becoming sicker and more radioactive as radioactive decay products build up, or you could hand-wave some time dependence that will cause a rapid increase in the instability over time.
     
  21. Oct 25, 2011 #20

    Ryan_m_b

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Lol you're right this doesn't make any sense :tongue2:. If I could offer some advice; why don't you tell us the plot you want (ignore the science for the moment) and then we could try to help you fill it in with some plausible technobabble?

    That might be more productive (and less disheartening) than you suggesting something and us rubbishing it.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Slow Burning Antimatter
  1. Antimatter ? (Replies: 3)

  2. Antimatter book (Replies: 1)

  3. Antimatter self. (Replies: 10)

  4. Antimatter Fusion (Replies: 3)

Loading...