This piece argues that antimatter could be feasible for space propulsion and we could start developing it now: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46073414
If you can electromagnetically trap enough antimatter to use it as fuel you could as well trap a miniature charged black hole that can be fed regular matter to produce power, which skips the whole inefficient part of making antimatter.
Physicists drive antihydrogen breakthrough at CERN
51–60 of 96 posts
Re: Physicists drive antihydrogen breakthrough at CERN
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
And earth contains so much of heavier elements.
As I learned it long ago in school, elements up to the mass of iron are formed by stellar fusion. That's the point where fusion is no longer exothermic. Any element on earth that is heavier than iron is the product of a supernova. So we live on a ball of supernova debris.
And elements down to the mass of iron can also be formed. But iron is at the bottom of the well.
Re: Physicists drive antihydrogen breakthrough at CERN
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
Before we get too excited, this current "breakthrough" is making less than 1 antihydrogen atom per second. This corresponds to a delivered annihilation power of less than 1 nanowatt.
Neutrons were first definitively observed in 1932. First nuclear reactor was 1942, and bomb was 1945. Once the science is established, we have smart engineers to make a short work out of it. Fusion energy is really the only counterexample in history, which makes me think we are still missing some crucial physics about how it works, for example in stars. Specifically the particle physics view of how it's reliably trig…
This is magical thinking. We know how fusion works in great detail. And “reliably triggered with minimal energy” is essentially not a thing, unless by minimal energy you mean something like 10 million times the energy of an air particle at room temperature, for every particle in a reactor.
What we’re trying to do is recreate the conditions at the core of a star - which is powered by gravity due to hundreds of thousands of Earth masses. And since we don’t have the benefit of gravity anything like that, we actually have to make our plasmas significantly hotter than the core of a star. And then contain that somehow, in a way that can be maintained over time despite how neutron radiation will compromise any material used to house it.
The reality is, we still don’t know if usable fusion power is even possible - there’s no guarantee that it is - let alone how to achieve it. The state of the art is orders of magnitude away from even being able to break even and achieve the same power out as was put into the whole system.
Re: Physicists drive antihydrogen breakthrough at CERN
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
Neutrons were first definitively observed in 1932. First nuclear reactor was 1942, and bomb was 1945. Once the science is established, we have smart engineers to make a short work out of it. Fusion energy is really the only counterexample in history, which makes me think we are still missing some crucial physics about how it works, for example in stars. Specifically the particle physics view of how it's reliably trig…
The antiproton decelerator at CERN has been operational for 25 years, and they have plenty of smart engineers there. Unlike in the 1940s, the underlying physics has been well understood for many decades. I would argue that nuclear fission is the counter example that happens to be surprisingly easy to do.
Also, 25 years to the breakthrough discussed in the article seems like a reasonably good pace.
Re: Physicists drive antihydrogen breakthrough at CERN
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
Neutrons were first definitively observed in 1932. First nuclear reactor was 1942, and bomb was 1945. Once the science is established, we have smart engineers to make a short work out of it. Fusion energy is really the only counterexample in history, which makes me think we are still missing some crucial physics about how it works, for example in stars. Specifically the particle physics view of how it's reliably trig…
> Fusion energy is really the only counterexample in history, which makes me think we are still missing some crucial physics about how it works This is magical thinking. We know how fusion works in great detail. And “reliably triggered with minimal energy” is essentially not a thing, unless by minimal energy you mean something like 10 million times the energy of an air particle at room temperature, for every particle…
That is what I meant, I doubt we really understand what 'powered by gravity' means. You could win a Nobel prize or two by discovering all the details involved here. You would also win a Nobel prize by definitively proving that nothing special happens, you just have high temperatures and high pressures.
The way we are trying to study fusion is like rubbing larger and larger rocks to produce more fire.
Re: Physicists drive antihydrogen breakthrough at CERN
#56Re: Physicists drive antihydrogen breakthrough at CERN
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
The antiproton decelerator at CERN has been operational for 25 years, and they have plenty of smart engineers there. Unlike in the 1940s, the underlying physics has been well understood for many decades. I would argue that nuclear fission is the counter example that happens to be surprisingly easy to do.
CERN is trying to do fundamental physics, not trying to weaponize antimatter. If/when it comes to that, the pace will pick up. Also, 25 years to the breakthrough discussed in the article seems like a reasonably good pace.
Re: Physicists drive antihydrogen breakthrough at CERN
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
Minor nit-pick but Hawking Radiation hasn't been observed and remains a theoretical prediction.
It's pretty widely accepted though. He himself hated the idea so you can expect he did the calculations thoroughly.
Re: Physicists drive antihydrogen breakthrough at CERN
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Fusion energy is really the only counterexample in history, which makes me think we are still missing some crucial physics about how it works This is magical thinking. We know how fusion works in great detail. And “reliably triggered with minimal energy” is essentially not a thing, unless by minimal energy you mean something like 10 million times the energy of an air particle at room temperature, for every particle…
> at the core of a star - which is powered by gravity That is what I meant, I doubt we really understand what 'powered by gravity' means. You could win a Nobel prize or two by discovering all the details involved here. You would also win a Nobel prize by definitively proving that nothing special happens, you just have high temperatures and high pressures. The way we are trying to study fusion is like rubbing larger a…
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNO_cycle
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton%E2%80%93proton_chain
Re: Physicists drive antihydrogen breakthrough at CERN
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it's mind boggling that overwhelming majority is it though? I mean literally everything has to start there and the only way get to heavier elements is via stars and many-many iterations. it's not like heavier things popped into existence.... or did they...
Yes, it's a little mind boggling because the typical human context is this rocky ball of what is ultimately a very uncommon distribution of heavy elements. It's a strange feeling to know that almost everything is utterly unlike the everyday human experience. If you turn down the uhm acksshuwlly a few notches I think parent post's point is quite obvious.
The alt text is on point.