I came across a CERN overview on antimatter research and it's got me thinking about priorities for research.

http://athena-positrons.web.cern.ch/ATHENA-positrons/wwwathena/FAQ.html

I'm generally strongly in favour of hard research. I think that the spin off's are often far greater than from directed research and that such research is essential for progress.

However reading the document I was struck by just how little likelyhood there seemed to be for practical applications and just how big the footprint of this research is.

"making antiprotons costs about 10 billion times more energy than is finally stored in their mass"

"the amount of antimatter that is produced each year in big accelerator labs such as CERN or Fermilab corresponds to an energy that would allow a 100 W light bulb shine for 15 minutes"

That suggests to me that each year they are expending enough energy in this research to power 10 billion 100w lamps for 15 minutes.

That while the world is trying to find ways of cutting down greenhouse footprints.

Is it worth it?

R0bert

not to me robert. but no one asks me, or you. another reason for democracy.

Demos, I'm not expecting to get asked about CERN's programs. European based so other than global treaties Australian voters are unlikely to have little input into their activities regardless of how our "democracy" runs.

I've posted the question because I found the balance of priorities interesting.

I since seen other resources that suggest that while there is little likelyhood of practical uses for antimatter the spin offs of the antimatter being produced are making some fundamental changes to the way other research into the nature of matter is being done. That has the potential for very real spin off's into day to day applications and the outside possibility of fundamental changes in the way we access energy.

If that occurs then it may alter the whole energy usage situation for mankind, if not then we may have added to the global warming problem for some learning which we can't apply in the real world.

R0bert

Dear Robert,

Don't the benefits of research - come in the long term? The initial stages are always the most difficult and expensive, aren't they?
But where would we be technologically - without them?

It might sound a lot, but it works out at a continuous consumption of only about 30 megawatts. In terms of world energy consumption, it's a drop in the ocean.

More power would be consumed on average by people watching soap operas on television.

I leave as an exercise to the reader to decide which is more useful.

> Is it worth it?

Yes. x 100000000000000