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

Antimatter. Too unstable. The safety issue alone will not allow it. How about just dropping the human population to round 100million. How you say! its easy. Just let the death rate over ride the birth rate. Stop giving ridiculous mounts of money to teenagers and try not too encourage them by adding to the problem. Lets look at it this way! If there were only 10 million people in Australia, there would not be any unemployment, there would not be any waiting at hospitals and to watch our love ones die right in front of us( as in the case of the little boy who just died) and the lists of things we have to put up with just go on,on,on. I will say it once more!
If you put ten rats in a box, they will fight and kill. But if you put two rats in the same box, they will breed and be happy.
See with the governments, the more people they have, the more power they have over us. If there were less people, then they will have to train me and give me more money. Or they can stick their job, and their business fails. This is what they are afraid of, and the pros are to make us take any thing at the lowest rate or they can simply say, we will just get someone else. But the cons are far more serious. The maths is simple! The more people, the more we use and burn. And thats a fact.

evolution as I understand it current uses are for very small amounts of antimatter with short lifetimes. There appears to be significant work on containment technologies and the amounts involved are so minute that safety is not a real issue.

The most likely win's from the limited reading I've done may come out of a better understanding of ordinary matter rather than the use of antimatter itself.

I'd not done the maths Sylvia has provided (I got lazy) and had assumed the total energy usage to be greater than it is.

I'd prefer a smaller population but can't see any ethically/politically acceptable solution to that in the near future so we work with what we have got. Decisions about how we use our resources will not always be easy.

I read a story many years ago which seems to fit. It goes something like the following.

A traveller lost and thirsty in an arid place comes to a water pump. Next to the water pump is a small bottle of water and a note.
The note tells the reader to use the water to prime the pump and then pump like mad to get the pump working. And please fill the bottle again when you are finished.

Should the traveller drink the water or use it to get the pump working?

More extreme than putting a small portion of our resources into what may be long term research but some of the same principles.

My impression from some of the follow up reading I've done after creating the thread is that the research is much more likely to produce usable outcomes than I initially thought. That it's not a long shot but rather something with real benefits and with the potential for major payoffs which would far outweigh the short term costs.

R0bert

First of all, I need to read up on some of my failings. And to be honest, thats a lot. But to answer your riddle, the desert is full of water, it only needs to be found. But as you know, its a bull s--t question, and it will all depend on what the circumstances are. In case you don't know, there is an answer for just about everything. I would say drink the water and move on. to waste it on a hope, is not logical.

Sorry about the above, sometimes I get a little off track. Antimatter
is still a risk because of it getting into the wrong hands. Yes containment technology is improving, but its still a long way from being fool proof.
I here the US is making antimatter weapon's. This can be good.

I ment CANT be good. Not having a good day.lol

Evolution, one of the points from the article I referenced in my original post was the following comment

"Q: Can you build antimatter bombs?
A: No. The destructive power of a 10 MT hydrogen bomb (of which several thousand exist) corresponds to about 250 g of antimatter. It would take 2.5 million years of the entire energy production of the Earth to produce this amount. "

If the US is building bombs they must be very very small ones or their technology is way ahead of anything that CERN is doing.

R0bert