anti a-bomb

Not the reaction that matter and antimatter have but rather the splitting of an anti-atom's nuclei with anti-neutron.

Yes its not possible cause we dont have enough of it or ways to detonate it...but if we theoretically manage to capture and gather few grams of anti-matter and detonate their anti-cores with all the anti-thingies what would be the result?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why should it be any different from a normal a-bomb then?
It's just using nuclear physics the same way an ordinary one is.
I'd guess the only difference would be the matter/ anti-matter effects after the detonation, as the AM shock wave hits the atmosphere/ bomb casing (assuming you could contain the core until initiation).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes I don't think it would be super interesting, it's either much the same as a regular a-bomb if it detonates in deep space, and much the same as a pure antimatter bomb if it detonates in the presence of a reasonable amount of ordinary matter. Once the anti a-bomb explosion products encounter the ordinary matter they are just going to annihilate into a seriously large number of mostly high energy photons as usual. I can't really see any reason for anything different to happen. The total energy released would be the same with or without having an anti-nuclear reaction in there and would just be proportional to the mass of the antimatter.

Ok considering my first sentence perhaps there would be a kind of interesting freaky mix of the two kinds of explosions in a gas of intermediate density, so that there isn't enoough matter for the antimatter to annihilate with quickly but yet enough so that it will do so a bit more slowly. Although as Dywyddyr said the bomb casing itself would be enough for quite a bang

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

dunno,thats why i asked :$
Just thought.... cause ANTIs are charged 'upsidedown' and..something different could'v happen,just sayin.

 

Yeah, but if it's ALL made of antimatter then it'll behave the same way ordinary matter does.

 

so whats the different charge changes? why exactly antimatter and matter 'explode'?
An anti-hydrogen would work just like hydrogen in a AntiMatter world?
why (different charge is being)so serious?

 

Um, good question!
Have to get a real physicist to explain that. Maybe it's akin to having them in a particle accelerator?

Yep to anti-matter any other anti-matter is the same as matter and matter.

Wiki doesn't help much on that score... :shrug:

 

Well the only new thing about antimatter is that protons are negative,while neutrons dont change cause they didnt had any charge to begin with ,and positrons are yesterday.
damn they want 7 mils but can't explain a good ol' simple antimatter.

 

Presumably and anti-atomic bomb would preform in the exact same way the normal atomic bomb does---that's kind of the point about anti-matter.

The point is, in a typical nuclear reaction, you convert a very small amount of mass into energy. But in an interaction between matter and anti-matter, a very large percentage of the mass would be converted to energy. So the annihilation of the anti-neutrons in the anti-plutonium with the neutrons in, say, the case of the bomb, would cause a much larger explosion.

 

You have to detonate it on a planet made of antimatter. You cannot go there, so send a probe made of antimatter carrying the anti-a-bomb.

On a second thought, if you ever get into a war with civilization from an anti-planet, it would be easier to just send a pile of waste.

 

They would do the same,throw an anti-ipod and make us listen anti-music.

Well,if matter or antimatter explode there will be energy(assuming there is no anti energy)
So,antimatter after explosion there can't be AntiMatter-Matter reaction.
And u tried AM-M before the chained reaction then it would explode like a 'normal' AM-T reaction,i dont think u can have both :/

 

No. This is wrong.

Do you understand the physics at all?

 

It's actually not because of the different charges, this is just kind of a side-effect. It is a bit difficult to explain in a non-technical way.
Perhaps you have seen diagrams like this:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

This may or may not look simple to you, but the truth is there are a lot more terrible quantum mechanical things going on behind the scenes in such a diagram than what it seems to show at first. Even so they are still useful for us now to look at, even if we just worry about the superficial details.
So the one above shows an electron and a positron annihilating into a photon. There are several things to note, which may help you understand why this is allowed to happen, i.e. why this is a "legal" diagram to draw.
First, charge is conserved. Just like energy we can't go around destroying charge so if you want something to turn into photons (electrically neutral) then overall the stuff you start with needs to be neutral.
Second, a thing called "lepton number" is conserved. This just means the number of electrons (which are leptons, and count as +1) and positrons (which are also leptons, but count as -1) stays the same throughout the process. This isn't exactly fundamental but happens to be something ordinary particle processes obey.

So this explains at least why this is not allowed (violates charge conservation):

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You may ask, ok, so why can't the electron annihilate with some other things instead? For example you could replace the positron with a quark:

[I had an image but I'm only allowed three sadly, you'll have to use your imagination]

where the q+ is supposed to be a quark with positive charge. Ok, in reality quarks have weird charges like +1/3 and -2/3 etc but even if we have a +1 charge quark (perhaps let's say it is an anti-muon instead) we still wouldn't be allowed to have the above diagram.
...actually I'm having a hard time coming up with a simple explanation of why you can't do such things. Sorry. In the quark case it is because you'd violate colour charge conservation (just another charge the quark carries) but the muon case is a bit more subtle unless I'm being stupid and forgetting something obvious. You can do it if you stick in a weak interaction loop (which makes a flavour-changing current, but forget about that) but I don't know a nice reason you can't do it the way I drew it, except that photons can't change the flavour (type) of particle you have which forbids the diagram I drew.
Sorry, that got a bit complex. The lesson is that a particle can only annihilate with it's antiparticle, mostly. There are some exceptions that occur through weak interactions though.

Anyway I guess the point is there are a bunch of rules that need to be obeyed and that there is a lot more to it than simply that the charges are different. I have even kind of lied with the first, valid, diagram, because it doesn't conserve momentum which is also important. To fix this you have to release two photons, like so:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Hope that helps and doesn't just make your head explode.

 

nope it doesnt help and now am picking up the pieces of my brain =/
I didn't get almost anything ,am stoopid :$

Please give examples,examples helps things to get 'visual' only after that i understand things like that.

Am trying...
Anyway,at least explain how can we have antimatter-matter explosion AND the anti-A-bomb explosion at the same time,simplified if u can.

 

Because unless the anti-matter a-bomb is set off in an anti-matter surrounding the remnants of the a-bomb will react with everything else: that everything else being ordinary matter.
Not "at the same time" but the M-AM reaction would be subsequent to the detonation of the AM A-bomb.

 

i just learned yesterday how A-bombs work exactly and still trying to understand the AM thingie :
Imagine.
Lets say we're 1 mile over a desert in the sky. There is a bomb -lets say- 3 foot long inside a sphere with a diameter of 5 foot ,there is not matter (so we can have pure antimatter inside)inside the sphere, only the AntiMatterAbomb.
After AntiMatterAbomb goes Boom we removed the barrier/sphere and the energy from AntiMatterAbomb contacts Matter...Is the released Energy From the AntiMatterAbomb still ANTI MATTER(or anti energy)?
Cause if its not then there is normal explosion but if the energy while exploding is still "AntiEnergy"
Then there WOULD be AT-M reaction with the FORCE of an Abomb...speculating.

 

There's no such thing as ``anti-energy''.

The process in an anti-matter nuclear explosion would be the exact same as the process with a regular nuclear explosion. The difference would be that the end products of the explosion would be anti-matter. (As you undoubtedly learned, there ARE end products to the nuclear process.)

Once this anti-matter comes into contact with normal matter, it converts all of the mass stored in anti-matter to energy. The energy released with this reaction would be MANY times greater than the energy released in the anti-nuclear explosion.

 

NEW POLICY

We will call this the ``decider Policy''.

As moderator, I reserve the right to lock all threads or delete any posts which do not utilize appropriate language.

Examples which will get your post deleted, at my discretion:

-Using `u' instead of `you'
-Deliberately misspelling words like `stupid' (eg. `stoopid')
-Incomplete/incomprehensible sentences.
-Abbreviations no one understands.

All of these things piss me off, and they piss off people who I'd like to keep around. I absolutely can't stand reading something that looks like it came from a Mylie Cyrus twitter update. Anyone who wants to post in this forum can do so with at least a grade-school understanding of the English Language.

 

So the "pwner of physics" member title you have is ironic?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Bugger. Bugger bugger bugger.
Bishadi Mandate.
Deicider Policy.

Why can't I be crackpot enough to get that sort of recognition?
Life is so unfair.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

PS nice one Ben. (Not sarcasm in case you wondered).