Adding Reply Archived Topic: It will not be bumped to the top of the forum. Topic CERN is hoarding their antimatter Membername   Not a member? Sign Up Free (takes 20 seconds) Password   Forgotten your password? Post Font: Verdana Arial Black Georgia Comic Sans Impact   Size: Tiny Normal Big Huge   Color: Default Dark Red Red Orange Brown Green Olive Cyan Blue Dark Blue Indigo Black [ Check Spelling ] [ Post Preview ] [ LiveTags ] FAQ Keyword Search: Post Options Favorites Manager Notify me of new replies to this topic by email Notify me of new replies to this topic by private message Original Post Anonymous Posted at 1:24 pm on Nov. 18, 2010 Please delete this. I may have put our life in danger.

Replies medjai Posted at 6:01 pm on Nov. 21, 2010 I would expect dark matter to be "hoarded" by whoever first found the capability to "hoard" it simply because: 1. It's his/hers/theirs (whoever does this) 2. Other people can create antimatter (unless patents are making that impossible I don't really know), so anyone who makes it should be able to keep it. 3. You need a thimble's worth of it to produce a SHITLOAD of power, this doesn't seem like a lot but currently we are only (as far as I know) producing an atom or so at a time (a far cry from a thimble even though a thimble seems so incredibly small), if you can't "hoard" it then how can you mass up enough of it to do useful things. allsmiles Posted at 5:27 pm on Nov. 21, 2010 I wouldn't say that it is immoral. People are vastly overstating its abilities, also. CERN can be quoted as saying that all the antimatter they've produced would power a lighbulb for a few minutes. Old quote, but they've not had a production revolution since. medjai Posted at 5:23 pm on Nov. 21, 2010 Fair enough, but my other question is why is it evil or wrong of them to hoard if it they can? To me it seems like a smart thing to do because of the potential use and profit and because of the expense of creating new anti-matter. That said though, the article I linked and the patent I linked are not connected to one another. allsmiles Posted at 5:04 pm on Nov. 21, 2010 I'll clarify using the article you linked: When tens of millions of antiparticles were combined within ALPHA's magnetic trap, the system spotted 38 "annihilation events," verifying the existence of 38 antihydrogen atoms. The atoms lasted for just a tenth of a second, but even that duration would be long enough to allow for further study. This is the only instance of antihydrogen, and it lasted a tenth of a second. I realise I'd overlooked positrons and neutrinos, but still, we cannot hoard antimatter atoms at this point. medjai Posted at 3:26 pm on Nov. 21, 2010 From the first sentence of the Patent I linked to's "Abstract": A long-term antimatter storage device that may be energized by a low power magnetron and can function autonomously for hundreds of hours on the energy provided by batteries. I'm not sure what you mean by not being able to contain it long enough to hoard it, it can run for hundreds of hours on battery power alone and arguably it could run indefinitely (or for like 100 years straight since obviously eventually entropy would have an effect). To me this patent is saying that long term storage of anti matter is already possible and from what I understand these containers are already in use at Jet Propulsion Laboratories. That said it's not a crime for them to "hoard" it, it's theirs. If I build a machine that can produce antimatter and find my own way to store it, or get permission to use this storage technology, no one could call me a criminal for "hoarding" anti matter. It's possible that they are hoarding it, but why is that a bad thing? Obviously they would store anti-matter if they can, it has too much potential to just be like "lol who cares about this stuff let's not try and harness it" allsmiles Posted at 2:53 pm on Nov. 21, 2010 Yea, I should have been more specific. We can't contain antimatter atoms for long enough to hoard them. rivedi Posted at 2:53 pm on Nov. 21, 2010 Quote: from 24bslash6 at 1:30 pm on Nov. 18, 2010 An anti particle isn't pure energy so it would be pointless for faster than light travel.   And anti particle is basically a particle but with an opposite charge. If anti particles did the job, normal particles would be just as effective. take antiparticle, smash into particle, obtain 100% energy medjai Posted at 12:38 pm on Nov. 21, 2010 http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/11/17/5482096-antimatter-atoms-caught-at-last and the patent itself source medjai Posted at 12:36 pm on Nov. 21, 2010 Actually, containment methods already exist I've seen the patents myself. We can definitely contain anti-matter. Anti-matter is the most 'valuable' material. A very small amount of it is worth like 60 billion dollars. allsmiles Posted at 8:28 am on Nov. 21, 2010 Hoarding it? We can't even contain it... Resurrectus Posted at 2:32 am on Nov. 19, 2010 Quote: from Anonymous at 1:24 pm on Nov. 18, 2010 Please delete this. I may have put our life in danger. Please, the only thing you have put in danger is my time with this nonsense thread. Googoie Posted at 5:45 pm on Nov. 18, 2010 Quote: from Anonymous at 4:24 pm on Nov. 18, 2010 Please delete this. I may have put our life in danger. cunderthunt Posted at 2:06 pm on Nov. 18, 2010 Quote: from Anonymous at 1:24 pm on Nov. 18, 2010 My buddy hacked into their system and was monitoring it all last night, so he saw exactly what was going on with their experiment. The number they reported to the press is nothing close to what the true number of antimatter particles they have is. They are hoarding it for FASTER THAN LIGHT TRAVEL. yeah that was my first conclusion my second one was to power time portals my third guess involved garnishing anti-sandwiches deadsilent Posted at 1:31 pm on Nov. 18, 2010 So your friends hacks into CERNS system and tells you. So, you and his plans are to expose their lies to the world via LW? 24bslash6 Posted at 1:30 pm on Nov. 18, 2010 An anti particle isn't pure energy so it would be pointless for faster than light travel. And anti particle is basically a particle but with an opposite charge. If anti particles did the job, normal particles would be just as effective. Most recent 15 of 20 previous replies displayed.