Important Message

You are browsing the archived Lancers Reactor forums. You cannot register or login.
The content may be outdated and links may not be functional.


To get the latest in Freelancer news, mods, modding and downloads, go to
The-Starport

Anti-matter weapons

This is where you can discuss your homework, family, just about anything, make strange sounds and otherwise discuss things which are really not related to the Lancer-series. Yes that means you can discuss other games.

Post Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:00 pm

have we even discovered antimatter yet? because it seems to me that you can make all the "antimatter weapons" you want , but none of them will work without.... well, antimatter. please correct me if im wrong


@whasp commander
wouldnt the amount of energy be different, because of the fact that antimatter has negative energy?

Post Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:34 pm

well, well, well. just another way to BLOW up the neighborhood. sometimes i wonder if and when and how we can all get along, but i know that isnt ever going to happen if we dont start trusting eachohter and putting all of this into peacefull science instead of finding more and better ways to kill eatchother. and i thought i was depressed enuf from my x and crap. uggghhhh sometimes i wish i had someone to talk to. sorry for going on and on.

Post Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:46 pm


@whasp commander
wouldnt the amount of energy be different, because of the fact that antimatter has negative energy?

If that were so, then the two masses of antimatter and matter would cancel out completely, and no energy would be produced. The matter would effectively be destroyed, and not converted into another form.
But then take the opposite of that statement. If matter and antimatter cancelled out to equal no energy and no matter, then you could theoretically take no energy and no matter and get antimatter and normal matter. (Matter gets created)
And as far as I know, the laws of conservation of energy and conservation of matter can't be ignored.

Edit: Sig neutralized.


Edited by - Whasp Commander on 10/5/2004 9:55:20 PM

Post Tue Oct 05, 2004 10:02 pm

Yeah, 14 TeraJoules is something to quake at.
Although the only practical application antimatter 'weapon' is a bomb, cuz think about it:
antimatter gun: shoots a tiny globule of antimatter, it touches matter as soon as it leaves the barrel, big explosioin, killing the wielder of the weapon.
Hand grenade: the amount of a-matter in a grenade that size would either be gigantic, killing the wielder, or tiny, making the weapon innefective.

Imagine the crater though, a completely featureless, perfect hemisphere in the ground....

Post Tue Oct 05, 2004 11:30 pm

antimatter is understood, to an extent, dark matter is the tricky one. anti matter would be the ultimate source of energy.. if we can produce enough of it cheaply. it'll ultimately make energy an insignificant thing. there'll be just too much of it going around.

Post Wed Oct 06, 2004 3:21 am

Spin - The article states that we have known about anti-matter since the 1930's.

Post Wed Oct 06, 2004 5:11 am

in theory. it wasn't fabricated until relatively recently (CERN or LLL?) only in miniscule amounts, costs a fortune and is very unstable.

the US, esp the Air Force, is researching a whole range of super-tech weapons that are/will be far in advance of anything available at the moment. incredibly so. i have some good linkys at home, will add them when i get back later.

Post Wed Oct 06, 2004 7:10 am


The going rate, according to Wikipedia, is $25 billion per gram.
Ehhmmmm Sorry about this, but we all know you can weigh Matter, it has a variety of weight tables, but anti-matter is the opposite of matter, so how can matter have any weight at all??

like I said: Anti matter is the opposite of matter, so anti-matter already does exist, think of positrons. positrons are kinda what you can call a positive elektron (an elektron has a negative value)there is proof of theexistence of positrons, they were found out long ago, only they do not exist in nature, so basically, they are by nature rather unstable, so to gain a "gram" (see above paragram) would use and need more resources then we will ever have.

On the Positron, as I recall it, a Positron is formed when a Proton splits in two, it will produce a Positron and a neutron (im not sure about this, it has been rather a long time, so if anyone knows the answer, please tell)

Post Wed Oct 06, 2004 10:48 am

it's not weight, it's mass. weight is a quality of mass under gravity. anti-matter has as much mass as an equal amount of matter, therefore anti-matter under gravity has weight.

Post Wed Oct 06, 2004 10:54 am


anti-matter is the opposite of matter, so how can matter have any weight at all??


Anti-matter is not "negative" in any way. It has real mass, and combines in exactly the same way as regular matter. So, "anti-hydrogen" is an antiproton being orbited by a positron. "Anti-water" is two atoms of anti-hydrogen with one of anti-oxygen. It all works.


a Positron is formed when a Proton splits in two


Dead on. Positrons are emitted from certain kinds of nuclear decay, such as that of Carbon-11, which becomes Boron-11 after one proton turns into a neutron, a positron and a neutrino. Positrons can also be produced when photons of energy greater than 1.022 MeV interact with matter. However, in this process, an electron is also formed at the same time, so the pair generally annihilate at once.

Post Wed Oct 06, 2004 2:50 pm

I heard somewhere that there was (therorised to be) both antimatter and negative matter. They're both opposite of matter, but they're also kinda opposite to eachother. One example is that antimatter would "fall down," whereas negative matter would "fall up."
(I don't know anything else about negative matter, however.)

Antimatter is still some sort of matter. Charges may be different, but scalar values (like mass and gravity) will be the same. And also, the opposite of 1 is not 0. The opposite of 1 is -1.

Post Wed Oct 06, 2004 3:36 pm


The article states that we have known about anti-matter since the 1930's.

@esquilax
but the question is, wether or not we have been able to get any, now isnt it?

Post Wed Oct 06, 2004 3:57 pm

The article is legit it was also on /.

Post Wed Oct 06, 2004 6:54 pm


"I think," he said, "we need to get off this planet, because I'm afraid we're going to destroy it."

boom... Oops too late
truthfully i think antimatter is to unstable to fool with (emphasis on fool) besides if we leave the planet what's to stop us from mucking up the universe

Post Thu Oct 07, 2004 2:24 am

@ above, possibly the sheer scale of the universe? you can't really create oil spills the size of galaxies. even then, it'd be insignificant to the whole picture.

and if positron has the same mass as that of a proton, then, if a proton were to split up, it *cannot* form a neutron and a positron, since those two combined would give the mass equivalent to two protons. im not entirely sure as to how exactly positrons are formed. but im also not betting heavily on radioactive decay. you get alpha, gamma and beta. you prolly get other types of radioactive discharges, but im really not sure about positrons.

as for "massing" it, you'd probably float it with magnetic fields and see how they spin under their own influence of mass. rate of spin, and all that stuff.

Return to Off Topic