- Tibetz
- |
- Exalted Mythic Member
____________(˜˜˜||˜˜˜˜||˜˜˜˜˜)_∏______
l | --------____.`=====.-.~:________\___|================[oo]
|_|||___/___/_/~```|_|_|_|``(o)----------<)
Posted by: Venator82
Posted by: Tibetz
Hmm.
So we could make a highly expensive, cost innefficient (the energy harvested from Anti-Matter reactions is less than the energy it takes to make the anti-matter) Anti-matter generator, or we could spend time researching fusion energy, which is extrememly inexpensive and cost efficent. The damn thing runs off of Hyfrogen (or Helium). With a Fusion generator we could reach Jupiter with ease and start a gas mine, which means near unlimited fuel for the forseeable future.
Oh, and assuming future technology "will be better" is absurd. If we cannot base our information on current fact, then I might as well say that we are going to power the universe on Quarkium (which is about a hundred times more powerful than Anti-matter, as both an explosive and a power source.
So, you're assuming it will be the same? Look at half the things we've done that were just "not worth it and impossible anyways" in the past, and yet we have it now and accept for a fact of life and can't imagine what it would be like without it? It's just dumb to assume we know everything about our universe, which is what many do.
About the stuff we've done, flight, for example. And don't say it just too simple and common and impossible to compare. If you asked a caveman that we'd on day be flying, he'd walk away and think you absurd. So, it's not safe to say that antimatter is too expensive and too hard to make.
The difference between Antimatter and EVERYTHING ELSE, EVER that fits the description of "too hard/too expensive" is that Anti-Matter is a inversion of fundemental particles. Last I checked, the energy budget to change those does not get lower as the technology increases. At a fundemental level, you still have to provide adequate energy (which is higher than the energy the anti-matter can give back) to create.
So unless we manage to figure out how to destroy the laws of physics in some temporary way in order to make anti-matter energy efficient, I doubt it will ever be used.
Of course, if we do manage to destroy the laws of physics in some temporary way, it will probably also entail using massive amounts of energy in an obscene way, so even then it may be cost innefficient.
Posted by: Venator82
P.S. Quarkium isn't even been discovered yet, so you can't say we'll be using that first before anti-matter.
1. yes it has. We know what Quarks do to matter when they become (temporarily) unlinked. All Quarkium is is fundamentally unlinked quarks that cannot link with eachother. Because of this, they destroy everything in their path until they find something to link with.
2. Did I say we would use it first? I said that if we assume that advancements could be made to make the impossible possible, Quarkium will be way better than Anti-matter.
[Edited on 11.27.2010 1:10 PM PST]