Bungie Universe
This topic has moved here: Subject: Antimatter in the Halo Universe
  • Subject: Antimatter in the Halo Universe
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2
Subject: Antimatter in the Halo Universe

I don't care. I really don't.

Antimatter is a very good explosive/propelent/fuel if it can be harnassed, which although at the time we can't (it costs $62.5 trillion per gram of antihydrogen) but I would think in 542 years it would cost less for humanity, or be much common through the Covenant or even a simple fuel source for the Forerunners, yet it doesn't appear outside the one kind of Covenant bomb.

Does anybody know why? Is there a reason?

  • 11.27.2010 12:32 PM PDT

I don't care. I really don't.

What do you mean infeasible? We have it today, and have had it since 1996 for public knowledge. It's not the hardest thing to make, just the most expensive.

So, where else other than the engines, which seems to be a maybe.

  • 11.27.2010 12:36 PM PDT

the fact its the most expensive commodity on earth is due to the fact it is very very difficult to produce and even more difficult to store, we've only managed to store several particles (thats it!) for tiny fractions of a second using magnetic fields, to be honest, nuclear fusion is a very potent power source, so as i keep asking people why overcomplicate things? also deuterium (for fusion) doesn't just spontanously explode when a magnetic field fails so its safer too...

  • 11.27.2010 12:40 PM PDT

I don't care. I really don't.


Posted by: PLUT0NIUM 235
the fact its the most expensive commodity on earth is due to the fact it is very very difficult to produce and even more difficult to store, we've only managed to store several particles (thats it!) for tiny fractions of a second using magnetic fields, to be honest, nuclear fusion is a very potent power source, so as i keep asking people why overcomplicate things? also deuterium (for fusion) doesn't just spontanously explode when a magnetic field fails so its safer too...


But as a propellant and explosive, it works better than anything in the Halo universe so far besides an actual Antimatter bomb istself.
For example: 1 kilo of hydrogen+1 kilo of antihydrogen= 43 megaton explsion.
So, why doesn't humanity invest anything in it, or even the Covenant. Granted that if the Covenant used more anit-matter, humanity would've lost much faster, but if the Foreruners used it the Forerunner-Flood War might've ended in victory for the Forerunner and there'd be no Human-Covenant War.
So, why noit use any anitmatter?

[Edited on 11.27.2010 12:44 PM PST]

  • 11.27.2010 12:44 PM PDT

I don't care. I really don't.


Posted by: dr spartan32

Posted by: Venator82
What do you mean infeasible? We have it today, and have had it since 1996 for public knowledge. It's not the hardest thing to make.
In this case, correlation does imply causation, ok, it is so expensive because it is extremely difficult to produce, in an interview with a CERN employee I remember hearing that it would take a few hundred million years to produce a gram at current rates. All the antimatter they had assembled could only power up a 60w light bulb for a minute or so. Then you must also be able to suspend it in a perfect vacuum without it touching the container, not as easy as it sounds, actually, okay.


I just reread it, and he's assuming, a very bad yet common thing within the scientific community, that we will have the production at the same rate and with the same tech, wich like saying that dropping a rock off a cliff that it won't fall down.
And even if we ignore huanity's antimatter, there's still Covenant and Forerunner. It just frustrates me that they (those who write Halo's fiction) even come up with unbacked, completely speculative tech when antimatter could fill the same role.

  • 11.27.2010 12:53 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Mythic Member

____________(˜˜˜||˜˜˜˜||˜˜˜˜˜)_∏______
l | --------____.`=====.-.~:________\___|================[oo]
|_|||___/___/_/~```|_|_|_|``(o)----------<)

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 everything on Quarkium (which is about a hundred times more powerful than Anti-matter, as both an explosive and a power source. It is completely impossible to do now, but the physics behind the substance being a power source is pretty solid.

[Edited on 11.27.2010 12:58 PM PST]

  • 11.27.2010 12:54 PM PDT

I don't care. I really don't.

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.

P.S. Quarkium isn't even been discovered yet, so you can't say we'll be using that first before anti-matter.

[Edited on 11.27.2010 1:03 PM PST]

  • 11.27.2010 1:00 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • 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]

  • 11.27.2010 1:06 PM PDT

I don't care. I really don't.


Posted by: Tibetz

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.


Or, you know, we find a place that is made of anti-matter, which is liekly in the Halo Universe due to the Forerunners understanding of Slipspace.

And, according to the laws of physics, there is as much anti-matter in the universe as there is matter, whereas as Quarkium, even when it is found properly, there is much,much less.

  • 11.27.2010 1:11 PM PDT

Posted by: Venator82

Posted by: Tibetz

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.


Or, you know, we find a place that is made of anti-matter, which is liekly in the Halo Universe due to the Forerunners understanding of Slipspace.

And, according to the laws of physics, there is as much anti-matter in the universe as there is matter, whereas as Quarkium, even when it is found properly, there is much,much less.


I believe that most physicists today (apologize for the lack of link) plan on harvesting the antimatter from somewhere, seeing the colossal effort needed to produce it.

  • 11.27.2010 1:31 PM PDT

I don't care. I really don't.


Posted by: UnyieldinWarior

I believe that most physicists today (apologize for the lack of link) plan on harvesting the antimatter from somewhere, seeing the colossal effort needed to produce it.


You just reminded me of something I read from multiple sources just to confirm it: antimatter naturally exists around Jupiter, Saturn, Sol most likely and even the Van Allen Belt around Earth.
Thanks for the reminder.

So, antimatter in the Halo universe is very rare for no reason at all, especially when it comes to the Forerunners.

  • 11.27.2010 1:33 PM PDT

Posted by: Venator82

Posted by: UnyieldinWarior

I believe that most physicists today (apologize for the lack of link) plan on harvesting the antimatter from somewhere, seeing the colossal effort needed to produce it.


You just reminded me of something I read from multiple sources just to confirm it: antimatter naturally exists around Jupiter, Saturn, Sol most likely and even the Van Allen Belt around Earth.
Thanks for the reminder.

So, antimatter in the Halo universe is very rare for no reason at all, especially when it comes to the Forerunners.


Wait, what???
*Dives headfirst into Google*

  • 11.27.2010 1:35 PM PDT

I don't care. I really don't.


Posted by: UnyieldinWarior

Wait, what???
*Dives headfirst into Google*


Here it is. So there's no energy nor is there any money as soon as we get up there and it's an infifnite source. So, why is it absent from Halo, seeing as humans have hundreds of planets to do this technique from? Why does the Covenant have so little?

[Edited on 11.27.2010 1:43 PM PST]

  • 11.27.2010 1:37 PM PDT

Posted by: Venator82

Posted by: UnyieldinWarior

Wait, what???
*Dives headfirst into Google*


Here it is.


O.O
Brilliant!

  • 11.27.2010 1:43 PM PDT

Posted by: Venator82

Posted by: UnyieldinWarior

Wait, what???
*Dives headfirst into Google*


Here it is. So there's no energy nor is there any money as soon as we get up there and it's an infifnite source. So, why is it absent from Halo, seeing as humans have hundreds of planets to do this technique from? Why does the Covenant have so little?


You're forgetting that antimatter is VERY volatile; perhaps they only carry it when the stakes demand it (Cairo station, PoA)

  • 11.27.2010 1:44 PM PDT

I don't care. I really don't.


Posted by: UnyieldinWarior
Posted by: Venator82

Posted by: UnyieldinWarior

Wait, what???
*Dives headfirst into Google*


Here it is. So there's no energy nor is there any money as soon as we get up there and it's an infifnite source. So, why is it absent from Halo, seeing as humans have hundreds of planets to do this technique from? Why does the Covenant have so little?


You're forgetting that antimatter is VERY volatile; perhaps they only carry it when the stakes demand it (Cairo station, PoA)


It is volatile, yet with a magnetic field or electric field can be conatined. Even easier is a gravitational field, which we all know both the Covenant and UNSC (thanks to the Covenant) had.

  • 11.27.2010 1:47 PM PDT

Posted by: Venator82
It is volatile, yet with a magnetic field or electric field can be conatined. Even easier is a gravitational field, which we all know both the Covenant and UNSC (thanks to the Covenant) had.


True, but what happens if someone sets a nuke off next to you, and the EMP causes the containment field to break?

I'm just saying, if I were a Covenant Shipmaster, I would NOT want an antimatter bomb on my starship.

  • 11.27.2010 1:49 PM PDT

I don't care. I really don't.


Posted by: UnyieldinWarior
Posted by: Venator82
It is volatile, yet with a magnetic field or electric field can be conatined. Even easier is a gravitational field, which we all know both the Covenant and UNSC (thanks to the Covenant) had.


True, but what happens if someone sets a nuke off next to you, and the EMP causes the containment field to break?

I'm just saying, if I were a Covenant Shipmaster, I would NOT want an antimatter bomb on my starship.


Yeah, true.

However an EMP-proof Foreunner dreadnaught captain against the Flood, which had no nukes, would probably be fine, and even though the Flood can survive pretty crazy stuff, a particle in contact with an antipartcile will, noi matter what, annihilate each other. So why do Forerunner weapons just use plasma, particle beams and fuel rods and stuff like that?

  • 11.27.2010 1:53 PM PDT


Posted by: Venator82

Posted by: UnyieldinWarior
Posted by: Venator82
It is volatile, yet with a magnetic field or electric field can be conatined. Even easier is a gravitational field, which we all know both the Covenant and UNSC (thanks to the Covenant) had.


True, but what happens if someone sets a nuke off next to you, and the EMP causes the containment field to break?

I'm just saying, if I were a Covenant Shipmaster, I would NOT want an antimatter bomb on my starship.


Yeah, true.

However an EMP-proof Foreunner dreadnaught captain against the Flood, which had no nukes, would probably be fine, and even though the Flood can survive pretty crazy stuff, a particle in contact with an antipartcile will, noi matter what, annihilate each other. So why do Forerunner weapons just use plasma, particle beams and fuel rods and stuff like that?


Is it possible that they didn't want to learn how to get that kind of power in case it fell into the wrong hands?

  • 11.27.2010 1:56 PM PDT

I don't care. I really don't.


Posted by: R Rod

Posted by: Venator82

Yeah, true.

However an EMP-proof Foreunner dreadnaught captain against the Flood, which had no nukes, would probably be fine, and even though the Flood can survive pretty crazy stuff, a particle in contact with an antipartcile will, noi matter what, annihilate each other. So why do Forerunner weapons just use plasma, particle beams and fuel rods and stuff like that?


Is it possible that they didn't want to learn how to get that kind of power in case it fell into the wrong hands?


That happened anyways with the Covenant, may as well go all the way in my book. Plus they developed technology that isn't even in theory right now, for example somehow making light a hard, contained object, superluminal destruvtion of sentient yet not non-senteint life and builidng structures larger than planets with no discernable source for all the extermly hard metal that makes up the structures. Why not good old zero stuff?

  • 11.27.2010 1:59 PM PDT

Posted by: Venator82
So why do Forerunner weapons just use plasma, particle beams and fuel rods and stuff like that?


We never saw the true technological potential of the Forerunners, only what the Covenant could understand and copy.

  • 11.27.2010 2:06 PM PDT

I don't care. I really don't.


Posted by: UnyieldinWarior
Posted by: Venator82
So why do Forerunner weapons just use plasma, particle beams and fuel rods and stuff like that?


We never saw the true technological potential of the Forerunners, only what the Covenant could understand and copy.


So why did the Flood nearly win the war? I would think antimatter would've made it a decisive win for the Forerunners.

  • 11.27.2010 2:08 PM PDT

Posted by: Venator82

Posted by: UnyieldinWarior
Posted by: Venator82
So why do Forerunner weapons just use plasma, particle beams and fuel rods and stuff like that?


We never saw the true technological potential of the Forerunners, only what the Covenant could understand and copy.


So why did the Flood nearly win the war? I would think antimatter would've made it a decisive win for the Forerunners.


Flood used the Forerunner's tech against them. That would include antimatter.

  • 11.27.2010 2:10 PM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2