Scientists propose collider that could turn light into matter
theverge.com
theverge.com
We're definitely a long way from "Tea, Earl Grey, Hot", but it's cool to see people looking into these sorts of things.
Anyway, in theory high energy photons should be able to cause pair-production even without interacting with matter, such as merely interacting with other photons. And that's what this experiment is designed to test.
Well yes, but the important thing here is that free (i.e. on-shell) photons are being collided with each other to create matter. (Think of one laser pointed at another laser.) This has been done before, but only relatively recently and certainly not routinely. Here's one place:
[1] http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-05/icl-sdh051514...
So we could use this within our warp core to power our warp field generators?
How much energy would we have to expend to separate the positron from the electron and keep them separated? What does that give us in terms of energy storage efficiency, compared to storing electrical charge within a lithium battery?
And we've got to power the warp field with something, so what are our most energy-dense options?
The most energy to mass ratio is antimatter, which is why it is chosen as the substance for Star Trek TNG to power the warp core.
Second place is helium-3 if you count helium-3 fusion.
Not that we have any applications for it with the current production efficiency.
This is a book from 1988 by a favorite author Robert L Forward (the worst author from which I regularly bought books in hardcover; I just read them for the physics).
http://books.google.ro/books/about/Mirror_matter.html?id=GS4...
It was based on his report for NASA. I read the review: "He took the giggle factor out of antimatter"(!).
The main point was that if machines were built to create antimatter (instead of Nobel prizes), it wasn't so crazy to produce.
But as people are explaining to you, storage [of "large" masses like microgram] is still not solved. Afaik, at least.
You could (in principle) keep positrons and antiprotons together in a very hot plasma under magnetic confinement, but every pair that binds together into a neutral hydrogen atom can immediately escape and annihilate - turning carefully-stored fuel into gamma rays...
No, the hard part is creating the anti-matter in the first place and then cooling it down to a reasonable temperature at which it can be stored. All of our mechanisms for creating anti-matter generate anti-particles traveling at fantastic, highly relativistic speeds (and also consume much, much more energy to create then they contain in mass energy). Cooling them down without loosing them all to annihilation is very difficult. But once they're cool, it's not so bad.
I suppose the cooling is electromagnetic, the whole process must be really difficult! Cool it while keeping those atoms from interacting from stray particles if the vacuum isn't perfect.
| When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
Then again, I'm not sure I understand the experiment, for example, I'm not sure how a blackbody spectrum helps in the breit-wheeler process. I think that the light colliding at a perpendicular incidence helps, but other than that, I can't see how the spectrum of radiation matters...like how is using a blackbody spectrum is better than, say, a monochromatic laser? I think I'd have to look at the paper once it gets out.
What if we do it because it's in our nature to explore? Just pure curiosity? To increase our understanding of existence and evolve into something more? Also, this concept of it's safer to find aliens before they find us sounds like you're already of the mindset of war and you want a tactical advantage over something that you've never seen or know anything about. I really hope not everyone thinks of exploring the universe as just another military mapping of strategic attack/defense positions. If the human race is still being driven by fear and war when star-trek-style travel becomes possible, then maybe it's better we just die right here rather than export our madness throughout the galaxy.
The second part was simply naive. Please consider game theory.
Yours (and mine) moral is from a society with a functioning police force, rule of law and state violence monopoly. Without that, there is a clan society, where your only security is that others (generally relatives) will revenge you. A form of terror balance. Out moral just doesn't work there, since to avoid violence you have to make people believe you are ready to inflict it.
(I am unaware of a third alternative to state violence monopoly and clan societies. There are obviously places in between, with organized crime (south Italy, Mexico?). Please educate me if I miss something basic?)
Let me take an example:
There is no world police since Obama seems to be abdicating USA's partial role, countries now live in an analogue of a clan society (e.g. do alliances for protection from aggression).
Consider how Russia and China are starting the jingoism garbage again. How do you know other countries/species won't?
tl;dr: Don't take your moral instinct for logic.
So basically... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Butter_Battle_Book
If this is truly all the human race is capable of; living in a perpetual stalemate of attack-power then we should just stay on our earth and perish.
Game theory is used for evolution too, so you're a creationist?
A longer answer would be along the lines of:
Humans have a wide range of possible behaviours, the trick is to organize society so we get a "nice" place (i.e. it is not "paying" to be non-"nice", please note quotes for complex PhD thesis definitions). If you're not able to see the world, your decision will have harmful effects according to your own morals. In short, your absolute moral judgements is a problem as much as Putin...
(I just wish that there were some way of educating away moral condemnation of people which refuse to understand stuff which goes against their ideology.)
Knowing idealists, in some generations people like you will want to genetically modify people to follow your morals -- Socialist "new human" style. We know how that goes, not only from science fiction.
But I already wrote an answer and got a non sequitur.
I pointed out that without rule of law, societies generally becomes clan societies. Out of pure game theory. And discussed why and how we know to avoid that.
You quote part of my description of clan societies -- and condemned humanity.
If you're not a teenager, that is too stupid to be anything but bad trolling.