Anti-matter energy

Actually, I just did the math just to make sure. When you fuse deuterium and tritium to helium and a proton, you have a mass defect of 0,38 %. This mass is converted into energy. (0.019 u of originally 5.013 u get "lost" in fusion.)

So, uh, it should be (roughly) 0.4%, not 4% of the mass being converted into energy with a fusion reactor. (It's probably less with fission, but I don't have the numbers right now.)

I also doubt that a matter-antimatter-annihilation reaction will turn 100% of the mass of both particles into energy since this reaction may produce different exotic particles, some of them quite heavy - depending on which kinds of matter and antimatter you annihilate.

Ok, Got my Fusions and Fissions crossed. (It's been a while.) I believe the estimated yield on the first atomic bombs was 4% (or maybe 0.4%.)

I believe I saw a program on the Science Channel that stated that as long as there is matter available to contact anti-matter, there would be a reaction resulting in complete conversion to energy. Since the reaction is at the sub-atomic level, There wouldn't be anything left to form any kind of particles.

Likes like I'm going to have to do some research.

Also, on the same program, it was stated that the required amount of anti-matter just to get to Alpha Centauri would be in the "tons" range in THIS universe. For any such journey, one would have to "step outside" the universe (Warp drive, worm holes, jump drive, etc.) to some place where the physical laws of this universe would be vastly different.

I believe I saw a program on the Science Channel that stated that as long as there is matter available to contact anti-matter, there would be a reaction resulting in complete conversion to energy. Since the reaction is at the sub-atomic level, There wouldn’t be anything left to form any kind of particles.

The conversion isn't always complete, as it sometimes creates "heavy" exotic particles. However, this only seems to happen under extreme circumstances. Besides, I didn't find any statement on what happens to these exotic particles. They'll probably be converted to energy eventually - meaning in the course of a couple of mikroseconds or milliseconds.

Also, on the same program, it was stated that the required amount of anti-matter just to get to Alpha Centauri would be in the “tons” range in THIS universe.

Really?
It's true that I'm not an expert, but as far as I know, outer space is pretty empty. Not completely empty, but very close. Which means that there's hardly any friction slowing down a spacecraft. So, once this spacecraft is moving, it will need hardly any energy added to its movement.

Of course, I'm not an expert, as I already stated. And if you consider the minimal need for acceleration and the vast expanse of space to cross, this might add up to a pretty big amount of antimatter needed for the voyage. However, I still doubt it would take tons of antimatter to get there - as long as you don't expect to reach near-relativistic speeds.

I wish I could remember or find the TV program where antimatter propulsion was discussed. I believe the host was a Japanese-American named Michiko? something?. He explained the "theory" in some detail. Most of the energy expenditure was for acceleration and deceleration. Although the spacecraft wouldn't have weight, it would still have considerable mass and, as the human body would not be able to withstand sustained hard acceleration for a long period, the amount of time required would be considerable. Remember, inertial dampeners and stasis pods are just ideas. BTW, I'm far, far from an expert. I'm just an avid scify fan.

I wish I could remember or find the TV program where antimatter propulsion was discussed. I believe the host was a Japanese-American named Michiko? something?. He explained the “theory” in some detail. Most of the energy expenditure was for acceleration and deceleration. Although the spacecraft wouldn’t have weight, it would still have considerable mass and, as the human body would not be able to withstand sustained hard acceleration for a long period, the amount of time required would be considerable. Remember, inertial dampeners and stasis pods are just ideas. BTW, I’m far, far from an expert. I’m just an avid scify fan.

Doctor Michio Kaku

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kuPkc7D35U
and
http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/212_fall2009.web/justin_harvey/future.html

I wish I could remember or find the TV program where antimatter propulsion was discussed. I believe the host was a Japanese-American named Michiko? something?. He explained the “theory” in some detail. Most of the energy expenditure was for acceleration and deceleration. Although the spacecraft wouldn’t have weight, it would still have considerable mass and, as the human body would not be able to withstand sustained hard acceleration for a long period, the amount of time required would be considerable. Remember, inertial dampeners and stasis pods are just ideas. BTW, I’m far, far from an expert. I’m just an avid scify fan.

Hmm, seems to me you're mixing up several things here.

It's true that, despite being practically weightless (due to the lack of nearby gravity wells), a ship still has mass. Mass doesn't change due to gravity, after all. And, of course, the energy needed to propel a ship depends on several factors: Mass of the ship, top speed, friction (or other things that hinder movement) and thus distance to some extent.

On the other hand, it's also true that humans don't do well with too much acceleration. Since such a trip to Alpha Centauri would have to take a while, an acceleration of not much more than 1 g (Earth gravity = 9,81 m/s²) would be ideal. (Starting with around 3 g, people wouldn't be able to get up from a seating position. And they'd sure have to go for little astronauts during a trip that takes several years.) It would also solve the issue of gravity on the ship, as the ship's acceleration would have the same effect as gravity on a planet. Just make it so that the ship flies towards its "top" - and you've solved a lot of problems.

However, if you use 1 g for acceleration, it'd take you nearly 1 year (354 days) to reach the speed of light - if that is even possible. 😉 And you'd have to calculate another year to decelerate from that speed to zero. Ideally, you'd keep accelerating until you're halfway to your destination - to get there faster and to solve any issues with gravity.

On the topic of anti-matter I have a random question. Several points in the series, Ryk mentioned the awesome power of an antim-matter explosion specifically a reactor breach. First reference was in book one with original explosion that propelled the Aurora to the PC. Later he makes a reference to the Jung showing restraint or jettisoning a core because they didnt want to destroy a planet by breaching a reactor. Here is my confusion, does a ship (Aurora specifically) actually store enough anti-matter to destroy a planet. I would assume anti-matter is generated on demand because of the complexity in storage, and since there has been no reference to fuel besides propellant. My understanding is even with a 100% energy conversion, once the anti-matter is consumed there should be no further reaction beyond secondary explosions. Certainly enough to take out a ship and have a huge blast radius even in space with no medium, but planet?

Ran a calculation through Wolfram Alpha on that. One Kg of matter translates to 8.988 x10^16 Joules of energy or over 21 megatons of TNT. That much energy at a small point on the surface is seriously bad.

http://tinyurl.com/nshltbp
http://tinyurl.com/mpn22oo

Those URLs are long so shortened them

Here is my confusion, does a ship (Aurora specifically) actually store enough anti-matter to destroy a planet. I would assume anti-matter is generated on demand because of the complexity in storage, and since there has been no reference to fuel besides propellant.

I think that creating antimatter is no less complex than storing it, quite the opposite. Positrons and anti-protons should be storable - if only in vaccum and a strong magnetic field. (I think?) Energy is then generated when infinitesimally small amounts of antimatter are released into the reactor to react with matter, thereby creating energy.

This kind of scenario also explains why an antimatter explosion would be so very devastating: Suddenly, your antimatter "fuel" that was supposed to last for years on end reacts all at once. It's a bit like when Chernobyl had its nuclear reactor explode: The reaction is manageable under "normal" circumstances and produces just the needed amount of energy. However, when things go wrong, they go boom. Just worse for the antimatter things because the storage capacity would probably be greater on a starship that actually depends on having enough energy for all kinds of things.

I had always imagined that the antimatter was stored in containment capsules (referred to in the series as "cores"). Each reactor has numerous cores, (4, 6, 8... I don't know) and antimatter is pulled from each core as needed. That way, if a single core develops an instability in the antimatter containment field, it can eject just that core. That also means the resulting matter-antimatter event is that much smaller, in comparison to a big core. It also means that you don't completely lose the function of that reactor, just some of its available fuel.

As to how much antimatter has to be carried, it's far more than most people would imagine. While each core by itself might not be enough to destroy a planet, it would still do damage. All of them together...enough of the planet would be destroyed that it would become unstable enough that it would probably break apart due to the disturbance of the balances that held it together in the first place. Imagine what would happen if you suddenly took 1/3 of a planet away. What would happen to the planet's rotation? Its orbit? Its atmosphere? It volcanic activity? Would its suddenly uneven mass cause it to spin apart and fling chunks of it out into space? Seems pretty obvious that any sizable matter-antimatter event would result in an unrecognizable/unlivable world.

Wouldn't it be easier to create antimatter on demand with something like a tokamak reactor? Or the frontiers universes version? I would think storing enough for extended missions would be extremely problematic, since it has to contained in a vacuole and some kind of magnetic field. If you lose power your in big trouble, if you eject the cores your permanently stranded since the fusion reactors provide backup power only. On the other hand, if the Aurora is able to safely store enough to take out a planet, and despite major battle damage can prevent core breaches, why haven't there been antimatter weapons? An antimatter torpedo with single atoms could put tactical nukes to shame, high risk I'm sure but the rewards would be great. I could understand why the EDF hasn't used them, ethical reasons or some new version of the Geneva accord. The Jung however wouldn't give a second thought, especially when they decide the planet or system isn't worth keeping.

What good is a destroyed world to a race that are scavengers of resources and technology? Destroying the civilization that exists there is one thing. Destroy its population another. But taking out the entire planet for the most part accomplishes very little, other than shock factor.

Having the technology to create a weapon is one thing. Having the need to use it is something else entirely.

It seems to me having Anti-matter weaponry would be the next level of nuclear deterrent. EDF may not have them because they are too new to the space age.

The Jung could have them, and they don't really need the Earth do they? I mean they do have all the rest of the core worlds. The only resources they might need from earth are foods and textiles... and they still nuked the place.

They don't need to admit to destroying it, say Earth used experimental weapons from 1000 years ago that they didn't fully understand - Boom ><

Jung could say that they feared the people of earth were carriers of the digital plague and they did the core a favor destroying them. (Actually Jung could spread that rumor to stem future support for Earth)

Imagine the effect on morale of any resistance in Jung space if it was made known the Jung had anti-matter bombed the Earth out of existence.

Only reason not to do it is the benefit of capturing Earth. (to a lesser extent the navigational hazard of Country sized chunks of earth floating about the Sol system)

But If your willing to Nuke the planet uninhabitable and that doesn't stop its people... next step...

The reason why not to use a AM bomb, would be the lack of habitable worlds. In the past, it may of been possible to terraform worlds, but maybe the Jung lost that technology. And while it might be a good idea to try to isolate Earth by saying it has the plague still, what about its allies? It could be turned into Earth releasing the rumor that they have the cure of the plague, but will only share it with their allies, and they everyone would at least be friendly with them.

Also, Earth is the origin of humans, and would like hold some sort of value as a historical object, or even a way to validate your authority by stating you are the ruler of the Jung empire and your throne is on Earth...Not enough information on the Jung to really be able to determine.

Lastly, it is easier to build a bomb, than it is to build a reactor. If you have the later, you have the former.