It increases the rate of production of neutral antihydrogen from antiprotons and positrons by a factor of 8. It doesn't increase the efficiency of production of antiprotons, which is the extremely inefficient, energy intensive part.
throwawayqqq11 2 days ago [-]
The output got increased by a factor of 8, did the energy consuption increase proportionately? If not, its an efficiency gain.
tsimionescu 1 hours ago [-]
If you have a process where it takes 5MW to produce one component and 80KW to convert that component into the final product, and you increase the efficiency of the second step 8 times so it only takes 10KW, that's real and awesome, but still almost irrelevant to the overall efficiency of the process. I have no idea what the actual numbers are, just stating the general concept.
XorNot 53 minutes ago [-]
Conversely efficiency is a lot less important if it unlocks capability you otherwise don't have at all.
Antimatter is a unique element: nothing else can do what it does. The game changer would be producing industrially useful amounts for further experimentation.
(Antimatter chemistry would be incredibly interesting and quite possibly a practical way to actually use antimatter - shoot the beam into a reaction or solid matrix to do interesting reactions due to the electronic properties before it annihilates).
tsimionescu 33 minutes ago [-]
This article is about an efficiency gain, not about any new source of antimatter or any newly discovered property or reaction. And, getting industrial levels will require massive efficiency gains, so we're back to this discussion.
aeve890 52 minutes ago [-]
What are the civilian applications?
secult 37 minutes ago [-]
PET scan
(You have to wait for civic applications of the newly discovered technologies for a while, but the "technology transfer" from CERN to practical applications has a few notable examples.)
joelthelion 9 minutes ago [-]
PET doesn't use antimatter, at least it doesn't use it directly. It uses regular radioactive tracers.
emmavis 1 hours ago [-]
In simple terms for humanists, does that brings us closer in anyway to scifi engines?:)
adrianN 58 minutes ago [-]
The most realistic sci-fi engines are nuclear pulse engines where you ride the shockwaves of thousands of fusion bombs to reach a few percent of the speed of light. Those we could probably build right now if we were willing to spend the money. Replacing the fusion bombs with antimatter bombs would be a nice improvement for the basic design
mr_mitm 52 minutes ago [-]
Is there a way to slow down using fusion bombs? Even if you manage to bring thousands of fusion bombs with you? Sounds like this is only a sensible approach for sending probes, which will then zip by their target at huge speeds.
xavxav 47 minutes ago [-]
you just need to speed up in the opposite direction by flipping around and firing bombs on the other side.
nrhrjrjrjtntbt 14 minutes ago [-]
How do you do that and not die?
ajuc 10 minutes ago [-]
Long stick and radiation shield between you and the bombs
lolive 1 hours ago [-]
Isn't it the path to a yet deadlier bomb ? #alwaysLookOnTheBrightSideOfLife
GCUMstlyHarmls 54 minutes ago [-]
Just be-fore you draw your terminal breath ♫
Ygg2 1 hours ago [-]
No. Unless you find a chunk of antimatter or a way to break the laws of physics.
Rendered at 10:19:05 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
Antimatter is a unique element: nothing else can do what it does. The game changer would be producing industrially useful amounts for further experimentation.
(Antimatter chemistry would be incredibly interesting and quite possibly a practical way to actually use antimatter - shoot the beam into a reaction or solid matrix to do interesting reactions due to the electronic properties before it annihilates).