>>16992156
Never going to have enough of it to use for a bomb and its probably completely infeasible to contain it.
>CERN's BASE experiment actually carried antimatter using a fucking truck for kilometers
I'm calling bullshit.

File: file.png (317.9 KB)

>>16992159
sorry bro, they already have done it https://home.cern/base-experiment-cern-succeeds-transporting-antimatter/
if you don't trust cern, see screenshot of the thesis in question, I trust my friend when they said it was done.

>>16992169
They used a truck because the 1 ton piece of machinery required to hold a measly 1000 antiparticles. They would need many orders of magnitude more antimatter as well as a way to hold it in substantial quantity.

File: file.png (192.2 KB)

>>16992186
I think those things can be achieved over time or a given war scenario if efforts are concentrated for it. Retrospectively, people thought having enough enriched uranium was hard but it was somehow done. I think it's matter of years until someone finds a good way to produce antimatter. Containment is another thing yeah, but i imagine you can miniaturize them too.
>picrel it's just bolts n shit

>>16992156
Antimatter is far too costly to make to use as a weapon. There are always better and cheaper options available than antimatter no matter what scale of destruction you are looking for. It's also far too bulky to deliver to a target.
This article sums it up pretty well
>>16992169
The apparatus weighs 1000 kilograms and transported 92 antiprotons. To move it any significant distance you additionally need power generators and coolers and additional cryogenics equipment and fluids. A single antiproton has energy of 1.5×10^-10 J, you can double that since you get a "free" protons worth of mass when ever it pops so 3*10^-10J, since you had 100 of those that's 3*10^-8J. A single gram of TNT has energy of 4200J, that's a difference of about 10^13. For reference the difference between a single gram of TNT (4200J) and Tsar Bomba (2.4*10^17J) is about the same at 5*10^13. So you would need to make your thing about 10 trillion times more effective to begin reaching the firecracker territory.

>>16992159
Why wouldn't you be able to carry few atoms in a truck. The margins of error on the magnetic confinement are like 100x on what a truck could produce and well past where the machine gets scrapped anyways and it's not like antimatter is dangerous it just vanishes if you mishandle it.

>>16992189
There is no way to make antimatter that isn't prohibitively expensive. Unless we literally find an antimatter sources in space (2001 nights manga has this which is pretty neat) then we will never have antimatter that isn't extremely expensive. It's simply the way energy works.

>>16992156
>>16992156
I am convinced that we are never going to have antimatter bomb.
Just ignoring the fact that our current method of producing anti particles is extremely inefficient and requires millions of dollars and mega watts of energy to just come up with a few particles, and our engineering is still far behind storing several grams of anti matter for a considerable amount of time...
The moat important factor is that it is fatal to work with... The operator or the people who want to deliver it are at the constant danger of getting blown away.
You don't have this problem with nukes. With nukes, you need a perfect sequence of complex processes happen with high level of accuracy and synchronization for its detonation, otherwise if you just leave it there, it's harmless.
Antimatter bomb is the exact opposite, you need a perfect, synchronized series of complex engineering tasks to prevent it from annihilation, and that shit needs to run 24/7 until the moment of explosion.

If your penning trap, or the power supply, or the vacuum level goes slightly off, even for a fraction of a second, it is you who will get blown away not your enemy.

>>16992263
Mega watts of power*

File: 1713974218719325.jpg (537.2 KB)

>>16992263
that is a valid concern with the safety. but you never know if someone can make a denser state of antimatter perhaps even constrained by something intrinsically static power. I still think it would be the ultimate weapon given high enough fluxes of the shit can be produced. I have no sources on this but I bet some glownigger is working on it, just can't prove it.

>>16992193
Let's put it this way. You'd need 1/2 gram of antimatter to get the 20kt explosive yield of the Fat Man atomic bomb.
A half gram of antihydrogen contains about 10^23 atoms.
CERN can now generate around 10^7 atoms per year.
We're a LOOOOOOONG way off from that.

File: 7283bcb23a8ae0847b548cf41bcf1174.jpg (369.4 KB)

>>16992271
I get that it is a scarce and very expensive to produce NOW. But I am optimistic that through the sheer amount of government and military interest, the production capabilities and techniques will be inadvertently increased over the coming years.

The EU invests a lot on it already, the dept. of energy also does already. The army is contracting people to look into a 2050 goal. https://doi.org/10.21140/mcuj.20251602009 So it will eventually happen, as I don't think it is a fundamental impossibility as time travel into the past for example.

Using antimatter for bombs is like using a black hole as an excavation device. There's much, much easier ways to blow whatever you want up. Like, many many orders of magnitude easier. Just nuke the planet like normal people, honestly.

>>16992271
wait, a penny weighs 2.5 grams so you are saying an "anti-penny" reacting with (normal) matter would yield 100kt? wow

>>16992274
The main problem is just that there's nothing an antimatter bomb enables that is meaningfully different from a much safer, much simpler hydrogen bomb. As far as combat on earth is concerned we nukes have gotten us to the point of bigger than is reasonably desirable or necessary for explosive yields, and modern combat prioritizes precision and accuracy in munitions much more than broad destructive power.
We already have more than enough bombs to destroy the entire planet that we hopefully will never use. Spending billions of dollars to make even bigger significantly more temperamental bombs that we hopefully will never use is just silly.

>>16992425
Not going to check the math but the energy density is astounding, yeah. All matter is converted directly to energy. But the problem is containment. You need magnetic traps as any accidental contact leads to a pretty mushroom cloud. It's like weaponised kryptonite, but it's also known to the state of California to give you cancer and spread your body over a certain radius. Consider: chemical bombs are inert. You can literally set modern explosives on fire and they won't detonate without a detonator.

>>16992597
>You can literally set modern explosives on fire and they won't detonate without a detonator.
I remember this demo from my time in the army. the explosive rod burned quite slowly like some bored plastic, with orange flame, thick black smoke. but this is the state ofthe art at the end of a very long development. nitrocellulose had to take quite a few lives before it was deemed not worth the risk.

>>16992676
>but this is the state of the art
TNT has been a thing since 1863 and it's completely safe without a detonator. You can literally use it as emergency fuel for a stove if you want.

>>16992156
No one needs bigger bombs. What they want is stealthier, smarter bombs and to be able to gather more data on the enemy

>>16992804
So, drones... with bombs.

>>16992810
Yes

>>16992263
>With nukes, you need a perfect sequence of complex processes happen with high level of accuracy and synchronization for its detonation
Or for one dumbass to drop his screwdriver.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Slotin#Harry_Daghlian's_death

File: 1762730588471921.png (595.2 KB)

>>16992199
Shittons of free energy in space. Just go build your antimatter factory on Mercury.

>>16992156
There's antimatter in everything. How much are you worried about?

>>16992156
With infinite resources and thousands of the best engineers, maybe they could create a weapon grade antimatter thing in a decade

It's not worth it when we have nuclear fission and uranium is in the dirt outside

>>16992156
If a bomb is ever made using anti matter it won't be just an antimatter bomb. It would probably be used as a primary for a thermonuclear bomb. Using antimatter as the primary you could make it fission free, so "clean". I don't think it will ever be cheap or practical enough to minaturise this antimatter primary to the point that it is smaller than a boosted fission bomb. Also technology like this would allow very low yielding clean nuclear bombs to be produced which would be very bad.

>>16993325
That actually makes sense, I'm sure there will be some sort of confinement device that'll allow it

>>16993336
My thoughts with regards to minturisation are that for a given physics package using antimatter of the same size or smaller than a modern thermonuclear one the firing set is going to be bigger for a device that uses antimatter due to the necessity of large batteries for safety (in the case of a power failure, especially for aircraft). Though you would save on capacitors as a neutron source wouldn't be necessitated. Though they would still be required. Readiness seems to be an issue as well since currently you could not leave the primary sitting in the bomb, I suspect that won't change.

>>16993475
Also I did some maffs and I came up with a minimum amount one could use in the primary of a small warhead. It would take about 1.16 grams enclosed in a hohlraum of 1728 cubic centimetres, giving a photon gas temperature of 20 million kelvin. Of course this is not considering any interstage or geometry, you can't just directly illuminate the secondary.

Well, some of the people who poured money into Cern would probably have had the same ideas. Wouldn't surprise me if it's been designed and they may be in the early stages. All new tech gets jumped on by military first.

>>16992263
why would you people want an antimatter bomb? what would be the point? do you want humanity to be exterminated that badly or something????!!!!!

>>16993570

Clearly the only people who want to understand the universe are those who want to explode it more efficiently

File: 1779829876646919.gif (446.6 KB)

>>16993573
>explode it more efficiently

you'll doom us all kek

>>16992576
>>16993570
The only use case of Antimatter bomb is to destroy planet-killer asteroids.
With our nukes, we need thousands of tsar bombs being launched to the space by several hundreds of rockets simultaneously, to destroy the astroid. You can make a 2 ton antimatter bomb and launch it using just one rocket and vaporise the asteroid completely.
And if you want to reduce the number of nukes and rockets to just deflect the astroid instead of vaporising it, you need a decade or two headstart,.... With antimatter bomb you need only a week.

It's actually the best method (and needs the least amount of warning time) compared to other sci fi methods like laser array or a huge space ship to pull the asteroid with gravitational force.

Also I think antimatter bomb for earth defence system is the only use case of the anti matter, for the reason that I mentioned here >>16992263 : it's dangerous and risky to work with
Using it as a power generation source on earth or rocket propulsion system, is like living next to a time bomb, except this bomb can erase a city.

>>16992156
Unless we find some sort of runaway reaction that can produce a large quantity of Antimatter from a small beginning sample, it's always going to be cheaper and simpler to go Thermonuclear. And these things are already the peak of human engineering

File: UTTR_Testbeam_web.jpg (21.5 KB)

What if it wasn't a bomb, but a collimated beam of bound state positronium?

>>16992156
You need like 0.3 g of antimatter to be on the energy level of the hiroshima bomb.