Antimatter weapon?

I doubt it.

Too expensive to make.

Too difficult to contain.

Too difficult to deliver to target.

Unlike what we see in science fiction like Star Trek where antimatter Captain Kirk can live in our universe and only explodes if he meets matter Captain Kirk in real science an antimatter electron (a positron) is annihilated the instant it comes near an electron. Remember they have opposite magnetic charges so they attract each other.

Only very very small amounts of anti matter have been created in the lab and to prevent it destroying the container it is in it needs to be confined in a magnetic field in a vacuum.
Contact with normal matter leads to a big energy release where all the matter is turned into energy.

1kg of antimatter should create 2kgs of pure energy, which is about 2,000 times the energy released in nuclear weapons.

It would be a weird explosion however because the first contact with matter should blow the matter away from the antimatter. As it returns when they contact again, another explosion etc etc til it is all gone.

The purpose of particle colliders is to explore other types of matter and to try to work out what matter is made of. ie what is an electron made of etc.

The ideal would obviously be some sort of energy beam where you can point two slightly different energy beams at the target and where the two beams meet (at the target of course) the matter is turned into anti matter and will immediately annihilate an equal amount of normal matter in an enormous explosion. Problem of course is if you create too much anti matter you could destroy the earth... or wreck it enough to make it uninhabitable... perhaps by blowing its atmosphere off into space.

That'd require high powered "beam projectors" which will most likely be stationary (unless it's in orbit).

It is totally made up by me. It is an example of the ideal method, but its main flaw is that it has no basis in reality because there are no known beams that can convert matter into antimatter.

Ideally it would be something like neutrinos as a beam of neutrinos would penetrate a sheet of lead 20 light years thick. (for those who don't know a light year is a measure of distance, not a measure of time... it is the distance light travels in a year and is huge... it is about 4 light years to the nearest star other than the one we currently orbit so a sheet of lead 5 times that distance is quite large as you can imagine.)
Set two phased focussed neutrino beams so that they cross at a point on the other side of the planet and turn them on for a fraction of a second and tadaa! A very very powerful explosion a long way away from you. If the beams are focussed to an area of a few cubic milimetres then the mass converted to antimatter will only be a few grams if it is solid rock or miligrams if it is air which should give it an explosive power of something up to 3-4 times the blast over Hiroshima in Japan with the early nukes.

In comparison the alternative is to create some positrons... which have the opposite charge to electrons and the same mass... so for an electron it is an anti particle, and use a magnetic field within a perfect vacuum to prevent the anti matter from contacting matter. The positive charge of the positrons will prevent them from coming into contact with protons, but will make them directly attractive to the negatively charged electrons so the field needs to be quite powerful... to keep the positrons from touching the electrons that make up the structure of the container that holds the vacuum the positrons are stored in.
Turning off the field at any time will lead to gravity and natural magnetic attraction making the positrons head directly for the electrons that are part of the wall of the vessel which will immediately annihilate both particles in a flash of enormous energy.
Obviously a power failure, or any similar minor problem makes storage and carriage of such materials enormously dangerous.
The advantages of such a small amount of material being so powerful is completely countered by the danger of creation and storage and delivery of such material.
A weapon the size of a modern bomb is simply unfeasible and undesirable... you will want backups and backups for the backups and multiply redundant safeties. A common occurrence like a plane crash suddenly become unthinkable.
And for all that risk you might as well use a conventional nuke. No where near as powerful, but much more stable. Even a serious crash and fire will generally lead to a little radiation leakage. There are lots of safeguards that will prevent any nuclear explosion, making an accidental nuclear explosion impossible. The conventional explosives might get set off in a serious fire, but modern nukes are designed so that even this will not result in detonation of the nuclear material.

Everything has a resonating frequency which will destroy it.

No, it doesn't.

Resonating frequency is like pushing a big fat kid on a swing.

The first push isn't going to make them go very high but as they swing back and start to move forward your second push is adding to the existing momentum so even if you push with the same force as before the kid will swing higher and when they swing back if you push them again as they are moving forward under their own momentum they go even higher.

The point with resonant frequency is that the timed pulses or pushes must be perfectly synchronised with the momentum of the structure.

Going back to the swing if you push forward as the kid is swinging back the kid will lose momentum and energy will be lost.

The point is that even if you always keep pushing at exactly the right time the effect will break down because eventually he will be going so high that the chain will no longer be straight... the energy to do a complete 360 will not be that little push that got him started swinging and made him swing higher and higher because when he starts getting too high the chain will flex and momentum will be lost at a rate much higher than momentum is being added by the pusher.

Back to resonant frequencies, some structures are prone to failure... if there is a weak link in a chain then very small forces can be applied in a way so that those forces build up and are focused but not all structures are vulnerable to such things.

A force 10 earthquake is a frequency that will destroy most buildings but the energy required to generate a force 10 earthquake is an incredibly inefficient use of energy... it would be thousands of nuclear bombs worth of energy. A small tin of petrol could be used to bring down a building simply by setting it on fire.

Anti-matter can be created by resonating matter until it becomes
anti-matter....you make it fall apart at the atomic level...not really
"antimatter"....or could you do it on an as needed basis to turn matter
into anti-matter by applying it's resonating frequency?

Shaking something will not create antimatter... no matter how hard you shake it.

If very small amounts of energy and resonant frequencies could create anti matter then why would physicists spend billions of dollars on huge particle colliders and accellerate sub atomic particles to near the speed of light in machines ten kilometres across and smash them into things to create exotic particles and very occasionally anti matter.
There is probably more fluid in your left eye than there is antimatter ever made by man.

Unlike Colliders where they are ramming atoms together to get miniscule
results...when they could have resonated those atoms with far less
energy and gotten more results...more stable outcomes to look at.

The problem with creating lots of antimatter is of course if it comes into contact with normal matter you have an enormous explosion on your hands.

Anti matter has the opposite electric charge to matter so at a subatomic level it attracts matter towards it.

Your microwave oven acts on water molecules and in practical terms heats with friction.

We have absolutely no idea how anti matter is made... quantum physics is mental when you look at it properly.

Take for example a simple atom.

If you scale the atom up to the size where the nucleus is the size of a marble, then the electron will be about 1/3rd the size of a human hair.

Have you been told that most of the volume of an atom is empty space?

Well it is.

In most books atoms are often represented as a group of balls clustered together and some slightly smaller balls orbiting them a few cms away.

If we were to continue with the scaling of our atom with a marble sized nucleus and 1/3rd human hair thickness electron the electron would be in its correct position if you put it 3.2km away from the marble.

Atoms have shells or areas where electrons can exist with stability.

The first shell is at 3.2km and the next shell would be double that at 6.4km to scale.

The point is that an electron cannot exist between these distances... yet applying energy to atoms can shift electrons or even strip them from the atom.

They don't move from one shell to the other... they cease to exist in one shell and appear in the other without ever existing in the empty space between.

Then there is Hawkings radiation.

A black hole is a point of enormous gravity called a singularity. At this point space and time are crushed out of this universe and out of existence.
There is a sphere around the black hole called the event horison.

Every piece of matter generates a bump or dip in spacetime. The effect of that dip or bump is that other objects in spacetime are attracted or tend to move down the dip towards the object. The more massive the object the deeper the dip and the stronger the acceleration towards that object by other objects with mass. Because the dip is spacetime itself it effects everything including waves and matter.

A singularity is where someone has taken a nice flat piece of sheet rubber and pushed down with their finger to stretch and bend the rubber till they poked their finger through the rubber.

Things rolling towards the depression end up going through the finger hole at the bottom and disappearing from reality.

There is a speed limit in this universe and that speed limit is the speed of light in a vacuum.

At different distances from the singularity you need to travel at different speeds to escape the gravity.

The event horizon is the distance you would have to be able to travel at the speed of light to escape... which means you can't escape at this distance or closer in this universe.

The thing is that Quantum physics shows us that at the atomic level particles are appearing and disappearing all the time.

Particles and anti particles appear together at random throughout spacetime.

These particles and anti particles appearing near the surface of a black hole however have a problem when the anti particles are sucked into the black hole and particles are ejected. This means black holes are constantly giving off particles and absorbing anti particles... which means they are constantly losing mass.


Most black holes after a period quieten down because they have sucked in and violently consumed all the matter near them.
As matter falls into a black hole it tends to be compressed and crushed and accelerated to enormous speeds so before it falls in it often releases lots of energy.

After all that matter is gone the black hole simply slowly evapourates slowly as it releases its Hawkings radiation.


What is the point of me telling you of all this.

We know lots of stuff, but there is lots of stuff we really don't know.

The danger of anti matter outweighs it potential usefulness.

Put simply the multiple redundant safeties and power supplies for EM shielding and magnetic fields to contain anti matter make conventional nuke technology look simple and cheap and easy.

As weapons get bigger they become self defeating because their effects start becoming global.

Very simply there is no need for anti matter weapons.

As a potential power supply however there is potential... I hope we don't destroy the Solar System developing that potential.

That Speed Limit only applies to 3 dimensions. That's like saying Old Adolf Hitler's broadcasts which are traveling thru space via the electromagnetic spectrum as well because those EMF emissions were also pushed out into space...we'll never outrun. We can right now.

Old Adolphs broadcasts had nothing like the energy to leave our solar system... but then Voyager 1 is the best we can do and it is traveling at nothing like the speed of light at 17km/s and 117 AUs away. (Note one AU is the distance between Earth and the Sun).

Either they are resonating from one universe to another while breaking the speed of light

But they are not breaking the speed of light.

If a microwave oven only works by heating water molecules with friction, how come compounds are also changed into different compounds?

Because heat can make some compounds change into different compounds. Set fire to wood and you end up with ash... a different compound.

They don't really want people to know that or everyone will stop using microwaves to cook their food. Molecules are being resonated and break into different compounds in your microwaved food. Yummy!

I didn't realise companies that made microwave ovens were so powerful that they could get governments to ignore health and safety issues and just accept their word that they are safe. I would think they probably had a lot of testing and were found to be safe.

The latest science talk is the Fe0 iron on the moon. It's never seen oxygen and is very different than the iron on Earth.

Hang on... what? Who said there is no oxygen on the moon? They claim there might be water there... do you think it is special moon water that doesn't contain oxygen?

There is no gas atmosphere on the moon... it is too small to hold it unless it was cryogenically cold like the atmosphere of Titan with low energy so it doesn't escape but then even Titan is 80% more massive than our moon, but that doesn't mean there is no oxygen there.

They plan on zapping the ground on the moon with microwaves to form large pieces to form things. How are they joining iron on the moon with low power microwaves very easily? They aren't using fire or melting the iron together. They are resonating the Fe0 together.

No they are not resonating anything together. A microwave oven will generate heat in water molecules through friction, but put a metal object in a microwave and it doesn't slowly heat up like a glass of water, it acts as an antenna and starts generating an electric current. Directing concentrated microwaves on metal powder in moon dust will generate a strong electric current that might result in a temperature increase and em attraction that might form a bonded blob of something, but it has little to do with resonating frequencies.