LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE@LIST.UVM.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE  October 2004

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE October 2004

Subject:

PENTAGON DEVELOPING ANTIMATTER WEAPONS NEXT

From:

Carmelo Ruiz <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sun, 10 Oct 2004 19:29:22 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (273 lines)

--- Global Network <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Subject: PENTAGON DEVELOPING ANTIMATTER WEAPONS NEXT
> Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 12:11:02 -0400
>
> Air Force pursuing antimatter weapons
> Program was touted publicly, then came official gag
> order
> - Keay Davidson, Chronicle Science Writer
> Monday, October 4, 2004
>
>
> The U.S. Air Force is quietly spending millions of
> dollars investigating ways to use a radical power
> source -- antimatter, the eerie "mirror" of ordinary
> matter -- in future weapons.
>
> The most powerful potential energy source presently
> thought to be available to humanity, antimatter is a
> term normally heard in science-fiction films and TV
> shows, whose heroes fly "antimatter-powered
> spaceships" and do battle with "antimatter guns."
>
> But antimatter itself isn't fiction; it actually
> exists and has been intensively studied by
> physicists since the 1930s. In a sense, matter and
> antimatter are the yin and yang of reality: Every
> type of subatomic particle has its antimatter
> counterpart. But when matter and antimatter collide,
> they annihilate each other in an immense burst of
> energy.
>
> During the Cold War, the Air Force funded numerous
> scientific studies of the basic physics of
> antimatter. With the knowledge gained, some Air
> Force insiders are beginning to think seriously
> about potential military uses -- for example,
> antimatter bombs small enough to hold in one's hand,
> and antimatter engines for 24/7 surveillance
> aircraft.
>
> More cataclysmic possible uses include a new
> generation of super weapons -- either pure
> antimatter bombs or antimatter-triggered nuclear
> weapons; the former wouldn't emit radioactive
> fallout. Another possibility is antimatter- powered
> "electromagnetic pulse" weapons that could fry an
> enemy's electric power grid and communications
> networks, leaving him literally in the dark and
> unable to operate his society and armed forces.
>
> Following an initial inquiry from The Chronicle this
> summer, the Air Force forbade its employees from
> publicly discussing the antimatter research program.
> Still, details on the program appear in numerous Air
> Force documents distributed over the Internet prior
> to the ban.
>
> These include an outline of a March 2004 speech by
> an Air Force official who, in effect, spilled the
> beans about the Air Force's high hopes for
> antimatter weapons. On March 24, Kenneth Edwards,
> director of the "revolutionary munitions" team at
> the Munitions Directorate at Eglin Air Force Base in
> Florida was keynote speaker at the NASA Institute
> for Advanced Concepts (NIAC) conference in
> Arlington, Va.
>
> In that talk, Edwards discussed the potential uses
> of a type of antimatter called positrons.
>
> Physicists have known about positrons or
> "antielectrons" since the early 1930s, when Caltech
> scientist Carl Anderson discovered a positron flying
> through a detector in his laboratory. That
> discovery, and the later discovery of "antiprotons"
> by Berkeley scientists in the 1950s, upheld a 1920s
> theory of antimatter proposed by physicist Paul
> Dirac.
>
> In 1929, Dirac suggested that the building blocks of
> atoms -- electrons (negatively charged particles)
> and protons (positively charged particles) -- have
> antimatter counterparts: antielectrons and
> antiprotons. One fundamental difference between
> matter and antimatter is that their subatomic
> building blocks carry opposite electric charges.
> Thus, while an ordinary electron is negatively
> charged, an antielectron is positively charged
> (hence the term positrons, which means "positive
> electrons"); and while an ordinary proton is
> positively charged, an antiproton is negative.
>
> The real excitement, though, is this: If electrons
> or protons collide with their antimatter
> counterparts, they annihilate each other. In so
> doing, they unleash more energy than any other known
> energy source, even thermonuclear bombs.
>
> The energy from colliding positrons and
> antielectrons "is 10 billion times ... that of high
> explosive," Edwards explained in his March speech.
> Moreover, 1 gram of antimatter, about 1/25th of an
> ounce, would equal "23 space shuttle fuel tanks of
> energy." Thus "positron energy conversion," as he
> called it, would be a "revolutionary energy source"
> of interest to those who wage war.
>
> It almost defies belief, the amount of explosive
> force available in a speck of antimatter -- even a
> speck that is too small to see. For example: One
> millionth of a gram of positrons contain as much
> energy as 37.8 kilograms (83 pounds) of TNT,
> according to Edwards' March speech. A simple
> calculation, then, shows that about 50-millionths of
> a gram could generate a blast equal to the explosion
> (roughly 4,000 pounds of TNT, according to the FBI)
> at the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma
> City in 1995.
>
> Unlike regular nuclear bombs, positron bombs
> wouldn't eject plumes of radioactive debris. When
> large numbers of positrons and antielectrons
> collide, the primary product is an invisible but
> extremely dangerous burst of gamma radiation. Thus,
> in principle, a positron bomb could be a step toward
> one of the military's dreams from the early Cold
> War: a so-called "clean" superbomb that could kill
> large numbers of soldiers without ejecting
> radioactive contaminants over the countryside.
>
> A copy of Edwards' speech onNIAC's Web site
> emphasizes this advantage of positron weapons in
> bright red letters: "No Nuclear Residue."
>
> But talk of "clean" superbombs worries critics. "
> 'Clean' nuclear weapons are more dangerous than
> dirty ones because they are more likely to be used,"
> said an e-mail from science historian George Dyson
> of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton,
> N.J., author of "Project Orion," a 2002 study on a
> Cold War-era attempt to design a nuclear spaceship.
> Still, Dyson adds, antimatter weapons are "a long,
> long way off."
>
> Why so far off? One reason is that at present,
> there's no fast way to mass produce large amounts of
> antimatter from particle accelerators. With present
> techniques, the price tag for 100-billionths of a
> gram of antimatter would be $6 billion, according to
> an estimate by scientists at NASA's Marshall Space
> Flight Center and elsewhere, who hope to launch
> antimatter-fueled spaceships.
>
> Another problem is the terribly unruly behavior of
> positrons whenever physicists try to corral them
> into a special container. Inside these containers,
> known as Penning traps, magnetic fields prevent the
> antiparticles from contacting the material wall of
> the container -- lest they annihilate on contact.
> Unfortunately, because like-charged particles repel
> each other, the positrons push each other apart and
> quickly squirt out of the trap.
>
> If positrons can't be stored for long periods,
> they're as useless to the military as an armored
> personnel carrier without a gas tank. So Edwards is
> funding investigations of ways to make positrons
> last longer in storage.
>
> Edwards' point man in that effort is Gerald Smith,
> former chairman of physics and Antimatter Project
> leader at Pennsylvania State University. Smith now
> operates a small firm, Positronics Research LLC, in
> Santa Fe, N.M. So far, the Air Force has given Smith
> and his colleagues $3.7 million for positron
> research, Smith told The Chronicle in August.
>
> Smith is looking to store positrons in a
> quasi-stable form called positronium. A positronium
> "atom" (as physicists dub it) consists of an
> electron and antielectron, orbiting each other.
> Normally these two particles would quickly collide
> and self-annihilate within a fraction of a second --
> but by manipulating electrical and magnetic fields
> in their vicinity, Smith hopes to make positronium
> atoms last much longer.
>
> Smith's storage effort is the "world's first attempt
> to store large quantities of positronium atoms in a
> laboratory experiment," Edwards noted in his March
> speech. "If successful, this approach will open the
> door to storing militarily significant quantities of
> positronium atoms."
>
> Officials at Eglin Air Force Base initially agreed
> enthusiastically to try to arrange an interview with
> Edwards. "We're all very excited about this
> technology," spokesman Rex Swenson at Eglin's
> Munitions Directorate told The Chronicle in late
> July. But Swenson backed out in August after he was
> overruled by higher officials in the Air Force and
> Pentagon.
>
> Reached by phone in late September, Edwards
> repeatedly declined to be interviewed. His superiors
> gave him "strict instructions not to give any
> interviews personally. I'm sorry about that -- this
> (antimatter) project is sort of my grandchild. ...
>
> "(But) I agree with them (that) we're just not at
> the point where we need to be doing any public
> interviews."
>
> Air Force spokesman Douglas Karas at the Pentagon
> also declined to comment last week.
>
> In the meantime, the Air Force has been
> investigating the possibility of making use of a
> powerful positron-generating accelerator under
> development at Washington State University in
> Pullman, Wash. One goal: to see if positrons
> generated by the accelerator can be stored for long
> periods inside a new type of "antimatter trap"
> proposed by scientists, including Washington State
> physicist Kelvin Lynn, head of the school's Center
> for Materials Research.
>
> A new generation of military explosives is worth
> developing, and antimatter might fill the bill, Lynn
> told The Chronicle: "If we spend another $10 billion
> (using ordinary chemical techniques), we're going to
> get better high explosives, but the gains are
> incremental because we're getting near the
> theoretical limits of chemical energy."
>
> Besides, Lynn is enthusiastic about antimatter
> because he believes it could propel futuristic space
> rockets.
>
> "I think," he said, "we need to get off this planet,
> because I'm afraid we're going to destroy it."
>
> E-mail Keay Davidson at [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
> Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in
> Space
> PO Box 652
> Brunswick, ME 04011
> (207) 729-0517
> (207) 319-2017 (Cell phone)
> [log in to unmask]
> http://www.space4peace.org


=====
Carmelo Ruiz-Marrero
Director, Proyecto de Bioseguridad http://bioseguridad.blogspot.com/
Research Associate, Institute for Social Ecology http://www.social-ecology.org/
Fellow, Environmental Leadership Program http://www.elpnet.org/
Senior Fellow, Society of Environmental Journalists http://www.sej.org/

http://carmeloruiz.blogspot.com/



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
May 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LIST.UVM.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager