🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sat, 20 Jan 1996 17:48:25 -0500, jthomas@pluto.njcc.com (Jay
Thomas) wrote:

>> 
>Theoretically speaking... there is nothing to prevent you from making
>antimatter w/o using energy. Simply "converting" ordinary matter into
>antimatter is a zero energy proposition. The energy comes from
>anhilliation of matter, not from the energy invested. Current techniques
>in producing antimatter, in fact, almost all possible techniques we know
>about now, require large amounts of energy. But...
>

Depends on which theory you are talking about. There's a rather
important symmetry principal called "baryon conservation" without
which the universe wouldn't be stable enough to live in. Converting
matter to anti-matter is, fortunately for our existence, very far from
being a "zero energy" proposition because baryon conservation says
that if you create an anti-proton you must simultaneously create a
proton.

Star Trek hypothesises the existence of something called an
"anti-matter converter" but there's no room for such a device within
current physics.


---------------------------------+----------------------------------
I was born weird:  This terrible | Like Pavlov's dogs we are trained
compulsion to behave normally is | to salivate at the sound of the
the result of childhood trauma.  | liberty bell.
---------------------------------+----------------------------------
Malcolm