Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

What I mean is, suppose we could somehow get a kilogram of matter and contain it safely. Now lets say we want to make a bomb using this kilogram, now, we have two ways, either store another kilogram of matter inside the bomb itself and let the matter and the antimatter touch each others when we want to bomb to detonate, or just expose the kilogram to the air and it will explode. But, my question here is simple, either of the previously mentioned ways will just allow the first particles touching each others to annihilate and sending the rest matter and antimatter in opposite ways making the reaction harder and slower to continue. I know eventually the whole kilogram will be annihilated, but it's all about reaction speed in explosives and that's the main difference between nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons. So now, is there a way to ensure that the matter and antimatter will completely annihilate each others with a high rate of reaction ?

share|cite|improve this question
Related question by OP: – Qmechanic Jan 22 '13 at 16:30
You need to combat the Leidenfrost effect. – Peter Shor Jan 22 '13 at 16:41
Out of curiosity... What the hell are you trying to destroy if you need a full kilogram of antimatter? – haneefmubarak Mar 28 '14 at 18:17

You face exactly the same problem as the makers of the first explosives. Although these days we use explosives that react intramolecularly, the original explosives like gunpowder were made from a mixture of an oxidising agent (potassium nitrate) and a reducing agent (sulphur and charcoal). To get the gunpowder to go bang rather than fizz you had to mix the reagents extremely intimately so that the transport of the reacting molecules/atoms was faster than the explosion.

So basically you need an extremely intimate mixture of the matter and antimatter. That is going to make containment fun!

share|cite|improve this answer
Store the antimatter in small "containment" pellets that you simultaneously turn off? – Jerry Schirmer Jan 22 '13 at 18:43
I'd guess you need micron size pellets to get a really fast annihilation. I'm sure it's possible to estimate the overall timescale by considering the transport rate of the initial matter/antimatter and the dispersal rate due to heating by the explosion. Whether the effort is justified is debatable, though I bet there's a government agency somewhere that's done it :-) – John Rennie Jan 22 '13 at 18:46
so is it possible for a 1 kg to be completely annihilated in quickly whatever the mechanism is ? – Hurricane Jan 23 '13 at 14:44
At the moment it's impossible to make or contain a kg of antimatter at all, so it isn't possible to make any definitive comments about how to intimately mix matter and antimatter without them going bang when you don't want them to. If you could prepare a kg of matter where every other atom was anti-matter then it would completely annihilate in under a picosecond. However I can't think of any way to get such an intimate mixture. I suspect that if you simply released a kg lump of antimatter it would make a pretty big bang even if it annihilated relatively slowly. – John Rennie Jan 23 '13 at 15:32
Yes, you are right. I personally think that if we somehow could contain antimatter and wanted to use it as a weapon, tests will show that there is a maximum volume of matter and antimatter that can be mixed in order to annihilate the whole amount and that will be according to the state of the matter and antimatter used. If they need to make a bigger bang, then they will have to split the antimatter into more of that maximum volume, and use these pellets you mentioned earlier. – Hurricane Jan 23 '13 at 15:53

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.