Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

urtley t1_j1r5yqk wrote

Isn't he saying that turning matter into energy would give us plenty to work with?

21

IsThereAnythingLeft- t1_j1r7wdl wrote

So using nuclear energy. That is a term

4

urtley t1_j1rdgrx wrote

From web search: The mass converted to energy in fission is about 0.1%;

Imagine if we got that number way higher like the OP was suggesting.

7

Crime_Dawg t1_j1rhtmx wrote

You can’t make it go higher, it’s a fundamental aspect of the difference in starting mass of your initial atom and the final mass it splits into.

3

Gavinlw11 t1_j1rj5n0 wrote

To expand, the 'mass' lost in nuclear reaction is not actually 'matter' (meaning particles) it is just energy stuck in the bonds between particles, not unlike chemical bonds. Of course we observe it as 'mass' because e=mc^2, and there is enough bonding energy to effect the mass we observe, but e=mc^2 does not mean we can obliterate particles into pure energy. The only way to do that is with anti-matter, which we can only make by expending a vast amount of energy (more than we would get back out)

7

aspiringnobody t1_j1rzzkb wrote

You actually can liberate 100% of the energy “stored” in matter by annihilating it with antimatter.

Not likely in the near future but certainly conceivable in the distant future.

3

Crime_Dawg t1_j1scvea wrote

Yeah but that has nothing to do with fission / fusion.

1

amitym t1_j1trhyr wrote

Strictly speaking it is a form of fusion...

0

IsThereAnythingLeft- t1_j1rvmx9 wrote

Op suggested nothing of the sort, they hadn’t a clue what they were talking about

0

whitewail602 t1_j1rskkd wrote

I knew exactly what they were talking about.

0

IsThereAnythingLeft- t1_j1rvvxi wrote

Doesn’t make what op said a correct statement

1

whitewail602 t1_j1rxj1x wrote

Just because they're not up on the terminology doesn't mean they can't participate in the conversation. I hear stuff like this from actual scientists all the time and no one thinks twice about it.

2