6
$\begingroup$

I was originally was thinking of using the Jets emitted by black holes to create antimatter, however those might not fit the setting I want, due to the fact they are don't seem to occur commonly in every black hole. So I have devised a different means.

First, electrons are shot at the black hole in a way that they have a highly elliptical orbit. The Perihelion of this orbit is where the electrons are at relativistic speeds. Then, particles of an element with a large atomic number like gold would be shot at the Perihelion of the electrons for the gold and electrons collide and produce positrons. These positrons are then collected. Is this a feasible way to produce antimatter. And if so, would it still work on small black holes (i.e smaller than stellar black holes?)

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Why do you need the black hole at all? $\endgroup$
    – Daron
    Jun 3, 2022 at 17:28
  • $\begingroup$ The problem with Antimatter production is that it takes more energy to produce it then the antimatter itself as described by Atomic Rockets (projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/antimatterfuel.php). My solution is that rather than having a power intensive particle accelerator, you use a natural one, which in my case are Primordial Black Holes which could be hiding in our Solar system. $\endgroup$
    – spaceamoeba1010
    Jun 3, 2022 at 18:12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Pulsars are a reliable source for antimatter and they are numerous in a galaxy. $\endgroup$
    – user96146
    Jun 3, 2022 at 18:35
  • $\begingroup$ Interesting, even though it is not related to my question, its still useful information. $\endgroup$
    – spaceamoeba1010
    Jun 3, 2022 at 18:50
  • $\begingroup$ @spaceamoeba1010 You said black hole jets are less frequent, that is why I suggested pulsars as they are a steady source. Although within the ergosphere of Supermassive blackholes with your particle accelerator idea could be better. $\endgroup$
    – user96146
    Jun 3, 2022 at 19:25

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
2
$\begingroup$

You can actually sorta. Refer Penrose Process

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_process

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

A black hole may very well give you the acceleration that you need, but there's a lot more to it than just that.

Aiming is going to be an issue for you. Consider the total distance that your electron will travel. You're talking about orbiting a celestial object, so the electron would be traveling for hundreds of millions of kilometers. Firing two infinitesimally small particles at each other from $10^{11}$ meters away and trying to get them to collide will be a stupendously difficult task (like hitting a pop can with a BB gun, except the can is on Mars). A particle accelerator keeps the particles in a controlled environment, using magnetic containment to keep them on track. Yours will be floating free in space, subject to whatever gravitational forces they happen upon. The black hole will be the dominant force but given the sizes and distances that you're working with, something as simple as an asteroid wandering too close can nudge your particle far enough off course to miss the target by kilometers.

Also, a particle accelerator protects the interacting particles with walls that provide physical shielding, plus a vacuum in the interior. We like to say that space is a vacuum but in reality there's a lot of matter floating around out there, not to mention photons, cosmic rays, etc. A flight path of that length will give you plenty of opportunities to collide with a random particle of something else before you reach the destination.

It's a lot of space to have to control in order for the experiment to work. Particle accelerators avoid that problem by making a large number of loops through short, circular tracks (same total flight distance, but less space to control). You're sending your electrons on a long trip through a wild, uncontrolled frontier. It could conceivably work, but I'd wager that the percentage of particles that actually make it to their destination will be low enough that this won't be a feasible system.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Given sufficient tech, and since you are roaming around the event horizon of a black hole here I assume this is available. You could just harvent the natural antimatter escaping the black holes accretion disk and the jets with a adequacy powerful magnetic field.Antimatter Acquisition: Harvesting in Space

But there is another way to find antimatter, for it occurs naturally in the outer Solar System and even closer to home. James Bickford (Draper Laboratory, Cambridge MA) has looked at how we might trap antimatter that occurs in the Earth’s radiation belts. In a report for NIAC back in 2006 (available here), Bickford laid out a strategy for using high temperature superconductors to form two pairs of RF coils with a radius of 100 meters, to be powered by nuclear or solar power. The idea is that the magnetic field created through the RF coils will concentrate and trap the incoming antiproton stream. Blockquote

Compared to harvesting antimatter on Earth, space harvesting is five orders of magnitude more cost effective, and Bickford’s report suggests we could be collecting 25 nanograms of antimatter per day near our planet. And here’s a spectacular mission concept that can grow out of this, also drawn from the Bickford report: Blockquote

With several stationary electromagnetic "Traps" around the black hole, depending on tech and efficiency quite allot of the stuff could be harvested.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Interesting, however like I said I'm thinking of using a blackhole smaller than a Stellar Black Hole (Primordial Black Holes) since they could be more abundant and I don't know if objects smaller than a Stellar Black Hole could produce a Jet. $\endgroup$
    – spaceamoeba1010
    Jun 3, 2022 at 18:46

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .