Why isn't more being done into researching ways to industrially

If it fell into the wrong hands, they could bring entire countries to their knees.

>>8975435
Time for the Redpill on antimatter.

#1 Antimatter Weapons
When an antimatter particle makes contact with normal matter they eliminate each other almost instantly.
This means that the other antimatter particles that haven't made contact with normal matter are now being pushed away or vaporized by the blast.
You'd need to come up with a way to make every antimatter particle in the warhead make contact simultaneously.
A "real" antimatter bomb would likely use a 1 atom thick wafer and be many little bombs for carpet bombing.
The main benefit is that, in theory, antimatter bombs would have much less mass than comparable ordnance.

#2 Antimatter fuel
Lasers, particle accelerators, and other tech used to make antimatter is not efficient at all.
It cost more energy to produce antimatter than what output you'd get from the antimatter.
The only reason to produce antimatter as power source on earth would be for low-mass, space based applications.
Assuming cost is not an issue.

Basically antimatter is extremely inefficient but it has a high energy density making it good for low mass applications assuming you have billions and many power plants.
>>8975436
that's wrong

>>8975452
>This means that the other antimatter particles that haven't made contact with normal matter are now being pushed away or vaporized by the blast.
Your anti-matter bomb doesn't need any regular matter in the explosive. All you need to do is release the anti-matter into the air, and it will annihilate with nitrogen and oxygen atoms in the air.

>>8975435
Why would anyone want to manufacture antimatter? You can't use it to power anything, since you'll get less out of it than you put into it. So the only conceivable reason to manufacture it is for weapons, but the any cost/benefit analysis will nix that pretty quickly.

>>8975457
>Why would anyone manufacture the most energy-dense substance we know of?
Not OP but that's pretty retarded anon. A hypothetical antimatter rocket would have a far far better load/fuel ratio than anything we have right now.

>>8975469
But the amount of energy you'll get out of it will always be less than you put into it. It isn't economical to manufacture it. Also it's so incredibly explosive I don't think anyone would want to transport it.

>>8975473
Its not about getting more out than you put it. Its energy storage. Who cares how much energy it costs to make if its way more efficient for running a rocket engine?

>>8975487
>Who cares how much energy it costs to make if
The people who have to sell it.

>>8975473
If you need to consume way less fuel to get a vessel into outer space, then you can make space travel drastically cheaper by reducing the weight load.

>>8975505
Except you'll have to pay though the nose to get the fuel making the whole thing more expensive.

>>8975452
>Time for the Redpill on antimatter.

its science fiction.