Multiple choice

Some researchers consider "anti-matter" to be the ultimate source of propulsion energy. In anti-matter, as opposed to matter, electrical charges are reversed. A proton of matter has a positive charge. An anti-proton has a negative charge. When matter collides with antimatter in a particle accelerator, the two annihilate each other, producing phenomenal energy. It almost completely converts matter into energy. Anti-matter annihilation is about 100 times more powerful than nuclear fission, and it is about 10 billion times more energetic than present day chemical (rocket) engines".

What explains the non-usage of anti-matter in spite of the apparent advantages?

  1. Anti-matter serves to create propulsion energy only.

  2. Anti-matter is produced by the collision of nuclear particles.

  3. Anti-matter has scope for misuse.

  4. Anti-matter generates energy only through its collision with matter.

  5. Anti-matter does not occur naturally.
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
E Correct answer
Explanation

(5) If we can create anti-matter on a large scale, we shall virtually have limitless chemical energy. The problem, however, is that it does not occur naturally and has to be created. Thus it brings us back to the problem of generation. (2) is not the answer because it does not rule out anti-matter being generated in nature.

Keep practicing — related questions