People still believe in the big bang?
[quote]Sarev0k wrote:
People still believe in the big bang?[/quote]
After the early CERN/LHC experiments, I think people believe in it now more than ever. Not that they have ‘confirmed’ it, but successfully creating the cosmic ‘goo’ was a pretty big step into getting there. I was pretty shocked to hear they shifted experiments so fast after that breakthrough though… but I suppose it lead to this, alternate breakthrough.
Before I can approve or disapprove of this scientific discovery, I’d like to hear Kirk Cameron’s views.
[quote]Steel Nation wrote:
[quote]Ithiel wrote:
Fucking awesome. [/quote]
Hell yes.
Sweet axe btw.[/quote]
Cheers mate, first guitar I ever customized… still my favorite. Nobody else can have it either because I play upside down.
As an aside, the Van Allen belt (magnetic belt) traps a millions of tons of antimatter in a nice convenient belt around the Earth. Some escapes and is destroyed, but it captures more from space.
This would be an effectively infinite and highly dense source of energy for our planet.
And, yes, it would make quite a bomb. 1kg of antimatter (depending on what kind, but something the size of of a Coke can, say) would let lose roughly 44 megatons. Hiroshima was, what, 13 kilotons? So 340 Hiroshimas?
[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
Mind you, the huge problem with anti matter is that if comes into contact with ANY matter, meaning let out into the air, it would all immediately turn into energy, destroying matter in the process. This creates a perfect vaccuum.
So with 0.00002 grams, and a small leak due to an accident or whatever, you’d have an explosion equivalent to a full tank of gas.
The biggest bomb created by man is the hydrogen bomb (Tsar Bomb).
It released 50 megatonnes of energy.
It would only take 2.33 kg of anti matter to equal that.
The difference however, is that anti matter annihilates matter.
So where as a nuke or hydrogen bomb would displace the air, anti matter would complete destroy it. Depending on what anti-matter is colliding with, will dictate how big the blast is. This is a problem because if the blast size is large enough, (say, in contact with air, where the molecules are spaced out), you’d have a huge vacuum. Now you’d have air in the immediate vicinity rushing in to fill that void, and then the air behind that, and that, and that, etc…so basically the air in the entire world would move (in theory). As you move outwards from the blast, (so a bigger sphere), more and more air would move in to fill that void. Would probably completely fuck the weather.
[/quote]
The energy yield seems reasonable, but the contact destruction does not.
Wouldn’t the volume of air displaced or destroyed by the anti-matter be equivalent to the weight of the anti-matter?
1kg anti-matter = 1kg of air?
[quote]PimpBot5000 wrote:
Before I can approve or disapprove of this scientific discovery, I’d like to hear Kirk Cameron’s views.[/quote]
Don’t forget Ray Comfort…
[quote]Sarev0k wrote:
People still believe in the big bang?[/quote]
There’s about 5 billion people that still believe Mr. Sky Man created everything with a sweep of his hand. Believing in the Big Bang is not so farfetched.
What kind of bottle did they use???
How did they know it was actually in the bottle? Did anyone see it?
If it was only in the bottle for 1/6th of a second, where did it go after that?
Thanks for the post legendaryblaze.
I think I understand the basics of antimatter now.
[quote]TNT-CDN wrote:
What kind of bottle did they use???
How did they know it was actually in the bottle? Did anyone see it?
If it was only in the bottle for 1/6th of a second, where did it go after that?
[/quote]
MAGNETS
Along with the bomb thing… that still something I struggle with. The idea of nothing… like when matter is annihilated etc… the space between galaxies… I just cant wrap my brain around nothing.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
Mind you, the huge problem with anti matter is that if comes into contact with ANY matter, meaning let out into the air, it would all immediately turn into energy, destroying matter in the process. This creates a perfect vaccuum.
So with 0.00002 grams, and a small leak due to an accident or whatever, you’d have an explosion equivalent to a full tank of gas.
The biggest bomb created by man is the hydrogen bomb (Tsar Bomb).
It released 50 megatonnes of energy.
It would only take 2.33 kg of anti matter to equal that.
The difference however, is that anti matter annihilates matter.
So where as a nuke or hydrogen bomb would displace the air, anti matter would complete destroy it. Depending on what anti-matter is colliding with, will dictate how big the blast is. This is a problem because if the blast size is large enough, (say, in contact with air, where the molecules are spaced out), you’d have a huge vacuum. Now you’d have air in the immediate vicinity rushing in to fill that void, and then the air behind that, and that, and that, etc…so basically the air in the entire world would move (in theory). As you move outwards from the blast, (so a bigger sphere), more and more air would move in to fill that void. Would probably completely fuck the weather.
[/quote]
The energy yield seems reasonable, but the contact destruction does not.
Wouldn’t the volume of air displaced or destroyed by the anti-matter be equivalent to the weight of the anti-matter?
1kg anti-matter = 1kg of air?
[/quote]
It would. The effects of an absolute vacuum could do damage in a butterfly effect type scenario.
Either that or make a really strong gust. I may be overestimating that.
Good point.
[quote]Amiright wrote:
Along with the bomb thing… that still something I struggle with. The idea of nothing… like when matter is annihilated etc… the space between galaxies… I just cant wrap my brain around nothing. [/quote]
You are simply transforming matter into energy.
Matter and energy are interchangeable.
I dunno about a big gust either. The way this guy figures it What is the weight of 1 cubic foot of air?
air weighs 36.61g/cu.ft. at STP. Extrapolate that to one kilogram and you have approx. 27.31 cuft. of air that would get disappeared due to contact with antimatter. Not a big deal.
The apocalyptic explosion is also predicated on the idea that the main form of energy released from the reaction would be heat. This is not necessarily true, as can be seen with a nuclear explosion which emits a number of different forms of energy along with heat.
[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
Mind you, the huge problem with anti matter is that if comes into contact with ANY matter, meaning let out into the air, it would all immediately turn into energy, destroying matter in the process. This creates a perfect vaccuum.
So with 0.00002 grams, and a small leak due to an accident or whatever, you’d have an explosion equivalent to a full tank of gas.
The biggest bomb created by man is the hydrogen bomb (Tsar Bomb).
It released 50 megatonnes of energy.
It would only take 2.33 kg of anti matter to equal that.
The difference however, is that anti matter annihilates matter.
So where as a nuke or hydrogen bomb would displace the air, anti matter would complete destroy it. Depending on what anti-matter is colliding with, will dictate how big the blast is. This is a problem because if the blast size is large enough, (say, in contact with air, where the molecules are spaced out), you’d have a huge vacuum. Now you’d have air in the immediate vicinity rushing in to fill that void, and then the air behind that, and that, and that, etc…so basically the air in the entire world would move (in theory). As you move outwards from the blast, (so a bigger sphere), more and more air would move in to fill that void. Would probably completely fuck the weather.
[/quote]
The energy yield seems reasonable, but the contact destruction does not.
Wouldn’t the volume of air displaced or destroyed by the anti-matter be equivalent to the weight of the anti-matter?
1kg anti-matter = 1kg of air?
[/quote]
It would. The effects of an absolute vacuum could do damage in a butterfly effect type scenario.
Either that or make a really strong gust. I may be overestimating that.
Good point.
[quote]Amiright wrote:
Along with the bomb thing… that still something I struggle with. The idea of nothing… like when matter is annihilated etc… the space between galaxies… I just cant wrap my brain around nothing. [/quote]
You are simply transforming matter into energy.
Matter and energy are interchangeable.
[/quote]
I didn’t explain myself well… and I don’t mean matter to energy… And I understand the process etc… its just that my brain can’t understand it truly… The same why I will never understand how large the universe is. No amount of math will ever help me understand the things i’m doing. I enjoy physics more than any other subject… and I’ve done a lot of it(not saying i’m a physicists etc… it was just my primary interest in school… I stick to engineering). But half the time I’ll be doing something and I know why I’m doing it and what I hope to achieve… but I don’t really understand it. My brain just can’t handle it.
[quote]PimpBot5000 wrote:
Before I can approve or disapprove of this scientific discovery, I’d like to hear Kirk Cameron’s views.[/quote]
This is the only Kirk I’ll listen to on this subject.
I’m annoyed that it took all the way to the bottom half of page 2 for any Trek reference.
[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
[quote]scj119 wrote:
Maybe.
It’s widely believed that an equal amount of matter and antimatter were created at the big bang - yet matter exists today. So either there’s buttloads of antimatter out there we can’t see, or there’s an unknown mechanism by which matter has survived.
Or, there was more matter than antimatter at the big bang, but believing that is pretty inconvenient to a lot of things we believe to be true.
[/quote]
Yes, and some of that stuff annihilated each other.
What was left was clumps of this and clumps of that here and there.
What, exactly, is your point?[/quote]
That’s a gross oversimplification. If there was an equal amount of matter and antimatter created at the big bang, and they both annihilate equal amounts of each other on contact, why is the visible universe composed of entirely matter? It’s not like we have galaxies of matter and galaxies of antimatter throughout the universe.
Scientists believe three things: matter and antimatter annihilate each other; an equal amount of both were created at the big bang; and there is no sign of antimatter in the universe.
There is quite obviously a huge missing variable somewhere in there - so what I’m saying is that there’s a huge amount of unknown when it comes to antimatter. I’m not saying anyone’s right or wrong or indifferent, just adding in that there’s a lot of unknown here.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
I dunno about a big gust either. The way this guy figures it What is the weight of 1 cubic foot of air?
air weighs 36.61g/cu.ft. at STP. Extrapolate that to one kilogram and you have approx. 27.31 cuft. of air that would get disappeared due to contact with antimatter. Not a big deal.
The apocalyptic explosion is also predicated on the idea that the main form of energy released from the reaction would be heat. This is not necessarily true, as can be seen with a nuclear explosion which emits a number of different forms of energy along with heat.
[/quote]
I know I’m being anal but it wouldn’t be heat, because heat is simply a transfer of energy.
Since all the mass is turned into energy, you would need some form of mass less particle.
In that case, it would be a light particle: photon.
Due to the high energies involved, it would probably come out at a very high frequency, aka gamma ray.
That incredible release of energy would behave the same way as during a nuke.
The gamma rays would collide with everything in sight (heat). This would raise the energy of everything around it, causing everything to vaporize.
The air would have incredible energy mixed into it and zoom off as it becomes excited.
This causes the pressure of the immediate area to rise.
A shockwave would ensue from this event. As the air is pushed outwards, you would have a pressure differential in addition to a complete vacuum (albeit very small) in the center.
It doesn’t just create a vacuum. The vacuum is on top of everthing else. I’m just wondering if it matters. Probably doesn’t.
Then the air rushes back in and re-fucks everything up.
This can be seen here:
[quote]Amiright wrote:
I didn’t explain myself well… and I don’t mean matter to energy… And I understand the process etc… its just that my brain can’t understand it truly… The same why I will never understand how large the universe is. No amount of math will ever help me understand the things i’m doing. I enjoy physics more than any other subject… and I’ve done a lot of it(not saying i’m a physicists etc… it was just my primary interest in school… I stick to engineering). But half the time I’ll be doing something and I know why I’m doing it and what I hope to achieve… but I don’t really understand it. My brain just can’t handle it.
[/quote]
No human can understand infinity. You can approximate it though. I cannot imagine a number larger than 1000. I can imagine up to 1000 people. Beyond that, it’s just a number.
There are alot of concepts I understand, as you do, but cannot imagine, because I am incapable of. No need to feel bad about it.
I don’t understand it truly either. I just understand it enough to make use of it and that is fine.
[quote]red04 wrote:
[quote]Sarev0k wrote:
People still believe in the big bang?[/quote]
After the early CERN/LHC experiments, I think people believe in it now more than ever. Not that they have ‘confirmed’ it, but successfully creating the cosmic ‘goo’ was a pretty big step into getting there. I was pretty shocked to hear they shifted experiments so fast after that breakthrough though… but I suppose it lead to this, alternate breakthrough.[/quote]
while we’re on the topic of the LHC, looks like we can put those black hole “concerns” to rest: