Facebook
Google
GitHub
Linkedin
Beauty
- Thread starter nsaspook
- Start date
Super cool stuff. I'm familiar with industrial type beam collimation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collimator
I haven’t had time to play around or toy with this for awhile. But it has to do with a friend of mine, his ideas formed from publications, disseminated by the Press, either Scientific Journals or other lets just say, Media, and I don’t care.
His idea that was formed was Antimatter, he said Quote: CERN is creating Antimatter and if handled improperly could potentially destroy the earth.
I said nothing, I can explain it to him, but can’t understand it for him. By default it is he who must research to know their is a layer to maintain, the layer is rate of decay, so quick as to steal any knowledge gained through the process of creation. Here and gone again. Pop.
Hello good bye, see ya in the future fellas.
But is there any truth in what he’s saying, why are they reporting such madness? Just for the effect? Truth or Lies?
What do you think and why?
kv
ZCochran98
- Joined Jul 24, 2018
- 351
I mean, it could, but you'd need about \(2.77\times10^{15}\) kg of it to do so (to overcome the gravitational binding energy of the earth). That, for perspective, is about 0.0000000463% the earth's mass (or about 12.6 Halley's comets). For more tangible perspective, this would be a mass roughly the size (and composition) of a small asteroid 6.7 km in radius (13.4 km in diameter, or a little wider than Washington, DC).
Attempt a simple explanation please. Explain how this is so destructive. Is it explosive? Or the opposite? Seemingly ripping apart the earth chunk by chunk maybe similar to objects of similar size although one smaller than the other attracted spinning oscillations faster and faster, conjoining as twin bodies that find equality eventually to a coherent oneness in space Or is it more reactant now a force becomes relevant to heat both creating a causation event that does a similar thing. Wherein, molecules or particles begin to combine and a heat overwhelmingly results in a sudden explosion over time either instant or of a time duration, a critical mass explotion.
Is it the formation of a Blackhole, predecessor to an event? Or is a Blackhole something entirely different.
kv
Your friend is talking about the effects of Annihilation
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~ryden/ast294z/solution_5.pdf
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~ryden/ast294z/solution_5.pdf
https://home.cern/news/news/physics/cern-approves-two-new-experiments-transport-antimatter
I’ll study this today, food for thought, haven’t had much time as of late to do so, far to busy these days.
kv
Edit: If your agree leave a like, if not add to or take away, however, cite your research or claim to the discussion or conjecture is welcome.
1. Therefor, based on the above model, the grains of sand combined to equal Washington D.C. in post #205 Energy to Mass equivalent, describes the Energy proposed to destroy the earth, does it or could it as a reactive agent produce a particle to particle force as to turn the earth into a neutron star, a causation expanded particle nuclei physical thermonuclear reaction or combined reactions.
Or
2. Slowly ripped apart by simpler forces, 2 similar objects in space slowly intertwining ripping each other apart, the eventual results one object returning to equilibrium Merging. This is a mass to mass equivalent. I would assume so is the above, but for different reasons all together.
kv
ZCochran98
- Joined Jul 24, 2018
- 351
Indeed, I was referring to the effect of annihilation. Matter-antimatter collisions convert both masses into energy (so, really, I'd need half as much mass as I initially stated if you consider the amount of mass that would instantly be annihilated - the total mass would come from half matter, half antimatter - this correction halves the volume, meaning the radius of the mass should really be 5.3 km, or 10.6 km wide - about 2km wider than Everest is tall). The energy calculation is as "simple" as \(E=mc^2\) and solving for \(m\), knowing \(E\).
This amount of energy would shred the Earth apart, though how, I'm not entirely certain. It wouldn't compress the Earth, forming a neutron star, but it would instead create enough energy that would manifest itself as mostly heat, with a decent chance of igniting thermonuclear reactions. Alternatively, the Earth could just straight up explode, sending bits of itself flying in every direction due to that much energy being absorbed by and breaking down the atomic bonds of the materials that make up the planet. In the long run, it'd be easier to fling a small (60ish-mile-wide) asteroid at the Earth and call it a day, if you wanted to destroy the Earth.
Now, there are theories that you can create a black hole from energy (it's called a "Kugelblitz"), but it requires an obscene amount of energy condensed in an area smaller than an atom (based on the Schwarzchild radius, it would have to be about 2 nano-Angstrom wide [0.23 attometers], or \(2.3\times10^{-9}\) times the width of a Hydrogen atom for one with the energy equivalency of the energy produced by the sun in 1/10 of a second - or about \(3.8\times10^{25}\) Joules). So, indeed, this amount of energy produced to overcome the gravitational binding energy of Earth could create a black hole, too, but it'd need to be compressed quite a bit (inside the radius of 0.462 pm [\(4.62\times10^{-13}\) m]). This would be a tiny black hole, and the initial laser blast (as it would have to be, as the corresponding mass of antimatter to create a Kugelblitz would already have become a black hole in order to keep the annihilation energy release in the appropriate radius) to create such an object would be billions of times more powerful than anything we have today, even if pulsed for the smallest fraction of a second.
To answer an earlier question, in the long run, I think media and "science media" (not journals, but things like "Scientific American" and "Popular Science") like to report "CERN has the capability to destroy the world" or "CERN can create miniature black holes" because it gets clicks/reads, not because they're actually true statements. The media, even "science media," seem to rarely ever report scientific phenomenon accurately. Just look at the neutrinos discovered in the arctic a couple years ago that media reported as "going backwards in time" (they weren't; they were just undergoing a time-symmetry transform, which can be as simple as physically going backwards out of something rather than entering it. In this specific case, I don't recall the exact time-symmetry transform they were undergoing), or when they reported on structures like "time crystals," which aren't nearly as cool as they sound (a physical, time-dependent structure that is periodic and cyclical with a regular structure in time). So yeah: I think they report things like this just for the effect. Some may be intentionally lying, but I think it's mostly to drive clicks/reads. Even the reports of room-temperature superconductors are somewhat misleading, as the headlines never mention the pressures required to achieve them (though those pressures usually are at least mentioned in the articles).
For the record, as it can be hard to visualize the size of the theoretical "antimatter asteroid" I mentioned, here's a size comparison of some asteroids to a sizeable city (NYC, I think). The Chicxulub Impactor is roughly the size of the "antimatter asteroid." This screenshot is originally from a video by "MetaBallStudios"
This amount of energy would shred the Earth apart, though how, I'm not entirely certain. It wouldn't compress the Earth, forming a neutron star, but it would instead create enough energy that would manifest itself as mostly heat, with a decent chance of igniting thermonuclear reactions. Alternatively, the Earth could just straight up explode, sending bits of itself flying in every direction due to that much energy being absorbed by and breaking down the atomic bonds of the materials that make up the planet. In the long run, it'd be easier to fling a small (60ish-mile-wide) asteroid at the Earth and call it a day, if you wanted to destroy the Earth.
Now, there are theories that you can create a black hole from energy (it's called a "Kugelblitz"), but it requires an obscene amount of energy condensed in an area smaller than an atom (based on the Schwarzchild radius, it would have to be about 2 nano-Angstrom wide [0.23 attometers], or \(2.3\times10^{-9}\) times the width of a Hydrogen atom for one with the energy equivalency of the energy produced by the sun in 1/10 of a second - or about \(3.8\times10^{25}\) Joules). So, indeed, this amount of energy produced to overcome the gravitational binding energy of Earth could create a black hole, too, but it'd need to be compressed quite a bit (inside the radius of 0.462 pm [\(4.62\times10^{-13}\) m]). This would be a tiny black hole, and the initial laser blast (as it would have to be, as the corresponding mass of antimatter to create a Kugelblitz would already have become a black hole in order to keep the annihilation energy release in the appropriate radius) to create such an object would be billions of times more powerful than anything we have today, even if pulsed for the smallest fraction of a second.
To answer an earlier question, in the long run, I think media and "science media" (not journals, but things like "Scientific American" and "Popular Science") like to report "CERN has the capability to destroy the world" or "CERN can create miniature black holes" because it gets clicks/reads, not because they're actually true statements. The media, even "science media," seem to rarely ever report scientific phenomenon accurately. Just look at the neutrinos discovered in the arctic a couple years ago that media reported as "going backwards in time" (they weren't; they were just undergoing a time-symmetry transform, which can be as simple as physically going backwards out of something rather than entering it. In this specific case, I don't recall the exact time-symmetry transform they were undergoing), or when they reported on structures like "time crystals," which aren't nearly as cool as they sound (a physical, time-dependent structure that is periodic and cyclical with a regular structure in time). So yeah: I think they report things like this just for the effect. Some may be intentionally lying, but I think it's mostly to drive clicks/reads. Even the reports of room-temperature superconductors are somewhat misleading, as the headlines never mention the pressures required to achieve them (though those pressures usually are at least mentioned in the articles).
For the record, as it can be hard to visualize the size of the theoretical "antimatter asteroid" I mentioned, here's a size comparison of some asteroids to a sizeable city (NYC, I think). The Chicxulub Impactor is roughly the size of the "antimatter asteroid." This screenshot is originally from a video by "MetaBallStudios"
djsfantasi
- Joined Apr 11, 2010
- 9,237
Where was the first time you heard of a tesseract? For me, it was in Madeline L’Engle’s “A Wrinkle in Time”. When I first read it, I was 10. The story and Heinlien’s short story “Life Line” taught me how to visualize four dimensions mentally.
Yeah, I read that novel too, when I was a kid. As for visualizations, I remember an old article in Scientific American that talked about the subject.
dcbingaman
- Joined Jun 30, 2021
- 1,065
The 'laws' of physics start off simple enough, or so you would think. Like the law of gravitational forces. What could be simpler than it being proportional to the product of the masses involved and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them? Combine that with F=ma and consider the following:
Take those 'simple' laws and try to apply them to a 'simple' system of say 4 spheres each with a specified mass, specified initial position in 3D space and a specified initial velocity as a 3D vector and calculate the positions over time for just a short while and the calculations become next to impossible without a very powerful computer. Move to 10 such objects and the long term system predictions become nearly impossible to solve.
Again, the laws of chemistry seem simple enough and derive of course from quantum physics as well but try to determine the behavior of a 'simple' prokaryotic cell using just the laws of chemistry and no computing machine on earth can predict the future state of such a living system.
There are plenty more examples. Then you have the major problem in physics in my mind:
Even if we do 'know' all the laws of particle physics from experimentation and application of the scientific method and the mathematical relationships that determine their interactions, the question of why the rules are what they are will remain a mystery that no amount of discovery can determine.
Last edited:
You probably know all this already but i couldnt help but mention some of this simply because it's such an amazing part of life and existence.
I think this is something like what we call "emergence". That's quite an amazing concept. A lot of little things create huge systems that can vary wildly, even though in theory they are predictable, or at least if we could calculate everything in a reasonable amount of time, which for many we can not at least not yet. Hopefully quantum computing will help with this if we ever really get that far.
Another example is that computer simulation they used to call simply, "Life". You would start out with a set of 'living cells' that have to obey some simpler rules depending a lot on how close they are to neighbors. They either life or die, and if they live, they join with other cells and it keeps going and going but the shapes and number of cells changes wildly. To calculate what would happen in some closed form function would have to be impossible.
It's amazing how all this works when you think about it. Some systems die out, or live for a long time then die out, yet some go on for what looks like forever. There are so many little things that can vary so it's hard to predict what will happen with different initial states. We call it a mystery just because we cant calculate it yet or come up with a simple set of laws that explains the entire behavior.
It's also amazing that if it were not for that, we might not be here, or we might all look exactly the same and perform the same routines day after day without variation, interacting more like robots that have a simple programming.
dcbingaman
- Joined Jun 30, 2021
- 1,065
I write software applications, sometimes just for the enjoyment of it. One I made that I enjoy watching is John Conway's 'Game of Life' simulation that does create some rather interesting patterns (I think it is the one you are referring to). In this one the 'world' has no boundaries and you can zoom in and out and pan around. Very simple rules that result in rather fascinating patterns. Now there is about as many variations of that as there are creative people to think up the rules.
Yes that is probably it. My first exposure to this was back in the 1980's and i dont remember much about it now other than the hugely different outcomes with different initial setups.
dcbingaman
- Joined Jun 30, 2021
- 1,065
I learned it manually just using a checker board or chess board. To play it is this simple:
1. Start with any pattern you want of black checkers on the board.
2. Look at each block on the checker board one at a time. If the block is empty and there is exactly three black checkers surrounding it (that is in the 8 blocks adjacent to it). Place a red checker on that spot.
3. Look at each black checker on the checker board, if there is less than 2 black checkers surrounding it or more than 3 black checkers surrounding it, remove the checker from the board.
4. Replace all of the red checkers with black checkers.
5. Return to step 2 and repeat as many times as you desire.
The 'edges' of the board though does cause problems as what to to with those checkers. I think in Conway's game the board has an infinite number of rows and columns.
Obviously you cannot get to many complex patterns on an 8x8 board but it is fun for kids as it teaches patience and concentration. You can also experiment around with changing the 'rules' and see what happens.
| Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
The weirdest beauty queens... | Off-Topic | 2 | |
|
The beauty of PFC capacitors | Analog & Mixed-Signal Design | 6 |
| Similar threads |
|---|
| The weirdest beauty queens... |
| The beauty of PFC capacitors |
