PsiPog.net : View topic - Crazy idea

# PsiPog.net

# View topic - Crazy idea

PsiPog.net Forum Index » Modern Sciences » Crazy idea

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Crazy idea
Author | Message
--- | ---
Posted on Sun Mar 12, 2006 3:44 pm

### shantoruk

Joined: 05 Mar 2006
Posts: 10

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron-positron_annihilation

Back to top
Posted on Sun Mar 12, 2006 8:42 pm

### Red_Devil

Joined: 14 Jan 2006
Posts: 136

Thanatos wrote:

mattz1010 wrote:
Thanatos, if all you're going to do is complain about how people know nothing, you're not helping whatsoever. And it makes you look like a big baby. Matter can be created, can't it? I thought it just needs a huge amount of force to be able to do so. Like...not huge. But, insanely large, past the point of comprehension 'large'.

Matter + AntiMatter = Photons
Photons = Matter + AntiMatter
Force? Force has nothing to do with it. Matter cannot be created, even in the big bang theory in essence "Nothing" does not exist. Read up.

I think he didn't mean force, rather energy.
Force has something to do with it. Two particles don't start moving or collide until some sort of force is exerted on them.
And matter can be created or destroyed. Here's an example:
A high energy X-ray can collide with the nucleus of an atom and disappear and two particles, an electron and an anti-electron (a.k.a. positron), will appear in its place. So extra matter is being produced from no matter. The important thing is that the amount of total energy stays the same, but the energy can change its form from electromagnetic radiation (the X-ray) to matter (the electron and positron). Also, an electron and positron can collide with and annihilate each other, producing X-rays.

Back to top
Posted on Sun Mar 12, 2006 9:58 pm

### LOTRfool

Joined: 13 Jan 2006
Posts: 518

Thanatos wrote:
Matter + AntiMatter = Photons Photons = Matter + AntiMatter

Lol, it actually equals energy. A handful of antimatter detonated would equal more or less the energy released from an atomic bomb. I think you should start reading up a bit as well. And Energy=Force is like saying Baseball Bat=Swing.

Back to top
Posted on Mon Mar 13, 2006 7:17 am

### shantoruk

Joined: 05 Mar 2006
Posts: 10

A photon is energy; it's just the particular form that energy tends to take after a particle-antiparticle annihilation.
Light is made up of photons, y'know?
Other common examples of energy:
kinetic - movement energy, like the energy a speeding bullet or car transfers to something it hits
potential - stored by an object being in a certain position in a gravitational, magnetic, electric etc. field - like the energy that makes a brick move when you drop it. (This kind of energy is closely related to a class of forces called 'conservative forces')
chemical - stored in the structure of molecules, i.e. bonds between atoms, like the energy that comes out of wood when it burns
nuclear - stored in bonds inside atoms (between smaller particles), like the energy released by a uranium plant
heat energy, radiation energy (photons) etc.

Back to top
Posted on Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:04 pm

### Sky_Psion

Joined: 16 Feb 2006
Posts: 127

Well, monatomic gold can dissappear (I read this on a link on the forum, not sure where), which means that matter can at least go away for a little while. It would be pretty impressive to see that happen, in my opinion.
And matter can be destroyed and transformed, but not created. You could theoretically take a mass of hydrogen and eventually transform it into almost any other gas, but it's silly to think any technology like that would have a use.

Back to top
Posted on Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:34 pm

### Eldibs

Joined: 12 Jan 2006
Posts: 909

That would be handy. Convert Hydrogen into something more stable, and then when you need it, convert it back. Or you could convert large amounts of non-dense elements into something more compact for easier transportation.

Back to top
Posted on Thu Mar 23, 2006 1:06 am

### Malius

Joined: 16 Feb 2006
Posts: 26

Sky_Psion wrote:
Well, monatomic gold can dissappear (I read this on a link on the forum, not sure where), which means that matter can at least go away for a little while.

Our little community dismissed monatomic gold as fluff in this thread.

Sky_Psion wrote:
And matter can be destroyed and transformed, but not created.

Matter can be created through a process called pair production. Basically, a high energy photon interacts with an atomic nucleus and forms an electron and a positron. The minimum energy of a photon to produce an electron/positron pair is 1.02 MeV. This corresponds to a photon of frequency 247 EHz, which falls in the high energy x-ray range.
The minimum energy of a photon to produce a proton/antiproton pair is 1.88 GeV. This corresponds to a photon of frequency 454 ZHz, which falls in the gamma-ray range. This energy is easily attainable in modern day particle accelerators.
As for the energy required for the materialization of matter, lets just try to materialize a minuscule 1 gram of matter. E = m c^2. So, E = 8.99 x 10^13 Joules. To give you a benchmark, the Hiroshima bomb was a 15 kiloton bomb, which corresponds to 6.28 x 10^13 Joules. (1 Ton of TNT = 4.184 x 10^9 Joules.) So it would actually take more energy to materialize 1 gram of matter, than the energy released in the Hiroshima nuclear explosion!

Back to top
Posted on Thu Mar 23, 2006 1:10 am

### sgtpsion

Joined: 13 Jan 2006
Posts: 425

Y'know, I came up with this idea a really long time ago, during some idle musings in a useless class that I got 5 credits for. Unless I'm sorely mistaken, matter is, so to speak, super-condensed energy.
E=mc(squared)
I interpret this to mean that a certain amount of mass (in kilograms), times the speed of light (in metres per second) squared, would give us the amount of energy needed to create that mass (in Joules). Inversely, if we had a certain amount of energy (in Joules), we just need to divide by the speed of light (in metres per second) squared, and we could find out how much mass (in kilograms) could be made with it.
Theoretically, this should be right. But we'd need to figure out the nature of Psi first. If it's just electrons, then we'd have a bit of a problem, because we'd need to get protons and neutrons from somewhere.
Sorry if I'm being redundant, but whatever. I'm tired. It's like, 23:08 (that's 11:08pm for you non-military types). I'm going to bed. As Violent J once said "And if there's anyone we forgot, fuck you! It's like, 5 in the morning!"

Back to top
Posted on Thu Mar 23, 2006 1:37 am

### Malius

Joined: 16 Feb 2006
Posts: 26

Modern science still has no idea wtf mass is beyond "a property of a physical object that quantifies the amount of matter it contains." There's one theory that a "Higgs field" permeates the universe and gives particles their mass. Definately check out these wikipedia articles:
Mass
Higgs boson
Higgs mechanism

Back to top
the answer to the universe on Sat Mar 25, 2006 7:00 pm

### psionic_sage

Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Posts: 2

the purpose of existance is to fill the the non-existence there would be if it didnt exist.
existance is all about oposites.
hot-cold,
forward-backwards,
left-right,
up-down,
yes-no,
existance-non-existance,
everything is oposites.
and that proves there is a god.
god is simply the act of the universe balancing itself.
god- the act of the universe balancing itself.
universe- the illusion caused by the side effects of everything balancing itself.
existance- the fact that everything exists and is balanced
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Back to top
Posted on Sat Mar 25, 2006 10:50 pm

### Malius

Joined: 16 Feb 2006
Posts: 26

Dude, what's the purpose of your post?

Back to top
Posted on Sat Mar 25, 2006 11:02 pm

### LOTRfool

Joined: 13 Jan 2006
Posts: 518

Agreed.
Person with weird post, elaborate.
Your post =WTF?

Back to top
Re: the answer to the universe on Mon Mar 27, 2006 8:12 am

### Red_Devil

Joined: 14 Jan 2006
Posts: 136

psionic_sage wrote:

the purpose of existance is to fill the the non-existence there would be if it didnt exist.
existance is all about oposites.
hot-cold,
forward-backwards,
left-right,
up-down,
yes-no,
existance-non-existance,
everything is oposites.
and that proves there is a god.
god is simply the act of the universe balancing itself.
god- the act of the universe balancing itself.
universe- the illusion caused by the side effects of everything balancing itself.
existance- the fact that everything exists and is balanced
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Your logic is kinda flawed. You mean that, the existence of a God is to balance the unexistence of a God? That doesn't even make sense. You say the balance of things depends on the existence of others, but, if something isn't there in the first place, how can you make an opposite for it?
Just my $0.02.

Back to top
Posted on Mon Mar 27, 2006 11:02 am

### mattz1010

Joined: 14 Jan 2006
Posts: 885

Lay off, Thanatos, I was asking a question, not proclaiming it as solid truth and fact.
Edit: P_S, your post makes no sense as it has some VERY circular logic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_logic

Back to top
Posted on Fri Apr 07, 2006 7:02 pm

### obsidian

Joined: 13 Jan 2006
Posts: 56

Sky_Psion wrote:
Well, monatomic gold can dissappear (I read this on a link on the forum, not sure where), which means that matter can at least go away for a little while. It would be pretty impressive to see that happen, in my opinion. And matter can be destroyed and transformed, but not created. You could theoretically take a mass of hydrogen and eventually transform it into almost any other gas, but it's silly to think any technology like that would have a use.

now thats just silly, what happens to mater when you mix it with antimatter? it completely turn into energy, unlike spliting uranuim into boron and something else I forgot. and to tell you, hydrogent can be turned into allot more than just other gases

Back to top

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

PsiPog.net Forum Index » Modern Sciences » Crazy idea

All Content, Images, Video, Text, and Software is © Copyright 2000-2006 PsiPog.net and their respective authors. All Rights Reserved.

You must agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy to view this website. Click here to contact the webmaster.