Abundant Cheap Energy...

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

the thread is about much more than whether or not anti matter A: exists, B: can produce energy and C: what the scientists at Cern actually are doing with our billions.

I guess it is. Hopefully this thread has clarified A and B for you. As for C, I think the question is more not what they are doing, which is relatively easily understood, but whether it is worthwhile or even potentially dangerous.

I like a lot of the economics discussion on this board. The scientific discussion is filled with nonsense though. Maybe the economics discussion is as well. It's just that I don't know enough about economics to realise it.

[BelfastVI]

I want to know is it non-biological?

[Bloo Loo]

I guess it is. Hopefully this thread has clarified A and B for you. As for C, I think the question is more not what they are doing, which is relatively easily understood, but whether it is worthwhile or even potentially dangerous.

I like a lot of the economics discussion on this board. The scientific discussion is filled with nonsense though. Maybe the economics discussion is as well. It's just that I don't know enough about economics to realise it.

what is the result of A and B that the learned scholars of HPC have concluded.

I am unclear.

And what is the FULL E=MCsquared equation?....this is only a part of it. Ive been trying to find it all, but google seems only to reveal the popular part.

As for scientific discussion, science is a process of Observe, Guess, experiment and compare, consencus....then someone else finds a flaw, or observes something new and the new guess is put to the test.

string theory...Bah!

EDIT:

the full equation which include momentum

The full form of the equation is this:

E^2 = (m0^2 * c^4) + (p^2 * c^2)

E is the total energy of an object

m0 is the rest mass of the object

c is the speed of light in a vacuum

p is the momentum of the object

If you put the particle at rest, the momentum is zero. Thus,

E = m0*c^2

If you define a "relativistic mass", m, you can get the form

E = m*c^2

Edited November 18, 2010 by Bloo Loo

[Stars]

The Arthur C Clark book was Fountains of Paradise and the location was Sigiriya in Sri Lanka.

The device was an elevator composed of molecular strands 30 km in length, woven together. A spool was placed on orbit and a payload was lifted while another was lowered. Then the payload was moved from spool to spool to different locations around the earth, where it was lowered again. Essentially a frictionless and almost zero energy system.

The main problem with this was the material used in the fabric. It was thought that there was no material that could be used for this. Until the late 1990's, when a single strand of carbon, one molecule in thickness was found to have sufficient tensile strength for a 30 km length. So Clark's idea, like satellites, turns out to be feasible.

Similar device also appeared in a successor to 2001 - (2100 or something)

My mains cable concept was not serious btw

[Bloo Loo]

Similar device also appeared in a successor to 2001 - (2100 or something)

My mains cable concept was not serious btw

I think it might have legs.

anyway.

THE LHC want to create and capture some positrons.

they neednt have bothered...done daily with your local PET scanner:

A widely used imaging technique for detecting cancers and examining metabolic activity in humans and animals. A small amount of short-lived, positron-emitting radioactive isotope is injected into the body on a carrier molecule such as glucose. Glucose carries the positron emitter to areas of high metabolic activity, such as a growing cancer. The positrons which are emitted quickly, form positronium with an electron from the bio-molecules in the body and then annihilate producing gamma rays. Special detectors can track this process and enables the detection of cancers or abnormalities in brain function.

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

I think it might have legs.

anyway.

THE LHC want to create and capture some positrons.

they neednt have bothered...done daily with your local PET scanner:

A widely used imaging technique for detecting cancers and examining metabolic activity in humans and animals. A small amount of short-lived, positron-emitting radioactive isotope is injected into the body on a carrier molecule such as glucose. Glucose carries the positron emitter to areas of high metabolic activity, such as a growing cancer. The positrons which are emitted quickly, form positronium with an electron from the bio-molecules in the body and then annihilate producing gamma rays. Special detectors can track this process and enables the detection of cancers or abnormalities in brain function.

I see we have made some progress in understanding one of the uses of the positron.

But it seems that the nature and role of the LHC still eludes us. The clue is in the name.

Wikipedia is your friend.

[Bloo Loo]

I see we have made some progress in understanding one of the uses of the positron.

But it seems that the nature and role of the LHC still eludes us. The clue is in the name.

Wikipedia is your friend.

the large Hardon collider?

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

the large Hardon collider?

Correct. The LHC does not collide positrons, but hadrons. The article is pretty good, far better than I could write.

The specific aim of the LHC is not to create or capture positrons, although I suppose some positrons may be generated as a consequence of the collisions.

You also need to understand the difference between CERN and the LHC. CERN conducted the antimatter atom generation experiment, but not with the LHC. The LHC is one of the experiments CERN conducts.

[toodimm]

Just to help clarify, antimatter is just matter that's travelling backwards in time.

[Bloo Loo]

Correct. The LHC does not collide positrons, but hadrons. The article is pretty good, far better than I could write.

The specific aim of the LHC is not to create or capture positrons, although I suppose some positrons may be generated as a consequence of the collisions.

You also need to understand the difference between CERN and the LHC. CERN conducted the antimatter atom generation experiment, but not with the LHC. The LHC is one of the experiments CERN conducts.

I have just been enjoying an article on Mesons, sub particles of a group called hadrons....fascinating stuff...read it twice...needs another 5 reads to imprint.

Just getting my head round quark spin states.

I wonder what Ray Boulger would say?

[Toto deVeer]

you might have trouble shinnying up a thread 1 molecule thick, although, Im sure Tom Cruise could do it.

Actually from what I recall the strands were woven into a fabric but are very dangerous, being invisible to the eye they can easily slice through flesh.

[Toto deVeer]

I have just been enjoying an article on Mesons, sub particles of a group called hadrons....fascinating stuff...read it twice...needs another 5 reads to imprint.

Just getting my head round quark spin states.

I wonder what Ray Boulger would say?

Something like "Esto se va a poner de la chingada"?

[fellow]

My theory:

When the Universe was created, equal amounts of matter and antimatter were created. The matter exploded as the Big Bang, but the antimatter 'imploded' in the exact opposite direction, exploding as a big bang in another dimension, creating an antimatter universe which exactly mirrors the matter universe. Everything that moves in the matter universe moves in the exact opposite direction in the antimatter universe, so up is down, left is right, positive is negative etc.

This is where gravity comes from, as positive and negative attract each other, some of the electromagnetic attraction can travel between the two dimensions. creating a weak 'gravitational' force. Eventually the two dimensions will implode, and the matter universe will explode as a big bang in the previously antimatter dimension and vice versa. This cycle will continue forever.

What is happening at CERN is that they are creating miniature wormholes between the two dimensions, so some of the antimatter is sucked from the antimatter universe into the matter universe. Of course there is also an antimatter CERN which is sucking matter into it so they are effectively swapping atoms between the two dimensions.

All we need to do is figure out how to create bigger wormholes to extract more of the antimatter and we will have an infinite energy source.

[Bloo Loo]

Something like "Esto se va a poner de la chingada"?

clever. wiki'd that led to Zero hedge and the collapse, and a possible reason for, the collapse of the US mortgage market.

[Toto deVeer]

clever. wiki'd that led to Zero hedge and the collapse, and a possible reason for, the collapse of the US mortgage market.

Tremendous excerpt from the article:

...the immortal words of Joaquin “el chapo” Guzman (notorious gangster hit man), spoken after the mistaken 1993 killing of Cardinal Posadas at the Guadalajara airport: “Esto se va a poner de la chingada” *

* “Things are going to get really f*cked now.” See Alma Guillermoprieto, “The Murderers of Mexico” October 28, 2010, NY Review of Books.

Edited November 18, 2010 by Toto deVeer

[OnlyMe]

Just to help clarify, antimatter is just matter that's travelling backwards in time.

Fascinating, and possibly no annihilation either, just a rapid handbreak turn and a load of burnt rubber, well more of a flash.

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/391/is-anti-matter-matter-going-backwards-in-time

Note that in Feynman's theory, there is no pair production or annihilation. Instead the electron is just interacting with electromagnetic radiation, i.e. light. Thus the whole process is just another aspect of the fact that accelerating electric charges radiate electric and magnetic fields; here the radiation process is sufficiently violent to reverse the direction of the electron's travel in time.

Nambu commented on Feynman's theory in 1950:

"The time itself loses sense as the indicator of the development of phenomena; there are particles which flow down as well as up the stream of time; the eventual creation and annihilation of pairs that may occur now and then is no creation or annihilation, but only a change of direction of moving particles, from past to future, or from future to past." (Progress in Theoretical Physics 5, (1950) 82).

[mirage]

I have a physics and mathematics background.

It really doesn't show.

I dont beleive all I hear from "scientists"..they are usually wrong a lot of the time, and the ones you read about tend to have a serious VI.

I'm not talking about arguments from authority, I'm talking about understanding the concepts and the evidence for them. You can't just work them out from everyday observation and first principles. Some of these thing took great many really clever people a very long time! So you have to read about them.

I like to do mental experiments....I think Carl Sagan also used this technique.

Now, if I think through down to the basic of energy, of which everything is composed, I find that if there is a +ve next to a -ve, they will merge and cancel...not explode with energy.....

You "find" that do you? Is this mental experiment running in your framework of total bloody-minded ignorance then? What do you mean energy "cancelling"? Have you heard of the various conservation laws?

As for Space time, I follow the logic of Einstein, and even he couldnt account for all the energy in space, which scientists are now calling Dark Matter... odd they cant find any of that...I guess because it is dark.

then there are black holes....Ive seen many ideas about them, but it seems prevelent that these things will emit huge amounts of energy at the event horizon...yet, they still cant find any....or dark matter that may be in the black holes.

Im still thinking, and would be happy to go through some thought experiments with you...so that we can teach each other something...

I'm sure you can teach me a great many things, but science isn't looking like it's going to be one of them.

I evidently know far more than you about physics, but I don't have the necessary knowledge to make any meaningful contribution to the field. It appears that you think you might know better than...the physics community, based on a few uneducated daydreams.

As with banking though, I like to question everything...I will be wrong sometimes, but then again, thats how I learn.

That method isn't working very well. After all this insular pondering it turns out you know almost nothing about physics. You are making the common internet "sceptic" mistake of simply treating all established views with suspicion. A true sceptic first does the hard work informing himself and digging into a theory before they are equipped to question it. And then, when the evidence turns out to be pretty damn good....they accept it as the current best model.

A true sceptic has the humility to accept that when he is total ignorant about a subject, people that not only spend their whole lives studying it, and do so with enough success to put satellites in orbit and smash lead ions at gazillions of degree energies in miles long underground tunnels....might have a better idea than he does. This is not at all to accept everything that comes with a veneer of authority. In fact Steven Hawking comes out with some right rubbish sometimes. It's just about being sensible and balancing healthy scepticism with a measure of common sense.

[Bloo Loo]

It really doesn't show.

I'm not talking about arguments from authority, I'm talking about understanding the concepts and the evidence for them. You can't just work them out from everyday observation and first principles. Some of these thing took great many really clever people a very long time! So you have to read about them.

You "find" that do you? Is this mental experiment running in your framework of total bloody-minded ignorance then? What do you mean energy "cancelling"? Have you heard of the various conservation laws?

I'm sure you can teach me a great many things, but science isn't looking like it's going to be one of them.

I evidently know far more than you about physics, but I don't have the necessary knowledge to make any meaningful contribution to the field. It appears that you think you might know better than...the physics community, based on a few uneducated daydreams.

That method isn't working very well. After all this insular pondering it turns out you know almost nothing about physics. You are making the common internet "sceptic" mistake of simply treating all established views with suspicion. A true sceptic first does the hard work informing himself and digging into a theory before they are equipped to question it. And then, when the evidence turns out to be pretty damn good....they accept it as the current best model.

A true sceptic has the humility to accept that when he is total ignorant about a subject, people that not only spend their whole lives studying it, and do so with enough success to put satellites in orbit and smash lead ions at gazillions of degree energies in miles long underground tunnels....might have a better idea than he does. This is not at all to accept everything that comes with a veneer of authority. In fact Steven Hawking comes out with some right rubbish sometimes. It's just about being sensible and balancing healthy scepticism with a measure of common sense.

you need to lighten up.

these guys at the LHC were only fairly sure their black holes wont end the world....

Apart form that, whats it to yer?

Ive said it before, Ill repeat....Entertainment purposes only.

Edited November 18, 2010 by Bloo Loo

[mirage]

Fascinating, and possibly no annihilation either, just a rapid handbreak turn and a load of burnt rubber, well more of a flash.

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/391/is-anti-matter-matter-going-backwards-in-time

Note that in Feynman's theory, there is no pair production or annihilation. Instead the electron is just interacting with electromagnetic radiation, i.e. light. Thus the whole process is just another aspect of the fact that accelerating electric charges radiate electric and magnetic fields; here the radiation process is sufficiently violent to reverse the direction of the electron's travel in time.

Nambu commented on Feynman's theory in 1950:

"The time itself loses sense as the indicator of the development of phenomena; there are particles which flow down as well as up the stream of time; the eventual creation and annihilation of pairs that may occur now and then is no creation or annihilation, but only a change of direction of moving particles, from past to future, or from future to past." (Progress in Theoretical Physics 5, (1950) 82).

Sorry, have to get this one off my chest.

The obvious problem with this is that, whilst poetic and "far out", it is pretty much nonsensical ********.

The systems being described can be visualised as states that vary over a t axis. Things don't "flow" through time in a direction. They just sit there on the graph. If they were "flowing" in one direction or another, we would need to invoke another time axis on which to plot this movement!

The very concept of flowing invokes time! The only sense in which we flow through time is when we imagine the present moment racing forwards along the time axis or dateline. Of course, this is the same problem - how fast does it flow? Doesn't specifying a speed, direction or indeed any movement assume a rate of distance (in this case along the t axis) over time? (yes it does).

If you are just specifying three dimensions of space, and one of time (to simplify to Newtonian space-time) then things can flow through space (movement in space/time) but they can't flow through time, only extend along it, like those long lighttrails of car headlights you see with long-exposure photographs.

If your system model graph has a t axis, then it doesn't move. If it has no t axis but it moves like a video, then you can only play it in one direction or the other - you can't have some particles going one way and others going the other!

So saying that X is just a Y "going" backwards in time sounds good but makes no actual sense, in English or in strict physical theory.

[Bloo Loo]

Sorry, have to get this one off my chest.

The obvious problem with this is that, whilst poetic and "far out", it is pretty much nonsensical ********.

The systems being described can be visualised as states that vary over a t axis. Things don't "flow" through time in a direction. They just sit there on the graph. If they were "flowing" in one direction or another, we would need to invoke another time axis on which to plot this movement!

The very concept of flowing invokes time! The only sense in which we flow through time is when we imagine the present moment racing forwards along the time axis or dateline. Of course, this is the same problem - how fast does it flow? Doesn't specifying a speed, direction or indeed any movement assume a rate of distance (in this case along the t axis) over time? (yes it does).

If you are just specifying three dimensions of space, and one of time (to simplify to Newtonian space-time) then things can flow through space (movement in space/time) but they can't flow through time, only extend along it, like those long lighttrails of car headlights you see with long-exposure photographs.

If your system model graph has a t axis, then it doesn't move. If it has no t axis but it moves like a video, then you can only play it in one direction or the other - you can't have some particles going one way and others going the other!

So saying that X is just a Y "going" backwards in time sounds good but makes no actual sense, in English or in strict physical theory.

just to add that a partical is a wave and a particle is just nonsensical ****** too.

one could never understand how it could be both without a little thought experiment....then extend the thought into another view, view the universe from the view of the first partical in existence, then you will have a clue how my mind is working.

If you get stuck in the mechanics, there is a saying for that....and Ive been caught too in the business world, of not seeing the wood for the trees.

Edited November 18, 2010 by Bloo Loo

[mirage]

you need to lighten up.

these guys at the LHC were only fairly sure their black holes wont end the world....

Actually, Brian Cox said "Anyone Who Thinks the LHC Will Destroy the World is a twit." And he was in D:ream, so he should know.

conservation of energy? if one is a negative of the other, then there is a wipe out..

And so physics doesn't make sense and they are all wrong because they didn't think through this very simple point. Either that or.....you have got something wrong.

Which do you think is more likely?

.course, I just read a physics note about how there were many more anti things at the time of the big bang....but the normal ones won out....by a fair margin I would say...then again, YOU already know what the conditions were at the big bang, which is a new theory, not proven, but still being guessed at by the LHC guys.

I didn't give any opinion on the various hypotheses to do with the big bang. I was merely pointing out that to have a radically anti-establishment opinion on the subject whilst knowing absolutely nothing about it, or indeed physics was pretty stupid.

I note the few anti things they produced DIDNT blow up the lab...were they just absorbed, did they negate a non anti thing? or did they just wimper and die, as do most other destroyed particals?

Who will ever know? Don't worry, I'm sure a few minutes more idle uninformed daydreaming will bring you the solution. Whatever you do, don't pick up a book on the subject. That will ruin your beautiful untainted-by-orthodoxy mind.

Yes, people spend their whole lives studying stuff, beleiving they have found the answer....then they are proved wrong. Einstein I hear was a post office worker.

Brilliant stuff. Your'e opening up my mind. People are sometimes wrong therefore you don't believe any of them about anything, even though you can't be bothered to educate yourself on the subjects of your opinions.

And Einstein was a post office worker.

Keep it coming Bloo.

Edited November 18, 2010 by mirage

[mirage]

just to add that a partical is a wave and a particle is just nonsensical ****** too.

one could never understand how it could be both without a little thought experiment....then extend the thought into another view, view the universe from the view of the first partical in existence, then you will have a clue how my mind is working.

If you get stuck in the mechanics, there is a saying for that....and Ive been caught too in the business world, of not seeing the wood for the trees.

Has your 5 year old kid worked out how to boot into windows Bloo? You should consider a password.

[Bloo Loo]

Has your 5 year old kid worked out how to boot into windows Bloo? You should consider a password.

Im afraid you have lost your argument

another video for you

[OnlyMe]

Sorry, have to get this one off my chest.

The obvious problem with this is that, whilst poetic and "far out", it is pretty much nonsensical ********.

The systems being described can be visualised as states that vary over a t axis. Things don't "flow" through time in a direction. They just sit there on the graph. If they were "flowing" in one direction or another, we would need to invoke another time axis on which to plot this movement!

The very concept of flowing invokes time! The only sense in which we flow through time is when we imagine the present moment racing forwards along the time axis or dateline. Of course, this is the same problem - how fast does it flow? Doesn't specifying a speed, direction or indeed any movement assume a rate of distance (in this case along the t axis) over time? (yes it does).

If you are just specifying three dimensions of space, and one of time (to simplify to Newtonian space-time) then things can flow through space (movement in space/time) but they can't flow through time, only extend along it, like those long lighttrails of car headlights you see with long-exposure photographs.

If your system model graph has a t axis, then it doesn't move. If it has no t axis but it moves like a video, then you can only play it in one direction or the other - you can't have some particles going one way and others going the other!

So saying that X is just a Y "going" backwards in time sounds good but makes no actual sense, in English or in strict physical theory.

Maybe, maybe not, what we perceive as time and procession of what goes on around us locally and in space may just be a function of the universe we are in - a massive imbalance between matter and anitmatter, the antimatter effects being so miniscule you don't see them in the big order of things but they are there bubbling underneath in at the atomic level, our "real time" dictated by this balance.

[Bloo Loo]

Actually, Brian Cox said "Anyone Who Thinks the LHC Will Destroy the World is a twit." And he was in D:ream, so he should know.

And so physics doesn't make sense and they are all wrong because they didn't think through this very simple point. Either that or.....you have got something wrong.

Which do you think is more likely?

I didn't give any opinion on the various hypotheses to do with the big bang. I was merely pointing out that to have a radically anti-establishment opinion on the subject whilst knowing absolutely nothing about it, or indeed physics was pretty stupid.

Who will ever know? Don't worry, I'm sure a few minutes more idle uninformed daydreaming will bring you the solution. Whatever you do, don't pick up a book on the subject. That will ruin your beautiful untainted-by-orthodoxy mind.

Brilliant stuff. Your'e opening up my mind. People are sometimes wrong therefore you don't believe any of them about anything, even though you can't be bothered to educate yourself on the subjects of your opinions.

And Einstein was a post office worker.

Keep it coming Bloo.

youve lost me. what is it you are trying to prove? you know more than I do? well marvelous. Im glad for you. Lots of people know more than I do about lots of things.

whats it to you?