• Theoretical Breakthrough: Generating Matter and Antimatter from Nothing
    85 replies, posted
[QUOTE=pyschomc;26584244]Oh Man Hopefully we can create stuff out of nothing us this.[/QUOTE] Like gold? We'll be rich! Not really, it'll make gold worthless.
My question is can we do it in the next 10 years?
[QUOTE=faze;26584262]Like gold? We'll be rich! Not really, it'll make gold worthless.[/QUOTE] Creating 1 Gram of gold in a device like a particle accelerator would make more expensive than a thousand times instead of scrubbing it from the soil of a third world country.
[QUOTE=mercurius;26584353]Creating 1 Gram of gold in a device like a particle accelerator would make [i]more expensive than a thousand times instead of scrubbing it from the soil of a third world country.[/i][/QUOTE] What?
[QUOTE=RayDark;26584400]What?[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthesis_of_precious_metals#Gold_synthesis_from_Mercury[/url]
He means it would 1000 times more expensive than collecting gold atom by atom from the soil of a third world country.
If I'm not mistaken, this changes just about everything.
No longer need to pay for my food [b]because I can create it out of fucking nothing now.[/b]
[QUOTE=Lord Hayden II;26584476]No longer need to pay for my food [b]because I can create it out of fucking nothing now.[/b][/QUOTE] You forget the electricity bill of such a device. Also chaotic particles =/= food.
This isn't exactly news - though it's worded like it is. The key point that's being missed here is quoted in the article, ie that pair production is a long acknowledged and observed phenomenon. All they've pointed out is that with a powerful enough particle accelerator and EM field they can jam enough energy into the collision to make more than one pair at once. In other words they've just demonstrated that improving energy packing might allow additional pair production. [editline]9th December 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=keroba2;26584173]Then again this was only posted on "Science Daily" which is rubbish compared to "Nature". If this was serious there would be better sources.[/QUOTE] Though nature is far too bio and chem biased to be much fun any more. [editline]9th December 2010[/editline] Also why do we only get the abstract with this?
Most of you are posting "love science" when in reality you're no older than 14-15 (and if elder, probably suck in physics/math). If you really like science, get interested in it and do it well in school folks. Not saying that everyone here is bad in science, just to some of you out there....... Chemistry and biology biased, what the heck? I had the same picture before I went out of HS, there they made sharp differences between the diff. science subjects - but when you start at university you will understand that everything is related. For example, now as I have chemistry there's ton of physics in it - some of it I learned back in my physics classes in HS!
Sounds like an interesting theory, but what I wanna know is the potential applications for this if it actualy works, besides a bomb.
[QUOTE=ironman17;26585716]Sounds like an interesting theory, but what I wanna know is the potential applications for this if it actualy works, besides a bomb.[/QUOTE] It won't be turned into "a bomb", just because a linear accelerator and a high energy laser can't beat an old fashioned 300kt nuke of the size of a vending machine. Possible applications: Understand the universe a little bit more than we already do. Isn't that good enough?
[QUOTE=thebadboy91;26585561]Most of you are posting "love science" when in reality you're no older than 14-15 (and if elder, probably suck in physics/math). If you really like science, get interested in it and do it well in school folks. Not saying that everyone here is bad in science, just to some of you out there.......[/QUOTE] that's a horribly elitist thing to say you don't have to be good at science to acknowledge that it is marvellous
So nothing is actually something + antisomething?
It's not exactly something from absolutely nothing, but it is fucking interesting. :science: [editline]9th December 2010[/editline] Another thought: If a vacuum is 2 particles that cancel each other out, then wouldn't there be an end to the vacuum? So what would that be like, if anything?
[QUOTE=Lord Hayden II;26584476]No longer need to pay for my food [b]because I can create it out of fucking nothing now.[/b][/QUOTE] Cloudy with a chance of meatballs?
[QUOTE=dogmachines;26586083]It's not exactly something from absolutely nothing, but it is fucking interesting. :science: [editline]9th December 2010[/editline] Another thought: If a vacuum is 2 particles that cancel each other out, then wouldn't there be an end to the vacuum? So what would that be like, if anything?[/QUOTE] This might interest you: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect[/url]
[QUOTE=thebadboy91;26585561]Hey guys, I've just started doing the first year of my Chemistry course and I think I am better than everyone else despite the fact that a lot of people do the same work in High School that I am doing now[/QUOTE] You're right about the fields merging slightly. However, I'm 16 and am doing the same work that you (Supposedly 56, so probably 10, or 19 judging by your username) are claiming to be doing. Don't act above other people simply because you're doing work tonnes of other people do.
I study medicine (1st year), and I'm not acting above people, just expressing my view on how many of you write on these forums. Yes, we do have plenty of chemistry/biology and some physics and math (statistics) aswell! Chemistry as in organic chemistry (uni level)......
[QUOTE=mercurius;26583683]Antiparticles cancel each other out to high energy photons, e.g. gamma radiation, which is not 'nothing' as you just put it. [editline]9th December 2010[/editline] Why even bother explaining this: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilation[/url][/QUOTE] Uhh I think you need to reread my post.
but can it make enough particles to power a fusion generator that runs said laser? as in, does it make more energy than it uses.
[QUOTE=PyromanDan;26590770]but can it make enough particles to power a fusion generator that runs said laser? as in, does it make more energy than it uses.[/QUOTE] No. That's impossible.
[QUOTE=doggyalt;26590893]No. That's impossible.[/QUOTE] then whats the use
[QUOTE=mercurius;26583683]Antiparticles cancel each other out to high energy photons, e.g. gamma radiation, which is not 'nothing' as you just put it. [editline]9th December 2010[/editline] Why even bother explaining this: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilation[/url][/QUOTE] I think he's talking about virtual particles, just getting confused. The fact that you can call the cancellation of a pair of virtual particles "annihilation" makes it easy for people to forget regular annihilation doesn't work that way.
[QUOTE=mercurius;26583987]Maybe from the Casimir effect? Anyway, I study chemistry, probably you can explain their way when you read the paper, because the news article is a bit cryptic how the device works.[/QUOTE] Casimir effect is irrelevant here. Anyway, my point is that even if the energy for the particle creation comes out of vacuum, the vacuum will take back the energy from the light-field. At least if you believe in conversation of energy. It's not new that energy can be borrowed from vacuum. Still what you take has to be given back.
I remember first hearing about antimatter and thinking that in a few years scientists would be able to create this easily and produce infinite clean energy. Then I realised that any antimatter created would only yield a fraction of the energy that was required to make it, and that the only other application of antimatter is for bomb making :smith:
Am I missing something here, or is this just the good ol' E=mc^2? (or rather m=E/(c^2) )
[QUOTE=dogmachines;26586083]Another thought: If a vacuum is 2 particles that cancel each other out, then wouldn't there be an end to the vacuum? So what would that be like, if anything?[/QUOTE] Vacuum is defined as a field-free volume of spacetime, hence there is no "removeable" energy in it. Call it the "lowest energy-state possible" or simply the ground-state. Still, the ground-state of any physical system contains a certain amount of energy called zero-point-energy according to Quantum Mechanics. This energy can't be "taken out" to current physical knowledge, since there is no lower state below the "ground-state" per definition. Still, due to Heisenberg's Uncertainty relation, you can borrow an arbitrary amount of energy out of every quantum system just if the time you borrow it is small and very precise (small deviations) enough ([img]http://math.daggeringcats.com/?\Delta E \dot \Delta t >= \hbar/2[/img]). This is why you have vacuum noise even in "empty space": Spontaneous pair-antipair creation and annihilation due to Heisenberg. This experiment now shows, that you can borrow energy from the vacuum and create the particles (my best guess is, that the strong laser-field is used to accelerate and therefore separate the two particles from each other so the can't annihilate anymore). But since you borrowed the energy, conservation of energy must be fulfilled so the "missing energy" will be taken from somewhere else such as the laser-field. Ok, we create particles from vacuum or "out of nothing" but not "for free. [editline]9th December 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=rakkar;26591388]Am I missing something here, or is this just the good ol' E=mc^2? (or rather m=E/(c^2) )[/QUOTE] Actually it's [img]http://math.daggeringcats.com/?E = \frac{m c^2}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}[/img] since fast moving particles are involved. Never forget about special relativity. But in principle, you are right, but you are missing another fundamental "law": Conservation of energy.
[QUOTE=PyromanDan;26591070]then whats the use[/QUOTE] It's a cool conversion we previously weren't able to do. Gives us better understanding about how the universe works on basic levels and such. It's hella important.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.