• CERN sucessfully creates and traps antimatter
    188 replies, posted
You actually could get power from a black hole. If you compress stuff it gets warmer (air from a bicycle pump is warm) Since the gravity in a black hole is so large that it compresses all the matter that comes near it alot of heat (and radiation like x-rays) are created which can easily be converted to electrical and mechanical energy.) You could also harvest the momentum from object traveling to the black hole, you just would need a stationarry anchor point close to the black hole and spomething to throw into it.(Bit like pulling a starter cord on a lawn mower) I reality tough you will be dead long before you get close enough to a black hole to be able to harvest any energy that comes from it.
One of my friends vows up and down that antimatter does not exist and that every scientist has it wrong. :downs:
That sounds just... unpractical. How would you actually collect the energy from the momentum without the gravity affecting you? How would you make a stationary anchor point then? Throwing something into the black hole is just wasting, because the amount of radiation is relative to the square of distance and spreads in all directions. Btw the a black hole with a mass X has just as big gravity acceleration as an object with X mass, at least if the distance is greater than the objects radius.
We can now use an antimass spectrometer and bring forth the green apocalypse! Time for the Seven-Hour War.
Make Anti-uranium-235. [img_thumb]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5636656/yo-dawg-the-original.jpg[/img_thumb]
[QUOTE=Maucer;26141285]Btw the a black hole with a mass X has just as big gravity acceleration as an object with X mass, at least if the distance is greater than the objects radius.[/QUOTE] the black hole will actually have slightly [B]less[/B] mass - it loses some due to hawking radiation (avon correct me if I'm wrong)
Actually the Black Hole would have to have the mass of the Moon, or Terra, to actually lose mass from Hawking Radiation, if it's larger it will suck in more than it emits via Hawking Radiation.
[QUOTE=aVoN;26137176] You can still store neutral atoms in a strong inhomogeneous magnetic field, because every matter is at least diamagnetic (google for "flying frog in magnetic field"). [/QUOTE] Ah yeah I was thinking of antineutrons and just applied the logic to antiatoms.
[QUOTE=imadaman;26143424]Terra[/QUOTE] more people need to use this instead of "earth"
I know that hydrogen doesn't have neutrons, but what is the anti-neutron? Is it just exactly the same since they have no charge or what?
[QUOTE=Hellghast;26120426]One step closer to warp drives, or decimating WMD's![/QUOTE] doubt antimatter will help with either
[QUOTE=shatteredwindow;26150694]I know that hydrogen doesn't have neutrons, but what is the anti-neutron? Is it just exactly the same since they have no charge or what?[/QUOTE] Protons and neutrons are made up of quarks. Neutrons are made of anti-quarks so they arn't the same even though they both have no charge.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;26141820]the black hole will actually have slightly [B]less[/B] mass - it loses some due to hawking radiation (avon correct me if I'm wrong)[/QUOTE] Yea but I meant that at a certain time when the masses are equal. But AFAIK actually regular black hole receives more due to background radiation than it loses through (theoretical) hawking radiation.
[QUOTE=Maucer;26155579]theoretical[/QUOTE] its been observed [editline]19th November 2010[/editline] yeah I know a theory is the highest credit an idea can have I just assumed you were using it derogitarily
[QUOTE=Maucer;26141285]That sounds just... unpractical. How would you actually collect the energy from the momentum without the gravity affecting you? How would you make a stationary anchor point then? Throwing something into the black hole is just wasting, because the amount of radiation is relative to the square of distance and spreads in all directions. Btw the a black hole with a mass X has just as big gravity acceleration as an object with X mass, at least if the distance is greater than the objects radius.[/QUOTE] Black holes compress the radiation and fire it out in tight beams at both poles iirc, or is that just quasars?
Hmm I think that's only quasars. I don't have read about them that much. But if they would, they be only emit noticeable radiation when they emit radiation towards the earth just like the quasars so I don't think thats the case. Besides not all black holes have a charge. [QUOTE=shatteredwindow;26150694]I know that hydrogen doesn't have neutrons, but what is the anti-neutron? Is it just exactly the same since they have no charge or what?[/QUOTE] They have no charge, same mass and are almost the same but neutrons are quarks and anti-neutrons are anti-quarks.
I'm just happy that we finally have proof of Antimatter other than just concept and theory.
[QUOTE=Maucer;26155579]Yea but I meant that at a certain time when the masses are equal. But AFAIK actually regular black hole receives more due to background radiation than it loses through (theoretical) hawking radiation.[/QUOTE] Ninja'd, second to last post on last page :v: [QUOTE=imadaman;26143424]Actually the Black Hole would have to have the mass of the Moon, or Terra, to actually lose mass from Hawking Radiation, if it's larger it will suck in more than it emits via Hawking Radiation.[/QUOTE] A Black hole loses more mass via Hawking Radiation the smaller it is, I think it was.
ITT: Budding theoretical physicists
[QUOTE=nicatronTg;26156015]I'm just happy that we finally have proof of Antimatter other than just concept and theory.[/QUOTE] We have for a long time, this just kept it around for long enough for it to be studied.
Damn, CERN is making a lot of progress recently.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;26141820]the black hole will actually have slightly [B]less[/B] mass - it loses some due to hawking radiation (avon correct me if I'm wrong)[/QUOTE] A black hole with the mass X will have the same gravitational pull as an object with the same mass X if the distance of an observer to their corresponding center is the same (assuming both masses are spherical). Hawking-Radiation (if existent) is totally irrelevant here.
[QUOTE=PunchedInFac;26156371]ITT: Budding theoretical physicists[/QUOTE] I like to think so, thanks
Wait, was CERN able to trap the antimatter? If so, shit, pinpoint bombs may become reality.
We can produce far less antimatter than is viable for a bomb
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;26162774]We can produce far less antimatter than is viable for a bomb[/QUOTE] Do you think we'll ever figure out a more efficient method for producing antimatter?
[QUOTE=Turnips5;26162802]Do you think we'll ever figure out a more efficient method for producing antimatter?[/QUOTE] Producing it, yes. Storing it, no.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;26162774]We can produce far less antimatter than is viable for a bomb[/QUOTE] You need so little for a pinpoint bomb, that's why it's called a pinpoint bomb, it fits on the tip of a pen.
[QUOTE=Zombii;26162962]You need so little for a pinpoint bomb, that's why it's called a pinpoint bomb, it fits on the tip of a pen.[/QUOTE] They've produced ~2000 particles of antimatter. If they were all anti-hydrogen (They're not), this is 3e-21 grams. Do the maths.
[QUOTE=Zombii;26162962]You need so little for a pinpoint bomb, that's why it's called a pinpoint bomb, it fits on the tip of a pen.[/QUOTE] So little is so much. In one gram of hydrogen, there are roughly 6.022*10^23 molecules of H2. [editline]19th November 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=|FlapJack|;26162938]Producing it, yes. Storing it, no.[/QUOTE] How so?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.