It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Tel Aviv University/University of Chicago Discovery: Melting Quarks = Nuclear Fusion X 10 Energy

page: 1
18
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 07:53 AM
link   
www.jpost.com...



Melting quarks can produce 10 times the energy of nuclear fusion




Researchers at Tel Aviv University and the University of Chicago have shown that a huge amount of energy – 10 times that of nuclear fusion – can be produced by melting elementary particles called quarks. The study, considered to be a “breakthrough,” was just published in the journal Nature along with a special editorial on the Israeli findings. The research was carried out by TAU physics Prof. Marek Karliner, in cooperation with Prof. Jonathan L. Rosner of the University of Chicago. The researchers calculated the amount of energy that could be generated by the fusion of different types of quarks and found it could be 10-fold greater than the energy generated by nuclear fusion.


Isn't that amazing. I wrote a thread the other day about "smallness". In the thread I wrote about how there is no end to how small we can go. I believe scientists will discover that quarks are made of many "components" in the future (possibly an infinite number or to a point where matter collapses and then starts getting bigger again in some "twist" to the tale. Who can argue that the energy on an atomic level is crazily powerful. It is like the smaller it goes the more energy is bound up. Pairing quarks in this simulation conducted by these guys at tel Aviv and Chicago has demonstrated the energy generated would be ten times greater than nuclear fusion.

They say it has no practical use and is no danger that it could be weaponize.The last paragraph reads most interestingly:



A nuclear fusion that occurs in a reactor or a hydrogen bomb is a chain reaction in a mass of particles, creating a huge amount of energy. This is not possible by melting heavy quarks, simply because the raw material cannot be accumulated in the melting process. If we thought for a moment that our discovery had some dangerous application, we would not publish it.”


Do you reckon these guys do discover stuff they don't publish because of the "implications" it would have? They are clearly saying they would not publish anything they identified as having a "dangerous application". I entertain the possibility hat there are some seriously powerful "discoveries" that are kept tightly under wraps.


edit on 6-11-2017 by Revolution9 because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 07:59 AM
link   
The search for bigger sources of energy is always militarized.

Gasoline produced napalm and fuel-air explosives. Hi explosives resulted from research into better propellants for cannon and artillery.

Dividing the atom (fission), well that road led to the hydrogen bomb (fusion), will lead to...



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 08:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr


The search for bigger sources of energy is always militarized.

Gasoline produced napalm and fuel-air explosives. Hi explosives resulted from research into better propellants for cannon and artillery.

Dividing the atom (fission), well that road led to the hydrogen bomb (fusion), will lead to...


That was my immediate first thought, would they call it a fusion bomb or a quark bomb though.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 08:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Revolution9
Do you reckon these guys do discover stuff they don't publish because of the "implications" it would have? They are clearly saying they would not publish anything they identified as having a "dangerous application". I entertain the possibility hat there are some seriously powerful "discoveries" that are kept tightly under wraps.


Hard to imagine a academic scientist that doesn't have total faith in all technology being Divine no matter the consequences.


Anyways, so they figured out this neato novel concept, but how about actually building power plants to replace all the other types we have?



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 08:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Revolution9

Simply fascinating! I was just thinking about the quark condensate as an analogy for the human mind (just before finding your post). Quarks pop in and out of existence creating an apparent state of overall incoherence, yet somehow, there is just enough coherence in some regions of space to allow the existence of higher energy matter. Its very similar to the human mind...incoherent rushing thoughts with a few coherent primary thoughts receiving the bulk of focus. Its almost as if the quark condensate is evidence of a living/thinking creator.

I don't think there really is a "fundamental particle", only limitations on our ability to zoom in.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 08:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: LABTECH767

originally posted by: intrptr


The search for bigger sources of energy is always militarized.

Gasoline produced napalm and fuel-air explosives. Hi explosives resulted from research into better propellants for cannon and artillery.

Dividing the atom (fission), well that road led to the hydrogen bomb (fusion), will lead to...


That was my immediate first thought, would they call it a fusion bomb or a quark bomb though.

They could have a contest to name it.

During development of the Hydrogen bomb, it became known as the search for "The Super". An atomic device was used to trigger the hydrogen device, which could be used as containment for "The Ultra"?

Eventually 'researchers' are going to create a black hole and we'll all fall into it.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 08:37 AM
link   
Oh stop....... I was barely wrapping my head around string theory.. I like the inference that there would be no useful military usage.
I don't think the Unified Field Theory will ever be completely known. I believe it's a property of infinity.

Still, there's something familiar with this and antimatter. The six properties..

"Quarks are the most basic building blocks of matter in the universe. Most of the matter we see around us is made from protons and neutrons, which are composed of quarks. They have the unusual characteristic of having a fractional electric charge, unlike the proton and electron, which have charges of +1 and -1. There are six types of quarks, but physicists usually refer to them in terms of three pairs: up/down, charm/strange, and top/bottom. Quarks join together to form composite particles called hadrons. The most stable of these are protons and neutrons, the components of atomic nuclei."

edit on 6-11-2017 by Plotus because: Doncha know, I don't know...



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 08:40 AM
link   
Quark bombs yay!
/sar



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 08:46 AM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest
YEP, I'd forgot about for the moment until you brought it up....



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 08:58 AM
link   
I have known (yes, known - the story is too long to explain here) for over 30 years that the up (u) and down (d) quarks in nucleons are not fundamental, as the Standard Model of particle physics assumes. Instead, they are composed of three spin-1/2 E8xE8 heterotic superstrings that have two SU(2) doublet states (X,Y), where:

u = X-X-Y and d = (X-Y-Y).


I therefore predict another phase transition will be detected at higher collision energies:

quark --> subquark


accompanied by even greater energy release when the subquark/hypergluon plasma condenses back into quarks and then nucleons.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Revolution9

Just what we need. Continent killing bombs.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: LABTECH767




quark bomb though.


"If it quarks like a duck"



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Sounds a little quarky to me.

The part I find amazing is that it would be hard to weaponize it. I am sure they could use this to build a ray gun to devastate things though, anything can be weaponized if someone wants to find a way.

Look how much damage and fear that science has created. It seems more of science is used to destroy and terrorize the world than is used to fix it. I wonder if their will be any nuclear waste from this? We are still not dealing with the nuclear waste we are creating properly. I would love to see this be used to create electricity if there is not a lot of problems with it.

Where are they going to get the quirks from....sickly Ducks?



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Revolution9

Is this new finding an aspect of something that we don't hear about these days, the hunt for "zero-point energy?"

Anything can be militarized to some degree all it takes is resources, effort and intent.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: iTruthSeeker
Quark bombs yay!
/sar



Would these count as a "Quantum Torpedo"?




posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 09:57 AM
link   
Ok, i didn't see some immediate mention of the math that would explain if it takes more energy or not to isolate enough quarks to make it worth the return of energy to use as work?
edit on 6-11-2017 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: micpsi
I have known (yes, known - the story is too long to explain here) for over 30 years that the up (u) and down (d) quarks in nucleons are not fundamental, as the Standard Model of particle physics assumes. Instead, they are composed of three spin-1/2 E8xE8 heterotic superstrings that have two SU(2) doublet states (X,Y), where:

u = X-X-Y and d = (X-Y-Y).


I therefore predict another phase transition will be detected at higher collision energies:

quark --> subquark


accompanied by even greater energy release when the subquark/hypergluon plasma condenses back into quarks and then nucleons.


Nice post. I am not familiar with this field and look forward to learning more. The differential equation for a string would have to be some kind of crazy looking to me.

My question looking at the equation you have presented is

If X=X and Y=Y as normally math tells us, then why not squared X2 or Y2 in the equation or subracted ? X-X would cancel out and leaves u = - Y, and d = - X, in algebraic explanations. I am guessing the way that was presented is not the real formula, or I need a lot more info.


edit on 6-11-2017 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Revolution9

They don't believe it has practical uses or can be weaponized. I bet someone else does. I bet that someone will go to a lot of effort to figure it out.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Revolution9

"Three quarks for muster Mark! Sure he has not got much of a bark And sure any he has it's all beside the mark.” - James Joyce, Finnegan's Wake

The fusion of heavy quarks takes 230 MeV and produces 368 MeV making a net (theoretical) of 138 MeV (link.

The researchers were afraid the reaction may cascade yielding more megatonage. No such thing as the particles do not last long enough. As for stuff found that is not published?... happens all the time. They are called, "black projects" for a reason. There is even a hidden patent library.

This is all on paper, right now. This can be tested at the LHC if anybody has the know how. You get out a double-charmed baryon quark, a neutron, and energy. Again, since it is so short lived there may be no practical application.

Your smaller thread sidetracked me to fractals (why I did not respond). I believe that the self-similarity is what you are describing. How on one scale it looks like what is seen at a larger scale. That would make sense as nature is nothing if not practical.

A fusion backpack. Halfway to a proton accelerator!! Who ya gonna call?

S+F,



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: TobyFlenderson

"Toby" this discussion is outside of your duties in the "HR Office."
(Not to mention, completely out of character.)



new topics

top topics



 
18
<<   2 >>

log in

join