Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Anti-Matter is Mass Produced

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 29 2003 @ 06:44 PM
link   
"Wasn't the one I saw then. I'll have to try to catch that one. I just looked up the NOVA PBS site and could not find the special. There is one that I am dying to see, however: www.pbs.org... "

Now that I think of it, maybe it wasn't NOVA... I KNOW it was on PBS because I didn't have cable at the time and PBS was the only thing I watched besides the local news. It started with a bunch of scientists discussing the blue/red shifts of certain very distant stars/galaxies to determine by their positions in the universe and their velocities (remember that a Velocity is a vector) to try to find if there was a general focal point (origin).

"Not to sound pompas, but what would cause gravity to diminish? Perhaps the aether? The so called empty vacuum seems to have a friction force. I continue to stand by the idea of the aether being a much better conclusion of our universe (the so called fluidic space--not the organic kind in Star Trek Voyager). "

Nice! This would only be true however if gravitional radiation (grav waves or the force) differed greatly in form from light, as light is not effected by the aether (far as I know). So assuming the aether exists (which I believe it does) and since it does not affect light (which is a particle-wave) can we assume that gravity is NOT a particle-wave?

Theory:
Aether=Zero Point Field
(I have no evidence, it just crossed my mind)
Moving on........


"Remember that a wave goes both up and down (sorry for the elementary directions). If gravity truly is a wave, it already goes up and down (thus flexing the rubber sheet both ways). Essentially, the propagation wave may be the wave aspect that they are referring to. In other words, once you place an object on the rubber sheet, the outer edges are not immediately drawn down towards the object. Instead, the propagation wave of force spreads out in a uniform process, eventually tugging on the edges as well. "

Unfortunately to test that we'd have to create matter out of nothingness... which is supposedly impossible (too bad, it'd be cool to see).

"
--------(
..........--------(
....................-----(
..........................--(
............................--( object
................................______
"

That's a cros-section of the 'sheet' looking at the side of the gravity cone, right? (just want to make sure I got it).

"So, pulling the rubber sheet back up may counter the effects of gravity, but not if gravity actually moves in a wave form, meaning that the depressions made by gravity are dynamic, not static. Since they are believed to be static, maybe a true antigravity (caused by exotic matter), would flex upward. The difference is, what's the difference between the effects of a negative gravity as opposed to a positive one? Both would be gravity. Gravity already tugs at itself. *gets frustrated* What else?......... "

So theoretically any substance displaying negative gravity would throw itself appart atom by atom. I think it would repel other NGM (Negative gravity matter... my new term cuz it's long to type) but simply IGNORE regular matter of the exact same mass.

"The universe would act like a chemical system (which is pretty much does) where it attempts to achieve equilibrium among constantly fluxuating states. "

Gotcha'

"I wonder if it is possible for a black hole to invert itself. Think about it. If a wave is sucking in water (mass/matter) and continually growing larger, it eventually has to hit a shore in order to dissipate itself and relieve the stress on its environment. So where's the shore? I don't know of any object so big that it is the size of a galaxy or larger. Maybe I should abandon this approach, seeing as a "shore" does not exist. What do you think? Did you follow the example?"

If by invert you mean explode... I agree. I don't know enough physics or nuclear particle dynamics or thermodynamics needed to determine if it COULD explode, however, knowing what I know, I can ask "why not?" and continue for now with the assumption that it CAN explode. Here's a scary thought... think of the black hole that's about to explode as a stick of dynamite. You put the dynamite on top of the rubber sheet and you've got yourself a big wave going on... but since the black hole is NOT on TOP of the sheet, but burrowed INTO it... it'd be like burrying the dynamie and then blowing it up or digging a slim hole to drop it into (the dirt being spacetime)... you've got a horrific possibility on your hands there. (This exapmle, only in 3 dimensions) The black hole has A LOT of spacetime gathered up around itself, and possibly bent back on itself. Close your hand around the dynamite. Yikes!

"A few questions come to mind. Does a black hole become larger both from gobbling other black holes and matter or just one or the other? This would have a significant difference in science, depending what is true. I believe the idea is that both forms cause black holes to become larger. So what's the total mass a black hole can hold? It is theorized that singularities eventually erupt in a Big Bang. Perhaps the volcano structure does "erupt" as do ours on Earth. Also, if the structure is already a volcano, is it erupting into another mathematical dimension? Talk about eerie."

As I said above, "the black hole is 'burried' in our spacetime", perhaps it would explode 'under' spacetime and create a bubble... or another universe connected to our's through the rip (perhaps a form of wormhole).



The Quintescence link was awesome... kinda' funny, it's almost exactly what you said before (the universe seeking equalibrium thing)

=)


Good guess... total time reading and theorizing and typing... 57 min.......... NOW!




posted on Jul, 29 2003 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by William One Sac

Physicists have mass produced antimatter, a crucial first step towards precision studies of its properties that may help solve one of the greatest mysteries of the Universe.

Antihydrogen has been made before, but only a few atoms at a time.

Now, the Cern particle accelerator in Geneva, Switzerland, has produced more than 50,000.


Full Story:news.bbc.co.uk...


Watch it, you are violating copyright laws, and from a Super Moderator.



posted on Jul, 29 2003 @ 07:36 PM
link   
Just swinging into the thread, and noticed Protector wondering about Black Holes and "inverting themselves" is that how it put it?

Anyways...Black Holes do evaporate, wouldn't this be along the lines of the eventual collapse of integrity you were giving the wave against a shore analogy about?



posted on Jul, 30 2003 @ 12:56 AM
link   
"Black Holes do evaporate, wouldn't this be along the lines of the eventual collapse of integrity you were giving the wave against a shore analogy about?"

Technically it is possible that they will evaporate, but remember the surfer wave analogy... a 30 foot high wave is going to have a light spray/mist of water that comes off of it. I don't think you or I would bet money on that mist being the death of the sunami/tidal wave. Because of this, I'm much more likely to believe that there is a much better way to describe the death of a black hole than merely stating that over tens (if not hundreds) of billions of years it will shrink until it becomes a regular piece of mass or disappear altogether.

The purpose for proving evaporation was to prove that not everything is trapped by the gravity of a black hole. Something can escape and does (probably). I'm not sure if we've found proof of Hawking radiation yet. Formulating quantum gravity will help to prove or disprove the theory of this type of radiation.



posted on Jul, 30 2003 @ 01:13 AM
link   
Interesting...it would seem evident that a Black Hole's greatest weakness would be energy? As gravity is not a perpetual motion machine and all things that hold together need energy? So maybe a black hole needs to continuously feed to not only grow larger but maintain itself...and without a constant feeding, it will just blast to peices or such...like a big bang


Kinda a simpleton idea, but what are your thoughts or knowings about it?



posted on Jul, 30 2003 @ 01:41 AM
link   
"Now that I think of it, maybe it wasn't NOVA"

I think you made it up.

Just kidding
.

"and their velocities (remember that a Velocity is a vector) to try to find if there was a general focal point (origin)."

I'm curious, did they find a focal point (a point where the Big Bang would have occured)?

"This would only be true however if gravitional radiation differed greatly in form from light, as light is not effected by the aether (far as I know)."

Einstein believed that the aether existed (I believed he called it sigma in one of his equations (maybe lambda)). He believed this because our ears only hear sound because the waves crash against particles which in turn crash into our ear drums. He said that we can only see light because it rubs against spacetime causing the visible spectra that our eyes can pick up. Even if the idea has no proof behind it, the idea is very interesting. If this is true, then light does interact with the aether, as does gravity and all other things.

"So assuming the aether exists and since it does not affect light (which is a particle-wave) can we assume that gravity is NOT a particle-wave?"

I doubt light is a particle wave. Unfortunitely, most people don't seem to have the curiosity to ponder what else it could be. Light could be a stage between matter and energy (a force carrier particle in quantum physics with no mass). I personally don't believe in particles like the rest of humanity. Teaching particles is a way for a layman to understand that their are differences between different types of masses and energies. The reason why we can't figure out quarks and leptons is because we keep thinking they are particles and not just representations of something much more complex (where the simple case no longer carries enough answers so the odds need to be stepped up a notch). Of course, this is all my opinion, but I hope to make it fact one day. Anyway, gravity is spacetime distortion... let's just leave it at that for now.

"Aether=Zero Point Field"

Sort of. Zero Point usually refers to singularities that act as mass-energy conversion factories. Aether is not a singularity, but a special medium. There is an example in philosophy where one fish turns to the other fish as says, "There is no water." Humans and the Aether are the same. Sad (again, this is my opinion). We claim, "there is no aether," while we wallow in it. Again, sad.

"Unfortunately to test that we'd have to create matter out of nothingness... which is supposedly impossible (too bad, it'd be cool to see)."

I'll invite you to watch it one day
.

"
--------(
..........--------(
....................-----(
..........................--(
............................--( object
................................______
"

"That's a cros-section of the 'sheet' looking at the side of the gravity cone, right? (just want to make sure I got it)."

Yes. The spacing of the forum does not allow for a full cross-section.

"So theoretically any substance displaying negative gravity would throw itself appart atom by atom."

No, it would just have a field in the opposite direction of standard gravity. This means they either could not exist in the same space or that they destroy one another. Maybe you could claim that negative gravity exists, but like antimatter it was lost at some point in the development of the universe and only exists in minute amounts today.

"I think it would repel other NGM (Negative gravity matter... my new term cuz it's long to type) but simply IGNORE regular matter of the exact same mass."

I like the term. NG for Neg. Grav. NGM Neg. Grav. Matter. It depends if negative gravity exists because of NGM or if it exists as an alternate form of gravity produced by regular matter or a process we do not yet know of.

"If by invert you mean explode... I agree."

I think I like the term "erupt." Yes, eruptions involve an explosion, but how the matter is released from an eruption would vary in form, thus explaining how the Big Bang occured. If a black hole essential boils down matter into its basic consituents (quarks, leptons, and maybe small atoms like hydrogen), then when it spewed them out (after a gigantic shockwave clearing the way for the new substance) a new universe could form by the exact same rules, thus creating a cycle whereby the children of the Big Bang (the original singularity) could have children--Bang Bangs spawning other Big Bangs in other places. Ok, fine, a big a$$ explosion.

"I don't know enough physics or nuclear particle dynamics or thermodynamics needed to determine if it COULD explode"

Well, no one with those backgrounds seem to be able to answer that question anyway, so just take your best shot.

"Here's a scary thought... think of the black hole that's about to explode as a stick of dynamite. You put the dynamite on top of the rubber sheet and you've got yourself a big wave going on"

Yes, enough to wipe out other types of existence for many lightyears.

"... but since the black hole is NOT on TOP of the sheet, but burrowed INTO it... it'd be like burrying the dynamie and then blowing it up or digging a slim hole to drop it into (the dirt being spacetime)"

Which means that crap is blown all over the place (like in the Big Bang). The aether is stressed, new mass is created, complex forms emerge, and the cycle begins once again.

"... you've got a horrific possibility on your hands there."

Not unless one happened already. Otherwise we have millions of years before any effects would reach us (if not billions).

"The black hole has A LOT of spacetime gathered up around itself, and possibly bent back on itself. Close your hand around the dynamite. Yikes!"

Shrapnal the size of SuperRed Giants raining from the heavens... wonderful.

"As I said above, "the black hole is 'burried' in our spacetime", perhaps it would explode 'under' spacetime and create a bubble... or another universe connected to our's through the rip (perhaps a form of wormhole)."

I wouldn't say "under." Nested is a better word. It would not be a "bubble" either, but a big a$$ wave of fury.

I'm too tired to come up with anything else. Give me some opinions and some possible problems with our scenario. I like it when people find flaws. They usually help me eliminate bad possiblities and keep the good ones. Whack away.



posted on Jul, 30 2003 @ 02:00 AM
link   
"Interesting...it would seem evident that a Black Hole's greatest weakness would be energy? As gravity is not a perpetual motion machine and all things that hold together need energy?"

Actually, achieving singularity is like settling into a stabilized energy level. When spacetime is distorted to such a point, the singularity tends to hold itself together by its own existence. In essence, it is a singularity because it has broken the energy barrier needed for coupling. Energy can no longer escape in any significant amount, so it is prevalent and abundant (beyond imagination).

"So maybe a black hole needs to continuously feed to not only grow larger but maintain itself"

I'm not sure. I believe they feed by nature, not by necessity. It isn't like a black hole neutralizes its own field when it's full. They don't get full. They just grow if more mass gets gobbled up.

"...and without a constant feeding, it will just blast to peices or such...like a big bang"

This probably wouldn't be the result of not feed, but the results of an instability of its gravitational field or the fact that it eventually became too big for itself (neither of which we have observed). MagnaStars have magnetic fields that are instable and fluxuate. Perhaps a blackhole can reach a stage where it too is unstable.

Basically, black holes eat. If there is nothing there, they sit. If more comes by, they eat. As they eat, they get big. That's about everything we know about their lifecycle. I'm sure our discussion is getting to the point where it is necessary to apply math to get a better answer.



posted on Aug, 3 2003 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Sorry for my delay in responding, I went away on vacation for my 21st birthday.

"I'm curious, did they find a focal point (a point where the Big Bang would have occured)? "

No, they found a general trend of the objects distancing themselves from eachother though, and concluded that the universe is expanding infinately

"Einstein believed that the aether existed (I believed he called it sigma in one of his equations (maybe lambda)). He believed this because our ears only hear sound because the waves crash against particles which in turn crash into our ear drums. He said that we can only see light because it rubs against spacetime causing the visible spectra that our eyes can pick up. Even if the idea has no proof behind it, the idea is very interesting. If this is true, then light does interact with the aether, as does gravity and all other things. "

That is really interesting. Once again trying to conclude what form gravity is emitted in (particle, wave, force, etc...) deducing from the fact that we can not 'see' gravity, it must be a different form than light.

"I doubt light is a particle wave. Unfortunitely, most people don't seem to have the curiosity to ponder what else it could be. Light could be a stage between matter and energy (a force carrier particle in quantum physics with no mass). I personally don't believe in particles like the rest of humanity."

I agree. I THINK all matter, all quarks, everything... is made of energy, just in different forms.

"I'll invite you to watch it one day . "

You can't create matter out of NOTHING (I'm talking nothing... void... complete nonexistance). I believe you could create matter out of energy... or quarks (which I consider matter in this case simply because they make up matter).

"No, it would just have a field in the opposite direction of standard gravity. This means they either could not exist in the same space or that they destroy one another. Maybe you could claim that negative gravity exists, but like antimatter it was lost at some point in the development of the universe and only exists in minute amounts today. "

My statement was based on your statement earlier about how gravity tugs on itself... then wouldn't a reversed gravity push on itself... and push the atoms appart?

"Which means that crap is blown all over the place (like in the Big Bang). The aether is stressed, new mass is created, complex forms emerge, and the cycle begins once again. "

What if the aether existed before the big bang. Perhaps the aether, when stressed under an extreme force such as a black hole errupting, could 'condense' into matter (quarks and leptons if not atoms, and maybe even other forms we find in the universe). In other words, what if the aether is a medium of the building-blocks, of the building-blocks, of the building-blocks of matter. Perhaps before the big bang there was NO matter, yet the bang yielded such a force that it transformed some of the aether INTO matter.

"I think I like the term "erupt." Yes, eruptions involve an explosion, but how the matter is released from an eruption would vary in form, thus explaining how the Big Bang occured. "

The only problem I see with this as a theory for the creation of our universe is that if a black hole has an errupting point (critical mass) then the ammount of matter needed for this to happen should be generally FIXED. So if the big bang was this kind of erruption, there should only be enough matter in our universe to do it one more time and that would only occur if ALL the matter in the universe came back together. UNLESS my thought on an explosion of this magnitude could transform the aether into matter... then we might have a lot MORE matter than we started with... allowing for the critical mass to be reached again and again by other black holes inside our universe.

"Not unless one happened already. Otherwise we have millions of years before any effects would reach us (if not billions)."

I meant horrific in the terms of how we consider a supernova to be horrific in that it is an unthinkably massive explosion. A black hole erruption would yield millions (if not billions) of times the force a supernova would.

"Shrapnal the size of SuperRed Giants raining from the heavens... wonderful."

I don't think we'd worry about a 'rain' of it... I think the first one to come our way would pretty much take care of Earth.



posted on Aug, 3 2003 @ 05:22 PM
link   
That title has nothing to do with my post.


"(about a focal point)No, they found a general trend of the objects distancing themselves from eachother though, and concluded that the universe is expanding infinately"

That's fairly interesting. If there is not focal point to be found, our universe is either, much, much larger,... our scientists are complete idiots... and/or the galaxies and superclusters interplay with one another thus distorting the focal point's possible location or removing the need for a specific focal point (there may have been more than one Big Bang).

"Once again trying to conclude what form gravity is emitted in (particle, wave, force, etc...) deducing from the fact that we can not 'see' gravity, it must be a different form than light."

One a massive scale, gravity is suppose to be understood as a wave. On the subatomic (quantum) level, it is suppose to be seen as a force carrier particle (graviton). We have never found a graviton, so that may be incorrect. That's about all I know on the subject of its form.

"I THINK all matter, all quarks, everything... is made of energy, just in different forms."

That depends what energy is made of. Energy is now considered to be types of force carrier particles (matter), but I don't completely agree with all of the theories on that one. Energy may not be the prime substance.

"You can't create matter out of NOTHING (I'm talking nothing... void... complete nonexistance)."

It's hard to say. Does nothing even exist? I mean, we may have aether, energy, dimensional substance (subspace), matter, strings, etc. If this is true, there may be no such thing as nothing, only the illusion of "less stuff" in a particular area.

"I believe you could create matter out of energy... or quarks (which I consider matter in this case simply because they make up matter)."

Right. Quarks and leptons make up atoms, but it is all matter. Matter is pretty much any substance with mass or atomic structure. There are experiments going on now to see if we can concentrate energy in special collisions that might yield some sort of matter.

"My statement was based on your statement earlier about how gravity tugs on itself... then wouldn't a reversed gravity push on itself... and push the atoms appart?"

Well, gravity tugs on spacetime, so when two gravity sources pull on the same volume of spacetime, they are pulling each other closer. A reversed gravity would depend on how it is structured. It may still pull on other forms of gravity, then cancel out in a collision, or it may push away from other gravity sources. If it did push "mass/matter" apart, then that would explain why we don't find any exotic matter. If that is the case, what could cause reverse gravity to exist? It would either have to withstand the push of reverse gravity or it would have to be bonded to the gravity. Both ideas seem to have flaws. I'm not too worried about that at this moment.

"What if the aether existed before the big bang. Perhaps the aether, when stressed under an extreme force such as a black hole errupting, could 'condense' into matter (quarks and leptons if not atoms, and maybe even other forms we find in the universe). In other words, what if the aether is a medium of the building-blocks, of the building-blocks, of the building-blocks of matter. Perhaps before the big bang there was NO matter, yet the bang yielded such a force that it transformed some of the aether INTO matter."



Again, go back and read the article on Faster than Light Speeds. It is an article that is found in Discover magazine. It should be listed on one of my last few posts. You'll find that it addresses these issues to some degree. The aether is sometimes called an energy soup. At other times is is referred to as the building blocks for energy and matter. Who knows, but it is certainly something to keep in mind.

"The only problem I see with this as a theory for the creation of our universe is that if a black hole has an errupting point (critical mass) then the ammount of matter needed for this to happen should be generally FIXED."

Right. This amount would probably be no less than a few whole galaxies worth of matter AND other black holes which all emerge into one.

"So if the big bang was this kind of erruption, there should only be enough matter in our universe to do it one more time and that would only occur if ALL the matter in the universe came back together."

That would be a problem, especially since the universe is not contracting, but expanding faster. That would mean that no black hole would become large enough to reach critcal mass. However, you've found a solution to your own problem...

"UNLESS my thought on an explosion of this magnitude could transform the aether into matter... then we might have a lot MORE matter than we started with... allowing for the critical mass to be reached again and again by other black holes inside our universe."

Now you're catching up to my idea of the universe. I doubt it is getting smaller by any means. Even if we are fixed in the amount of substance, that still doesn't mean that it takes a Big Bang to form substance. It may or may not mean that a Big Bang is required to create/make substance from nothingness.


"I meant horrific in the terms of how we consider a supernova to be horrific in that it is an unthinkably massive explosion. A black hole erruption would yield millions (if not billions) of times the force a supernova would."

That's what I mean, as well.



"Shrapnal the size of SuperRed Giants raining from the heavens... wonderful."

I don't think we'd worry about a 'rain' of it... I think the first one to come our way would pretty much take care of Earth.


Well, the fact that they would be like rain in the universe is what makes it so funny and freightening at the same time.



posted on Aug, 4 2003 @ 03:55 PM
link   
So, theoretically, I could build a microwave oven from antimatter, which would freeze my food in seconds..?



posted on Aug, 23 2003 @ 10:45 AM
link   
The singularity inverts. The inversion creates positive temporal reality and negative temporal reality. Yes I know negative one is not a real number however so is zero time. Zero time is the gate way. Black holes and light opperate at zero time. Everybody misses the point including freemason where is all of this bloody antimatter you talk about. To eliminate a reinversion with the creation of matter thier needs to be an equal and oppisite force. Not a little bit oppisite complete oppisite.

Antimatter can not by definition have mass. If it had mass it would be matter. It has to be oppisite remember to stave of reinversion.

You guys dont even understand big bang theory. Mabe you should look up Taoism and get some tips. Antimatter has negitive mass because it generates Antigravity. All of the properties are oppisite beause antimatter can only exsist in a negative temporal reality.

Energy leaves this temporal reality through black holes and renters in the form of the four fundimental forces. Matter and Antimatter are linked by temporal doorways. In negative temporal reality everything is oppisite.

The antimatter being mass produced is not antimatter at all. It is a hybrid. They reverse the charge of the particles and contain it in a EM field. If you were to create real antimatter you would need a temporal field. I dont think they could do that on star treck.

To the masked one. If you dont understand will will explain. He will tell you that the free new nothing of singularities. In fact I have not as yet met anyone who understands Big Bang Theory. That is why I am here. Some one will probably put this stuff in a book sooner or latter. I don't care navy intell already has UFT and master Lao Tzu explained all this stuff along time ago.

If the knowledge has been here all along and we still dont know it, it is not hard to see why we are not ready for second contact.



posted on Aug, 23 2003 @ 11:41 AM
link   


Antimatter can not by definition have mass. If it had mass it would be matter.


WHAT? All anti-matter is, is an atom where the sub-atomic particles have the opposite charge they are supposed to. The anti-Proton has a negative charge, the anti-electron has a positive charge, and there is an anti-nutron (not based on the charge though). This stuff IS matter, it's just charged wrong.




You guys dont even understand big bang theory. Mabe you should look up Taoism and get some tips. Antimatter has negitive mass because it generates Antigravity. All of the properties are oppisite beause antimatter can only exsist in a negative temporal reality.


You're FULL OF IT! We've already discussed this and as Protector informed us earlier in the post, the Department of Energy works with Anti-matter in particle accelerators... so how can it exist in a negative temporal reality? Where did you see proof that anti-matter produces anti-gravity? Protector showed earlier that it exhibits positive mass, and therefore exhibits positive gravity. Maybe you didn't read the original post... but they've made 50,000 units (atoms) of antimatter in a lab for study... so what're you talking about? I think you've been taking your sci-fi a little too seriously.




In fact I have not as yet met anyone who understands Big Bang Theory.


Apparently neither do you. Why don't you give us a basic synopsis of "what is the big bang" that isn't copied and pasted from someone else's writing.




If the knowledge has been here all along and we still dont know it, it is not hard to see why we are not ready for second contact.


What the heck are you talking about? Second contact with WHAT?




I don't care navy intell already has UFT


They have a unified field theory that WORKS... or they're working on it. Show proof or don't make claims.




Mabe you should look up Taoism and get some tips.


Taoism... like the philosophy? I've read it... it says NOTHING about the big bang... where are you getting this crap? If you've interperated passages from the Tao te Ching or somewhere, post them and give an explanation of your interperitation, please.



posted on Aug, 23 2003 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by falcon
I saw this artical these people need to learn a thing or two about messing with anti matter. Being that when ever a normal atom is split it creates a omnidirectional explosion similer to a atomic blast. In theroy then if anti matter explodes it would possibly create a black hole.

Falcon





time travel???



posted on Aug, 23 2003 @ 12:10 PM
link   
banjochef... no... in theory maybe, but it's highly unlikely that a single anti-matter explosion would create a black hole... Black holes are severly massive objects, on atom of anti-matter is just that.... one atom...



posted on Aug, 24 2003 @ 02:19 AM
link   
i dunno about that??
if it's in theory then why wuld they try it here, it could suck us into oblivion at any time, well i guess the mulitverse or universe could also implode too who knows??



posted on Aug, 24 2003 @ 02:35 AM
link   
"if it's in theory then why wuld they try it here, it could suck us into oblivion at any time, well i guess the mulitverse or universe could also implode too who knows?? "

Because the theory is incorrect and has no proof to back it up. There's no evidence to suggest that an anti-mater explosion would create a black hole. all an anti-mater explosion is is an atom of matter and an equal atom of anti-matter colliding. The particles inside the atom cancel eachother out and all the mass present is broken down into energy... so you have a minimal explosion on your hands with only ONE atom to atom collision.... I made a post here earlier defining how much bang you'd get for your buck with different masses of Anti-matter.



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 06:16 PM
link   
its nice to see you all try.
but try as you might Amti-Matter will be out of your mental understanding for many more years...
if we last that long.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join