|
|
#21 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 283
|
Aren't there heat sensors that detect black holes? Their density is supposed to be sup3rh0t.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
is against custom titles
|
Augh, now for my third try at this post. Hopefully this comp won't screw up.
@Jono: Read the link that Apple posted. @Apple: Thanks for the link; it saved me much time on an explanation. @Jam: Electron clouds do overlap slightly during covalent bonding, but for the most part you're right. @Tank: Quantum physics says that particle/antiparticle creations and annihilations are occurring all the time, but on a level of subatomic particles and in a faster-than-is-conceivable time frame. I'm also pretty sure that there's a good deal of antimatter in the universe. --Guido http://andy.mikee385.com |
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
FFR Veteran
|
About the shortest answer I can give from all my physics training is no, you cannot destroy matter, only change it from one form to another. Einstein's famous E=mc^2 is familiar to all, right? Well, that demonstrates that matter and energy are equivalent; you can change matter to energy and vice versa. For example, the matter/anti-matter annihilation people have mentioned turns matter into energy. It doesn't actually destroy it. In common terms, maybe, the particles aren't there anymore, but not in physics terms because you just changed its form. As far as black holes go, remember that because nothing can escape the gravitational pull of one if you're close enough to it, we can't get information from beyond a certain point and therefore we can't know what happens beyond that point. Your guess as to what happens is about as good as mine; with no way to actually test the theories, it's not exactly science anymore.
__________________
![]() Essentially retired now, but still ranked on the list of FFR's Top One Handers. One-Hander Skill Tokens unlocked: The V2 Token, The Patience Token, X_X1MissX_X, AAA v5, T.H.E.G.A.M.E.T.O.K.E.N Pseudo Skill Tokens unlocked: Numbers 21, 44, 33, 57, 26, 24, 47, 95 |
|
|
|
|
|
#24 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 16
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 12
|
Oooooo... didn't think of that Jam.
And it only stands to reason that if matter is destroyed, it would make a BIG explosion. But what gets me is how we will ever find out if we are correct. I mean... if someone found out, then... well... BOOM!!! Yeah... And trying to get two sub-atomic particles exactly the same in every way... it's damn near impossible. But I would love to see that explosion. ![]() And one last thing. What exactly happens to someone if it is destroyed, like not existing, not part of the universe destroyed? It's just mind-boggling to think of something being just gone instead of being something/somewhere else. |
|
|
|
|
|
#26 | |
|
is against custom titles
|
Quote:
@brutis: It's actually not too difficult to get two particles to have the exact same properties, according to Quantum Physics (I always insert this clause because quantum physics isn't accepted as truth, but I think I'll stop for the sake of succinctness [word?]). The whole premise of action over a distance is based on that fact. Recently scientists have used action over a distance to effectively "teleport" particles instantaneously (redundant?). --Guido http://andy.mikee385.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#27 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,069
|
*edit
Better example. If you have a cup of water, and freeze it, now you have ice. You don't have water anymore, but you have the ice! The water is not destroyed, just changed.
__________________
-Jamie |
|
|
|
|
|
#28 | |
|
is against custom titles
|
Quote:
What I was trying to do was discern between matter to matter conversions and matter to energy conversions; they are very different things. You have a log. It's matter. You burn the log. It's the same amount of matter. Ordinary chemical reaction, Law of Conservation of matter applies. You have a neutron and a neutrino. It's matter. You collide the two. There is no longer matter. NOT an ordinary chemical reaction, Law of Conservation of Matter does not apply. Before the burning, you have matter. After the burning, you have matter. Before the annihilation, you have matter. After the annihilation, you do not have matter. Can you see the difference? Y'all are trying to say conversions from matter to matter and conversions from matter to energy are the same things, and that laws that apply to one apply to the other. That's simply not true. In an annihilation, matter is destroyed. Energy is given off for some sort of universal balancing effect, but the matter is gone, destroyed. --Guido http://andy.mikee385.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#29 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,069
|
You are not destroying the matter. Look at my icecube example.
If it were destroyed, you would get nothing out of it. If you change it into energy, it has become that energy, it's not gone. Water -> Ice. Was the water destroyed? no.
__________________
-Jamie |
|
|
|
|
|
#30 |
|
FFR Player
|
are there proven examples of anti-matter? i guess according to theory that since there are blackholes (which 'suck' in 'everything), then there should also be whiteholes, which should randomly 'spit' out everything...mainly just subatomic particles and single atom things, but theoretically it could spit out washing machines and carpet...also, i thought there were exceptions to the 'conversation of matter' rules when it came nuclear reactions...taking 2 atoms and 'fusing' them together to make one...in a simplified explanation
__________________
I'll trade you this delicious doorstop for your crummy old danish. Done, and done. |
|
|
|
|
|
#31 |
|
Boss of all bosses
|
White holes are purely theoritical. It's just scientists balancing equasions (Spelling is really bad right now...)
|
|
|
|
|
|
#32 |
|
FFR Player
|
that's why i said in theory
__________________
I'll trade you this delicious doorstop for your crummy old danish. Done, and done. |
|
|
|
|
|
#33 |
|
I V vi iii IV I IV V
|
Okay I'm caught between Jam and Guido, I understand that through annialation(spelling?) you have matter before the process, and the matter is gone after the process, but you said energy takes its place, I think the main question now is whether or not energy is something that takes up space, and I do beleive it is, (but I can't seem to prove it with an example). If energy does take up space, then the energy would be the equivalant density of the matter thought to be destroyed thus proving E=mc^2.
I hope that made sense. |
|
|
|
|
|
#34 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,069
|
You're not caugh between me and guido.
You're caught between Einstine and Newton. Einstine said energy and matter are interchangable. Newton, I think, believed otherwise. To Suicidal: I don't think there are white holes. Black holes aren't really holes, and they aren't really black, It's just dense matter too small to see. Remember the properties of light... In order to "be" white, it would have to recieve all the wave lengths of the visible spectrum. Like how a prism can split a white beam of light into a rainbow.
__________________
-Jamie |
|
|
|
|
|
#35 |
|
is against custom titles
|
The rift between Jam and me is apparently in our definitions of destruction. For all purposes of physics and practicality, matter is destroyed in an annihilation reaction; I have no idea why thinking otherwise would be useful. There is matter, then there isn't matter. I like to call that destruction.
Jam, however thinks otherwise, and basically says an iron rod and a bunch of energy are the same things. I realize that certain areas of physics need to talk about matter and energy interchangeably, but I don't think that annihilating matter is the same as burning a log. Newton had no concept of what Einstein came up with, so it's not like there was a debate and they chose opposite sides. It's like saying Aristotle disagreed with Copernicus. Also, Jam, you see colors from emissions by objects. A white hole, by definition, emits everything, white light included. It wouldn't have to absorb any energy from outside sources to emit light. Regardless, there's no evidence of them, and I don't believe they exist either. Suicidal, on that Law "exception" you're quite off. Matter is still conserved. --Guido http://andy.mikee385.com |
|
|
|
|
|
#36 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,069
|
Grrrrrrr.
So when water freezes and takes the form of ice... you say. "Theres water... then there isn't water... Tadaaa!" I understand your argument, no offense, but I don't think it's necessary to be ignorant of the fact that the matter only changed form.
__________________
-Jamie |
|
|
|
|
|
#37 | |
|
FFR Veteran
|
Quote:
Jam930 is right. She's using the proper physics terms and definitions, as am I. If you stick to your common sense definitions, you're not going to understand what's really happening. And that's why it's useful not to think that way. Besides the fact that it's wrong, of course.
__________________
![]() Essentially retired now, but still ranked on the list of FFR's Top One Handers. One-Hander Skill Tokens unlocked: The V2 Token, The Patience Token, X_X1MissX_X, AAA v5, T.H.E.G.A.M.E.T.O.K.E.N Pseudo Skill Tokens unlocked: Numbers 21, 44, 33, 57, 26, 24, 47, 95 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#38 | ||
|
is against custom titles
|
Quote:
The reason I said "For all purposes of physics and practicality..." was because nobody cares about the release of energy. When physicists discuss annihilative reactions, they understand that they are just that: annihilative, as in, what was there originally is destroyed after the reaction. Yes, matter is destroyed according to the common sense definition of destruction, hence the "and practicality" in my statement. You're using proper physics terms and I'm not? That's just laughable. As I read up on this subject, this debate may take a turn for the philosophical... Quote:
--Guido http://andy.mikee385.com |
||
|
|
|
|
|
#39 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 12
|
WTF? white holes? did I miss something? Let's keep it to destroying only please. So it keeps the noise to a dull roar.
But as far as I've seen, we have not seen any true examples of anti-matter because a) It would more than likely be invisible to the naked eye. b) we'd all be royally screwed if one did come up. c) it only exists in theory so far anyway |
|
|
|
|
|
#40 | |
|
is against custom titles
|
Quote:
--Guido http://andy.mikee385.com |
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|