Melbourne Chat

Pages: 1 2

Hawking: Matter-antimatter annihilation is cool

In a recent BBC Radio interview the world renowned scientist, Stephen Hawking, explained that it is inevitable that mankind must colonize other planets for us to survive. Abandoning Earth will be necessary because we will eventually be wiped out by either a nuclear war or an asteroid collision with Earth.

"The long-term survival of the human race is at risk as long as it is confined to a single planet," Mr Hawking explained.

In order to reach other habitable worlds, we will need a fast means of transport. Mr Hawking is a supporter of a method of travelling that could potentially permit speeds of just under the speed of light. The method involves matter-antimatter annihilation and photon drives.

The method depends on the combination of matter and antimatter. When these two things are brought together they disappear in a flash of radiation. If this radiation is beamed out of the back of a rocket then it could allow the rocket to travel at close to the speed of light. In this case, it would only take 6 years to reach the closest star. According to Mr Hawking, this 6 year journey would not feel quite that long to the people on board the rocket.

The interview was recorded on the 30th of November 2006 and the audio is available online:

[url="http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolavconsole/ifs_news/hi/nb_wm_fs.stm?news=1&nbram=1&nbwm=1&nol_storyid=6159437"]http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolavconsole/ifs_new...storyid=6159437[/url]

[color="#006600"]NOTE: If you have any suggestions on how we can create a high speed rocket please leave a message below. I will be happy to forward any good ideas on to NASA. The NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center has tried but they haven't had any luck so far. It would be great if we could help them out. [/color] <img src='http://www.melbournechat.org/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' Smile

' />

for anyone interested in a bit more of the science this might be worth a look:

Quote:Matter-antimatter annihilation - the complete conversion of matter into energy - releases the most energy per unit mass of any known reaction in physics.

The popular belief is that an antimatter particle coming in contact with its matter counterpart yields energy. That's true for electrons and positrons (anti-electrons). They'll produce gamma rays at 511,000 electron volts.

But heavier particles like protons and anti-protons are somewhat messier, making gamma rays and leaving a spray of secondary particles that eventually decay into neutrinos and low-energy gamma rays.

And that is partly what Schmidt and others want in an antimatter engine. The gamma rays from a perfect reaction would escape immediately, unless the ship had thick shielding, and serve no purpose. But the charged debris from a proton/anti-proton annihilation can push a ship.

"We want to get as close as possible to the initial annihilation event," Schmidt explained. What's important is intercepting some of the pions and other charged particles that are produced and using the energy to produce thrust."

[url="http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/prop12apr99_1.htm"]http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/prop12apr99_1.htm[/url]

and in case anyone was wondering about the price of antimatter:

"A lot of bang for the buck

Right now, antimatter is the most expensive substance on Earth, about $62.5 trillion a gram ($1.75 quadrillion an ounce). The production is, at best, 50 percent efficient because half of what's created are regular protons, and the equipment now used was not designed to fuel rockets. Harold Gerrish of NASA/Marshall and others estimate that improvements in equipment to slow and trap the antiprotons could bring the price down to about $5,000 per microgram. A new injector at Fermilab outside Chicago will allow that facility to increase its production tenfold, from 1.5 to 15 nanograms a year."

emmmm seems like a sort of expensive way to get around. and i thought petrol was pricey! hahaha

hawking has a website here but its doesn't seem to have any info on antimatter. but is has some stuff about "Space and Time Warps" if that is of interest to anybody.

[url="http://www.hawking.org.uk/"]http://www.hawking.org.uk/[/url]

thanks to jerry, simon and marco for that extra info. <img src='http://www.melbournechat.org/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' Smile

' />

[quote name='glen' post='1193' date='Dec 4 2006, 06:46 PM']Hawking: Matter-antimatter annihilation is cool

In a recent BBC Radio interview the world renowned scientist, Stephen Hawking, explained that it is inevitable that mankind must colonize other planets for us to survive. Abandoning Earth will be necessary because we will eventually be wiped out by either a nuclear war or an asteroid collision with Earth.

"The long-term survival of the human race is at risk as long as it is confined to a single planet," Mr Hawking explained.

In order to reach other habitable worlds, we will need a fast means of transport. Mr Hawking is a supporter of a method of travelling that could potentially permit speeds of just under the speed of light. The method involves matter-antimatter annihilation and photon drives.

The method depends on the combination of matter and antimatter. When these two things are brought together they disappear in a flash of radiation. If this radiation is beamed out of the back of a rocket then it could allow the rocket to travel at close to the speed of light. In this case, it would only take 6 years to reach the closest star. According to Mr Hawking, this 6 year journey would not feel quite that long to the people on board the rocket.

The interview was recorded on the 30th of November 2006 and the audio is available online:

[url="http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolavconsole/ifs_news/hi/nb_wm_fs.stm?news=1&nbram=1&nbwm=1&nol_storyid=6159437"]http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolavconsole/ifs_new...storyid=6159437[/url]

[color="#006600"]NOTE: If you have any suggestions on how we can create a high speed rocket please leave a message below. I will be happy to forward any good ideas on to NASA. The NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center has tried but they haven't had any luck so far. It would be great if we could help them out. [/color] <img src='http://www.melbournechat.org/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' Smile

' />[/quote]

Now we want a engine for the starship enterpise.

Why didn't you ask nicely.

The engine is a particle drive. And it adds 1/3 FERMI DIRAC EQUATION+ 1/3 BOSE EINSTEIN+ 1/3 BOSE EINSTEIN= 1 FERMI DIRAC/BOSE EINSTEIN.

And particles X and Y are both in the SAME STATE at THE SAME TIME in the SAME PLACE AND NOT.

Energy is stred for the four states of matter and the four forces which are dependant on the four states becoming one.

And then they are unstable and explode becoming four states and forces.

Limitless energy can thus be stored.

And used to drive the spacecarft faster than light.

Or at least to where time is zero so relatively the spaceship will travel faster than light.

But earth will have to be left behind.They could go back with time earth could recover from nuclear holocaust.

Infinite energy means we can approach total light speed and time is zero.

hi stephen, sounds too complicated for me <img src='http://www.melbournechat.org/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' Smile

' />

can i get one these particle drives for my car? that would be cool.

cheers, glen

[quote name='glen' post='4316' date='Apr 4 2008, 04:08 PM']hi stephen, sounds too complicated for me <img src='http://www.melbournechat.org/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' Smile

' />

can i get one these particle drives for my car? that would be cool.

cheers, glen[/quote]

Glen you can run your car on water&gas but they won't bebuilding these particles drives until 2050 according to star trek.

It is really quite simple look up theh law of non contradiction on wikkapedia.

Iam saying it doesn't apply in the big bang.

Which could prove Einstein wrong Sheech what a problem.

beers Steve

' />

can i get one these particle drives for my car? that would be cool.

cheers, glen[/quote]

Glen,

You can get one of these particle drives for your car.

My proposal is to use supercritical non newtonian fluids( just slime) to make a battery that decomposes to form four states of matter from two and four forces from two.

Releasing energy.

You can use this battery to store limitless energy to run a car.

Contact everyready with the proposal be my guest.

Steve

[quote name='STEPHEN A JEFFREY' post='4314' date='Apr 4 2008, 12:04 PM']Now we want a engine for the starship enterpise.

Why didn't you ask nicely.

The engine is a particle drive. And it adds 1/3 FERMI DIRAC EQUATION+ 1/3 BOSE EINSTEIN+ 1/3 BOSE EINSTEIN= 1 FERMI DIRAC/BOSE EINSTEIN.

And particles X and Y are both in the SAME STATE at THE SAME TIME in the SAME PLACE AND NOT.

Energy is stred for the four states of matter and the four forces which are dependant on the four states becoming one.

And then they are unstable and explode becoming four states and forces.

Limitless energy can thus be stored.

And used to drive the spacecarft faster than light.

Or at least to where time is zero so relatively the spaceship will travel faster than light.

But earth will have to be left behind.They could go back with time earth could recover from nuclear holocaust.

Infinite energy means we can approach total light speed and time is zero.[/quote]

Point taken Glen people just don't get me as a result of what you have said Iam calling my book HOW TO RUN YOUR CAR ON SLIME.

' />

can i get one these particle drives for my car? that would be cool.

cheers, glen[/quote]

Pass my book onto the boffins at NASA.

How to run your car on slime (supercritical non newtonian fluid batteries for the experts)

[url="http://www.lulu.com/author/wizard/index.php"]http://www.lulu.com/author/wizard/index.php[/url]

[quote name='STEVE A JEFFREY' post='4332' date='Apr 9 2008, 03:22 PM']Pass my book onto the boffins at NASA.

How to run your car on slime (supercritical non newtonian fluid batteries for the experts)

[url="http://www.lulu.com/author/wizard/index.php"]http://www.lulu.com/author/wizard/index.php[/url][/quote]

"Any invention starts out with none of the answers and end up with all of the answers because you have to be able to make it work." You can quote Richard Thomas.

you mean this one? [url="http://www.lulu.com/content/2336802"]http://www.lulu.com/content/2336802[/url]

Fill a blackboard with equations.

2 FERMI DIRAC STATISTICS+ 2 BOSE EINSTEIN= 4 FERMI DIRAC/BOSE EINSTEIN EQUATION.

2E=2M*2C^2+ 2F=2M*2A= UNBLANCED EQUATION.

You can fill the blackboard with unblanced equations that are two equations Plus two equations equal four equations.

Addition is equal to multiplication for two.

Soyou can add equations and multiply them at the same time.

Equations added 2+2=4 like Einsteins and Newtons do not balance.Just like the equation for the universe exnihilo means you have to get energy from outside of the universe to balance the unversal equation.

So E=MCsquared does not balance energy is not equivalent to matter.

You can program a computer to add physics equations at random 2+2=4.

And this should give you another exceptionally simple theory of everything that is ex-nihilo.

Since 2+2=4 obeys the law of non contradiction........which is considered by Shaeffer to be the test of all truth.

Steve

My best guess is you're talking about Bose-Einstein statistics, because the ``Bose condensation'' has been in the news, sort of, lately. We begin the (long) answer with a question: how many different results are there if you flip 1 coin? The answer is obviously 2: H (heads) or T (tails). What if you flip 2 coins? The answer is 4: HH, HT, TH, or TT. We might think of this as follows: for EACH result of flipping the 1st coin (H or T) we have 2 results for flipping the 2nd. Hence the total number of results is 2 x 2 = 4. In the same way if we had 3 coins we could think: for EACH result of flipping the 1st, we have 2 choices for flipping the 2nd, and for EACH of those we have 2 choices for fliping the 3rd, which gives 2 x 2 x 2 = 8 results, namely HHH, HHT, HTH, HTT, THH, THT, TTH, TTT. Objects that behave this way, where the number of results for N objects is equal to the number of results for 1 object multiplied by itself N times, are said to obey Boltzmann statistics. Practically every object you know of (people, cars, balls of strings, leaves) obeys Boltzmann statistics. But atoms do not. Why not? Let's consider a situation at first sight identical to our coins. How many ways are there to put 1 object into a set of two boxes? The obvious answer is 2, as follows: ----- ----- ----- ----- | O | | | | | | O | ----- ----- ----- ----- This seems to be identical to our previous situation if we consider the object to be a coin, and label the boxes HEADS and TAILS. Okay, then, how many ways are there to put 2 exactly identical objects into a set of two boxes? From our coin work, we might think, gee, obviously 2 x 2 = 4. Not so. Because the objects are EXACTLY IDENTICAL, the answer is 3, as follows: ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- | O | | O | | O O | | | | | | O O | ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- It is only if the objects are slightly different that the answer is 4, as follows: ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- | O | | o | | o | | O | | O o | | | | | | O o | ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- We must conclude that only objects that are different obey Boltzmann statistics. Objects that are exactly identical behave differently: they are said to obey Bose-Einstein statistics. How do we square this with our results for coins? Aren't coins identical? Why do they obey Boltzmann statistics? The answer is that the coins are NOT exactly identical, for a very subtle reason: we see one being flipped before the other. The coins are different by virtue (and only by virtue) of the fact that one is flipped before the other, and we know which one that is. That is, it is our knowledge of the history of the objects that allows us to tell them apart, even if they look identical. All objects you see around you follow Bolzmann statistics, because even if you can't tell them apart by looking at them, you can always tell them apart by discovering their history, which will be unique for each object. Atoms are different. Not only are they exactly identical, but you cannot distinguish their history, even in principle, because quantum mechanics says atoms do not each have their own individual history. Hence atoms follow Bose-Einstein statitics. Actually, another possibility exists for atoms. Some atoms are such that no two are allowed to be in the same situation. For these atoms there is only 1 way to put 2 atoms in 2 boxes, since each atom must be in a different box. These atoms are said to follow Fermi-Dirac statistics. *Why* some atoms follow Fermi-Dirac statistics needs to be addressed separately, so ask another question if you want to know. So what's so special about following Bose-Einstein statitics? Well, nothing, really, unless you expect things to always follow Boltzmann statistics. Then you can observe stuff that surprises you. For example, we see that if we throw 2 atoms into 2 boxes randomly we'll end up seeing both atoms together in one box more often (1 out of 3 times) if they follow Bose-Einstein statistics than if they follow Boltzmann statistics (1 out of 4 times). If we do the same experiment with a lot more atoms and a lot more boxes, this difference turns out to become much larger, as we could prove by writing out all the possible results, like we did for 2 atoms and 2 boxes above. We don't have to think about real boxes, either. The boxes can be symbols for any distinguishable situation the atoms might be found in. We can conclude that if we have a lot of atoms in a lot of possible situations (``boxes''), and *if* we expect them to follow Boltzmann statistics, then we will be surprised by how often they end up in one single situation (box), all doing the same thing. The ending-up-in-one-situation is called a ``Bose condensation'', and it makes the news because it surprises human beings, whose intuition is to always see Boltzmann statistics. There are also a number of interesting things that happen when atoms do a Bose condensation, such as superfluidity and superconductivity. Grayce ==================================

[url="http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/qsearchresults.asp?choice=title&inputstr=HOW+TO+FAIL+AT+COLLEGE"]http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/qsearch...FAIL+AT+COLLEGE[/url]

Stephen A Jeffrey author HOW TO FAIL AT COLLEGE.

Have a beer and learn why Aristotle and Einstein both can't be right about the big bang.

In sub-atomic nature, the equivalence of energy and mass implies exactly this, that energy is quite literally the same as mass, and vice versa. Energy and mass are equivalent and by any theory of meaning whatever, in Einsteinâs famous equation, they are actually identical, and this undercuts one of the foundational requirements of Western philosophy. The latter requirement is a restrictive consideration of traditional logic attributed to Aristotle, and recognised as the three laws of thought so-called. Whatever reasons might have been at play in justifying the insertion of Aristotleâs three laws of thought into European scholarship, they represent the most refined defense available, both of the myth of Divine Creation, and of the philosophical mechanisms underlying its assembly. The first of these, the law of identity as A=A is something of a misnomer.

The first law of thought so-called asserts that a thing is never anything other than equal to, or equivalent, to itself. According to Aristotleâs law of identity therefore, the identity of a thing relies on nothing outside of itself, which is to say that its relatedness with other things has no influence or impact upon its identity. A=A underpins the isolated, particularity of all things as per The Book of Genesis, and as per the isolated, ideal particulars that populate Platoâs realm of ideal forms. This first law of thought is supplemented by the second law so-called.

The second law of thought, the law of contradiction asserts that a thing cannot simultaneously be both itself and not itself. It too is something of a misnomer â it is actually the law of non-contradiction! The second law therefore merely states the underlying idea of the first law âin other wordsâ which means precisely that energy can only ever be energy as in A=A; energy cannot therefore be mass! This exactly is the point at which the ancient and the modern come into direct conflict. Newton is favoured implicitly in this restrictive law of thought while, to remain true to non-identity theory, Einstein and 20thcentury science must be rejected. Identity-theory alone, which is to say dialectic, the genius of our species could overcome this impasse that is at the heart of our historically evolving, Judaeo Christian process. But the third law of thought presents a stubborn resistance.

The third law of thought so-called is the law of the excluded middle â if a proposition is true its obverse must be false. There is no middle-ground between truth and falsity, which is to say that the possibility of a middle ground between truth and falsity is excluded from consideration. There may well be examples where the law of the excluded middle might seem perfectly sensible, but try this: Energy can only ever be identical to energy! If this is true, its obverse, energy is identical to mass, must be false. The principle of equivalence contradicts all three laws of thought!

The first law of thought as A=A pontificates a restrictive theory of the identity of isolated particulars, while the second law underpins the first law by excluding outside influences, and both cases refer to a purely objective fact so-called, of material reality. Material reality is made up of wholly isolated particulars as in Genesis! Give each of these isolated particulars a name and you have nominalism! The universe is populated with nameable, isolated particulars. Nominalism is the doctrine that there are no universals or classes of things â there are only named particulars. The third law is explicitly about thought itself. It anchors the first and second laws in a restrictive proposal about the nature and mutually exclusive relationship of truth and falsity. But all three laws have a dual character â each is an example of theory isolated from its referent as required by empiricism (external evaluation) correspondence theory, and non-identity theory, while each, by the gift of a mystical metaphysic called the transcendental signifier (God) is equally a privileged proposal about the nature of reality viewed from a standpoint external to its referents; empiricism!

These three laws of thought so called were assembled at a time when it had not been noticed or known that the form and content of the universal subjectivity of nature and human being had been hijacked by priests and philosophers, and projected onto an external God (or Gods in the case of the Greeks). Instead therefore of universal subjectivity and its objective counterparts being recognised as two sides of the same coin, and in the special sense of dialectic, recognised as equivalent and identical one within the other, these two essential components were dualised as independent features and named accordingly as subjectivity and objectivity, and it made all the difference. This mutually exclusive separation is taken for granted on the authority of its Judaeo Christian credentials. Nothing else could justify it!

Although it had been traditional to regard each of these three laws of thought so-called both as a substantive (ontological) truth and equally as independent (epistemological) mechanisms of evaluation, in reality they are each the subordinate feature of a compound, Judaeo Christian, ### ancient Greek attitude â each is recognised as a feature in non-identity theory. All together, they function as a defensive bastion in favour of the philosophical underpinnings of Genesis, and against identity-theory. Each as indicated, functions both as a mutual support for each other and for their compound root, isolated particularity, the fundamental postulate of Judaeo Christianity, of Western civilisation, of liberalism therefore, and therefore of capitalism. Analysis or decomposition as deconstruction have led inexorably as we have already confirmed, to the God-sent bounty for all dominant social forces -- divide and rule! All this is to say that if A can only ever be equal to A, the law of contradiction is (both false as already indicated, and) pretty well superfluous as per the second law. But equally, if as per the law of contradiction the proposition that a thing cannot be both itself and not itself, is true, then its obverse as per the third law so-called, must be false. In this case energy can only ever be equal and equivalent to energy as in A=A, in which case Einsteinâs famous equation e=mc2 must be false, which, in light of the success of 20th century science cannot be sustained!

What was regarded as true during most of the modern period, has now become dubious to say the least, and at best, deficient. It is as plain as plain needs be that Aristotleâs three laws of thought were invoked quite specifically as a defense of Genesis and the Judaeo Christian convention of non-equivalence it embodied as constitutional emphasis for all Judaeo Christian time. It has already been confirmed that after Einstein and 20th century science, non-equivalence and non-identity theory can only retain its dependent credibility as subordinate feature within the extra layer of understanding brought forward by the primacy of equivalence, dialectic and identity theory. www.newtimepress.co.uk.

Another exceptionally simple theory of everything is Richard Thomas Theory.

It follows that if there were a big crunch preceeding our universe then the four states of matter were compressed into one.

And this stored potential energy like the spring of a clock.

Like a clock with a cog removed the energy was released quickly as one state of matter became four and one force became four.

Th expansion took place far more quickly that the preceeding compression.

The equation for the universe must balance according to Einstien the mass of the preceeding universe must equal the energy of the big bang.

Excpet if Einstein is wrong and the law of non contradiction is right.

Then opposite particles X and Y cannot be in the SAME STATE at The SAME TIME in the SAME PLACE.

And the equation for the universe doesn't balance we need to get energy from outside this universe.

And 2+2=4 is the answer for non contradiction equations that don't balance.

A theory of everything where we add all the equations 2+2=4 means they will not balance and will not mean Einstein is right.................

This thoery of everything can be put on the back of an envelope or explained to Granny before she carks.

Steve

so i guess 1+1 doesn't equal 2? bugger! <img src='http://www.melbournechat.org/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' Sad

' /> lucky my maths is not so good these days as its all wrong anyway! <img src='http://www.melbournechat.org/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' Smile

' />

1+1=2 that is YING.

And the opposite 2+2=4 that is YANG.

And I can prove this in that 1 ODD+ 1 EVEN= 2 ODD.

And 2 ODD+ 2 EVEN= 4 EVEN.

And we make E=MC^2 = 1+1=2 pr 2+2=4.

The both means that fission and fusion are opposites.

And because you have two.

1+1 does equal 2.

Steve

You can't have fission 1+1=2 and fusion 2+2=4 at the same time in the same place in the same state.

And you can if E=MC^2 is 1/2/

1/2 E=1/2M+1/2 C^2

2*1/2+2*1/2M+2*1/2C^2

Hence 1+1=2=2+2=4 Fission is equal to fusion.YING=YANG.

Steve

Pages: 1 2

glen

Guest

Guest

marco

glen

Guest

glen

Guest

Guest

Guest

Guest

Guest

glen

Guest

Guest

Guest

Guest

glen

Guest

Guest