@doboromon1 it's ANTImatter meaning it's opposite of matter. with gravity opposite of what it is now our atoms would be pushed away. but antimatter would still be attracted to other antimatter because matter is attracted to matter
@006JoeS noo thats the competing theory! :P opposite? is probbballyyyy the universe is a black hole.. and everything going on is actually happening in reverse.. only once.. and it was made my 17 gods.. that hate when little bugs grow on their pretty space marbles.
@benjaminlzw Not exactly. A radionuclide is used as tracer, which decays and emits positrons in the process, which I think annihilate with the electrons of the nuclide, and emit a pair of gammarays in the process.
@CommitToFocus Well it would need some oxygen to interact with, and I'd think that would need to be anti-oxygen (otherwise you'd get annihilation). In that case, in the end you'd end up with anti-water. I don't think it's possible to get partial anti-matter (or whatever you want to call it), but who knows.
1 gram of antimatter can release the energy of 9 space shuttles (and their booster rockets) when combined with regular matter. Pretty scary amounts of energy indeed.
@EgadsNo Ye, I heard you can drive a car constantly for 500 years with one gram of anti-matter, if I remember the number correctly. It sure is a great potential battery. But it also takes 1 year to produce 1 gram of anti-matter at the moment. :P
@antiHUMANDesigns I think I read somewhere that antimatter is the most expensive material in the world...
When they can produce it with a much lower power consumption than CERN, as well as store it effectively, we'll essentially have as much energy as we have mass.
@Tmaker197812 Physicists need to know whether theory is real. If what's real is only what we already understand and experience it would have ended already, you'd have already known everything there is to know about the universe, and physics itself wouldn't be worth what it is. Besides, you don't know it's unordinary.
@LokiClock we don't need to spend our forces for heavy elements or antimatter. We need to know why NaCl dissolves in water and why AgCl does not. We need good explanation of all known chemical properties of atoms from physicists instead of unpractical fairytales.
@Tmaker197812 All of it is intertwined. Creating exotic particles and determining their properties shows whether the explanations we're using are real or just one of many ways the same behavior can apply to our stable environment. Verbal descriptions of what's going on in the theory are interpretations of mathematics, which has systems that look like another up close but have very different meaning. If you call theoretical predictions fairytales, open a history book.
@LokiClock in my language fairytale sometimes is truth hidden in a lie and you need to figure out what's right and what's wrong. My standpoint is ... we don't really need much to know about nuclear transformations cause all on Earth works on chemistry - electron orbital transformations. All live things work on chemistry and it's not best approach to understand what the cat is trying to deep it into a water or trying to cook it, it's what you usually do with it with little more intellect applied)
@Tmaker197812 So you're saying the theory shouldn't be tested (if expensive) unless we find out it has practical implications? I don't agree that chemistry is only about electron orbitals & stable elements. Creating new elements means creating new chemistry, which we can't approach if we're working without the assumption it exists. Finding ways to verify the hypothesis is one thing, but physicists won't start engineering in a hypothetical world except as a hobby.
@7CellarDoors Using google calc it's rather easy to calculate. I had to look up a megaton of tnt, it is 4.184 petajoules. So assuming you weigh 70 kg, you + your anti-you would weigh 140kg together, so you can enter this into google: 140kg * c^2 / 4.184 petajoules. The result is 3 gigatons of tnt (3 billion tonnes). Or 10^19 Joules of energy.
Wouldn't it be possible to turn garbage into massive amounts of energy if you would put it in a vacuum and shoot antimatter into it (if there is a way to hold big amounts of antimatter)? It would be really neat cause if the energy levels are that impressive it would solve 2 huge problems, We could finally annihilate garbage entirely and we could solve a lot of the energy problems
@DeathG4n Yes, but that requires antimatter in a massive scale and it's pretty much impossible to make antimatter without using more energy that you would get from annihilating it.
I love how enthusiastically the PET scanners inject Patients with radioactive fluids to make their brains and other organs glow in the dark, all in order to fight cancer...???? Something sounds wrong here.
@damian13531 People are in contact with radioactivity all the time. The ammount you get from a PET scanner is extremely small. And the help it brings is far more that the damage it does, because it will practically never cause any cancer.
maybe the particles do exist in something that we could call a parallel universe. if I look at the world, I see, hear, feel, smell, taste and basically experience vibration. the whole universe is based on vibration.I for one have a special interest in music being one of these many expressions of vibration. if you look at electricity, you will see another level of vibration, that we can use to do various things. Only the level of vibrations runs on a very different scale. light is music, too.
@HaileISela but what I basically want to say is, that this parallel universe stuff people like to talk about, may be understood as another unlimited amount of particles that move around us and just don't share the same space. so imagine a sinus wave on a diagram that includes a scale in between being matter and anti-matter, and one that has the properties of space (being one set of dimensions that I at least feel like understanding) or time (being another) and what you will get is an unlimited
@HaileISela amount of possible states of being. Now if you set our state of matter into that, and determine the properties of our anti-matter, you may get another depth of imagined possibilities in between. everything in this universe is one, and it's all a big composition of vibrations. even every life form is just adding another type of vibration to the mix. every spoken word that contains information, every note of sound, every piece of DNA. it's all vibration. as is every believe.
so basically if we can find some way to store this anti-matter>>>> it will pave a road for an anti-matter rifle? Now my question is how much energy would be its output?
hey! just wanted to let you know that i quoted professor merrifield in one of my research papers for school on antimatter. of course i put an source citation underneath and attached a paragraph filled with rambling about how awesome and educational this channel is. :P
so if anti matter has reverse gravity it would have been pushed away in the moment of the big bang and might be accelerating even faster away than the know universe
So, an antihydrogen's constituent particles will annihilate with any other proton/electron. SO in theory if you reacted an antihydrogen-1 atom with a carbon-12 (or any other random isotope of any other element) you would get boron-11? or would the annihilation event toss the atom apart? Or have we not figured that out yet?
@JoelT23 Nothing would happen. They are not anti to each other, so they would not annihilate. And yes, they would repel each other.
But you can combine a neutron and a positron to make a proton (and a neutrino), and the reverse thing happens in some nuclear decays.
The only thing that makes the positron "anti" is the fact that there are so many electrons around. The only thing that makes the anti-proton "anti" is the fact that there are so many regular protons.
@JoelT23 There is a symmetry between regular particles and antiparticles. You might as well say that the electron was the anti-particle. We have only named them like we have based what there is a lot of.
If a particle encounters a different kind of antiparticle, they don't "know" that one is matter and the other is antimatter; they are just different particles.
oh well as energy Zero Point energy is quite denser , arround 6x10^94 (nienty-four) grams for cubic centimiter , but extracting that is kinda impossible ^^.
Anyway "Making" antimatter can be a way to make energy , becouse if you need 3/4X energy to make equivalent of 1/2X energy in mass , than annihilate it you get 2X energy , that's still 1/4X energy output gain! The point is that actually you need FAR way more energy , and storing it COSTS energy(magnetic field).
If a single atom of "anti-hydrogen" interacts with, say an atom of helium, does it just annihilate one electron and one proton worth of the helium leaving behind an atom of tritium?
@Kestko if you want to put these two particles together with no matter around. its impossible because whatever you use to put the particles together is made of matter
well if you are talking about Hadron Colider,they made that one so big because they wanted more scientists to be able to study it,and plus since they are looking more and more what goes on when you smash 2 particles together,it is logical to think that as they smash more heavier particles you need more energy.BUT we are still not even close to making some sort of anti-matter engine.as soon as we figure out what we need for it to happen,you bet the next step will be minimizing accelerators.
ME AND MY FRIEND (he's 12 i'm 13) THOUGHT OF THIS!!!!!!! we searched if someone had done it and were sad that we couldn't work on it anymore but at the same time we were sooooo happy that a Phd physiscist had thought of this and so did we!!!
do you think we created anti plutonium in some weird dimension on the edge of space time? Im drunk and I have a theory about why there is more +matter than -matter around us currently and no it's not a stupid theory
This may seem to be a stupid question (I apologise for my lack of knowledge of antimatter) but, he says that when a particle meets its anti particle, they annihilate and release energy, could this potentially be the next equivalent of nuclear bombs? if it could be controlled.
@skulsaw Let's do the math shall we? If you could get a modest amount of anti-matter (say for example one kilogram) and you could annihilate all of it at the same time (theoretically) you would get, according to E=Mc² :
E = 1(Kilogram) X 299.792.458² (Meters per second) = 89.875.517.873.681.764 Joules, (89 quadrillion 875 trillion 517 billion 873 million 681 thousand 764 Joules) which is about 20 megatons of TNT, which is sounds like an awful lot, but it's not as much as the most potent atomic bomb ever detonated, namely the Tsar Bomba, which was 50 Megatons. Then again, the Tsar Bomba would be capable of vaporizing a good portion of the center of Paris, so...
@Chimaera242 Yes, my only concern was about producing/finding enough antihydrogen to be significant enough to produce a large amount of energy, I'm fine with the maths bit and isn't the correct formula: E2 = p2c2 + m2c4 (this was on another 60 symbols video xD)
1) According to me and just to answer some questions, to hold and store anti-particles its not necessary to have anti-magnet. The particles can be hold anyway by magnet even if they are in the opposite magnetic field. The problem is to know what are the propreties of anti-particles and to know the degree of magnet to use to store them just to avoid that anti-particles colide with particles
2) I personnally think that anti-particles must emite anti-radiation because th
@halamaker Nope. In order to lose brain functions, you'd have to have brain cells destroyed. Losing an electron does not destroy living tissue: it just induces the smallest possible current, as the atom with a missing electron attracts an electron from another atom, and THAT atom attracts an electron from another atom, and so on, and so on, until eventually it's an atom on the outside of your body that attracts an electron from an atom of air nearby.
1) Couldn't they create a vacuum and then fill it with positrons and anti-protons?
2) Can particles such as electrons be destroyed by anti-particles when they're part of an atom? Like if a positron hits a nitrogen atom, will it destroy one of the nitrogen's electrons?
I didn't quite get it does antimatter annihilate with any matter or just with equivalent matter...I mean hydrogen just with antihydrogen , or antihydrogen with anything?
So if gravity didn't apply to ant-particles... They would still have to create a shield of protection from annihilation. Using anti-particles, build a machine that generates magnetic fields (anti-magnetic fields?) That stop itself from colliding with particles, then we can have a floating magnet shield that we can never touch, and once the battery (anti-battery, running off of positrons) dies it turns into light. ???
Okay, I'm getting two different arguments from this video, and now am confused.
1. When a particle and its anti-particle collide, they annihilate.
2. When matter and anti-matter collide, they annihilate.
1 implies that an anti-hydrogen has to collide with a hydrogen to annihilate where 2 implies it can hit any regular atom an will annihilate, if so, what exactly do you get when anti-hydrogen and helium collide? would you get tritium, 1 proton 2 neutrons and 1 electron? or is 1 correct?
@burninmunkeys By saying "particle" I'm sure they mean sub-atomic particles, like protons neutrons and electrons. So when an anti-atom collides with any type of atom, they both annihilate. It's not the whole story tho, there's much more behind this, including the researches on origin of mass and events that took place for a fraction of second after the big bang. Look it up on google if you're interested =).
Electron and positron on the orbits would annihilate and if the collision would be strong enough to overcome the repelling force of electron and anti-proton and the energy which came from the first annihilation, the proton and anti-proton would annihilate giving of ~2GeV, which is more than enough to destroy over 200 tritium nucleuses. :)
That much energy is pretty much enough to destory or break down all atoms. The binding energy of the biggest natural element, uranium, is about 1,8 GeV (and it's unstable), and the most stable element which is iron, has a binding energy ~0,5 GeV (tritium has about 0,0085 GeV), so as you can see just one anti-proton near a nucleus would be enough of a nemesis to all atoms, although bigger atoms would probably break down into smaller ones, reather than be completly destroyed.
@mattdamico No the universe wouldn't be loaded with it, because when the universe was created it was created with a disproportionate amount of particle and antiparticles. There was created more matter than antimatter. The antimatter collided with the matter and annihilated until there was no more antimatter and we got what we've got now, a surplus of matter.
@mattdamico There are alot more cups than cupholders, but there are enough types of cupholders to hold all cups. There is a type cupholder to hold each cup, though not all cups can be held at the same time because there are more cups than cupholders <-- If you think of cups as matter and cupholders as matter, and cups in cupholders as energy or matter-antimatter collisions, I think you'll understand what I'm saying.
out of interest, are there any theories about antimatter production during the big bang? would we be able to tell if a cloud of anti hydrogen was out there creating anti stars and anti galaxies?
Storage of anti-matter should be a concern. The real issue is cost-effective and timely production of anti-particles, which could be converted to energy on the spot. For example, if you could build a machine that created anti-matter in large doses and immediately annihilated it to produce energy, you wouldn't need to store it if you could harness or store the energy instead.
@boxwi erm... conservation of energy. If you're going to make antimatter, there has to be energy going in. Making antimatter would use more energy than the antiparticle holds.
@blackplatypus Is that so? Well, in the future if we're able to get a positive net energy return from creation of antimatter, my point still stands. What I mean is so long as we are able to create and annihilate it for net positive energy on location, you wouldn't need to store it.
are antiparticles still made of quarks? if so then newtons have no antiparticles. But if they are made of anti quarks. Then there is a anti-newtons. So is there an anti-newton?
why store it? using the antimatter ASAP is the key for utilizing it as an energy source. if antimatter were made to collide with particles of matter at a given point, the collision would create a controlled burst of energy that could be focused to create thrust. instant conversion and consumption of antiparticles made would stop a need for a tank and annihilating them for energy would stop the need for storage. retro fit the shuttle with an anti-matter combustion rocket. my video is coming soon
let me ask you a question, does your car have an oil refinary on the back of it?
then why would you expect your antimatter fuled vehical to have it's own partical accelarator on the back of it?
and to create the anti-matter you have to put in a greater amout of energy than you will get out in usable anti-matter, so as a fule soure to power a city, it's pretty much useless, only for vehicals which need to store it will it ever be useful
@MICHAELJONSTON : in the vast area of space, ships could be made and launched from the moon or Space Station and yes these ships would have there own mini accelerators.
Antimatter particles are infinatly smaller than oil and dont need to be refined only created. A small focus combustion system (more of a particle ionizing cannon w/ a jet style intake and cylindar "compact coil spring style" mini accelerator ) could create the needed energy, fuel, and thrust for journies into deep space.
@AISmagic2008 On day yes, however not in my lifetime, and I'd seriously doubt it could be concevable to do that for dozens of decades.
there's a world of science fiction, and science fact. on this channel, please keep to facts. a little imagination is good, but that's just full blow bulls***
@MICHAELJONSTON as soon as we get the idea and stuff to fuel something with anti-matter, they will develop a particle accelerator that is compact enough for it to be fitted into a car or something of that size.for example look at the computers now and 50 years ago : they were big,room occupying and spent a lot of energy for it's work while memory and process power was so low.now we have netbooks that are even smaller than laptops with win7 installed,usb drives well over 32 gb and external hdds.
You're right in the sense that once we get the idea from science fiction, we do tend to make our best efforts to make them happen, but partical accelorators have been fucking massive for the past 50 years, and they're getting BIGGER, not smaller.
and for anti matter to be made, we need to put energy in, and it's an energy HIGHER than the energy we get out again. that's why a car with an anti-matter engine would not (according to the laws of physics) would be impossible
@MICHAELJONSTON "but partical accelorators have been fucking massive for the past 50 years, and they're getting BIGGER, not smaller"
I suspect we've reached a limit on that. The US cancelled the Superconducting Supercollider, and is losing both interest in & public understanding of, science in general. Europe might have a generation or 2 of larger machines left. But I think the only place to go is smaller and less expensive, I've no idea *how* to manage it. But I suspect it is what must happen.
@MICHAELJONSTON I don't believe you quite understand it. Anti-matter is a powerful fuel itself. Once used, it is renewable. Not to mention, the fusion energy created from the annihilation of positrons and electrons upon meeting is self sustaining... there are numerous possibilities. The only setback is our current method of storing these antiparticles. You are jumping from A to Z, when we are merely reaching B upon this application. I would familiarize yourself with antimatter more in depth.
@XxMetalManxX In what way is it self sustaining?? -.-
NOTHING, absolutely nothing is truly self sustaining.
It is NOT a fuel, I suggest you familiarize yourself in antimatter. didn't you listen to a word of what was said in this video?
if we could mine antimatter, find natural deposits of it, then yes it could be a fuel, but from the low gamma ray background we can tell that there is no massive antimatter hitting matter, so we know that there isn't. Now go do some actual research
when it annihilates used as fuel it leaves behind partcles which can be harvested and used again they keep making them over and over again. reusable. self sustaining. especially at high levels using a circular particle accelerator. the circular rotation will increase momentum. they are currently working on containing positrons using strong polarities from magnet panels. i am familiar with the theory i am familiar with it all. you are not seeing everything.
@XxMetalManxX I have to explain in 486 characters why you're wrong on so many levels -.- fml.
all I can suggest to you is just read a book called AntiMatter by Frank Close, he's a Professor of Physics at oxford university. that'll say in 159 pages what I can't in so little letters. No please go, read your notes, look up the facts, and please come back later
@MICHAELJONSTON DailyTech - Earth's Dirty Secret: Our Magnetic Field Traps Antimatter ~Satellite confirms the existence of antimatter belts surrounding our planet, opens hopes for fuel use. `Times they are a changin'.
@MICHAELJONSTON Einstein thought it would never be practical to get energy out of nuclear reactions as it would always take more energy to start the reaction than you would get out. If you only use enough energy to make the anti-particle and then you annihilation it with ordinary matter, then you have got more energy after due to the regular matter also turning into energy. So their could be a way of making a good source of energy with anti-matter but we just haven't found it yet.
@Lemenks actually a belt of anti-matter (anti-protons I believe) has been discovered in one of the layers of the earths magnetic field very recently! :)
And your right many great scientists have totally missed the mark on there assumtions, and my assumtion that travel via anti-matter being very unlikly could be one of the ones that's wrong, personally I'd love to be proven wrong about this, However harvisting a field of anti-matter 30,000 miles away... well we'll see in the next centuary :)
@Lemenks creating anti matter and starting a reaction are totally different things. Creating then un-creating costs and gives energy. In the nuclear reaction, you just need a good amount of pure product and something shooting neutrons in it to get it started.
What is the reason of sewing words from two different persons in expressing a sentence? This creates unnecessary hassle for serious listeners to follow the flow. Are we listening to a physics discussion of heavy-metal band?
@camitava Not only that, but they're saying words with an arbitrarily varying number of syllables, and they're even mixing consonants and vowels together just any old way. It doesn't even rhyme. I don't know, I just can't follow this new-fangled 'talking' the kids are into...
I wonder if something basic, like the definition of what is the smallest part of mater, is wrong. I know there are a lot of proofs, but what if it is coincidence? :D just wondering...
I know antimatter will annihilate in space. But I also know particles of matter must be dramatically less in space then on earth. Something tells me if we can trap it on earth with the tech we have now its not a far stretch to be able to accumulate more then we can here, in space. On that note , Hypothetical faucet drips 'Trapped' anti matter into a black hole, What happens when the first bit annihilates some of the black hole, and would it eventually unzip the black hole n save the unive
do not confuse matter with mass. it's easy mistakea to makea
Faringail 3 hours ago
5 Dan Brown fans did not understand this video and think Dan was made ridiculous (which he should be)...
stonytina1 14 hours ago
wouldn't Anti-matter have gravity opposite of matter?
like how enough matter in one place creates a gravity well that attracts other matter.
wouldn't enough antimatter in one place make a gravity hill that repels matter but attracts antimatter.
MrKingJay99 1 day ago
@MrKingJay99 and why would you think that?
doboromon1 20 hours ago
@doboromon1 it's ANTImatter meaning it's opposite of matter. with gravity opposite of what it is now our atoms would be pushed away. but antimatter would still be attracted to other antimatter because matter is attracted to matter
MrKingJay99 8 hours ago
@MrKingJay99 matter isn't attracted to matter, matter warps space-time and other matter "rolls" towards it.
doboromon1 8 hours ago
One gram of antimatter+ one gram of matter = 42 kilotons of TNT
Roughly the combined output of the nuclear warheads dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
L00NGB00W 3 days ago
I can wait till when I'm about to die and I will spend all of my money to drink a glass of anti-water.
ThePurpleIsland 1 week ago
@ThePurpleIsland The result would look a little like this.
/watch?v=_D9c9kQDMis
L00NGB00W 3 days ago
theyll make a mistake, something will go wrong!!! and once they tear anti matters region open.. BOOM>. omg thats how the big bang keeps happening!
006JoeS 1 week ago
@006JoeS That's actually the exact opposite of the big bang.
supergsx 1 week ago
@006JoeS noo thats the competing theory! :P opposite? is probbballyyyy the universe is a black hole.. and everything going on is actually happening in reverse.. only once.. and it was made my 17 gods.. that hate when little bugs grow on their pretty space marbles.
006JoeS 1 week ago
They have now been able to trap a lot more for A LOT longer :D
MrC0MPUT3R 2 weeks ago
I just spoke with anti-me, he said no such thing exists.
paoarceo 2 weeks ago
@paoarceo you and "antiyou" would have went WTFBOOM if I am not mistaken
danx033 2 weeks ago 2
@danx033 with enough combined energy to destroy the planet (as we know it)
Polydynamix 5 days ago
So you're annihilating your brain during a pet scan?
benjaminlzw 2 weeks ago
@benjaminlzw Not exactly. A radionuclide is used as tracer, which decays and emits positrons in the process, which I think annihilate with the electrons of the nuclide, and emit a pair of gammarays in the process.
Helge129 2 weeks ago
@benjaminlzw nah just turning a couple billion atoms in your head into ions temporarily =).
Daharen 2 weeks ago
so what would happen if you lit antihydrogen on fire? would you get antiwater? or partially antiwater?
CommitToFocus 3 weeks ago
@CommitToFocus Well it would need some oxygen to interact with, and I'd think that would need to be anti-oxygen (otherwise you'd get annihilation). In that case, in the end you'd end up with anti-water. I don't think it's possible to get partial anti-matter (or whatever you want to call it), but who knows.
DannyNHansen 2 weeks ago
@CommitToFocus probably if u burn it in anti-oxygen :D
kebabsallad 2 weeks ago
These videos are so pleasurable. Thankyou
Louiseskybunker 3 weeks ago
If only the human race could harness energy properly. Fossil fuels are terrible.
Supacalaz 3 weeks ago
@Supacalaz We're working on it mate. We're still only 6000 years old
daspense 3 weeks ago
We're a very young race...
SargentLimpDick 2 weeks ago 18
would a star of anti hydrogen produce anti helium and other anti-elements as a by product of the fusion reaction :D?
Damaruth 3 weeks ago
how much of my brain did they annihilate ?
MrSuperZangief 3 weeks ago in playlist Fler videoklipp från sixtysymbols
1 gram of antimatter can release the energy of 9 space shuttles (and their booster rockets) when combined with regular matter. Pretty scary amounts of energy indeed.
EgadsNo 1 month ago
@EgadsNo If we could fuel space shuttles with this some how we could bring so much stuff into space! And maybe even time travel, muahaha.
Wilson1592 4 weeks ago
@EgadsNo Ye, I heard you can drive a car constantly for 500 years with one gram of anti-matter, if I remember the number correctly. It sure is a great potential battery. But it also takes 1 year to produce 1 gram of anti-matter at the moment. :P
antiHUMANDesigns 2 weeks ago
@antiHUMANDesigns I think I read somewhere that antimatter is the most expensive material in the world...
When they can produce it with a much lower power consumption than CERN, as well as store it effectively, we'll essentially have as much energy as we have mass.
GeekProdigyGuy 2 weeks ago
@GeekProdigyGuy Yepp!
antiHUMANDesigns 2 weeks ago
4 creationist
iAmPwny 1 month ago 5
I'd rather prefer experimental physics to explain simple things what we see instead trying to find something unordinary.
Tmaker197812 1 month ago
@Tmaker197812 Physicists need to know whether theory is real. If what's real is only what we already understand and experience it would have ended already, you'd have already known everything there is to know about the universe, and physics itself wouldn't be worth what it is. Besides, you don't know it's unordinary.
LokiClock 1 month ago
@LokiClock we don't need to spend our forces for heavy elements or antimatter. We need to know why NaCl dissolves in water and why AgCl does not. We need good explanation of all known chemical properties of atoms from physicists instead of unpractical fairytales.
Tmaker197812 1 month ago
@Tmaker197812 All of it is intertwined. Creating exotic particles and determining their properties shows whether the explanations we're using are real or just one of many ways the same behavior can apply to our stable environment. Verbal descriptions of what's going on in the theory are interpretations of mathematics, which has systems that look like another up close but have very different meaning. If you call theoretical predictions fairytales, open a history book.
LokiClock 1 month ago
@LokiClock in my language fairytale sometimes is truth hidden in a lie and you need to figure out what's right and what's wrong. My standpoint is ... we don't really need much to know about nuclear transformations cause all on Earth works on chemistry - electron orbital transformations. All live things work on chemistry and it's not best approach to understand what the cat is trying to deep it into a water or trying to cook it, it's what you usually do with it with little more intellect applied)
Tmaker197812 1 month ago
@Tmaker197812 So you're saying the theory shouldn't be tested (if expensive) unless we find out it has practical implications? I don't agree that chemistry is only about electron orbitals & stable elements. Creating new elements means creating new chemistry, which we can't approach if we're working without the assumption it exists. Finding ways to verify the hypothesis is one thing, but physicists won't start engineering in a hypothetical world except as a hobby.
LokiClock 1 month ago
Ever since that one typo I always hear "large hardon collider".
FHomeBrew 1 month ago
So if I gave Anti-Me a high five, we would destroy Europe?
7CellarDoors 1 month ago
@7CellarDoors Using google calc it's rather easy to calculate. I had to look up a megaton of tnt, it is 4.184 petajoules. So assuming you weigh 70 kg, you + your anti-you would weigh 140kg together, so you can enter this into google: 140kg * c^2 / 4.184 petajoules. The result is 3 gigatons of tnt (3 billion tonnes). Or 10^19 Joules of energy.
HansTheAtheist 1 month ago
so, can a regular neutron combine in a nucleus with an anti-proton? is there an anti-neutron?
trayman113 1 month ago
Wouldn't it be possible to turn garbage into massive amounts of energy if you would put it in a vacuum and shoot antimatter into it (if there is a way to hold big amounts of antimatter)? It would be really neat cause if the energy levels are that impressive it would solve 2 huge problems, We could finally annihilate garbage entirely and we could solve a lot of the energy problems
DeathG4n 1 month ago
@DeathG4n Yes, but that requires antimatter in a massive scale and it's pretty much impossible to make antimatter without using more energy that you would get from annihilating it.
Anastius 1 month ago
I love how enthusiastically the PET scanners inject Patients with radioactive fluids to make their brains and other organs glow in the dark, all in order to fight cancer...???? Something sounds wrong here.
damian13531 1 month ago
@damian13531 People are in contact with radioactivity all the time. The ammount you get from a PET scanner is extremely small. And the help it brings is far more that the damage it does, because it will practically never cause any cancer.
Uppsa1 1 month ago
maybe the particles do exist in something that we could call a parallel universe. if I look at the world, I see, hear, feel, smell, taste and basically experience vibration. the whole universe is based on vibration.I for one have a special interest in music being one of these many expressions of vibration. if you look at electricity, you will see another level of vibration, that we can use to do various things. Only the level of vibrations runs on a very different scale. light is music, too.
HaileISela 2 months ago
@HaileISela but what I basically want to say is, that this parallel universe stuff people like to talk about, may be understood as another unlimited amount of particles that move around us and just don't share the same space. so imagine a sinus wave on a diagram that includes a scale in between being matter and anti-matter, and one that has the properties of space (being one set of dimensions that I at least feel like understanding) or time (being another) and what you will get is an unlimited
HaileISela 2 months ago
@HaileISela amount of possible states of being. Now if you set our state of matter into that, and determine the properties of our anti-matter, you may get another depth of imagined possibilities in between. everything in this universe is one, and it's all a big composition of vibrations. even every life form is just adding another type of vibration to the mix. every spoken word that contains information, every note of sound, every piece of DNA. it's all vibration. as is every believe.
HaileISela 2 months ago
@HaileISela I take it u really like the string theory?
MakingGamesIsFun 1 month ago
so basically if we can find some way to store this anti-matter>>>> it will pave a road for an anti-matter rifle? Now my question is how much energy would be its output?
EmpereurNapoleonex 2 months ago
hey! just wanted to let you know that i quoted professor merrifield in one of my research papers for school on antimatter. of course i put an source citation underneath and attached a paragraph filled with rambling about how awesome and educational this channel is. :P
brady, you and the profs are my heroes.
thank you a lot!
Felizityify 3 months ago
I've heard that a sugar-cube of antimatter could annihilate easily an area the size of Manhattan... Is that true?
danielbluesmoke 3 months ago
@danielbluesmoke Yes, that is correct. We are talking energy like a medium nuclear bomb.
Sgrunterundt 3 months ago
my head hurts
bogeyman1231 3 months ago
so if anti matter has reverse gravity it would have been pushed away in the moment of the big bang and might be accelerating even faster away than the know universe
mrfxxx 3 months ago
@mrfxxx No, because the big bang was not an explosion. Space is simply expanding. There is no center. There is no edge.
Sgrunterundt 3 months ago
Hmm, if matter can have anti-matter, and matter is made of energy, then is it possible to have anti-photons?
bodinian 3 months ago
@bodinian Yes. Photons are their own anti-particles.
Sgrunterundt 3 months ago
So, an antihydrogen's constituent particles will annihilate with any other proton/electron. SO in theory if you reacted an antihydrogen-1 atom with a carbon-12 (or any other random isotope of any other element) you would get boron-11? or would the annihilation event toss the atom apart? Or have we not figured that out yet?
AnIronicSobriquet 3 months ago
@AnIronicSobriquet It would most likely blow the nucleus apart. There is energy enough for it anyway.
Sgrunterundt 3 months ago
what happens when you collide a positron with an electron? cos they have the same charge innit
JoelT23 4 months ago
@JoelT23 No they have opposite charge. So they attract and then annihilate.
Sgrunterundt 3 months ago
@Sgrunterundt wait no sorry, i mean ordinary matter with the same charge as antimatter e.g. proton with a positive electron.
JoelT23 3 months ago
@JoelT23 Nothing would happen. They are not anti to each other, so they would not annihilate. And yes, they would repel each other.
But you can combine a neutron and a positron to make a proton (and a neutrino), and the reverse thing happens in some nuclear decays.
The only thing that makes the positron "anti" is the fact that there are so many electrons around. The only thing that makes the anti-proton "anti" is the fact that there are so many regular protons.
Sgrunterundt 3 months ago
@Sgrunterundt What do you mean with that last statement?
JoelT23 3 months ago
@JoelT23 There is a symmetry between regular particles and antiparticles. You might as well say that the electron was the anti-particle. We have only named them like we have based what there is a lot of.
If a particle encounters a different kind of antiparticle, they don't "know" that one is matter and the other is antimatter; they are just different particles.
Sgrunterundt 3 months ago
oh well as energy Zero Point energy is quite denser , arround 6x10^94 (nienty-four) grams for cubic centimiter , but extracting that is kinda impossible ^^.
Anyway "Making" antimatter can be a way to make energy , becouse if you need 3/4X energy to make equivalent of 1/2X energy in mass , than annihilate it you get 2X energy , that's still 1/4X energy output gain! The point is that actually you need FAR way more energy , and storing it COSTS energy(magnetic field).
Koroistro 4 months ago
beyond the universe is anti universe with anti earth and anti people
Mrprogramer100 4 months ago
Lol Sixty symbols I get it, this was really to scramble our brains by having the tortoise and the hare lecture us. Thumbs up.
DanJenification 6 months ago
Wouldn't the opposite of a Proton be an Negaton?
SonicADProductions 6 months ago
@SonicADProductions i like the way you think
x1Brooklyn1x 6 months ago
If a single atom of "anti-hydrogen" interacts with, say an atom of helium, does it just annihilate one electron and one proton worth of the helium leaving behind an atom of tritium?
5000loto 7 months ago
Comment removed
Kestko 7 months ago
@Kestko Errrm no. There is plenty of matter in space. Space is just a limitless vacuum.
LightCai 7 months ago 9
@Kestko there is dark matter
SuperStrif 6 months ago
@Kestko if you want to put these two particles together with no matter around. its impossible because whatever you use to put the particles together is made of matter
MrHellTard 6 months ago
Comment removed
Kestko 6 months ago
@MrHellTard photons, gluons, W bosons, Z bosons.
9hello123 6 months ago
Yay! Only 120 years before we have hover boards!
rahkshifan99 7 months ago 3
What happens if there is too much energy?
bolts52 7 months ago
why does it matter anyway
pheonixowl999 7 months ago
I'm strongly anti-matter, but it's possible that I change my position on the matter,
AlwaysSunni 7 months ago 151
@AlwaysSunni You must be Indian ...westerners simply aren't that clever
skoockum 1 month ago
@AlwaysSunni lol you made my day :D
l0rdoflol 3 weeks ago
well if you are talking about Hadron Colider,they made that one so big because they wanted more scientists to be able to study it,and plus since they are looking more and more what goes on when you smash 2 particles together,it is logical to think that as they smash more heavier particles you need more energy.BUT we are still not even close to making some sort of anti-matter engine.as soon as we figure out what we need for it to happen,you bet the next step will be minimizing accelerators.
WeskerUmbrella4 7 months ago
Comment removed
danberry96 7 months ago
If you sat on an electron, would it be a sepositron?
baalisgod666 7 months ago
tnemmoc-itna na si sihT
TheRZone0 7 months ago
.......i dont get it
SergeCWazukie 7 months ago
ME AND MY FRIEND (he's 12 i'm 13) THOUGHT OF THIS!!!!!!! we searched if someone had done it and were sad that we couldn't work on it anymore but at the same time we were sooooo happy that a Phd physiscist had thought of this and so did we!!!
1KevinsFamousChili1 7 months ago
do you think we created anti plutonium in some weird dimension on the edge of space time? Im drunk and I have a theory about why there is more +matter than -matter around us currently and no it's not a stupid theory
AaronsProject100 7 months ago
This may seem to be a stupid question (I apologise for my lack of knowledge of antimatter) but, he says that when a particle meets its anti particle, they annihilate and release energy, could this potentially be the next equivalent of nuclear bombs? if it could be controlled.
skulsaw 8 months ago
@skulsaw Let's do the math shall we? If you could get a modest amount of anti-matter (say for example one kilogram) and you could annihilate all of it at the same time (theoretically) you would get, according to E=Mc² :
(Continued because of character limitations)
Chimaera242 7 months ago
@Chimaera242
E = 1(Kilogram) X 299.792.458² (Meters per second) = 89.875.517.873.681.764 Joules, (89 quadrillion 875 trillion 517 billion 873 million 681 thousand 764 Joules) which is about 20 megatons of TNT, which is sounds like an awful lot, but it's not as much as the most potent atomic bomb ever detonated, namely the Tsar Bomba, which was 50 Megatons. Then again, the Tsar Bomba would be capable of vaporizing a good portion of the center of Paris, so...
Chimaera242 7 months ago
@Chimaera242 Yes, my only concern was about producing/finding enough antihydrogen to be significant enough to produce a large amount of energy, I'm fine with the maths bit and isn't the correct formula: E2 = p2c2 + m2c4 (this was on another 60 symbols video xD)
skulsaw 7 months ago
according to e=mc*2, 1gram of matter/anti matter mix would create a burst of energy close to Hiroshima
but 1g or matter is trillions of atoms (not 38 -_-)
sidewaysfcs0718 8 months ago
They held them for 1000seconds recently. (16mins)
chailfield 8 months ago
Pretty interesting video!
1) According to me and just to answer some questions, to hold and store anti-particles its not necessary to have anti-magnet. The particles can be hold anyway by magnet even if they are in the opposite magnetic field. The problem is to know what are the propreties of anti-particles and to know the degree of magnet to use to store them just to avoid that anti-particles colide with particles
2) I personnally think that anti-particles must emite anti-radiation because th
djxivdjxiv 8 months ago
Has anyone heard about them storing like 200 particles for something like 30 minutes? I read an article not too long ago.
ipodvidoe 8 months ago
how do we know we live in matter, why not antimatter lol
Aquablazer27 8 months ago
@Aquablazer27 its all relative
ipodvidoe 8 months ago
I loved that he added in the end - it's still not a major security issue. :D Lets just wait till it gets :) Good vid.
Semikindless 8 months ago
Wait, so do you lose brain function in PET scans because you're destroying electrons in your brain?
halamaker 9 months ago
@halamaker Nope. In order to lose brain functions, you'd have to have brain cells destroyed. Losing an electron does not destroy living tissue: it just induces the smallest possible current, as the atom with a missing electron attracts an electron from another atom, and THAT atom attracts an electron from another atom, and so on, and so on, until eventually it's an atom on the outside of your body that attracts an electron from an atom of air nearby.
DevilMaster 8 months ago
2 random questions.
1) Couldn't they create a vacuum and then fill it with positrons and anti-protons?
2) Can particles such as electrons be destroyed by anti-particles when they're part of an atom? Like if a positron hits a nitrogen atom, will it destroy one of the nitrogen's electrons?
rsyyjh4n6r7xtygb45bt 9 months ago
@rsyyjh4n6r7xtygb45bt
1) yes, but they would annihilate anyway because they still move around
2) yes
KillerManxp 9 months ago
There is no antimatter in our universe because Chuck Norris is the only thing that matters.
posro1988 9 months ago
I didn't quite get it does antimatter annihilate with any matter or just with equivalent matter...I mean hydrogen just with antihydrogen , or antihydrogen with anything?
posro1988 9 months ago
@posro1988 As far as I know, it's any matter.
TomConger 9 months ago
@TomConger oh yeah, 'cause positrons collide with electrons...that's why I'm not a physicist it takes me 17 hours to understand stuff
posro1988 9 months ago
So if gravity didn't apply to ant-particles... They would still have to create a shield of protection from annihilation. Using anti-particles, build a machine that generates magnetic fields (anti-magnetic fields?) That stop itself from colliding with particles, then we can have a floating magnet shield that we can never touch, and once the battery (anti-battery, running off of positrons) dies it turns into light. ???
orangegold1 9 months ago
so antihydrogen is to hydrogens as antimatter is to matter
elmotouchesme97 10 months ago
@elmotouchesme97 They are the same thing, i.e. hydrogen is matter, and anti hydrogen is antimatter.
davidiom27 10 months ago
metamatter's cooler than antimatter. In relation to metamatter antimatter and (pro)matter are just supramatters.
everythingisandflows 10 months ago
A gigagram antimatter bomb. Galactic Annihilation anyone?
zachariasadams1984 10 months ago
Okay, I'm getting two different arguments from this video, and now am confused.
1. When a particle and its anti-particle collide, they annihilate.
2. When matter and anti-matter collide, they annihilate.
1 implies that an anti-hydrogen has to collide with a hydrogen to annihilate where 2 implies it can hit any regular atom an will annihilate, if so, what exactly do you get when anti-hydrogen and helium collide? would you get tritium, 1 proton 2 neutrons and 1 electron? or is 1 correct?
burninmunkeys 10 months ago
@burninmunkeys By saying "particle" I'm sure they mean sub-atomic particles, like protons neutrons and electrons. So when an anti-atom collides with any type of atom, they both annihilate. It's not the whole story tho, there's much more behind this, including the researches on origin of mass and events that took place for a fraction of second after the big bang. Look it up on google if you're interested =).
ProoMaaaas 10 months ago
@ProoMaaaas So then, was I right about the anti-hydrogen + helium = tritium then?
burninmunkeys 10 months ago
@burninmunkeys
Electron and positron on the orbits would annihilate and if the collision would be strong enough to overcome the repelling force of electron and anti-proton and the energy which came from the first annihilation, the proton and anti-proton would annihilate giving of ~2GeV, which is more than enough to destroy over 200 tritium nucleuses. :)
Vejita12 10 months ago
@Vejita12 So pretty much, anti-atom + atom = destruction of more than actually collided due to the huge amount of energy?
burninmunkeys 10 months ago
@burninmunkeys
That much energy is pretty much enough to destory or break down all atoms. The binding energy of the biggest natural element, uranium, is about 1,8 GeV (and it's unstable), and the most stable element which is iron, has a binding energy ~0,5 GeV (tritium has about 0,0085 GeV), so as you can see just one anti-proton near a nucleus would be enough of a nemesis to all atoms, although bigger atoms would probably break down into smaller ones, reather than be completly destroyed.
Vejita12 10 months ago
@burninmunkeys you would get 2 for a fraction of a second then they annihilate
AISmagic2008 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Brady, I have a question. If the strong nuclear force had a range greater than just a few femtometres what would happen?
wussup331 11 months ago
Brady, I have a question. If the strong nuclear force had a range greater than just a few femtometres what would happen?
wussup331 11 months ago
If there's an antiparticle for every particle in the universe, why haven't we found any antimatter? Wouldn't the universe be loaded with it?
mattdamico 11 months ago
@mattdamico No the universe wouldn't be loaded with it, because when the universe was created it was created with a disproportionate amount of particle and antiparticles. There was created more matter than antimatter. The antimatter collided with the matter and annihilated until there was no more antimatter and we got what we've got now, a surplus of matter.
7573436 11 months ago
@7573436 Thank you for that, makes more sense (I think).
mattdamico 11 months ago
@mattdamico There are alot more cups than cupholders, but there are enough types of cupholders to hold all cups. There is a type cupholder to hold each cup, though not all cups can be held at the same time because there are more cups than cupholders <-- If you think of cups as matter and cupholders as matter, and cups in cupholders as energy or matter-antimatter collisions, I think you'll understand what I'm saying.
7573436 11 months ago
out of interest, are there any theories about antimatter production during the big bang? would we be able to tell if a cloud of anti hydrogen was out there creating anti stars and anti galaxies?
workaholicandy 11 months ago
please talk about the Fukshima reactor
maokly1 11 months ago
Storage of anti-matter should be a concern. The real issue is cost-effective and timely production of anti-particles, which could be converted to energy on the spot. For example, if you could build a machine that created anti-matter in large doses and immediately annihilated it to produce energy, you wouldn't need to store it if you could harness or store the energy instead.
boxwi 11 months ago
@boxwi erm... conservation of energy. If you're going to make antimatter, there has to be energy going in. Making antimatter would use more energy than the antiparticle holds.
blackplatypus 11 months ago
@blackplatypus Is that so? Well, in the future if we're able to get a positive net energy return from creation of antimatter, my point still stands. What I mean is so long as we are able to create and annihilate it for net positive energy on location, you wouldn't need to store it.
boxwi 11 months ago
@boxwi
"if we're able to get a positive net energy return from creation of antimatter"
"What I mean is so long as we are able to create and annihilate it for net positive energy..."
Do you understand the first law of thermodynamics?
blackplatypus 11 months ago
are antiparticles still made of quarks? if so then newtons have no antiparticles. But if they are made of anti quarks. Then there is a anti-newtons. So is there an anti-newton?
Doriide 11 months ago
@Doriide They are made of anti-quarks, but the newton is not a particle, so your question doesn't really make any sense.
hooloovoo1st 11 months ago
@Doriide Oh, I see what you mean. Yes, there is an anti-neutron.
hooloovoo1st 11 months ago
this is a great explanation
gunlover94 1 year ago
Would we be able to breathe antioxygen?
Cause it sounds like I could get high....nice
b5master 1 year ago
@b5master Yes, but then you'd blow up with the force of a 1000 hydrogen bombs.
DrD0000M 11 months ago
why store it? using the antimatter ASAP is the key for utilizing it as an energy source. if antimatter were made to collide with particles of matter at a given point, the collision would create a controlled burst of energy that could be focused to create thrust. instant conversion and consumption of antiparticles made would stop a need for a tank and annihilating them for energy would stop the need for storage. retro fit the shuttle with an anti-matter combustion rocket. my video is coming soon
AISmagic2008 1 year ago
@AISmagic2008
Why store it???
let me ask you a question, does your car have an oil refinary on the back of it?
then why would you expect your antimatter fuled vehical to have it's own partical accelarator on the back of it?
and to create the anti-matter you have to put in a greater amout of energy than you will get out in usable anti-matter, so as a fule soure to power a city, it's pretty much useless, only for vehicals which need to store it will it ever be useful
MICHAELJONSTON 8 months ago 25
@MICHAELJONSTON : in the vast area of space, ships could be made and launched from the moon or Space Station and yes these ships would have there own mini accelerators.
Antimatter particles are infinatly smaller than oil and dont need to be refined only created. A small focus combustion system (more of a particle ionizing cannon w/ a jet style intake and cylindar "compact coil spring style" mini accelerator ) could create the needed energy, fuel, and thrust for journies into deep space.
AISmagic2008 8 months ago
@AISmagic2008 On day yes, however not in my lifetime, and I'd seriously doubt it could be concevable to do that for dozens of decades.
there's a world of science fiction, and science fact. on this channel, please keep to facts. a little imagination is good, but that's just full blow bulls***
MICHAELJONSTON 8 months ago
@MICHAELJONSTON as soon as we get the idea and stuff to fuel something with anti-matter, they will develop a particle accelerator that is compact enough for it to be fitted into a car or something of that size.for example look at the computers now and 50 years ago : they were big,room occupying and spent a lot of energy for it's work while memory and process power was so low.now we have netbooks that are even smaller than laptops with win7 installed,usb drives well over 32 gb and external hdds.
WeskerUmbrella4 7 months ago
@WeskerUmbrella4
You're right in the sense that once we get the idea from science fiction, we do tend to make our best efforts to make them happen, but partical accelorators have been fucking massive for the past 50 years, and they're getting BIGGER, not smaller.
and for anti matter to be made, we need to put energy in, and it's an energy HIGHER than the energy we get out again. that's why a car with an anti-matter engine would not (according to the laws of physics) would be impossible
MICHAELJONSTON 7 months ago
@MICHAELJONSTON "but partical accelorators have been fucking massive for the past 50 years, and they're getting BIGGER, not smaller"
I suspect we've reached a limit on that. The US cancelled the Superconducting Supercollider, and is losing both interest in & public understanding of, science in general. Europe might have a generation or 2 of larger machines left. But I think the only place to go is smaller and less expensive, I've no idea *how* to manage it. But I suspect it is what must happen.
sbergman27 4 months ago
@MICHAELJONSTON I don't believe you quite understand it. Anti-matter is a powerful fuel itself. Once used, it is renewable. Not to mention, the fusion energy created from the annihilation of positrons and electrons upon meeting is self sustaining... there are numerous possibilities. The only setback is our current method of storing these antiparticles. You are jumping from A to Z, when we are merely reaching B upon this application. I would familiarize yourself with antimatter more in depth.
XxMetalManxX 7 months ago
@XxMetalManxX In what way is it self sustaining?? -.-
NOTHING, absolutely nothing is truly self sustaining.
It is NOT a fuel, I suggest you familiarize yourself in antimatter. didn't you listen to a word of what was said in this video?
if we could mine antimatter, find natural deposits of it, then yes it could be a fuel, but from the low gamma ray background we can tell that there is no massive antimatter hitting matter, so we know that there isn't. Now go do some actual research
MICHAELJONSTON 7 months ago
@MICHAELJONSTON
when it annihilates used as fuel it leaves behind partcles which can be harvested and used again they keep making them over and over again. reusable. self sustaining. especially at high levels using a circular particle accelerator. the circular rotation will increase momentum. they are currently working on containing positrons using strong polarities from magnet panels. i am familiar with the theory i am familiar with it all. you are not seeing everything.
XxMetalManxX 7 months ago
@XxMetalManxX I have to explain in 486 characters why you're wrong on so many levels -.- fml.
all I can suggest to you is just read a book called AntiMatter by Frank Close, he's a Professor of Physics at oxford university. that'll say in 159 pages what I can't in so little letters. No please go, read your notes, look up the facts, and please come back later
MICHAELJONSTON 7 months ago
@MICHAELJONSTON DailyTech - Earth's Dirty Secret: Our Magnetic Field Traps Antimatter ~Satellite confirms the existence of antimatter belts surrounding our planet, opens hopes for fuel use. `Times they are a changin'.
Snoogumss 6 months ago
@Snoogumss I knew someone would mention this :p
It's true now, there is a sorce of natural antimatter. Now just to find a way to trap it, I really really hope we find a way somehow :P :)
MICHAELJONSTON 6 months ago
@MICHAELJONSTON Einstein thought it would never be practical to get energy out of nuclear reactions as it would always take more energy to start the reaction than you would get out. If you only use enough energy to make the anti-particle and then you annihilation it with ordinary matter, then you have got more energy after due to the regular matter also turning into energy. So their could be a way of making a good source of energy with anti-matter but we just haven't found it yet.
Lemenks 6 months ago
@Lemenks actually a belt of anti-matter (anti-protons I believe) has been discovered in one of the layers of the earths magnetic field very recently! :)
And your right many great scientists have totally missed the mark on there assumtions, and my assumtion that travel via anti-matter being very unlikly could be one of the ones that's wrong, personally I'd love to be proven wrong about this, However harvisting a field of anti-matter 30,000 miles away... well we'll see in the next centuary :)
MICHAELJONSTON 6 months ago
@Lemenks creating anti matter and starting a reaction are totally different things. Creating then un-creating costs and gives energy. In the nuclear reaction, you just need a good amount of pure product and something shooting neutrons in it to get it started.
lichtkang 5 months ago
@MICHAELJONSTON
omg your a genius..particle accelarator in a car
elflordbob1 2 months ago
What is the reason of sewing words from two different persons in expressing a sentence? This creates unnecessary hassle for serious listeners to follow the flow. Are we listening to a physics discussion of heavy-metal band?
camitava 1 year ago
@camitava Not only that, but they're saying words with an arbitrarily varying number of syllables, and they're even mixing consonants and vowels together just any old way. It doesn't even rhyme. I don't know, I just can't follow this new-fangled 'talking' the kids are into...
ELuhn 1 year ago
I wonder if something basic, like the definition of what is the smallest part of mater, is wrong. I know there are a lot of proofs, but what if it is coincidence? :D just wondering...
BoIoko 1 year ago
I know antimatter will annihilate in space. But I also know particles of matter must be dramatically less in space then on earth. Something tells me if we can trap it on earth with the tech we have now its not a far stretch to be able to accumulate more then we can here, in space. On that note , Hypothetical faucet drips 'Trapped' anti matter into a black hole, What happens when the first bit annihilates some of the black hole, and would it eventually unzip the black hole n save the unive
XsavioR38 1 year ago
What if you mixed two antihydrogen and an antioxygen?
HavazikFerric 1 year ago
@HavazikFerric Antiwater. When you drink it you become thirsty.
flotsamthespork 1 year ago
@flotsamthespork Exactly.
HavazikFerric 1 year ago
maybe the bizzaro universe is made of antipaticles
homousios 1 year ago