Author Topic: Quick (dumb) idea.. (Read 11037 times)

Joe · « **on:** August 19, 2006, 11:51:12 am »

Hm, we have such a big problem with getting rid of nuclear fission waste, so why don't we annihilate it all with antimatter?

AntiVirus · « **Reply #1 on:** August 19, 2006, 12:24:16 pm »

Yeah....

Sidoh · « **Reply #2 on:** August 19, 2006, 12:41:24 pm »

I hope you're not serious. That's the dumbest idea I've heard in a long time for reasons other than reality constraints.

iago · « **Reply #3 on:** August 19, 2006, 07:16:20 pm »

Yeah, can you find me some anti-matter? I think the Borg may have captured the Cardassian's entire supply, but the Bajoran alliance might be able to get some to Earth.

But seriously, if you want to propose solutions, how about telling them to shoot it up in a rocket aimed for the Sun?

Kaleeko · « **Reply #4 on:** August 19, 2006, 08:03:24 pm »

Quote from: iago on August 19, 2006, 07:16:20 pm

Yeah, can you find me some anti-matter? I think the Borg may have captured the Cardassian's entire supply, but the Bajoran alliance might be able to get some to Earth.

Eh. About as likely as being able to barter for some from the Romulans (haha...) and get it across the neutral zone.

Srsly, Joe. What. The hell. -_-

Joe · « **Reply #5 on:** August 19, 2006, 08:36:29 pm »

Anti-matter has been made in laboratories at CERN and possibly other places. It's not like we don't have any available to be used. Perhaps not *enough* to annihilate a ton of nuclear waste, but we have some.

As for shooting it in a rocket aimed for the sun, that'd work too.

rabbit · « **Reply #6 on:** August 19, 2006, 09:05:09 pm »

The anti-matter which is created in laboratories is almost instantaneously annihilated. That's what happens when ANTI-matter and mater mix: kaboomy.

Ender · « **Reply #7 on:** August 19, 2006, 09:15:31 pm »

Joe, to give you an idea of how much antimatter we have in the world, read this quote:

"According to an article on the website of the CERN laboratories, which produces antimatter on a regular basis, 'If we could assemble all the antimatter we've ever made at CERN and annihilate it with matter, we would have enough energy to light a single electric light bulb for a few minutes'" (Wikipedia).

iago · « **Reply #8 on:** August 19, 2006, 09:26:57 pm »

Quote from: rabbit on August 19, 2006, 09:05:09 pm

The anti-matter which is created in laboratories is almost instantaneously annihilated. That's what happens when ANTI-matter and mater mix: kaboomy.

They need to get some dilithium crystals to control the flow. Duh!

rabbit · « **Reply #9 on:** August 19, 2006, 11:06:34 pm »

LIES! There is clearly a tachyon field encompassing the dilitium crystals, which makes them create a temporal disturbance field.

Sidoh · « **Reply #10 on:** August 20, 2006, 02:48:15 am »

Quote from: Joe[x86] on August 19, 2006, 08:36:29 pm

Anti-matter has been made in laboratories at CERN and possibly other places. It's not like we don't have any available to be used. Perhaps not *enough* to annihilate a ton of nuclear waste, but we have some.

As for shooting it in a rocket aimed for the sun, that'd work too.

I think you should ponder acting on rational thought rather than crazy, stupid, non-researched, asinine ideas aimed to act as a beacon for attention.

Nate · « **Reply #11 on:** August 20, 2006, 10:55:18 am »

Wouldnt the resulting energy release from destroying that much matter/antimatter kill us all?

trust · « **Reply #12 on:** August 20, 2006, 11:07:15 am »

Quote from: Nate on August 20, 2006, 10:55:18 am

Wouldnt the resulting energy release from destroying that much matter/antimatter kill us all?

No. Joe has obviously thought this through, I have confidence that he wouldn't have overlooked a detail like that.

iago · « **Reply #13 on:** August 20, 2006, 11:13:19 am »

Quote from: Nate on August 20, 2006, 10:55:18 am

Wouldnt the resulting energy release from destroying that much matter/antimatter kill us all?

I doubt it. The energy could be harnessed and used. That is, of course, assuming we get the dilithium crystals aligned.

Sidoh · « **Reply #14 on:** August 20, 2006, 03:20:22 pm »

Quote from: Nate on August 20, 2006, 10:55:18 am

Wouldnt the resulting energy release from destroying that much matter/antimatter kill us all?

100kg is enough to move the earth a few centimeters.

Quote from: iago on August 20, 2006, 11:13:19 am

I doubt it. The energy could be harnessed and used. That is, of course, assuming we get the dilithium crystals aligned.

lol, trekkie.

MyndFyre · « **Reply #15 on:** August 20, 2006, 07:00:32 pm »

Quote from: Sidoh on August 20, 2006, 03:20:22 pm

Quote from: Nate on August 20, 2006, 10:55:18 am
Wouldnt the resulting energy release from destroying that much matter/antimatter kill us all?

100kg is enough to move the earth a few centimeters.

Quote from: iago on August 20, 2006, 11:13:19 am
I doubt it. The energy could be harnessed and used. That is, of course, assuming we get the dilithium crystals aligned.

lol, trekkie.

If matter has mass and massive bodies are drawn towards each other, are anti-massive bodies repellant?

rabbit · « **Reply #16 on:** August 20, 2006, 07:51:44 pm »

No! Anti-matter is a bad name. It's just a different kind of matter that obliterates "normal" matter.

iago · « **Reply #17 on:** August 20, 2006, 07:54:48 pm »

Quote from: rabbit on August 20, 2006, 07:51:44 pm

No! Anti-matter is a bad name. It's just a different kind of matter that obliterates "normal" matter.

Like Oprah and Dunkin' Donuts?

Nate · « **Reply #18 on:** August 20, 2006, 08:41:47 pm »

No thats an overweight black woman consuming foods at an unhealthy rate. While the donuts are obliterated, Oprah becomes more massive.

Joe · « **Reply #19 on:** August 21, 2006, 01:21:00 pm »

@MyndFyre: Anti-matter would better be named negative-matter. Just as positive repels positive and negative repels negative, matter attracts matter and antimatter attracts antimatter.

@rabbit: In the book Angels and Demons (don't start with the whole "that's just a book" thing, guys) they used strong electromagnets to keep the antimatter perfectly centered in a vaccuum inside of a glass container. It didn't annihilate until the battery died, but in the lab it was plugged in (the battery was for transportation).

rabbit · « **Reply #20 on:** August 21, 2006, 01:48:35 pm »

Joe, that's just a book. And the electromagnetic field would keep all matter outside of the field? Anti-matter annihilates ANY matter. It would have to be in a vacuum.

Super_X · « **Reply #21 on:** August 21, 2006, 01:51:09 pm »

Quote from: rabbit on August 21, 2006, 01:48:35 pm

Joe, that's just a book. And the electromagnetic field would keep all matter outside of the field? Anti-matter annihilates ANY matter. It would have to be in a vacuum.

Re-read his post.

iago · « **Reply #22 on:** August 21, 2006, 01:52:49 pm »

I could be wrong, but I don't think that we can make a perfect vacuum.

rabbit · « **Reply #23 on:** August 21, 2006, 01:53:40 pm »

Too bad gravity effects objects in vacuum, and would pull the anti-matter towards the ground, and prior to hitting the ground it would hit the glass. Not to mention the problem of having to sync of the acceleration of the entire vacuum and the anti-matter inside. Ignoring the fact that the entire concept is physically impossible, there's no problem.

@iago: you're right. A perfect vacuum can never be achieved. Even in a vacuum particles and their opposites combine, explode, materialize, re-explode, etc... over and over. Yay quantum physics.

Nate · « **Reply #24 on:** August 21, 2006, 02:55:55 pm »

Quote from: Joe[x86] on August 21, 2006, 01:21:00 pm

@MyndFyre: Anti-matter would better be named negative-matter. Just as positive repels positive and negative repels negative, matter attracts matter and antimatter attracts antimatter.

That is wrong in so many ways.

d&q · « **Reply #25 on:** August 21, 2006, 03:23:26 pm »

Quote from: iago on August 21, 2006, 01:52:49 pm

I could be wrong, but I don't think that we can make a perfect vacuum.

Isn't outer space a perfect vacuum?

iago · « **Reply #26 on:** August 21, 2006, 03:32:15 pm »

Quote from: Deuce on August 21, 2006, 03:23:26 pm

Quote from: iago on August 21, 2006, 01:52:49 pm
I could be wrong, but I don't think that we can make a perfect vacuum.

Isn't outer space a perfect vacuum?

Firstly, I don't think we made outer space.

Secondly, no, I'm pretty sure there's stuff in it. For example, planets and stars and aliens.

d&q · « **Reply #27 on:** August 21, 2006, 03:37:38 pm »

I was implying that we could experiment with vacuums in outer space. Isn't that one of the uses of the International Space Station?

MyndFyre · « **Reply #28 on:** August 21, 2006, 03:40:19 pm »

Quote from: Joe[x86] on August 21, 2006, 01:21:00 pm

@MyndFyre: Anti-matter would better be named negative-matter. Just as positive repels positive and negative repels negative, matter attracts matter and antimatter attracts antimatter.

Ahh, but positive attracts negative, and since they release energy, at least in the ST universe, it seems matter attracts antimatter as well (otherwise the dilithium crystals wouldn't regulate the reaction, they'd sustain it).

By the way, your analogy is self-contradictory.

rabbit · « **Reply #29 on:** August 21, 2006, 04:10:54 pm »

Quote from: iago on August 21, 2006, 03:32:15 pm

Quote from: Deuce on August 21, 2006, 03:23:26 pm
Quote from: iago on August 21, 2006, 01:52:49 pm
I could be wrong, but I don't think that we can make a perfect vacuum.

Isn't outer space a perfect vacuum?

Firstly, I don't think we made outer space.

Secondly, no, I'm pretty sure there's stuff in it. For example, planets and stars and aliens.

Correct on both counts, though there is a lot of stuff out there between the planets and stars and such. There is an immense amount of dust and dark matter. There is also an extremely large number of particles and the such.

Sidoh · « **Reply #30 on:** August 21, 2006, 06:29:51 pm »

Quote from: Deuce on August 21, 2006, 03:23:26 pm

Isn't outer space a perfect vacuum?

I suppose it depends on how you limit "outer space." Are you talking about a cubic meter somewhere in an arbitrary point in the universe or are you speaking of the universe as a whole? If I remember correctly, there's something like 30 Hydrogen atoms in the average cubic meter of space, but that's a horrible statistic, I'm sure.

A relatively small vacuum can be found in a relatively big reference frame. For example, there's probably millions of billions of vacuums the size of a cubic picometer at your fingertip. However, it's impossible to say how long it will remain a vacuum due to particles moving into said region and phenomena such as virtual particles.

rabbit · « **Reply #31 on:** August 21, 2006, 07:36:33 pm »

I though it was 1H in general space/meter?

Sidoh · « **Reply #32 on:** August 21, 2006, 07:38:58 pm »

Quote from: rabbit on August 21, 2006, 07:36:33 pm

I though it was 1H in general space/meter?

Probably, but I don't see how that can be universally applicable. I don't think anyone has been in the space surrounding every galaxy in the universe.

rabbit · « **Reply #33 on:** August 21, 2006, 07:41:53 pm »

Well, AFAWK, at least. IIRC it was 1 for space and 100 for the atmosphere..or something.

Sidoh · « **Reply #34 on:** August 21, 2006, 07:48:27 pm »

Quote from: rabbit on August 21, 2006, 07:41:53 pm

Well, AFAWK, at least.

Which isn't very far. I think it's silly to put it in such universal terms, although I understand the implied "to the extent our testing allows us to foresee."

Blaze · « **Reply #35 on:** August 21, 2006, 08:04:20 pm »

Way to make a funny topic dull and boring, Sidbbit!

Well, iago, you tried and failed miserably. The moral of the story is: Never try.

deadly7 · « **Reply #36 on:** August 21, 2006, 10:03:39 pm »

Quote from: Blaze on August 21, 2006, 08:04:20 pm

Well, iago, you tried and failed miserably. The moral of the story is: Never try.

Or, if you must: try the Max Power way! It's guaranteed failure -- FASTER!

News:

Author Topic: Quick (dumb) idea.. (Read 11037 times)

trust