Slashdot Mirror
Antimatter Molecule Should Boost Laser Power
Laser Lover writes "Molecules made by combining an electron with their anti-particle positron have been created by researchers at the University of California Riverside. The team's long term goal is to use the exotic material to create 'an annihilation gamma ray laser', potentially one million times more powerful than existing lasers. 'An electron can hook up with its antiparticle, the positron, to form a hydrogen-like atom called positronium (Ps). It survives for less than 150 nanoseconds before it is annihilated in a puff of gamma radiation. It was known that two positronium atoms should be able to bind together to form a molecule ... '"
Now I'm afraid to plug in my PS/2 mouse.
Usage: km/h for speed (kilometers per hour); kph for very slow impulses (kilopond hours).
Because that's what they were saying the first time this was posted.
Granted, more powerful lasers would be great for long-distance communications, but what kind of materials could be used in fiber-optic cables to transmit gamma rays? What kind of insulation would the cable have to use?
SIG: TAKE OFF EVERY 'CAPTAIN'!!
While being so excited that it's a million times more powerful, we forgot to say it'll be a million times more expensive. You don't find antimatter laying on the ground you know!
Well, part of it, anyway:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v449/n7159/abs/nature06094.html
I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing. -- Thomas Jefferson
So would the sharks be a million times more powerful, or could we just use one million *tiny* fricking lasers?
they mean a Bose-Einstein condensate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80%93Einstein_condensate/
Damn it, how long will it be before the teenagers at my local cinema have one of these?
Lasers?
That won't even penetrate our navigational shields!
Where are your phasers?
My security clearance is so high I have to kill myself if I remember I have it...
No, but maybe for the upcoming war with the Zorkanoids from the QF-P73 Nebula or somesuch.
Seriously.
By reading this signature you agree to not disagree with the post you just read.
Next on /.! DIY positronium laser using household items.
I don't think that would effect the outcome of such a war ... The Us has 10 times stronger military material in Iraq, and they are not winning ... You Can't END a war with weapons, only with words (can someone SHOUT that to the neocons please?)
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
There's an interview with David Cassidy about this in the 13th September Nature Podcast (the page also has the podcast as a direct MP3 download and a transcript).
i doubt a mod will even see this with an AC attatched to it, but, meh.
try relating this idea with this one
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/13/2328233
iirc a few people were curious as to what it may take to get this off the ground (pun so intended) as it were. =P
"Tonight on "It's the mind" we examine the phenomenon of déjà-vu, that strange feeling we sometimes get that we've lived through something before."
All I have to say is: "Yes, Dr. Scott, a laser capable of emitting a beam of pure anti-matter."
Does it make you happy you're so strange?
The sharks will be happy.
"This is America... where the will of the few outweigh the outrage of the many..." - Unknown
I was somehow led to believe that a molecule was produced by the combination of two atoms -- which each have at least one proton (in the case of Hydrogen). How does combining an electron with a positron (both very very low mass particles; think "mosquitoes" compared to the "elephant" protons and neutrons in the nucleus) equal an atom -- let alone two or more atoms to equal a molecule?
It may be cool, but perhaps we need a new name for it. Molecule just doesn't fit; sorry.
Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
Seriously, does it at all feel like we're on the Ascendancy/ Galactic Civ tech tree? And that we've skipped ahead a few too many techs? Sheesh.
I read the part about Gamma Rays and the part "potentially one million times more powerful than existing lasers"
the first thing that sprung to mind, is the author David Banner?
the next thing would be the warning on the side of the device
Warning exposure may result in green eyes when changing a tyre
loss of memory / Loss of Hair / or extreme Hulkism with hilarious consequences
To conserve momentum (and other) at least two photons are released in opposite direction when the two particles annihilate each other. If this is part of a gamma ray laser, you will have two rays: One aimed at your enemy, one in your face, and a mirror will probably not work at 0.5MeV.
don't cut it off www.mgmbill.org
Force is all-conquering but its victories are short lived.
Abraham Lincoln
http://imdb.com/title/tt0089886/ Do you think this movie possibly saw the future 22 years ago? I suppose it is possible.
enjoy it while you have it - for it may be gone soon.
Forget TFA. All you need to know to write a gut-reaction reply is contained in the wonderful phrase 'annihilation gamma ray laser.' Let's start: Have scientists gone too far? Could this be used as a weapon? Could it fall into the wrong hands? React away. :-)
If they do manage to create a powerful laser like this, could it be used to power stuff, like the Space Elevator?
:(
The Article seems to imply, though, that it only lasts a couple hundred nanoseconds. I wonder if it can be sustained. Otherwise, its killing-only
Will we be developing Evangelions to fire these?
But mass is less relevant than you may think. The electron-positron pair is held together by the Coulomb force, which is the same force that binds the proton and the electron. The electron-positron system has a net electric charge of 0, making it electrically neutral.
As I said in the title, maybe "atom" is a bad word to describe this system. However, the word "atom" comes from a Greek word meaning "indivisible", and since we've since discovered that what we call atoms are divisible after all, the word isn't even appropriate in its accepted usage.
Laser Lover didn't writes "Molecules made by combining an electron with their anti-particle positron have not been created by researchers at the University of California Riverside. The team's long term goal is to never use the exotic material to create 'an creation gamma ray laser', potentially one million times less powerful than existing lasers. 'An electron can't hook up with its antiparticle, the positron, to form a hydrogen-like atom called positronium (Ps). It can't possibly survive for less than 150 nanoseconds before it isn't annihilated in a puff of gamma radiation. It wasn't known that two positronium atoms shouldn't be able to bind together to form a molecule ... '"
There, now the dupe and anti-dupe can form a stable dupe atom, which can bind with other dupe atoms to form powerful dupe lase.... oh dear GOD NO!!!
You Can't END a war with weapons, only with words
That is not true. Many civilizations no longer exist because they were destroyed by another. We, as a society, are unwilling to accept the measures needed to really win a military war. For this I am thankful. But saying that military might can't end a war is completely false.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
I disagree, while nuclear weapons may have hastened the end of the war, the "end" came in the form of a formal surrender.
If the US had not sought out or accepted the surrender of Japan the war would have continued in one form or another. Even if what one side is communicating is "give up or we do that again" it is still two sides meeting and making an agreement (the surrender was indeed negotiated, the US did compromise on the removal of the Emperor for instance) that ended the Pacific campaign.
I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.
Mark Twain
The only real way to win a war millitarily then, is to totally annihillate the enemy. And that is no longer an option when you can't tell for sure who is your enemy and who isn't. And the fact that you kill a million people creates new enemies.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
You most certainly CAN end a war with weapons.
But you can't win a war with one eye on CNN to gage the public response to your use of your weapons. That is why we won't use our weapons to win wars anymore.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
Correction, it was an unconditional surrender, but MacArthur realized how important the Emperor was and that if he removed or even approached him first (instead of letting the Emperor request his audience) the people would have revolted. They truly would not have given a fuck, you don't fuck with the Emperor cause he was pretty much a god on earth to them.
I disagree, while nuclear weapons may have hastened the end of the war, the "end" came in the form of a formal surrender.
Then you have so diluted the word "win" that it no longer has any meaning. It is like saying fists don't win a fight because my opponent begged for mercy and I stopped beating him. You are arguing that it was his begging that stopped the fight. The fact is that military CAN win a war through force alone, but our society (thankfully) puts a brake on that type of activity.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Genocide will end a war pretty thoroughly. No words needed.
I often have trouble remembering which way is out of bed in the morning.
Two words... DEATH STAR! :D
That depends on the objectives of the attacker, if I use your example there are two possible objectives the "puncher" could have. One is to kill the opponent, the other is for the other party to relent (beg for mercy if you will). I would argue in this case the defeated is initiating the end of the conflict by choosing the lesser of the two negative outcomes once it is established that there is no winning.
I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.
Mark Twain
So the surrender was agreed to because MacArthur did his research and presented terms that would be acceptable?
I will agree that there is a subtle difference but the outcome is the same.
I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.
Mark Twain
Is a homonym of it just used to describe cattle and giraffes now? It certainly rolls off the tongue a bit more easily than "x-raser".
like a bazooka. The blow back would prevent this from being shoulder fired. Still, this would be a cool support weapon to back up your Gauss rifle shock troops.
Think global, act loco
Only if you care about public opinion. If you don't, just turn the war zone into radioactive slag.
if they have a Ps2 molecule laser, and add one more Ps, I wonder if that would that make the ray blue...
Well, aside from applications in "defense", the most likely application of this technology would be "offense". Being able to poke holes in pretty much _anything_ from a long distance away is a pretty good way of attacking someone. A few of these in a network of orbiting "communications satellites" would make a very effective means of reducing enemy locations to rubble - just target key installations such as fuel refineries and ammunitions storage, and the secondary explosions would take care of the rest.
Of course, there's probably some non-combat related applications for this type of technology as well, there have been discussions of methods of propulsion for space-craft that employ lasers as a means of producing thrust - more powerful lasers create more thrust. (and a bigger hole in whatever the thruster is pointed at...) Additionally, if we wanted to set up a "communications laser" to send messages to another solar system, a laser of this magnitude would be useful.
You beat the tar out of him, he's humiliated, and goes away for a few days, then he comes back and shoots you in the back.
You didn't win a war, there, you won a fight. The two are not the same thing.
You fight him, make it clear that you're going to win, and then talk with him such that he gets a way out and hostilities turn into a mutually acceptable relationship -- that's winning a war. You need the fists, but you also need some intelligent action.
This is not to say that there are not occasions where the fists are the ONLY intelligent thing, but that means your opponent is one stupid piece of crap. Such people exist, and they're more likely to be part of a bar fight, but I don't think the metaphor extends to nations often, if at all, as nations are large groups of people, not just one Saddam.
Besides, who would package up the oil to send over?
which is totally what she said
I would state this differently: You can't win the peace with weapons.
The USSR took over many countries with the use of weapons, then went bankrupt with the burden of the cost of maintaining their victories with the use of weapons. (So did the Roman Empire.) It's a lesson with lots of examples throughout history.
Your mind looks a little cramped. Why don't you stretch it a little?
The surrender was agreed to either way. MacArthur decided on how he would act once he got there and understood fully the reverance the japanese had for the Emperor.
Sounds like something out of Superman.
Here we go again ..
i have noticed recently on /. that all these comments soon as you like go so far WAY WAY WAY off topic that they cease to becom relavent to the original article .
The article was not HOW the West whupped on nippns butt ,, it was about a new form of Laser that has far more than JUST war USE !! ..
Oh and BTW one of the biggest mistakes made was cancelling the Neutron device and yse i would not hesitate in using ALL weapons at my disposal to solve a problem ie Iran ect ect ect
Karma
...about a new GR-DVD format, but I'm too lazy to flesh it out. Go ahead and pretend that I did, and mod this up.
Well, yes you can. I don't recall hearing much from Carthage in the last 2000 years.
We've already won any war in Iraq. We should not have overstayed our welcome, however.
Don't cross the streams!
Are mostly already in use. If you read the book "The Day After Roswell", it will clear up most of the suspicious side of your mind. In the book, Col. Corso talks about having copies of the Tesla papers and the proposals for weapons like the "Death Ray". Don't believe me huh?? Well, you know that the Roswell incident happened on the 4th of Jul right? The National Security Act of 1947 became law on July 26, 1947 22 days after Roswell. It created the Department of the Air Force, CIA, Department of Defense, etc... The transistor was supposedly "Invented" in 1947 by Bell Labs shortly after roswell, LOL. Boy what an exciting year. Anyway, these secret groups have been doing much while you have been focused on working for the men. Read the book and watch the movie "Secret Space" on Google video, while you are at it, watch "Disclosure Project" on Google. Heck, just Google "David Icke" and get all caught up to date. Here's a clip of an attempt to hit one with a particle beam or some sorta weapon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxaegClR05I
You know, NASA, aside from being a NAZI organization, can't even televise the missions anymore because of all the UFO showing up on camera. Well, it was actually that folks were then having those images show up on the front page of the papers that finally had them encrypt it. Thanks to a Canadian friend, we have those transmissions.
Heres another choice film
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9141847328034766279&q=mir+ufo&total=55&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=8
Take Care
Read the damn book "The Day After Roswell"
Thankfully?
Only thankfully for the enemy. Since WW2, every war we've fought has been a bloody stalemate at best, and a loss at worst. Korea was a draw, Vietnam was a loss, Gulf War I was a draw, Afghanistan was a loss, Gulf War II was a loss, and if we fight it, Iran will also be a loss.
Strategic bombing works, but it requires overkill. The London Blitz wasn't enough. Dresden and Tokyo weren't enough. You have to flatten every city within hundreds of miles, and keep the cities flattened and smoldering for the better part of a year, but a civilian population's will, no matter how fanatical at the onset of a conflict, can be broken.
Come up with a way of breaking a civilian population's will short of that, and the world's generals will be only too delighted to try it. Diplomacy and propaganda are superb tools before the guns start firing, but the past 60 years have shown that nothing short of wholesale extermination is effective in winning wars. It's brutal, it's ugly, and that's why they call it war, not sitting down for tea.
Yes, and those words are "I surrender."
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
What do you mean off topic? We can't bust heads like we used to, but we have our ways. One trick is to tell 'em stories that don't go anywhere--like the time I caught the ferry over to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for my shoe, so, I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. 'Give me five bees for a quarter,' you'd say.
Now where were we? Oh yeah--the important thing was that I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn't have white onions because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones. Anyway, 'long story short', is a phrase whose origins are complicated and rambling.
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
Naw, I don't think the Iranians can pull together an anti-matter based laser weapon all that quickly, no matter what the Bush administration claims about the threat the Iranians represent.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
i agree, it's peace you wanna win, not war.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
As Scotty would say "If we can divert the phaser banks through the dilithium crystals we could boost the warp drive".
It ended with a public radio broadcast of the emperor proclaiming himself to not be a God, and to end the war. If he doesn't do that, the war wouldn't have ended. So basically, what we needed was Saddam to surrender and tell everyone to stop fighting. I guess if Osama said that now, it might work ,but there are so many factions now that it wouldn't immediately end the war.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Take the limit of the scenario, there will be a few people left. Or one; someone will have won.
I don't think that would effect the outcome of such a war ... The Us has 10 times stronger military material in Iraq, and they are not winning ... You Can't END a war with weapons, only with words (can someone SHOUT that to the neocons please?)
Words are worthless when the other side refuses to listen. Granted, there is no such thing as a purely military victory unless you kill all of the enemy. What is needed is a mix. You use the military to force the other side to the negotiating table so you can work together. So while there is no such thing as a military victory, there can be no victory without the military. (can someone please SHOUT that to the moonbats please?)
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
There's information that Japan had tried to surrender before the US dropped the bombs on them, but this surrender was considered inconvenient so it was ignored. You want my sources? BAH! This is Slashdot! We don't need no steenkin sources!
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
And when you get done shouting that to the neocons, would you send an email to the dems explaining that there's no point in talking when nobody is listening?
We Americans have no business being in Iraq, other than to prevent our economy from coming to a crashing end, but to claim that the military is not a useful tool in international diplomacy is insanely simple-minded. You are correct. The war doesn't end with weapons. It ends with a surrender or a negotiated peace. But why the hell would a superior enemy surrender or give sizable concessions (on the order of why they went to war in the first place). They won't sit down and talk until the someone with a weapon brings them to the table.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
Coincidence? I think not!
And you people said it would take a ludicrous amount of power. Hah!
Menus: Linux=function, Windows=vendor, OS X=as little as possible. Makes a statement, don't you think?
Actually, I'm damned if I can figure out if we won militarily or not. One of the books on the war -- Ricks-"Fiasco" of Hersch "Chain of Command", claims that on the eve of the assault on Baghdad, Saddam Hussein decided not to conduct a scorched earth battle for the city. Instead, he sent the troops home with instructions to conduct a guerilla war. I have no idea if that is true, but whether it is or not, the results seem to have been all he could have hoped for ... excepting the part about being aprehended and hung of course.
"Every time I look at you I don't understand why you let the things you did get so out of hand? You'd've managed better if you'd had a plan." Tim Rice, Jesus Christ Superstar. Seems to fit somehow.
***Well, yes you can. I don't recall hearing much from Carthage in the last 2000 years.***
I was suprised to find that Carthage was resettled after the third Punic War and was a fairly important city until it was finally destroyed for good in 698AD (not by the Romans that time). Today, it is a suburb of Tunis http://www.galenfrysinger.com/carthage_tunisia.htm
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
Actually I was copy/pasting from the Air Force website the date.
:)
I used Icke as an example because he explains things in so many ways and in such a studied detail that it is easier for many people to see. I found success in that my father approved of one of his films, as my father knows and is huge huge huge into Peak Oil. Dad holds a view of catastrophic proportions due to increased demand and population while supply peters out. Other than that, he has not much belief in Climate Change or anything else, specially conspiracy. Icke's movie worked on him though. No easy task.
I'm sure there are plenty of others out there with greater knowledge, yet just an example. Thanks for the link
The best way to win a war is not to fight it.
Tell that to the millions of Jews who lived in Germany, Poland and France around 1938. They were unable to fight a war themselves and I would hardly say that they won the war.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Exactly. After all, it was words that made the Nazis and Imperial Japan surrender. Moron.
False as well. Japan is our ally, and we killed lots of 'em. Same goes for Germany. You could fill up 1000 volumes with the quantity of history you are ignorant of.
One could also argue that the "optimal" application of military prowess causes all of your genetic competitors to die and results in your reproductive success. Hence, spare the women, and enslave the children.
...because "hacker" sounds way sexier than "code drone."
what are these wars about? Money?resources?a border dispute?religion? Money from the upper class/resources from the upper class/borders are invented by the upper class/religion also. just to be able to send the masses into death.
Oh, grow up for chrissakes.
What are the Bloods and Crypts fighting over in bombed out LA?
Why are indigenous peoples all over the world fighting waging war on one another, from ten member tribes to whole religious sects?
You need to pull you head out of your ass and realize that the whole "the man is keeping me down" mentality is an invention of lazy bottom feeders that just want to avoid getting a job.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
The only real way to win a war militarily then, is to totally annihilate the enemy.
Either that, or to add their biological and technological distinctiveness to your own, and adapt their culture to service yours.
That's how China "won" against its various invaders. It just assimilated them. That's also what Rome did to its defeated enemies.
Though, perhaps that's not a "military" victory.
i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
No problem having two ends of destructive power... just ask Darth Maul...
It just means that the US can hit China and Russia at the same time, or US bases in Iraq can hit Syria and Iran at the same time... sounds groovy...
Isn't this where the comment "Kill them all and let God sort them out" come in?
Isn't it conceivable today that with the technology civilization now has that an attempt at genocide similar to that perpetuated by Hitler could be much much more successful? Even if a few get away, if you empty an entire area of people, nature and time will take care of the few survivors. Not being able to tell who the enemy is, doesn't really matter under those circumstances so it's a bit disingenuous to suggest that it would be no longer an option.
Contrary to what many may think, such a situation occurring outside western countries would likely not be stopped. Darfur is a prime example, but beyond that, if America turns inward as a result of the Iraq war and Europe's lack of support with Afghanistan, there wouldn't be anyone to stop a country or leader committing genocide anyway. Frankly, Europe, Japan and all the other nations wouldn't do anything to stop something like that, not even if it was on their doorstop.
only with words? Yea they have to be the right words, and there has to be a consensus among the leaders. Right now we have Republicans screaming one thing, and Democrats screaming another. And nobody is getting shit done. I blame the neocons AND the political "liberals" for leaving the moderates majority holding the bag. And I say "liberals" in quotes because they aren't real liberals, they sing the liberal tune but are totally empty of any progressive ideals.
Almost all the kids being sent to war are moderates, as are their parents. And (except in places like San Francisco, Palo Alto, Berkeley, etc) the people who are for AND against the war with Iraq are also moderates. But the "liberal" politicians and the neocons play both sides off each other. It's not some evil conspiracy to rule the world either, it's just a survival tactic used by people who are useless leeches that have no business in the office they hold.
As for Iran, by the time we can get around to dealing with the Iranian threat they will have sent some big missiles onto Israel. And then I think we'll have a pretty unanimous voice as to what position Americans have on Iran, hopefully when that time comes we'll get the politicians who represent us to send the same message as us.
(please mark this thread as offtopic - we should be talking about awesome antimatter lasers, not boring US international policy)
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Indeed surrender was offered twice before (iirc), but turned down because it was conditional. The nukes were not the most devastating attacks on Japan, they were just the most devastating single events. The carpet bombing of Japanese cities for many months did far more damage. The purpose of dropping the bomb was to show Japan and Russia the resolve and capability of the US military to basically bomb targets indefinitely. I mention Russia because even though there was some cooperation between the Soviets and the Allies in defeating the Axis powers, there was a definite concern even at that time by Allied governments as to how far the Soviets would grow their empire.
What is your point anyways? In a few decades few people from that era will even be alive. I think we all know now it's not good to drop radiological devices on civilian populations, and in the future I believe we will avoid it. Our development of precision weapons, military robotics, and very powerful specialized chemical weapons is evidence of the US government and military's resolve to avoid nuclear confrontations.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
I would say that you are believing way too much propaganda.
Iraq isn't winning the war the US did win that war. Right now Irag is loosing the peace. The number of Iraqi civilian deaths is high thanks to the actions of Iraqi militants and others.
What you say I am afraid is nothing but a nice dream. World War II in Europe sure was ended with weapons and not words. World War II in Japan was ended with weapons and not words. Unless you are going to say "I surrender" counts.
Here is the sad truth. The only way to win a war is with weapons.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
The surrender was agreed to either way. MacArthur decided on how he would act once he got there and understood fully the reverance the japanese had for the Emperor.
You're making his case for him. He's arguing brains over brawn. You're arguing that brawn created an opportunity for brains to be used. But in the end, the war was finalized successfully and with minimal rancor using intelligent diplomacy, something the current administration has absolutely no experience with or apparent motivation to try (to bring the point home).
*** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***
I don't know, but it'll be really funny when all the positrons leak out into their pocket.
Many civilizations no longer exist because they were destroyed by another
"Destroying an Empire to win a war is no victory. And ending a battle to save an Empire is no defeat."
-Kahless, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
I'm still able and willing to think about things truly abhorrent and unacceptable, because these things still exist even when I hold the pillow really tight over my head. How else to avoid them? Genocide exists, even today. I hate it. The first wrong step is treating people as things, or as the "(ethnic class) Problem". From there it's Welcome to Nightmare City.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
Do you have an idea how much power you need to create all those positrons? Hint: Energy conservation doesn't have an exception for antimatter.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
See, We could easily get back in caves or climb back up trees
And I'm just pointing out here that war doesn't solve a dispute.
and did you notice there is fighting here, with words? This is because people still can get it in their minds that they can sometimes be wrong - and that's got everything to do with our primal nature
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
"You Can't END a war with weapons, only with words"
:)
The Red Army didn't talk it's way into Berlin in 1945.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Damn, jokes about sharks aside, the scientific and technical implications of a gamma laser will be immense. Nuclear physicists will love to have one of these to probe nuclei with as an example ( so far you need a massive particle accelerator to do it ). Heck, if you reached sufficiently high energies you could even use it to fission the actinides in nuclear waste without the need to rely on particle accelerators or critical reactors. Positron-electron annihilation probably won't get you high enough energies for that thou.. You would need something in the GeV range of energies.
Quoting Star Trek doesn't prove any point. It was just a TV show.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Dude, atoms have been known to be divisible for over 70 years now, your school must have some ancient books. Do they contain references to the Aether?
Also, if this bugs you, wait until you hear of symmetry, with its sparticles, squarks, and so on.
1. develop a device that creates antimatter
2. pair it with a process that tunnels the antimatter to a remote location
3. profit!
I'm ashamed.
Chris Knight: As you know, Mitch and I were working on the cyanide system. Well, eariler today it ate itself. But, these little set-backs are just what we need to take a giant step forward. Right, Kent? Needless to say, I was a little despondent about the melt down, but then, it the midst of my preparations for hari kiri, it came to me. It is possible to synthesize excited bromide in an argon matrix. It's an excimer frozen in its excited state.
Bodey: Th...That's impossible.
Knight: It's a chemical laser but in solid, not gaseous, form. Put simply, in deference to you, Kent, it's like lasing a stick of dynamite. As soon as we apply a field, we couple to a state, it is radiatively coupled to the ground state. I figure we can extract at least 10 to the 21st photons per cubic centimeter which will give one kilojoule per cubic centimeter at 600 nanometers, or, one megajoule per liter.
Imagine cutting shapes from foot-thick steel plate practically instantaneously.Or cutting I-beams to length in a small fraction of a second.
While the battlefield uses are sort of obvious, its civilian uses might wind up more profitable in the long run, assuming there is one.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Tell me If I am wrong: The super-laser beam lives for 160 ns, the speed of light is 299792458 m/s so in a nanosecond the beam runs along 0,3 meters and in 160 ns the beam dissapears at 47 meters. Hey! its very risky to shot this ray so near to the Death Star, only Skywalker can do this feat.
The USSR took over many countries with the use of weapons, then went bankrupt with the burden of the cost of maintaining their victories with the use of weapons. (So did the Roman Empire.) It's a lesson with lots of examples throughout history.
Have to break it to you: you are the only one who knows why did the Roman Empire end. It would be kind of you to point the clueless historians to the sources that give you such certainty :).
And who would you judge has the requisite experience in "intelligent diplomacy?"
Synchronizing stop lights across the US = one less nuclear power plant
How is antimatter different than matter aside from it annihilating when it hits matter? Would it be possible to build things out of antimatter? i've never understood what they mean exactly, by ANTImatter. So i wonder is it actually MATTER in the way that matter is? Or is it something totally weird?
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
Sure it was just a TV show, but that quote has a point. It doesn't matter where it came from. I could have easily left out the source of the quote, but I decided to include it, because I happen to know many people here watch or have watched Trek. The point of this post however, is that if you just stare the orgin of the quote, you might miss the point I'm trying to tell by using that quote.
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
It is attributed to Arnaud Amaury, Abbot of Citeaux.
The French army massacred the entire population of Beziers, following the orders of Amaury who was the military leader of the campaign, despite being an abbot.
The "Spanish Inquisition" that followed was, in fact, originally set up to deal with the Albigensians, being called Spanish only later (when the mass conversion of Spain's Jewish population was undertaken).
Ain't religion great?
One swallow does not a fellatrix make