This is not true. Antiprotons have been found, yes, as have positrons, but they are entirely consistent with having been produced in secondary reactions with the interstellar medium - i.e., a very high energy cosmic ray proton interacts with a stray hydrogen atom and produces a whole bunch of crap, some of which decays into an antiproton, which then propagates to Earth. We have actually found very few antiprotons in cosmic rays. In addition, there are other reasons why antimatter galaxies either do not exist, or are separated from matter galaxies on an immensely huge scale. If antimatter galaxies did exist, we would have regions of intermixing of matter and antimatter which produce gamma rays. We don't see a high diffuse gamma ray flux, therefore, the intermixing regions don't exist. Hence, antimatter galaxies either don't exist, or are separated from normal matter galaxies on an immense scale. Currently, we don't know of any way in which they could have been separated on such a huge scale during the Big Bang, so the current thought is, there are no antimatter galaxies.
Just to summarize a few things, the comments on/. pretty much just hit the mark - cosmic-ray interactions are ~ the same energy, so if this could happen, it would've happened.
Also, the comment about a "black hole forming" seems to be psuedo-science crap - a 'miniature' black hole would not even have the gravitational field to draw anything *into* it - it would have to rely on chance interactions to grow larger, and considering that its Schwarzschild radius would be smaller than the known radius of a proton by *huge* amounts, I don't even know if it *is* possible for it to absorb anything. Also, as soon as it absorbed any particle, it would be unstable due to charge-angular momentum- mass limitation. The short answer: black holes aren't dangerous. Huge amounts of mass are dangerous. We don't have huge amounts of mass here. No danger.
The 'strangelet' pair formation is curious. I don't know enough about subatomic physics/ quark theory to actually know what this actually is, but stupid physics tells me that you can't just randomly break strangeness conservation, so instead of forming just strange matter, you'd need strange-antistrange pairs, and thus baryon-antibaryon pairs. Which means in order for these 'strangelets' to convert something to strange matter, the corresponding antiparticle would have to be present - i.e. strangelet + p + pbar -> strangelet + whatever the particle is with (ssd) rather than (uud). (or ssc, or sud, etc.) plus its antiparticle. Considering the vast baryon-antibaryon asymmetry (see any antimatter lying around? I didn't think so.) this isn't a danger at all.
What I want to know is how this got published. Granted, I haven't much gotten into graduate physics yet, but this is really poor stuff at face value.
Hey, amazingly enough, the laws of physics find it hard to believe too!:) 2.5GHz is a little tough to do with standard technology.
Re:70-110 megs? You just don't get it...
on
Mozilla M8 Released
·
· Score: 1
That's not exactly true - the install files are pretty much just 5MB - some of those are system update files, but they're still just part of IE.
A Win95 machine, upgraded to IE 5, still only used about 12MB of space (that was mainly DirectX, too).
Random opinion of mine is that IE 5 is just plain better than old Netscape, and just better than Mozilla right now (maybe when it's finished, without the bug fixes). I'm just glad they fixed it so that it doesn't have to rerender every damned time you resize the window.
Now, I just wonder if it handles pixel sizes correctly...
No way. Joule heating, air resistance, and tensile strength are just three of many problems with building something like that. You'd need something with an immense tensile strength and is a superconductor (Unless you really want to run a high voltage wire through the atmosphere... man that would be really dangerous. Lightning strikes. Whee).
Then again, this is a useless proposal too, so, shrug.
Perhaps if you complained less and realized exactly what microwave is, you'd be less worried. We're perpetually bombarded with a rather significant amount of microwave by the Sun everyday. It's light. Nothing more. More importantly, we all have microwave ovens, which, though shielded, probably do put out a sizable amount of stray microwave.
Microwave is pretty much harmless. Each individual photon has a very low energy count, so it's unlikely to do any radiation damage, and so long as they keep the actual *power* level down, you're fine.
There are far more pressing concerns in this proposal, for instance, why in the world you would want to do this, especially when *power is cheap* nowadays. A major undertaking when we don't really need to? Nah. That's not NASA's style.
I have to agree with this, but an additional point: musicians never make the majority of money on CD sales themselves, especially the non-huge musicians.
Instead, they mainly make it on concerts and other live appearances. The simple answer, if you want to support the band, and not the huge extremely affluent music industry, is that MP3s are fine, but go to concerts of the bands you enjoy. Then you help the band, and don't help the industry.
Of course, I tend to buy CDs of those artists as well, simply because, well, automobile MP3 players aren't common yet. That and it's difficult to autograph an MP3.:)
That's a good point, but unfortunately you need to remember that there's a good chance that he doesn't actually *own* the box it's running on. He might not have a choice at all, and if that's the case, then it's better to have a Linux site running on a BSD box than no site whatsoever.
Slashdot Mirror
This is not true. Antiprotons have been found, yes, as have positrons, but they are entirely consistent with having been produced in secondary reactions with the interstellar medium - i.e., a very high energy cosmic ray proton interacts with a stray hydrogen atom and produces a whole bunch of crap, some of which decays into an antiproton, which then propagates to Earth. We have actually found very few antiprotons in cosmic rays. In addition, there are other reasons why antimatter galaxies either do not exist, or are separated from matter galaxies on an immensely huge scale. If antimatter galaxies did exist, we would have regions of intermixing of matter and antimatter which produce gamma rays. We don't see a high diffuse gamma ray flux, therefore, the intermixing regions don't exist. Hence, antimatter galaxies either don't exist, or are separated from normal matter galaxies on an immense scale. Currently, we don't know of any way in which they could have been separated on such a huge scale during the Big Bang, so the current thought is, there are no antimatter galaxies.
Just to summarize a few things, the comments /. pretty much just hit the mark - cosmic-ray
on
interactions are ~ the same energy, so if this
could happen, it would've happened.
Also, the comment about a "black hole forming"
seems to be psuedo-science crap - a 'miniature'
black hole would not even have the gravitational
field to draw anything *into* it - it would have
to rely on chance interactions to grow larger,
and considering that its Schwarzschild radius
would be smaller than the known radius of a
proton by *huge* amounts, I don't even know
if it *is* possible for it to absorb anything.
Also, as soon as it absorbed any particle, it
would be unstable due to charge-angular momentum-
mass limitation. The short answer: black holes
aren't dangerous. Huge amounts of mass are
dangerous. We don't have huge amounts of mass here.
No danger.
The 'strangelet' pair formation is curious.
I don't know enough about subatomic physics/
quark theory to actually know what this
actually is, but stupid physics tells me that
you can't just randomly break strangeness
conservation, so instead of forming just
strange matter, you'd need strange-antistrange
pairs, and thus baryon-antibaryon pairs. Which
means in order for these 'strangelets' to
convert something to strange matter, the
corresponding antiparticle would have to be
present - i.e. strangelet + p + pbar ->
strangelet + whatever the particle is with
(ssd) rather than (uud). (or ssc, or sud, etc.)
plus its antiparticle. Considering the vast
baryon-antibaryon asymmetry (see any antimatter
lying around? I didn't think so.) this isn't
a danger at all.
What I want to know is how this got published.
Granted, I haven't much gotten into graduate
physics yet, but this is really poor stuff at
face value.
Patrick
Hey, amazingly enough, the laws of physics find it hard to believe too! :) 2.5GHz is a little tough to do with standard technology.
That's not exactly true - the install files are
pretty much just 5MB - some of those are system
update files, but they're still just part of IE.
A Win95 machine, upgraded to IE 5, still only
used about 12MB of space (that was mainly DirectX, too).
Random opinion of mine is that IE 5 is just plain better than old Netscape, and just better than Mozilla right now (maybe when it's finished, without the bug fixes). I'm just glad they fixed it so that it doesn't have to rerender every damned time you resize the window.
Now, I just wonder if it handles pixel sizes correctly...
No way. Joule heating, air resistance, and tensile strength are just three of many problems with building something like that. You'd need something with an immense tensile strength and is a superconductor (Unless you really want to run a high voltage wire through the atmosphere... man that would be really dangerous. Lightning strikes. Whee).
Then again, this is a useless proposal too, so, shrug.
Perhaps if you complained less and realized exactly what microwave is, you'd be less worried.
We're perpetually bombarded with a rather significant amount of microwave by the Sun everyday. It's light. Nothing more. More importantly, we all have microwave ovens, which, though shielded, probably do put out a sizable amount of stray microwave.
Microwave is pretty much harmless. Each individual photon has a very low energy count, so it's unlikely to do any radiation damage, and so long as they keep the actual *power* level down, you're fine.
There are far more pressing concerns in this proposal, for instance, why in the world you would want to do this, especially when *power is cheap* nowadays. A major undertaking when we don't really need to? Nah. That's not NASA's style.
I have to agree with this, but an additional point: musicians never make the majority of money on CD sales themselves, especially the non-huge musicians.
:)
Instead, they mainly make it on concerts and other live appearances. The simple answer, if you want to support the band, and not the huge extremely affluent music industry, is that MP3s are fine, but go to concerts of the bands you enjoy. Then you help the band, and don't help the industry.
Of course, I tend to buy CDs of those artists as well, simply because, well, automobile MP3 players aren't common yet. That and it's difficult to autograph an MP3.
That's a good point, but unfortunately you need to remember that there's a good chance that he doesn't actually *own* the box it's running on. He might not have a choice at all, and if that's the case, then it's better to have a Linux site running on a BSD box than no site whatsoever.