Romain
stranger
Reged: 05/10/05
Posts: 6
|
|
First the concept of "web" was first put to light by Louis Pouzin, a french, a concept which was taken to the US in the 1970's but the web, the public one was developped by Tim Berners-Lee and several guys from the CERN between 1989 and 1994. Then the story about the logo is ridiculous. Finally, I have to say it is such a shame but to read the stupid facts dan brown writes about antimatter... i think noone should write anything about something you don't understand at all. Antimatter is "volatile"...true...as it desintegrates as soon as it collides with any matter...releasing energy...for sure but no explosion but light. Antimatter hydrogen is neutral and inevitably desintegrates within fractions of seconds, Antimatter Neutrons which are charged can be put in electromagnetic bottles, but only a few, because of the repulsive forces between every charged particles. The energy contained in 1 gramm of matter, wether it be your bones or antimatter is THE SAME...E=mc˛...energy=mass X (speed light)˛ . Dan Brown should try to understand what he attempts to use before saying such crap...cause it's been decades that these facts are known and the simple explanations are numerous... Antimatter ain't a "weird" thing. I think you guys should get some informations about antimatter and everything...I am so ashamed that such authors who are read by so many people can tell such idiot facts. People still don't acknowledge what was found in 1905 by eistein as time/space so if a writer confuses even more people, when will people be aware of the world they live in?....some concepts may not be simple...and quantum mechanics is not easily understandable in it's deepiest concepts (even by the greatest scientists) but the great lines are in the reach of the common of mortals....well i'm tired...2 am in here...i don't know what i'm saying anymore lol
|
Romain
stranger
Reged: 05/10/05
Posts: 6
|
|
....erratum antimatter protons and not neutrons.....really tired
|
AAnnAArchy
Gifted Procrastinator
Reged: 10/20/03
Posts: 643
Loc: Las Vegas
|
|
As was previously posted by CERN_DG, we can now feel that we have the correct antimatter information, no matter what a novel makes part of a fictional story.
http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/Content/Chapters/Spotlight/SpotlightAandD-en.html
|
Romain
stranger
Reged: 05/10/05
Posts: 6
|
|
Well good. But I have to say i don't agree with this idea that it may not be important but to distorded real facts. To distord it a bit...why not...but playing too much with it, it's dangerous in a way. To make people feel they dive into secrets of the world around them is what made da vinci code sell and what makes brown's books sell. It's kind of a dangerous game in my opinion even if exciting in a way. But to play to much with reality leads to misunderstanding among some readers. I'm pretty sure many aknowledge facts in those books are only partly true, and we could even say mostly invented but some do not. What i dislike is the "too much of affirmation" of those books. Going further and further...you simply rebuild the world with completely false basis and you can mistake some people...and some among brown's readers tends to be quite a lot. Some people do take things for granted in those books. I don't blame him for playing a lil' bit with reality. Playing with the christ is not so shocking to me...as i consider christianism to have played a lot with it. But mistaking people about reality, deep reality, and playing with their fears is negative in my opinion. Paranoia is common today
and giving to people such advances of science, which are so kind to humanity (application of antimatter are common in medicine, and not in military fields)as threats is nonsense to me, and a misuse of people's instinctive reactions: because what is supposed to threaten us interests us.
In a way, Dan Brown's success is not so far from tabloids succes, even if more subtile and intelligent by the mechanics involved to give birth to the plot.
|
8549176320abc
enthusiast
Reged: 05/02/05
Posts: 219
Loc: UK
|
|
Quote:
Romain said:
it desintegrates as soon as it collides with any matter...releasing energy...for sure but no explosion but light
That much light though would contain enough energy to cause a seriously large amount of heat and thus a shock wave - not an explosion in the traditional sense but certinly it whouldn't do the Vatican any good!
Quote:
Antimatter Neutrons which are charged
Am I the only person with even a secondary school understaning of sub-atomics?!?! Nutrons are nutral anti-mater or not (2/3)-(1/3)-(1/3)=0 in the same way that (1/3)+(1/3)-(2/3)=0. You canot make a nutron charged it is too fundimental. (see http://newton.physics.metu.edu.tr/~fizikt/html/hawking/A_Brief_History_in_Time.html)
|
Romain
stranger
Reged: 05/10/05
Posts: 6
|
|
sorry journeyman...in fact i corrected myself right after having said such crap...true i did...just look the message right after (i meant protons..it makes more sens doesn't it?). You're right about light but assuming 1 gramm of antimatter particles is a reasonably unreachable limit (at least for the instance: 2 billion years or so process...wow). When proceeding to create antiparticles only few are produced it's a high energy cost process to ontain very few particles...only very few of them can be traped.Take a look at the CERN comments:http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/Content/Chapters/Spotlight/SpotlightAandD-en.html (thanks AAnnAArchy).
I'm sorry about the really idiot mistake i made ( quite a shame for someone claiming for the truth right?) ...2 am ain't just the time i give the best of my brain...it may be worth for my hole critics of the facts given by brown lol. Anyway i just meant that someone as read as brown should be more careful to what he writes assuming he wrote quite huge mistakes in this book and as the way he deals with history may seem too real and too attractive for some people. In the end that just is my opinion and it's only worth what you think it is...i might have seemed too arrogant...and after i read myself back i may was. But i have a full respect for brown evne if those elements are quite annoying for me...just reading the description prevents me from reading the book however good it might be.
|
8549176320abc
enthusiast
Reged: 05/02/05
Posts: 219
Loc: UK
|
|
I aggree that 1 gram is unrealistic at the moment but if it were feasable my point whould stand.
--------------------
Governments offer us safety for our freedom. It is by seeing this safety as false that we are freed.
|
Romain
stranger
Reged: 05/10/05
Posts: 6
|
|
even if...let's consider that we can produce such an amout of antiparticules....how would you stock them. Because of the inherent problem of neutral antiatoms (antihydrogen) which desintegrate almost instanteanously, how to stock 1g of anti protons? we know how to trap them in magnetic bottles...for now sure we can't and i think we wont ever...or maybe with great means. The option of considering antimatter as a source of energy is not, from my point of you, reasonable
|
8549176320abc
enthusiast
Reged: 05/02/05
Posts: 219
Loc: UK
|
|
Why do you keep saying that it would disintegrate almost instantly it would act in the same way as normal matter in respect of the magnetism and strong forces holding everything together. The only problem then is ensuring that there is the problem of hydrogen being natural. I have just checked and it doesn't mention hydrogen anywhere just positrons - anti-electrons (chapter 21). The idea of two force fields is daft though - the slightest jerk and the inertia of the matter would make the sample move nearer to one magnet and if the magnets are both atractive the sample will be atracted towards the magnet causing anialation. If the magnets were repulsive then the silghtest side wards motion would cause the two magnets to push the sample to the edge of the container. The only way is to use several magnets to ensure that the sample has no way to reach the sides or ends.
--------------------
Governments offer us safety for our freedom. It is by seeing this safety as false that we are freed.
|
8549176320abc
enthusiast
Reged: 05/02/05
Posts: 219
Loc: UK
|
|
Quote:
CERN_DG said:
Fact#1: The words "beautiful" and "female" cannot be directly used in a sentence with "physicist".
The sentence "The words "beautiful" and "female" are rarly directly used in a sentence with "physicist"." puts an end to your theory.
--------------------
Governments offer us safety for our freedom. It is by seeing this safety as false that we are freed.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
[Re: 
Edit
Reply
Quote
