Angels & Demons

[Smart Duck]

Yes I read it, no I didn't follow all of that discussion, and it's the same plot lines as the Da Vinci Code. Read Digital Fortess (same author). It has a new plot! *gasp*

[M. Bison]

Well, for the first point, I am in awe if that 1708 number was the date it was published. How silly of me to think that I would know more than them, when they didn't even know what an electron was (the electron was discovered by J.J. Thompson in 1898).

I guess you won't be in awe, then. It is standard to cite the title of the source, followed by the page number of the cited material. Though, in case you were wondering, the 11th Edition was copyrighted in 2004. And yes, it is a bit silly to think your knowledge exceeds that of several University physics professors.

If antimatter has a neutral charge, how can it be stored in a vacuum then? Traps wouldn't work, and the antimatter would eventually collide with one of the sides of the vacuum container.

Antimatter in the form of anti-atoms have a neutral overall charge, but inductance can be used to create dipoles from these atoms. From there, it is possible to use electromagnetic forces to contain the anti-atom. Further, it is not really necessary to store entire atoms of antimatter. All one needs to store are positrons, as all it takes for annilhation to occur is one positron coming in contact with one electron.

Third, I don't believe it has direct relevancy to the book, but just think about it. Atoms have different properties due to different amounts of protons and such in their nucleii (is that the right plural?). Why shouldn't antimatter have different properties based on the number of electrons in their nucleus, or the number of protons orbiting them? (actually, I was just checking out a site about anti-matter, and they confirmed my theory.

Atoms of anti-hydrogen, which consist of a positron orbiting an antiproton, are believed to have been created in 1995 at the CERN laboratory in Europe. Physicists are now searching for very small differences between the properties of matter atoms and antimatter atoms. This will help confirm or confound our understanding of the symmetry between matter and anti-matter.

Interesting, maybe. But it does absolutely nothing to justify your attack on Dan Brown.

For the fourth statement, pardon me. From what I read in the introduction, it only stated that the protons orbited the electron nucleus (from what I can recall). I simply assumed, that since protons and electrons have been colliding for years, that there should be no reason for an explosion. I did not know that it was not protons orbiting electrons, but positrons orbiting antiprotons.

So perhaps Mr. Brown isn't as scientifically inept as we had believed?

[Medusa]

Read Digital Fortess (same author). It has a new plot! *gasp*

Yep, and it has minimal discussion about the church and has only one instance where there is a discussion as to the architecture of a church... As a change of pace the majority of the story is set in America

[Experiment]

Ah, pardon me. When I have done citations in the past, the books I have gotten information from have been usually so broadly written on the subject that putting all the pages was ludicrous, and normally, I would put the publishing date in the citation. And actually, I don't think it's too silly that I would be smarter than university professors. They can be pretty stupid sometimes.

Second point, true, true.

Third point, he never specified anything about what excatly they were, so it might have been different in their properties and such. But now, considering they have only discovered anti-hydrogen, I suppose there was only one choice.

Fourth, that actually makes him just as inept, because he didn't even understand what antimatter was.

[Asthaloth]

First of all, it's misnamed, and scientists don't misname things. They should have called them anti-atoms.

Second, an anti-atom, going by the books description, would have a neutral charge, and the container they describe would not be able to hold it.

Thirdly, as an anti-atom, there are most likely discrepancies between the number of electrons in the nucleus. Therefore, the discrepancies would make different kinds of anti-atoms, just like we have differnt kinds of normal atoms, like carbon or calcium.

Fourthly, what exactly makes the combination of atoms and anti-atoms so explosive? There's no real source of energy. It couldn't be the electrons, as having them compacted in a nucleus would practically negate all of their power because of friction, and if it was because the protons breaking away from the electron nucleus, well, all that should have done is just make a lot of H+ ions and free electricity (as the nucleus would most likely break apart then.

not read the book (i'll buy these things eventually i swaer)

but anyway i think i can illuminate the situation

1:anti matter is just that, anti matter, there are other negative atoms too, just under differant names (phi being one of them, not to be confused with the golden ratio phi)

2: anti matter/energy/light is rather experimental, they exist for brief moments in our field of perception before ceasing to be (in our field of perception..) we dont know what would hold them, except it wouldnt be a reactive element (they go boom)

3:yes.

4:they are opposite, anthema, ying and yang, the c'tan and the warp. (i trust ive given you an idea, well except the last example it probably confused you more than advanced astro physics ever could)
the little experiment (i remind you, millisecond life span) has resulted in immense enrgy outputs, which while quickly dissiapting (millisecond lifespans) has shown they are highly reactive.

basicly they are theoretical at best, we know they exist, but noones ever seen one, we know they are highly reactive, but noones ever put one in a bomb to test HOW reactive.
bit of a leap of faith here, but then so is gravity.

[ahoteinrun]

Anywho.
Since i'm going back to the Vatican to study the art this coming May... I found this book rather interesting, as I did the Da Vinci code.
To be honest? I don't care if the books spot on or not, what he's written about the architecture and the art is for the most correct. I enjoyed the book, I read it this weekend in a couple hours and I found it to be a real page turner.
I like how he writes. (and i'm sorry but the last couple lines of the book, made me laugh).