Sat Jul 17, 2004 3:38 am
Sat Jul 17, 2004 5:35 am
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).
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.
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.
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.
Sat Jul 17, 2004 8:24 am
Smart Duck wrote:Read Digital Fortess (same author). It has a new plot! *gasp*
Mon Jul 19, 2004 6:10 pm
Mon Sep 13, 2004 10:26 pm
Experiment wrote: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.
Mon Sep 13, 2004 10:36 pm