Question

[JoeRoccoCassara]

How big would the explosion from this collision be, describe what color it would be, how bright it would be, and how fast the center of its fire ball expand.

 

The magfield attractor is 12 inches and weighs 20 grams, and the anti matter magfield is just as big around.

 

The magfield attractor magnetically attaches to near by magnetic fields What happens when it attaches to its opposite?

 

 

[InfiniteNow]

Here are some numbers on the energies involved. Where are you struggling?

 

Antimatter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In antimatter-matter collisions resulting in photon emission, the entire rest mass of the particles is converted to kinetic energy.

 

 

The energy per unit mass ([Latex]9 \times 10^{16} J/kg[/math]) is about 10 orders of magnitude greater than chemical energy (compared to TNT at [math] 4.2 \times 10^6 J/kg [/math]), and formation of water at [math]1.56 \times 10^7 J/kg [/math]), about 4 orders of magnitude greater than nuclear energy that can be liberated today using nuclear fission (about 40 MeV per 238U nucleus transmuted to Lead, or [math]1.5 \times 10^{13} J/kg[/math]), and about 2 orders of magnitude greater than the best possible from fusion (about [math]6.3 \times 10^{14} J/kg [/math]for the proton-proton chain).

 

 

The reaction of 1 kg of antimatter with 1 kg of matter would produce [math]1.8 \times 10^{17} J [/math](180 petajoules) of energy (by the mass-energy equivalence formula E = mc²).

[JoeRoccoCassara]

I'm struggling on what a faster collision, about 4 times as fast as a regular collision would do, because they magnetically collide in two ways, not just anti matter and matter colliding, but a magnetic field made of anti matter and a mag field attractor made of matter colliding.

 

Which is significantly more powerful.

[InfiniteNow]

I'm struggling on what a faster collision, about 4 times as fast as a regular collision would do, because they magnetically collide in two ways, not just anti matter and matter colliding, but a magnetic field made of anti matter and a mag field attractor made of matter colliding.

 

Which is significantly more powerful.

 

What effect do you propose momentum would have on a matter antimatter collision? Since a matter antimatter collision is 100% efficient, the momentum induced by your magnetic field would have zero net effect in power output.

 

Particle and antiparticle touching at 2 miles per hour has the same effect as a particle and antiparticle colliding at the speed of light.

 

However, if you know of something I'm missing here, please share. If you truly understand a process which changes this then you're likely to already be well beyond my level of knowledge on the subject.

 

:doh:

[JoeRoccoCassara]

E=MC2, you cannot gain more energy from less, right? No I don't think that I am beyond you in this subject, more like I was wrong and you were right. E=MC2 comes in many forms.

[InfiniteNow]

E=MC2, you cannot gain more energy from less, right?

More that everything is energy in some form, and that conservation of energy indicates that you cannot get out more energy from a system than you put in (hence, perpetual motion machines won't work... all that increasing entropy and all).

 

No I don't think that I am beyond you in this subject, more like I was wrong and you were right.

It's not about right and wrong. Also, don't just take my word on this. I was guessing, and could be completely off base (math and physics aren't where I'm strongest by any means). What I'm speculating here is that a particle/antiparticle's mass is not increased by it's velocity.

 

Maybe one of our more informed members will chime in to confirm or offer new insights which could be of use in your quest for greater understanding.

 

Cheers. :doh:

[JoeRoccoCassara]

Our universe is made of space time, and thanks to space time, their are laws that we can't break. But before their was our universe, their was no space time, and thus, no laws, consider space time water, and consider non space time, or and no space time as oxygen, and we used anti dense energy to open up a ripple, or bubble in space time, a bubble of oxygen inside water.

 

So what would happen if you collided more space time curved into less, and less space time curved into more, in other words, what if condensed space time collided with negatively dense space time, a bubble of condensed water collided with a bubble of oxygen. I think that if the laws of physics met anti laws of physics, that they would have to annihilate each other, right?

 

And if they did annihilate each other, it would release tons of energy.

[freeztar]

Our universe is made of space time, and thanks to space time, their are laws that we can't break. But before their was our universe, their was no space time, and thus, no laws, consider space time water, and consider non space time, or and no space time as oxygen, and we used anti dense energy to open up a ripple, or bubble in space time, a bubble of oxygen inside water.

 

I suppose you are referring to Planck Time?

So what would happen if you collided more space time curved into less, and less space time curved into more, in other words, what if condensed space time collided with negatively dense space time, a bubble of condensed water collided with a bubble of oxygen. I think that if the laws of physics met anti laws of physics, that they would have to annihilate each other, right?

 

CraigD addressed this in the other thread you posted in. Space-time curvature is caused by mass and the associated gravity.

Your last sentence is lost upon me. Annihilation means goodbye, no more, see you later. If that were the case at the beginning of the universe (BB theory) then we would not be here discussing this. What is interesting is the unaccountable mass of the universe, which has spawned the theories of Black Holes and Dark Matter.

 

And if they did annihilate each other, it would release tons of energy.

 

In the form of what?

[InfiniteNow]

I suppose you are referring to Planck Time?

I am not so sure this was the intent of Gardamorg's comment. I really do think he's referring to the fabric of the universe itself, currently spacetime by our models and theories. Planck time is more a representation of the smallest (currently conceivable) possible measure of the passage of time that has any meaning... Like the tiniest possible break between two clicks of an incredibly fast stop-watch... [math]10^{-43} s[/math], and represents the time it would take a photon, travelling at the speed of light © to cross the distance equal to one Planck length... [math]1.6 \times 10^{-35} m[/math].

 

CraigD addressed this in the other thread you posted in. Space-time curvature is caused by mass and the associated gravity.

I believe Freeztar is referring to this post:

 

http://hypography.com/forums/175260-post4.html

 

And if they did annihilate each other, it would release tons of energy.

In the form of what?

Mostly gamma rays, but the smack of energy in a point like locale would probably result in some spacetime ripples and gravity waves... Again, though, I'm just guessing on that.

 

Here's a pretty user friendly overview:

 

What's the matter with antimatter?

 

 

Gardamorg,

 

Per your first statement in your first post of this thread, recall my comment above that a matter antimatter collision mostly produces gamma rays. Your question about brightness and color of an annihilation event must take that into consideration, since brightness and color are generally descriptions used on light in the visible range of the electromagnetic spectrum... much less energetic than gamma radiation.

 

Keep asking questions though. It's okay to let your imagination fuel your search, just make sure quality data and deeper understandings keep you grounded. :)

 

You may also check out that work being done by this bright (pun fully intended) group of folks:

 

CERN - The world's largest particle physics laboratory

 

 

Cheers. :cup:

[JoeRoccoCassara]

IN, how do you know exactly what I'm thinking?

 

Cheers, I don't drink cofee

 

[Qfwfq]

Planck time is more a representation of the smallest (currently conceivable) possible measure of the passage of time that has any meaning... Like the tiniest possible break between two clicks of an incredibly fast stop-watch...

Not exactly, Planck is a scale below which physics isn't expected to have the same description.

 

Mostly gamma rays, but the smack of energy in a point like locale would probably result in some spacetime ripples and gravity waves... Again, though, I'm just guessing on that.

Rest energy (mass) gets converted into gamma rays but the overall energy doesn't change, it certainly doesn't suddenly increase.

 

...recall my comment above that a matter antimatter collision mostly produces gamma rays. Your question about brightness and color of an annihilation event must take that into consideration, since brightness and color are generally descriptions used on light in the visible range of the electromagnetic spectrum... much less energetic than gamma radiation.

This is the most obvious thing about his question. A (slightly) less obvious thing is that, if it isn't done far from anything else, some of the radiation will volatilize surrounding stuff, rapidly becoming thermal. To get an idea of what it might look like, just watch a film of one of those nuke blasts, one in which the decrease in mass is about 40 grammes (which means a perddy beeg nuke I'd say).

[JoeRoccoCassara]

So your saying that if some thing collides fast enough, it will convert surrounding mass into energy?

[CraigD]

I'm struggling on what a faster collision, about 4 times as fast as a regular collision would do, because they magnetically collide in two ways, not just anti matter and matter colliding, but a magnetic field made of anti matter and a mag field attractor made of matter colliding.

There’s no such thing as a magnetic field made of antimatter.

 

Depending on the theory you chose for an explanation, a magnetic field is either a description of the force experience by body with a given charge for a range of points in space, or many virtual particles (photons, a kind of boson, responsible for both EM radiation/light and magnetic force).

 

Particles of antimatter can have net charge. The most common ones, positrons and anti-protons, do. Their charges are the exact opposite of their antiparticles, the electron and proton. The magnetic fields they can produce are no different than ones produced by ordinary particles.

 

The energy released by collisions at different speeds between equal masses of matter and antimatter is easy to calculate. It is simply [math]E=mc^2[/math], where [math]m[/math] is the total mass of the matter and antimatter, [math]c[/math] the speed of light in vacuum. Using the mass Gardomorg gave in his initial question, 20 grams of antimatter and 20 grams of matter, the energy produced in a collision at very low speed is about [math].04 \mbox{kg} * ( 3 \times 10^8 \mbox{m/s})^2 = 3.6 \times 10^15 \mbox{J}[/math], roughly the same amount of energy released by a megaton (1,000,000,000 kg) of TNT, or the amount of energy used 100,000 typical US homes in a year.

 

If both bodies collided at slightly greater than the speed of sound (350 m/s), per special relativity, their masses would be slightly higher – [math]\frac1{\sqrt{1-(\frac{350}{3 \times 10^8})^2}}[/math], about 1.00000000000068 times, or about 2042 J greater, an increase equal roughly to the amount of mechanical energy required for an average person to climb a 1-story flight of stairs. For a lot of speed (by everyday standards), that’s not much of an increase.

 

If the bodies collided at a very high speed – say, each moving toward a common collision point at .99 c – their masses would be much greater - [math]\frac1{\sqrt{1-.99^2}}[/math], about 7.1 times, greater.

 

However, there’s little advantage to artificially accelerating the 2 bodies to such speeds, as the amount of energy required to do so must be at least equal the increase in energy due to their increased mass at the time of their collision. In practice, accelerating bodies to high speeds is usually very inefficient, requiring thousands of times more energy than is given to the bodies, so such a system would use more energy than is released by the annihilation of even the increased mass of matter and antimatter.

 

Attempts to “trick” nature into giving a lot of energy with the addition of a little appear to be becoming a habit of yours, Gardamorg. It is, I think, likely to be an unproductive one – one of the beauties of physics is that it can be used to find the maximum amount of energy produced by various systems without much knowledge of the details of how it’s produced. I’d suggest you work on some mechanical basics before looking for engineering efficiency tricks. Here’s a fun, not too basic problem. It may require a bit of study to solve – it requires that you know how to do some basic algebra.

 

Note that, according to classical physics, which applies well to bodies moving only very small fractions of the speed of light, the energy gained by an object of mass M accelerated to a speed v is [math]E=\frac12 M v^2[/math] [1]

 

According to mass-energy equivalence, the energy gained is [math]( M_{\mbox{after}} - M_{\mbox{before}})c^2[/math]. [2]

 

According to special relativity, [math]M_{\mbox{after}} = \frac{M_{\mbox{before}}}{\sqrt{1 – (\frac{v}{c})^2}}[/math]

 

Show that, for speeds much less than the speed of light, the energy given by [1] is about the same as given by [2]. For a specific mass and velocity – say 1 kg and 300 m/s – calculate the difference between the energy given by the two equations.

[InfiniteNow]

Thanks, Craig, for clarifying that velocities at time of collision do impact power output... even with these tiny particles.

[InfiniteNow]

So your saying that if some thing collides fast enough, it will convert surrounding mass into energy?

 

Remember this comment?

 

everything is energy in some form

 

Scientific Forms of Energy: Stored Energy, Kinetic Energy, Chemical Energy, Conservation of Energy