OMG Half Life Gluon gun is real

K.I.L.E.R said:
http://abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1348510.htm

[...]hot, dense liquid made out of basic atomic particles and called a quark-gluon plasma.

Since scientists know how to create this matter, why not use it for military purposes?

Yeah sure, you foot the energy bill :rolleyes:
 
Why can't Bush do it?



hupfinsgack said:
K.I.L.E.R said:
http://abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1348510.htm

[...]hot, dense liquid made out of basic atomic particles and called a quark-gluon plasma.

Since scientists know how to create this matter, why not use it for military purposes?

Yeah sure, you foot the energy bill :rolleyes:
 
Not exactly a portable "gun" either:

CBA-Landsat-w.jpg


That's the RHIC accelerator, as seen from space - the white circle in the square - on Long Island.
 
Technology does evolve. In several decades time what's to say that circle wont become the size of a car battery?

Neeyik said:
Not exactly a portable "gun" either:

CBA-Landsat-w.jpg


That's the RHIC accelerator, as seen from space - the white circle in the square - on Long Island.
 
K.I.L.E.R said:
In several decades time what's to say that circle wont become the size of a car battery?
Physics says. As charged particles are sent round circular paths, they emit EM waves continuously; the power of the radiation is inversely proportional to the square of the radius of the path - in other words, if you make the circle smaller, for the same given speed etc, the power loss will be greater. You just won't be able to accelerate the particles needed for the collisions to produce the quark-gluon soup enough to counter the radiation emitted.
 
Is that a comet killer? Having heard the news on a comet that might hit earth around 2035/6 .. I would think governments start looking for a solution to destroying/moving that comet out of it's tragectory when it passes the earth for the firth time in 2029.

US
 
Like i read somewhere (probably bullshit but still) that to unify the 4 fundamental forces we'd need an accellerator the size of Earth's orbit around the sun... :oops:

The thing needs to be BIG and draw insane amounts of power, a small particle accellerator would just be weak. Or at least that's the idea i got from the books i've read.
 
Gravity
Weak nuclear
Strong nuclear
Electromagnetic

Interaction is probably a better than force for these.
 
K.I.L.E.R said:
Neeyik said:
Weak nuclear
Strong nuclear

I don't get this, what's the difference? Nuclear is nuclear regardless of strength, isn it?

You really don't know the different forces?

Weak nuclear is the one keeping together the atoms' nucleus, the strong nuclear force is the one keeping together quarks which form the protons and neutrons themselves.
I'm quite rusty on this, so someone else might be able to explain it better.
 
london-boy said:
Weak nuclear is the one keeping together the atoms' nucleus, the strong nuclear force is the one keeping together quarks which form the protons and neutrons themselves.
I'm quite rusty on this, so someone else might be able to explain it better.

Actually that's pretty wrong...
 
Strangely enough, gravity is the least understood of the forces, especially because it has a reach that makes messenger particles improbable and generates strange paradoxes when coupled to the speed of light. That's why "Unification" generally means: making a model that fits gravity as well as the other three. Although electromagnetic force is peculiar as well.

So, the things that are easiest to observe are the least understood. :D
 
Btw, is anyone interested in my totally speculative theory on gravity? Might be good for a laugh. :D
 
DiGuru said:
Strangely enough, gravity is the least understood of the forces, especially because it has a reach that makes messenger particles improbable
It's reach is no more and no less than the electromagnetic interaction; the exchange boson in that instance is a photon so purely on the basis of range, gravity can still have a messenger.

and generates strange paradoxes when coupled to the speed of light.
/quote]
What paradoxes? What do you mean by "coupled to the speed of light"?
 
Back
Top