Googol Chrome

[pancakemix]

What if you had 10^100 units of chrome? and what would you do with it?

[Nickbaldwin]

i would use google to see if anyone else had as much.

[The1exile]

define "units".

[pancakemix]

define "units".

A physical amount. Let's just say a kilogram=1 unit.

[The1exile]

I'd leave it there on account of it being freakin' heavy.

[MeDeFe]

define "units".

I guess he's talking about atomic mass units.

[The1exile]

define "units".

I guess he's talking about atomic mass units.

well, I would have thought so, but seeing as he isn't, who's the silly boy now eh?

[MeDeFe]

define "units".

I guess he's talking about atomic mass units.

well, I would have thought so, but seeing as he isn't, who's the silly boy now eh?

pancake for being unintentionally ambiguous in his first post?

[Iliad]

I'll try to get a googleplex chromes. Cause googleplex is a cool word

[Nikolai]

Um... a googleplex would be 10^Google. Not a real number, albeit a cool one. I believe what you're looking for is a googolplex... being 10^10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000, which is a really cool number... although arguably also not real, since there aren't so many of anything at all, ever. To give you something to compare... the estimated number of subatomic particles in the universe is (I believe) 10^213. Oh, and if you had a googolplex units of chrome, regardless of unit size, I would suggesting finding some antimatter, fast, before the universe is destroyed.

[MeDeFe]

Um... a googleplex would be 10^Google. Not a real number, albeit a cool one. I believe what you're looking for is a googolplex... being 10^10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000, which is a really cool number... although arguably also not real, since there aren't so many of anything at all, ever. To give you something to compare... the estimated number of subatomic particles in the universe is (I believe) 10^213. Oh, and if you had a googolplex units of chrome, regardless of unit size, I would suggesting finding some antimatter, fast, before the universe is destroyed.

Wouldn't the resulting explosion of the chrome and the antimatter also destroy the universe?

[Nikolai]

Wouldn't the resulting explosion of the chrome and the antimatter also destroy the universe?

Science fiction nonsense! There's no reason to assume that antimatter and matter would react in an explosive manner, particularly given E=mc^2.

(Of course, there's no reason to assume that they wouldn't, either... we really have no clue, since antimatter is a speculative thing at best. So... maybe.)

((Of course, since speculation states that the universe started with an explosion, it would be just as reasonable to speculate that the resulting speculative explosion would start entire new universes! Probably speculative in nature...))

[MeDeFe]

Wouldn't the resulting explosion of the chrome and the antimatter also destroy the universe?

Science fiction nonsense! There's no reason to assume that antimatter and matter would react in an explosive manner, particularly given E=mc^2.

That's exactly why there would be an explosion, a lot of matter goes missing and so an obscenely huge amount of energy is released. Explosion.

[Nikolai]

Wouldn't the resulting explosion of the chrome and the antimatter also destroy the universe?

Science fiction nonsense! There's no reason to assume that antimatter and matter would react in an explosive manner, particularly given E=mc^2.

That's exactly why there would be an explosion, a lot of matter goes missing and so an obscenely huge amount of energy is released. Explosion.

No, the principle of mass-energy equivalence states that all mass has an associated energy. Derived from this is our understanding that matter converts to energy and vice versa. And the conservation laws of mass and energy state that if matter is decreased, energy must have been released. But if matter, rather than being converted to energy, were simply to cease to exist because it was united with antimatter, you have actually destroyed the matter, rather than converting it. We have no idea what would happen, since E=mc^2 doesn't contain any derivatives that would explain what happens when something meets its scientific antithesis, and seems to indicate that if matter is destroyed, energy is likewise destroyed... we just don't know if it's kinetic or potential energy. (That's right... antimatter/matter collision could produce black holes!) We just have it set in our heads that antimatter + matter = BOOM because antimatter engines sound cool on Star Trek, and you need an energy release for engines to work. (And, to be fair, antimatter weapons would be freaking ridiculous... shoot something, and it ceases to exist.)

Beyond that, there's no known scientific support to indicate that there would or would not be an explosion, since antimatter is entirely theoretical, has never been isolated, and no one has ever knowingly witnessed antimatter colliding with matter. Because science is intended to be based on experimentation, replication, and observation, any statements about what happens when antimatter meets matter are entirely speculation. (In much the same way that both the evolution and the intelligent design theories are entirely speculation, only more so, since we know the world started somehow, but we don't know that antimatter exists.)

[jiminski]

No, the principle of mass-energy equivalence states that all mass has an associated energy. Derived from this is our understanding that matter converts to energy and vice versa. And the conservation laws of mass and energy state that if matter is decreased, energy must have been released. But if matter, rather than being converted to energy, were simply to cease to exist because it was united with antimatter, you have actually destroyed the matter, rather than converting it. We have no idea what would happen, since E=mc^2 doesn't contain any derivatives that would explain what happens when something meets its scientific antithesis, and seems to indicate that if matter is destroyed, energy is likewise destroyed... we just don't know if it's kinetic or potential energy. (That's right... antimatter/matter collision could produce black holes!) We just have it set in our heads that antimatter + matter = BOOM because antimatter engines sound cool on Star Trek, and you need an energy release for engines to work. (And, to be fair, antimatter weapons would be freaking ridiculous... shoot something, and it ceases to exist.)

Beyond that, there's no known scientific support to indicate that there would or would not be an explosion, since antimatter is entirely theoretical, has never been isolated, and no one has ever knowingly witnessed antimatter colliding with matter. Because science is intended to be based on experimentation, replication, and observation, any statements about what happens when antimatter meets matter are entirely speculation. (In much the same way that both the evolution and the intelligent design theories are entirely speculation, only more so, since we know the world started somehow, but we don't know that antimatter exists.)

If something does not matter is it antimatter?

[Matroshka]

No, the principle of mass-energy equivalence states that all mass has an associated energy. Derived from this is our understanding that matter converts to energy and vice versa. And the conservation laws of mass and energy state that if matter is decreased, energy must have been released. But if matter, rather than being converted to energy, were simply to cease to exist because it was united with antimatter, you have actually destroyed the matter, rather than converting it. We have no idea what would happen, since E=mc^2 doesn't contain any derivatives that would explain what happens when something meets its scientific antithesis, and seems to indicate that if matter is destroyed, energy is likewise destroyed... we just don't know if it's kinetic or potential energy. (That's right... antimatter/matter collision could produce black holes!) We just have it set in our heads that antimatter + matter = BOOM because antimatter engines sound cool on Star Trek, and you need an energy release for engines to work. (And, to be fair, antimatter weapons would be freaking ridiculous... shoot something, and it ceases to exist.)

Beyond that, there's no known scientific support to indicate that there would or would not be an explosion, since antimatter is entirely theoretical, has never been isolated, and no one has ever knowingly witnessed antimatter colliding with matter. Because science is intended to be based on experimentation, replication, and observation, any statements about what happens when antimatter meets matter are entirely speculation. (In much the same way that both the evolution and the intelligent design theories are entirely speculation, only more so, since we know the world started somehow, but we don't know that antimatter exists.)

If something does not matter is it antimatter?

If it nots matter it is

[jonesthecurl]

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/a ... 30929.html

[pimpdave]

If something does not matter is it antimatter?

Only if it's not posted in The (not yet) Banned.