Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
The Thought

Is it possible to completly destroy somthing?

Recommended Posts

of course, he never mentioned anything about the practical side of it.

 

actually, it would be very interesting if it were possible to cause matter to collapse directly into energy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

enough beta(+) is still capable of something similar to The Thought's avatar. it's not quite enought to cause it to cease to exist, but i doubt you'd be able to use it as evidence in court afterwards. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC, B+ annihilation results in 1 or 2 Photons as a product (depending on some sort of angular momentum or something).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IIRC, B+ annihilation results in 1 or 2 Photons as a product (depending on some sort of angular momentum or something).

 

Normally 2, in opposite directions, to preserve momentum, and for note it's B+ B- annihilation it can't annihilate on it's own :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well B(-) is an electron anyway, and since they`re inescapable, it hardly seemed worth mentioning :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This all depends on what Thought means by "destroy"

 

1. Break up to the point that no particles of the original existing material could be considered as so.

 

2. Turn all matter of original existing material completely into energy.

 

3. Innahilate to the point that no matter or energy created from or part of the original material is no longer detectable with in the 4-dimensional space-time of our universe.

 

 

...I think that clarifies things a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you wanted to destroy something send it to a black hole, it will get ripped appart on the way in and then compressed into a singularity when it hits the centre.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IIRC, B+ annihilation results in 1 or 2 Photons as a product (depending on some sort of angular momentum or something).

 

2 or 3. Getting only 1 would violate conservation of linear momentum. You can show it this way: in some reference frame, the center-of-mass of the e+e- is at rest, and you can't conserve momentum with only 1 photon. If you violate it in one reference frame, you violate it in all reference frames.

 

Whether you get 2 or 3 depends on the angular momentum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

aha, yes, bad memory on my part, Thnx for the correction :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you wanted to destroy something send it to a black hole, it will get ripped appart on the way in and then compressed into a singularity when it hits the centre.

 

Yeah, i'm sure that's provable, i assume the event horizon doesn't count for you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, i'm sure that's provable, i assume the event horizon doesn't count for you?

 

What? The event horizon isn't anything physical, its just the point where light can't escape the gravity of the singularity, you can pass through it, just not out of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you can pass through it, just not out of it.

isn`t that a little bit contradictory?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
isn`t that a little bit contradictory?

 

No, because a black hole has so much gravity at the event horizon that not even light can escape it. Thats why its black, because any light past the event horizon is pulled in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

exactly so how could you pass THROUGH it?

 

see what I mean now :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

err... no. There is a point in space where everything goes black, the event horizon. You go from outside the event horizon, through it, and into the blackness. (obviously i'm being hyperthetical, if you were to go that close to an event horizon you would be ripped appart)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you can "pass through" the event horison if you term it as though it were a boundary.

the thing is, it's not a boundary. it's a point on the gravity gradient where by light is doppler shifted to zero in an attempt to escape.

matter can pass this boundary without being torn to shreds if it's small enough and has enough tensile strength.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
matter can pass this boundary without being torn to shreds if it's small enough and has enough tensile strength.

 

does anything have enough tensile strength?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
does anything have enough tensile strength?

 

probably not.

a quark perhaps?

it has the advantage of existing over a very small portion of the force gradient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
probably not.

a quark perhaps?

it has the advantage of existing over a very small portion of the force gradient.

 

Okay, would you care to explain your mathematical logic here? In order for an object to escape the event horizon of a black hole, it has to move faster than the speed of light, which, according to Einstein, is impossible, and has yet to be disproven. We've detected high-velocity particles at damn-near the speed of light, but not equivalent to it, and certainly not greater than it. Therefore, your theory that an object with enough kinetic energy can escape the event horizon of a black hole is not only practically impossible, but theoretically impossible as well, since theoretical physics dictates that it is impossible to go faster than light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"you can pass through it, just not out of it.

 

isn`t that a little bit contradictory?"

No, it just means it's a one way ticket.

For a large (massive) enough black hole the event horizon is very large, so the gravitational field just outside it is nearly the same as just inside it. With only this small change in field strength there is nothing to pull you apart. It would be perfectly possible to go through the event horizon unscathed and without noticing.

Later on, when you got nearer to the singularity, the gravitational field at your feet would be much bigger than that at your head and you'd be in trouble. The process is known coloquially as spaghettification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it possible to destroy something from the face of existence, and if so could it be produced into energy?

 

regardless of what is found to be the smallest portion of what makes up matter, the total number or that of all mass in the universe will be the same 10 billion years ago to now and in ten billion years.

 

you can easily change the nature of matter and you can create energy from matter. in the burning of an object, the energy carries no mass with it as the object changes to gas, ash or some other substance.

 

our sun, where the largest such conversion can be observed, emits large quantities of energy, loses no mass from this process and the changed matter is absorbed by the cooler crust or thrown out into space as dust or matter. like wise the earths largest supplier of energy, this sun, adds no new mass and all effects of this energy are in the a process to change some elements already on earth.

 

even when our solar system completes life or for that matter any system, everything would be found elsewhere at some time in another form.

 

way i read it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.