Reply
Wed 5 Jan, 2005 07:30 am
I read it in a book. It was a novel, not a book on science, so I am wondering if it is fiction or fact. Here goes.
The theory stated in the book was that there is something that is called Z-particles. These are basically pure, non material energy. What they do in the book is that they accellerate these particles to enormous speeds and then make them collide into eachother. The result is the creation of matter and antimatter.
If this is true the implications are vast. If not, well...
Re: Z-particles
Cyracuz wrote:I read it in a book. It was a novel, not a book on science, so I am wondering if it is fiction or fact. Here goes.
The theory stated in the book was that there is something that is called Z-particles. These are basically pure, non material energy. What they do in the book is that they accellerate these particles to enormous speeds and then make them collide into eachother. The result is the creation of matter and antimatter.
If this is true the implications are vast. If not, well...
There is a Z Particle in science, it carries the weak force. But I don't know if it is used in super colliders or not. I think colliders use particles which have magnetic charge so that they can accelerate them with the magnets in the collider tunnel. This probably means they are using protons and anti-protons rather than Z Particles (I'm not sure if a Z Particle has a charge or not).
Can this Z-particle potentially create matter? That was the statement in the book. Further, it was stated that if this can happen it confirmes the big bang theory, in that matter can be created if there only is an energy source available.
It was this information that made me start the post "new possibillities" here at A2K. Not very accurate of me to rely on uncertain information, but a burnt child learns to handle fire with more caution, so I do not consider it a waste.
Cyracuz wrote:Can this Z-particle potentially create matter? That was the statement in the book. Further, it was stated that if this can happen it confirmes the big bang theory, in that matter can be created if there only is an energy source available.
As far as I know, the Z Particle is just a force carrier, it can't create matter.
Many authors take bits of truth and mix them with speculation (sometimes wild speculation) in order to construct a compelling fundation for their story. Since most people don't know what a Z particle is, but may have heard about it, the story gains a little bit of credibility in what is otherwise a cloud of fiction.
I have noticed this. But I am used to that the author states that it is fiction somewhere along the line in the cases where it is not obvious. But I guess what is obvious is relative. You, for instance, would have seen it as obvious fiction since you have prior knowledge of what is fact.
I thought that super compressed energy leads to the creation of matter and antimatter, and when matter and antimatter collide they revert back into pure energy, and then afterwards new particles form?
reply
i think you're talking about Dan Brown's angels and demons. well, actually, as far as i know, matter cannot be created out of nothing, and theres nothing ,yet, thats composes of pure energy. although science often proves to be more than what humans previously thought of. that at least is holds true for human knowledge, for now.
Yep. Angels and demons. Good book. Do you think this unification that he describes as a result of the discovery of this antimatter (in the reality of the book) is something that can ever come to pass in real life? I don't mean the discovery specifically, but any discovery. Is it possible for science and religion to sit on the same branch?
Of course science and religion can "sit on the same branch." Science merely explains what is and manipulates it to our benefit, or detriment. That doesn't necessarily negate religion.
That is what I was thinking also. There is not nessecarily an inconqerable difference between them. In reality I think that the barrier is between people, and that these people cling to something bigger to validate their viewpoints.
this is probably what you would say a biased view of an atheist. But i think science and religion are just human understanding of the world in different stages. with science being more advanced and religion being more primitive. remember, chrisitianity hasnt changed much of its viewpoint of the world since its birth, but human understanding has, greatly.humans understand the world in a way constrained by what they can see. and in those set pre-conditions, it is right to say for example that force is the reason of motion, rather than the reason of change of motion( Newton's first law of motion). because all objects stops sooner or later in the world. but with technology broadening human vision. religion as a way to explain the world is not keeping pace. the function of religion now is more of morality than anything that science explained and/or trying to. That is how the way i think we should put science and religion in our coordinates.
If you want an overview go here:
http://particleadventure.org/particleadventure/frameless/chart_cutouts/particle_chart.jpg
if you want details visit us here:
http://www.advancedphysics.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=26
Happy to answer all your questions!
Remember energy and matter are merely manifestations of something in a way that our intelligence can understand them.
We theorise today reality may be 11 dimensional and we can only experience 3 of these dimensions and time in a one dimensional sense. Our brains perceptions of reality may only skim the surface of the reality. Mass might just be a standing energy wave and energy might just be a localised wave in an M-theory membrane.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace