Antimater produced by Thunderstorms? NASA says so...

[Starbuck_II]

I don't know if this was reported yet. I saw this on TV tropes, but it surprised me.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/GLAST/news/fermi-thunderstorms.html


Scientists using NASA's Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope have detected beams of antimatter produced above thunderstorms on Earth, a phenomenon never seen before.

[Dr.Epic]

Hmm, pretty interesting.

[Ranger Mattos]

I've heard this before, but wasn't sure it was true. Very interesting.

[Arminius]

That is cool.

[Ravens_cry]

Given the amount of energy released by a bolt of lightening, even if only for a very short time, this does not surprise me.
What did was that unravelling scotch tape can produce x-rays. (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/10/video-the-scotc/)

[Trog]

What did was that unravelling scotch tape can produce x-rays. (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/10/video-the-scotc/)

...

:smalleek:

I now have a new excuse for why I don't enjoy wrapping holiday presents: Too many x-rays. :smalltongue:

[Ranger Mattos]

What did was that unravelling scotch tape can produce x-rays. (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/10/video-the-scotc/)

That's just awesome.

[Ravens_cry]

...

:smalleek:

I now have a new excuse for why I don't enjoy wrapping holiday presents: Too many x-rays. :smalltongue:
Unless you wrap presents in a vacuum, you really have nothing to worry about. And if you do, x-rays are your least concern.:smallbiggrin:

[Trog]

Unless you wrap presents in a vacuum, you really have nothing to worry about. And if you do, x-rays are your least concern.:smallbiggrin:

You wrap present your way and Trog'll wrap presents Trog's way.

*dons space suit, wraps presents using a hot glue gun instead of tape. P=

Attempts to light Coffin Nail. *flickflickflick*

...

Damn you, oxygen.... damn you to hell. :smallannoyed:

[Ravens_cry]

[COLOR="Sienna"]Damn you, oxygen.... damn you to hell. :smallannoyed:
Chemistry wins again!

[Karoht]

It is interesting. The Large Hadron Collider cost how many billion to produce a bit of Antimatter?
And here a bolt of lightning manages it just fine.

It's really cool information that it can be done, but harvesting it is an entire other matter.
Then there is the issue of storing it.
And then there is the issue of using it.

Still very cool though. Go nature!

[JoseB]

It is interesting. The Large Hadron Collider cost how many billion to produce a bit of Antimatter?
And here a bolt of lightning manages it just fine.

It's really cool information that it can be done, but harvesting it is an entire other matter.
Then there is the issue of storing it.
And then there is the issue of using it.

Still very cool though. Go nature!

The purpose of the LHC is not to create minute quantities of antimatter. Its purpose is to create beams of protons and antiprotons, contain them, accelerate them on a humongous ring, and make them collide to see what appears from the energies of the collision.

That is what costs billions.

[Karoht]

The purpose of the LHC is not to create minute quantities of antimatter. Its purpose is to create beams of protons and antiprotons, contain them, accelerate them on a humongous ring, and make them collide to see what appears from the energies of the collision.

That is what costs billions.
It was more of a point of comparison. Object that makes antimatter = billions of dollars and huge amounts of research. Lightning bolt which is a natural phenomenon and occurs something like 50 times per minute every day, and more or less costs nothing.

[H Birchgrove]

It was more of a point of comparison. Object that makes antimatter = billions of dollars and huge amounts of research. Lightning bolt which is a natural phenomenon and occurs something like 50 times per minute every day, and more or less costs nothing.

The same could be said about efforts in solar power vs. photosynthesis or experimental fusion power plants vs. stars. Or the first efforts in heavier-than-air flying machines vs. birds. Also, it's not like it doesn't "cost" anything for nature; photosynthesis is very complex chemistry at work and creating stars demand awesome amounts of matter, power and force (like gravity).

[Karoht]

The same could be said about efforts in solar power vs. photosynthesis or experimental fusion power plants vs. stars. Or the first efforts in heavier-than-air flying machines vs. birds. Also, it's not like it doesn't "cost" anything for nature; photosynthesis is very complex chemistry at work and creating stars demand awesome amounts of matter, power and force (like gravity).
Entirely correct.
It amazes me how complex nature is. IE-X-rays from tape, Antimatter from lightning. I always think of it in complexity and cost because yes, for us to duplicate a naturally occuring process is surprisingly complicated and expensive.
"Cost" is relative, but it's a common denomenator for some people. Thats all.

It's more that I find it neat, not that "OMG Nature is superior lololololol" or anything.

[Tebryn]

The same could be said about efforts in solar power vs. photosynthesis or experimental fusion power plants vs. stars. Or the first efforts in heavier-than-air flying machines vs. birds. Also, it's not like it doesn't "cost" anything for nature; photosynthesis is very complex chemistry at work and creating stars demand awesome amounts of matter, power and force (like gravity).

Just a point but Gravity is actually the weakest force we've found.

[Lateral]

Just a point but Gravity is actually the weakest force we've found.

Yes, but it's the most relevant on a macroscopic scale due to the weak and strong forces both having a short range and electromagnetic polarities being fairly evenly distributed. When you're talking about stars being formed, gravity's the most relevant force.

[Ravens_cry]

It's quite a thing if you think about it.
A mass of gas so, well, massive, that at the core it is undergoing nuclear fusion, preforming what man tried for centuries, if not millennia, through alchemy and failed, turning one element into another.

[Lateral]

It's quite a thing if you think about it.
A mass of gas so, well, massive, that at the core it is undergoing nuclear fusion, preforming what man tried for centuries, if not millennia, through alchemy and failed, turning one element into another.

Don't have to tell me. The sun is thousands of times larger than anything else in the Solar System, hot enough and massive enough that it's capable of nuclear fusion, the driving factor in every process originating above the earth's crust, and it's only an average-sized main-sequence yellow dwarf star.

[Ravens_cry]

Don't have to tell me. The sun is thousands of times larger than anything else in the Solar System, hot enough and massive enough that it's capable of nuclear fusion, the driving factor in every process originating above the earth's crust, and it's only an average-sized main-sequence yellow dwarf star.
The universe is wonderful, simply chock full of wonders.:smallsmile:

[Lateral]

The universe is wonderful, simply chock full of wonders.:smallsmile:

Yeah. It's a real shame I'm all hung up on the 'why' part. :smalltongue:

[Ravens_cry]

That is a question for another board as it almost invariably leads to discussions on verboten topics.
All I know is the universe is full of beauty and I am honoured to live in a time when we are beginning to see it.

[Lateral]

That is a question for another board as it almost invariably leads to discussions on verboten topics.
All I know is the universe is full of beauty and I am honoured to live in a time when we are beginning to see it.

That's not what I meant. (STEERING DIRECTLY AWAY FROM THAT TOPIC.) I suppose 'how' would have been a more appropriate word. I meant in a physics way, not a metaphysics way.

[Ravens_cry]

That's not what I meant. (STEERING DIRECTLY AWAY FROM THAT TOPIC.) I suppose 'how' would have been a more appropriate word. I meant in a physics way, not a metaphysics way.
Ah, well, 'how' is a very different question than 'why'. 'Why' is often unanswerable while why we can hypothesize, test, model, observe, and experiment on 'how'.

[Erloas]

It was more of a point of comparison. Object that makes antimatter = billions of dollars and huge amounts of research. Lightning bolt which is a natural phenomenon and occurs something like 50 times per minute every day, and more or less costs nothing.

But the whole point of the man made stuff is to figure out what nature is doing. If nature wasn't somehow creating antimatter on its own there wouldn't be any and we would have no way of even knowing to try and find it.
Man made lightning is relatively easy, but not really all that cheap.

[Lateral]

Ah, well, 'how' is a very different question than 'why'. 'Why' is often unanswerable while why we can hypothesize, test, model, observe, and experiment on 'how'.

It'd really be more accurate to say that 'why' is always unanswerable, because answers to 'why' can always be contested with another 'why.'

[Ravens_cry]

It'd really be more accurate to say that 'why' is always unanswerable, because answers to 'why' can always be contested with another 'why.'
As anyone who as ever talked for any length of time to a child knows indubitably.:smalltongue:

[H Birchgrove]

Entirely correct.
It amazes me how complex nature is. IE-X-rays from tape, Antimatter from lightning. I always think of it in complexity and cost because yes, for us to duplicate a naturally occuring process is surprisingly complicated and expensive.
"Cost" is relative, but it's a common denomenator for some people. Thats all.

It's more that I find it neat, not that "OMG Nature is superior lololololol" or anything.

Fair enough, I see now what you're getting at. :smallsmile:


Just a point but Gravity is actually the weakest force we've found.


Yes, but it's the most relevant on a macroscopic scale due to the weak and strong forces both having a short range and electromagnetic polarities being fairly evenly distributed. When you're talking about stars being formed, gravity's the most relevant force.

What Lateral said. Also I didn't say that gravity was "strong"; I said/meant that nature *required* "awesome amounts" of it when creating stars. 1)

... and now I start to think about neutron stars and black holes... :smalleek:

1) "Creating" may be a poor choice of word; I'm not trying to imply that teleology is at work.

[Sipex]

The sun is one of those weird things that if it didn't already exist we'd all (besides being dead) refute it's ability to exist at all.

"What, so you're saying simply by getting HUGE, UNIMAGINABLE quantities of X gases together and press them together that we'll get a gigantic ball of fire which can last billions of years? Please."