/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #11853800

830KiB, 1104x1018, Higgs.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Any idea how much antimatter would be required for a collision to be visible?

Anonymous Tue 30 Jun 16:54:17 2020 No.11853800 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>11855027 >>11855383 >>11855732

Just enough for a spark or anything observable.
Not sure if this has happened already what with the cost and rarity.
Just if it were to hypothetically happen

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jun 2020 22:49:49 No.11855027 Report

Quoted By:

>>11853800
42

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Jul 2020 01:23:20 No.11855383 Report

Quoted By: >>11855712

>>11853800
No such collision can visible. Too high in energy. Even the lightest particle we can manipulate, an electron, produces gamma rays when annihilated with its antiparticle, a positron.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Jul 2020 03:40:49 No.11855712 Report

Quoted By:

>>11855383
TL;Dr if you watch it you will get turbo cancer

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Jul 2020 03:51:39 No.11855732 Report

Quoted By: >>11855788

>>11853800
humans are capable of seeing individual photons.
annihilation of an electron and positron produces two photons. theoretically, this would be visible.
however, at the lowest possible annihilation energy (electron and positron at rest), the photons emitted would have an energy ~.511MeV, as this is the rest mass of the electron. This corresponds to a wavelength of .002nm, which is orders of magnitude higher energy than visible light.

If we wanted something with less energy, the only candidate (that we know of) is a neutrino-antineutrino annihilation. However, neutrinos don't interact via the EM force, so they don't produce photons.
Just for fun, if they did produce photons, and using the absolute upper bound on the electron neutrino mass (1eV, still not known), the photon wavelength would be ~2500nm, which is too low energy to be visible.
Thus, assuming neutrinos produced photons upon annihilation (which they don't), they could theoretically be seen if we had neutrinos with extra kinetic energy.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Jul 2020 04:20:31 No.11855788 Report

Quoted By: >>11855801

>>11855732
>humans are capable of seeing individual photons.
... What?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Jul 2020 04:24:48 No.11855801 Report

Quoted By: >>11855807

>>11855788
https://www.nature.com/news/people-can-sense-single-photons-1.20282

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Jul 2020 04:29:55 No.11855807 Report

Quoted By: >>11855821 >>11856073 >>11856076

>>11855801
>three individuals tested
>no information on the control methods
>almost certainly complete bullshit
This is the worst "study" I have ever read. Are you retarded?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Jul 2020 04:37:16 No.11855821 Report

Quoted By:

>>11855807
I was just going off of seeing this article many years ago.
It looks like the consensus is "unknown" and according to this site it's more like 5-9 photons: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/see_a_photon.html

so, that would mean 3 near-simultaneous decays with photons emitted collinearly would be required. that's not the point I was trying to address in my initial post, but thanks for making me revisit this

I assume your comment on control methods would be addressed in the actual paper, I just linked the nature news article though

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Jul 2020 06:46:16 No.11856073 Report

Quoted By:

>>11855807
It's still a surprisingly small number of photons and you gotta admit that's pretty cool.

Also, if it were exactly 1 photon, I feel like that could maybe risk false positives, if for some reason there's ever a misfire. Requiring multiple semi-independent parts to all flag "photon detected" at the same time might help build your priors.

It could be possible for a single sub-network or neuron or whatever to malfunction in some way, but unlikely 5+ all would at the same time, maybe.

Almost analogous to building multiple gravitational wave observatories. If they all simultaneously measure the very tiny amount of vibration, the redundancy can dramatically increase confidence that it isn't a false positive.

Any possible legitimacy to this? I don't know much about biology or evolution or whatever.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Jul 2020 06:47:44 No.11856076 Report

Quoted By: >>11856078

>>11855807
It's still a surprisingly small number of photons and you gotta admit that's pretty cool.

Also, if it were exactly 1 photon, I feel like that could maybe risk false positives, if for some reason there's ever a misfire. Requiring multiple semi-independent parts to all flag "photon detected" at the same time might help build your priors.

It could be possible for a single receptor or neuron or sub-network or whatever to malfunction in some way, but unlikely 5+ all would at the same time, maybe.

Almost analogous to building multiple gravitational wave observatories. If they all simultaneously measure the very tiny amount of vibration, the redundancy can dramatically increase confidence that it isn't a false positive.

Any possible legitimacy to this? I don't know much about biology or evolution or whatever.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Jul 2020 06:53:57 No.11856078 Report

Quoted By:

>>11856076
Also I guess what I'm positing here is that the eyes and brain possibly *could* detect a single photon, but since it may be unlikely that multiple photons would all activate the exact same arbitrary sub-unit of the perception system at the same time, there could be the ability to somewhat distribute detection, in which case redundancy might get selected for.

I'm not sure how likely it is that multiple photons would be perceived without even the tiniest difference between which parts of the brain picked up on which photon. Since you'd almost always see way more than just a few photons at a time, this works really well in practice. If it were a single photon/single signal requirement, you might possibly perceive weird visual irregularities occasionally, or often.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches