coke

As for the actual containment, I don't think that the magnets will have any problem keeping the positrons in check. Positrons aren't even that attracted to matter- they are attracted to the electrons in matter, and thus may be attracted to some paramagnetic materials. But they repel protons, so in non-magnetic materials, they should have no attraction or repulsion (although if they get close enough to it, they would annhilate the electrons). So, even a weak magnetic field (a weak repulsion) should be able to keep them from coming too close. I wonder what kind of an effect electrons have on matter... simply static electricity?

Just so there aren't any loose ends... Here's a drawing wth both the positrons and electrons. I've never handled antimatter before, but I can't see why this containment system wouldn't work... Of course it needs to be made very rigid, the repulsive force of the magnets themselves is incredible. Use a titan laser to generate electrons and positrons from photons (light)... Use a cyclotron and a penning trap to contain the positrons and electrons, Add permanent magnets on top of the electromagnets. Remove the penning trap, which is now unnecessary. Everything in a vaccum of course. Voila! The highest energy density in the world besides energy itself! It will need some more thought as to how to make it into batteries... But to make a bomb out of it, simply tape a stick of dynamite to it and Of course first the laser would have to use up at least that much energy, but still...

Negatrons? don't you mean electrons? They could, and they do! For one thing, the laser method above produces one electron for each positron! It's a pair production! And if you can contain positrons the way above, you can definitely do the same for electrons! Just put the magnets backwards!

Actually, I've found they recently discovered an insanely efficient way of making positrons... it works on pair production. Fire a high power laser (with sufficient energy photons) at a sheet of gold, and make a lot of positrons...see here "The California researchers estimate that with every shot of their laser, which fires every 30 minutes, they create about 10 billion positrons, also called anti-electrons." Then use an electromagnetic field to contain them. I don't think the gold even gets ruined by this... I think I have found a way to contain positrons after making them, see picture. No complicated penning trap electromagnets required. This could be used for anything, batteries, bombs, etc. Oh, and reverse those magnets' polarities and you can store electrons also... Anyone know why this wouldn't work? I don't...

wow. I just noticed something... You know what a PET scan is? It's done on people here in U.S., it's positron emission tomography- they inject a compound (i.e. fludeoxyglucose) which has an unstable isotope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorine-18) that emits a positron (with half-life 110 minutes). That small amount of positrons reacts with the matter in the body to produce a small amount of gamma rays. The gamma rays are tracked by a sensor... Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Actually, I've found they recently discovered an insanely efficient way of making positrons... it works on pair production fire a high power laser (with sufficient energy photons) at a sheet of gold, and make a lot of positrons...see here "The California researchers estimate that with every shot of their laser, which fires every 30 minutes, they create about 10 billion positrons, also called anti-electrons." Then use an electromagnetic field to contain them. I'm going to take this off-topic in another thread.

you can make positron + electron from gamma rays! or can you? it also draws some nucleus, i wonder if it gets changed by the reaction... check out this page... but apparently it has nothing to do with electromagnetic field...rather just 1.02 MeV high energy photons, like swanston said although i suppose you can use a field to keep electrons and positrons apart afterwards... actually it seems like a very good way to generate positrons, and for that case, antimatter... the titan laser creates huge amounts of antimatter from sheets of gold (see here)

This can kind of be done by using a convex lens in front of a small light bulb or as moth said, a parabolic reflector behind it... Place a square cut-out past the lens or on the other side than the reflector, and move the lens or reflector forward and back until you get a square beam of light that keeps from diffracting. I would think theater lights are parabolic reflectors (because they would require some rather heavy lenses otherwise), they should work... if not a uniform beam, it still probably doesn't diffract too much.

ah, i knew those natural logs would get me alright point taken.... or is it? in case anyone still feels like arguing on my behalf, [math] \frac{\ln 5}{\ln x} [/math] is undefined at x = 0, right? since [math]\ln 0[/math] is undefined... which is where the indeterminate comes from, not from the [math]0^0[/math]... right? it's like saying [math] \lim_{x\to 0}\; x^{0/x} \; = \; a [/math] where a can be multiple constants apparently because 0/0 can be any constant...its indeterminate (any number times 0 is 0) but than you're only taking the case where 0/0 is 0 since you want it to be [math]0^0[/math] so you're attemting to take the indeterminacy and paste it onto [math]0^0[/math], no? in that case you might as well say [math] \lim_{x\to 0}\; \frac{0x^{x}}{0} \; = \; a [/math] because similarly first you're assuming that 0/0 is equal to 1, so that it equates to [math]0^0[/math] and then pretending like you didn't assume that, so that instead of eqauating to just [math]0^0[/math], it equates to [math]a0^0[/math] which can be 1,2,3,4,89,359436,etc. but if you use this method, then every limit is indeterminate!

name one example of a limit where its not 0 or 1? despite substitution granting [math]0^0[/math]? see, bigmoosie agrees... any counterexample? (idk if DH already has one in there, in that case a simpler counterexample?)

lol, yeah i realized that that's what I meant in the last line of the post: ok, maybe i should have skipped out on the calculator reference altogether... However even though [math]0^0[/math] is indeterminate, the limits to it don't have to be: namely [math] \lim_{x\to 0}\; x^{0} \; = \; 1 [/math] [math] \lim_{x\to 0}\; 0^{x} \; = \; 0 [/math] And for some reason, [math] \lim_{x\to 0}\; x^{x} \; = \; 1 [/math] And in those cases I think it is better to put "0" or "1" rather than "indeterminate" or "no solution".

great, thanks! So with little dust it will shine powerfully enough... now I wonder, if I were to focus a powerful laser onto one point, could I get a brightly shining point? Without the laser's beam being too visible? What's IRC?

[math] \lim_{x\to 0}\; x^{\sin x} \; = \; 1 [/math] it's obvious why it works in this case, because its a simple substitution (ok maybe I should have simply called it substitution from the beginning instead of making limits out of it) Yeah but in many cases I think we can assume its 1. In school I put 0^0 in my calculator (nspire) it said its equal to 1. In my friend's calculator (ti-89) it said error... Although, I can think of one problem where it's equal to 0: [math] \lim_{x\to 0}\; 0^{x} \; = \; 0 [/math] Because the 0 is fixed, whereas x is simply aprroaching 0, it has an advantage in the [math]0^0[/math] battle... Graphing confirms this (even on the same calculator that said 0^0 = 1) Of course, at this point this type of thinking is prob. above the calculator's programming

yeah, didn't realize., you're right on that one yes, my approach fails some questions, but not in others... Same as [math]\lim_{x\to 0}\; x+2 = 2[/math] because you can simply substitute But the substituting approach fails in this one [math]\lim_{x\to \infty}\; \frac{x+3}{x+2} = 1[/math]

What about something like idk, xenon, so if you focus a lot of ultraviolet lasers or something it will re emit in normal visible light?

This reminds me of another question... say you're going at the speed of light- how long does it take to get to the sun? 8 minutes? So you would age 8 minutes? Or would it take 0 minutes? But if it would take 8 minutes, why is light necesarily the fastest thing in the universe? What if something could do it in 7 minutes?

I've got an idea! We can get cars to run on methane. Their exhaust will have water and carbon dioxide Then we put these nanotubes in their exhaust pipes And we connect the exhaust pipes back to the fuel intake! Yay! No fuel required! That is what these nanotubes can do, right? Oh wait... it has to be powered by sunlight...so basically such a configuration would be just a solar cell...

We all know [math] \lim_{x\to 0}\; sin x \; = \; 0 [/math] The real question is what is [math] \lim_{x\to 0}\; x^{0} \; [/math] ? So, what is [math]0^{ 0}[/math]? On one hand, 0 to any power equals 0... On the other hand, any number to power of 0 equals 1... If you can prove that its equal to 1, you can put it all together to get [math] \lim_{x\to 0}\; x^{\sin x} \; = \; 1 [/math] We all know it is equal to 1 in that little question, nobody knows why... but the limit from each side is the same, there's no need for [math]0^{+}[/math] and [math]0^{-}[/math] Oh sorry, DrP has already explained pretty much all this in one line

right, thanks... When I wrote that, I thought there were only two forces- electromagnetic and gravity. But of course there are two more- strong force, and another one, weak force or something?

Oh i guess the brain is capable of adding new cells... Well at least iNow agrees with this plasticity idea. Oh, and also, somewhere above I mentioned acetylcholine, there are also a couple other chemicals involved in neural connections: GABA, NMDA, glycine, glutamate...

Yeah, I like that one! That's exactly the kind of answer I was looking for. (not sarcastically) Seriously I think that's the perfect answer to this thread.

ok iNow, but aren't your ideas speculations also? They may be more heard of, but as long as we're speculating, I don't see why that and my first idea are so horrible... don't bother responding, this is my last post here. Btw, I pull these ideas out of my mind.

Well I think thinking would be more strengthening existing connections, learning might be more creating new ones... Although I don't want to promote that idea too far, that's just a theory...

Yeah, that's why I took it out later... Well for example, there would be no more attention on sports and male stuff, and say houses will all be painted pink and it won't be a "man's world" anymore. That episode is obviously meant as a joke, but it does prove this idea... at first the women are happy that their husbands are acting more feminine, but then even they want them to act more manly.

Quick question, really no reason to go any further than this... Does air reflect light? i.e. if you shine a very strong beam of light through normal air (with absolutely no dust) will you see a faint beam of light? Or if you use a lens to focus that beam of light onto a single point, will you see a bright point? Oh and if it absorbs and re-emits the light, thats just as good... I need it for my hologram design!

Of course cameron... the more you use your brain, the more neurons develop (not so much new neurons as new connections between existing neurons)... For example, if you learn how to skateboard, lots of new neuron connections between balance, perception, etc. form- after many experiences, you start to get a feel for it, You know how they say- "once you learn to ride a bike, you never forget" Actually connections that are not used do get get deleted after some time...you may loose the feel for riding a bike or skateboard... You know what happens when people dream? These connections are used and new ones are formed to let your brain remember new things you had learned. (Maybe, not sure)