Riogho

It would be disgustingly hard to get a high enough concentration of cosmic rays, and when your anti particle was made, it would immediatly annihilate by the surrounding matter... What are you saying we could make this in, because I'm not seeing any machine that could take cosmic rays and shoot em in a vacuum AND have it create enough energy on impact with something to make matter and antimatter >.< But my engineering is pretty bad. It definitely wouldn't even be a 1:1 ratio of the energy needed to run the damn thing

By Vacuum force are you talking the Casimir affect?

Ah, big lingo for a known concept. Got ya.

I GOT ALL THREE OF THE FEYNMAN LECTURES IN HARDBACK LIMITED EDITION SET *dies inside*

The energy given off by a p-bar proton collision is huge. Especially at the velocity it would be traveling to have to escape the magnetic tensor field. I dunno the exacts though.

How would cosmic rays create antiparticles? And the electric bill to run all those magnet tensors is HUGE.

Do you have any idea how much ammonium nitrate that would take? 1kg of NH4NO3 will dissolve in about 1 liter of water... it will take about 28kj of heat from it's surroundings.

Until the bill for powering the magnets gets way too high

It'd cause a very pretty and very expensive hole in the side of our tank.

The way we hold our anti-matter at Fermilab is after the anti-matter is created it we separate it with a strong magnetic field that then 'pushes' it into a large tank where a strong magnetic field all around it keeps it in the middle of the best vacuum money can buy until we need it for something. Like colliding with some protons.

If we could somehow make the stream of photons converge after say, a meter, and hit each other that they undergo pair production at an increased rate you'd have your lightsaber and a stun-stick all in one!

Then it definitely wouldn't be a singularity. Which is what it is.

Einstein said that?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not offended, I was just wondering what you meant by that. My bad.

I've never heard that one. I know it is much smaller then an atom however, and it is supposed to be only a point.

By quoting someone and then correcting them? I wouldn't correct someone unless I was sure, or just being an ass.

Yep, thats what they do at Fermilab too. And I thought I was right, this poor mate just seemed so sure of himself, I couldn't pass it up.

So, I've received some Rep point from someone claiming they love me... ?

Okay, I know there is observational evidence for spinning black holes, so therefore I must be confused about something, and I want you to tell me what. If you have a star that is spinning, therefore it has orbital angular momentum (mass revolving around a point), then as it is collapsing in a black hole, it shoots out particles that probably take some of that with it, but not all, and because angular momentum is conserved the black hole will spin. However, it is my understanding that the actually 'massy' part of the black hole is a simple point structure with a large mass and density with (almost?) infinite curvature. But if it is a point, there is no mass to revolve around this point therefore no more orbital angular momentum. I've probably screwed up already, but my idea is that like an electron (which is a point particle that has angular momentum) instead of having orbital angular momentum it is transformed into spin angular momentum, (where it acts as if it is 'spinning' though it does not) this would seem to explain it away. Correct? No? Thanks for the help.

Well, for one, we are watching it move faster then c, a LOT faster, and ACCELERATING. And, nothing with MASS can exceed c. Besides, Einsteins mass-energy equation breaks down near lightspeed anyway.

Back up there, they use the deaccelerators to MAKE them, or to slow them down. You're contradicting yourself here.

Except that it's unstable.

Could you explain that more, I'd really like to know what you mean by coherence of light being conserved.

We have experimental evidence of Time Dilation.

Odd that it isn't all just clumped together in one place.