Is it possible to completly destroy somthing?

[The Thought]

Is it possible to destroy somthing from the face of exsistance, and if so could it be produced into energy?

[Rocket Man]

if you throw enough antimatter at it...

[YT2095]

what, Like Antimatter anihilation you mean?

[Rocket Man]

of course, he never mentioned anything about the practical side of it.

 

actually, it would be very interesting if it were possible to cause matter to collapse directly into energy.

[YT2095]

I dunno beta(+) does it all the time

[Rocket Man]

enough beta(+) is still capable of something similar to The Thought's avatar. it's not quite enought to cause it to cease to exist, but i doubt you'd be able to use it as evidence in court afterwards.

[YT2095]

IIRC, B+ annihilation results in 1 or 2 Photons as a product (depending on some sort of angular momentum or something).

[Klaynos]

IIRC, B+ annihilation results in 1 or 2 Photons as a product (depending on some sort of angular momentum or something).

 

Normally 2, in opposite directions, to preserve momentum, and for note it's B+ B- annihilation it can't annihilate on it's own

[YT2095]

well B(-) is an electron anyway, and since they`re inescapable, it hardly seemed worth mentioning

[why06]

This all depends on what Thought means by "destroy"

 

1. Break up to the point that no particles of the original existing material could be considered as so.

 

2. Turn all matter of original existing material completely into energy.

 

3. Innahilate to the point that no matter or energy created from or part of the original material is no longer detectable with in the 4-dimensional space-time of our universe.

 

 

...I think that clarifies things a bit.

[Dan]

If you wanted to destroy something send it to a black hole, it will get ripped appart on the way in and then compressed into a singularity when it hits the centre.

[swansont]

IIRC, B+ annihilation results in 1 or 2 Photons as a product (depending on some sort of angular momentum or something).

 

2 or 3. Getting only 1 would violate conservation of linear momentum. You can show it this way: in some reference frame, the center-of-mass of the e+e- is at rest, and you can't conserve momentum with only 1 photon. If you violate it in one reference frame, you violate it in all reference frames.

 

Whether you get 2 or 3 depends on the angular momentum.

[YT2095]

aha, yes, bad memory on my part, Thnx for the correction

[Kojiami]

If you wanted to destroy something send it to a black hole, it will get ripped appart on the way in and then compressed into a singularity when it hits the centre.

 

Yeah, i'm sure that's provable, i assume the event horizon doesn't count for you?

[Dan]

Yeah, i'm sure that's provable, i assume the event horizon doesn't count for you?

 

What? The event horizon isn't anything physical, its just the point where light can't escape the gravity of the singularity, you can pass through it, just not out of it.

[YT2095]

you can pass through it, just not out of it.

isn`t that a little bit contradictory?

[Dan]

isn`t that a little bit contradictory?

 

No, because a black hole has so much gravity at the event horizon that not even light can escape it. Thats why its black, because any light past the event horizon is pulled in.

[YT2095]

exactly so how could you pass THROUGH it?

 

see what I mean now

[Dan]

err... no. There is a point in space where everything goes black, the event horizon. You go from outside the event horizon, through it, and into the blackness. (obviously i'm being hyperthetical, if you were to go that close to an event horizon you would be ripped appart)

[Rocket Man]

you can "pass through" the event horison if you term it as though it were a boundary.

the thing is, it's not a boundary. it's a point on the gravity gradient where by light is doppler shifted to zero in an attempt to escape.

matter can pass this boundary without being torn to shreds if it's small enough and has enough tensile strength.

[mamakosj]

matter can pass this boundary without being torn to shreds if it's small enough and has enough tensile strength.

 

does anything have enough tensile strength?

[Rocket Man]

does anything have enough tensile strength?

 

probably not.

a quark perhaps?

it has the advantage of existing over a very small portion of the force gradient.

[dstebbins]

probably not.

a quark perhaps?

it has the advantage of existing over a very small portion of the force gradient.

 

Okay, would you care to explain your mathematical logic here? In order for an object to escape the event horizon of a black hole, it has to move faster than the speed of light, which, according to Einstein, is impossible, and has yet to be disproven. We've detected high-velocity particles at damn-near the speed of light, but not equivalent to it, and certainly not greater than it. Therefore, your theory that an object with enough kinetic energy can escape the event horizon of a black hole is not only practically impossible, but theoretically impossible as well, since theoretical physics dictates that it is impossible to go faster than light.

[John Cuthber]

"you can pass through it, just not out of it.

 

isn`t that a little bit contradictory?"

No, it just means it's a one way ticket.

For a large (massive) enough black hole the event horizon is very large, so the gravitational field just outside it is nearly the same as just inside it. With only this small change in field strength there is nothing to pull you apart. It would be perfectly possible to go through the event horizon unscathed and without noticing.

Later on, when you got nearer to the singularity, the gravitational field at your feet would be much bigger than that at your head and you'd be in trouble. The process is known coloquially as spaghettification.

[jackson33]

Is it possible to destroy something from the face of existence, and if so could it be produced into energy?

 

regardless of what is found to be the smallest portion of what makes up matter, the total number or that of all mass in the universe will be the same 10 billion years ago to now and in ten billion years.

 

you can easily change the nature of matter and you can create energy from matter. in the burning of an object, the energy carries no mass with it as the object changes to gas, ash or some other substance.

 

our sun, where the largest such conversion can be observed, emits large quantities of energy, loses no mass from this process and the changed matter is absorbed by the cooler crust or thrown out into space as dust or matter. like wise the earths largest supplier of energy, this sun, adds no new mass and all effects of this energy are in the a process to change some elements already on earth.

 

even when our solar system completes life or for that matter any system, everything would be found elsewhere at some time in another form.

 

way i read it...