antimatter Posted April 27, 2008 Share Posted April 27, 2008 I was recently reading the science-fiction thriller Deep Storm by Lincoln Child, and in the novel there is a massive extra-terrestrial weapons dump in the mo-ho. These weapons, known as Sentinels, are described as being "a small object, no smaller than a domino. It emitted a laserlike beam of light, pencil thin, and intesely white, toward the ceiling. Impossible, the object itself was of no single, definable color, but rather a coruscation, shimmering and rainbow hued: gold and violet and indigo and cinnamon and other colors he had never imagined, all in a constant state of change." As it turns out in the end, the weapon consists of two black holes, in a tiny,tight orbit, one made of matter, the other, antimatter. 1. First, would that be possible? 2. and second, in the book, characters mention 'disarming' the weapon by separating the two black holes. how would that be done? by the way, it was a very entertaining book, for people who're interested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted April 27, 2008 Share Posted April 27, 2008 1/ yes blackholes could orbit closely as long as neither singularity lies within the event horizon of the other. 2/ presumably using similar technology that allows the blackholes to be contained in the first place Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antimatter Posted April 27, 2008 Author Share Posted April 27, 2008 About the first one, if a black hole's gravity is so powerful, woudn't the antigravity destroy the gravity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted April 27, 2008 Share Posted April 27, 2008 where does antigravity come into it? antimatter does not use antigravity btw, it behaves the same as normal matter in that respect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antimatter Posted April 27, 2008 Author Share Posted April 27, 2008 Okay, but then back to the original ideas, how would you get two such black holes two orbit each other? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zephir Posted April 27, 2008 Share Posted April 27, 2008 Tiny cluster (droplet) of neutrons could destroy the Earth as well. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antimatter Posted April 27, 2008 Author Share Posted April 27, 2008 Would you mind explaining the relevance of that post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted April 27, 2008 Share Posted April 27, 2008 Tiny cluster (droplet) of neutrons could destroy the Earth as well. How? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted April 27, 2008 Share Posted April 27, 2008 a droplet size cluster of neutrons would decay pretty rapidly, it would probably be enough to wipe out all living things within a 400-600 m radius. buildings and such wouldn't much care though they would likely be radioactive for some time afterwards. in essence, it would be the perfect neutron bomb. it certainly wouldn't destroy the earth though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antimatter Posted April 27, 2008 Author Share Posted April 27, 2008 How would the decay wipe out living things? Radiation it emits? Sorry, I don't know very much about this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted April 27, 2008 Share Posted April 27, 2008 yep radiation. neutons, mesons, protons, free electrons(beta particles) all moving at huge speeds. actually, considering this is think the radius i posted is a little low. a kilometer at least, 10 at most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antimatter Posted April 27, 2008 Author Share Posted April 27, 2008 So when neutrons decay, they release radiation? I don't understand what that list of particles are, are they the particles that are released? If so, then why is a neutron part of that list? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted April 27, 2008 Share Posted April 27, 2008 well it is doubtful that the droplet will be held together by gravity when it is that small, so neutrons will be flying off and get quite some distance before they decay. enough to for a significant chunk of radiation anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antimatter Posted April 27, 2008 Author Share Posted April 27, 2008 Right, but what was that list? Particles emitted in decay? Or particles THAT decay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted April 27, 2008 Share Posted April 27, 2008 pretty much anything you could expect to detect coming off it. there will probably be a significant amount of gamma rays as well. basically, it would be a nasty thing to put in your pocket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antimatter Posted April 27, 2008 Author Share Posted April 27, 2008 so neutrons emit neutrons in decay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted April 27, 2008 Share Posted April 27, 2008 How many neutrons are we talking about here? My reactor emitted neutrons with no ill effects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted April 27, 2008 Share Posted April 27, 2008 8.4x10^16 x 10-9 = 8.4x10^5 mol of neutrons for a 1mm^3 droplet. all in about a millisecond. thats using the low estimate for the average density of neutron stars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antimatter Posted April 27, 2008 Author Share Posted April 27, 2008 they decay in a millisecond? my god... and you're saying that could kill people between 1-10 km? Why hasn't anyone taken advantage of this as a super-weapon?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted April 27, 2008 Share Posted April 27, 2008 because making a droplet of pure neutrons is incredibly difficult. it is easier and cheaper to build a massive nuke that'll take out over a hundred times that area. the russians did it with the tsar bomba. or saturating the area with chemical/biological weapons or conventional weapons or basically anything we have the technology for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antimatter Posted April 27, 2008 Author Share Posted April 27, 2008 Is it difficult to make these droplets because they decay so quickly? or because it's just physically difficult to get them all together? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted April 27, 2008 Share Posted April 27, 2008 its difficult for a lot of reasons, including those. the only place we've observed more than a few hundred neutrons grouped together(in normal atomic nucleus mixed with protons) is in neutron stars. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antimatter Posted April 27, 2008 Author Share Posted April 27, 2008 its difficult for a lot of reasons, including those. the only place we've observed more than a few hundred neutrons grouped together(in normal atomic nucleus mixed with protons) is in neutron stars. Ah okay, so they're not common at all... How many neutrons are we talking about here? My reactor emitted neutrons with no ill effects. maybe it has something to do with the environment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted April 27, 2008 Share Posted April 27, 2008 As it turns out in the end, the weapon consists of two black holes, in a tiny,tight orbit, one made of matter, the other, antimatter. 1. First, would that be possible? It should be possible to make black holes out or matter, or out of antimatter (if you had enough of it). Black holes can be made to orbit each other, thought they will probably emit gravity waves and have a slowly decaying orbit. It is unlikely that a black hole made of antimatter would annihilate with a black hole made of matter, or that there would even be any difference between the two. In any case, a black hole would be far more dangerous than an explosion against any gravitationally large body (one with enough pressure to push material into the center if it were removed). Likewise, a bit of antimatter would make a devastating bomb without being in a black hole. 2. and second, in the book, characters mention 'disarming' the weapon by separating the two black holes. how would that be done? You could throw anything at one of the black holes to move it by conservation of momentum, or you could throw charged material in and then separate and control it electromagnetically. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted April 27, 2008 Share Posted April 27, 2008 Urmmm you know the decay time for a neutron is about 15mins? And the most probable decay is: n -> p + e + anti-electron-neutrino It's decay energy is about 0.782353 MeV... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now