Pathetic life of Software Engineer

[Bazzy]

The LHC is not a nuclear fusion power plant...
And we've built all possible elements, the atom can't have more than 7 orbitals

[m4ster r0shi]

And we've built all possible elements, the atom can't have more than 7 orbitals

I think it can, it's just very unstable, you would have to continuously spend energy to sustain it. But anyway I wasn't referring to new elements, just break a big one we don't want and use this energy to make smaller ones that we want and vice versa...

[Bazzy]

I think it can, it's just very unstable

No, it can't. I studied this few years ago

just break a big one we don't want and make smaller ones that we want

That's called nuclear fission and it's already used by normal nuclear plants

and vice versa...

That's nuclear fusion, there are some plants using that but the energy to start fusion is more than the energy produced

[chrisname]

The LHC is not a nuclear fusion power plant...

No; but we were talking hypothetically if we had a machine capable of causing nuclear fusion (I said supercollider by accident, though).

the atom can't have more than 7 orbitals

Why not?

[Albatross]

@m4ster r0shi: My bad. I know how a cyclic accelerator designed to collide particles works, just a small typo.

However...

Conversely, as the distance between quarks increases, the binding force strengthens.

Source: Wikipedia.

That would be why quarks would merge back together. And I think we'd want them to do that. We don't want an excess of hadrons in our universe, do we?

-Albatross

[Bazzy]

if we had a machine capable of causing nuclear fusion

We already have nuclear fusion plants

the atom can't have more than 7 orbitals

Why not?

It's a matter of energy levels. I can't find my notebook where I wrote that but my professor explained that quite clearly

[Albatross]

We already have nuclear fusion plants

Agreed. They just suck. We're still working on getting one to produce more energy then we use to start it. Something tells me it's going to take a while.

-Albatross

[m4ster r0shi]

Albatross wrote:

Conversely, as the distance between quarks increases, the binding force strengthens.

We don't break up quarks hadrons :P Hadrons are particles made up from quarks (e.g. neutrons and protons are hadrons). What we do is separate the hadrons of an atom core from each other.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadron

[Albatross]

@m4ster r0shi
Blasted English language. I meant the binding force between the quarks. Or did I misread the article? I don't think so... but...

Nope. No really consequential errors.

-Albatross

[m4ster r0shi]

@Albatross
Ok, don't worry, I'm not gonna eat you :P

EDIT: Actually it's my fault. We do break up hadrons...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider

But still... There is no energy requirement to put the quarks back to make a hadron, since as you said:

Conversely, as the distance between quarks increases, the binding force strengthens.

Thus, forming a hadron out of scattered quarks would be a spontaneous process...

And I'm fine with having an excess of hadrons in the universe :D

[m4ster r0shi]

I'd like to discuss a bit more the subject of earth being hollowed... I'll post an excerpt of a book I read recently and I'd like some opinions. If you're interested in the book pm me and I'll e-mail it to you. I won't say more coz I don't wanna be accused of converting or anything... :P

...
You know, master, everyone wishes to know what
the truth is. But if there is the truth, what is everything other
than that when it also has a reality in consciousness?
Do you know what the truth is? That there is none. There
being none means that everything is.
...

...
Truth is only what an individual perceives truth to be. Truth
is an opinion, an attitude, a belief about something that has
become an absolute in creative thought. Yet everyone's opinion
about anyone thing will differ, often vastly, for each has
formulated that opinion based on his unique experiences and the
understanding or misunderstanding that he has gained in his soul,
not only from this life but from all lives lived before this one. So
one entity will believe something to be true and another may not.
The two cannot comprehend one another because they have not
been one another and had the same collective experiences.
Whose truth is correct? Both are. They are both truthfully
right, for each is expressing the truth which his experience and
understanding have allowed him to perceive. But if one's truth is
that his truth is the only one that is correct, he is limited in his
understanding.
...

...
There are great teachers on your plane, master, and they are
magicians of sorts, for they can do and manifest wondrous and
miraculous things. But they still believe in death, and thus they
will die. Even though they have progressed greatly in their learning,
they have not yet taken their understanding beyond the limitations
of death and dying to the understanding that life is really a
continuum in being. So if you were to accept their truths as the
truth, you too might become a magician, but you will also die.
You see?
...

...
Student: But, ******, how can you feel that something is
true if it is not supported by facts, or if it is perhaps contrary to
what science has discovered to be true?[...]
******: Whatever you choose to believe, master, so it will be.[...]
Student: But, ******, I don't understand how that could
be. For example, in times when most people believed the Earth
was flat, if half of the sailors on a boat thought that the Earth
was round and half thought that it was flat and they sailed off to
sea, what happened to the boat?
******: Those who thought it was flat, master, flung
themselves overboard. Heaven forbid they should be proven
wrong. The ones who thought it was round continued the journey.
You see? Those who believed firmly that the world was flat never
ventured to the edge to find out differently, for they were sure it
was flat. Those who believed it was round sailed around and
around and around. And they were convinced that it was round.
But they did not know that it is not round. It is rather squashed.
It is bursting at its seams, flat-headed and flat-bottomed, and it is
hollow. But those who firmly believe it is solid will never know
otherwise, for they will never contemplate going inward to find
out differently. That is because they are of a limited understanding,
which nonetheless is still true.
...

...
Be unlimited in your truth, master. Know that your world
is round. But if you wish to be even more unlimited in your truth,
know that it is flattened on its top and bottom. And to be even
more unlimited, know that it is hollowed. And to be even more
unlimited than that, entity, know that the center of your Earth is
very much inhabited. But try to tell your scientists that.
...

[imi]

Quark is yummy. I love it with potatoes and onions. And Leberwurst. Mmmh.. yum.

Ciao, Imi.

[imi]

Do you know what the truth is? That there is none. There
being none means that everything is.
...
Those who believed firmly that the world was flat never
ventured to the edge to find out differently, for they were sure it
was flat.

Well he is not talking about the same "scientific truth" definition I was talking about. I think what he meant is, that people shouldn't just stop asking because they are moderate convinced about something.

It is bursting at its seams, flat-headed and flat-bottomed, and it is
hollow. But those who firmly believe it is solid will never know
otherwise, for they will never contemplate going inward to find
out differently. That is because they are of a limited understanding,
which nonetheless is still true.

Compare this to the statement above. He doesn't really say that the world is hollow. He says that for people who never asked "May the world be hollow or solid?" - for these people, the world is indeed solid (probably because it's the more appealing thought).

You could also turn it around and say, that for people who believe the earth is hollow by default but never "look" or ask "why should it?" - for those the earth will always be hollow without any gain in knowledge.


Nevertheless, the phrase "for they will never contemplate going inward to find out differently" shouldn't be taken too literally. You don't have to "go inward" to find something out. I think what he meant is you should not accept the fact without questioning but should just "find out" by whatever means. (At least that is what I feel as real message when reading the prosa.)

And that has been done. Scientists measured seismic activities and gravity models (and probably a lot more things involving big magnets and stuff) and they concluded: The earth is indeed solid. That's another way of "going there and look".

(Maybe an even better way - I trust those crude sensors for a narrow electromagnetic spectrum we call "eyes" much less than most modern computer sensors. The latter are just of better quality.)

Ciao, Imi.
PS: Is it from Jules Verne? If so, I really have to finally read him. ;). Edit: Ah, nevermind. I found the book. Seems like it's not prosa but he meant it literally :-O. Well.. I think he should change business and start to write romans then.

[Albatross]

Spontaneous does not mean that it consumes no energy, r0shi.

-Albatross

[m4ster r0shi]

Albatross wrote:

Spontaneous does not mean that it consumes no energy, r0shi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_process

[Albatross]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_process

Yep. That looks about right. Did you notice the entropy symbol there?

http://www.chem.umn.edu/outreach/endoexo.html
2nd paragraph.

-Albatross

[m4ster r0shi]

Yeah, I know this stuff. I don't recall saying otherwise. Perhaps you misunderstood that statement:

There is no energy requirement to put the quarks back to make a hadron, since as you said:
Conversely, as the distance between quarks increases, the binding force strengthens.
Thus, forming a hadron out of scattered quarks would be a spontaneous process...

Or perhaps I wasn't clear enough... What I meant is this:

Conversely, as the distance between quarks increases, the binding force strengthens.

=>
[(a)There is no energy requirement to put the quarks back to make a hadron,
(b)forming a hadron out of scattered quarks would be a spontaneous process...]

but it's not necessarily (a)=>(b) or (b)=>(a)

[Albatross]

So you're saying that due to the fact that there is a force between the quarks that always* pulls on the quarks -> There is no energy requirement to pull the quarks back to make a hadron ^ forming a hadron out of quarks would be a spontaneous proccess...

I'm sure it's not that simple, and I'm sure some energy is absorbed during hadronization, or (inclusive) there is less energy output than put in. Else SOMEONE would have tried to harness that energy, and I haven't seen any examples of this being done to produce more energy than what went into the collider.

-Albatross

[m4ster r0shi]

I believe that the fact that hadronization is a spontaneous process is proved by the fact that you can't actually see quarks floating around on their own. They are always found as parts of a hadron. End of discussion.

[Bazzy]

Hadron Colliders pull quarks out of Hadrons