h a l f b a k e r yFree set of rusty screwdrivers if you order now.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Antihelium was recently produced on earth for the first
time. Just like the bronze and stone ages, we could
distinguish modern time scales by order of heaviest
antiparticle production.
From the article:
"The most common antiparticles are generally the least
massive, because it takes less
energy to create them.
Carl
Anderson was the first to find an antiparticle, the
antielectron (positron), in cosmic ray debris 1932. The
antiproton (the nucleus of antihydrogen) and the
antineutron were created at Berkeley Lab's Bevatron in
the
1950s. Antideuteron nuclei ("anti-heavy-hydrogen,"
made
of an antiproton and an antineutron) were created in
accelerators at Brookhaven and CERN in the 1960s."
------> Back to [daseva rambling at you]: The reason why
I would like to do this is because it takes
successively more energy and sophistication to reach
higher baryon numbers in the antinuclei. Therefore, it's
a
"natural" logarithm to help linearize the apparently ever
increasing pace of technology. The energy relationship is
also described in the article here:
"Each extra nucleon (called a baryon) increases the
particle's baryon number, and in the STAR collisions
every
increase in baryon number decreases the rate of yield
roughly a thousand times. The nuclei of the antihelium
isotope with only one neutron (antihelium-3) has been
made in accelerators since 1970; the STAR experiment
produces many of these antiparticles, having baryon
number 3. The antihelium nucleus with baryon number 4,
just announced by STAR based on 16 examples identified
in 2010 and two examples from an earlier run, contains
the
most nucleons of any antiparticle ever detected."
So, we start with the 30s as the Positron Age
and
work from there.
Anti-helium "discovered".
http://www.scienced...04/110424152441.htm
[daseva, Apr 25 2011]
The Petabyte Age
http://mozy.com/blo.../whatsapetabyte.gif
See, very confusing. Who cares?! Making and storing information isn't that cool. [daseva, Apr 26 2011, last modified Apr 27 2011]
[link]
|
| |
You spelt something wrong there, sir. |
|
| |
Well, yes, why not indeed? (But what does STAR stand for?
) |
|
| |
However, I'm not sure the timescales will be comparable
to those of the "bronze age", "stone age", "cheese age"
etc. We'll be up to anti-ununoctium within a century.
Maybe better to call this "the antimatter age". I don't
know what we'll call the age after that, but then again I
don't suppose the stone-age Halfbakers sat around thinking
"I think we'll call the next age 'bronze', for when we invent
it." |
|
| |
But what the heck.
[+] for the subsequent interesting annotations that this
idea will spur. |
|
| |
Ug! Thag! I told you before breakfast, it's the Bronze age starting today! Will you put down those stone axes and behave yourselves! What will the Period Enforcers say if they see you? |
|
| |
//I'm not sure the timescales will be comparable to those of the // I think we all know it is an exponential curve (this naming of ages), some authors have gone so far as to name ages in picoseconds. No names mentioned, mums the word... |
|
| |
Mothers have named ages which last for picoseconds? Why? |
|
| |
Breach?...Of contraction... |
|
| |
Just to be picky, positrons commonly occur in nature, and were therefore "discovered" rather than being "produced". (Bigger antiparticles probably occur momentarily in supernovas and the like, but that doesn't really count.) |
|
| |
I agree with the contention. And the dubious
nature
of how these ages should start would be ample
fodder for controversy. Indeed, I chose the title in
part to suggest that the Antihelium Age may be an
apt beginning for all this, even though the text is
sticking strictly to previous advancements. |
|
| |
Afterall, this could all wind up to be a lot of hot
air, as [MaxBuch] mentioned, and we end up
summarizing the whole lot as the Antimatter Age.
I doubt it,
Judging by energy requirements that I have
previously detailed. |
|
| |
I feel it to be a handy way to gauge tech and social
advancements... What would you use? How much
collective digital memory is held in our
civilizations? That would be an example of a
naming scheme impossible to regulate. |
|
| |
I don't wanna take this too seriously, but then
again, Sure. Rye not! |
|
| |
[ ] might be okay for short period of time, but there's no clearcut delineation between strata. We haven't even started using antimatter yet, so how could you call it an "Age". The "Stone Age" refers to people shaping and using stone, not just tripping over it and cursing. |
|
| |
Belgium! Who's the smegging turlingdrome who left the frelling lump of antiquartz on the floor? If you can't think of a use for it, throw it away! |
|
| |
Building the LHC and sifting through trillions of
bits of information with the world's currently
fastest supercomputers is hardly 'tripping' though,
[FToaster]. |
|
| |
It's a different way of measuring stuff than the old
'lets name the age off the most prevalent
infrastructural commodity' gig. It's actually more
clear cut than those other ages. C'mon, did the
stone age start the first time a person made a
stone ax or a wheel? No, it's just approximate.
WIth this type of dating pattern, we can get down
to the freaking day of discovery (or 'production' for
you pedants), how novel! |
|
| |
Also, [spidermother], the next time I need
someone cursed at, I'm calling you, deal? You'll be
paid in increments of how creatively you can
incorporate bodily fluids into the raving
demolition. |
|
| |
I really don't want this to turn into a "I forgot my
initial point, but let's continue with this other
trash for a while" type arguments, so let me just
ask: |
|
| |
Is it reasonable to analyze a society based off their
biggest inventions? And is the LHC and similar
tools not our pinnacle achievements, in essence?
And so should not their discoveries be markers in
our collective existence? |
|
| |
//blah blah blah// then call it the "Age of the Cyclotron" or the "Age of the Dawn of Particle Physics". I'm pretty sure "Stone Age" doesn't refer to people picking up shiny pebbles and putting them into their pockets or equivalents either. Neither is noticing that there's a rather bright object in the sky illuminating everything a call for an "Age of Nuclear Fusion" moniker. Put some antimatter in my gas tank, then we'll talk. |
|
| |
On the other hand, what you said to [spidermother], sign me up too. |
|
| |
//blah blah blah// I pray for you to get your sense
of logos back, [flyingtoaster].. and well, two
cursors, now
that will really clear my schedule... <imagines
similar idea for computer, must exist already> |
|
| |
There is something funny about the HB. You make
an Idea and you say, Okay I'm going to cover some
real obvious bases so we can get along. But new
problems will always come up that you didn't see
or didn't want to. In what you brought, [FT], it
was
a little bit of both, I think. I glanced over your
issue before posting but left my musings nowhere
in the text. More so, the manner with which I
glossed over it was almost uncontrollable.
Subconscious. And the manner with which you
brought it was very tangible, concise and shit. I
don't know if any
of that just
made sense, but it stands as testimony to at least
one possible naming scheme: B.H. and A.B. lol |
|
| |
Yes, well perhaps I could've pointed out my objections instead of simply getting a little nasty'ish about it... |
|
| |
- the method currently used to make antimatter won't be the one which puts antimatter into your cellphone battery or iRocket. |
|
| |
- making an invention bigger doesn't make it a different invention... so making anti-lithium by simply throwing 1,000,000,000x's more stuff together doesn't really count. |
|
| |
- when they do come up with a decent method of making the stuff, it'll probably go through the element table like indigestible matter through a digestive system. |
|
| |
// - making an invention bigger doesn't make it a
different invention... so making anti-lithium by
simply throwing 1,000,000,000x's more stuff
together
doesn't really count.// |
|
| |
This is my main dispute with your argument.
Where
in the hell is [8/7th] when you need him: the
advancement of a race should be in direct
correlation
with its energy harvesting capabilities. It's called
'scaleability'
and engineers have been toiling with it ever since
big
logs made bad tinder. |
|
| |
// - when they do come up with a decent method
of making the stuff, it'll probably go through the
element table like indigestible matter through a
digestive system.// |
|
| |
[+] to both FT and MB for making and predicting what
I consider to be an interesting annotation. I could
explain, and I leave the space for it. In short:
probably. |
|
| |
From somewhere in the annos or possibly the links where it says to throw 1,000x more stuff to end up with antideuterium, or something like that. |
|
| |
//the advancement of a race should be in direct correlation with its energy harvesting.// It's called the <googlegooglegoogle> "Kardashev Scale". |
|
| |
I was hoping someone else would bring it up first. I
know it's pretty well known, but I do dig the
concept
in [FlyingToaster]'s googlage and was working off it
a
bit. I
don't see anything in his literature that uses
collider
benchmarks for linearizing the evolution of the
type
1 to 2 (presumably the only that would matter)
civilizations, as it stands... However, great
material,
thanks for the link. It's captured my imagination
since I first read it. |
|
| |
So, in short, this idea is: Kardashev Scale
Linearization for Social Application via the Desired
Byproducts
of Particle Colliders. |
|
| |
Mostly it's just that eventually the "AntiIron Age" would be between 4:46 and 4:48pm last Tuesday sort of thing. |
|
| |
Probably have to skip the radioactives though. |
|
| |
I'm guessing the Anticarbon Age would be the last
true civilization. Anything after that leads to full
oxidation of the body and true spiritualization... If it
at all exists. |
|
| |
[MaxBuchannan], sometime in the antilithium Age, I
will
be able to appear before you and shoot both of us
over those damned jokes you make: //Mothers have
named ages which last for picoseconds? Why?//
without killing anyone.... |
|
| |
By the time I got it my smarter self had been flushed
down the toilet in the antigolden age... |
|
| |
What we need, just to really confuse matters, is to discover/rename one of the elements to be called Diluvian/Diluvinum/Diluvinium or something like that. Then, once it gets antified, we can start arguments over whether someone meant antidiluvian or antediluvian - or indeed something else entirely. |
|
| |
And surely an 'age' should be based on something that will later be dug up out of the ground. The only reason the stone/bronze/iron ages are so-called is because those things were both widely used, but more importantly could be easily unearthed relatively intact. I'm not sure that's going to be the case with anti-helium - on either the usage front, or the unearthing one. Maybe we're in the steel age (the 'bronze' age proves that alloys are allowed) or the silicon age, or the plastic age. |
|
| |
The Stoned Age starts at 4:20. |
|
| |
Antibellum - 'twill destroy us all... |
|
| |
If we are in the phase of civilisation characterised by the question, "Where shall we have lunch?", then it is the antipasto age. |
|
| |
I thought everyone knew that this was the dawning of The Age of Aquarius? |
|
| |
Hence the word "Antiquarian" to denote oldness. That is, someone or something that *wasn't* about at the dawning of the Age of Aquarius. [Anti] = not [(A)Quarian] = of the Age of Aquarius. |
|
| |
You can get anti-ageing cream. |
|
| |