Can anybody explain scientifically why an enlargement ray from sci-fi films is impossible in our real world?

[IshmaelM]

This may sound like a dumb question, but often times we see sci fi films and say yeah that's impossible. But do we really understand why it is impossible?

Obviously an enlarger ray gun is impossible but I just want to hear from folks on this site as to why they believe that. Do you truly understand why matter cannot be create nor destroyed?

The concept Is a gun that enlarges the size and density of any object, food, water, mmm even gold.
How would you tell Dr. Bullshit he is bullshitting

 

[niks neims]

This may sound like a dumb question, but often times we see sci fi films and say yeah that's impossible. But do we really understand why it is impossible?

Obviously an enlarger ray gun is impossible but I just want to hear from folks on this site as to why they believe that. Do you truly understand why matter cannot be create nor destroyed?

The concept Is a gun that enlarges the size and density of any object, food, water, mmm even gold.
How would you tell Dr. Bullshit he is bullshitting

no problem, we can engage in discussion once you have proven that you are not a camel! We wouldn't want some Camelus dromedarius learning high physics, would we....

 

[Johnny5]

We wouldn't want some Camelus dromedarius learning high physics, would we..

Laughing so hard!!!!

 

[g_axelsson]

e=mc²

To create matter you would need a huge battery on that gun. To create a gram of matter you need about the same energy as a 20 kiloton nuclear bomb gives off.

An enlargment ray would need to find out what kind of atoms there is in an object and fill out the space with the same matter. For a gold bar it would be trivial as there are nothing but gold atoms, but for a complicated thing like a bacteria the question is how to fill up the void, add just similar atoms through it, add new molecules... add more DNA?
We also have the problem with quantum physics, if you find out the location with enough precision then you can't find out the speed, this might create problem when creating new atoms and putting them into the right position to make something larger.

This kind of questions are quite fun and there is a site containing just this kind of discussions. Some of my favorites are "Glass Half Empty" and "A mole of Moles".
https://what-if.xkcd.com/archive/

Göran

 

[rickzeien]

e=mc²

To create matter you would need a huge battery on that gun. To create a gram of matter you need about the same energy as a 20 kiloton nuclear bomb gives off.

... but for a complicated thing like a bacteria the question is how to fill up the void, add just similar atoms through it, add new molecules... add more DNA? ....

Göran

And yet almost every living thing replicates itself. Some take nine months and some bacteria every 20 minutes or so.

No ray gun, no fusion. Granted not everything is made larger like the acorn to the mighty oak...still...

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[Shark]

This may sound like a dumb question, but often times we see sci fi films and say yeah that's impossible. But do we really understand why it is impossible?

Obviously an enlarger ray gun is impossible but I just want to hear from folks on this site as to why they believe that. Do you truly understand why matter cannot be create nor destroyed?

The concept Is a gun that enlarges the size and density of any object, food, water, mmm even gold.
How would you tell Dr. Bullshit he is bullshitting?

I would just tell him I don't have the brains for it...Hey, it's the truth.. :lol:

 

[g_axelsson]

e=mc²

To create matter you would need a huge battery on that gun. To create a gram of matter you need about the same energy as a 20 kiloton nuclear bomb gives off.

... but for a complicated thing like a bacteria the question is how to fill up the void, add just similar atoms through it, add new molecules... add more DNA? ....

Göran

And yet almost every living thing replicates itself. Some take nine months and some bacteria every 20 minutes or so.

No ray gun, no fusion. Granted not everything is made larger like the acorn to the mighty oak...still...

That's cheating, using pre-made atoms. :mrgreen:

Anyhow, I'm not messing around with all that messy biological stuff, that's just gross. Pure physics for the win!

Göran

 

[rickzeien]

e=mc²

To create matter you would need a huge battery on that gun. To create a gram of matter you need about the same energy as a 20 kiloton nuclear bomb gives off.

... but for a complicated thing like a bacteria the question is how to fill up the void, add just similar atoms through it, add new molecules... add more DNA? ....

Göran

And yet almost every living thing replicates itself. Some take nine months and some bacteria every 20 minutes or so.

No ray gun, no fusion. Granted not everything is made larger like the acorn to the mighty oak...still...

That's cheating, using pre-made atoms. :mrgreen:

Anyhow, I'm not messing around with all that messy biological stuff, that's just gross. Pure physics for the win!

Göran

[emoji1787][emoji23][emoji16]

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[IshmaelM]

e=mc²

To create matter you would need a huge battery on that gun. To create a gram of matter you need about the same energy as a 20 kiloton nuclear bomb gives off.

An enlargment ray would need to find out what kind of atoms there is in an object and fill out the space with the same matter. For a gold bar it would be trivial as there are nothing but gold atoms, but for a complicated thing like a bacteria the question is how to fill up the void, add just similar atoms through it, add new molecules... add more DNA?
We also have the problem with quantum physics, if you find out the location with enough precision then you can't find out the speed, this might create problem when creating new atoms and putting them into the right position to make something larger.

This kind of questions are quite fun and there is a site containing just this kind of discussions. Some of my favorites are "Glass Half Empty" and "A mole of Moles".
https://what-if.xkcd.com/archive/

Göran

So when they say energy is it in the firm of Heat?
With enough heat will it be possible to replicate matter?

When do you think it will be financially feasible to be able to create matter? What idea will make it possible?
Those replicators from star trek

 

[g_axelsson]

So when they say energy is it in the firm of Heat?
With enough heat will it be possible to replicate matter?

When do you think it will be financially feasible to be able to create matter? What idea will make it possible?
Those replicators from star trek

Yes, you can create matter from "heat" in the form of thermal radiation, but the scale of it is extreme. The universe did it the first couple of hundred thousands of years after the big bang until the expansion cooled it down enough, then the first atoms condensed out of the thermal soup. This is what we today detect as background radiation in radio astronomy.

Easiest way to create new matter is to accelerate particles and let them collide. That is routine stuff in Cern in LHC, the Large Hadron Collider. The drawback is that most of the matter is radioactive and decays in seconds.

So in a way we are already creating matter but nothing as massively as the Star trek replicators does. The amount of power needed to create a "Cup of tea, Earl Grey, hot!" is immense. Remember 1g equals a 20 kiloton nuclear bomb, so that cup of tea demands at least 200 times as much (200 g) energy. That means if the replicator runs at 99.5% efficiency in converting matter into energy and then back into matter again it would equal a 20 kiloton nuclear bomb going off just in losses each time you order a cup of tea, the device needs to be tough enough to handle the power of 200 nuclear devices to do the transformation.

I don't think we will ever see anything close to replicators. What we will see is 3d-printers of various materials that will become more and more advanced, mixing materials and creating finer structures. Maybe we will see a 3d-printer that could print a cup of tea at the same time it fills it with hot water and adding flavoring agents. But that is not creating matter, just printing it from various precursors.

Göran

 

[IshmaelM]

So when they say energy is it in the firm of Heat?
With enough heat will it be possible to replicate matter?

When do you think it will be financially feasible to be able to create matter? What idea will make it possible?
Those replicators from star trek

Yes, you can create matter from "heat" in the form of thermal radiation, but the scale of it is extreme. The universe did it the first couple of hundred thousands of years after the big bang until the expansion cooled it down enough, then the first atoms condensed out of the thermal soup. This is what we today detect as background radiation in radio astronomy.

Easiest way to create new matter is to accelerate particles and let them collide. That is routine stuff in Cern in LHC, the Large Hadron Collider. The drawback is that most of the matter is radioactive and decays in seconds.

So in a way we are already creating matter but nothing as massively as the Star trek replicators does. The amount of power needed to create a "Cup of tea, Earl Grey, hot!" is immense. Remember 1g equals a 20 kiloton nuclear bomb, so that cup of tea demands at least 200 times as much (200 g) energy. That means if the replicator runs at 99.5% efficiency in converting matter into energy and then back into matter again it would equal a 20 kiloton nuclear bomb going off just in losses each time you order a cup of tea, the device needs to be tough enough to handle the power of 200 nuclear devices to do the transformation.

I don't think we will ever see anything close to replicators. What we will see is 3d-printers of various materials that will become more and more advanced, mixing materials and creating finer structures. Maybe we will see a 3d-printer that could print a cup of tea at the same time it fills it with hot water and adding flavoring agents. But that is not creating matter, just printing it from various precursors.

Göran

Okay. That makes sense and that field of physics is super interesting. How about the folks in material science and nanoscience field? They say that it is possible to increase the size and density of individual particles within a colloidal solution. Like they could increase the density and size of a solution that contains 0.1g of copper nanoparticles into 10g of copper nanoparticles.
How is that possible? I mean they're not creating matter but building upon it. How does that even work?

Thanks for answering my Qs. Appreciate it

 

[Palladium]

If there's one thing science has taught me it's that nothing is impossible.
Improbable yes, impossible, no!

 

[g_axelsson]

Okay. That makes sense and that field of physics is super interesting. How about the folks in material science and nanoscience field? They say that it is possible to increase the size and density of individual particles within a colloidal solution. Like they could increase the density and size of a solution that contains 0.1g of copper nanoparticles into 10g of copper nanoparticles.
How is that possible? I mean they're not creating matter but building upon it. How does that even work?

The only way to increase density is to make the particle more dense, maybe avoiding internal voids or creating bigger particles.

Size and in a way density of a nano-particle depends on a lot of factors, by varying these you can get various effects as density, surface area, different topology, surface chemistry... and so on. What you can't do is to take 0.1g of copper nano-particles and create 10 g without adding copper in some way. You can't create matter outside of high energy nuclear physics. If you read something like that in a scientific paper then you probably got something wrong. If you read that in a popular scientific article then the reporter probably got something wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.

My favorite scientific blooper was a Discovery Channel program about the space shuttle. It was texted in Swedish and the translator wasn't very good.
"The powder converts into gas that propels the space shuttle into orbit."
became in Swedish something like this...
"The gunpowder is transformed into petrol that drives the shuttle into space."

If you find something that sounds impossible, dig up the source and you will probably find out that someone along the way made an error.

Göran

 

[IshmaelM]

Okay. That makes sense and that field of physics is super interesting. How about the folks in material science and nanoscience field? They say that it is possible to increase the size and density of individual particles within a colloidal solution. Like they could increase the density and size of a solution that contains 0.1g of copper nanoparticles into 10g of copper nanoparticles.
How is that possible? I mean they're not creating matter but building upon it. How does that even work?

The only way to increase density is to make the particle more dense, maybe avoiding internal voids or creating bigger particles.

Size and in a way density of a nano-particle depends on a lot of factors, by varying these you can get various effects as density, surface area, different topology, surface chemistry... and so on. What you can't do is to take 0.1g of copper nano-particles and create 10 g without adding copper in some way. You can't create matter outside of high energy nuclear physics. If you read something like that in a scientific paper then you probably got something wrong. If you read that in a popular scientific article then the reporter probably got something wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.

My favorite scientific blooper was a Discovery Channel program about the space shuttle. It was texted in Swedish and the translator wasn't very good.
"The powder converts into gas that propels the space shuttle into orbit."
became in Swedish something like this...
"The gunpowder is transformed into petrol that drives the shuttle into space."

If you find something that sounds impossible, dig up the source and you will probably find out that someone along the way made an error.

Göran

Okay so if I have a 1 US gallon solution of copper nanoparticles, 100ppm. Is there a way to find out how many grams that equals to, and also is there a way to figure out roughly how many copper nanoparticles exist in the gallon?

 

[g_axelsson]

Okay so if I have a 1 US gallon solution of copper nanoparticles, 100ppm. Is there a way to find out how many grams that equals to, and also is there a way to figure out roughly how many copper nanoparticles exist in the gallon?

No problem, just do the math.

1. Everything you need to know is already in your question.
2. You need to know the size of a copper nano particle to calculate that.

I leave this as an exercise to the reader. :wink:

Göran

 

[silversaddle1]

My brain hurts.

 

[anachronism]

Okay so if I have a 1 US gallon solution of copper nanoparticles, 100ppm. Is there a way to find out how many grams that equals to, and also is there a way to figure out roughly how many copper nanoparticles exist in the gallon?

No problem, just do the math.

1. Everything you need to know is already in your question.
2. You need to know the size of a copper nano particle to calculate that.

I leave this as an exercise to the reader. :wink:

Göran

I already answered his question in plain terms on another thread Goran 8) 8)