The discussion centers on the feasibility of creating a quantum bomb using Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC) and anti-hydrogen. Participants clarify that while simulations have suggested the potential for a bomb capable of planetary destruction, practical applications remain speculative. The project named "Apophis" was mentioned as a theoretical weapon aimed at asteroid deflection, but the conversation emphasizes the need for credible sources and peer-reviewed articles to substantiate claims. Misinterpretations of scientific literature were also highlighted, underscoring the importance of accurate information in discussions about advanced weaponry.
PREREQUISITESScientists, researchers, and enthusiasts interested in advanced theoretical physics, weaponry, and planetary defense strategies.
Scientists had, in simulation, created a bomb strong enough to destroy a planet.Vanadium 50 said:No, it is not. I can't imagine why you think it might be so.
Please post a link to the journal article where this was reported...Jaakub said:Scientists had, in simulation, created a bomb strong enough to destroy a planet.
Look up apophis. That is the name of the bomb project. It was looked into as a way to protect us from a massive asteroid.berkeman said:Please post a link to the journal article where this was reported...
I don't want to look it up. Please post a link to a peer-reviewed journal article about it (not a pop-sci article). Thank you.Jaakub said:Look up apophis. That is the name of the bomb project. It was looked into as a way to protect us from a massive asteroid.
I can't remember the name of the article. Only the name of the weapon. That's why I didnt post the linkberkeman said:I don't want to look it up. Please post a link to a peer-reviewed journal article about it (not a pop-sci article). Thank you.
Apophis is an asteroid, and all I can find with a quick Google search are pop-sci articles speculating how to destroy it if it is on a collision course with Earth...Jaakub said:I can't remember the name of the article. Only the name of the weapon. That's why I didnt post the link
In the future you're going to need to do better than this. We have very high quality standards here. But since you're new and I'm really good at Google, I'd say odds are good that this is the article:Jaakub said:I can't remember the name of the article. Only the name of the weapon. That's why I didnt post the link
russ_watters said:In the future you're going to need to do better than this. We have very high quality standards here. But since you're new and I'm really good at Google, I'd say odds are good that this is the article:
http://21sci-tech.com/Subscriptions/Fall-Winter-2012_ONLINE/TCS_F-W_2012.pdf
(bottom left, page 56)
...aaand you misread it. The hypothetical weapon would use anti-hydrogen, stored as a BEC.
And this is one reason why we require users to post sources. Clearly it is pointless for us to try to explain something that was misread in the first place!