To be fair, a photon torpedo can also move at many times the speed of light thanks to warp bubble extension shenanigans that I can't be bothered to remember the name to. Essentially, you can kill someone before the light from the torpedo even reaches them. Add to that the fact that photon torpedoes are horribly inconsistent with modern science (assuming that the fictional "isoton" scale used to measure photon torpedoes is linear, then 5 torpedoes are enough to destroy a small moon), and the fact that larger Starfleet vessels can carry hundreds of torpedoes (Voyager being an exception, as it famously had a deficit of torpedoes), and the fact that the torpedoes could be spread out across a planet surface instead of having all the power concentrated on one place, photon torpedoes might actually exceed Boris for practicality. I mean, what type of military doesn't want the ability to launch FTL pre-emptive strikes? And we're ignoring that time that Deep Space 9 stockpiled 5000 photon torpedoes and used them to erase a Klingon fleet from existence. Nowadays, photon torpedoes are kind of outdated in favor of quantum and transphasic torpedoes, which are presumably even more powerful. Starfleet is also beginning to realize the advantages of going full-auto with their torpedoes, and have ships dedicated to spamming torpedo tubes. Long story short, Star Trek torpedoes are quite overpowered.
@@ananonymousnerd.2179 Photon Torpedoes only travel at warp while at warp. They cannot achieve warp speed on their own. It's weird but that's how it's supposed to work. At sublight they go to very high sublight (nevermind you can see them on screen, it's because it'd be boring otherwise), but do not reach or exceed the speed of light. Also, we actually have a measure of the payload of a photon torpedo: It is 1.5 kilograms of both matter and antimatter. Hence, 1 kilogram of antimatter is 2/3 of a photon torpedo on the antimatter side. If you want to talk about the destructive power of a photon torpedo, 1.5kg of matter/antimatter annihilation is ~64 megatons. We know this because of physics math. That is 20% more than the estimated yield of the tsar bomba, which could wipe out paris, the countride, and split France in two with destruction leaving very little left. Quantum torpedoes are, by the isoton scale, which believe it or not there are fixed cannon numbers I have the book that has them, 50 isotons. Photon torpedoes are 18.5 isotons I believe, which makes quantum torpedoes ~2.7 times as powerful as photon torpedoes. That's 172 megatons. That'd blow Europe off the map, the face of the Earth, and just about out of your mind. The thing about the isoton scale is the writers. Voyager's writers in particular are known to have thrown out consitency (Something we star trek nerds are keen about) out the window for a good story. If we know that a photon torpedo has a yield of 64 megatons, and it's in universe yield is measured at 18.5 isotons, that means that an isoton is approimately 3.4 megatons (There are a lot of decimals in these numbers). 50,000 isotons, what the borg mine proposed by Seven of Nine to spread nanoprobes to kill species 8472, is a yield said to be enough to destroy a solar system. That's 172,972.972 megatons by the isoton scale. That's 172.97 gigatons. I'm not sure that would destroy a solar system, but it sounds silly. The problem with the isoton scale is it's usage. Numerically it's fine. It's been used by people who think more numbers are better. We can extrapolate some numbers from it, but they're so big at times we have no idea how much destruction it would actually be. See the Star Trek The Next Generation Technical manual for my numbers and tech references about photon torpedoes; the Hayne's official guide to the Enterprise (An official CBS endorsed publication and a cool read) about isoton yields for photon and quantum torpedoes.
Let's forget how one would synthesize that much anti-matter, how strong of a magnetic field will be needed to contain it? Most Star Trek things require impossible amounts of energy to actually function. Star Trek is "believable", but with glaring defects, like you'd need the energy of an entire star to power a transporter, let alone the rest of the ship. Energy -> matter conversion....... m= e / (c^2)
@@peterbelanger4094 Gene Roddenberry's vision of star trek's tech is basically magic and he refused to acknowledge that. The single most ridiculous piece of technology is the transporter, but we don't really care because it's believable due to our current understanding of physics having holes that we literally make stuff up to explain what we see and to understand it. Then we test those things we make up to see if they're real or we got the solution right but the means wrong. The higgs boson was one of those things. We tested and now we know it's real. It's perfectly plausible to me that in the far future we're going to learn things about the universe that may let us do some of the things star trek does because we barely know how it works now; our understanding is so narrow. Are we going to get tranporters? Probably not. Other things? I can see it. But not for a very long time most likely unless we make some shattering discoveries.
By the way while I appreciate very much all the math and research you did, the only real way to find out how much damage this could cause is by building one of them and running a tiny little test. Just a tip for future videos. And if I'm wiped out in one of your tests, I just want you to know how much I appreciate the effort you put in.
I remember doing weeks of research for a pet project I had and I thought "hey, let's show it to our physics professor" and naturally he said "nah, it's all wrong."
It is kinda cringe. The video was really excellent but was twice as long as it needed to be and he goes on tangents talking about stuff unrelated to the video. I didnt care for the flat earth multiverse jokes and what he looks like. Furthermore he even comments about his average view time being low. This is obviously why. I really liked the video but he needs to cut out a ton of stuff.
It's nice to finally see you in person! Also, your use of jokes is definitely a promising development as well :) Keep it up! It will take some work and time to get your greenscreen appearance on pair with your legendary animations - but I keep my finger crossed for a quick learning curve! Keep up the great work!
Not to be rude or spread hate around, and if S0S is reading, this is not meant as an attack and it'd be great to see this improved... That being said, "occasionally" is a huge understatement, most videos that I've seen have big errors, sometimes even at the surface level understanding, not rarely several; or giving wide misrepresentations of the matter at hand. I don't want to put too many examples as I'm not a frequent viewer and will likely misremember things, and it's a bit of a shame as the quality of production is great. I would suggest checking the research more and more throughly, and making sure the topic is well understood enough to corroborate some of the sources' claims, or at least do a logic double check to make sure its the right concept or explaination...
@@antaresmc4407 okay you're a hater. Just kidding man, you touch the most important points. I too am not a regular viewer so haven't seen any blatant errors. But could you point out some examples so we can be more skeptical & vigilant? Perhaps in this video itself?. At least logical fallacies? Some of the logic in this video such as not directly multiplying scale of the destruction is logically valid IMO. I will be more vary while watching his videos though.
Man I love and appreciate the extra added humour to these videos. You're definitely filling a niche market... in my heart. Out of curiousity, how long on average do these videos take to render out in blender? Looking to build a machine, currently stuck in paralysis mode between mac pro (baseline model) or custom built PC.
Go PC. Easier to future-proof, and component replacement is actually possible without joining a cult that says you need an ENTIRE NEW MACHINE to replace a monitor. Or battery. Or whatever.
Perhaps it would be better to wait and see if the presumably upcoming Apple Silicon mac pro is any good? The current mac pro is a pretty bad value for money as far as I know.
go with PC. you will probably get more power for your money. just keep in mind PC parts are expensive right now, so maybe wait a year. also if you don't know how to build a PC pay a professional. no need to destroy the thing while you are building it.
Did you know there are 8K HDRIs of Mars's surface on Nasa's website for free ?? ... Just letting you know... They also have them for most of our neighbour planets 🤫
To be honest I liked the format before better, but I understand the changes and hope it works for you. You make great videos and I'm looking forward to the next one.
Yeah this feels way too dumbed down compared to his other videos. I liked this channel cause it delved into stuff the mainstream media didn't even glance over. Now it really feels too simple. Not to mention the ungodly amount of useless gags. I can understand the humor used, but it's just used in the wrong place at the wrong time.
The thing I liked the most about this channel was that the videos were full of scientific information not just some fancy useless non-sense. Please keep the identity of the channel, don't destroy it
The problem with antimatter is the Leidenfrost effect. The instant you try and mix antimatter with matter you get rapid explosive disassembly in opposite directions. You may get a short burp of radiation but it will be really difficult on a gram size basis to get them to interact for any significant period at all.
Amazing video, love the rendered content and how clean it is. The second part however completely changed the feel of it - it felt like suddenly the content was being explained not with a great rendered narrative, but by gesticulation.
I REALLY appreciate the fact that you’re starting to take a more memey approach to your videos to make them even more fun that they usually are. Keep up God’s work my man.
seeing that "Lab" picture in the beginning, i kinda expected to hear an "Cave Johnson here" =) & a lecture about portals & goo! DAMN this IS Aperature Science all over again! i like it!...keep it up!
As always, I am blown away. You somehow manage to make good science content, pair it up with superb editing and great renders, and you even have half-decent 3D animations (I am looking at you, ease-in ease-out falling asleep guy). I's been quite a while since you only had a few thousand subs, I certainly hope that your team has expanded now, otherwise this is a herculean effort and honestly your are nailing it. Whatever is going on behind the scenes, awesome job, and keep the videos coming. Truly an example on modern day RU-vid of quality over quality.
Hi Cave Johnson here for the aperture science's antimatter containment apparatus. During our latest expedition to an alternative aperture science our team found a very fancy device for containing antimatter. So naturally when no one was looking we borrowed it, reverse-engineered it and removed the useless safety features to make it cheaper. Now I know that some of you might think this device is useless because we simply don't have that much antimatter, talking about you investors. So we decided to market it as novelty drink cooler so that should lessen your unjust concerns. Alright we're done here.
hey cave johnson that's my antimatter reactor you just stole has antimatter neutrons manufactured and refined from the radioactive potassium isotope metal harvested from the bananas that came from natural organic banana farms! you should be surprised of how much anti neutrons are made from the nuclear decay of constracted radioactive potassium isotope metals put into a nuclear decay accreaator with a electromagnetic partcal collector!
so you might want to get a lot of bananas if you want to get the anti neutrons you need to get the needed antimatter fuel! also thunderman is annoyed that you stole this! this is because i was doing a commission contact of how to make a much cheaper power source for replacing the old nuclear reactor that powers everything in aperture's main underground laboratories without needing a omega core! also can you give my original antimatter neutron reactor back! i kinda don't want to make a new one!
When it comes to bombs, at what point does the curvature of Earth come into play in stopping the blast from expanding further? Most of the explosive force by default is going up as the bomb is not a kinetic impactor, such as a meteor. Much of the force is wasted going into the sky while the Earth only takes a small amount on top of being a solid object and reflecting much of the force anyway. If this wasn't true mushroom clouds from reflected force and debris wouldn't be a thing. It's why meteor impacts and volcanos are bad comparisons. All that force was directed into the ground (provided it survives atmospheric entry without vaporizing) while the bomb is extremely inefficient with its directed energy
According to a US study during the Manhattan Project, you would need a warhead with a yield of about 100kg (i.e. 50kg antimatter) to risk run-away nitrogen fusion of the atmosphere. So... thought you'd like to know.
5:30 you dont really need that complex of an equation xP just use e=mc^2 plug in twice the amount of antimatter because 1 part antimatter reacts with 1 part normal matter and you get some 4.9x10^21 joules i was actually surprised to see that the dino killing meteorite was a couple orders of magnitude bigger than that even. i somewhat overestimated the amount of energy 27 tons of antimatter would produce. or i just underestimated the meteorite
That makes sense for 2x the energy released. But would the destruction scale by the same factor? Unless every other variable is the same we should be looking at different destructive effect right?
Thank you for the follow up. Your videos and usually very interesting and entertaining. Although destroying our planet isn't on my list of fun things, I do appreciate your time and diligent research. Peace out Zero...
Maybe I missed this, but were the calculations taking into account the total annihilated mass? 27 tons of antimatter + 27 tons of normal matter ~= 54 tons of annihilated matter providing a yield of 4.853 * 110^21 Joules (from E = m c^2)
When you said perseverance you should have put up a picture of the Mars rover perseverance, just my opinion. I still gave you a thumbs up though, all your hard work and coming up with ways to destroy our planet shows how much you care.
Of course, when we talk of the best fuel of the future, it means boiling a pool of water to turn a bunch of fans connected to another bunch of magnets and wires.
Came here to be blown away by an antimatter bomb and was blown away by the narrator's face reveal. I may be late for that, but it caught me off guard. Best episode ever!!!
CERN managed to trap antimatter Atoms for 405 days, it would take 100 billion years to produce 1 gram of antimatter and it would cost 25 Billion USD the cost of the Manhatten Project was estimated at 23 Billion USD with inflation during 2007
time is relative. when we're entertained we don't even notice. I say this because, for me, it was the fastest 10 minutes of my life! man you are awesome!
Please don't dumb down your content to attract more views. Your past videos have been excellent, and have garnered a loyal following of serious learners who are repelled by goofy entertainment videos like this.
I have thought about these sort of things for a long time, i think a large problem with this is that you need to contain the antimatter in a vacuum, and if you store it in a vacuum its probably going to disperse out, touch the walls and explode, no matter what sort of gravity field you use, therefore this is impractical, i would rather go get a minigun.
Now I take you more serious, seriously. Great Amusement. Your Channel is way underestimated. And you got me, I thought you will place a Brilliant Ad placement there after you where "guessing" the numbers.
