Sign in or 
Location: Physics of Ever-living zombies
Discussion: Interesting, but I must disagree
Category:
Discussion Forum /
General Discussion
Share this
Showing 8 posts
ATMachine |
Physics of ever-living zombies. I must disagree.
Jun 9 2012, 10:32 PM EDT
| Post edited: Jun 10 2012, 4:22 PM EDT
This is an interesting theory, but once you look at it a little bit deeper it does fall apart. What your talking about is nuclear energy, created when mass is converted into energy, and the only know process for doing that is either nuclear fission, or more efficiently fusion. First off, neither of these processes convert the mass wholly into energy, the energy is more of a by-product. For example the fusion of tritium and deuterium (the two easiest fused hydrogen atoms, and most energy producing) only convert one neutron into energy. And this requires enormous amounts of energy to obtain. The force repelling the atoms must be overcome, wich requires extreme heat and pressure. In order to convert mass wholly into energy (a process never known to have happened, not since the big bang) would require anti matter, wich is essentially matter with the opposite charge. The collision of matter and anti matter converts both into pure energy. This however, could never take place inside of a human body, and even if it could, the energy would be uncontrollable. And all you would end up with is a singed zombie, not a walking one. 5 out of 5 found this valuable. Do you? |
PedroAsani |
1. RE: Physics of ever-living zombies. I must disagree.
Jun 28 2012, 5:53 AM EDT
Oh yes, this is all theoretical physics. But since we are dealing with zombies, which are theoretical creatures, it does give me licence to delve into the science fiction somewhat.But you have a few points slightly incorrect. Fusion isn't required, fission is fine. When fission occurs, you are left with matter and energy. Obviously the energy gets used, but the matter can be split again and again. Some of the new elements that are created will be unstable and split on their own naturally. Each splitting will release energy that can be used until you are down to very small elements. At this point you can either declare the reaction finished and have a less than 100% efficient system, or you can strip the atoms down to quarks, neutrinos, etc. Now the heat issue does sound like it would burn up the human body, but because one cell can power the whole body (and because there is no real energy transportation system due to the lack of a heartbeat) it is more likely that individual atoms would be stripped off a useless neighbouring cell and cannibalised by the cells requiring the energy. So the heat in any one section wouldn't register on any noticeable level. We are talking about very few sub-atomic reactions per second, spread over the whole body. Now obviously none of this is probable, since any geneticly modified pathogen can only use the technology we have today. But more efficient fission is something being researched, and the idea of nanobots powered by sub-atomic cannibalisation of atoms is not my own original thought. All the technology I have combined here for zombies is theorised in many different places for many different uses. All I have done is put together some interesting physics theories in order to support the zombie theory. 1 out of 2 found this valuable. Do you? |
Medusa374 |
2. RE: Physics of ever-living zombies. I must disagree.
Jun 28 2012, 11:52 AM EDT
Do you realize how expensive it would be to make just 1 zombie? And how exactly would said zombies multiply erfficiently? you'd need a laboratory environment to foster the change correctly, or else you'd end up with a pile of meat.
Do you find this valuable?
|
SovietPrince |
3. RE: Physics of ever-living zombies. I must disagree.
Jun 28 2012, 2:08 PM EDT
i'm just going to go with an aerosol spread of a weaponized plague that devolves individuals to primal creatures.Makes the hunt fun, at least. Do you find this valuable? |
|
PedroAsani |
4. RE: Physics of ever-living zombies. I must disagree.
Jun 28 2012, 5:24 PM EDT
"Do you realize how expensive it would be to make just 1 zombie? And how exactly would said zombies multiply erfficiently? you'd need a laboratory environment to foster the change correctly, or else you'd end up with a pile of meat."Yes. The expense of bio-engineering this specifically to be a zombie would be huge, and who is going to actually try and make a zombie? But for this to be a bio-engineered organism designed to do something else, and zombism is an unintended consequence could make the cost worthwhile. For example, they are trying to make soldiers that don't require as much food whilst in the field. They are trying to make soldiers with heightened aggression. They are trying to make soldiers that are less susceptible to gunshot wounds leaking blood. They are trying to make soldiers that are more compliant to taking orders. Do you find this valuable? |
|
ATMachine |
5. RE: Physics of ever-living zombies. I must disagree.
Jun 28 2012, 8:58 PM EDT
"I still must disagree, I don't mean to sound like a jerk or anything just shooting your ideas down, though. So please fogive me if I do. You said that fission would be fine, and that's only kind of true. Only elements heavier than iron produce energy when split, so you can't break them down into individual particles, massive amounts of energy is required to break the atomic force binding an atoms nucleus together, so only heavy elements can produce energy when split. Almost none of the elements in the human body are too light for a fission reaction then. Although there is some iron in our blood steam, but iron hardly produces and energy when split as well as the fact that iron is extreemly difficult to split, in fact, its never been done. As for the unstable elements, these don't so much split on their own as they do she'd neutrons, an action that doesn't produce any harness able energy. That means that fission is clearly not an option, especially because fission isn't a naturally accounting event, only fusion is. Fusion however, is also impossible, as I discussed above. This is mostly because first off it requires isolated isotopes, wich don't exist inside the human body, and because the heat and pressure required are such that they would sooner make the zombie explode than walk Another problem is harassing the energy, energy isnt just all the same, for example, I can't drink some gasoline and be alright. The energy produced by a nuclear reaction is heat. So without a steam powered turbine (anatomy isn't my best subject, but I think humans don't have one in their bellies) this energy is useless to a body. 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
PedroAsani |
6. RE: Physics of ever-living zombies. I must disagree.
Jun 28 2012, 11:34 PM EDT
"Almost none of the elements in the human body are too light for a fission reaction then. Although there is some iron in our blood steam, but iron hardly produces and energy when split as well as the fact that iron is extreemly difficult to split, in fact, its never been done. As for the unstable elements, these don't so much split on their own as they do she'd neutrons, an action that doesn't produce any harness able energy."Actually all elements are capable of fission. Carbon dating works by finding out how much Carbon 14 has radioactively decayed. And since we are chock full of Carbon, we have radioactive decay happening inside us right now. Turns out that fission is a naturally occuring event. And the electrons and electron anti-neutrinos, positrons and electron neutrinos, can be used for energy. We do it all the time. Flow of electrons is what we use for electricity. The body uses tiny electrical currents in muscles, nerves and the brain. Chemical energy when viewed at the atomic level is a change in the arrangement of atoms and electrons. Your example of drinking gasoline is false, because your body doesn't process food on an atomic level. It works on a chemical level, and so the way molecules are structured matters at that level. But were the physiology altered to use atoms and particles rather than molecules, then you could drink gasoline and use the energy. It would be more efficient than fuelling your car, because a car runs on combustion which is an order of magnitude below fission. Do you find this valuable? |
|
ATMachine |
7. RE: Physics of ever-living zombies. I must disagree.
Jun 29 2012, 5:41 PM EDT
"Actually all elements are capable of fission.You misunderstand what fission is, the flow of electrons has nothing to do with fission, fission is the splitting of atoms. All elements are capable but only elements heavier than iron produce more energy than they require when their nucleus is split, the decay of radioactive isotopes is something completely different than fission. The gasoline was an example to show a concept, not to be taken literally as drinking gasoline is ridiculous, it's to show that different kinds of energy can not be used interchangably. No amount of physiological change would allow you to transform the heat from nuclear reactions into chemical energy wich the body requires. To recap, the decay of radioactive isotopes is not in fact nuclear fission, the reason it's call nuclear is the nucleus of the atom splits, and only elements lighter than iron produce energy when their nucleus is split. All of this is only adding on to the fact that even if nuclear reactions could take place in the body, it would take internal steam powered turbines to harness it. Combustion and fission are absolutely unrelated. Combustion is a chemical reaction in wich an element bonds with oxygen. It happens every day. Rust is in fact slow combustion. Fission is the splitting of an atoms nucleus, no chemical reaction takes place, they aren't on the same scale so one is not an "order of magnitude" above the other For example, when a hydrocarbon (chains of carbon attached to hydrogen) burns, the oxygen in the air splits up the carbon and hydrogen, forming bonds with both to form carbon dioxide and hidrogen dioxide (water). When a uranium nucleus is split it destroys the uranium atom, splitting it into two or more lighter elements, hence, totally different reactions. It is akin to comparing a physical change (for example cutting an apple) and a chemical change (burning gasoline) Do you find this valuable? |
