3 ms·
For 92 protons? So 3*10^-10 J per proton? For a tiny number, that is still insanely high...
by AnimalMuppet 7mo ago
For 92 protons? So 3*10^-10 J per proton?
For a tiny number, that is still insanely high...
- fc417fc802 7mo agoChicxulub impact estimated 300 ZJ, zetta being 10^21 giving us 10^23 and 10^-10. Avogadro's constant is 6×10^23. So that's 10^33 protons or 5/3×10^9 moles. It's difficult to get a sense of what that actually means because protons aren't a typical substance. I guess the closest human relatable approximation might be liquid hydrogen. That's about 2 g/mol and ~0.71 g/ml so 2.82 ml/mol but that's H2 (ie 2 protons) so our equivalent would be 1.41 ml/mol yielding 2.35 million liters. I tried to compare to oil tankers but glancing at Wikipedia it seems the smallest crude tankers are at least 25× that size. The largest oil tankers in the world (of which there are 4) carry ~450 million liters which works out to ~191 chicxulub equivalents (assuming I did all the math correctly). According to Wikipedia Castle Bravo was ~500 L of lithium deuteride and yielded ~63 PJ making it ~5 million of those to 1 chicxulub equivalent; the supertanker would equate to about 1 billion. In other words ~1000× more energy density than lithium deuteride powered fusion which is itself already so absurd that it's difficult to comprehend. That was a lot more involved than I expected. I really hope I didn't misplace an order of magnitude or three anywhere.
- voidUpdate 7mo ago*184, a particle annihilates with its antiparticle and both of them are converted into energy, so 92 antiprotons will also destroy 92 standard protons. but yes, C^2 is a very big number