If a Nuclear Bomb comes from E=MC2,  Couldn't this equation be reversed to stop a bomb? (An anti reaction)?
368323
E=MC2 doesn't talk about radiation.  It is about energy.  Nuclear bombs and nuclear reactors work off of the same principle.  Just in nuclear reactors, the reaction is controlled and made safe, and in bombs, the energy is released all at once.  When an atom is "split", the total mass of the origional atom and the neutron that splits it is more than the pieces that it breaks into.  That difference becomes heat energy, and the E=MC2 tells you how much energy.  The radiation that everyone associates with it comes before and after the nuclear reaction, when the nuclear fuel and daughter products (the pieces the atom split into) decay and emit various forms of radiation, depending on what is decaying.  E=MC2 doesn't talk about this part of the process, just about the moment the atom actually splits.  To reverse the process and convert energy into mass is mainly theoretical, though it is possible.  Lab conditions have achieved microscopicly small results.  This is the process that the transporters and replicators use on Star Trek.
1173028
anti-matter happens to have an opposite charge of matter, like a proton with a negative charge would be anti-matter here.  If matter and anti-matter happened to be in the same space they would cancel eachother out and the only thing left of them would be I think it was either Beta or Gamma rays, mabey Infered.  \n\nDark matter, is something else.  It's a contraversial subject and scientists LOVE to debate about it, I don't know ANYTHING about it, but you could look it up.
999339
No, current accellerators can't support M theory, but in the near future they will, hopefully.\n\nWith reagards to faster than light travel, according to current theories, infinite force would be needed to accellerate any slower than light object to faster than light.  So we think that that would be impossible.\n\nLet's assume for a minute, though, that we could accellerate something, say an electron, faster than light.  It would cross the "time barrier" and begin to travel backwards in time.  As a particle (from rest) goes faster and faster, it's perception of time slows down.  When (and if) it hits the speed of light, time ceases to exist for it.  And when (and if again) it begins to go faster than light, it would travel backwards in time, very very fast.  As it went faster still, it would begin to travel more slowly backwards in time.\n\nAn electron travelling backwards in time, it turns out, is the same as a positron.  So to answer your question, if an electron were going faster than light, it would become a positron.  The same is true for any other particle, it will become its respective antiparticle.  Richard Feynman was the first to propose this idea.  He actually went so far as to suggest that all the electrons and positrons in the universe are actually just one single electron, travelling both forward and backwards in time a great number of times!
756196
"Dacay" of uranium and fusion of hydrogen are called "nuclear" reactions. They are different from chemical reactions. In nuclear reactions, the mass of the particles after the reaction is always less than the mass of the particles before. The difference in mass is converted to energy in accordance with E=mc^2.\n\nIn chemical reactions, the mass of the particles is the same before and after the reaction.
938332
I think you mean at the atomic level, but still the answer is no.\n\nOne counter example would be positronium. This is when an electron and its anti particle, a positron, "revolve" around each other.  This is very unstable with a half-life of about 10^-7 seconds. \n\nThere are other exotic atoms of this type. Any atom formed by a particle and its anti particle is called an onia.
546511
Any nuclear bomb will create an electromagnetic pulse.  The size of the pulse radius will be approximately related to the blast radius.
89665
Anti-matter colliding with matter is the most powerful mass to energy reaction.  The problem is that we have not yet managed to produce anti-matter in large enough amounts to make it available and "stable" enough to be used safely.
322967
To the chemist no, to the physicist yes.A nuclear explosion destroys matter and from so doing releases energy.
470230
Many people have, in every single nuclear reaction, whether in power plants or detonated nuclear weapons. Nuclear binding energy is generated by mass converted to energy which holds nucleons together. In nuclear reactions differences in binding energy between the reactants and products in atoms is released as light, thought not necessarily visible light.\n\nLight is also produced in particle-antiparticle annihialition. If an electron and positron collide, they annihialate each other and release 2 photon's of equal energy and momentum as the 2 original particles.\n\nIt is also possible to create particle-antiparticle pairs from photons fired into strong magnetic fields.
694183
First of all, since E = mc^2, you cannot have two massive, energyless bodies.  Secondly, by definition, they have a potential energy of \n.. R\n ∫(-GM1M2/R^2)dR, or GM1M2/R\n. 0\nwith respect to each other, so, again, they cannot be energyless.
1033923
No. Any naturally occurring antimatter would have long since been annihilated by a corresponding matter. As for artificially generated antimatter, I believe that we have managed to isolate no more than a few thousand antiatoms. For comparison, 1 gram of hydrogen contains 6.022*10^23 atoms - the amount of antimatter we have is so small that if we were to react the entire world's supply of antimatter with an equivalent amount of matter, we would have just enough energy to create a visible spark.
954813
Yeah, it's E=mc^2 and it relates energy and mass.  E is energy, m is mass, c is the speed of light (celeritas).  The equation could come useful in physics, like atomic physics.\n\nWhat did you wanted to know?
64677
Hmm, I don't like that previous answer.  There is a certain amount of energy holding together an atom, say uranium 235.  When bombarded with neutrons, the atom breaks apart into 2 different atoms and releases energy.  No energy is created or destroyed, as it only changes the form.
249306
Ask Einstein, the famous E=mc2 formula directly relates to your question.
270030
Atomic energy states that if we can "break" the energy bonds that keep one atom´s parts together, we would create a chain reaction in surrounding atoms.  This is achieved when we have what is called "critical mass", meaning that we have enough radioactive material for the chain reaction to occur.  Nuclear bombs can be fusion or fision bombs.  In a fision bomb, an atom´s nucleous is bombarded with neutrons and becomes so heavy that it splits as the result of a force (detonation of a small explosive charge), creating th chain reaction already described.  On a fusion bomb, the energy of the detonation combines together two or more radiactive elements to for another.  Each kind of bomb has its pros and cons. Both are very destructive.  Upon detonation a nuclear bomb creates an explosion that is so powerfull that can disipate a huge volume of atmospheric air and so much heat that burns everything on a several miles radius.  A few seconds after the explosion, the weight of the atmosphere pushes the air back to the void, creating an implosion, so you have two kind of destructive forces working in opposite directions with a difference of only seconds.  Then, radiation affects all organisms in the nearby areas and makes impossible to live in them for decades.
829810
Imagine an atom where the protons have a negative charge, and the electrons have a positive charge.  That's antimatter.  Minute quantities have been created in the laboratory, but it has to be stored in a magnetic bottle, since any contact with normal matter causes the antimatter and an equal quantity of matter, to be converted to energy.
807824
Antimatter is real and has been created in the laboratory.\n\nTo be honest I don't really know exactly WHAT it is (I never got that far in Physics, that's pretty advanced stuff), I just have a sort of general concept of it.  It has mass just like regular matter, but is not the same -- the two completely annihilate each other if they come into contact.  I imagine it is just a rare type of matter put together in such a way that when it contacts "normal" matter all the whatever-it-is that they are made of cancels out.  But matter can't just cease to exist, it must be converted into something so that something is energy, like in a nuclear reaction when some of the matter of the atomic nuclei are converted into high-energy radiation.