Then you get some bored grad student who doesn't read the signs, goes to put a liter jar of antineutrons in the wrong cabinet, and causes a massive explosion that destroys half the continent.

[removed]

I can't specifically answer, but I can give some extra information

Most plants are autotrophs, which means they can synthesize their own material from a set of basic elements and sunlight. This makes them a bit easier to grow in general.

Many fungi (and a few plants) are parasitic/symbiotic on the roots of other plants. Becuase of this, they are harder to culture. You can't just grow them in isolation, you need the organisms they depend on as well....or at minimum you need a replacement.

But with mushrooms it's even harder, because the mushroom is essentially the fruit of the fungus. And the fungus won't send up mushrooms unless environmental conditions are right. So not only do you have to grow the fungus, you also have to figure out how to get it to fruit.

And finally there's a question of demand. There has been progress made in culturing truffles, because truffles are super valuable. But most mushrooms don't have millions of dollars poured in to figuring out how to grow them, so nobody's figured it out yet.

[removed]

[removed]

[deleted]

It absolutely boggles my mind that we as human beings have discovered this knowledge.

[removed]

[deleted]

[removed]

[removed]

Thank you. Really appreciate your time.

Thank you!

Trying to envision the process of sustainably farming any of the "zombie" fungi en masse is rather uncomfortable, thank you.

I don't know how you eat your avocados mate, but your fecal orifice must be impressively large.

As long as you don't go to nuclear physics, they behave essentially the same apart from the small weight difference. Conductivity, magnetism and so on is all determined by the behavior of the electrons which don't change here.

The isotope ratio of iron is essentially the same everywhere for the same reason: There is no natural process that would separate them or even accumulate one isotope much more than the other. No matter where you get your iron from you'll have 5.85% of Fe-54 and 91.75% of Fe-56 with only really tiny variations. Artificially you can separate them, if you absolutely want a sword that's 4% lighter.

For iron no one cares, but for uranium these isotope ratios are closely monitored to make sure no one steals it or tries to extract enriched uranium or similar. That's why it was a big deal when uranium from a mine in Oklo had just 0.6% uranium-235 (the main isotope used in reactors and nuclear weapons) instead of the normal 0.72%. Did someone steal something? Turns out this site had a natural fission chain reaction two billion years ago, reducing the amount of U-235.

[removed]

Well that answers it then lol. That single sentence should have been the answer.

Protons and antineutrons would annihilate each other (forming a lot of pions and a few other particles) basically immediately.

> I thought antiparticles only annihilated with their respective particles?

Reacting with the respective partner is easier (in the sense that it's always possible), but annihilation is not limited to that. Protons and antineutrons will react in almost the same way as protons and antiprotons or neutrons and antineutrons, producing a couple of pions as most likely result.

You have answered if an atom can have some neutrons and anti-neutrons at the same time, but that wasn’t really the meat of the question was it? You haven’t answered if an atoms could have all of its neutrons be anti-neutrons. Obviously getting there one at a time isn’t an option, but could it get there in any way? And even if it couldn’t actually get there, could it be a stable solution to our equations that describe the system?

[removed]

It's extremely rare to have qualitative changes in physical properties due to a change in isotopes. Normally, phase transformations occur at slightly different temperatures, and that's about it.

The only example I can think of is SrTiO3, which becomes ferroelectric at cryogenic temperatures when common oxygen 16 is replaced by the rarer oxygen 18.

> As a side note, you would observe blackbody radiation that was red- or blue-shifted depending on your motion that could make the gas appear warmer or cooler.

A hotter or colder body's blackbody radiation isn't simply shifted by a set amount, so this isn't true. You'd identify the same temperature with some overlaid bulk motion. I apologize; my statements were incorrect.

No; the kinetic energy corresponding to the temperature is measured relative to the center of mass. A cold body moving fast doesn't appear hot, as the relative undirected motion of the particles is unchanged. (However, two cold bodies colliding inelastically would get hotter, of course.)