Got it! So the reflected wave at an interface going from high to low impedance just has a lower intensity than it would if it hit gone from low to high, but the reflected wave is the same frequency as the incident.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

Quantum chromodynamics is the answer here, I believe.

Essentially, the proton and neutron in a hydrogen atom (or any atom) aren’t static.

They are constantly swapping roles back and forth, the proton losing some energy and turning into a neutron, and the neutron then picking up that shed energy and turning into a proton.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

We could be, but this is part of the most accurate and best-proven scientific theory in existence.

[removed]

Shouldn't that also leave you with an electron neutrino? Or is there another interaction there that consumes that?

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

What is even more mind boggling is that we could be completely wrong about it all and not even know it - the old story about the blind men describing a elephant by touch comes to mind. We cannot "see" quarks but rather we can only see how they effect the physical world (e.g. via destroying matter in a particle accelerator).
We then infer what they are and build models to describe what we see. All it would take is a discovery that changes our understanding of one little part to completely upend the model.

*edit* bleh, no idea why Reddit insists that there should be a line break in there.

Question: how do sets of quarks annihilate simultaneously? Why doesn’t the energy released from the first annihilation cause the other quarks to scatter? Do they occupy the same physical space meaning all the annihilations are simultaneous?

[removed]

It's moreso envisioning how mass production would be applied to it, than anything.

And that's certainly not true. Zombies in media are generally ridiculous in many ways even if you handwave the actual function of a zombie virus. For the same reasons an AI uprising is simply not remotely scary compared to media portrayals of the idea; we've yet to find or make something similar. A little like saying we're experimenting with planet-glassing lasers because we're experimenting with powerful lasers.

Research is being done on all sorts of much more immediately dangerous stuff, and generally with very good reason.

No. Antineutrons don't exist in the proverbial vacuum, they're comprised of more fundamental particles called quarks, in this case antiquarks.

Antineutrons are made of two antidown quarks and one antiup quark.

A proton is comprised of two up quarks, and a down quark.

So, if you stick an antineutron in contact with say two regular protons they'll annihlate and, if you're lucky, create a Δ++ baryon that'll decay into a proton and a positively charged pion that'll then decay into a muon and muon neutrino, and then that muon will decay into an electron, an electron neutrino, and an antimuon neutrino that'll annihilate with the muon neutrino that was made when the pion decayed and leave you, ultimately, with a hydrogen atom.

subatomic physics is weird my man

[removed]

Of course not! Everyone knows PepsiCo already holds the trademark for Pilk™. https://twitter.com/cl0ckw0rk951/status/1598719500790243332?t=QtSryOfkDvZkasmEhhDfrQ&s=19

Hate to break it to you, but every single day people are experimenting with every single premise of every zombie movie ever made.

[removed]

Wouldn’t the proton and the antineutron remain far enough away to avoid their component antiquarks from annihilating?

[removed]

One annoying thing about blackbody radiation is that is still looks like blackbody radiation after Doppler shifting. It's why the CMB has a blackbody temperature of 2.7K, even though it is coming from ionized hydrogen.

[removed]

[removed]