Well there is a theory that goes that a chunk of Antimatter might not explosively annihilate, but like a drop of water in a hot pan rolling frictionlessly on a layer of steam. The outer portion reacts so violently that is stops any large scale annihilation taking place, leading to a slow burn instead.
Now that is not saying I believe any of this... On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 10:58 AM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: > That would be interesting. I would expect it to take a very tiny amount > of antimatter to cause a large nuclear explosion. How likely is it for a > small antimatter object to get through the top of the atmosphere without > exploding? > > Dave > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Thu, Feb 28, 2013 4:46 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor coincidence odds > > ChemE Stewart <[email protected]> wrote: > > And that's on top of the fact divers found nothing underwater. > > > I do not think they have found a trace of the Tunguska meteor. They have > been exploring the epicenter for decades. Strange! Why is there a hole if > nothing whacked into the ground? > > Some people think it was *antimatter*. (Cue the Theremin.) > > - Jed > >
