Pink Poogle Toy Forum

Has anybody else read Angels & Demons by Dan Brown? It's a really great book, kind of like the Da Vinci Code.

The Da Vinci code is the sequel to Angels and Demons.

I read it, and I thought it was okay. The ending wasn't very good, nor was the rest of the plot. But I enjoyed it, at least. I liked the Da Vinci code much more.

I liked A&D much better, because there was more action, and it was a little longer.

Personally I preferred The Da Vinci Code better, but i must admit, I did NOT see that ending coming. The deception was great, but the ending was a bit too tryhard-superhero-never-dies-despite-falling-out-of-helicopter.

I thought it was a good book, like most of the others I didn't see the end coming. On the other hand, I did think The Da Vinci Code was better, the information provided throughout (which I think is what makes Dan Brown's books so intriguing) was greater in volume and more interesting. Having said that I did have suspicions about the end for TDVC. Either way I think Dan Brown's books are quirky (in a good way), the only thing I had a major problem with was the love interest in A&D and TDVC (it was like seeing the same love-story on repeat). I'll definately re-read them and I'd recommend them to someone looking for a good thriller book to read.

I have Angels and Demons but I havn't read it yet. I'm reading a few other books at the moment.

Well, for my summer reading program (they are horrible!) I could have read Angels and Demons, if the dumb school sent it out on time, and the title just draws me in. Angels.... Demons TT; But I am gonna read Firebrand.... I hope x.x

Anyways, what's the book about?

Antimatter ("Antimatter is the most powerful energy source known to man. It releases energy with 100 per cent efficiency (nuclear fission is 1.5 per cent efficient).") and the Vatican. There's also some stuff about the Illuminati in the book. Hopefully I haven't given too much away, the information I've stated here can be found before chapter 2 in the book so probably not

Sounds nteresting, maybe I should get up, jeez I am lazy, and go get the book sometime

Yeah, I haven't read either of the books, but a bunch of my friends have. They always say how it's such a great book because of all the information Dan Brown puts in and stuff, like he's a smart guy and all. Well, I don't know much about the DaVinci Code's story, but my friend let me read the introduction of Angels and Demons, which explains the whole, "Anti-matter" thing. They are totally incorrect. Theiir description of antimatter could never happen.

First of all, it's misnamed, and scientists don't misname things. They should have called them anti-atoms.

Second, an anti-atom, going by the books description, would have a neutral charge, and the container they describe would not be able to hold it.

Thirdly, as an anti-atom, there are most likely discrepancies between the number of electrons in the nucleus. Therefore, the discrepancies would make different kinds of anti-atoms, just like we have differnt kinds of normal atoms, like carbon or calcium.

Fourthly, what exactly makes the combination of atoms and anti-atoms so explosive? There's no real source of energy. It couldn't be the electrons, as having them compacted in a nucleus would practically negate all of their power because of friction, and if it was because the protons breaking away from the electron nucleus, well, all that should have done is just make a lot of H+ ions and free electricity (as the nucleus would most likely break apart then.

Anyone want to try and argue, I would be delighted.

Yes there is. Atoms and anti-atoms both contain energy. When atoms and anti-atoms collide and annihilation occurs, the atoms and anti-atoms are no longer present, but they leave behind the energy they were made of.

Yes. They both contain energy. The question is why they would manifest that energy explosively. Electrons and protons have collided for years, but that doesn't make explosions. There's no logic behind the force. There's no reason for the annihilation.

A few points.

First, antimatter (no hyphen) is the scientific term for it. (Sears and Zemansky's University Physics 11th Edition, 1708).

Second, antimatter does have a neutral charge. However, the individual particles comprising the atom of antimatter have charges opposite to regular matter. That is, an "electron" in an atom of antimatter has a positive charge, whereas a "proton" in antimatter has a negative charge. Further, antimatter can be contained within a vacuum.

I have yet to read Angels and Demons (though I have a basic grasp of the story), so that is probably why I don't understand the relevancy of your third point to the topic. Care to elaborate?

No "logic" behind the force? No "reason" for annilhation? That's like saying there's no logic behind the force of gravity. Who are we to argue with the laws of physics? Scientists have observed it. Have recorded it. When a particle of antimatter collides with a particle of matter, annilhation occurs; energy in the form of light and heat is released (the mass of the atoms is converted to energy using Einstein's e=mc^2). Every time. When you drop a particle near the surface of the Earth, it will experience an acceleration of 9.81 m/s (until other forces act upon it). Every time. And I don't see many people arguing that gravity is "illogical".

I read the book and I thought it was quite pathetic. Dan Brown's stories are nothing more than a thinly veilled attempt to show off his non-existant knowledge of the Catholic Church and architecture.

Well, for the first point, I am in awe if that 1708 number was the date it was published. How silly of me to think that I would know more than them, when they didn't even know what an electron was (the electron was discovered by J.J. Thompson in 1898).

If antimatter has a neutral charge, how can it be stored in a vacuum then? Traps wouldn't work, and the antimatter would eventually collide with one of the sides of the vacuum container.

Third, I don't believe it has direct relevancy to the book, but just think about it. Atoms have different properties due to different amounts of protons and such in their nucleii (is that the right plural?). Why shouldn't antimatter have different properties based on the number of electrons in their nucleus, or the number of protons orbiting them? (actually, I was just checking out a site about anti-matter, and they confirmed my theory.

For the fourth statement, pardon me. From what I read in the introduction, it only stated that the protons orbited the electron nucleus (from what I can recall). I simply assumed, that since protons and electrons have been colliding for years, that there should be no reason for an explosion. I did not know that it was not protons orbiting electrons, but positrons orbiting antiprotons.