|
Black Hole Created In NY Lab (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| lex400sc |
a) you can't accelerate anything with mass to the speed of light
b) particle accelerators are contained with magnetic fields so there really isn't anything to melt
c) how do you create a momentary singularity????? |
|
|
| zarathustra |
| quote: | Originally posted by lex400sc
c) how do you create a momentary singularity????? |
Black holes do (theoretically) decay. |
|
|
| Orbax |
| quote: | Originally posted by lex400sc
a) you can't accelerate anything with mass to the speed of light
|
Even though things that exhibit the properties of mass travel at those speeds |
|
|
| Ripped Bag |
| Ok I'm going to flex my Quantum Physics muscle here and interject. Wait, no.. damn |
|
|
| lex400sc |
| quote: | Originally posted by zarathustra
Black holes do (theoretically) decay. |
yeah i guess it wouldn't take long for the gamma from a 2 nuclei singularity to completely radiate out :o |
|
|
| Trazedict |
| Could scientists take two particles, and in theory, smash them together hard/fast enough to create a black hole big enough where it can sustain itself just long enough to absorb the material around it, "feeding" itself like blackholes do and instantaniously dissolving the earth in a flash of a second? I know you can't get them moving at the speed of light, albeit very in close to that, but get something heavy enough perhaps? Or am I just letting my mind run loose? |
|
|
| Tranc3 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orbax
Even though things that exhibit the properties of mass travel at those speeds |
By "things" do you mean atomic particles, subatomic particles, or just plain weird particles/ideas as found in quantum mechanics? Because photons exhibit some properties of mass, yet are massless.
Or maybe I should be asking what properties of mass these things are exhibiting?
| quote: | Originally posted by Vlad
Ok, lets be realistic here and use common sense...
If the heat generated by this collision is 300 million times the heat of the sun, than everything in its radius would have literally vaporized and melted - even if it is 'million billion billionth' of a second, time is still time. |
I did some calculations, and I may be incorrect...
A nuclear fusion detonation in Russia that blew a hole in the atmosphere a few decades back was rated to be 58 megatons. Converting to Joules, we get 2.4267E17 Joules of Energy. (4.184E15 Joules = 1 Megaton of TNT). From Boltzmann's energy-temperature equation for a monatomic gas that moves freely in three dimensions, we have [Energy = (3/2)(Boltzmann's constant)(Temperature in Kelvins)], where Boltzmann's constant is approximately 1.380650E-23 Joules/Kelvin. Solving for temperature gives us approximately 1.17E40 Kelvin. The temperature of the sun's core is rated at 1.36E7 Kelvin. So how can something this hot possibly exist on the Earth and not vaporize everything in it's radius? I'm going to guess here and say that it's mostly because spherical radiation from a point in space tends to follow an inverse square law, that is, energy is proportional to 1/(distance squared). And although some things will turn into pure energy, this doesn't mean they have to remain as energy. From energy = mass times the speed of light squared (and from particle accelerators), we know that energy and mass are two interchangeable "currencies."
Of course, my calculations may be wrong, and I may be a few orders of magnitude off, but I know for certain that uncontrolled fusion reactions can easily reach hundreds of thousands of times the heat our sun is generating. The difference between a fusion reaction on Earth and a fusion reaction in the sun is that the ones on Earth are uncontrolled.
| quote: | Originally posted by Vlad
the temperature of the sun is like 17000 degrees celcius, and if this collision caused 300 times more, thats 5.1 million degrees celcius... thats alot of heat generated...
If an atomic bomb happens when nucleuses are split and the temperature doesnt reach anything remotely close to this, I think there should be a pretty significant radius under so much heat. |
I'm not sure where you got the 17000 degrees celcius figure...perhaps it's related to the 1800 celcius figure (falsely) predicted by the Dulong-Petit law? The accepted value is 5780 K.
Again, here you are neglecting a fusion bomb. Technically the fusion bombs we have today are all initially powered by fission, but get their main energy output from the fusion. |
|
|
| Tranc3 |
| quote: | Originally posted by lex400sc
a) you can't accelerate anything with mass to the speed of light
b) particle accelerators are contained with magnetic fields so there really isn't anything to melt
c) how do you create a momentary singularity????? |
a) Correct, if Einstein's special relativity equations hold true for all objects with mass.
For those that don't know, as your speed increases, your mass increases as well. As your mass increases, it becomes harder and harder to continue "pushing" you towards the speed of light. Think of it as pushing a stroller, and as it goes faster and faster, having it eventually morph into a big rig, or at least have as much mass as one. The faster you go, the harder it is to push, with the speed of light being the limit...thus as your speed approaches that of light, your mass approaches infinity, which implies it would take an infinite amount of energy to get you to that speed (which is just silly). If you still have doubts, just remember that speed can be a measure of kinetic energy, and (Energy) = (mass)(speed of light squared). E=mc^2 shows that mass and energy are two interchangeable units.
b) Correct, assuming the collisions within the magnetic bottle are small enough to keep the particles within the magnetic bottle. Then again, an individual particle won't have such huge energies that it will burn/melt down a noticeable segment of the accelerator before it cools off a significant amount. Remember there's also Newton's law of cooling and q=mc(Tf-Ti). Heat is dependent upon the amount of stuff there to begin with.
c) I think the better question is "Exactly what the hell is a singularity, and how can it physically exist within our universe?" |
|
|
| Mr. Pink |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ko/Lute
I swear, one day these scientists are going to do some , and the next thing you know we'll all be eating out of our own asses for breakfast. |
:stongue:
hopefully not:nervous: |
|
|
| Trance Nutter |
| this thread is waaaaaaaay too intellectual for the cor. |
|
|
| mzvirbulis |
i dont think you really have to worry about their intellect trance nutter, plenty of better things to do LOL.
Not that reflects my view on physics in general, i percieve physics as the real science. biology...meehh and chemisty.... well thats physics for beginners!
personally i enjoy physics its so interesting.
you people are very clever
:D |
|
|
| Smeagol |
Ok, as a particle physicist I'll clear a few things up here... ;)
a) The speed of the particles is, as stated above, not EXACTLY the speed of light, but something VERY close, so in popular publications one does often not bother with the difference.
2) Yes, surface temperature of sun is about 6000 degrees (celsius or kelvin, almost the same here) so the temp of this plasma would like... a lot. But as it is very small (around 10^-14 meter I'd guess...) and exists for a very short time (what was it? 10^-lots secs) the actual heat it radiates in this time will be very small...
C) Black holes radiate (hawkings radiation). The smaller, the faster. So small black holes will explode very fast. I'm not 100% sure (someone look it up if you want...) but I think that even if you use a substantial part of the earth's mass converted into energy and pump it into this black hole, it will explode again within a fraction of a second... Then it's fairly unrealsitic to do even that...
"Ok guys, we want to collide these elektrons. Were do we find the energy? hmm, lets take the Alps!"
And you would need an accelerator maybe the size of the galaxy? That's a guess, but I'm positive an accelrator of the size of the solar system will take you to a maximum of around 10^19 GeV which isn't even nearly enough...
4) just needed another number to show off the lack of consistency of the enumeration.
epsilon) sry for being scientific CoR... tried to keep it as unserious as possible. |
|
|
|
|
