It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Building an black hole (or cold star)

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 10:45 AM
link   
i found an idea in a conversation with friends (very speculative) to create an black hole, using neutrons colitions, the problem is how to create neutrons, and how to direct in an point,thats the basic idea;





the sistem must work as an very quickly pulse fusion artifact, but there other problems (specially the quantum uncertaily ), btw the relative increase of the sub atomic particle mass near of light speed reduce the wave propieties????

other ideas would be apreciated


[edit on 20-12-2004 by grunt2]




posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Well, I'm only an amatuer physics buff, so my commentary may be flawed... just a heads-up on that. But I'll bite...here's my thoughts...

1.) neutrons - Neutrons are not "created", except by forces we're not entirely certain of yet, involving stuff like Leptons... However, they can be seperated from existing isotopes by making a breeder reactor with common household materials. There are, however, a few minor problems with this:

  • Neutrons can't just be caught in a net. The would need a way to be channeled to their destination, safely, without starting a nuclear reaction.
  • Neutrons are, biologically speaking, a bit hazardous to humans.
  • Men in suits carrying badges and other men in hazmat suits will be at your door before too long.
  • All you'd manage to succeed in is making bomb-grade material, and not a black hole.


2.) Even assuming a way to gather all this material, there is not sufficient mass in the entirety of Earth to create a black hole in this fashion. In fact, most likely you would have to use an entire star's worth of mass, or more.

3.) There is, in theory, a way an artificial black hole could be created, but you would need a few ingrediants:

  • Zero-G environment
  • A giant "gravity-well" with a relatively frictionless surface.
  • A craft with a relatively frictionless surface that was nearly invulnerable.
  • A method of propulsion that can reach near light-speed.


Another physics-fascinated friend and I were attempting to design a time machine (not worrying about such things as what was actually available, but rather what would be needed). And we came up with the idea of spherical craft on the inside edge of a gigantic ring. I can't remember hardly anything about the math on it, so you'll have to indulge me when I say we figured out a way to temporarily increase the speed of the craft's rotation by shrinking the ring by a massive amount all at once. For arguement's sake we'll say it doubled the speed. If rotation were happening at half light-speed, then this doubling effect would allow the craft to hit lightspeed-movement.

Convinced that movement faster than light was not only possible, but also a probable way to travel time, I presented the idea to my father, himself an engineer with some friends who were doctorates in Phsyics. He looked at it for a while, thought it was interesting, and took it to work, where he showed it to his friends, and came back that evening with the following news:

"Well son, your time machine is a miserable failure, however you seem to have come up with a way to create a black hole."

I ended up throwing the design away because...well...who wants a bloody black-hole in our system?


Nox

posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 02:16 PM
link   
No...

Just... no.

The Exclusion Principle prevents particles from merging into black holes under normal circumstances. No particle accelerator in the world can smash enough neutrons at a high enough energy to overcome the Exclusion Principle.


grunt2: btw the relative increase of the sub atomic particle mass near of light speed reduce the wave propieties????

The wave properties become more pronounced.

[edit on 20-12-2004 by Nox]



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 05:48 PM
link   
Why would we want to make a blackhole anyway? We'd need to travel so far into space [a couple of hundred thousand lightyears] so the blackhole we make won't suck us in...


Nox

posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nexus
Why would we want to make a blackhole anyway? We'd need to travel so far into space [a couple of hundred thousand lightyears] so the blackhole we make won't suck us in...


A portable black hole would be VERY useful.

Here is an idea that I came up with on the spot:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'm sure other engineers could come up with even better ideas given that they have more time to look into the matter than me.

A black hole does not have to weigh more than Earth. Black holes are just most commonly FORMED by a critical mass that's many times more massive than our solar system. That doesn't imply that they must ALWAYS be more massive than our solar system.

Contrary to what many believe, black holes can lose mass. This has been observed and predicted by Stephen Hawking himself.

Are you familiar with primordial black holes which have spent aeons dissolving in space through Hawking's Radiation? (Yes, the guy got a form of radiation named after himself.)

If we could find one and somehow lead it to an Earth orbit, we'd have essentially an infinite power supply. (Being able to dispose of nuclear waste while gaining energy from it... sounds pretty good to me.)

[edit on 20-12-2004 by Nox]



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 06:32 PM
link   
I agree with the previous statement.

I think the only practical application for creating a black hole, would be the energy that would be contained within. If "Hawking radiation" is the dissipation of the energy within the black hole, wouldn't it also be probable to some how control or collect the energy created by the "Radiation", How this would be accomplished..... I have no idea.

Wouldn't something like this solve our world energy needs?



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nox

The wave properties become more pronounced.

[edit on 20-12-2004 by Nox]


are you sure about that??? the increase of energy and mass dont induce an more "stable" sistem??? (compare the low frecuency radiation with the gamma rays and you should know that the gamma have an more particle propieties), my friend told me that in fact the particle propieties aid to the investigators to see the "invisible" photons in the protons collisions, you could help me with a web link about that topic???




No particle accelerator in the world can smash enough neutrons at a high enough energy to overcome the Exclusion Principle.


agreed, but i think that you can say appropriately No nowdays particle accelerator in the world can smash enough neutrons

the mass can be repaced by the density, but you even need a big amount of mass, but anything in the world (even relative small things) can be turned in cold stars if are sufficiently compressed

for me the main problem is the electron-proton fusion, the uncertanly problem

thanks to all for your replies


Nox

posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by grunt2
are you sure about that??? the increase of energy and mass dont induce an more "stable" sistem??? (compare the low frecuency radiation with the gamma rays and you should know that the gamma have an more particle propieties), my friend told me that in fact the particle propieties aid to the investigators to see the "invisible" photons in the protons collisions, you could help me with a web link about that topic???

Now you're changing what you're saying.

You were asking about whether wave properties for sub-atomic particles (with mass) approaching or "near" the speed of light have reduced wave properties.

You didn't say anything about photons (which are particles with supposedly no rest mass) and increasing particle properties as they gain energy.


agreed, but i think that you can say appropriately No nowdays particle accelerator in the world can smash enough neutrons

the mass can be repaced by the density, but you even need a big amount of mass, but anything in the world (even relative small things) can be turned in cold stars if are sufficiently compressed

for me the main problem is the electron-proton fusion, the uncertanly problem

thanks to all for your replies

For density to kick in, you'd have to break the Exclusion Principle, as I've already pointed out. So far, the only instance that I know of that's strong enough to overcome such a thing is a black hole.

Considering that even black holes require many solar masses' worth of gravity compressed into a small area, I can safely say that nothing on Earth has that kind of energy. I might even go as far as to say that nothing on our solar system has that kind of energy to overcome the Exclusion Principle on such a large scale as to create a miniature black hole... but I don't take risks. I'm a conservative/educated guesser.

But yeah, if you could overcome Exclusion, it's theoretically possible to create a miniature well below critical mass (Hell... Hawking, arguably one of the world's premier physicists on black holes mentions primordial black holes which are supposedly well under critical mass.)

EDIT: It would be less time/energy consuming to find and capture one of these primordial black holes than making our own.

[edit on 20-12-2004 by Nox]



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Nox, the behavior of the photons and electrons in their propieties with energy increase are almost the same (as i know), if the increase of speed on accelerated protons would increase the wave propiety (increasing the wave length and reducing the frecuency), the smash in to sub-proton particles should be almost impossible, and the protons accelerated near the c speed could jump in quantum tunnel and easely pass the "universe limit", even an space ship

[edit on 21-12-2004 by grunt2]



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Listen up:

I like the idea but it's not going to work. The blackhole would require a huge concentration of mass, which we simply can't create short of compressing Earth into a sphere of 1.5" diameter. Don't try this at home.

The neutron star is not viable for the following reason: the only thing that can hold neutrons together would be gravity, and once again you need a huge concentration of mass to start with, well beyond what we can possibly have in lab conditions.

You can, in fact create neutrons by colliding protons and electrons. But is's easier to acellerate a deutron and strip the proton off the neutron by passing it through a thin foil. I do it every day



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 03:05 PM
link   


EDIT: It would be less time/energy consuming to find and capture one of these primordial black holes than making our own.


i dont think so

btw the hawking radiation is made by the interaction between the gravity field and the virtual particles??? you know any internet link about that topic???

thanks



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 03:16 PM
link   


deutron and strip the proton off the neutron by passing it through a thin foil


thats not practical you cant reach the acceleration,speed and energy that you want



yeah the idea is not for the next 10-50 years, is like talking about airplanes in the renaissance, but i think that is very feasible, the process must be done at high power and speed (very very very fast) not to reach an neutron star, but an cold star



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 04:26 PM
link   
Nox and Aleta are correct:


To make even the tiniest of black holes, you need to take an entire planet and squash it to the size of a thimble or less. We don't have any spare planets lurking about (except maybe the moon) and no Cosmic Crushers to smush it down until the gravitational forces turn it into a black hole.

...or the power to crush with the Cosmic Crusher.

You would not want a black hole of any size orbiting Earth... it'll suck off the atmosphere, and I don't think that's very good for any of us. Should you create one in the lab, it's likely to suck the entire lab (and yourself) into it.


Nox

posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by grunt2
Nox, the behavior of the photons and electrons in their propieties with energy increase are almost the same (as i know), if the increase of speed on accelerated protons would increase the wave propiety (increasing the wave length and reducing the frecuency), the smash in to sub-proton particles should be almost impossible, and the protons accelerated near the c speed could jump in quantum tunnel and easely pass the "universe limit", even an space ship

We accelerate sub-atomic particles to smash them because we need them to have energy.

You're right that wavelength is inversely related with velocity of the particle: l = h/mv

I never said particle properties didn't become more pronounced as particles are accelerated. I said that we can't assume that not all wave properties decrease. Never did I say that wave properties increase.

I'm no quantum physicist, but I believe that positional uncertainty is a property of waves. As we know, positional uncertainty and momentum uncertainty are and should be inversely related to each other. I'm wary of any statement that would suggest the decrease of both values. Perhaps if you could explain to me why, under your assumptions, Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle (which is a consequence of wave-particle duality) would not be violated, then perhaps I'll be more agreeable. I just don't see it right now (I haven't thought too deeply about quantum mechanics since undergraduate years).


Originally posted by Byrd
You would not want a black hole of any size orbiting Earth... it'll suck off the atmosphere, and I don't think that's very good for any of us. Should you create one in the lab, it's likely to suck the entire lab (and yourself) into it.

If we ever do capture a black hole, it would be in the very distant future. By then, I would hope that we'd have some sort of containment, to prevent the black hole from sucking off our atmosphere as it orbits Earth. By then, hopefully we won't even need to worry about the black hole eating off its container (which would be propelled someway to avoid any approach from the black hole).



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Here is an interesting article about this very subject and here is a quote from near the bottom that is interesting...



So what do you do if you can't wait around that long? For the best chance to observe Hawking Radiation and evaporation, you'd want a black hole that was much closer than naturally occurring black holes, and much less massive. It's a common misconception that you have to have a huge amount of mass to create a black hole. Any amount of mass will do, as long as you cram it into a sufficiently small space. A super-massive black hole with the mass of a billion Suns might be the size of our Solar System, but the Earth could be a black hole too if you packed it into the volume of a marble. Even a person will do, although you'd have to cram them into the space occupied by a single electron.
Artifical Black Holes


Odd

posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 07:49 PM
link   
A black hole would indeed be extremely useful... but it's slightly more dangerous than your average garbage disposal.

A failure at a fossil-fuel power plant means an explosion, at worst. At a nuclear power plant, a meltdown (and the subsequent irradiation of the surrounding countryside) become possible... if the measures keeping the black hole at bay were to fail, I imagine the consequences would be tremendously destructive, or, at the very least, quite expensive.

We have a conveniently nearby body with as much energy as we'll ever need, and I'm sure it'd do a number on any trash bag you care to mention. Just go outside around noon and look straight up



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 05:41 PM
link   
Nox, i dont think that the concept could violate the quantum uncertainly, i was worried about the probablility of electron-proton fusion, but if you have enought powered accelerators the problem can be solved.

I think that there is an exageration of the risks about an artifitial cold star, in the best of the cases it will be very,very, very small, so it will not suck atmospheres,planets, moons, because the horizont cannot be feeded so fast, maybe could consume a few of grams in its whole life (maybe few million years)

[edit on 22-12-2004 by grunt2]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join