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.

 

LHC creates liquid from Big Bang

page: 2
13
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 06:24 AM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701

That's just the thing
IE uninformed people are so concerned about CERN activities causing a disaster when far more energetic collisions are taking place in our upper atmosphere every day. Being there to observe and analyse them closely in controlled conditions is the problem.




posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 06:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Pilgrum

As an uninformed person i do not like it when they make mini black holes .



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 06:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Frocharocha

Do they have a way of keeping and storing all the stuff they extrapolate/create from their big bang re-creations?

If so, can you imagine what the storage vault would look like?



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 06:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: Pilgrum

As an uninformed person i do not like it when they make mini black holes .
the only black holes they have the power to make are ones identical to the trillions of them appearing in the upper atmosphere right now from cosmic ray collisions with atoms and particles in the atmosphere. Those cosmic ray collisions are more energetic than the best man made collider can hope to provide. such blackholes have so little energy/mass that they cannot exist long enough to eat something. so they evaporate harmlessly. they starve to death. there is no way to extend their existence at all either accidentally or by intentionally trying to do so. they are doomed from the very start. so any accelerator black hole is perfectly harmless.
edit on 19-9-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 01:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: Pilgrum

As an uninformed person i do not like it when they make mini black holes .


I'd just have to ask how many of these 'mini black holes' have been created by CERN activities so far?



posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 02:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Pilgrum
phys.org...

If they are trying to detect them one might assume they think they may create one .



posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 11:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Pilgrum

They already know they need a bigger, or at least more power collider, for many experiments. There are several on the drawing board.



posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 11:56 PM
link   
a reply to: hutch622

If they create one, you'll never have a reason to worry about it. It would have no greater gravity than the two or three protons that went into making it.



posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 09:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: [post=19818241]Toadmund .
Eventually atoms are formed, then molecules, then finally after a few years we get dimwits sitting in front of a computer all day!
Lol and most of them on ats



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 09:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: Pilgrum

As an uninformed person i do not like it when they make mini black holes .
the only black holes they have the power to make are ones identical to the trillions of them appearing in the upper atmosphere right now from cosmic ray collisions with atoms and particles in the atmosphere. Those cosmic ray collisions are more energetic than the best man made collider can hope to provide. such blackholes have so little energy/mass that they cannot exist long enough to eat something. so they evaporate harmlessly. they starve to death. there is no way to extend their existence at all either accidentally or by intentionally trying to do so. they are doomed from the very start. so any accelerator black hole is perfectly harmless.


Amazing stuff - didn't know that those collisions were considered black holes. Do you have a few references or a slow motion example of how it happens i.e. how the energy of the collision forms the black hole? Is it possible for several collisions to "merge" as a function of the atoms and particles being close to each other giving more energy to the black hole? What type of detection equipment is used to observe the events? Thanks.



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 09:06 AM
link   
Again terrible science if masquerading FLUID PLASMA as LIQUID! shame.



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 09:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: Pilgrum

As an uninformed person i do not like it when they make mini black holes .
the only black holes they have the power to make are ones identical to the trillions of them appearing in the upper atmosphere right now from cosmic ray collisions with atoms and particles in the atmosphere. Those cosmic ray collisions are more energetic than the best man made collider can hope to provide. such blackholes have so little energy/mass that they cannot exist long enough to eat something. so they evaporate harmlessly. they starve to death. there is no way to extend their existence at all either accidentally or by intentionally trying to do so. they are doomed from the very start. so any accelerator black hole is perfectly harmless.


a cosmic ray is typically a heavy nuclei with a lot of velocity.

the stuff they use in the colliders is typically a heavy nuclei or else just a proton or electron or similar particles. anyway they bang their machine produced heavy nuclei into a target usually compose of a specific element in order to get collision between heavy nuclei or else the run two beams of accelerated heavy nuclei at each other.

Amazing stuff - didn't know that those collisions were considered black holes. Do you have a few references or a slow motion example of how it happens i.e. how the energy of the collision forms the black hole? Is it possible for several collisions to "merge" as a function of the atoms and particles being close to each other giving more energy to the black hole? What type of detection equipment is used to observe the events? Thanks.



a cosmic ray is typically a heavy nuclei with a lot of velocity.

the stuff they use in the colliders is typically a heavy nuclei or else just a proton or electron or similar particles. anyway they bang their machine produced heavy nuclei into a target usually compose of a specific element in order to get collision between heavy nuclei or else the run two beams of accelerated heavy nuclei at each other.

the collider guys think they are getting up to the energy range where it is just on the edge of possible that the resultant collision will have the energy to produce blackholes or wormholes.

so all it takes is a collision of sufficient energy.

so when cosmic rays strike the earths atmosphere they collide with atoms in the earths atmosphere. it is exactly like the coliider collisions except for two things.

1. cosmic ray collisions have more energy than the human made colliders can produce because a nova or other cosmic explosions or polar jet is humongously energetic and the collider machine is tiny in comparison.

2. cosmic ray collision happen uncountably more often than the few squirts going on in the collider and in cross sections bigger than the earth itself compared to the collider's cross section.

in other words natural cosmic rays velocity (and therefore energy) and volume of collisions absolutely dwarfs our artificial colliders feeble capability to mimic nature but the exact same process occurs naturally at godly scale and there isn't a darn thing that has ever happened from it. Not so much as even a black hole eating one singe annoying celeb before evaporating itself.



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 09:35 AM
link   
OTOH some scientists say that centauro cosmic ray events already detected may be wormholes because of their unusual characteristics.



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Thanks for the explanation. So the black holes are created as a function of energy - would these black holes in the atmosphere be considered mini black holes that are of minimum mass? Is that why they're unstable and disappear instantaneously?



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Thanks for the explanation. So the black holes are created as a function of energy - would these black holes in the atmosphere be considered mini black holes that are of minimum mass? Is that why they're unstable and disappear instantaneously?



it is either that or black holes cannot be created that way at all. yeah. a black hole loses energy by a process analogous to evaporation. so the idea is that since it is born starving (with a miniscule mass) and with so little time to have a meal they all die.



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Thanks for the explanation. So the black holes are created as a function of energy - would these black holes in the atmosphere be considered mini black holes that are of minimum mass? Is that why they're unstable and disappear instantaneously?



it is either that or black holes cannot be created that way at all. yeah. a black hole loses energy by a process analogous to evaporation. so the idea is that since it is born starving (with a miniscule mass) and with so little time to have a meal they all die.


This is probably a real stupid question, but why wouldn't they conduct these experiments in space - say from a satellite that was equipped with similar detectors as the LHC? Would it be impossible due to the huge energies of the cosmic ray collisions with nuclei? It seems as though you would get a lot more information from the actual collisions rather than mimicking them on Earth.



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Thanks for the explanation. So the black holes are created as a function of energy - would these black holes in the atmosphere be considered mini black holes that are of minimum mass? Is that why they're unstable and disappear instantaneously?



it is either that or black holes cannot be created that way at all. yeah. a black hole loses energy by a process analogous to evaporation. so the idea is that since it is born starving (with a miniscule mass) and with so little time to have a meal they all die.


This is probably a real stupid question, but why wouldn't they conduct these experiments in space - say from a satellite that was equipped with similar detectors as the LHC? Would it be impossible due to the huge energies of the cosmic ray collisions with nuclei? It seems as though you would get a lot more information from the actual collisions rather than mimicking them on Earth.



yeah, they do this a lot already with satellites, instruments on the ISS and balloons and sounding rockets with detectors to detect cosmic ray events.

and there are some scientists who believe that some events that have been recorded by those means may be the signature of wormholes because the signature does not match typical cosmic ray collisions and has a unique characteristic that matches the theoretical properties they expect from a wormhole creation.
edit on 24-9-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
13
<< 1   >>

log in

join