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.

 

Creating Black Holes?

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 11:55 PM
link   
So I was thinking about this for fun of course and considered that within the context of a matter-antimatter explosion an implosion could result.

Then so one could imagine a matter anti-matter event, of such a magnitude where a black hole could result.

Consider this thread and exercise the how would one make a Black Hole?




posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 01:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
So I was thinking about this for fun of course and considered that within the context of a matter-antimatter explosion an implosion could result.

Then so one could imagine a matter anti-matter event, of such a magnitude where a black hole could result.

Consider this thread and exercise the how would one make a Black Hole?


A matter/antimatter interaction would release the energy inherent in the mass of matter and antimatter as they annihilate.

It would not think that it is likely that there would be a sufficient gravitational gradient enough to create or sustain a gravitational singularity. The energy would be equivalent to double the normal mass that was annihilated but could only form a stable singularity if it had 1/2 the mass of a black hole before annihilation. This is actually a lot of mass and usually equivalent to 150 times the mass of the Sun.

The caveat is the gradient of energy produced. if you could create a very sharp gradient, you could create a singularity, but this would not be stable because the energy gradient will spread out at the speed of light and the black hole will 'evaporate' by Hawking Radiation in short periods of time. The matter within the Schwartzchild radius of such a low mass, high gradient singularity, would be much less than that of the quantum fluctuations occurring in normal space around it.

Simply stated, stable gravitational singularities require vast masses, as far as anyone has definitive data.

edit on 9/11/2017 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 01:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Kashai
Maybe better to ask someone from the finance/tax/treasury departments of most governments/corporations/elites....





posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 01:38 AM
link   
David Brin (SF-author) wrote a book called "Earth", in which he describes another way to create micro-black holes: you kind of "tie" a "knot" out of space-time, "pulling its ends" stronger and stronger until you reach a point where space-time collapses and you get a black hole. I used parantheses because it is just a picture to simplify the complex electromechanical problems involved.



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 01:39 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Ok so out of curiosity could you are anyone else for that matter get into how we are working on generating microscopic black holes?



Creating microscopic black holes using particle accelerators requires less energy than previously thought, researchers say.

If physicists do succeed in creating black holes with such energies on Earth, the achievement could prove the existence of extra dimensions in the universe, physicists noted.


www.livescience.com...



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 02:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: chr0naut

Ok so out of curiosity could you are anyone else for that matter get into how we are working on generating microscopic black holes?



Creating microscopic black holes using particle accelerators requires less energy than previously thought, researchers say.

If physicists do succeed in creating black holes with such energies on Earth, the achievement could prove the existence of extra dimensions in the universe, physicists noted.


www.livescience.com...


Although it is a pop-sci article, it does mention that the created collapsed objects will rapidly disappear, and that this is through Hawking Radiation.

This is because these objects are so small and it is more about the gradient than the total energy.

Also, these aren't actually 'true' black holes, they are collapsed matter objects with nothing like the mass, or energy of a true black hole.

As I explained, the objects 'evaporate' because the energy that binds them together is less than the energy generated by surrounding quantum fluctuations.

Hawking Radiation exists because virtual particles, which normally are created in supersymmetric (equal and opposite) pairs and would normally annihilate back into nothingness, but are torn apart by the gravitational gradient.

So they become actual mass (at nearly 1/2 the mass of the collapsed object). The in-falling oppositely charged matter annihilates the collapsed object, 'evaporating' it in very few steps.

edit on 9/11/2017 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 04:54 AM
link   


I was thinking about this for fun of course


Yeah right, for fun... FBI LOOK AT THIS!!!

If you want to create a black hole you just need to cool a huge mass as close as possible to absolute 0



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 09:58 AM
link   
My favorite way is lasers after all lasers are just cool right! If you put enough light in to a small space you get something called a Kugelblitz. Even has a crazy name how cool is that??


edit on 11/9/17 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigent

We have actually gone beyond absolute 0 and no such thing is possible apparently.

www.iflscience.com...


Trying to generate a Black Hole more relates to the NSA so you could try Customer service at 301-688-6524 which by the way is really their phone number.



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

It's annoying when you give a serious awnser in a matter that anyone could understand and take it as a starting point to do their own research but instead they believe you are a dumb # that knows nothing.

Suit yourself

arxiv.org...



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

But you're bringing up a temporal factor and by that I mean one could proverbially set one's clock to Hawkins radiation?


In Inflation theory with respect to Big Bang theory, we consider that space-time expanded at FTL and so moving the matter that way at such speeds.

Black holes as offered are openings in space-time so is the implication of a while hole the effect of some force that directs such energy back into what we call the Universe?



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 06:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigent


I see you are concerned I am taking you seriously


The rather interesting about black holes is that in relation to the math considering them leads to infinity.

Contemplatively anything could exit a black hole as long as it was able to achieve escape velocity.

Even green spaghetti monsters.

In so far as your scientist from Chile???

Are you certain that pdf file supports your position?




edit on 9-11-2017 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

I remember back in the 80's I read some articles related to this but those articles were about generating a wormhole, in that this much energy could interact with a planks scale object/wormhole and expand it.

Actually, since then I have been fascinated by the subject in general.



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

Considering the paper estipulates how black holes can be huge Bose Einstein condensates, and Bose Einstein condensate is what you get by cooling matter near absolute zero, Im pretty certain the publication support the position I took from the publication...



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigent



Einstein soon extended Bose’s work to show that at extremely low temperatures “bosonic atoms” with even spins would coalesce into a shared quantum state at the lowest available energy. The requisite methods to produce temperatures low enough to test Einstein’s prediction did not become attainable, however, until the 1990s. One of the breakthroughs depended on the novel technique of laser cooling and trapping, in which the radiation pressure of a laser beam cools and localizes atoms by slowing them down. (For this work, French physicist Claude Cohen-Tannoudji and American physicists Steven Chu and William D. Phillips shared the 1997 Nobel Prize in Physics.) The second breakthrough depended on improvements in magnetic confinement in order to hold the atoms in place without a material container. Using these techniques, Cornell and Wieman succeeded in merging about 2,000 individual atoms into a “superatom,” a condensate large enough to observe with a microscope, that displayed distinct quantum properties. As Wieman described the achievement, “We brought it to an almost human scale. We can poke it and prod it and look at this stuff in a way no one has been able to before.”

BECs are related to two remarkable low-temperature phenomena: superfluidity, in which each of the helium isotopes 3He and 4He forms a liquid that flows with zero friction; and superconductivity, in which electrons move through a material with zero electrical resistance. 4He atoms are bosons, and although 3He atoms and electrons are fermions, they can also undergo Bose condensation if they pair up with opposite spins to form boson-like states with zero net spins. In 2003 Deborah Jin and her colleagues at JILA used paired fermions to create the first atomic fermionic condensate.

BEC research has yielded new atomic and optical physics, such as the atom laser Ketterle demonstrated in 1996. A conventional light laser emits a beam of coherent photons; they are all exactly in phase and can be focused to an extremely small, bright spot. Similarly, an atom laser produces a coherent beam of atoms that can be focused at high intensity. Potential applications include more-accurate atomic clocks and enhanced techniques to make electronic chips, or integrated circuits.

The most intriguing property of BECs is that they can slow down light. In 1998 Lene Hau of Harvard University and her colleagues slowed light traveling through a BEC from its speed in the vacuum of 3 × 108 meters per second to a mere 17 meters per second, or about 38 miles per hour. Since then, Hau and others have completely halted and stored a light pulse within a BEC, later releasing the light unchanged or sending it to a second BEC. These manipulations hold promise for new types of light-based telecommunications, optical storage of data, and quantum computing, though the low-temperature requirements of BECs offer practical difficulties.


www.britannica.com...


So you think that achieving a Bose-Einstein Condensate results in what?



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 08:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: chr0naut

But you're bringing up a temporal factor and by that I mean one could proverbially set one's clock to Hawkins radiation?


How so?

Surely a quantum fluctuation would occur at random and is likely to occur at exactly the same time the collapsed matter object is established, stealing half its mass at the very moment of its creation. And because the next quantum fluctuation is also random in occurrence, it could happen also at much the same time, stealing the other half of the energy.

Once you allow that quantum fluctuations occur randomly, you cease to be able to be temporally predictive.


In Inflation theory with respect to Big Bang theory, we consider that space-time expanded at FTL and so moving the matter that way at such speeds.


Superluminal Expansion is contrary to general relativity. We have NO theory that explains how FTL can happen, only some data that might be interpreted to show that.

Superluminal Expansion is, therefore, not science. It is mythology with a 'sciency' sound.


Black holes as offered are openings in space-time so is the implication of a while hole the effect of some force that directs such energy back into what we call the Universe?


As near as we can tell, on average, space-time has a (generally) flat topology. As such, it does not automatically follow that a black hole connects geometrically to a 'white-hole' exit point.

Also a 'white-hole' would, most likely, have to have anti-mass. I'm not sure what that is, or if it could exist.

We also should be able to detect these 'white-holes' due to their radiance but have been unable to do so. I would expect their prevalence to be similar to black holes (on a 1:1 ratio, if they link). So, I doubt the existence of 'white-holes', from the data we have.



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 08:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Indigent



Einstein soon extended Bose’s work to show that at extremely low temperatures “bosonic atoms” with even spins would coalesce into a shared quantum state at the lowest available energy. The requisite methods to produce temperatures low enough to test Einstein’s prediction did not become attainable, however, until the 1990s. One of the breakthroughs depended on the novel technique of laser cooling and trapping, in which the radiation pressure of a laser beam cools and localizes atoms by slowing them down. (For this work, French physicist Claude Cohen-Tannoudji and American physicists Steven Chu and William D. Phillips shared the 1997 Nobel Prize in Physics.) The second breakthrough depended on improvements in magnetic confinement in order to hold the atoms in place without a material container. Using these techniques, Cornell and Wieman succeeded in merging about 2,000 individual atoms into a “superatom,” a condensate large enough to observe with a microscope, that displayed distinct quantum properties. As Wieman described the achievement, “We brought it to an almost human scale. We can poke it and prod it and look at this stuff in a way no one has been able to before.”

BECs are related to two remarkable low-temperature phenomena: superfluidity, in which each of the helium isotopes 3He and 4He forms a liquid that flows with zero friction; and superconductivity, in which electrons move through a material with zero electrical resistance. 4He atoms are bosons, and although 3He atoms and electrons are fermions, they can also undergo Bose condensation if they pair up with opposite spins to form boson-like states with zero net spins. In 2003 Deborah Jin and her colleagues at JILA used paired fermions to create the first atomic fermionic condensate.

BEC research has yielded new atomic and optical physics, such as the atom laser Ketterle demonstrated in 1996. A conventional light laser emits a beam of coherent photons; they are all exactly in phase and can be focused to an extremely small, bright spot. Similarly, an atom laser produces a coherent beam of atoms that can be focused at high intensity. Potential applications include more-accurate atomic clocks and enhanced techniques to make electronic chips, or integrated circuits.

The most intriguing property of BECs is that they can slow down light. In 1998 Lene Hau of Harvard University and her colleagues slowed light traveling through a BEC from its speed in the vacuum of 3 × 108 meters per second to a mere 17 meters per second, or about 38 miles per hour. Since then, Hau and others have completely halted and stored a light pulse within a BEC, later releasing the light unchanged or sending it to a second BEC. These manipulations hold promise for new types of light-based telecommunications, optical storage of data, and quantum computing, though the low-temperature requirements of BECs offer practical difficulties.


www.britannica.com...

So you think that achieving a Bose-Einstein Condensate results in what?


Bose-Einstein condensates are quite 'doable' in the lab.

I think the gist of what Indigent was saying was that you need to create huge Bose-Einstein condensates. "Massive" would probably be a better word here.

By condensing vast amounts of normal matter into a BEC, you create a tighter spatial gravitational gradient and therefore your condensed matter object can become a black hole if massive enough.

edit on 9/11/2017 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

Maybe you should read a bit about what you ask before asking. For example, read the paper?

Hint, the condensate they propose is not the kind you do in a lab, it's the kind that has the mass of a black hole, lill difference there.

While you are at it, do a research of the temperature of a black hole too



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

I have always had a problem with the idea that radiation results from a random event. The fact that anything emits radiation is the result of a process, as in the case of a clockwork perspective.



No field has yet been discovered that is responsible for this inflation. However, such a field would be scalar and the first scalar field proven to exist was only discovered in 2012 - 2013 and is still being researched.

So it is not seen as problematic that a field responsible for cosmic inflation and the metric expansion of space has not yet been discovered. The proposed field and its quanta (the subatomic particles related to it) have been named the inflation. If this field did not exist, scientists would have to propose a different explanation for all the observations that strongly suggest a metric expansion of space has occurred and is still occurring (much more slowly) today.


en.wikipedia.org...(cosmology)

thought?



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 08:32 PM
link   


Normal not random

The reason we can't call pi random is that the digits it comprises are precisely determined and fixed. For example, the second decimal place in pi is always 4. So you can't ask what the probability would be of a different number taking this position. It isn't randomly positioned.

But we can ask the related question: "Is pi a normal number?" A decimal number is said to be normal when every sequence of possible digits is equally likely to appear in it, making the numbers look random even if they technically aren't. By looking at the digits of pi and applying statistical tests you can try to determine if it is normal. From the tests performed so far, it is still an open question whether pi is normal or not.


phys.org...


Read more at: phys.org...



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join