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.

 

Baby Bang experiment could open door to new dimension

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 01:38 PM
link   
about 4 billion years ago (our time scale),
Klerm made an astounding breakthrough...
he didn't know what the exact outcome of his experiment would be, but decided that it was worth it to try...

so he created a mini bang within his laboratory... and watched his little universe grow right before his eyes...

now several days later (7 to be exact, in klerms time scale/dimension) Klerm looks into his micro creation with a powerful nanoscope, and discovers that planets have been formed, and life on planets is already forming...

then a few weeks go by (in Klerms time scale) and he sees that his tiny universe, has evolved, and on the evolved planets, evolved creatures have taken hold...

then a few more weeks go by (again, in Klerms time scale)
and it appears that these evolved creatures on a certain planet, have attempted to recreate his experiment... and do...
so he has created a universe, that in turn, has created beings, that have in turn, also created a universe...

aint dimensions great?



[edit on 19-9-2006 by LazarusTheLong]




posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 01:39 PM
link   
These scientists obviously havent been following
the 2012 doomsday prediction posts that I've seen on here then



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
about 4 billion years ago (our time scale),
Klerm made an astounding breakthrough...
he didn't know what the exact outcome of his experiment would be, but decided that it was worth it to try...

so he created a mini bang within his laboratory... and watched his little universe grow right before his eyes...

now several days later (7 to be exact, in klerms time scale/dimension) Klerm looks into his micro creation with a powerful nanoscope, and discovers that planets have been formed, and life on planets is already forming...

then a few weeks go by (in Klerms time scale) and he sees that his tiny universe, has evolved, and on the evolved planets, evolved creatures have taken hold...

then a few more weeks go by (again, in Klerms time scale)
and it appears that these evolved creatures on a certain planet, have attempted to recreate his experiment... and do...
so he has created a universe, that in turn, has created beings, that have in turn, also created a universe...

aint dimensions great?



[edit on 19-9-2006 by LazarusTheLong]


could be true!

But when was the FIRST universe created? and by whom?

Also, I don't understand why a particle collider would create a mini-black hole...black holes are super condensed (essentially dead and collapsed) stars.

How would colliding sub atomic particles create a mini-super dense collapsed star?? that makes no sense to me.

an explosion maybe, but a black hole? i don't buy it.

(not directed towards LazarusTheLong) - and please don't claim to understand everything in the universe...because that's just being arrogant. Nobody knows exact truth of everything except the one running the show. Even the top physicists in the world can't explain everything...they are far from answering 1% of the universes mysteries if I had to guess.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by GhostITM
Please people...... I post something because I know enough about the physics to inform you what is the likely outcome, and yet some of you still persist in this "doomsday" scenario!!!. I suggest you take the time out to learn about the physics of what they're trying to do.

Even if they did crack open a few extra dimensions, the fact that they're occuring at such small dimensions guarantees that quantum fluctuations will close any tear that forms. In actual fact, the budding "bang" will bud off of our universe and expand within its own space..... so they may form a new baby universe which will expand just like ours did 13-14 billion years ago. It can't replace our universe because it can't occupy the same space....... it's the good old Exclusion Principle at work. Once it buds off, we'll have no way of looking at it or even communicating with it because it won't exist within our universe at all. It will be just another growing universe within superspace.


[edit on 18-9-2006 by GhostITM]


And I thought quantum physics was theory and not fact? My mistake. But, since you mention the words..may form, etc. tells me that this is not indeed fact but theory. Not every theory is correct...including Newton's, Einstein's, etc. Just wanted to point out that maybe you do know the physics that you are talking about, but realize that many theories could be wrong.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
about 4 billion years ago (our time scale),
Klerm made an astounding breakthrough...
he didn't know what the exact outcome of his experiment would be, but decided that it was worth it to try...

so he created a mini bang within his laboratory... and watched his little universe grow right before his eyes...

now several days later (7 to be exact, in klerms time scale/dimension) Klerm looks into his micro creation with a powerful nanoscope, and discovers that planets have been formed, and life on planets is already forming...




[edit on 19-9-2006 by LazarusTheLong]



And He saw that it was good and He called it Earth!



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 05:54 PM
link   
Just thought I'd add a new article talkina bout this on LiveScience.com.

Despite Rumors, Black-Hole Factory Will Not Destroy The Earth..



Also, our universe is between 13-20billion years old,
the Earth is about 4.6billion.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

And I thought quantum physics was theory and not fact? My mistake. But, since you mention the words..may form, etc. tells me that this is not indeed fact but theory. Not every theory is correct...including Newton's, Einstein's, etc. Just wanted to point out that maybe you do know the physics that you are talking about, but realize that many theories could be wrong.


It is, you're correct.

It was the semantics of my post which may have confused you, sorry for that. I meant it to be "in theory". Lots of theories turn out to be wrong and I can imagine that in 100 years time, what we know now will seem rather quaint to the scientists then


BTW....love your avatar!!!



[edit on 19-9-2006 by GhostITM]



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 11:10 PM
link   
Knew the guy........ funny. Great sense of humour. Bit strange sometimes but not too bad to get along with. Bit of a party animal



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 11:46 PM
link   
1 I also dont see how they can create a black hole, black holes are made as a result of an imploding star, when the mass of the star colides on it's core , what the proccess is exactly no one knows, in theory nothing is complete about black holes, it's said that in every galaxy, in the middle of the galaxy there is a huge black hole, and that by one of the theorys black holes form galaxyes.
What we do know is that black holes grow, and they do it be eating matter, light anything.
That little black hole can grow, nothing is guarantied, to say"we got a black hole under control" is plane stupid, why are wondering in to the unknown I dont know, if we havent got a clue on how a black hole works ,and I repeat , we don't, why go in to it now, in stead of trying to study the matter further until we know at least 50% of it.
Any one that will say that I know Phisics bla bla bla is also wrong, Phisics break when It comes to black holes, Phisics laws dont aply inside a black whole, so we don't know how it trully works.
I saw some of them that sustained here they know phisics, too bad the law of phiscs dont apply when it comes to such things.



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 12:03 AM
link   
True within the event horizon, and the gravity well of a macro
quantum singularity the current known laws of physics do break
down.

But we'd be dealing with black holes on a scale smaller than atoms.

I think, I'm not sure, but I think I remember reading somewhere
that quantum scale black holes are very different from macroscopic
sized black holes.


Also, one good thing, well one extremely good thing that could come
of this, is if we create wromholes, rather than black holes.



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 12:58 AM
link   
A black hole is a black hole, no matter what scale it's at. The only exception is that quantum scale black holes are subject to the random fluctuations of spacetime at those scales and are prone to evaporate at much faster rates than macroscale black holes.

The only part where the laws of physics breakdown at in a black holes is at the singularity. Everywhere else in the hole it's fine (to an extent). That's why they're trying to reconcile Relativity with Quantum Physics to come with a law of quantum gravity. Quantum gravity would be able to handle the strange goings on at the singularity because those goings on are happening at the quantum level, not at the macroscopic level of Relativity.



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 01:05 AM
link   
Man, I really screw things up when I'm tired, I wrote two things I
meant as the same thing...


I suppose that means I should go sleep.


Oh, and GhostITM, as soon as I have my WATS votes for next month,
you're
definately getting one.



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 01:12 AM
link   
Yes, goto sleep and make sure you get plenty of it!!!


And, thank you for that upcoming vote of confidence



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by GhostITM
The only part where the laws of physics breakdown at in a black holes is at the singularity. Everywhere else in the hole it's fine (to an extent). That's why they're trying to reconcile Relativity with Quantum Physics to come with a law of quantum gravity. Quantum gravity would be able to handle the strange goings on at the singularity because those goings on are happening at the quantum level, not at the macroscopic level of Relativity.


I really know very little about black-holes.... but Einstein said that time can be affected by gravity. Doesn't this mean that the closer to a gravity-source "time" is, the more it is affected, aka the warping of space-time (which I assume is presumed to both be integrated with eachother)? If so, wouldn't the black-hole be affecting time? Does that count for a breakdown, or at least a change, of the physics? I've heard that time passes slightly slower/faster on the top floor of a building as compared to the basement... but the difference is minimal.

Maybe at the quantum level, this doesn't effectively happen..... but it could theoretically happen, couldn't it?

Again, I really don't know very much about black-holes or physics.... but the subject of black-holes has always interested me.



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by firebat
I really know very little about black-holes.... but Einstein said that time can be affected by gravity. Doesn't this mean that the closer to a gravity-source "time" is, the more it is affected, aka the warping of space-time (which I assume is presumed to both be integrated with eachother)? If so, wouldn't the black-hole be affecting time? Does that count for a breakdown, or at least a change, of the physics? I've heard that time passes slightly slower/faster on the top floor of a building as compared to the basement... but the difference is minimal.

Maybe at the quantum level, this doesn't effectively happen..... but it could theoretically happen, couldn't it?

Again, I really don't know very much about black-holes or physics.... but the subject of black-holes has always interested me.


You are correct. The warping of spacetime does effect time itself, such that the greater the warping effect, the slower time will appear to move relative to the observer outside of the warp. Conversely, for someone inside the warp, time will move faster the further you move away from the source of the warp. So, a black hole will effect the passage of time within its vicinity, but those changes in the flow of time are in accordance with GR (General Relativity). It's only when the conditions of the warping of spacetime become extreme, i.e. at the singularity, that the laws of physics breakdown. However by that time, when size becomes "zero" and mass is infinite, we reach the realm of the quantum. That's where scientist are trying to reconcile Relativity with Quantum Physics to come up with Quantum Gravity. QG should be able to handle the conditions that are present at the singularity, and beyond. However they're having a hard time trying to develop a consistent theory of QG, as they're dealing with two theories that work at the opposite ends of the size scale. They have a handle on how gravity operates on a large scale but haven't a clue yet how it operates on a small scale. What makes it even more difficult is that they're not sure what gravity is, yet.

The answer to your building/time question is..... time moves slower in the basement of a building than it does on the top floor, but for any building on the Earth's surface the difference is so small it'd almost be impossible to discern.


[edit on 20-9-2006 by GhostITM]



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by GhostITM
The answer to your building/time question is..... time moves slower in the basement of a building than it does on the top floor, but for any building on the Earth's surface the difference is so small it'd almost be impossible to discern.


So if you're talking to someone on a phone who is the attic, and you are in the basement... are you, in effect, sending a message into the past?

EDIT: Or is that where that whole relativity thing comes in again?

[edit on 20-9-2006 by firebat]



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by anxietydisorder

Dr Cox dismissed worries that by adventuring into the unknown and creating tiny black holes, the machine could even destroy the planet.

"The probability is at the level of 10 to the minus 40," he said.

They estimate the possibility of accidentally destroying the planet as extremely low.



Well as long as the chance of our total existence being wiped out is low, hey, go for it.


Yea. An amusing thought that I had was what if thats what happened to a previous civilisation. Their end by an experiment that had only a minute chance of destroying their world, did in fact destroy their world and the complex physics caused the bang that led to where we are today.



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 08:14 PM
link   
No. If you're in the basement and they're in the attic, you perceive time for them as moving faster than for you. In effect, you're sending a message into the future



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Hello,
after staying passive for so long it's time to post something on ats.

The danger of black holes in accelerators is not really big. If Hawkings' Hawking radiation would be nonsense there would be a huge danger presented by black holes created in particle accelerators.

The danger of a Stangelet disaster is much bigger, I'll post something about that within the next few days.

The biggest danger presented by particle accelerators seems to be the "mini big bang". According to string physics the universe tunneled out of the quantum vacuum and formed a space time bubble. In a recent speech in Munich Prof. Ehlers from the university of Kiel (Germany) stated that quantum fluctuations were "seen" in recent experiments at RIHC. According to his calculations only a factor 10 increase of energy density would be needed to cause a destabilization of the quantum background. Cerns LHC will be already close to this energy density. I'll post more about that in the coming days.

-----
Greetings from Germany



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 02:57 PM
link   
umm didn't anyone notice the sarcasm in the 10-40 thing hehe... (even tho that chance is so low that it really might be possible hehe
)



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join