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.

 

Singularity theories/food for thought LHC ideas

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Okay, so i've been a long time reader/lurker, but i've never really settled on a handle/actively posted, but i've been doing a lot of reading lately about physics, the solar system/celestial bodies as well as articles by Hawking about black hole decay/hawking radiation and it's gotten my mind going to the point where I kind of feel i could use a little input/braintstorming or at least verification of my thought processes.

firstly, with the breakthrough that is the discovery of hawking radiation/black hole decay, I did a little reading on the fundamental idealogies behind astronomy and the basics on gravitational forces, and black holes in general.

the idea that i've been trying to wrap my head around is this:
Spacetime is essentially a fabric, all mass/matter that has gravitational force bends said fabric to draw other objects towards it. So, being that a black hole/singularity is essentially an enormous mass in an immeasurably tiny area, thus the time/space leap by traversing the immeasurably tiny area occupied by a black hole should be vast. ie: using some sort of anti-grav craft unnaffected by the incredible gravitational pull of the black hole, moving past the area occupied by the black hole should, in theory jump forward or backward a vast amount of time, and cover a vast amount of space, correct?

And Secondly:
The idea that tiny singularities may be created through the massive amounts of energy created by collisions in the LHC in combination with reading An article by Hawking dealing with Hawking radiation/singularity decay got me thinking...

If it were possible to stabilize a microsingularity, would it function the same way as a natural black hole. Meaning, would it, over time(a much shorter time obviously than a natural black hole due to the immense difference in mass involved) perform the same function, essentially breaking all matter taken in into it's most primal/basic form? ie: could we stabilize a micro singularity, inject it with hazordous materials - nuclear/biological waste, etc - and have it eject the matter that entered in a more stable less dangerous form, preferably hydrogen, helium, lithium, or another basic element.

Thanks for any response, be it supportive or constructive criticism.




posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 06:44 PM
link   
Ok your looking for a lot of information here. Firstly top your point on black holes, we don't understand them don't know what they are or what they do. As of late Hawking's papers and research have garnered little support and a vast amount of criticism. (check you tube for hawking paradox video). The theoretical maths behind black holes are exactly that theory. Hawking himself has gone back and said no wait perhaps it isn't the way i originally described it. Also the viewing of space time as a fabric or sheet (whatever) is an over simplified description of space time and doesn't serve as a good base from which to build your ideas.

To your second point, any black hole created at cern will be closed by quantum fluctuations. But the problem here lies in that we don't even understand black holes we don't know what they are or what they REALLY do. So the stabilization of said black hole is irrelevant. IF we do create a quantum sized black hole it would not be able to be stabilized because quantum fluctuations would close it almost immediately.

What you have to understand about theoretical physics is that isn't proven facts. Black holes may or may not be real. I to was completely enamored by theoretical and particle physics. To the point where i returned to college to get a degree in physics to go along side my chemistry degree. The thing you must realize about this type of research is that the mathematics can be bent and shaped to say pretty much whatever you want.

While i find all the new extra dimensional physics and the many worlds interpretation to be quite fascinating there is still a great chance that it is nothing more than a mathematical curiosity and a rather pitiful scape goat for physicists trying to explain the uncertainty principle and wave particle dualities. Think about it this way, physics is a science that builds on past discoveries that are practically ancient. We haven't been able to describe our verse properly in a simplistic set of laws or defining principles as should be possible applying the principle of Occams razor. As the physics becomes less obvious through observation due to size issues theoretical physics takes over. It may just be that the various theories cooked up with incredibly intense complicated tailor made mathematics. We don't understand it so we shape our mathematics to describe it. We aren't using actual measurements and high precision instruments to make these predictions but rather human intuition, a serious flaw in the scientific process.


Anywho if you would like me to point you in the direction of some good research papers videos whatever physics or chemistry hit my u2u and we'll get a dialog going





CW OUT!!



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by whiterabbit85
 


I will make one point. If we create a Singularity where time may actually stand still no matter how unstable the event horizon may be. The Singularity may not dissipate due to time dilation. It is possible that once you create something that bends time that much, regardless of its size, it may not even be able to dissipate if the matter becomes trapped in time. The truth is no one knows what a black hole will do if we create one or even if it is possible to make one that is infinitely small. If the Singularity is able to effect space then it also could if it has gravity keep sucking in everything near it. How large it could grow, how long it will last and how much if any damage to earth it could do is unknown. One thing is for sure. There is not enough matter around earth for it to grow too large even if we are stuck with it. Would it not suck if this happens and we figure out that it will destroy earth over 100 years...

Even a small gravity well could eventually swallow up the earth though it might take hours, minuets or millions of years. We just do not know. They can only speculate based on speculation.



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 07:46 PM
link   
actually the mathematics of black holes describes the time it takes to grow exponentially. Its something like 20 years for a quanta sized black hole to engorge itself to the size of a grapefruit (food for thought)



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 08:34 PM
link   
I read on the subject of black holes and I don't believe in micro black holes. Once an atom is smashed, it almost instantly rushes to become part of something else. A black hole needs a huge amount of mass and gravity, and even then it may not be a sigularity but merely so massive it attracts photons to itself.

Math has some impossible problems. What it zero minus 1/2 zero. In math it would be 1/2 zero. The problem is that it is so only in fantasyland. When you get to zero or "nothing" there is no more subtraction. So it is with black holes. They are not what they appear to be.



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 08:50 PM
link   
half zero nice
another huge flaw in mathematics is the fact that a repeating decimal such as .99999999 is considered to be a virtual 1, however when speaking on scales that are used in the cosmos all those extra lost decimals add up to be huge deficits very quickly.



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 12:03 AM
link   
Hey, Constantwonder, as I have not yet accumulated the 20 posts required to send u2u messages my only way of requesting any information or research papers you can point me to is through replying to this thread unfortunately.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join