Could scientist actually create a blackhole on earth?

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by sc1981
That's exactly what I'm talking about. The big bang theory experiments. If that's what they consider them to be I'm they have different terms for different experiments but you get the general ideal. And I'm sure like you are that they take care in what they are doing and have exact calculations that they go by. But they are human and humans make mistakes. If they are off by just a little it could spell disaster for us all. I mean I'm not willing to let a bunch of people that call themselves scientist toy with my life. Cause basically that's what they're doing. One wrong calculation and we're going to find out where it is exactly a black hole leads to. Or maybe how big of a bang they can produce. And I'm not sure that to many Americans are willing to take that risk in the name of science. I mean it would help if they let us in on the exact risk of these experiments. You know if this or that goes wrong what will be the exact outcome. Will it just destroy the machine or will it destroy our whole planet? So really its a shame that like our government everything has to be top secret. I know some of the scientist working on these experiments have came out and made statements to the public about the risks but is it the whole story. I'm not convinced that it is.


Op these experiments are not top secret, here is the link to cern, go read about it all yourself. It is all open so that the rest of the scientific community can callaborate and find flaws or faults in their methods.

lhc.web.cern.ch...

Very open and honest op, I believe all of your wuestions will be answered there quite easily.




posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by tadaman
reply to post by cjttatu
 


well everyone calling these singularities black holes is not exactly being spot on.

They are singularities. ("heavy" areas with concentrated mass...I dont know what wording to even use.) They are NOT black holes. You need almost infinite mass, and energy to make a black hole...(if it even can be made). Considering that a sun can collapse and still not make one says it all.

They are interesting and are dangerous. BUT it is doom porn to say we can create even a "small" black hole, considering that a "small" black hole is many times larger than the earth that we couldnt even host it....

edit on 15-3-2013 by tadaman because: (no reason given)


A micro-singularity might be considered a precursor to a black hole. The change into a black hole occurs when the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light. This can occur in very small volumes with finite mass, after which, the singularity becomes uncontrollably carnivorous. As it grows in finite mass, so does the distance to the event horizon, the point at which light folds back onto itself or also the point at which there is no escape from the gravitational forces. Micro-singularities that can be maintained "steady-state" that are spinning could very possibly be a key to generating electricity as the magnetic interaction would be very much like a generator. This would only work however, if there was an evaporative constant with regard to the mass of the micro-singularity so one would not have to worry about "over-feeding."

Stephen Hawking produced the theory of evaporating black holes, but retracted the theory calling it one of his biggest mistakes. One of the premises concerning CERN is that during the potential production of black holes (micro-singularities) that a magnetic bubble to contain the black hole will have a containment distance of 10^-17 seconds and that a black is speculated as having an evaporation rate of 10^-22 seconds. That is their fail-safe, however as I said, Stephen Hawking retracted the evaporation theory, so can you say "ooops." One needent wonder why the CERN mascot at their building entrance is Shiva, the Destroyer of Worlds.

Saying we can't create a black hole is a little juvenille, after all, " If a wise and intelligent scientist states that something is impossible he is most definitely wrong, if he says there is a possibility, he is most probably right." How can you claim that one day we might not be able to tunnel mass into a singularity reactor from the hearts of stars using BEC's and EPR solutions? Or for that matter, with smaller amounts of mass right now. Go look up the National Research Council papers on adiabatic reactors, or go look up Eric Cornel at JILA labs from 1995 and then trace back where he got his ideas on KeeleyNet from the early 90's. It's a bit more than possible ;-) All you can hope for is that the researchers have the foresight and personal conviction to stop the research until it can be taken off planet.

The standing theoretical statement concerning black holes and singularities is, "God abhors a naked singularity" and therefore clothes a singularity/black hole in gravity to prevent anyone from actually seeing it.

Cheers - Dave
edit on 3/15.2013 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 05:49 PM
link   
If they do create a real one, let's just hope that they send it to DC.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by bobs_uruncle
 


Wow...very well written, though I am not so fearful of a singularity swallowing the earth , these woukd have much less mass than even a proton, as they would be made of a constituent particle, and be minus the mass lost to energy in the collision, as well as that from every other particle that originated from the proton, even at one planck length, that is not going to posess enough gravity or charge to attract much.

Though, you are correct, nothing can be entirely ruled out if one is honestly trying to be objective about science.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 06:39 PM
link   
My theory suggests that with the right auditory tones you can tear a hole in the fabric of space and create a worm hole into parallel existence.

A star heats up the fabric and is buzzing at a high tenor. When it explodes it expulses so much bass tone that it rips the membrane.

An explosion is nothing more then bass tones.

All you have to do is replicate a star and.. you get the rest.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by sc1981
Maybe I'm just being foolish here and a nerd, but the last I heard blackholes are extremely deadly.
The big massive black holes are deadly.

Microscopic black holes are not deadly.

Here is the CERN statement on this issue (CERN operates the most powerful collider):

The safety of the LHC

According to the well-established properties of gravity, described by Einstein’s relativity, it is impossible for microscopic black holes to be produced at the LHC. There are, however, some speculative theories that predict the production of such particles at the LHC. All these theories predict that these particles would disintegrate immediately. Black holes, therefore, would have no time to start accreting matter and to cause macroscopic effects.
They turned out to be right. However if they had been wrong, this video depicts the result anticipated by some doomsayers:


Don't worry, the odds are you'll get struck by lighting 100 times before that happens.



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 05:50 AM
link   
reply to post by bobs_uruncle
 


let me clarify.

Yes, anything is possible.

BUT, they can not generate anything more than a micro singularity with current technology and equipment.

Could they "one day?" make a black hole? Sure, like anything I could say in a sarcastic tone about an absurd concept. That doesnt mean that a micro singularity IS a black hole, or that one could form without sufficient mass and energy.

I do grasp the concepts of how one is formed and dont need that explained to me. There are a whole host of sources for this subject. I think your response was well written but masked the actual state of the science today.

Using the same language and conviction I could explain how a worm hole could be made artificially, but hide the fact that it is all theory and impossible to even TEST with our current abilities.

They can NOT make a black hole. They can make very heavy particles with enough mass to see how particles interact when forming a black hole....but that is it.

Even if they started the process with a few particles, they would need to continue generating them for thousands of years without letting the others decay so as to generate sufficient mass and energy to get to the point of even seeing the event horizon.

It is like making less than a third of 1 brick and saying it is a sky scraper.....


but yes, anything is possible. Imagination and all that....

edit on 16-3-2013 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 05:54 AM
link   
It is theorized that a black hole could be made but it would be unlikely and if they did, hawkings radiation would eliminate very quickly.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by IntoxicatingMadness
It is theorized that a black hole could be made but it would be unlikely and if they did, hawkings radiation would eliminate very quickly.


Hawking retracted his theory of "evaporation radiation" and concluded that the radiation theorized at the outside edge of the event horizon was caused by accelerated particles splitting with one particle falling into the singularity, thereby increasing its mass. The other particle, would be red-shifted (slowed down) and appear as faint IR type radiation.

Hawking Retraction

Singularities/Black Holes are carnivores. Since their mass produces a level of gravity that prevents even light escaping, evaporation can only be considered statistically as a non-zero probability and only through entanglement. In which case, information also has a non-zero probability of escape, but not the actual "bits."

Cheers - Dave



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 02:25 AM
link   
reply to post by tadaman
 


If I have the time at some point I will pull up my old NRC project papers, which show that a singularity can be created in a matter of minutes using the correct injection techniques at extremely close to absolute zero. It uses an adiabatic reaction that allows injected particles to be entangled within a specific volume of space. It's been 20 years since the project but I think the threshold was about 10^25 entangled particles per ground-state single particle volume.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by bobs_uruncle
Hawking Retraction

Cheers - Dave
Did you read your own link? I followed it and found this:


In short, you have no idea what in the hell you are talking about.


That's a terrible link. Try to find a decent source. Even Wikipedia would probably be better than that.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by tadaman
 


That is an assumption.

A black hole has never been observed. Only the effects of it have been, and that is assumed too.


A black hole could be an Anti-Matter solar system.


This does not conflict with any observed data.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by bobs_uruncle
reply to post by sc1981
 


Yes, this research is ongoing. Just create a dynamic magnetic bubble (toroid+vortex, less than 20" inches in diameter) with an field strength of about 14 to 20 Tesla moving at over the speed of light with an active containment area of just over 1 angstrom in diamater by about 4 to 7 angstroms high cylinder (you'll want to limit the amount of collectable mass so the experiment doesn't go out of control). You'll need some very specialized electronics that must be custom made to control this device. Couple that to the a few low energy lasers and a proton/neutron injector. What you get is continuous string entanglement that increases in mass according to the speed of particle injection.

Eventually, the mass will increase to a level that could theoretically produce a micro-singularity (a few trillion injections, at 100mhz that would be 20,000 to 50,000 seconds). Micro-singularities are just like their big brothers, they're carnivores. They consume a little slower at first but they speed up quickly. If you don't do this just right, the field will fail at some point and eventually (16.224 hours later) the planet would end up having a Schwarzschild radius of about 9 centimeters and would be spinning very close to the speed of light.

Adiabatic reactions are fun, just don't try this at home as it's a bit dangerous and the cost of the device is between $60k and $250k depending on whether you use Chinese or American made parts.

Just joking, or am I ????

Cheers - Dave


Do you write for Star Trek? If not, perhaps you should.



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


Actually, I still have my own operable adiabatic reactor, as far as I know, the first ever created (I designed it and built it) between 1991 and 1993 with National Research Council funding. Eric Cornell did not produce his until 1995. It's funny actually, all the work researchers were doing back in the 90's is being re-proven in the 2010's, including spatial compression via entanglement to produce what appears to be faster-than-light communications (but it's really just spatial compression). Visible, or public access to technology, tends to lag 10 to 30 years behind the time that the technology was actually developed. Military technology has an even greater lag.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


My apologies, I was in a bit of a rush as I was (and still am) in the middle of a project.


Hawking showed how the strong gravitational field around a black hole can affect the production of matching pairs of particles and anti-particles, as is happening all the time in apparently empty space according to quantum theory. If the particles are created just outside the event horizon of a black hole, then it is possible that the positive member of the pair (say, an electron) may escape - observed as thermal radiation emitting from the black hole - while the negative particle (say, a positron, with its negative energy and negative mass) may fall back into the black hole, and in this way the black hole would gradually lose mass. This was perhaps one of the first ever examples of a theory which synthesized, at least to some extent, quantum mechanics and general relativity.

A corollary of this, though, is the so-called “Information Paradox” or “Hawking Paradox”, whereby physical information (which roughly means the distinct identity and properties of particles going into a black hole) appears to be completely lost to the universe, in contravention of the accepted laws of physics (sometimes referred to as the "law of conservation of information"). Hawking vigorously defended this paradox against the arguments of Leonard Susskind and others for almost thirty years, until he famously retracted his claim in 2004, effectively conceding defeat to Susskind in what had become known as the "black hole war". Hawking's latest line of reasoning is that the information is in fact conserved, although perhaps not in our observable universe but in other parallel universes in the multiverse as a whole.


An Article on the Subject

First off, statistics and probabilities indicate that during particle pair production at the event horizon, 50% of the time normal particles will be drawn into the singularity and 50% of the time anti-particles will be drawn in. So, from an S&P vantage there can be no increase or decrease in mass due to particle pair production. You have to remember that black holes originated by consuming "normal" particles/mass, so to think more would not be drawn into the black hole is simply preposterous. Then there is the conservation of energy, conservation of mass and conservation of information paradoxes.

If particle pairs are meant by nature to annihilate each other, the siphoning away of one particle or another would produce an imbalance in the total mass of the universe, which is expressly forbidden under the present rules, the same applies to their energy and information. Is it possible for a singularity to "emit" anything other than gravitational "energy?" I'd say improbable simply because, nothing escapes from inside the event horizon once the escape velocity of the singularity exceeds the speed of light. Is it possible to produce a kind of surface emission from just outside the event horizon? I'd say that's possible. If the paired particles do not annihilate each other but rather go off into space on their own paths, you would still have conservation of mass, energy and information, plus there is a non-zero probability that they will eventually collide with their opposing form of matter producing annihilation.

Hawking using a "multiverse" as a solution is a crutch, it's a catch-all. It produces the NET result that all things are 100% probable, that absolutely nothing is forbidden and all paradoxes are invalid. As an example, that would mean that you go back in time, kill your grandfathers and grandmothers before your father and mother were born and that you would still remain alive and viable in your present state in your originating universe. One of the greatest problems with the idea of time travel (or multiverse travel - sideways) and black holes, is conservation of mass, energy and information. Admittedly however, the standard rule is that almost anything is possible and most "quirks" in any theory have a non-zero probability of occurring.

Cheers - Dave
edit on 4/2.2013 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by bobs_uruncle

A corollary of this, though, is the so-called “Information Paradox”
You're mixing up the corollary of the information paradox with the Hawking radiation.

Hawking changed his position on the information paradox, not on Hawking radiation itself, is my understanding, and none of your sources say otherwise.



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Ok here are the facts and this is based on a BBC Horizon documentary (How small is the universe?), not only do they believe they can make black holes but they think they probably already are and have no means of detecting them as yet. these are claims of an actual scientist working in the LHC interviewed by the BBC in the LHC.

Apparently the next big project they are excited about now the Higgs Boson is supposedly found, is making black holes on purpose to study them this is all in the same BBC documentary I've already mentioned.

So yes when CERN claimed black holes were impossible they were just outright lying, now that they think their past the public panicing they are pressing ahead despite Hawking Radiation being nothing more than wishful thinking and unproven.
edit on 2-4-2013 by Teknikal because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Science can't create a black hole...yet...but I am sure they could crack the earths surface all up already with their knowledge and toys.



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
Science can't create a black hole...yet...but I am sure they could crack the earths surface all up already with their knowledge and toys.


I disagree

news.bbc.co.uk...

Also they have recently discovered it's possible at far lower energies than previously thought

physicsworld.com...

At this stage we have probably already done the damage but thankfully it shouldn't be noticeable for a very long time, unless the scientists have something badly wrong of course.



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Black Holes are Anti-Matter Solar Systems. Anti-Light is gravity.

Everything science knows about the celestial ones is assumptions based on indirect observations. Sometimes a star is occulted by something invisible, and sometimes there is an invisible gravitational source that appears to be circling a visible star.


No observed data conflicts with my theroy and following the circle around it is the grand unification theory.


An Asymmetrical Anti-Matter Lens is called a Gravity Can.





new topics
top topics
 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join