open All Channels
seplocked Out of Pod Experience
blankseplocked String Theory fails on news that CERN cannot create micro black holes.
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Professor Tarantula
Hedion University
Posted - 2010.12.16 22:07:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Professor Tarantula on 16/12/2010 22:08:52
Linkage.

Maybe now Michio Kaku will stop annoying the living hell out of me in every single physics documentary and TV show, but i doubt it.

baltec1
Posted - 2010.12.16 22:14:00 - [2]
 

I like himNeutral

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2010.12.16 22:22:00 - [3]
 

String theory failed on so many theoretic levels until now that just one experiment proving the inaccuracy of one of the many possible models in string theory can hardly be called decisive enough Laughing
After 10-20 more experiments that continuously shoot down each and every other testable aspect of string theory, MAYBE then people will start considering that string theory was probably not the best of ideas, and try something else instead.
Twisted Evil

Professor Tarantula
Hedion University
Posted - 2010.12.16 22:24:00 - [4]
 

I used to like him, but he really started to wear on me after awhile. He's a frequent guest on a radio show i listen to often.

Never minded him much in small doses, but i always thought his insistence on calling it 'super string theory' was a bit silly, and things just kind of grew from there.

Sidus Isaacs
Gallente
Posted - 2010.12.16 22:33:00 - [5]
 

Not shocking, but nifty.

I wonder what the real theory we end up with will be. Perhaps in 20 years time we got a good model :)

Professor Tarantula
Hedion University
Posted - 2010.12.16 22:35:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Akita T
String theory failed on so many theoretic levels until now that just one experiment proving the inaccuracy of one of the many possible models in string theory can hardly be called decisive enough Laughing
After 10-20 more experiments that continuously shoot down each and every other testable aspect of string theory, MAYBE then people will start considering that string theory was probably not the best of ideas, and try something else instead.
Twisted Evil


Well the funny thing about that, is creating these mini black holes was one of the big reasons for building CERN in the first place. They were that sure it would work. So we're not looking at something minor here which can be easily corrected and the theory can be proven another way. This was their best bet.

They've also failed so far to find any evidence of the Higgs Boson, so we might be looking at scientists trying to calm investors down after filling their heads with grand ideas which never panned out.

Louis deGuerre
Gallente
Malevolence.
Posted - 2010.12.16 23:58:00 - [7]
 

Michio Kaku will adapt, revise, and taunt you with new String theories and his amazing hair ! Twisted Evil

Darteis Elosia
Gallente
PHOENIX 2ND C.A.G.
Posted - 2010.12.17 01:54:00 - [8]
 

I know very little about physics but isn't a very strong gravvitational pull required to create a black hole in the first place? And considering that the amoun of mass in transit within the accelerator is nowhere near the amount required to acheive that sort of gravity..?

can someone explain? Neutral

Headerman
Minmatar
Quovis
Shadow of xXDEATHXx
Posted - 2010.12.17 02:11:00 - [9]
 

String theory = fail theory

Headerman
Minmatar
Quovis
Shadow of xXDEATHXx
Posted - 2010.12.17 02:14:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Darteis Elosia
I know very little about physics but isn't a very strong gravvitational pull required to create a black hole in the first place? And considering that the amoun of mass in transit within the accelerator is nowhere near the amount required to acheive that sort of gravity..?

can someone explain? Neutral


In this instance, it was hoped that the speed of the mass colliding would negate the need for 'alot' of mass to create a black hole.

IMO this result puts a 'very small' question mark on black holes

Selinate
Amarr
Posted - 2010.12.17 04:19:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Darteis Elosia
I know very little about physics but isn't a very strong gravvitational pull required to create a black hole in the first place? And considering that the amoun of mass in transit within the accelerator is nowhere near the amount required to acheive that sort of gravity..?

can someone explain? Neutral


After what I've read here, asking these folks about it probably isn't the best idea...

Kaahles
Deliverers of Pain
Posted - 2010.12.17 04:29:00 - [12]
 

When I read that I somehow remembered this:

Quote:
Leonard: [discussing Sheldon's work] At least I didn't have to invent 26 dimensions to get the math to work.
Sheldon: I didn't invent them. They're there.
Leonard: Yeah? In what universe?
Sheldon: In all of them, that's the point!

Professor Tarantula
Hedion University
Posted - 2010.12.17 05:06:00 - [13]
 

Edited by: Professor Tarantula on 17/12/2010 05:41:59
Originally by: Darteis Elosia
I know very little about physics but isn't a very strong gravvitational pull required to create a black hole in the first place? And considering that the amoun of mass in transit within the accelerator is nowhere near the amount required to acheive that sort of gravity..?

can someone explain? Neutral


Just a much more concentrated mass than is common. So much so that the escape velocity of the surrounding area exceeds the speed of light.

The modern theory is that gravity is produced by mass, which is normally spread out pretty reasonably in objects, but when certain things happen like a planet collapsing into itself mass is condensed into such a small area that it causes the distortion around it which we refer to as a black hole.

I can't really say exactly how they were hoping to do that on the quantum level, and it might be for the better seeing as it didn't work out. But particles do have mass, and my guess would be they were hoping to condense it to such an extreme on that scale to produce these mini black holes, because like i said it's not really about the total mass just how much it's condensed relative to what's common in it's surroundings. How all this relates to string theory i have no idea, but once again it might be for the better seeing as it didn't work out.

Originally by: Headerman
IMO this result puts a 'very small' question mark on black holes


Agreed. Shame we can't collapse a planet to test that too. Laughing

Betty Boom
Caldari
SPECTRE Syndicate
Posted - 2010.12.17 05:55:00 - [14]
 

Hey Atheists! Where is your God? Twisted EvilWink

Well - String theorie was a fail from the start. The core problem is to understand something like a 2 dimensional physical effect like gravity.

Blane Xero
Amarr
The Firestorm Cartel
Posted - 2010.12.17 13:00:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Betty Boom
Hey Atheists! Where is your God? Twisted EvilWink

Well - String theorie was a fail from the start. The core problem is to understand something like a 2 dimensional physical effect like gravity.
See sig.

That aside, asking an Atheist where their god is it kinda ******ed.

Riedle
Minmatar
Paradox Collective
Posted - 2010.12.17 13:42:00 - [16]
 

Quote:
The modern theory is that gravity is produced by mass, which is normally spread out pretty reasonably in objects, but when certain things happen like a planet collapsing into itself mass is condensed into such a small area that it causes the distortion around it which we refer to as a black hole.



No, it takes MUCH more mass than that to create a black hole. Even when our Sun dies it will not have enough mass to create one. Black holes are only formed from the largest of stars - definitely not planets.

Triple Entendre
Atrocity.
Posted - 2010.12.17 13:59:00 - [17]
 

Edited by: Triple Entendre on 17/12/2010 14:02:32
Originally by: Professor Tarantula

They've also failed so far to find any evidence of the Higgs Boson, so we might be looking at scientists trying to calm investors down after filling their heads with grand ideas which never panned out.


Bah. Not finding the Higgs is every bit as useful as the damn thing popping up. As far as we know and as far as logic dictates, there is still a particle, or particles at work doing the same job. If anything, not finding it would be much more interesting.

Plus, in a moment of being entirely self-serving, with any luck, hunting for what it is that SHOULD have been the Higgs might drag the research out until I'm done with uni and working in the field. Wink

Louis deGuerre
Gallente
Malevolence.
Posted - 2010.12.17 14:06:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Riedle
Quote:
The modern theory is that gravity is produced by mass, which is normally spread out pretty reasonably in objects, but when certain things happen like a planet collapsing into itself mass is condensed into such a small area that it causes the distortion around it which we refer to as a black hole.



No, it takes MUCH more mass than that to create a black hole. Even when our Sun dies it will not have enough mass to create one. Black holes are only formed from the largest of stars - definitely not planets.


A sufficiently DENSE concentration of mass will create a black hole. Generally only giant stars that collapse on themselves are able to create this situation. However, theoretically, in the early universe it was possible for very low mass (say mount everest) to collapse into mini-blackholes. There has been some speculation that some of these might still exist and one of them might have been responsible for the Tunguska event (discounted but cool idea nonetheless Razz)

Vogue
Short Bus Pole Dancers
Posted - 2010.12.17 14:18:00 - [19]
 

Neutron stars - the stellar remnant of a gravitational collapse of a massive star has the density of the mass of the entire human race in the space of a sugar cube. Escape velocity from the gravitational pull is 100,000 km/sec. Or a 3rd the speed of light. They are typically only 20km across.

Yes I copied all of this from googling. But the physical forces at work in the universe are amazing. Not that its possible but if a sugar cube of mass was teleported from a Neutron star to Earth the gravitational pull could destroy our planet.

Wendat Huron
Stellar Solutions
Posted - 2010.12.17 17:16:00 - [20]
 

You've all been duped, they did create one, Illuminati stole it to get back at god and the Vatican.

Saju Somtaaw
Kagan-Kincaid Enterprises
Posted - 2010.12.17 17:47:00 - [21]
 

Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence. In other words just because you have no evidence that some pig farmer in Austria exists doesn't mean he doesn't.

Professor Tarantula
Hedion University
Posted - 2010.12.17 18:49:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Vogue
Neutron stars - the stellar remnant of a gravitational collapse of a massive star has the density of the mass of the entire human race in the space of a sugar cube. Escape velocity from the gravitational pull is 100,000 km/sec. Or a 3rd the speed of light. They are typically only 20km across.


Yes, It still doesn't have all its mass confined to a single point, like you'd see with black holes, it's spread out over that 10-20kms.

If conditions allowed it to do a better job compacting all that mass the escape velocity of it's surroundings would exceed ~186k miles per second, the speed of light.

Riedle
Minmatar
Paradox Collective
Posted - 2010.12.17 19:27:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: Professor Tarantula
Originally by: Vogue
Neutron stars - the stellar remnant of a gravitational collapse of a massive star has the density of the mass of the entire human race in the space of a sugar cube. Escape velocity from the gravitational pull is 100,000 km/sec. Or a 3rd the speed of light. They are typically only 20km across.


Yes, It still doesn't have all its mass confined to a single point, like you'd see with black holes, it's spread out over that 10-20kms.

If conditions allowed it to do a better job compacting all that mass the escape velocity of it's surroundings would exceed ~186k miles per second, the speed of light.


No, it is entirely dependent on the amount of mass that collapses. A star that goes supernova and collapses into a neutron star is fairly common. The original star, while large, did not have a significant amount of mass to generate a black hole.

It has nothing to do with "compacting". The larger the mass, the more compact it becomes out of necessity. (barring a more powerful force preventing it from compacting such as nuclear explosions).

This is entirely why stars go supernova. Their fuel source runs out which is fueling the nuclear reactions. At that time, the star starts to consume other fuels and then finally goes dry. The star then collapses on itself due to gravity and goes to a much smaller, but the same mass, object. If the star was large enough and had enough mass, this will become a black hole which is essentially something that has so much mass that not even light can escape it's gravitational pull.

Professor Tarantula
Hedion University
Posted - 2010.12.17 20:41:00 - [24]
 

Those are the conditions i mentioned. After a black hole is formed, all its mass being forced into a single point creates a singularity which has zero density, and is what allows neutron stars to be more dense.

Andrea Exerlauka
Posted - 2010.12.17 21:59:00 - [25]
 

Edited by: Andrea Exerlauka on 17/12/2010 22:02:10
Pseudoscience doesn't work, news at eleven.

Now you see why string theory tries so hard to not make any specific predictions.

TimMc
Brutal Deliverance
Gypsy Band
Posted - 2010.12.18 00:10:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: Saju Somtaaw
Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence. In other words just because you have no evidence that some pig farmer in Austria exists doesn't mean he doesn't.


Wait. Are you trying to use the usual religious line to argue in favour of string theory? Oh dear.

Riedle
Minmatar
Paradox Collective
Posted - 2010.12.18 00:40:00 - [27]
 

Edited by: Riedle on 18/12/2010 00:42:24
Originally by: Professor Tarantula
Those are the conditions i mentioned. After a black hole is formed, all its mass being forced into a single point creates a singularity which has zero density, and is what allows neutron stars to be more dense.


What?

This doesn't make sense to me..

A neutron star is 'almost' a black hole. Incredibly dense but there was not enough initial mass to induce a gravitational pull strong enough to make a black hole.

The whole singularity thing is besides the point. No one knows how large or small the singularity is within a blackhole as it is impossible to measure even by inference. All we know is that it has enough mass to make the gravity so strong that not even light can escape it.

Also, a blackhole would have close to infinite density, not zero density and neutron stars are not more dense than black holes...

maybe I am misunderstanding you or something, I don't know.

Professor Tarantula
Hedion University
Posted - 2010.12.18 04:54:00 - [28]
 

Edited by: Professor Tarantula on 18/12/2010 05:10:36
It's a subject of much contention, because things get so crazy at a singularity.

We think that tremendous mass being compacted is how a singularity is created, but after that point all bets are off. You can just as easily say it has infinite density as it has zero, because both are equally insane. You often hear people say black holes have infinite density, because it's slightly less insane, or maybe more impressive, but it's a property which they haven't been proven to have. What we do know is that they carry an electric charge, because they give off electromagnetic fields, there's some mass in there, and it's spinning.

Think about it this way, if black holes truly did have infinite density, wouldn't that throw off the figures about how much mass exists in the universe, and along with it the case for dark matter?

Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
Posted - 2010.12.18 05:29:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: Professor Tarantula

Think about it this way, if black holes truly did have infinite density, wouldn't that throw off the figures about how much mass exists in the universe, and along with it the case for dark matter?


I for one am looking forward to dark matter going the way of aether and the dodo.

Professor Tarantula
Hedion University
Posted - 2010.12.18 05:33:00 - [30]
 

As am i, but for the sake of that discussion we're keepings things within the current accepted paradigm.


Pages: [1] 2

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only