| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
17 Apr 2006 08:13:16 PM |
| Object: |
Black hole bomb. |
So nobody here knows what contradictions there are between the General
Theory of Relativity and Quantum Field Theory. Or IF they DO, they are
NOT speaking up.
So far, stringlike theories are our only shot at unifying the four
forces. However, it will not be complete at string theory, or M theory,
or whatever, because of the paradox of the rotating "rigid" disk. That
ultimately prooves curved space.
Yet, we have somewhat of a unification of the General Theory of
Relativity and Quantum Field Theory, due to black hole evaporation.
This means that quantum black holes are volatile.
What if we used one as a kind of bomb? The bad: It will be very
difficult to make a quantum black hole. The good: It can go through
anything.
Think about it. We may need nanotech to follow the quantum black hole
and provide it continuous amount of energy, until it reaches its
destination, which would be places where conventional bombs, and even
nuclear bombs, cannot go. However, it will work.
The question is, when will our politicians realize it is necessary?
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
.
|
|
| User: "FrediFizzx" |
|
| Title: Re: Black hole bomb. |
17 Apr 2006 08:48:21 PM |
|
|
<Starbles@Earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1145322796.126797.38720@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| So nobody here knows what contradictions there are between the General
| Theory of Relativity and Quantum Field Theory. Or IF they DO, they are
| NOT speaking up.
Spinors! I think I already told you that.
| So far, stringlike theories are our only shot at unifying the four
| forces. However, it will not be complete at string theory, or M
theory,
| or whatever, because of the paradox of the rotating "rigid" disk. That
| ultimately prooves curved space.
"Not even wrong." ;-)
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/
| Yet, we have somewhat of a unification of the General Theory of
| Relativity and Quantum Field Theory, due to black hole evaporation.
| This means that quantum black holes are volatile.
|
| What if we used one as a kind of bomb? The bad: It will be very
| difficult to make a quantum black hole. The good: It can go through
| anything.
Figure out what the lifetime is for a quantum black hole. It will be
gone before it has a chance to go thru anything.
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Black hole bomb. |
18 Apr 2006 01:34:12 AM |
|
|
FrediFizzx wrote:
<Starbles@Earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1145322796.126797.38720@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| So nobody here knows what contradictions there are between the General
| Theory of Relativity and Quantum Field Theory. Or IF they DO, they are
| NOT speaking up.
Spinors! I think I already told you that.
If that's the only thing, then wouldn't it have been solved by now by
using a different formulation for GR?
I'm asking what ALL of the contradictions are. Even the trivial
contradictions that are really only a matter of the contradictions in
the premises of the two theories.
| So far, stringlike theories are our only shot at unifying the four
| forces. However, it will not be complete at string theory, or M
theory,
| or whatever, because of the paradox of the rotating "rigid" disk. That
| ultimately prooves curved space.
"Not even wrong." ;-)
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/
More specifically:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/rigid_disk.html
| Yet, we have somewhat of a unification of the General Theory of
| Relativity and Quantum Field Theory, due to black hole evaporation.
| This means that quantum black holes are volatile.
|
| What if we used one as a kind of bomb? The bad: It will be very
| difficult to make a quantum black hole. The good: It can go through
| anything.
Figure out what the lifetime is for a quantum black hole. It will be
gone before it has a chance to go thru anything.
You're not thinking relativistically, Marty!
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Black hole bomb. |
17 Apr 2006 08:51:14 PM |
|
|
wrote:
So nobody here knows what contradictions there are between the General
Theory of Relativity and Quantum Field Theory. Or IF they DO, they are
NOT speaking up.
If this is where you're looking for answers about that, then that might
explain it.
If you were interested in learning about monetary policy and theory,
would you consult a piggy-bank-collector newsgroup?
So far, stringlike theories are our only shot at unifying the four
forces. However, it will not be complete at string theory, or M theory,
or whatever, because of the paradox of the rotating "rigid" disk. That
ultimately prooves curved space.
Yet, we have somewhat of a unification of the General Theory of
Relativity and Quantum Field Theory, due to black hole evaporation.
As long as you're capitalizing your favorite buzzwords, might as well
capitalize Black Hole Evaporation.
This means that quantum black holes are volatile.
What if we used one as a kind of bomb? The bad: It will be very
difficult to make a quantum black hole. The good: It can go through
anything.
Not for long. Evaporates, remember?
Think about it. We may need nanotech to follow the quantum black hole
and provide it continuous amount of energy,
Via a hose, I suppose. Might have to attach a nipple to the black hole
so the hose doesn't slip off.
until it reaches its
destination, which would be places where conventional bombs, and even
nuclear bombs, cannot go. However, it will work.
The question is, when will our politicians realize it is necessary?
Necessary for what?
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Black hole bomb. |
18 Apr 2006 01:37:57 AM |
|
|
PD wrote:
Starbles@Earthlink.net wrote:
So nobody here knows what contradictions there are between the General
Theory of Relativity and Quantum Field Theory. Or IF they DO, they are
NOT speaking up.
If this is where you're looking for answers about that, then that might
explain it.
If you were interested in learning about monetary policy and theory,
would you consult a piggy-bank-collector newsgroup?
Who do you suggest I consult for continous answers to my never ending
questions?
So far, stringlike theories are our only shot at unifying the four
forces. However, it will not be complete at string theory, or M theory,
or whatever, because of the paradox of the rotating "rigid" disk. That
ultimately prooves curved space.
Yet, we have somewhat of a unification of the General Theory of
Relativity and Quantum Field Theory, due to black hole evaporation.
As long as you're capitalizing your favorite buzzwords, might as well
capitalize Black Hole Evaporation.
Alright.
This means that quantum black holes are volatile.
What if we used one as a kind of bomb? The bad: It will be very
difficult to make a quantum black hole. The good: It can go through
anything.
Not for long. Evaporates, remember?
You're not thinking relativistically either!
Think about it. We may need nanotech to follow the quantum black hole
and provide it continuous amount of energy,
Via a hose, I suppose. Might have to attach a nipple to the black hole
so the hose doesn't slip off.
R D R R. ;)
until it reaches its
destination, which would be places where conventional bombs, and even
nuclear bombs, cannot go. However, it will work.
The question is, when will our politicians realize it is necessary?
Necessary for what?
If we ever want to be able to destroy something that is located
extremely far under ground, that even a nuclear bomb could not reach,
such as a nuclear bomb production facility, we will need weapons that
are able to go through the ground.
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Black hole bomb. |
18 Apr 2006 08:32:01 AM |
|
|
wrote:
PD wrote:
wrote:
So nobody here knows what contradictions there are between the General
Theory of Relativity and Quantum Field Theory. Or IF they DO, they are
NOT speaking up.
If this is where you're looking for answers about that, then that might
explain it.
If you were interested in learning about monetary policy and theory,
would you consult a piggy-bank-collector newsgroup?
Who do you suggest I consult for continous answers to my never ending
questions?
I suggest you consult a physicist, who will no doubt suggest you start
by taking some classes in the basics before trying to tackle big
problems.
So far, stringlike theories are our only shot at unifying the four
forces. However, it will not be complete at string theory, or M theory,
or whatever, because of the paradox of the rotating "rigid" disk. That
ultimately prooves curved space.
Yet, we have somewhat of a unification of the General Theory of
Relativity and Quantum Field Theory, due to black hole evaporation.
As long as you're capitalizing your favorite buzzwords, might as well
capitalize Black Hole Evaporation.
Alright.
This means that quantum black holes are volatile.
What if we used one as a kind of bomb? The bad: It will be very
difficult to make a quantum black hole. The good: It can go through
anything.
Not for long. Evaporates, remember?
You're not thinking relativistically either!
I don't know what you think that changes.
Think about it. We may need nanotech to follow the quantum black hole
and provide it continuous amount of energy,
Via a hose, I suppose. Might have to attach a nipple to the black hole
so the hose doesn't slip off.
R D R R. ;)
until it reaches its
destination, which would be places where conventional bombs, and even
nuclear bombs, cannot go. However, it will work.
The question is, when will our politicians realize it is necessary?
Necessary for what?
If we ever want to be able to destroy something that is located
extremely far under ground, that even a nuclear bomb could not reach,
such as a nuclear bomb production facility, we will need weapons that
are able to go through the ground.
First of all, nuclear bomb production facilities are not so far
underground that a nuclear bomb could not reach them -- I don't know
where you got that idea. Secondly, such facilities are better attacked
through the same channel that workers use daily: the front door. Third,
I don't know why you think a "quantum black hole" would cut through
matter like butter -- or if it did, how you you plan to launch it,
control it, guide it, or otherwise deliver it.
Sounds like you are more interested in writing science fiction stories
than in learning physics.
PD
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: Black hole bomb. |
18 Apr 2006 05:36:43 AM |
|
|
On a sunny day (17 Apr 2006 18:13:16 -0700) it happened
wrote in <1145322796.126797.38720@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/gr-qc/9911011
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Black hole bomb. |
18 Apr 2006 08:07:09 AM |
|
|
Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (17 Apr 2006 18:13:16 -0700) it happened
wrote in <1145322796.126797.38720@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/gr-qc/9911011
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9911011
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
