Black holes are not fuzzy



 Science > Physics > Black holes are not fuzzy

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 1 of 1

1

 
Topic: Science > Physics
User: "greysky"
Date: 24 Mar 2007 02:55:49 PM
Object: Black holes are not fuzzy
When the LHC is brought on-line at full power most likely in mid '08 - 09,
researchers are fully expecting the first results for creating a quantum
sized singularity to show up as a veritable cornucopia of particle
production as the black hole evaporates away in nanoseconds and explodes
into pure energy. But what are they going to do if this doesn't happen?
Well, first they will go through the results of the experiment again, to
indeed verify that most of the energy that went into the reaction has simply
disappeared without a trace. For, even if a quantum singularity with
millions of proton masses has been created, at the physical size it would be
, not much will happen immediately. True, some gamma radiation will be given
off every now and then as the black hole destroys a proton, or eats a
wayward atom, but it will not happen too often - or at least often enough to
be detected. So, at that point, the researchers will slowly come to the
understanding that they have managed to create a stable, though micro-sized
black hole, and that it is currently incorporated within the matter of their
atom-smasher, and oh-so-slowly eating it up and drifting towards the ground.
What will they do?
The thought that a small enough black hole will evaporate is based on the
assumption that virtual particle pairs created at the event horizon will
carry away energy resulting in the terminal destruction of a black hole. The
larger the hole the slower its destruction, so that if the hole is small
enough, it *should* die within a trillionth of a second of its creation.
But, this 'Hawking radiation', named after Professor Stephen Hawking who
first thought of it back in the '70's, is not unmitigated fact. It is an
assumption only. It has never even been observed. While there are close
analogies with fluid dynamics, and phonon interactions that show that there
should be hawking radiation, and so any man-made black hole should
terminate, we just don't really know for sure. There are actually some good
reasons why they shouldn't radiate they way we think they do. A virtual
photon created at the event horizon of a black hole will have its wavelength
red shifted to practically zero. Instead of escaping, there may instead be a
region of virtual photons just above the event horizon forming a low
frequency standing wave pattern - a depleted photon zone if you will. This
may be interesting, but doesn't lead to any black hole evaporation.
Eventually they, whoever 'they' are, probably government agencies or the
president of whatever nation you are living in, will have to tell their
citizens that a horrible, tragic mistake has been made, all in the name of
scientific progress.
When you find out you along with the earth has only a small amount of time
to live, what will you do?
Of course, the ability of the LHC to create a quantum sized black hole
relies on string theory's prediction that there are multiple small
dimensions rolled up all around us and this would lower the creation energy
to a point where a low powered collider such as the LHC, or indeed any
collider humanity could construct within the next several centuries, would
have the possibility of actually making one of these monsters, is correct.
Given the success to failure ratio of any idea the human race ever makes
being right the first time out, I don't really think we have much to worry
about. If there really are multiple hidden dimensions, the energy levels
needed to access them are probably orders of magnitudes higher than anything
we can do present day. If it were not so, black hole decay products would
already be observed in gamma ray interactions in the upper atmosphere, and
they aren't.
Given present day researchers willingness to risk the earth itself on the
off chance they could be wrong, I don't think that's such a bad thing at
all.
Greysky
www.allocations.cc
Learn how to build a FTL radio.
.

User: "Phineas T Puddleduck"

Title: Re: Black holes are not fuzzy 24 Mar 2007 04:20:02 PM
On 24/3/07 19:55, in article 9nfNh.1518$YL5.93@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net,
"greysky" <greysky@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

When you find out you along with the earth has only a small amount of time
to live, what will you do?

Of course, the ability of the LHC to create a quantum sized black hole
relies on string theory's prediction that there are multiple small
dimensions rolled up all around us and this would lower the creation energy
to a point where a low powered collider such as the LHC, or indeed any
collider humanity could construct within the next several centuries, would
have the possibility of actually making one of these monsters, is correct.
Given the success to failure ratio of any idea the human race ever makes
being right the first time out, I don't really think we have much to worry
about. If there really are multiple hidden dimensions, the energy levels
needed to access them are probably orders of magnitudes higher than anything
we can do present day. If it were not so, black hole decay products would
already be observed in gamma ray interactions in the upper atmosphere, and
they aren't.

Given present day researchers willingness to risk the earth itself on the
off chance they could be wrong, I don't think that's such a bad thing at
all.

Still refusing to learn real science ? I suppose you'd prefer it back in the
stone age?
--
Painius admits he cannot answer a single question to NB:
"Yes, you're right of course, NB. And they get very useless very quickly.
I shall do my best to ignore them, as you wish."
.

User: "Art Deco"

Title: Re: Black holes are not fuzzy 24 Mar 2007 03:38:06 PM
greysky <greysky@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Given present day researchers willingness to risk the earth itself on the
off chance they could be wrong, I don't think that's such a bad thing at
all.

Must be another NASA conspiracy.


Greysky

www.allocations.cc
Learn how to build a FTL radio.

Talk to any whiskered aliens lately?
--
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco
"To err is human, to cover it up is Weasel" -- Dogbert
.

User: "Sam Wormley"

Title: Re: Black holes are not fuzzy 24 Mar 2007 05:04:58 PM
greysky wrote:

When the LHC is brought on-line at full power most likely in mid '08 - 09,
researchers are fully expecting the first results for creating a quantum
sized singularity to show up as a veritable cornucopia of particle
production as the black hole evaporates away in nanoseconds and explodes
into pure energy. But what are they going to do if this doesn't happen?
Well, first they will go through the results of the experiment again, to
indeed verify that most of the energy that went into the reaction has simply
disappeared without a trace. For, even if a quantum singularity with
millions of proton masses has been created, at the physical size it would be
, not much will happen immediately. True, some gamma radiation will be given
off every now and then as the black hole destroys a proton, or eats a
wayward atom, but it will not happen too often - or at least often enough to
be detected. So, at that point, the researchers will slowly come to the
understanding that they have managed to create a stable, though micro-sized
black hole, and that it is currently incorporated within the matter of their
atom-smasher, and oh-so-slowly eating it up and drifting towards the ground.

What will they do?

The thought that a small enough black hole will evaporate is based on the
assumption that virtual particle pairs created at the event horizon will
carry away energy resulting in the terminal destruction of a black hole. The
larger the hole the slower its destruction, so that if the hole is small
enough, it *should* die within a trillionth of a second of its creation.
But, this 'Hawking radiation', named after Professor Stephen Hawking who
first thought of it back in the '70's, is not unmitigated fact. It is an
assumption only. It has never even been observed. While there are close
analogies with fluid dynamics, and phonon interactions that show that there
should be hawking radiation, and so any man-made black hole should
terminate, we just don't really know for sure. There are actually some good
reasons why they shouldn't radiate they way we think they do. A virtual
photon created at the event horizon of a black hole will have its wavelength
red shifted to practically zero. Instead of escaping, there may instead be a
region of virtual photons just above the event horizon forming a low
frequency standing wave pattern - a depleted photon zone if you will. This
may be interesting, but doesn't lead to any black hole evaporation.
Eventually they, whoever 'they' are, probably government agencies or the
president of whatever nation you are living in, will have to tell their
citizens that a horrible, tragic mistake has been made, all in the name of
scientific progress.

When you find out you along with the earth has only a small amount of time
to live, what will you do?

Of course, the ability of the LHC to create a quantum sized black hole
relies on string theory's prediction that there are multiple small
dimensions rolled up all around us and this would lower the creation energy
to a point where a low powered collider such as the LHC, or indeed any
collider humanity could construct within the next several centuries, would
have the possibility of actually making one of these monsters, is correct.
Given the success to failure ratio of any idea the human race ever makes
being right the first time out, I don't really think we have much to worry
about. If there really are multiple hidden dimensions, the energy levels
needed to access them are probably orders of magnitudes higher than anything
we can do present day. If it were not so, black hole decay products would
already be observed in gamma ray interactions in the upper atmosphere, and
they aren't.

Given present day researchers willingness to risk the earth itself on the
off chance they could be wrong, I don't think that's such a bad thing at
all.

Greysky

www.allocations.cc
Learn how to build a FTL radio.


We'll just have to wait and see, won't we?
.
User: "greysky"

Title: Re: Black holes are not fuzzy 24 Mar 2007 10:36:01 PM
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:eghNh.7221$oV.4784@attbi_s21...

greysky wrote:

When the LHC is brought on-line at full power most likely in mid '08 -
09, researchers are fully expecting the first results for creating a
quantum sized singularity to show up as a veritable cornucopia of
particle production as the black hole evaporates away in nanoseconds and
explodes into pure energy. But what are they going to do if this doesn't
happen? Well, first they will go through the results of the experiment
again, to indeed verify that most of the energy that went into the
reaction has simply disappeared without a trace. For, even if a quantum
singularity with millions of proton masses has been created, at the
physical size it would be , not much will happen immediately. True, some
gamma radiation will be given off every now and then as the black hole
destroys a proton, or eats a wayward atom, but it will not happen too
often - or at least often enough to be detected. So, at that point, the
researchers will slowly come to the understanding that they have managed
to create a stable, though micro-sized black hole, and that it is
currently incorporated within the matter of their atom-smasher, and
oh-so-slowly eating it up and drifting towards the ground.

What will they do?

The thought that a small enough black hole will evaporate is based on the
assumption that virtual particle pairs created at the event horizon will
carry away energy resulting in the terminal destruction of a black hole.
The larger the hole the slower its destruction, so that if the hole is
small enough, it *should* die within a trillionth of a second of its
creation. But, this 'Hawking radiation', named after Professor Stephen
Hawking who first thought of it back in the '70's, is not unmitigated
fact. It is an assumption only. It has never even been observed. While
there are close analogies with fluid dynamics, and phonon interactions
that show that there should be hawking radiation, and so any man-made
black hole should terminate, we just don't really know for sure. There
are actually some good reasons why they shouldn't radiate they way we
think they do. A virtual photon created at the event horizon of a black
hole will have its wavelength red shifted to practically zero. Instead of
escaping, there may instead be a region of virtual photons just above the
event horizon forming a low frequency standing wave pattern - a depleted
photon zone if you will. This may be interesting, but doesn't lead to any
black hole evaporation. Eventually they, whoever 'they' are, probably
government agencies or the president of whatever nation you are living
in, will have to tell their citizens that a horrible, tragic mistake has
been made, all in the name of scientific progress.

When you find out you along with the earth has only a small amount of
time to live, what will you do?

Of course, the ability of the LHC to create a quantum sized black hole
relies on string theory's prediction that there are multiple small
dimensions rolled up all around us and this would lower the creation
energy to a point where a low powered collider such as the LHC, or indeed
any collider humanity could construct within the next several centuries,
would have the possibility of actually making one of these monsters, is
correct. Given the success to failure ratio of any idea the human race
ever makes being right the first time out, I don't really think we have
much to worry about. If there really are multiple hidden dimensions, the
energy levels needed to access them are probably orders of magnitudes
higher than anything we can do present day. If it were not so, black hole
decay products would already be observed in gamma ray interactions in the
upper atmosphere, and they aren't.

Given present day researchers willingness to risk the earth itself on the
off chance they could be wrong, I don't think that's such a bad thing at
all.

Greysky

www.allocations.cc
Learn how to build a FTL radio.



We'll just have to wait and see, won't we?

But you haven't answered the question Sammy: What will you do? Me, I'll just
hitch a ride with my E.T. buddies...and I'll forever have to bear the stigma
of being a human, coming from a race so stupid that it soiled its own nest.
I'll never get any of those alien chicks....damn.
Greysky
.
User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier"

Title: Re: Black holes are not fuzzy 25 Mar 2007 07:24:55 AM
Greysky Is the Higgs particle considered to be a black hole? it would
fit well with Schwarz,and Schrek theory on the gravity force in the
microscopic realm(Planck size) Bert
.

User: "Sam Wormley"

Title: Re: Black holes are not fuzzy 24 Mar 2007 10:43:16 PM
greysky wrote:

"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:eghNh.7221$oV.4784@attbi_s21...

greysky wrote:

When the LHC is brought on-line at full power most likely in mid '08 -
09, researchers are fully expecting the first results for creating a
quantum sized singularity to show up as a veritable cornucopia of
particle production as the black hole evaporates away in nanoseconds and
explodes into pure energy. But what are they going to do if this doesn't
happen? Well, first they will go through the results of the experiment
again, to indeed verify that most of the energy that went into the
reaction has simply disappeared without a trace. For, even if a quantum
singularity with millions of proton masses has been created, at the
physical size it would be , not much will happen immediately. True, some
gamma radiation will be given off every now and then as the black hole
destroys a proton, or eats a wayward atom, but it will not happen too
often - or at least often enough to be detected. So, at that point, the
researchers will slowly come to the understanding that they have managed
to create a stable, though micro-sized black hole, and that it is
currently incorporated within the matter of their atom-smasher, and
oh-so-slowly eating it up and drifting towards the ground.

What will they do?

The thought that a small enough black hole will evaporate is based on the
assumption that virtual particle pairs created at the event horizon will
carry away energy resulting in the terminal destruction of a black hole.
The larger the hole the slower its destruction, so that if the hole is
small enough, it *should* die within a trillionth of a second of its
creation. But, this 'Hawking radiation', named after Professor Stephen
Hawking who first thought of it back in the '70's, is not unmitigated
fact. It is an assumption only. It has never even been observed. While
there are close analogies with fluid dynamics, and phonon interactions
that show that there should be hawking radiation, and so any man-made
black hole should terminate, we just don't really know for sure. There
are actually some good reasons why they shouldn't radiate they way we
think they do. A virtual photon created at the event horizon of a black
hole will have its wavelength red shifted to practically zero. Instead of
escaping, there may instead be a region of virtual photons just above the
event horizon forming a low frequency standing wave pattern - a depleted
photon zone if you will. This may be interesting, but doesn't lead to any
black hole evaporation. Eventually they, whoever 'they' are, probably
government agencies or the president of whatever nation you are living
in, will have to tell their citizens that a horrible, tragic mistake has
been made, all in the name of scientific progress.

When you find out you along with the earth has only a small amount of
time to live, what will you do?

Of course, the ability of the LHC to create a quantum sized black hole
relies on string theory's prediction that there are multiple small
dimensions rolled up all around us and this would lower the creation
energy to a point where a low powered collider such as the LHC, or indeed
any collider humanity could construct within the next several centuries,
would have the possibility of actually making one of these monsters, is
correct. Given the success to failure ratio of any idea the human race
ever makes being right the first time out, I don't really think we have
much to worry about. If there really are multiple hidden dimensions, the
energy levels needed to access them are probably orders of magnitudes
higher than anything we can do present day. If it were not so, black hole
decay products would already be observed in gamma ray interactions in the
upper atmosphere, and they aren't.

Given present day researchers willingness to risk the earth itself on the
off chance they could be wrong, I don't think that's such a bad thing at
all.

Greysky

www.allocations.cc
Learn how to build a FTL radio.


We'll just have to wait and see, won't we?


But you haven't answered the question Sammy: What will you do? Me, I'll just
hitch a ride with my E.T. buddies...and I'll forever have to bear the stigma
of being a human, coming from a race so stupid that it soiled its own nest.
I'll never get any of those alien chicks....damn.

Greysky


Me? I think we have already seen the signature of an exploding micro black
whole at CERN, so I expect there are many more to come. In the meantime I'm
getting on with my life.
.




  Page 1 of 1

1

 


Related Articles
ASIMOV in fuzzy logic
HIS 2004 - Special Session on Neuro-Fuzzy Controllers - Deadline 15/10/2004
Quantum Gravity 145.1: Quantum and Fuzzy Multivalued Logics Are Arguably Sound-Based
HIS 2004 - Special Session on Neuro-Fuzzy Controllers - submission 15/10/2004
Quantum Gravity 203.2: Phase Detector Reduces to 0 when A, B are inSame Phase, and Agreement with Fuzzy Multivalued Logic
Nominating Uncle Fuzzy
Black Holes Are Not Quite Black
Article: Researchers may have solved information loss paradox to find black holes do not form
Smaller (Not-so-Black) Holes.
Re: Black Holes Do Not Exist.
Is it a black hole or not?
When Is A Black Hole Not A Black Hole? When It's A "Black Hole" (=Frozen Star)
Not falling faster than the speed of light in a black hole
Yes, REAL suspected Black Holes can RiP you APART.!! But NOT in GR gtr Tivity.!! Because in GR Tivity you would be a POiNT ..and if you COULD have a mass, in GR, you would be a POiNT-mass. POiNT-mass CANNOT *STRETCH* with TOP & BOTTOM ROCKETs attache
Re: In their rare lucid moments, relativists admit that black holes do not exist
 

NEWER

pg.1612     pg.1232     pg.940     pg.716     pg.544     pg.412     pg.311     pg.234     pg.175     pg.130     pg.96     pg.70     pg.50     pg.35     pg.24     pg.16     pg.10     pg.6     pg.3     pg.1

OLDER