rolandson wrote:back in the day some in physics considered that the universe was either open, meaning continuously expanding, or closed...meaning that it would expand to a point where the gravity of the overall mass would bring it all back together...a repeating cycle and endless big bangs.

Physics is the science of measurement and is constantly seeking order, and an open universe is terribly disorderly. The problem was, at the time, there didn't appear to be enough 'stuff' around to generate the mass necessary to bring it all back together. This was not a happy thought.

So some went looking for hidden mass to bring order back into the picture. For a very long time I was a complete sceptic. Black Holes? "Bullshit" I said...it's just an excuse to find mass and explain the mathematics...Dark Matter...Neutrinos, with mass no less...more inventions I said...

I am old...I can get away with having a closed mind...it's called crotchety...

anyway, I came around in the 80's...my mind opened up a touch...

this, the Higgs Boson, is as significant to physics as the discovery of the ability to make fire was to humans. I think Einstein's E=MC2 pales in comparison. Einstein was searching for something like this in his Grand Unification Theory...A mathematical expression that will link everything...Energy, Matter, and Gravity...and I believe that we just took a huge step in doing that.

edit: changed to stuff..more better sentence...

rolandson wrote:Berkeley Breathed addressed this very issue...
http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/phpBB3 ... &mode=view

Cole wrote:

rolandson wrote:Berkeley Breathed addressed this very issue...

Ha, that is a good one.

So this is some pretty exciting stuff. This seems to open the door to some very incredible technology and it seems everyone is talking about the positive possibilities, but what about the negative implications. I am talking about consequences on an enormous scale. If we can create a black hole in a lab couldn't that black hole swallow up our galaxy? Excuse my ignorance if I am asking a stupid question, but I really am curious as to what kind of catastrophes this kind of discovery could lead to.

Cole wrote:

rolandson wrote:Berkeley Breathed addressed this very issue...
http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/phpBB3 ... &mode=view

Ha, that is a good one.

So this is some pretty exciting stuff. This seems to open the door to some very incredible technology and it seems everyone is talking about the positive possibilities, but what about the negative implications. I am talking about consequences on an enormous scale. If we can create a black hole in a lab couldn't that black hole swallow up our galaxy? Excuse my ignorance if I am asking a stupid question, but I really am curious as to what kind of catastrophes this kind of discovery could lead to.

Cole wrote:but what about the negative implications. I am talking about consequences on an enormous scale. If we can create a black hole in a lab couldn't that black hole swallow up our galaxy? Excuse my ignorance if I am asking a stupid question, but I really am curious as to what kind of catastrophes this kind of discovery could lead to.

JayFromPA wrote:

Cole wrote:but what about the negative implications. I am talking about consequences on an enormous scale. If we can create a black hole in a lab couldn't that black hole swallow up our galaxy? Excuse my ignorance if I am asking a stupid question, but I really am curious as to what kind of catastrophes this kind of discovery could lead to.

Well, it's not a stupid question, it's a question to be expected because hollywood sucks the goat sac when it comes to doing both keeping the public informed and presenting accurate info.

Black holes don't suck everything in, they do emit radiation.

Think of a black hole like a soap bubble. The skin of the soap bubble randomly loses moisture to the air around it, and will eventually come to a point where the skin of the soap bubble is too thin to maintain bubble integrity. If the soap bubble can suck in moisture at a higher rate than it loses to evaporation, then the bubble is self sustaining. Since it is the contents inside the soap bubble black hole that 'pull' in moisture / matter to feed the thing, the inside needs to be big so that it can be strong enough to even reach far enough for food.

In a lab black hole, it is the lab equipment that is creating the skin of the 'soap bubble', and even the entire earth is not nearly enough mass for the soap bubble black hole to keep that skin intact after the lab equipment is turned off. Seriously, jupiter can't make and keep a black hole, and it's got a lot more mass than we do here:

However, some few centuries down the road I do imagine some sort of black hole grenade could be created. Sorta like the implosion grenades from the syfy show Warehouse 13 or the evidence destroying grenades used in the sci fi movie The Arrival.

JayFromPA wrote:Gendo, sometimes you are so damned clever you trip over your own head.

Yeah, earth mass black hole. How you gonna get that big, eh? The lab guys going to feed the whole earth into the thing in their containment field before shutting off their creation equipment?

You are starting with something that might be a laboratory table mass black hole. Or even smaller, say a black hole with the mass of a few grams, a kilogram even. Let's go big and say they used a liter bottle's worth of water to make the black hole in the lab.

How long does it take a black hole that is the mass of a liter of water to dissipate? It's been a long while since I've done this, but it appears to me that the page you linked shows that the laboratory black hole would dissipate in about one trillionth of a second.

You are too clever for yourself, Gendo. You gotta slow down and consider things before you jump straight to the protractor and slide rule.

and even the entire earth is not nearly enough mass for the soap bubble black hole to keep that skin intact after the lab equipment is turned off. Seriously, jupiter can't make and keep a black hole, and it's got a lot more mass than we do here:

gendoikari87 wrote:

JayFromPA wrote:Gendo, sometimes you are so damned clever you trip over your own head.

Yeah, earth mass black hole. How you gonna get that big, eh? The lab guys going to feed the whole earth into the thing in their containment field before shutting off their creation equipment?

You are starting with something that might be a laboratory table mass black hole. Or even smaller, say a black hole with the mass of a few grams, a kilogram even. Let's go big and say they used a liter bottle's worth of water to make the black hole in the lab.

How long does it take a black hole that is the mass of a liter of water to dissipate? It's been a long while since I've done this, but it appears to me that the page you linked shows that the laboratory black hole would dissipate in about one trillionth of a second.

You are too clever for yourself, Gendo. You gotta slow down and consider things before you jump straight to the protractor and slide rule.

Wasn't considering how it was going to be made just addressing this:

and even the entire earth is not nearly enough mass for the soap bubble black hole to keep that skin intact after the lab equipment is turned off. Seriously, jupiter can't make and keep a black hole, and it's got a lot more mass than we do here:

gendoikari87 wrote:In otherwords, you misspoke(or typed) and what you meant to say was that a black hole created in a lab would not have enough power, or time to be sustainable.

Olson has five areas of advice that he uses as
chapter headings:
‘Don’t be so cerebral’;
‘Don’t be so literal minded’;
’Don’t be such a poor storyteller’;
‘Don’t be so unlikeable’;
‘Be the voice of science!’
He advises that scientists need to
communicate in broader terms, add some
humour once in a while, not shy away from
speaking about things in an emotional way, tell
interesting stories and be congenial.

It's an explanation of black holes using soap bubbles, fer fuck's sake. Take a muscle relaxant and unclench the sphincter of exactitude.

gendoikari87 wrote: Edit: oh hey, that's exactly half way to reaching a google years on a logarithmic scale.

Bucolic wrote:1 google = 10 to the 100th power. One google year would be 10**100 years.

lemur wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote: Edit: oh hey, that's exactly half way to reaching a google years on a logarithmic scale.

Either "a google year" is a new thing I've never heard about or you meant "a googol year."

Bucolic wrote:In re the man free falling through the earth via a very long borehole, the force on the man is a linear function of his distance from the center of the earth. This is just like a Hooke's law spring. So, the period of oscillation (the full round trip) is equal to 2 pi * sqrt (earth radius/g) where g is the acceleration of gravity at the surface of the earth (~9.8 m/sec**2). Plugging in the numbers you get a round trip time of about 80 minutes (accuracy limited by my laziness in not looking up the actual radius of the earth).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Bucolic wrote:Of course i did! The gravitational mass that the body sees is only that internal to its instantaneous distance from the center. Didn't Gauss prove that?