Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
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.
My Warmest Regards. Prof. Tarantula, Esq. |
baltec1
Antares Shipyards Phalanx Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.12.16 22:14:00 -
[2]
I like him
|
Akita T
Caldari 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 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.
_
Make ISK||Build||React||1k papercuts _
|
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.
My Warmest Regards. Prof. Tarantula, Esq. |
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 :) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html |
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 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.
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.
My Warmest Regards. Prof. Tarantula, Esq. |
Louis deGuerre
Gallente Malevolence. Imperial 0rder
|
Posted - 2010.12.16 23:58:00 -
[7]
Michio Kaku will adapt, revise, and taunt you with new String theories and his amazing hair ! ----- Amicus Morte is recruiting. Dive into the world of 0.0 !
|
Darteis Elosia
Gallente PHOENIX 2ND C.A.G. Ushra'Khan
|
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? Cheers. |
Headerman
Metanoia. Test Alliance Please Ignore
|
Posted - 2010.12.17 02:11:00 -
[9]
String theory = fail theory
|
Headerman
Metanoia. Test Alliance Please Ignore
|
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?
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 Wardens of the Void
|
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?
After what I've read here, asking these folks about it probably isn't the best idea...
|
Kaahles
Fulcrum Weapon Systems Inc.
|
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!
----------------------------- OMG THE SKY IS FALLING! Contract me all your stuff so I can save it! |
Professor Tarantula
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2010.12.17 05:06:00 -
[13]
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?
Not a strong gravitational pull, just an extremely concentrated one. So much so that the escape velocity of the surrounding area exceeds the speed of light. Gravity is believed to be 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.
My Warmest Regards. Prof. Tarantula, Esq. |
Betty Boom
Caldari SPECTRE Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.12.17 05:55:00 -
[14]
Hey Atheists! Where is your God?
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?
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. _____________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008
Originally by: CCP Fallout Been there. Done that. Need antibiotics.
|
Riedle
Minmatar Wayne's TV and Appliances
|
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
|
Posted - 2010.12.17 13:59:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Triple Entendre on 17/12/2010 13:59:35
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 force, or forces 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.
Originally by: CCP Zulu You're assuming I read threads before I turdpost in them :)
|
Louis deGuerre
Gallente Malevolence. Imperial 0rder
|
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 ) ----- Amicus Morte is recruiting. Dive into the world of 0.0 !
|
Vogue
Skynet Nexus
|
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.
Delenda est achura. |
|
Saju Somtaaw
Gallente Department of Defence Apotheosis of Virtue
|
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.
My Warmest Regards. Prof. Tarantula, Esq. |
Riedle
Minmatar Wayne's TV and Appliances
|
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.
My Warmest Regards. Prof. Tarantula, Esq. |
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 Extreme Prejudice.
|
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 Wayne's TV and Appliances
|
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 04:55:43 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.
My Warmest Regards. Prof. Tarantula, Esq. |
Adunh Slavy
|
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.
The Real Space Initiative - V7
|
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.
My Warmest Regards. Prof. Tarantula, Esq. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |