LHC@home

David:

The important thing here is not mass but density. If you get a high enough density Take the whole milky way as an example of something with enormous mass, much larger than any of the black holes in the mily way. It does not form a black hole since that mass is spread out in a very large volume of space. On the other hand, if you take a small mass and compress it enough you will create a black hole with small mass.

If you take something with the mass of a cup of coffe you will have to compress it into an extremely small volume before it becomes a black hole. But it can be done. There is a simple mathematical formula that tells you exaclty how small a wolume you need to compress any given mass into in order to create a black hole.

So the important thing is density, not mass in itself.

---

Cool!
Density defines Black hole.
Mass defines Inertia.
List of new stuff is growing. :)

---

-----------------------
Click to see my tag
My tag
SNAFU'ed? Turn the Page! :D

Astronomically, black holes are formed from star stuff, and it takes a lot of star stuff to make enough gravity to squish a star into a black hole.

You'd probably get different answers to what a black hole is in the lab depending on what your physics theory is.

The 'bent space' people would say that you'd need to compress the matter to smaller than the radius (1 divided by r squared) at which the accelleration due to gravity is greater than light can accellerate out of. String theorists woudl have another definition. Quantum guys would have another.

Mathematically, you can 'say' that matter is compressed to something really small.. but whether you can really do that depends on what matter and gravity is really made of (strings? 12 dimensional things (field theory)? Bent Space? or just a pile of particles like quarks and gravitrons)

Maybe a useful experiment would be to have an array of lasers to detect if space is bent around an a LHC experiment.... we'll just get those Einstein at Home guys to bolt on a few LIGO detectors.. they're only a few km long.
;)

---

I'm not the LHC Alex. Just a number cruncher like everyone else here.

Alex:

One of the good things here is actually that we all get the same black hole, no matter which part of physics we start out with. General relativity and string theory say different things about what goes on inside the even horison of blacck hole but from the outside we see exactly the same thing.

Both theories predict the same bending of space time outside the hole. In fact one of the things taken in favour of string theoyr is that it agrees well with general relativity on this point.

Remember that string theory has been created to be a refinement of general relativity ans so will give very similiar results in most situations. One of the things theo theories agree on is that once you get a high enough energy density you will create a blavk hole.

The "normal" black holes that peope talk about are formed in supernova explosion at the end of the life of a large star. What happens there is exactly that the core of the star has so high mass an densit yt that it begins to contract and under some cirumstances reaches the density needed to form a black hole. Not all supernova form black holes though, for stars of a very large mass the supernova actually blows the star away completely.

There is also believed to exist a class of fairly small black hoels which were created by the random density variations in the big bang. The final evaporation of black holes of this class is one of the candidates for explaining some of the gamma ray burst that has been obsevered from large distances in space.

---

Relating to black holes:
I was thinking about the time between ticks of a clock falling into a black hole, as perceived by someone 'not in the area'.(sound ofcourse a bad example to use in space. :)
If a gravity x about mass y is so strong that it dense'ifies everything, would it not squish space too?
To the clock, it is still ticking just as fast(time preserved), so
I'm guessing that the clock is accelerating through a higher density of space and
even though the mass itself is not yet compressed enough to change it's ability to tick, the ticks themselves are travelling out through more space in the pre-event-horizon area of compression.(assuming sound can travel in space.)
- sonic boom and/or doppler affect comparison(s).
- and sounds like good ol star trek warping; compress the space in front of you, expand it behind you.(space may be easier to compress than we think.)
But a watch going into space, then coming back, shows a different time.
- what contols the ticking may be affected on a quantum level by other easily compressed radiations as their space re-expands back through the clock.

Thoughts?

essentially, the old v=d/t may need alteration to include time change based on space density being travelled through.

---

-----------------------
Click to see my tag
My tag
SNAFU'ed? Turn the Page! :D

Meckano:
I'm afraid I can't quite follow your question.
It is the case that graviatation affects how fast time is. As you get closer and closer to a large mass your time will slow down in the eyes of a far away observer.
This is not an effect specific to black holes, it is in place around any mass, like the earth. This has actually been measured on earth. One has compared how fast time change for atomic clocks when they are on sea level and when they are high up in an aeroplane, one needs to factor out some effects due to the aeroplane's motion but that can be done, and one that the clock in the plane moves a little bit faster. Around earth this is _very_ small difference but near the event hoirson of a black hole it will be very strong. You could see the seconds of someone close to the horison get strectched into millenia.

If you want to find out more about these effects without going into the mathematics behind it, not everyone looks forward to some nice math :-), I can recomend Nigel Calder's "Einstein's Universe". Its a few years old but still a good read.

---

Thanks
Ok so, so far so good.
We can slow light's speed by passing it through different media.
Have they checked light's speed through media x at different densities?
Does light really travel slower? or is the path just longer?
- I've been reading up on 4th dimension understandings.


I'll look into the book, but I'm more of an internet fanatic.
- it's info is supposed to be relevant or current with fresh insight. :)

I prefer words over math, but love math, so not scared. I have no calculus schooling or statistics, but know it is needed to calculate the infinite possibilities between, for example, 1 & 2. I'm learning more math as I go, well enough to understand it. Like:
I now know that Pi*r^2 is to find it's area equivalent in, lets say, ft^2.
- it reveals nothing about the circle. Pi and r must be known before hand.
and that Pi*r^2=y ft^2 is more picturesque as ...=(y ft)(x ft)
I can go on but digress. Point is, I spend my time undoing math so that I understand the relationships better. Then I have a good chance of saying: "Oh look, that comparison is the same as this comparison."
- example: dia^4 * Pi / 8, we need 256 at dia 1" vs. 1 at dia 4".
-- if I knew more formulas, I'd find the equal fast. I've been hoping someone would see it and realize it is same answer as for their 2 gravities, or some other propertie.

---

-----------------------
Click to see my tag
My tag
SNAFU'ed? Turn the Page! :D

Looks like I agree with Einstein. :)
heheeeeeeee

---

-----------------------
Click to see my tag
My tag
SNAFU'ed? Turn the Page! :D

Hmm, maybe we can't compress space.
If what makes up atoms was once homogeoneous throughout space, there was not really any space/elbow-room. Once atoms and their predecessors were formed, we then had space. That would be level 1 of making space.
Level 2 would be neutron stars. If I'm correct, though it's not relevant, electrons are merged with protons and then we get a big ball of neutrons. Where did all the electron-neucleous space go?
If I look at black holes, I imagine That electron-neucleous space coming out where it can, which eventually forces the accreation into it's disk form, as well as possibly being the door out for radiation. The jets. Ofcourse that being level 3 of space creation, the squishing of neutrons.
- I thought that then read this:
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/iss-9/p43.html
which references the shape of gravity wave planes, or lack there of.
- it's as though the space is in between accreation disk and jets/gravity waves.

Thoughts?
(ofcourse, I have to redo my reason for tick spacings with the clock.)

---

-----------------------
Click to see my tag
My tag
SNAFU'ed? Turn the Page! :D

Meckano,

The guy who wrote the Flux theory says that what we know as space can be compressed.
http://www.geocities.com/xulfrepus/index.html

... or is at least the red shift and expanding universe is explained by flux things being generated by gravity.
http://www.geocities.com/xulfrepus/docs/fluxii.html

(not like I believe in Flux theory)


One fallacy of string theory may be that some people throw 'star trek' stuff in it.. (just google 'string theory warp field' )

---

I'm not the LHC Alex. Just a number cruncher like everyone else here.

Neat, thanks.
I love new theories! :)
Helps me to clarify my own view of things.

---

-----------------------
Click to see my tag
My tag
SNAFU'ed? Turn the Page! :D

Alex and Meckano:

Do not go to the "flux guy" for advice about how physics or mathematics works. Most of his writings are complete nonsense, both as physics and mathematics, and that's my view as a professional mathematican. When you work in a physics or mathematics department you get sent things like his works regularly, sometimes its nonsense enough that anyone can spot it and sometimes you need to know quite a bit of mathematics to be able to tell.

Regarding the "compressibillity" of space I can not really understansd what you are trying to describe Meckano. There is no need for space to move out of the way when you compress matter. You will see space getting more and more curved as the density of matter and energy in a volume of space increases but you will not see anything like a fluid flow out from that volume as it get more and more compressed.

In the paper you refered to on physicstoday they discussed plane gracity waves not "gravity wave planes". The former is just a special simple form of gravitational wave.

---

Thanks Klasm :)
about me and:

the Flux guy: As far as I know, no one has seen an atom. I've only heard said that if you were to see one, the electron would look like a spherical cloud. And I guess it would mask the nucleous. Is this still true? To continue, it doesn't matter how you imagine it, when trying to imagine it. The maths on the other hand: When building a box for a tv stand, F=ma would be enough. Trial and error is usually the rule of thumb, but I'd say they're all more than strong enough. When building a bridge, I bet the math behind steel and welding is more complex and indepth. When going into space and facing gamma radiation and what not, you better have the whole picture.
- My point, it's all relative, and the flux guy just helps me picture things which I can later use to more easily learn/mentally-accept the math.

space compression: I think we have different things in mind when we imagine space. I'm refering to the volume occupied by the atom before going into a neutron star or black hole which it no longer occupies as much of after going in.
- sorta like, or exactly like, compressing feathers is not possible if you don't let the air and it's volume out of the bag first. Is it not the same for protons, neutrons, and their occupied volume? and quirks, quarks and their occupied volume? the flux guy's words help me with this vision of mine. It is not his words I base my imaginings on.
-- I'm understanding you feel the atoms of the feathers and their occupied volume are connected and both compressed? Trying to see it like that, I'm seeing a near-vacuum, then, as stretched space-time-matter, torn between other heavenly bodies. You too?

gravity waves: sorry, my point was merely that the gravity waves do not come out in all directions, but instead jet out. That strengthens, for the moment, my vision of 'empty' volume expulsion.
I later read that it is not a flat plane but conical as seen here:
http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/NumRel/MoviesEdge.html#WormHolesToWhere?#
- also, do you know of a reason for the disc and jets to be shaped as they are and placed where they are around a black hole? Can it be merely the fact that the only matter close enough for the disc is actually on the same near-perfect plane?

---

-----------------------
Click to see my tag
My tag
SNAFU'ed? Turn the Page! :D

Meckano:
A short reply before I get on with my work for the day.

1. Nowadays we can actually see individual atoms. Modern electron micrscopes can btoh see and move individual atoms. We can actually build things atom by atom. Very small things that is.
However one must be very careful trying to imagine an atom in anything like everyday terms. The old school book picture of eclectrons flying in circles around the nucleaus is really quite missleading. Electrons, protons and neutron look nothing like this in th real world. There really are no everday thigns we can compare them to, not matter how much we would like to do so.
The flux guys way of descirbing things i even worse than this and wioll just lead your intuition wrong. There is plenty of good popular science which tries to explain about these things but he does not belong there, and unfortunately much of what one finds on the Net is quite bad too.

2. Again compressing pillow fileld ith feathr is not a good analogue of what goes on here. In that case you are compressing it by letting air out. IF you had put in a hydraulic press you could have compressed wit ha air and everything, not letting anything out.
When you compress atoms to form neutron stars or other dense object you do not need to let anything out. There is no occupied volume which needs to move out of the way.

3. Some kinds of gravity waves come out in only some direction, others in all directions.
The reasons for jets and accretion discs around black holes has nothing to do with outflowing empty space. The reson these things look like they do is connected to the rotation of the black hole and would take me some time to explain, so it will have to wait for another time.

---

1. I'll take that at par for now.

2. This only reinforces the flux theory, except for it's view on dark matter and neutrino's being in the space between strings, although I've heard that scientists are still looking for missing mass. That missing matter, if found through studying black holes would only reinforce flux theory again.

3. :) I'll guess, for now, that it has to do with how space is warped around large bodies.

Addit:
regarding #2:
I say that, and like the flux theory, as it answers questions in a way much like many see the gyroscope; the reason I got into all this research. Gravity's down-pull on a precessing gyro is stopped and transformed into horizontal movement. There can be much energy stored in a vibration: E=mc^2.

Addit 2:
I'll continue. Before reading flux theory I had my own guess at a possibility, based on topology, that everything is connected. The only way for that to be, my guess, was that space-time-matter is a huge matrix. Which I can now guess prefers to be curled up, which I can see as the 'gravity'. The flux theory was a real winner for me.
- The question then: Does a brick move through the matrix as such? If so, a brick moving through blue air should absorb the 'blue' energy and change color energy towards blue, on it's leading edge. Seems absurd after seeing air currents around a moving brick.
- Although the matrix can be preserved if the matrix's intersections are not 'glued' to the ones around them.
-- ah well, another step along the road :)

---

-----------------------
Click to see my tag
My tag
SNAFU'ed? Turn the Page! :D

<blockquote>mWhat will CERN do if they create a black hole?</blockquote>

Put it in a engine steal a shuttle and see if the alcubierre warp metric (Star Trek Warp Drive) and try to get some Alien chicks

---

Addit 3:
How many theories are there?
I'm reading string theory now and it sounds similar to the flux theory.
- got my answer. http://superstringtheory.com/basics/basic5.html

---

-----------------------
Click to see my tag
My tag
SNAFU'ed? Turn the Page! :D

Like I said before.. "Not like I believe in Flux theory"

Which Implies that I DON'T believe it.


I also don't believe in string theory, only because of its origins. (starting out explaining the motion of subatomic particles with respect to each other, then extrapolated to fit the rest of the physics model: this reminds me of the flat earth theory where one looks at a flat field and extrapolates to the world)

---

I'm not the LHC Alex. Just a number cruncher like everyone else here.

4) So Cern folk are particle scientists that may or may not turn to string theory calculations to get from a to b?
5) The string theory states alot about where particle theory is relying on the string theory.
6) In either case, high density seems to equate to low energy. So the start or original state of the universe would have been high density matter that got energized. I'm liking my theory on the universe's inability to be completely round due to Pi, and is continually getting 'little' bumps, energy, from that imperfection in the outter most layer; the background radiation?

---

-----------------------
Click to see my tag
My tag
SNAFU'ed? Turn the Page! :D

#2)
quote: There is no occupied volume which needs to move out of the way.
- i see it now, but energy has to evacuate. The jets, gravitons...

Relative to it's new self, all ok.
Relative to us it gets denser and changes and loses energy.
It does not go further away linearly, but 3 dimensionally.
- there are energy steps to surpass for it to attain it's new density.
Ok, so that means energy output, as we also know from:

We use H and O to create H20 for thrust, we have created denser matter and directed the energy output.

We can put energy infront of us instead, solar sail.
- Which should be decreasing the spacetime density on the sunward side by putting energy into it and then we tag along. It does not move as fast as it could due to our dead weight.
- Maybe polluting the leeward side with gamma rays first would give better results.

---

-----------------------
Click to see my tag
My tag
SNAFU'ed? Turn the Page! :D