Large Hadron Collider Creates Incredibly Dense Primordial Matter
- Thread starter Tom Goldman
- Start date
Not at all. You can't see the wind, but you can tell it's there. Just look at the leaves of trees. Detecting black holes is the same way. You can detect one by observing strange gravitational effects on nearby stars, the emission of X-Rays as matter falls into the hole, or for really huge black holes, gravitational lensing effects.Verlander said:
The only thing that's really debated about black holes is how massive a star has to be to collapse into one. It's generally accepted that Neutron stars will collapse into a black hole at around 3 solar masses, as that's when the gravity of the neutron star exceeds the neutron degeneracy pressure (in layman's terms, when it weighs enough to crush neutrons).
But some scientists say that the neutron star matter will instead collapse into a degenerate matter made up of quarks. If that's the case, then the mass at which a star will collapse into a black hole is the point when it has enough weight to crush quarks. Unless of course, quarks can be crushed into preons, then you'll need enough weight to crush those before you get a black hole.
ANYWAY, regardless of how degenerate matter actually works, if you have enough mass, you're going to eventually get a black hole for the simple fact that the acceleration due to gravity will exceed the speed of light given enough mass.
I'd doubt if it's contained, the stuff the make at the LHC lasts for fractions of seconds, there will be very little quark-gluon plasma when they make it and it'll cool down and reform into normal matter in less time than you could possible notice passing.Jonabob87 said:
Well gluon was kind of named as a joke, because it sticks quarks and nucleons together.Speakercone said:Quark-Gluon isn't a funny enough name for you? Say "gluon" out loud five times and try to keep from giggling.Triforceformer said:
Considering that it took the most powerful machine ever created by human hands to make even a few molecules of the stuff, I don't think we're looking at a feasible energy source here.
Also, I officially have a hard-on for the LHC team. How do I go about giving them all my internets?
I think the greater danger is pulling the sun towards the earth.redmarine said:
It's ironic really, some fundamentalists believe the earth is the center of the universe, with science like this they may eventually be right.
Nah, considering just how much gravity we'd need to achieve that, the Earth will have been long consumed by the ultra-massive black hole we'd have to create.008Zulu said:
It's important to note that in order to create a sugar-cube-size volume of quark-gluon plasma, you'd need to already have 40 billion tons of uncompressed matter, or the equivalent energy. Plus, a particle accelerator large enough to smash it all together.
And if you already have that much matter, all the insane gravitational consequences (Sun crashing into Earth, et cetera) would already have happened. Thermodynamics, baby - you can't get something from nothing.
It's like a system's orbit. If a star of mass greater than 20 solar masses was instantly compressed to its schwarzchild radius, the planets orbiting that star wouldn't get sucked into the black hole. The gravitational effects would still be more or less the same at great distances. Of course, the star would really have to go supernova first, either melting or pushing away its orbiting planets, so such a scenario would never actually happen.
And if you already have that much matter, all the insane gravitational consequences (Sun crashing into Earth, et cetera) would already have happened. Thermodynamics, baby - you can't get something from nothing.
It's like a system's orbit. If a star of mass greater than 20 solar masses was instantly compressed to its schwarzchild radius, the planets orbiting that star wouldn't get sucked into the black hole. The gravitational effects would still be more or less the same at great distances. Of course, the star would really have to go supernova first, either melting or pushing away its orbiting planets, so such a scenario would never actually happen.
However, perpetual energy does not equal infinite energy. Those stars are just as far away as they always were.HankMan said:
(einsteinian relativity requires infinite energy to go the speed of light, because of the increase of mass that faster something goes.)
Without friction or air resistance, given an endless surface, an object can move forever, yet have limited, perhaps even low energy. But as soon as you try to convert that into other forms of energy, you take away energy from the object, and it starts to slow down, and eventually stop.crop52 said:
look i have nothing good to say about the hadron collider but i understand that some people want to know things that badly but my question is why do they need more then one? thats just asking for a problem one miss-hap or terrorist and bam! nothing.... it scares me i don't care how careful they are.
....great chat for impressing the lady's but does it make a decent cup of coffee
naa just kidding,this is trully amazing, never thought they would get something of scientific importance in such a short time.
naa just kidding,this is trully amazing, never thought they would get something of scientific importance in such a short time.
Right NOTHING can be learned from this. How could you possibly know that. Are you one of the scientists working on LHC?theheroofaction said:
No. Obviously not because scientists don't think like this.
Where would we be if people just never did experiments and instead said: "guys there's no point. We aren't going to learn anything from this."
While I enjoy science, I can't say I understand all of it. So I will simply assume this discovery will lead to more science-y advances in the future that will make life better for everyone.
Go science!
Go science!
