Large Hadron Collider Creates Incredibly Dense Primordial Matter
- Thread starter Tom Goldman
- Start date
Recommended Videos
High energy particles created in colliders will only usually last mere nanoseconds before they blink out of existence or simply evaporate. If it is really that hot and energetic, it's giving up a lot of radiation.Jonabob87 said:
Consider this, if the Earth, which weighs 5.9742 × 10^24 kg, which is about 6 sextillion tonnes, was condensed into a black hole, it would be a sphere with a radius of 10 cm.C95J said:
mind = blown
I was going to expand that, so thanks for doing it for me (ouch, sorry if that sounds angry). Technically, you could do it eventually with 1N of constantly applied force.thaluikhain said:
While we're at it, let's not forget that this is trusting that there are no external forces, such as gravity or the matter not being accelerated in a perfect vacuum (I'm talking about friction in case that last one sounded stupid), which as we know is nigh impossible.
The total energy required, however, remains the same. In retrospect, I should have noted that in the first place.
But this is really off-topic. My point is that it takes a huge amount of energy and matter to make a sugar cube-sized piece of this. Funny is also probably not the best word to describe the effects.
Tragic. Tragic works.
With this stuff we could bring the world into a new age, Then when we fuck up this world, the next world, and the next world ,and the next world...
A lot of people gain, actually. Quark-Gluon plasma is essentially the building blocks of atoms. Quarks and Gluons fuse together to form protons and neutrons. Knowing how they work is a huge step towards getting to the core of the laws of physics.theheroofaction said:
Up until now, scientists could only guess as to how this particular facet of physics works. Now that they've actually seen it first hand, they don't have to guess anymore.
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.
