Large Hardon Collider

[guartz]

is leakage from alternate universe one of them, Wooz?

[Wintermute]

Gravity is usually defined as the actual bending of the fabric of space-time, though this definition isn't enough for a Quantum Theorist.

There is a better way to answer this question, we just don't know it yet. Different theorist have different opinions of what *exactly* gravity is.

Isn't one of the goals of the LHC to help discover why things have Mass or some such?
Won't the fact that we don't know exactly what gravity is only add more confusion/ambiguity? Or will finding one out help solve the other?

Also, I've not read the entirety of the thread, but when they do fire up the LHC what's the expected timescale for results to be published?

[aalryn]

Also, I've not read the entirety of the thread, but when they do fire up the LHC what's the expected timescale for results to be published?

Probably when they find shit? You can't rush science and you can't give a timetable on when discoveries will occur.

The last lab that was hot on the trail of the higgs boson never found it. How is that for a time table?

[Khamsin]

The actual physical extent of the material that makes up a black hole is exactly zero according to relativity (though this contradicts quantum theory, but let's ignore that fact for now. The point is, you're right, black holes are incredibly small).

So black holes divide by zero? OHSHI--

[Mizango]

Woozie represent! He hit it right on the head.

There are dome BH and SMB's that are so dense that one teaspoon would weigh trillions of metric tons.

[Mizango]

Also I will post pictures when I get to my office and my desk but Ill show you what a SMB looks like. You can google an image of The milky way or any other Spiral Galaxy to see one, it's at the center.

Max posted a sideways view of our Galaxy where you could see how the center looks.

[Woozie]

is leakage from alternate universe one of them, Wooz?

Kind of. In string theory, gravity is a quantum field just like the other forces. So it has to communicate with messenger particles (well, messenger stings). And in string theory, gravity is the only force that isn't bound to our specific perceptible dimensions. It can leak to other branes and travel in more dimensions than the other forces (which is how they explain the fact that gravity is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY weaker than the other forces).

Isn't one of the goals of the LHC to help discover why things have Mass or some such?
Won't the fact that we don't know exactly what gravity is only add more confusion/ambiguity? Or will finding one out help solve the other?

Also, I've not read the entirety of the thread, but when they do fire up the LHC what's the expected timescale for results to be published?

Well, the LHC isn't really meant to study gravity. We don't really have to understand gravity on a quantum scale to understand the origin of mass. If we find a higgs boson, it will confirm that the way we think of mass really is correct, but it will still tell us nothing about gravity.

I know it seems weird. It would be like studying electric charge, but not electricity itself. You would think it's impossible to do one without the other. But gravity is a completely different kind of force. Also, mass serves more of a purpose than just gravity's version of charge. It's an important component of energy, momentum, and inertia.

[Mizango]

Woozie that first paragraph makes you sound like Lee Smolin But less boring lol

[Woozie]

Miz, are you going to be on YIM tonight? I was looking for you yesterday. Something I saw on the science channel that I wanted to talk about, but I can't even remember what it was D:

[Mizango]

To echo what Woozie said, look into Escape velocity and you will find out just how weak Gravity really is. I mean look at the different types of orbit and how not just an Ellipse works but a Paranola and a Hyberbola work as well.

That old shitty adage "What goes up, must come down" isnt true in the grand cosmic sense. If you can somehow throw a grapefruit or a rock at 7 miles per second it's escape velocity would be enough to rocket skyward and not stop.

YOUR GRANNY GOT IT WRONG!1

[Mizango]

Miz, are you going to be on YIM tonight? I was looking for you yesterday. Something I saw on the science channel that I wanted to talk about, but I can't even remember what it was D:

Yeppers I certainly will. I had to leave the office and work later yesterday Then got home and had Dynamis so couldn't.

But yes Ill be there today, I actually go on vacation today!

[Max™]

Black holes are not infinitely small, the math breaks down below a certain point and says that the mass that went into the hole should be compressed into an infinitely dense, infinitely small point known as a singularity.

Singularities are signs you done fucked up your math somewhere.


A black hole IS the event horizon.

As far as we can relate to it from this Universe, at least.


Normal objects have a certain relationship between their mass and their area from which you can produce concepts such as density.

A black hole has mass which is EXACTLY related to it's area in a completely different sense.



Caution: This is my own speculation ahead, while I have been studying these concepts and theories for 20 some odd years, I'm not (yet, anyway) a good source to quote officially.


Take that rubber sheet analogy, extend it into a rubber cube.

The rubber represents spacetime, and changes in the structure of the cube represent the curvature we identify with gravity.

http://i341.photobucket.com/albums/o...pacetime-1.jpg

Imagine that the cube has colored patterns through it, marking it off into a 3 dimensional grid, and imagine that it's transparent rubber except for those patterns.

So now you have this block of see-through rubbery material with grid marked out within it.

If you try to translate the "dimple" metaphor directly, you get something like the bottom left picture here.

If you translate it accurately, you get the right picture.

Imagine if you will a single mass in the center of the cube, which curves the rest of the cube inwards slightly.

If you took the bottom left "dimpled" cubes and set them on the faces of the "squashed" central cube, you'd be moving in the right direction.

You have to remember that the grid lines themselves are what you would be measuring flatness against, so they themselves would be bend and curved inwards as well.

If you were embedded within this block, you would not observe the outwardly visible distortion we see, but what you would observe would be much the same effect as we call gravity.

It's easier to move towards the central object than away from it... but why?


Now you have to understand that you are also embedded in this material, and you curve it towards yourself as well.

The rest of the structure has it's own natural shape which it seeks, and you are resisting this.

The least disruptive state for you and the central object to be in is one with the smallest surface area, and thus the smoothest overall curvature.


This is where I get really out there, and posit that you are in fact a little knotted up bit of the larger structure, which would rather naturally distort your surroundings, much as a bedsheet is disturbed when you clench some of it in your fist.


Where that differs from the standard model, is that the standard model says that you are actually not a part of the structure you're embedded in, but there is a field which clings to you, and tugs at it, producing that curvature we observe and describe as mass and gravity and inertia and such.

[Max™]

Now, what happens if you stretch that structure further and further?

You get a deeper and deeper gravity well.

There is more excess radius in there, etc.

What happens when you get too much excess radius, when the well gets too deep?


If you compressed a chunk of rubber like this, eventually it would tear wouldn't it?

Ever torn a piece of rubber?

Noticed how it stretches and gets deformed, then when it finally tears it springs back and retracts somewhat?

What if you stretched an object from the inside so much that you tore a spherical hole out of it?

The edges of the hole would naturally be related to the missing material, but not in the same way as something which was still embedded in it's surroundings.


So what happens to the material torn out from the original object?


When you try to calculate the structure as though it were still connected beyond the tear, you get ridiculous answers, suggesting that there are infinities lurking past that edge.


You get a black hole and a singularity type description, but what if you take the workable event horizon solution, and recognize that calculating the state of the interior section as though it were still connected is not valid?

Objects don't become black holes when they reach an infinitely small size with infinite mass.


They become black holes when you have too much material within a specific radius, indicating a sort of shear point, beyond which spacetime simply tears loose from the object, producing a boundary which nothing still within the original body of spacetime can see beyond.


An edge in the Universe.

[Cochise]

An edge in the Universe.

A Promyvion per se? 0.o

[Seraph]

A Promyvion per se? 0.o

Promys are a dark hole from which there is no escape, so sure.

[Max™]

I actually was using Promy as a way to illustrate the concept of multiple Universes with a friend a while back.

If you imagine each island in Promy is a 3 (4) Dimensional object, swap the palette so they're black and the background is gray, and you're inside one of those islands... that's pretty much what I have in mind when I mention other Universes.

[Neosutra]

>.>

[Seraph]

I think most people don't have the patience or intellect to make it through a Promy, or a physics discussion of this level. Coincidence?

[Woozie]

Black holes are not infinitely small, the math breaks down below a certain point and says that the mass that went into the hole should be compressed into an infinitely dense, infinitely small point known as a singularity.

Singularities are signs you done fucked up your math somewhere.


A black hole IS the event horizon.

As far as we can relate to it from this Universe, at least.

Yes, the event horizon is the black hole in the sense that once something crosses the event horizon it will inevitably fall to the center with no escape. This is only because the escape velocity is equal to the universal speed limit. Once you cross the event horizon, you're still in empty space just as you were before you crossed it and if you could go fast enough (faster than light somehow) you could leave. It's kind of like how the moon is trapped in the Earths Gravity, but is not actually on Earth or touching the Earth or in Earth. It's just not fast enough to get away. In the case of a black hole, nothing in the universe can escape the black hole once you pass the event horizon.

But the actual material that makes up the black hole, the actual thing itself should fall into an infinitely dense point as far as our math can tell us. This certainly indicates that there's a problem since a black hole literally divides by zero in a certain sense. But nevertheless, the infinitely dense scenario is the best model we have so far. Our math tells us that the substance definitely can't not be infinitely dense. The problem is it kinda also tells us that it can't be infinitely dense either, especially since QM puts a lower limit on size.

[Mizango]

Spoiler: show

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0907...r_pacholka.jpg

Check out NASA's picture of the day. Notice the elliptical galaxies in the background and the "milky" band you see there is actually an arm from *gasp our Milky way galaxy. Off to the right you can actually see Red and Green tint's of the Lagoon and Pipe nebulae.

Beautiful isn't it? And low and behold, its not magic!