Large Hardon Collider

[Kuya]

as the volume goes infinitely small

I don't understand this. How does something go infinitely small? What is that?

[Eliseos]

Attempting to apply known physics to a singularity is more than slightly absurd, it is bad enough that one can not show in any convincing manner that it is proper to extend the physical laws which operate within this Universe beyond the event horizon of a black hole... but to attempt to apply physical properties to something which is literally no longer part of the same Universe?

If black holes evaporate (due to hawking radiation), wouldn't that mean that whatever is inside the black hole is still in our universe? I don't see how it makes sense that it would leave the universe at one point, then magically reappear when it's time is up to evaporate out of the black hole. Also, wouldn't that violate the laws of entropy (and conservation of energy, among other things) if it went to some other universe?

[Pirian]

I think Max has stated in the past that he doesn't agree with Hawking

[Neosutra]

Hawking radiation has a lot of evidence behind it, but we could also see dissapation of the matter inside black holes naturally once they no longer have outside matter to feed on. But we will see what our findings lead us to over the next century.

As for Kuya's question:

As I said, infinitely small volume is kind of a silly way of representing it, as it is merely all of the matter located in a single "point", where that point is most likely a wave state. Saying that it is "infinitely small volume" is like saying the number 0 is "infinitely small value".

[Pirian]

Considering how much empty space matter really is, I don't really find it hard to believe that under incredible gravitational the particles drawn into a black hole are compacted down into unto an inconceivability small space

[Pirian]

Sorry for the double post, but I do wonder the difference between normal black holes and super massive black holes in regards to the amount of matter is what makes up the black whole, correct? So therefore would a SMB technically take up greater "space"? If it's still infinity small is that just in relation to how much mass is occupying the small area so therefore it doesn't take up necessarily 1 "point", but rather that is just how we explain it because it is the most simple explanation.


edit: getting late ugh translated my gibberish into english... I think

[Neosutra]

Sorry for the double post, but I do wonder the difference between normal black holes and super massive black holes in regards to the amount of matter is what makes up the black whole, correct? So therefore would a SMB technically take up greater "space"? If it's still infinity small is that just in relation to how much mass is occupying the small area so therefore it doesn't take up necessarily 1 "point", but rather that is just how we explain it because it is the most simple explanation.


edit: getting late ugh translated my gibberish into english... I think

The event horizon is farther out with larger singularity masses and the gravitational pull is much larger.

[Max™]

It isnt nonsensical Max lol.

You are misrepresenting the physics of the situation. mass/volume = density. It isnt "infinity on one side of the equation", as the volume goes infinitely small, density goes infinitely large. But as I said these relationships dont really apply in this situation. A more realistic representation is mass/0 = indefinate. You are basing an entire physical assumption on an improperly defined (and scientifically incorrect) premis of infinite mass, instead of understanding the mechanics of the situation.

No I'm quite certain I understand the mechanical problems here, infinitely small volume is nonsense, infinitely dense points with zero volume are nonsense, and yes you could argue that any finite mass compressed into a zero volume point would be infinitely dense, which is what I have an issue with.

There is no reason to assume that you can in fact reduce something to zero volume, misapplying equations beyond the point where they can reasonably be expected to provide useful results is all that is happening here.

And a mathematical singularity isnt the same as a physical singularity. There are just too many plausible (and tested) theories that describe how matter/waves act in these types of situations to dismiss it as "nonsensical".

Describe to me how a wave can be defined within a region of space with zero volume.

What you are saying really is a misrepresentation of the actual physics of the situation.

This is only partially true, the current physical theories do suggest results as you are describing, but this is one of the key points where GR and QFT gunk each other up.

You can treat the singularity in a "hand's off" manner with GR by treating it accurately with regards to converging worldlines and such. Attempting to determine physical properties for it requires moving outside of what GR can actually do.

Technically GR states NOTHING about what matter is, nor what it's properties are, the values for mass are inserted as tensors, and the evolution of the resulting spacetime works out appropriately. You could claim that the mass tensor you used was representing pink bunnies and cotton candy and it wouldn't matter.

Trying to apply GR to a physical object is silly, trying to mix it with a modern quantum field theory to describe the properties of that object is going to give you ridiculous results. Infinite values for observables which are related in a precise manner to other observables which the same calculations say should have a finite value, or no value at all.

This is absurd, yes you can perform all sorts of fascinating mathematical masturbation over it, and believe it or not I've delved into that as well.

The point remains that the very concept of separable particles/waves, which are then able to be compressed to an arbitrarily small size, is wrong.


The only thing supporting the idea that the Universe is built from the bottom up is a hunch, an assumption based on the behavior of objects far above the smallest scales in the Universe.


I know that you see this in some way, I can see it when I flesh out the model you describe in my head, we're just not clicking on the details somewhere.

[chirastode]

Thanks for your sharing. Thanks for sharing this useful information. It's great.

[Woozie]

Considering how much empty space matter really is, I don't really find it hard to believe that under incredible gravitational the particles drawn into a black hole are compacted down into unto an inconceivability small space

The problem is that anything contained within an infintesimal volume necissarily violates the laws of quantum mechanics. Sorry, I haven't read through the last few pages because Max's arguments usually seem like nonsense to me (sorry Max, but, as I've said before, your argument style seems incoherent to me. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that even if you tried to tell me that 2+2=4 or that the world is round, I still wouldn't know what the hell you were talking about). If Max or Neo have already addressed the issue of infintesimal volumes, then I guess this post was pointless.




Kryssan, if you're still reading this topic, I have a question that you and Neo can probably answer. From both a scientific and political perspective, what are the chances that we will convert to some better energy source any time in the near future? I was watching 2057 on the science channel yesterday and they were talking about the future of energy. Since I probably wont go into theoretical physics anymore due to every physicist and mathematician telling me not to, another thing I'd really like to do is work on either nuclear energy or some other form of energy source. Does it seem likely that we will convert the world to mostly renewable and cleaner energy sources any time soon? And by any time soon, I mean before 2050? How about 2100?

[Kryssan]

Kryssan, if you're still reading this topic, I have a question that you and Neo can probably answer. From both a scientific and political perspective, what are the chances that we will convert to some better energy source any time in the near future? I was watching 2057 on the science channel yesterday and they were talking about the future of energy. Since I probably wont go into theoretical physics anymore due to every physicist and mathematician telling me not to, another thing I'd really like to do is work on either nuclear energy or some other form of energy source. Does it seem likely that we will convert the world to mostly renewable and cleaner energy sources any time soon? And by any time soon, I mean before 2050? How about 2100?

Technically, we're already there. Its just getting material sciences and politics to support. Most of the world right now is using Generation II and III reactor designs. The Generation III+ designs with the new passive and reactor safety features have received approval for building, and should be up and running within a decade tops. However, those designs don't really add the cool new stuff regarding the energy, they just add a helluva lot of safety features. I posted the link to the AP 1000 Westinghouse reactor design page earlier in the thread, it's here. The Generation IV designs that haven't even yet been submitted for NRC approval involve designs going back to the old days of fast reactors instead of thermal reactors, using liquid metal such as sodium cooled (ALMR) and gas turbine reactors (GT-MHR). The reason for using thermal reactors over fast reactors is actually an interesting study in economics. Think about gasoline and electric cars - the latter were first, but the former were easier, and the technology of the time did not support them. Personally, I'm rooting for the gas turbine ones since they use the Brayton cycle instead of the Rankine cycle, with an efficiency rating of 49% compared to the current reactors using the Rankine cycle at 34~35% efficiency. They are also a great deal safer and don't produce waste until end of usable life (EOL) when they're dismantled. Integral fast reactors create their own fuel. They also do not require enrichment, like current thermal reactors do, since U-238 which is naturally found in high purities in the environment is the fuel you would start with, compared to U-235 for thermal reactors, which is the found in extremely small quantities.

Here's how a fast integral reactor provides for it's own fuel, btw, for those that are curious. Real quick on pen and paper, so forgive me:

Spoiler: show

http://www.aethernavale.net/Media/files/decaychain.JPG

Granted, this type of reactor cannot fuel itself indefinitely, but it can fuel itself for the entire core lifetime, thus preventing shutdowns every 3 months or so to refuel as current BWR/PWR types are limited to. The 'waste' generated in the enrichment process (IE U-234 and 238) currently being stored in facilities would be able to fuel the entire initial sweep of fast integral reactors without requiring any additional mining for uranium fuel. The 'safer' bit for the gas turbine reactor designs comes from their fuel temperatures. The melting point in the GT-MHR for example is above 2000C. Fission products will be contained in the fuel at any temperature less than 1600C, with the normal fuel temperature being ~1100C. There is no need to provide containment for the GT-MHR reactor vessel, because the fuel particles themselves provide the containment, drastically reducing its cost and time of build. Society however will probably still require one, unfortunately.


The fuel in the GT-MHR reactor uses tiny graphite balls 800 microns in diameter loaded into prismatic fuel elements. The ball is made of an outer pyrolytic carbon, followed by silicon carbide barrier coating, followed by an inner pyrolytic carbon, with a porous carbon buffer (to allow for expansion of fission product gasses), and finally the UCO fuel kernel in the middle. However, the reason this type of reactor is so safe is that it has no chance the core can meltdown, as it's cooled by the Reactor Cavity Cooling System. This system uses outside air passing over a series of baffles around the cavity of the reactor vessel, with the only mechanism of driving force being thermal driving head. IE no moving components, no powered components. All you need is an atmosphere outside the reactor. Hopefully earth doesn't run into an issue with that. If so I doubt we'll be caring about reactor integrity. Because it is only using forces of nature, and requires nor allows human intervention, it's impossible for humans to destroy this reactor without shooting at it or otherwise trying to physically blow it up. The reactor cannot destroy itself by design. Of course, this is just one example... I happen to know most about it because I like it the best. There are also pebblebed reactors and the like in design stages as well.


This is a theme you will find with all Generation IV fission reactor designs. They literally run themselves, and do not require dumb humans to protect them - they will protect themselves by design alone, and require no engineering safeguard systems such as reactor fill. Though of course they will still have them.... society would never allow them not to. *sigh* At any rate, the GIV designs will be put up for NRC approval sometime in the 2010~2020 decade, and we'll probably see them start getting built in the late 2020s.




As for the fusion side of the house, I fear that will still be some time. I already posted on that too in the thread, you can follow the developments on ITER and NIF by following the links here.

[Eliseos]

As for the fusion side of the house, I fear that will still be some time. I already posted on that too in the thread, you can follow the developments on ITER and NIF by following the links here.

The show that the link refers to did talk about both of those, from what I remember. They were explaining one of the fusion reactors in the US (I think it's NIF, but I'm not exactly sure) where it produced something like 100000 amperes in a wire smaller than a human hair. Granted, this was only for a very short amount of time (the order of micro-seconds or something), and it takes them a day or so to replace and clean all the parts. The EM radiation is so strong from it that they have to hide in a special bunker while they are performing the experiment, and it gives off a noticeable earthquake lol. According to the show, only one picture of the experiment room has even been taken, and it looked absolutely crazy. Pretty much every thing in the room was acting like a van de graaf, or had some form of corona discharge. I'll try to find the picture.

[Kryssan]

The show that the link refers to did talk about both of those, from what I remember. They were explaining one of the fusion reactors in the US (I think it's NIF, but I'm not exactly sure) where it produced something like 100000 amperes in a wire smaller than a human hair. Granted, this was only for a very short amount of time (the order of micro-seconds or something), and it takes them a day or so to replace and clean all the parts. The EM radiation is so strong from it that they have to hide in a special bunker while they are performing the experiment, and it gives off a noticeable earthquake lol. According to the show, only one picture of the experiment room has even been taken, and it looked absolutely crazy. Pretty much every thing in the room was acting like a van de graaf, or had some form of corona discharge. I'll try to find the picture.

Um, that doesn't sound like NIF. The links to NIF and ITER's websites are in that post, that's why I linked to it. I was being lazy and didn't fell like retyping the links to their sites so I linked to a post that already had them. Just for future reference, I tend to keep links in my posts without posting code, so just look for italicized stuff you can click on.

[Neosutra]

No I'm quite certain I understand the mechanical problems here, infinitely small volume is nonsense, infinitely dense points with zero volume are nonsense, and yes you could argue that any finite mass compressed into a zero volume point would be infinitely dense, which is what I have an issue with.

And we already stated that you are basing your entire premise on semantics. The volume is "infinitely small" as much as the number 0 is "infinitely small". We are still working on testing the current models of singularities, but there are many possible solutions to this.

For instance:

For the purposes of proving the Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems, a spacetime with a singularity is defined to be one that contains geodesics that cannot be extended in a smooth manner. The end of such a geodesic is considered to be the singularity.

Just because we call it a "singularity" doesnt mean it is the same as a mathematical singularity, or that it extends "infinitely" into one direction (density or inverse volume).

If we were able to cut open a black hole, we may see all of the mass in the center occupying one particle state, stacked together (like in Einstien-Bosen states). We could see however that that area in spacetime just possess additional degrees on freedom (as suggested by Loop Quantum Gravity or Supersymmetry.)

Either way, infinitely small volume and infinitely large density are 2 incorrect terms, and if you are basing scientific premises on them, you are walking in the wrong direction.

There is no reason to assume that you can in fact reduce something to zero volume, misapplying equations beyond the point where they can reasonably be expected to provide useful results is all that is happening here.

Again, you are confusing a mathematical singularity with a quantum singularity.

Describe to me how a wave can be defined within a region of space with zero volume.

Bose–Einstein condensate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The point remains that the very concept of separable particles/waves, which are then able to be compressed to an arbitrarily small size, is wrong.

No, you are just incorrectly representing it. It isnt an arbitrary size, it is a single wave state that they all occupy OR (as suggested above) even something as interesting as additional degrees of freedom. Either way, even if we choose to collapse the particles down to a single state, it can still work (as referenced above). You saying it's wrong doesnt make it wrong when the only argument you have against it is "because its wrong!".


The rest of the post didnt really have anything to do with my response, so Ill leave it be.

[Eliseos]

Um, that doesn't sound like NIF. The links to NIF and ITER's websites are in that post, that's why I linked to it. I was being lazy and didn't fell like retyping the links to their sites so I linked to a post that already had them. Just for future reference, I tend to keep links in my posts without posting code, so just look for italicized stuff you can click on.

Ah, my mistake, but they did talk about the NIF too, along with the other one I talked about.

[Max™]

BEC's do not involve zero volume, and infinitely small is not 0.

I have other issues with the singularity model, but the point remains that there is still no reason to realistically assume the collapse continues beyond a certain point.

Simply saying "it is just an overlapping of wave states" isn't properly representing what happens when you model these either, that is an attempt to correct the problems with singularities in black holes. Not the actual description of what GR produces when you push it into these realms.


Myself, I have my own conclusions about the structure inside a black hole, you do as well I'm sure.

My argument is not from confusing the concept of a mathematical singularity with a condensed quantum wave state, or whatever you may have thought I was doing.

[Neosutra]

Beyond a certain point? What point is acceptable?

How is 0 not infinitely small?

And which problems with GR are you talking about?

[Khamsin]

Beyond a certain point? What point is acceptable?

How is 0 not infinitely small?

And which problems with GR are you talking about?

0 would be nothing there. Infinitely small would be as close to 0 as you can get without getting there, wouldn't it? So maybe a cubic planck or something.

Or whatever would be as close to the concept of 0.000...(infinite 0s)...1, with so many 0s in between that you can't possibly add another one.

(Yeah, I know, that's not how it works, but whatever the closest non-flawed real thing is to that would be infinitely small)

Or perhaps envision the asymptote of 1/x as x approaches infinity, the result gets closer and closer to 0 but never quite reaches there.

[Neosutra]

A cubic plank is still infinitely huge compared to the expression "infinitely small". The lim1/x, as x approaches infinity is 0.

Im not saying this is the way it physically is inside a black hole (quite the opposite infact), I am just arguing against Max's statement that 0 isnt "infinitely small". It is by definition (logically and mathematically) infinitely small.

[Max™]

0 + an infinitesimal amount =/= 0

For any x, you can choose a value such that 0 < x < 1/n, even as n goes to infinity.

The planck values are the bound I would establish for minimal size for various reasons.