These Are The People We Leave Our Safety With

Well, technically, would an imaginary particle at the center of the event horizon feel any gravity either? Gravity is not something concentrated at a particular point in any case, it is the energy that becomes more and more concentrated in a single point, driven by the combined gravitation of all the particles. The particle at the middle of it all would feel no gravity at all, but all the rest of the particles around it are subject to an increasing gravitational pull, as the mass is more and more concentrated.

We can tick a box that says we agree on the role of the energy concentration. What I would argue though, is that in the case of a collapse-created black hole, the mass/energy is ultimately focused to a single point in space, meaning that an infinite density will eventually be achieved, unless something manages to resist the gravitational pull, like in neutron stars. Now in the CERN scenario, there may be an immense amount of energy involved, but it isn't focused to a single point, but rather a disc, meaning that the amount of concentration couldn't be comparable to a gravitational collapse event. Each point on the disc will only contain a fraction of the total energy of the colliding bunches of particles, meaning that the energy concentration is also only a fraction of what it would be, if all the energy in the collision would be focused to a single point. The total concentration in each point shouldn't differ a lot from what would be achieved in a single two-particle collision, although in that case the surface area over which the concentration would be present would be a lot smaller. This could be argued by claiming that a near-infinite energy concentration will be achieved over the entire area of the collision-area disc, but because in the case of a kinetic-energy driven event, there will only be a finite amount of force available to press together the mass/energy, as opposed to a gravitational collapse, which is in essence self-powering, and achieving a near-infinite energy concentration in a particle collision is unrealistic, as it is also in my opinion empirically confirmed with the lack of black holes created by cosmic-ray collisions in the atmosphere, which I claim are not fundamentally different from the collision of a large amount of particles in an accelerator, and would only require a tiny fraction of the kinetic energy released to achieve the same amounts of energy as in the case of a single isolated collision in an accelerator.

That is something I would be curious about as well, because as far as I have seen, all the references seem to indicate that the existence of extra dimensions wrapped to smaller length scales that would amplify gravity, is necessary for a creation of a black hole at the given energies. What supports the existence of these extra dimensions, and why should they be present and accessible at exactly the scales of length reached by the large hadron collider has escaped me so far.

Okay, I admit that the resource I provided may not be representing the reality adequately. Do you happen to have a link to any resources concerning the thermal radiation, so I could take a look at it, as I am yet to find anything about it?

You do not agree to anything, you bow to authority, and praise information that supports your psedu-scientific ideas. Your agreement means nothing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

fo3,

Yes, I linked to a .pdf paper in my earlier post describing thermal emissions from micro black holes. I also gave a link to your resource whick described the same thing. I just noticed, for some reason, the link only directs one to the home page about Hawking radiation. Click on the 'event horizon' link at the home page to go to my cut & paste and the animation, about 1/3 of the way down the page:
http://library.thinkquest.org/C007571/english/advance/english.htm
I have seen other websites discussing the same thing, but I don't have links to all them without new searches.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I have taken a look at the calculations, used in the Hawking radiation section, and in there, I see no reference to anything abnormal, like something being emitted from within the event horizon. Have I made a mistake somewhere?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, as I said go to the EVENT HORIZON link at your thinkquest.org site, two places up from the Hawking radiation link. The whole website is about Hawking radiation.
Sinse you obviously didn't read the first paper I linked to, her is a cut & paste from the abstract and another link:

http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0304/0304042v1.pdf

 

I found the link that I had missed previously, and will take a look at it. Due to its size, it will take a while though.
In the meanwhile, I would like to confirm that it in fact isn't the same virtual-pair based radiation that will leave the impression of a thermal radiation from inside the horizon, as it should also meet the characteristics of a black-body radiation, although it is not thermal in its nature?

Edit: noticed your post above this one. Yes, I am now looking at the mentioned paper.
I was interested in the provided calculations in the Hawking radiation site, as I found nothing in them that would indicate something actually passing from inside the event horizon to outside universe. I an see the images you referred to though, and they seem problematic to me as well.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Fo3... do you think i act like an authorative? I do no such thing.

Sure i have psuedoscientific idea's, but i also contribute a lot of science.

 

Mixing science with pseudoscience is nothing you should do when trying to contribute to anyones understanding of science. It is, in my opinion, more harmful than a relative ignorance of science, as ignorance can be removed by teaching, but confidence in pseudo-science is something thats much harder to deal with successfully.
You have, of course, every right to think what you want to, and so does everyone else, and you technically even have the right to spread all kinds of ideas to anyone willing to accept them, but in your case I suspect that you are not willingly distributing harmful false-information in some of your posts, but are just somewhat unaware of the effect it can have on receptive minds that lack sufficient source-criticism.
Your post usually reflect complete confidence in the correctness and general acceptedness of the information you provide, and you also sometimes provide references to prominent scientists, but upon closer inspection it often becomes clear that you have misinterpreted some of the information or have misunderstood the deductions that can be made from certain ideas. It is, of course, human to make errors, and nobody can be blamed for it, but one should at least always remain critical of your own level of knowledge, and in the case of suspicions that you might be misinformed, it should ideally be always expressed in the posts you make on the subject. Also, even if something should appear completely true to you, but nevertheless lacks major support in the scientific community, except for some single authors you happen to place trust in, you should always make it clear in your posts that there might be other options in interpreting the information.
I do not claim to be entirely free of this guilt, but in the time I've been back to these forums, I have noticed that you should pay attention to these suggestions more than most other people here.

 

Exactly why not? This type of education is the only reason why i kept on at science. I shouldn't need to indicate these thoughts as some ''red alert'' mechanism. I don't know why the principle of these theories still don't count...???
My posts are clear and concisive. I speak about who theory i ever come to mention, then speak about it with good degree.

I think you just do't understand my methods.

 

What I was saying, that you do not understand the consequences of your methods.

 

I'll be the judge of that.

 

The judge of your lack of understanding?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No. The Judge whether it can be judged at all. No one knows me better than me.

 

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB, CERN, BROOKHAVEN AND LOS ALAMOS AS EXPERIMENTAL OVERSIGHT TRAGIC RESULTS

Please review, Quantum tunnelling towards as exploding Universe? (Malcolm J. Perry (1986) Nature 320, p. 679) We note: "Classically, transition from one type of solution to the other is forbidden by the existence of a large potential barrier." Thus the transtion from the continuum to de Sitter space is only a function of energy. The source of energy could be from natural sources, i.e., the implosion of a stellar envelope, conditions existing in the early Universe, or via high energy physics experimentation. We now have an empirical experimental test of the generalization of the equations in the General Theory of Relativity in the Einstein de Sitter Universe as it is now termed paid for with billions of our tax dollars. We, therefore, await the tragic confirmation of the Exploding Universe via the generation of a Type Ia Supernova at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia. Illinnois or in March 2008 at CERN with those energies found some 10^-9 to 10^-14 seconds subsequent to the Big Bang at the point origin the Universe. Miscalculations in magnet design may be only the precursor to more a more catastropic tragic error!

All the children will thank you for your kind actions on their behalf.

All Best Wishes.

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

 

Since i never finished college to obtain my Ph.D, maybe people will accept a probable catastrophy with the following sentence, provided by Dr. Dixon:

''Miscalculations in magnet design may be only the precursor to more a more catastropic tragic error!''

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_The_Children_(politics)

 

Well sure Fo3, but that's like saying Bush shouldn't involve religion with his politics, but it still happens.

 

"He did it too" is not an excuse. Using such logical fallacies implies the weakness of the underlying argument.

To carry this thread on for longer, I ask for the third (fourth?) time: What reason do you have to believe that a black hole will be created at exactly the energies reached at CERN, and not at energies several orders of magnitude higher than are accessible there?

 

The energies are of vital consequence. I cannot say for sure that TeV33 can produce a mini balck hole that doesn't evaporate. Moreso, the energie required for black holes are purely theoretical - it may require less... it may require more.... if's but's and maybe's again.

 

I mean, fair enough... A minimum-size black hole should have a mass of about 22 micrograms, and an accelerator would need an energy of about 1016 TeV to produce it. ... But can we be sure?

 

Can we be sure that the next time you fart, you won't produce an exotic black hole? Should you take the chances? I'm sure you will excuse the rude example, but the point remains.