Between this channel, numberphile, vihart, scishow, minutephysics, and the vsauces, I have learned more fascinating information in the last 6 months than I ever did in 12 years of traditional schooling.
I hope this isn't a stupid question, but I'd really love a CERN scientist's point of view: In expecting the worst, different variations of end of the world/universe scenarios, I've been reluctant to do chores around the house, such as taking out the trash, doing the laundry and washing the dishes and now a couple of years later, the world/universe is still standing, while the trash and dirty laundry is piling up high around my house. Can we finally call off the end of the world this time or is there still hope for me, so I don't have to do these tedious chores day after day?
Great Vid. Brady. One of the best you've done! Dr. Padilla on TOP form there.) Love the final shot of him walking off. It's like you just bumped into some bloke in the park who told you all this stuff.
What would have been a good touch at the end, since you had him walking away anyway, was if you had made some kind of graphic with these doomsday events, that would never happen, happening behind him. Like, the mountains sinking, a galaxy forming and so on. But yeah.
sorry you were upset by the logo - I guess it is the price you pay for being so familiar two languages... I don't think Greek letters are silly (I don't think footballs are silly either, for that matter). But I think the fact you still knew it said Sixty Symbols (and I am guessing you figured it out pretty quickly) means the stylistic choice was still surmountable? The film Seven is often written as se7en, and I quite like it even though it interrupts the flow! It's kind of the point!
(part 2 of my reply) In nature the collisions happen very far apart from each other. Lets not forget, that we're talking about subatomic particles (or individual atoms at most). Most of the high energy particles (including those in the accelerators) don't undergo a head-on collision. They realease their energy gradually by exciting/ionizing atoms or nuclei in whatever material that they travel through. (oh my, still not done, I'll try to finish at part 3)
It has destroyed the world, but in doing so it created parallel universes until it created one where the collision event failed. Which is this universe, otherwise we wouldn't be here.
If youtube physics has taught me anything - and he even says it in this video as a reason for potential blackhole formation - is that energy and matter are equivalent. The extremely high energies of the particles being collided (they have masses going at 99% the speed of light) means that any black hole would have a lot more gravitational attraction than simple the mass of the particles going in. Also I believe there are relativistic effects to do with mass when close to light speed, but I don't really understand those so I won't go into it.
Well actually the pull of a black hole in particular is directly proportional to it's mass, as in, it's Event Horizon is always going to be proportional to the mass it had before it turned into a black hole. If our sun for example became one, which it can't but if it did then it's pull on all the planet's and everything around it wouldn't change. It has the same gravitational pull it had when it was a Star just now it has an Event Horizon(which wouldn't even reach earch btw), with some material left out if it became one through Super Nova explosion but while E=MC2 is true, and it is possible to create Matter with Energy, it's impossible to create Gravity with Energy, because gravity can only be created through Mass and if we slam particle together at such high velocities, any black hole that formed wouldn't actually have the mass of both the particle's but only parts of it, because most would have been ejected on Collision. Side Note: It takes nearly Infinite Energy to create Matter from Energy, while the colision they make are extremely energetic, that's relative to a Subatomic level, not to our level this means that the energy required to do this is way greater than any particle Collision and it would have an Event Horizon of about a Plankc Length.
But it wouldn't have the same forces repelling other matter from getting close, our only saviour is hawking radiation which would make putting matter in similar to shoving it into a firehose
Brady, when Dr Padilla mentioned 4-dimensioned space I recalled an article of abolishing time as a dimension and stick to 3-dimensional representation as it help a more wider approach across the Universe. It also does not contradict the current pyhsics stigmas. The source phys dot org slash news slash 2012-04-physicists-abolish-fourth-dimension-space dot html. Please cover this topic.
Brady, I laugh everytime you ask "why?" It just sounds so innocent. But I'm glad you interact with the scientists. I feel like I'm the only one in my college classes who cares about really understanding the subjects so I'm usually the only one asking "why?" questions. It's kind of awkward.
(part 3 of my reply) So usually a high-energy particle leaves a trace behind itself. A type of detector (called Wilson Chamber) allows these traces to be seen with the naked eye. Here's a video: watch?v=Eo-QjUQHeAs. Mostly what we see here on earth is the after effect of a cosmic ray entering Earths atmosphere, however weakly interacting particles can go as far as underground or even through the whole planet (they pose the least amount of danger). I'm sorry if the reply was too long for you.
I looked it up and that is really interesting. Cosmic rays have much greater energy than the beams inside colliders, however the energy density, as observed in Earths atmosphere, is on a scale of 1 eV/cm^3 which is not much at all when you think about the 1 to 7 trillion eV crammed in a cross section of less than 1 cm^2. I think that higher energy density mainly results in more collisions, but each individual collision is still pretty weak. (I guess I'll have to make a 2-part reply)
Just asking but doesn't the act of observation force the universe to collapse into a certain condition, so if we didn't observe the colisions (in the atmosphere) then is that really an acceptable explination? Yes i know that there were early experiments using these colisions but I'm still curious.
I developped a mathematical model about strings--in this model microgalaxies which implodes cannot vanish because of the Heisenberg Blur--it prevents that the information of this microuniverse gone away. The HeisenbergBlur builds a potential and force, that leads to a situation similar to a spring- the smaller it gets, the more force against this development and then this microuniversebubble begins to vibrate--yes it is 4 dimensional vibrating and it is very small--PlanckSmall
I guess an answer to my question can't be long enough :) So first of all, thank you for taking the time and trying to give me an explanation. Your answer pretty much makes sense. will take a little to wrap my head around it and to not yell "but doesn't the difference in energy-density make the whole difference?" - but this one seems covered by your "most of the [...] particles don't undergo a head-on collision".
I believe you left out the "theory" of opening a portal to another dimension and something coming through, or the thought of it opening a gateway for time travel. Not that I believe that, just that you left those out.
Have you guys studied astronomy, astro physics or something? What kind of an education do you have? I am really thinking of gettting into this, the school of it and all. It is really interresting stuff, the universe and how things works in the nature.
Would the stranglets have the same slow effect of consuming earth as a miniature black hole or would they be faster because they are alot bigger then a singularity.
Stranglets have much larger forces involved than a black hole (the strong force vs gravity), this makes them do things faster and interact with things more.
The momentum resulting from any collision between cosmic and earthly particles is necessarily high, thus if the product were little black hole, or that strange particle mentioned, then it will always leave the earth and race off into deep space. I don't see how the above argument doesn't appy to a neutron star: some neutron in the star is hit and the result races off without much if any interation (if it's a little black hole) with the rest of the star.
I need to know how/why an electron has a charge, but I can't find the answer on the web. Could you ask it the professors for the answer? (or if the answer already is given in another video, which video?) Nice video's keep them coming!
For all practical purposes, reality (the one we're all experiencing right now) does in fact have the capacity to express something which has the characteristics of an 'infinitely dense physical object', in that the local space-time curvature is immeasurably extreme. Such an entity - whatever it "actually" is, cannot be distinguished in any appreciable manner from an "actual" physical object of infinite density.
I take from the video that the resulting matter has less energy then iron, and the source material (Earth and contents) has energy at or above iron (more energy for less mass - weirdly, and more for more). Taking a few grams of matter a small way on this sort of nuclear process (fissioning Uranium, fusing Hydrogen) results in nuclear and thermonuclear explosions. The difference of energy appears as heat, light, and further nuclear processes. I believe the cosmic ray argument rules all this out.
Yes - it'll be okay. To check, ask Wolfram Alpha: 'mass of a proton', then '2 G ( 1.672622×10^-24 grams) / c^2' (from 'black hole' query), '10 km * 1.938×10^-107 m^2' (volume of particle path), 'neutron star density', '2x10-18*6x10^23*2×10^-103' (chances of a capture). Figuring out how many LHC energy cosmic rays hit all the observable neutron stars is beyond my interest in this matter. It'll be okay - 10k years and we'll probably have no problem fixing this, if it's bad.
Micro black holes are theorized to evaporate. However, one feature of black holes is that they may also be able to "accrete" matter or "condense" matter. So any black hole must exist with a specific ratio between evaporation and condensation. See cds.cern.ch/record/574734/files/0208048.pdf
Actually, RHIC *has* created strangelets. What's interesting is that time and space cancel slightly, and they appear in the 1950s and slightly to the West of RHIC, in the area called Greenwich Village. I've seen plenty of strangelets around there. (Been one meself.)
I think I heard 'macroscopic'. Meaning, it would be detectable by the naked eye, and in that; it would start having some effects on things that are similar or larger in size.
The energy and heat created from the collision are absolutely emence. But they last for such a small perioud of time that it does not even count. Thats one of the main reasons why the colliders and the detectors are SO MASSIVELY big and complex pieces of circuitry...just so we can analize a collion that lasts billionth of a second.
Sorry to break it to you, but there is a "limit." Its at the point where the atom breaks apart and makes somewhat a soup of protons and neutrons. But still I think you still had a great idea!
so what happens when a nucleus turns into a strangelet dose the thing that the the original matter formed break down or would it stay the same but be made out of strangelets? this is in theory. pleas educate me :)
I think it may be hypothetical to say that specifically these energies are occurring elsewhere. The frequency at which such energy is being opposed in a direct and violent fashion makes the odds of an event happening in this particular area much more likely. Just my opinion.
If I understand what a strangelet is correctly... a strangelet is a theoretical subatomic particle arranged in such a (strange) fashion, that when it comes into contact with other matter, turns that matter into strange matter. In effect, if we ever made a strange particle, I think the Earth would turn into one big gooey strange atomic nucleus. The whole earth... one great big homogeneous atom. But I'm not a physicist. =)
How do they strip the Protons from the Neutrons, and Electrons, to dress them ready for a light fast race around the Collider and do some collide away from the sensors? What percentage of the initial mass is collided at the designated point, where they can be analysed?
It's to do with the mass, having negative and positive mass not charge, that's why some mass can escape (near as damn it instantly decaying into high frequency em waves) while the black hole shrinks, because this negative mass raining down on the black hole.
how big does a black hole have to be in order to exert the same force of gravity as the gravity of earth? 9.81m/s^2? and what are the things we can associate with a black hole? spin and mass right? the heat given off as hawking radiation isnt that the shredding of atoms at the event horizon?
Lol yeah, it wasn't very comforting to hear "it hasn't happened yet" as the main reasoning. But what I think he meant is: "It hasn't happened yet in nature, so there must be a reason that prevents it from happening, and it will apply at LHC" Well, I sure hope that's what he meant.
I just did the math and assuming a proton mass black hole has to pass through 10 km of neutron star density material there's only a 2x10^-27 chance of capturing one neutron. The number of captures required to reduce velocity to below escape velocity would be many thousands. But the remark that only millions of such cosmic rays have hit the earth is a vast underestimate, and 10^30 such particles probably hit neutron starts often enough that we'd notice there were too few neutron stars around.
isn't it the case, that charged particles or particles in general are colliding in space all around the earth since... ever at much higher energy than they do in the lhc, and still the earthbexists? i dont know wheather there are such collisions, but i heard of them once. i'd appreceate to receave an answer (sorry for ban english skills)
according to a guy on 2012hoaxs Ice-9 mechanism, initially taken from a sci-fi story, requires a constant acretion rate that simply is not possible, when acretion reaches a certain level the Strangelet will become so unstable that it "falls apart" and thus can't continue to convert ordinary matter to strange matter.
strangelets can't formed at the LHC, the theory also states that they are only stable or long-lived at low temperatures and they are bound at low energies (in the range of 1-10 MeV), while the collisions in the LHC release energies in the range of 14 TeV. The second law of thermodynamics precludes the formation of a cold condensate that is an order of magnitude cooler than the surrounding medium. This can be illustrated by the example of trying to form an ice cube in boiling water
so i have a question, he said that if a blackhole (stable one) forms it would take 10,000 years to accrete enough mass to be noticable, so is it at all possible that there are many tiny blackholes created by the LHC and that they are just still too small to be noticed? even by the censors? it would take 10,000 years before they would be destructive, but they could be there as we speak....
In particular the Strangelet-theory still seems worrying. The reasoning is basically: We would expect it to happen, but it didn't happen at this other collider, so if we're lucky it won't happen here either. Let's do this! Well, I guess science is worth taking risks for! :)
my guess is absolutly not, but the same applies to the strangelet concept, if it is too small to notice, yet grows, who is to say that we wont notice it later? when it is too late
To my knowledge, which is not too much, hawking radiation is produced on the boundary of the event horizon of a black hole, which is the bare limit where something can escape just slightly under the speed of light
People can make the Earth less people friendly, though, normally, they do just the opposite, but, we don't really have any way to actually 'destroy the Earth.' It is sort of a pompous assertion at this point in our ability to use energy to consider it a significant possibility. Deeper thought: Of course, despite our general literacy, many people now think commoner plays like Shakespeare's are difficult.
I wonder if getting hotter than what's possible in this universe could cause another universe. Kind of like light hitting an electron and making it different, what if our universe like that, and there's energy pockets whizzing around outside. What if we're a particle in a bigger universe? Man I love science
So if we're so sure of what the LHC will do then what was the point of building the dashed thing? We could have just like said what's going to happen in all the experiments.
They most likely could detect them by the absence of certain decay and particles that should be there but isn't. Otherwise they should be undetectable. But trust me you won't hear or read about it if they even think any micro black hole forms.
The mass concentration required before a black hole forms is 1.48x10^-27 m/kg, and one lead atom weighs 3.44x10^-25 kg so, if 2 lead atoms collide and the entirety of the energy and mass is retained as they collapse into a singularity, the black hole would have an event horizon 1.01*10^-51 m in radius. 10 million billion times smaller than 1 Planck length, or quadrillions of times smaller than the smallest thing it is possible to measure And the gravity of... 2 lead atoms I'm not too scared
it is , light has no rest mass, and "mass" really only extends to rest mass, since relativistic mass is actually resultant of momentum, but momentum in quantum mechanics is not p=mv anymore, p=mv is just an approximation. for light, and all other quanta, p= h/lambda . so every single particle including light has momentum, but light has no mass at all. since mass is the interactio with the higgs field, and photons do not interact with higgs, therefore are massless.
when i clicked on this link i was hoping for a 1 second long video were a guy just says no and it ends, I guess this is better.
And then it all ends, haha
CERN? No concern.
cool, thank you for watching.
Between this channel, numberphile, vihart, scishow, minutephysics, and the vsauces, I have learned more fascinating information in the last 6 months than I ever did in 12 years of traditional schooling.
I hope this isn't a stupid question, but I'd really love a CERN scientist's point of view: In expecting the worst, different variations of end of the world/universe scenarios, I've been reluctant to do chores around the house, such as taking out the trash, doing the laundry and washing the dishes and now a couple of years later, the world/universe is still standing, while the trash and dirty laundry is piling up high around my house.
Can we finally call off the end of the world this time or is there still hope for me, so I don't have to do these tedious chores day after day?
Your timing is off by 10-15yrs.
Did you give in? Or you still holding out hope? Looks like it might be your year to shine !
And now we have Ukraine. Suddenly black holes don't seem so scary
I love these videos. Thank you for the motivation to do some more studying through the summer break.
Attended a lecture from this guy yesterday on Black Holes and String Theory, definitely worth it.
sixtysymbols is the best youtube thingy ever, i just can't stop watching and listening! i learn so much, thank you!
Great Vid. Brady. One of the best you've done! Dr. Padilla on TOP form there.) Love the final shot of him walking off. It's like you just bumped into some bloke in the park who told you all this stuff.
All of the University of Nottingham videos are amazing. Have you seen their periodic table of videos?
I'm going in June on a physics trip :)
How was it?
you must get really confused when people write things like FOOTBALL and replace the O's with little balls because they are round and O-shaped.
cool... glad you're enjoying them
What would have been a good touch at the end, since you had him walking away anyway, was if you had made some kind of graphic with these doomsday events, that would never happen, happening behind him. Like, the mountains sinking, a galaxy forming and so on.
But yeah.
athox But why stop there?
THIS IS BEST VID SIXTY SYMBOLS HAS EVER DONE I'VE REALLY LEARNED SOMETHING
Creating a new universe would be rather cool, don't you think?
Rare Grandayy comment
Rare Grandayy comment
you guys are hilarious! thanks for keeping science light-
sorry you were upset by the logo - I guess it is the price you pay for being so familiar two languages... I don't think Greek letters are silly (I don't think footballs are silly either, for that matter).
But I think the fact you still knew it said Sixty Symbols (and I am guessing you figured it out pretty quickly) means the stylistic choice was still surmountable?
The film Seven is often written as se7en, and I quite like it even though it interrupts the flow! It's kind of the point!
So a black hole (or many) could have been created already, but we won't know for thousands of years.... What a lovely present for our descendants.
Yay a new SixtySymbols video, this has been a good day.
don't know about the educational value of these videos in elementary school..but I like your enthusiasm ;)
Sixty Symbols should be a part of the classroom....elementary school classrooms. I've been loving these videos since they were on RUclips.
"TURN THE THING OFF! TURN IT OFF!" lol
(part 2 of my reply) In nature the collisions happen very far apart from each other. Lets not forget, that we're talking about subatomic particles (or individual atoms at most).
Most of the high energy particles (including those in the accelerators) don't undergo a head-on collision. They realease their energy gradually by exciting/ionizing atoms or nuclei in whatever material that they travel through.
(oh my, still not done, I'll try to finish at part 3)
No one cares
It has destroyed the world, but in doing so it created parallel universes until it created one where the collision event failed. Which is this universe, otherwise we wouldn't be here.
That explanation makes absolutely 0 sense
I dont know what he was smoking to be that high but I wanna try that
And now we got the Mandela effect back in 2012 the Earth as we knew it was destroyed.
"Which is this universe" the 2nd one.
Any black hole created will have the same gravitational pull, the same mass, as the particles that created it, which is next to nothing.
If youtube physics has taught me anything - and he even says it in this video as a reason for potential blackhole formation - is that energy and matter are equivalent. The extremely high energies of the particles being collided (they have masses going at 99% the speed of light) means that any black hole would have a lot more gravitational attraction than simple the mass of the particles going in.
Also I believe there are relativistic effects to do with mass when close to light speed, but I don't really understand those so I won't go into it.
Well actually the pull of a black hole in particular is directly proportional to it's mass, as in, it's Event Horizon is always going to be proportional to the mass it had before it turned into a black hole. If our sun for example became one, which it can't but if it did then it's pull on all the planet's and everything around it wouldn't change. It has the same gravitational pull it had when it was a Star just now it has an Event Horizon(which wouldn't even reach earch btw), with some material left out if it became one through Super Nova explosion but while E=MC2 is true, and it is possible to create Matter with Energy, it's impossible to create Gravity with Energy, because gravity can only be created through Mass and if we slam particle together at such high velocities, any black hole that formed wouldn't actually have the mass of both the particle's but only parts of it, because most would have been ejected on Collision.
Side Note: It takes nearly Infinite Energy to create Matter from Energy, while the colision they make are extremely energetic, that's relative to a Subatomic level, not to our level this means that the energy required to do this is way greater than any particle Collision and it would have an Event Horizon of about a Plankc Length.
But it wouldn't have the same forces repelling other matter from getting close, our only saviour is hawking radiation which would make putting matter in similar to shoving it into a firehose
No it would not - the energy of the collision would be transformed into matter cos they are the same thing.
Brady, when Dr Padilla mentioned 4-dimensioned space I recalled an article of abolishing time as a dimension and stick to 3-dimensional representation as it help a more wider approach across the Universe. It also does not contradict the current pyhsics stigmas. The source phys dot org slash news slash 2012-04-physicists-abolish-fourth-dimension-space dot html. Please cover this topic.
never get affected by the strange goings on in the RUclips comments section... life is too short!
Brady, I laugh everytime you ask "why?" It just sounds so innocent. But I'm glad you interact with the scientists. I feel like I'm the only one in my college classes who cares about really understanding the subjects so I'm usually the only one asking "why?" questions. It's kind of awkward.
So the strangelet is a perfect solvent
good video. and it's fun to read the flame wars and chuckle.
(part 3 of my reply) So usually a high-energy particle leaves a trace behind itself. A type of detector (called Wilson Chamber) allows these traces to be seen with the naked eye. Here's a video: watch?v=Eo-QjUQHeAs.
Mostly what we see here on earth is the after effect of a cosmic ray entering Earths atmosphere, however weakly interacting particles can go as far as underground or even through the whole planet (they pose the least amount of danger).
I'm sorry if the reply was too long for you.
Cool jacket!
This channel is awesome !
I looked it up and that is really interesting. Cosmic rays have much greater energy than the beams inside colliders, however the energy density, as observed in Earths atmosphere, is on a scale of 1 eV/cm^3 which is not much at all when you think about the 1 to 7 trillion eV crammed in a cross section of less than 1 cm^2.
I think that higher energy density mainly results in more collisions, but each individual collision is still pretty weak.
(I guess I'll have to make a 2-part reply)
to 3.00-3.05: the hawking radiation doesnt really escape the black hole, does it? I mean it wasnt really in the black hole in the first place, right?
Max Musterman nope. look it up on Wikipedia
Is that the Higgs field?
Hehehehe,,,,, i seee what you doing
I really enjoy these videos
I love your videos so much.
Just asking but doesn't the act of observation force the universe to collapse into a certain condition, so if we didn't observe the colisions (in the atmosphere) then is that really an acceptable explination? Yes i know that there were early experiments using these colisions but I'm still curious.
It would have been so awesome if Brady had used special effects to lower the mountains in the background during the vid!
Did you type that on your IBN 5100?
I developped a mathematical model about strings--in this model microgalaxies which implodes cannot vanish because of the Heisenberg Blur--it prevents that the information of this microuniverse gone away. The HeisenbergBlur builds a potential and force, that leads to a situation similar to a spring- the smaller it gets, the more force against this development and then this microuniversebubble begins to vibrate--yes it is 4 dimensional vibrating and it is very small--PlanckSmall
Your right, but what i was asking is, What is the difference between contraction and expansion when it comes to momentum?
I guess an answer to my question can't be long enough :)
So first of all, thank you for taking the time and trying to give me an explanation.
Your answer pretty much makes sense. will take a little to wrap my head around it and to not yell "but doesn't the difference in energy-density make the whole difference?" - but this one seems covered by your "most of the [...] particles don't undergo a head-on collision".
I believe you left out the "theory" of opening a portal to another dimension and something coming through, or the thought of it opening a gateway for time travel. Not that I believe that, just that you left those out.
well again no one has seen cthulhu walking down the street
+nosoupfuru they actually made a movie about it. its called pacific rim.
@ nosuchthing That's what you think. How do you explain the many-tentacled monstrosity in my cellar?
Those are not theories, they are hallucinations.
Have you guys studied astronomy, astro physics or something? What kind of an education do you have? I am really thinking of gettting into this, the school of it and all. It is really interresting stuff, the universe and how things works in the nature.
its been so long since a video, started to miss it
Once again, Great video!
Would the stranglets have the same slow effect of consuming earth as a miniature black hole or would they be faster because they are alot bigger then a singularity.
Stranglets have much larger forces involved than a black hole (the strong force vs gravity), this makes them do things faster and interact with things more.
The momentum resulting from any collision between cosmic and earthly particles is necessarily high, thus if the product were little black hole, or that strange particle mentioned, then it will always leave the earth and race off into deep space. I don't see how the above argument doesn't appy to a neutron star: some neutron in the star is hit and the result races off without much if any interation (if it's a little black hole) with the rest of the star.
I need to know how/why an electron has a charge, but I can't find the answer on the web.
Could you ask it the professors for the answer?
(or if the answer already is given in another video, which video?)
Nice video's keep them coming!
11:36 disproved all conspiracies. Walks away like a BOSS.
For all practical purposes, reality (the one we're all experiencing right now) does in fact have the capacity to express something which has the characteristics of an 'infinitely dense physical object', in that the local space-time curvature is immeasurably extreme. Such an entity - whatever it "actually" is, cannot be distinguished in any appreciable manner from an "actual" physical object of infinite density.
Although in fairness, interpreting letters is a very different process to interpreting the substitution of a letter with some object.
I take from the video that the resulting matter has less energy then iron, and the source material (Earth and contents) has energy at or above iron (more energy for less mass - weirdly, and more for more). Taking a few grams of matter a small way on this sort of nuclear process (fissioning Uranium, fusing Hydrogen) results in nuclear and thermonuclear explosions. The difference of energy appears as heat, light, and further nuclear processes. I believe the cosmic ray argument rules all this out.
Yes - it'll be okay. To check, ask Wolfram Alpha: 'mass of a proton', then '2 G ( 1.672622×10^-24 grams) / c^2' (from 'black hole' query), '10 km * 1.938×10^-107 m^2' (volume of particle path), 'neutron star density', '2x10-18*6x10^23*2×10^-103' (chances of a capture). Figuring out how many LHC energy cosmic rays hit all the observable neutron stars is beyond my interest in this matter. It'll be okay - 10k years and we'll probably have no problem fixing this, if it's bad.
Micro black holes are theorized to evaporate. However, one feature of black holes is that they may also be able to "accrete" matter or "condense" matter. So any black hole must exist with a specific ratio between evaporation and condensation. See cds.cern.ch/record/574734/files/0208048.pdf
Actually, RHIC *has* created strangelets. What's interesting is that time and space cancel slightly, and they appear in the 1950s and slightly to the West of RHIC, in the area called Greenwich Village. I've seen plenty of strangelets around there. (Been one meself.)
ANywy, if it's a problem its already done so I'm glad to hear it'll be while before there's symptoms.
What weight of material is being hurled around the collider at any one point?
+Phil Cole Something like a few thousand to tens of thousands of protons.
I think I heard 'macroscopic'. Meaning, it would be detectable by the naked eye, and in that; it would start having some effects on things that are similar or larger in size.
The energy and heat created from the collision are absolutely emence. But they last for such a small perioud of time that it does not even count. Thats one of the main reasons why the colliders and the detectors are SO MASSIVELY big and complex pieces of circuitry...just so we can analize a collion that lasts billionth of a second.
Sorry to break it to you, but there is a "limit." Its at the point where the atom breaks apart and makes somewhat a soup of protons and neutrons. But still I think you still had a great idea!
I just love Brady. Just putting that out there. No homo.
so what happens when a nucleus turns into a strangelet dose the thing that the the original matter formed break down or would it stay the same but be made out of strangelets? this is in theory. pleas educate me :)
I think it may be hypothetical to say that specifically these energies are occurring elsewhere. The frequency at which such energy is being opposed in a direct and violent fashion makes the odds of an event happening in this particular area much more likely.
Just my opinion.
If I understand what a strangelet is correctly... a strangelet is a theoretical subatomic particle arranged in such a (strange) fashion, that when it comes into contact with other matter, turns that matter into strange matter.
In effect, if we ever made a strange particle, I think the Earth would turn into one big gooey strange atomic nucleus. The whole earth... one great big homogeneous atom.
But I'm not a physicist. =)
Why did you avoid the multi dimensions question?
How do they strip the Protons from the Neutrons, and Electrons, to dress them ready for a light fast race around the Collider and do some collide away from the sensors? What percentage of the initial mass is collided at the designated point, where they can be analysed?
+Phil Cole I can answer only your first question with confidence - they use Hydrogen, and simply ionise it, leving only protons.
+Phil Cole You should check out the LHC website.
Tony's description of a black hole eating the earth reminds me of Stephan King's novella\movie 'The Langoliers'.
@AxelMatstoms but I thought ,tell me if I'm wrong, that a black hole was an absence and so there is nothing there.
It's to do with the mass, having negative and positive mass not charge, that's why some mass can escape (near as damn it instantly decaying into high frequency em waves) while the black hole shrinks, because this negative mass raining down on the black hole.
Hm... I forgot that detail, you're right! But the time will still stop at the event horizon!
how big does a black hole have to be in order to exert the same force of gravity as the gravity of earth? 9.81m/s^2? and what are the things we can associate with a black hole? spin and mass right? the heat given off as hawking radiation isnt that the shredding of atoms at the event horizon?
Lol yeah, it wasn't very comforting to hear "it hasn't happened yet" as the main reasoning.
But what I think he meant is: "It hasn't happened yet in nature, so there must be a reason that prevents it from happening, and it will apply at LHC" Well, I sure hope that's what he meant.
But black holes already do exist on Earth. We typically call them couches.
I've been trapped on one for weeks....
+VideoSuperMaster I prefer to call them debt.
No it's called couches, But we do have black holes far away from earth
false.
I just did the math and assuming a proton mass black hole has to pass through 10 km of neutron star density material there's only a 2x10^-27 chance of capturing one neutron. The number of captures required to reduce velocity to below escape velocity would be many thousands. But the remark that only millions of such cosmic rays have hit the earth is a vast underestimate, and 10^30 such particles probably hit neutron starts often enough that we'd notice there were too few neutron stars around.
isn't it the case, that charged particles or particles in general are colliding in space all around the earth since... ever at much higher energy than they do in the lhc, and still the earthbexists? i dont know wheather there are such collisions, but i heard of them once. i'd appreceate to receave an answer (sorry for ban english skills)
according to a guy on 2012hoaxs Ice-9 mechanism, initially taken from a sci-fi story, requires a constant acretion rate that simply is not possible, when acretion reaches a certain level the Strangelet will become so unstable that it "falls apart" and thus can't continue to convert ordinary matter to strange matter.
strangelets can't formed at the LHC, the theory also states that they are only stable or long-lived at low temperatures and they are bound at low energies (in the range of 1-10 MeV), while the collisions in the LHC release energies in the range of 14 TeV. The second law of thermodynamics precludes the formation of a cold condensate that is an order of magnitude cooler than the surrounding medium. This can be illustrated by the example of trying to form an ice cube in boiling water
so i have a question, he said that if a blackhole (stable one) forms it would take 10,000 years to accrete enough mass to be noticable, so is it at all possible that there are many tiny blackholes created by the LHC and that they are just still too small to be noticed? even by the censors? it would take 10,000 years before they would be destructive, but they could be there as we speak....
In particular the Strangelet-theory still seems worrying. The reasoning is basically: We would expect it to happen, but it didn't happen at this other collider, so if we're lucky it won't happen here either. Let's do this! Well, I guess science is worth taking risks for! :)
any thoughts on the mandela effect / quantum effect?
The so-called "Mandela effect" is pseudo-science.
You left out the bit where the LHC theses open a hole and Interdimensional demons destroy the wrold
my guess is absolutly not, but the same applies to the strangelet concept, if it is too small to notice, yet grows, who is to say that we wont notice it later? when it is too late
What is the difference between a stranglet and a black hole?
your voice reminds me of brian cox! great video by the way
This is an invitation to see an artist theory on the physics of light and time! Have a look it would be nice to know what you think?
If the LHC's reassurance was that it hasn't happened at RHIC? Can someone please tell me what reassurances RHIC gave?
To my knowledge, which is not too much, hawking radiation is produced on the boundary of the event horizon of a black hole, which is the bare limit where something can escape just slightly under the speed of light
People can make the Earth less people friendly, though, normally, they do just the opposite, but, we don't really have any way to actually 'destroy the Earth.' It is sort of a pompous assertion at this point in our ability to use energy to consider it a significant possibility. Deeper thought: Of course, despite our general literacy, many people now think commoner plays like Shakespeare's are difficult.
I sleep so much better at night rather than otherwise - knowing that Brady is watching the bastids !!!
I wonder if getting hotter than what's possible in this universe could cause another universe. Kind of like light hitting an electron and making it different, what if our universe like that, and there's energy pockets whizzing around outside. What if we're a particle in a bigger universe? Man I love science
So if we're so sure of what the LHC will do then what was the point of building the dashed thing? We could have just like said what's going to happen in all the experiments.
They most likely could detect them by the absence of certain decay and particles that should be there but isn't. Otherwise they should be undetectable. But trust me you won't hear or read about it if they even think any micro black hole forms.
The mass concentration required before a black hole forms is 1.48x10^-27 m/kg, and one lead atom weighs 3.44x10^-25 kg so, if 2 lead atoms collide and the entirety of the energy and mass is retained as they collapse into a singularity, the black hole would have an event horizon 1.01*10^-51 m in radius. 10 million billion times smaller than 1 Planck length, or quadrillions of times smaller than the smallest thing it is possible to measure
And the gravity of... 2 lead atoms
I'm not too scared
'...Until eventually the whole world is one big strangelet.' 'DUDE TURN THE THING OFF TURN IT OFF!' LOL
it is , light has no rest mass, and "mass" really only extends to rest mass, since relativistic mass is actually resultant of momentum, but momentum in quantum mechanics is not p=mv anymore, p=mv is just an approximation.
for light, and all other quanta, p= h/lambda .
so every single particle including light has momentum, but light has no mass at all.
since mass is the interactio with the higgs field, and photons do not interact with higgs, therefore are massless.
Actually that made sense. Thanks for the info!