Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Blackhole Creation in the Colliders

  1. Sep 7, 2004 #1
    It was in response to this post by Thomas Dent and Lubos that I brought this subject back up

    The biggest gap of them all and it is found in the most unlikely place?

    http://www.sukidog.com/jpierre/strings/mplanck.gif

    High energy particles have extremely small wavelengths and can probe subatomic distances: high energy particle accelerators serve as supermicroscopes:


    With Marcus's introduction to Words of Stephen Hawking and "predictions

    https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=33553 what might we find from such a talk? We know well this could all be dismissed very easily when the time comes?

    If JPierre can ask such a question....

    http://www.sukidog.com/jpierre/strings/unify.gif

    then where should we focus if not in blackholes for consideration?




    What shall the complexity of this information look like if we do not consider some of the philosphical considerations. Where such theoretical plateaus have developed from strings and LQG. How much more straight forward can we become if we do not consider the complexity of the large and small?

    Many call it speculation. No dimension at all? Maybe call it something else?

    So here we are talking about information and we have this gap in our thinking, and for me hidden dimension seems relevant if you do not know what exists in a certain place? Can't describe it, yet have formulated a mathematical structure that exceeds the minds of the majority of this planet.

    You can see how you could be pulled in two ways. From a energy standpoint to a cosmological one. It just seemed appropriate at such energy levels that if you lack the ability in the high energy area that you move it to another place for consideration?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 7, 2004 #2
    So we remove peoples faces then and stick with the substance only. Fair enough :smile:

    Blackhole subspace

    http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0409/0409056.pdf

    Strings has already dealt with this subject, and it looks like Smolin and his couterparts are trying to verbalize this substructure.

    One of the points missed I think, is that the entropic values are directly connected to how we would percieve the dynamcis of space that is constricted from all sides evenly and collapsed. The very signatures of strings tells us something abou the source of the energy, and it is this feature that is being scaled in terms of dimensnal relevance.

    It is this that takes us back to the beginning of the universe, and these events are are not isolated. They happen all the time, in context of the greater perspectve of our universe.

    A interestng thing about cooperation, is that what is posted here might be copyrighted, but if it posted somewhere else first in the same context it's not. So what I found in dealing with this PF forum is that I will bring with me importat links in exchange for links that others bring and in this spirit, the community gains and PF gains. I think this a fair exchange, and a respectful one.
     
  4. Sep 7, 2004 #3
    Some would not of understood the integration of the cosmological constant as a view of the whole cosmo , that talks to its dynamical nature.

    So I will post this here as a understanding of how we must look at the dimensional signficance Savas began with his counterparts, Nima, and Gia.

    So what is the implications of this thinking that has bypassed a majority of the population?

    As I have stated before I have information to back up this line of reasoning that I am showing and that it can quickly come to a end. I had hoped there would have been questions, but I guess I can quickly make my point and I'm done eh:)

    Now you have to remember this is 1998 being quoted in 2000. We are 2004 and still the comprehension of dimensions has fallen along the way side as speculative dreaming of the Flower children. :rofl:


    Is there a result of choosing whether one can continue to talk if the general concepts are not understood? The question of background dependance or independance is the soul of the discussion between LQG and Stings/M theory.

    In the world of LQG I ahve undertsood thephton interaction as a bais of this quest and any attempts at further discussion, would have ventured into the realm strings had entered. If I am wrong here please someone let me know.

    This is the difference between the LQG (SRIANs) versus the Strings(GRIANS)

    These two perspective govern how LQG ad STrings have model their perceptions?

    From this the question arises, as to how LQG sees photon intersection with gamma ray detection? Strings would ask, what would photon intersection with the gravitons tell us?

    Please someone correct my thinking, if not, this statement stands as is ( the truth?).
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2004
  5. Sep 7, 2004 #4

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    good work sol, you are weaving lots of themes together in your own thread (which could be called a rope)
    all these different thoughts going into my Olaf thread about cos. const. would have
    shivered its timbers but good (that is a narrower topic needing
    concentration more than breadth). thanks for setting this thread up
     
  6. Sep 7, 2004 #5
    Do you understand my question in regards to background dependance and independance and the thoughts on the cosmological constant?

    It is impossible to take a position without seeing its counterpart. Why they must bounce off each other as they are pboth after the same thing with different things governing their perspectives. You have to undertand this and be flexible.
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2004
  7. Sep 7, 2004 #6

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    no I dont understand your thinking
    AFAIK anybody in his right mind would choose a b.i. theory other things being equal,
    the problem is that humans have not yet learned to make very good b.i. theories that satisfy their urgent needs to calculate.


    it is not a question of "does nature have a fixed background geometry or doesnt she?"
    AFAIK no one seriously thinks nature is background-dependent in the sense of being committed to one fixed geometry of absolute space

    the problem is that the mathematical methods humans have devised so far require (most of them) some absolute space geometry to be fixed ahead of time, in order to work.

    Gen Rel is the only one that has evolved completely to being free of that dependency.

    this is a case where your intinct for compromise and "meeting halfway"
    is misleading you. there is no need to compromise IF and WHENEVER there is a background-independent option. It is a straight shot.

    even Brian Greene has repeatedly made the point that if there is anything Loop offers string it is some ideas on how to make string into a background INdependent theory. Loop has some mathematical techniques for contructing B.I. models and he perceives background dependence to be a major string deficiency to be gotten rid of. If only one knew how.

    So I do not understand your question. It sounds as if you think there is some value to background-DEpendence, rather than just seeing it as something to be gotten over or a problem to be cured.

    Background dependency? Just say no :smile:
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2004
  8. Sep 7, 2004 #7
    Well, thanks Marcus for that, and now moving on :smile: Now remember this is may-June of 2001


    Well, so much for what we have understood of the larger part of reality, but yes, there can be difficulties in trying to understand this quantum world, so we are given little tidbits of analogies to help us along the way.

    Imagine stepping off the planet for the first time in our conceptualizations, and seeing that if we followed this thought process developed and expanded in GR how could such a sane model of apprehension shine with such rigor to have now become the sacred word.

    So these guys thought , hey, maybe it's like that way down below where the eyes can't see, so we can assume the grass is greener there too? :smile: Naw, really? As Marcus once said even Einstein focused deeply on this problem.



    So are the ideas testable?

    Does Loop consider the collusions, whoops, I mean collisions?
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2004
  9. Sep 7, 2004 #8
    Like these analogies one can use to help people arrive at some conceptualizationof te world we are dealing with, lets think about what the heck we are doing when we look at the universe microscopically.



    the forum swear word checker is not allow this picture to load so you have to use link of quote but even this might be a problem so look up home page of David Mattingly

    David Mattingly Department of Physics
    University of California-Davis
    Davis, California 95616
    (530) 752-0820
    mattingly@physics.ucdavis.edu



    So indeed we assume there is some advance from the ignorance we place ourselves in from assuming the cosmo can only sanctify the views of the very large, that we have somehow misplaced a deeper sense of the operation of this universe. :cry:

    Might we have found a deeper association to the Mercuries orbital pathways as a larger perspective of the the "oscillations" that are revealled down below where the eyes can't see? So observables needs some help here to extend the arm of measurement?:)

    If people assume no singularites what else could they assume? :smile:

    Imagine we are looking for this trace element of the early universe around us now. Where shall we look for this? Where shall we find our current attachement to that early universe? Think people, think :smile:

    It is so easy a assumption that it hurts soemtimes when I hold my breath :smile:
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2004
  10. Sep 7, 2004 #9
  11. Sep 7, 2004 #10
    I would like to acknowledge the help in links I am recieving and find these links important to the discussion. I will becoming back to them.


     
  12. Sep 7, 2004 #11
    It is getting a little interesting when you look back to what is being said here.

    Without a singularity how is it we could have transformed the total event into another perspective about what could exist "now" in our universe?

    Without some conception of planck length and its energy correlations, it becomes very difficult not to undertsad how these energies can be reached not only in the overall scheme of the uiverse, but look to its counterpart in expresssion and study the geometry that is being revealled. Someone did not like my "Jet comment" but it is signficant if you are looking at the overall geometry of expression.

    If one did not think how they could have gotten there, with dynamics that escape th most perceptive then if you look back to Heisenberg, he had a interesting perception on the collapsing sphere.

    I will leave this thread for now so that discussion can resume in other threads. I will be adding more later to complete this thread. Thanks for your patience
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2004
  13. Sep 9, 2004 #12
    Now what I wanted to show was cpatured here ina quote offered by Sean Carroll and I thank Peter's blog for directing me to it.

    So how would we explain the second part. Earlier in this quote from Sean's blog he talks about the scalar tensions. Now as I see it, it is indeed necessary to undertand how our mind can appreciate the dimensional significance of how we might interpret the energy being demonstated in these short distances and culmintaing in a very large cosmological string for considertaion, "if", we accept the string amplitude in relation?

    This post sets up the thinking for what is to come from the perceptions of Savas, Gia and Nima. If they wanted to test the idea of dimensions how shall they do it? :smile:
     
  14. Sep 9, 2004 #13
    I needed to understand where this thinking developed and how the threesome expanded on this notion at sub millimeter distances. I have understood this idea has been attributed to Arkani-Hamed, Dimopoulos and Dvali in regards to understanding extra dimensions.

    It was not to hard to understand the scalar fields in regards to the tension that could have manifested as energy conisderation that would have values leaking into those extra dimenisons. Sean Carroll's read helps one a bit here.

    http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/Short_Web.jpg
    http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/shortr.html
     
  15. Sep 10, 2004 #14
    Without some comparison in which to make the case for dimensions what would I have compared this feature to the ideas in the creation of the blackhole?

    Weak field measure of gravity had to be understood in relation to the universe we now inhibit, and that this feature of dimensional significance had to have some corresponding values on how we interpet that dimension and the corresponding blackhole relations.

    http://chandra.harvard.edu/graphics/about/chandra_middle.jpg

    http://chandra.harvard.edu/about/chandra.html

    Smolin has a interesting perspective on what Chandra missed in terms of general relativity deepest implications, when he focused on the blackholes or how the universe may expand. He compares Chandra, to one reaching for a beautiful flower, and of one, who had missed how the flower came to be.

    Where have we heard these flower analogies before eh? I chide those who had not understood the Epochs and the realization of that expanding universe. Maybe like Chandra I am one more who is caught in the flower recognitions of the expansion of that universe?

    Unbeknowst to myself I find a overall geometry that has to emerge out of these cosmological events. One cannot help but recognize how any point shown on a supersymmetrical plane could have expanded to some form, and we would have been beguiled for saying such heresies if we went backwards?? Critical energy density has drawn some parallels to the planck epoch? How could this have been done?
     
  16. Sep 10, 2004 #15

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    I think you are missing the big picture. There are no epicycles. There is no geometry. There is no deception. The universe is not trying to lead us into a false paradigm. The universe unforlds in front of use in perfect observational harmony. Just because we cannot explain why it exists does not mean it does not exist.
     
  17. Sep 10, 2004 #16
    Even you cannot be so foolish to offer a perspective on experimentation in space along with the child like qualities a grown man could have for geometrical prospensities to bubble formations. This perspective soldifies the direction I am head here in this thread and challenge you in this respect on the basis of your statements here.

    How foolish to think that on one level we could deal with euclidean perspective and not recognzie the drive for a expansive feature to this unfolding to get us to the fifth postulate? Shall you cripple yourself to limit your views? :smile: I don't think so. You unconsiously perceive the deeper relevances of that link you offerred. Tell me if I am wrong? :rofl:

    Lubos made a off handed comment on the crystal and it resonant capabilities and if you do not think the quantum harmonic oscillator can have moved to deepr levels of percspective, that's fine too. We all have a lot to learn :smile:

    You want to vent on me that is okay :smile:
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2004
  18. Sep 11, 2004 #17
    What is Your Road Leading to Quantum Gravity

    It is strange to me why Einstein involved himself with the thermodynamcis issues yet strongly opposed quantum mechanics( I am thinking of his oppositon to Bohr and the Solvay meetings?. Why if he recognized Boltzman( did he?) not consider the nature of that world?

    I just wanted people to know of the link Chronos offerred because to me this new perspective on how we might look at the features of the vacuum is something that has caught my eye in how the uinverse could have arisen from plancklength. The converstaion on background really help to orientate my thinking.


    I had been searching long and hard for some geometrical approach that is hidden in string theory, yet we all know this is very hard thing to do.

    So to me, I am looking way back to the beginning of this universe. How did it originate? Does someone have a solid answer? Did it always exist, or is there some recyclical answer to what has always existed? So this last point is the one that made most sense. But, if singularities are not favored and the work of Chandra scoffed at, how would anyone further the ideas from the standpoint of blackholes, given the theoretical position that has been adopted out there?

    The developement of the geometry seem a awful good clue to me, as one looked at the basis of Gr and going through this work, this seemed to make the most sense to me, as I plotted the events leading up too. How could one ever make sense of the photons path through mass impressions or energy events that gravitationally speak to the photon's passage, if one did not have some geometrical process in which they had been lead through consistently? Even LQG had to construct some framework, yet it was done so that it was considered background free, just like Einstein's GR. So we are sayng then that if such a model of LQG is snactiuned then it would have been in the spriti of Einsteins views that this model is very sound and should not be played with?

    So I look for some credible source in which to track this geometry. Having looked at Klein's ordering of geometries I soon seen this evolution of ideas as they manifested in the work of the cosmological world discribed something about the nature of our universe. Friedmann's curvature parameters were the first good comprehension I had of the way in which we could discern the dynamical nature of this universe.

    Again I have to stop here because, without pointing to some geometrical beginning how could you ever follow the roads leading to discriptions that are hidden in string theory. This then after our discussions today, is not savored by those who hold LQG to honourable esteem , as Einstein had done. Who is to carry his torch. Smolin?

    Yes it makes sense now, and if one does not want to look at such geometrical feature of what could have arisen from the spacetime fabric( i know its used for analogy purposes) how could the macroscopic universe ever make sense ? How could we not understand the dynamical nature of how we percieve this universe?

    So as we are lead through our geometrical processes and I would have added to Klein's Ordering of Geometries so that we could have detailed which author could have begun the language bent to further the reality of the visionistic qualities that emerge.

    Does someone else have a Road Leading to Quantum Gravity? I would say so:)Even Smolin, recognized this in his formulation of the title of the same name. Smolin had to define the position he would take in order to move from the position he did on LQG. I hope I have made it much clearer. Does anyone fault him or Einstein on the beauty seen of GR from their perspectives? Do they want anyone playing around with it? Of course not.

    Einstein realized much more in the Solvay meeting with what was at stake, then the questions of his model that he had created. It worked, and to have others mess with it in the field of Quantum mechanics disturbed the beauty of that model. Yet we now know that there is a world that has developed from the ideas of quantum mechanics. Is it simple?

    Anyway I wanted to use this post t set up one with the idea of the geometry questions. Who is going to deny what qunatum geometry is? So I leave this quote here so that it is understood that the dicritpions and the way in which strings is modelling has some diffrenet advantages to how we percive this work on quantum gravity.


    The issues on the the balckhole creation in the colliders is following a geometrical consideration much to the dissappoint of those who hold the esteem of Einstein. :smile: This does not invalidate Einstein at all, but brings his perspective in line with the quantum world

    I think, because one works from a different position should not have amounted to crankhood if one messed with what is held to high esteem.

    Even Bohr felt the resistance in thought experiments that quickly dimissed Einstein's life as rambling in to the last thirty years of his life. But we all know the importance of what GR has done for us and what we hope manifests through our research into gravitational waves production?
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2004
  19. Sep 11, 2004 #18
    I contrast to Marcus view, that Baez has a soccer ball that he likes to show.

    The Monte Carlo effect shows this perspctive as well, and on the issue of quantum gravity it is a nice model to look at :smile: Reminds me of the platonists attempt and even buckminister fuller' s geometrical view of that sphere

    The quote below is a geometrical attemtpt to make sense

     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2004
  20. Sep 12, 2004 #19
    Yes of course in regards to supergravity.

    The geometry is what I am referring to as a basis, but I had to develope thinking along side of the physics in regards to that one dimensional string. Three sphere in a fourth(space) dimenisonal perspective had to arise from some where, and so with Reinmann and Gauss, we see where non euclidean lead from Euclids postulates? I know there are a whole bunch of people in between :smile: So what I had done is look for this basis in string theory.



    [​IMG]

    I have to come back to this as something caught my eye in your previous explanation. If the heart of the thinking is geometry then there had to be some consistancy that is not apparent even at planck scale? The topology that arise from genus 1, that ole coffee with a donut trick. It just seems to me that this pattern woud have been inherent in everything as it expresses itself. Ex. the early universe to now, the electromagnetic field, the bose Nova.

    My explanations on background dependency assumes that becuase the string explains the spacetime from a different perspective as a expression, this geometry should have been able to emerge in some geometrical consistancy

    [​IMG]

    How does a sphere originate, and it from this thinking as a basis I looked at the scale tension revealled at Q<->Q measures and at weak field manifestations. This distance function would have a energy correlation to it?

    [​IMG]


    Thanks for responding. The blackhole creation in the colliders is based on this geometrical thinking. Of course I could be way out to lunch :smile: I am trying to stay in line, and appreciate any corrections in thinking.

    It's much nicer having pictures being shown already
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2004
  21. Sep 12, 2004 #20
    http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/planck/img57.gif


    http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/planck/node4.html

    Now in comparison,

    Monte Carlo Simulation





    I knew I'd find it sooner or later. But this is not what I wanted to say, although I demonstrate another view. :smile:
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Blackhole Creation in the Colliders
  1. Blackhole Radiation (Replies: 3)

  2. Antimatter Blackhole (Replies: 2)

  3. Light And Blackholes (Replies: 1)

  4. Light and Blackholes (Replies: 6)

Loading...