Particle Acceleration: Micro Singularities & Future Plans

AI Thread Summary
Micro singularities, or microscopic black holes, may be produced in particle accelerators, but current technology, including the LHC, has not yet achieved the necessary energy levels to create them. Even if produced, these micro black holes would not serve as an alternative energy source, as they decay and release only the energy input from collisions. Future plans for larger accelerators, such as the FCC, aim to increase energy levels significantly but face funding challenges and are likely decades away. Electron-positron colliders offer advantages for precise particle reconstruction compared to proton-proton collisions, which generate a complex array of particles. Overall, while particle acceleration holds promise for advancing theoretical physics, practical applications remain limited.
Megaton
Messages
9
Reaction score
1
Hi please don't butcher me, I'm really not a crackpot...just not sure how to put this or were to post this...on particle acceleration...i have heard of things called micro singularities...are these real could they be used for an alternative energy source...really just curious it seems like particle accerlaeration is the way of the future...confiriming m theory and such...are there plans for any bigger ones...like for around the world...?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Megaton said:
i have heard of things called micro singularities
I guess you mean microscopic black holes.

If some speculative theories are true, then we might be able to produce them in particle accelerators. Not at the energy the LHC can reach so far, however, otherwise we would have seen them by now.
Even if we can produce them, we can't use them as energy source. They decay, releasing exactly the energy we put into them via the collisions: Energy is conserved.
Megaton said:
it seems like particle accerlaeration is the way of the future...confiriming m theory and such
We cannot test string theory with current or any forseeable future accelerator.

Some Chinese groups think about building an accelerator a bit larger than the LHC, and there is the FCC concept, which would increase the energy by a factor 6-7 relative to the LHC. Both are without funding, and even if they get funded they are decades into the future. There are also proposals for new electron-positron colliders, at lower energy but with other advantages.
 
Yeah that decay because of Hawkins radiation...it applies to micro black holes as well, just much quicker eh...electron-positron colliders...that would be through annihilation I think...what advantages would that have?
 
Black holes produced in particle accelerators would always be microscopic black holes.

Electron-positron collisions give a cleaner initial state - you can reconstruct exactly what is going on. Proton-proton collisions produce tens of particles because protons have a complex substructure - you can’t reconstruct every single particle produced in these collisions.
Proton-proton collisions are great to discover new particles, while electron-positron collisions are typically better to study these particles in more detail.
 
  • Like
Likes Megaton
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...

Similar threads

Back
Top