• Lucid Dreaming - Dream Views




    Results 1 to 12 of 12
    Like Tree10Likes
    • 2 Post By Dthoughts
    • 1 Post By StephL
    • 1 Post By Dthoughts
    • 2 Post By splodeymissile
    • 1 Post By Xei
    • 1 Post By Dthoughts
    • 1 Post By Xei
    • 1 Post By Dthoughts

    Thread: Micro blackholes

    1. #1
      Member Achievements:
      Created Dream Journal Tagger Second Class Made lots of Friends on DV 1000 Hall Points Veteran First Class
      Dthoughts's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 2010
      LD Count
      A few
      Gender
      Posts
      1,468
      Likes
      767
      DJ Entries
      72

      Micro blackholes

      Gravity, Multiple Dimensions, & Micro Black Holes

      Said article mentions that creating mini blackholes allows us to learn more about other dimensions.

      It gave two well defined methods for proving multiple dimensions. Based on the theoretical principle that gravitational force leaks into other dimensions

      They might have thought it is too complicated to define exactly how you would prove extra dimensions using mini blackholes.. Or larger black holes for that matter..

      Could anyone give some clarification on that one for me, please?
      Last edited by Dthoughts; 02-23-2014 at 10:01 AM.
      StephL and AnotherDreamer like this.

    2. #2
      Member StephL's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2013
      LD Count
      84
      Gender
      Posts
      2,423
      Likes
      3291
      DJ Entries
      117
      Here we go - I copied it all over:

      Of the four fundamental forces of nature, gravity is the most peculiar. It’s the most overreaching of the four forces, binding together structures hundreds of millions of light-years in diameter. Over ‘smaller’ distances, gravity is still king as it is the master of solar systems, the glue that holds them together. Yet the smallest magnets defy gravity with relative ease. Why is gravity so weak? For ages, physicists have been trying to answer that very question.

      This is where gravity and other dimensions come together to form one of my favorite theories of gravity (simply because it’s a ridiculously cool-sounding theory).

      Hypothetically, gravity could literally leak or spill into other dimensions, that lost gravitational energy means we don’t feel the force’s full force. These dimensions could come in several different forms. One such hypothesis suggests these dimensions are smaller than atoms. Another idea suggests these alternate dimensions are the same ‘size’ as ours and just ‘stacked’ on top of and below ours. This could potentially help to answer two other preeminent questions about the nature of the universe with specific regards to the nature of dark energy and inflation.

      From the dark energy perspective, if gravity is spilling into other dimensions of space, it won’t be as strong in our universe which would allow for the universe to expand faster than we originally expected. In addition, this leaking could also explain the nature of dark matter. If gravity is leaking between dimensions, it’s possible gravity from other dimensions is leaking into ours. “Dark matter” then becomes the gravitational footprint from objects in alternate dimensions.

      How cool is that?

      There is a problem though. Before we can prove any of these hypotheses, we need to determine whether other dimensions actually exist. At the moment, one of the best methods to test for alternate dimensions is to find particles that are predicted to exist in other dimensions. An example of such a particle would be particles in Kaluza Klein states. Basically, in the same way atoms have high and low energy states, particles have low and high mass states. A particle in a Kaluza Klein state exists at a higher mass than it’s normal particle counterpart.

      Another test for higher dimensions would be to observe a graviton slip into another dimension. The primary way this would be obtained would be for scientists to smash a bunch of particles together and discover ‘missing’ mass. The missing mass would, hypothetically, be a graviton that has slipped into another dimension. Of course, for such an experiment to work, we first need to prove whether or not a graviton exists. A graviton is the hypothetical force carrier for gravity (in the same way the photon is the force carrier for the electromagnetic force). At the moment, gravity is the only force without a force carrier.

      Another such method would be to utilize the power of black holes and create them in the laboratory. Grant it, they would be tiny, microscopic black holes with a life span of only 10^-27 seconds, but that doesn’t sound as terrifying. The LHC is currently the only accelerator that can produce collisions at enough energy to generate these little black holes. Scientists can then study their decay rate and patterns (as predicted by the Standard Model) which would allow them to probe the nature of other dimensions and other unknown regions of physics.

      I have no idea.
      But we have physicists and mathematicians, who hopefully poke their noses in here and help out.
      I looked up graviton on Wikipedia - seems that sentence with missing mass = gravitons would at least need further clarification, since the hypothetical graviton is supposedly mass-less:

      In physics, the graviton is a hypothetical elementary particle that mediates the force of gravitation in the framework of quantum field theory.
      If it exists, the graviton is expected to be massless (because the gravitational force appears to have unlimited range) and must be a spin-2 boson.

      Okaay - who wants to play here?

      gimmesmiley.gif

    3. #3
      Member Achievements:
      Created Dream Journal Tagger Second Class Made lots of Friends on DV 1000 Hall Points Veteran First Class
      Dthoughts's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 2010
      LD Count
      A few
      Gender
      Posts
      1,468
      Likes
      767
      DJ Entries
      72
      A graviton may be massless but it still has force.. so a spin-2 boson must produce a direction of force when particles collide. If some of this pre-calculated force is missing then we could conclude that it has leaked.

      I am quite clueless about this but nevertheless find it very unlikely that gravity leaks into other dimensions in this fashion when particles collide. Slight chance. But a black hole already has "missing mass" so perhaps.. this is proof of multiple dimensions. But then.. In light of recent papers published by Hawkings that i do not understand. I was under the impression that energy is still preserved but somehow transformed at a quantum level into some kind of radiation.

      ^This theory is what motivated me to question if mini-blackholes could give us clues about other dimensions in the first place.
      StephL likes this.

    4. #4
      Member StephL's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2013
      LD Count
      84
      Gender
      Posts
      2,423
      Likes
      3291
      DJ Entries
      117
      Yeah - the author of this article says himself, that he likes this hypothesis, because it sounds so cool..
      But anyway.
      Maybe others like Xei will gravitate over here and make us a tad more educated!

      Why is gravity so weak? For ages, physicists have been trying to answer that very question.

      This is where gravity and other dimensions come together to form one of my favourite theories of gravity (simply because it’s a ridiculously cool-sounding theory).
      You mentioned the conservation of energy - just to make sure - a mass-less particle is not equivalent to energy, or is it?
      What does it mean, that a force leaks into higher dimensions?
      Does it "simply" mean, that hypothetical particle seems to disappear to us, but is in our universe still away?


      Having nothing to do atm. - so here a bit of background for hobby-cluelessness-fighters:

      Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia
      Gravitation, or gravity, is a natural phenomenon by which all physical bodies attract each other.

      It is hypothesized that the gravitational force is mediated by a massless spin-2 particle called the graviton. Gravity is one of the four fundamental forces of nature, along with electromagnetism, and the nuclear strong force and weak force. Colloquially, gravitation is a force of attraction that acts between and on all physical objects with matter (mass) or energy. In modern physics, gravitation is most accurately described by the general theory of relativity proposed by Einstein, which asserts that the phenomenon of gravitation is a consequence of the curvature of spacetime. In pursuit of a theory of everything, the merging of general relativity and quantum mechanics (or quantum field theory) into a more general theory of quantum gravity has become an area of active research.
      Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia
      Fundamental interactions, also called fundamental forces or interactive forces, are modelled in fundamental physics as patterns of relations in physical systems, evolving over time, that appear not reducible to relations among entities more basic.
      Four fundamental interactions are conventionally recognized: gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear. Everyday phenomena of human experience are mediated via gravitation and electromagnetism. The strong interaction, synthesizing chemical elements via nuclear fusion within stars, holds together the atom's nucleus, and is released during an atomic bomb's detonation. The weak interaction is involved in radioactive decay. (Speculations of a fifth force—perhaps an added gravitational effect—remain widely disputed.)

      In modern physics, gravitation is the only fundamental interaction still modelled as classical/continuous (versus quantum/discrete).
      Acting over potentially infinite distance, traversing the known universe, gravitation is conventionally explained by physicists as a consequence of spacetime's dynamic geometry, "curved" in the vicinity of mass or energy, via Einstein's general theory of relativity (GR).
      What happened to good old Van der Waal's force??
      And are there still hypotheses being followed up, which propose that time and space themselves are particular - particles?

    5. #5
      Member Achievements:
      Referrer Bronze Created Dream Journal 1000 Hall Points 3 years registered
      splodeymissile's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 2013
      LD Count
      I've lost count
      Gender
      Location
      omicron persei 8
      Posts
      535
      Likes
      264
      DJ Entries
      32
      Quote Originally Posted by StephL View Post



      You mentioned the conservation of energy - just to make sure - a mass-less particle is not equivalent to energy, or is it?
      What does it mean, that a force leaks into higher dimensions?
      Does it "simply" mean, that hypothetical particle seems to disappear to us, but is in our universe still away?
      I think so. Imagine if you had a portal to a 2-dimensional world and you throw a cube with decently high gravity in there. To any inhabitants of that world, depending on the orientation and rotation of the object, it would either appear as a square (despite still, in actuality, being a cube) or be outright invisible, but still having an impact on the world. I'd imagine its the same principle for the graviton, a 4 or higher dimensional object interacting with our 3d (we'll ignore time for now) world and only occasionally being in the right circumstances to be visible. I may be entirely wrong, but that's how I understand it.





      What happened to good old Van der Waal's force??
      And are there still hypotheses being followed up, which propose that time and space themselves are particular - particles?
      According to wikipedia, they successfully demonstrated the force in 2012
      As for spacetime particles, a google search came up with this: Quantum foam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Too much stuff for one post.
      Dthoughts and StephL like this.

    6. #6
      Member StephL's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2013
      LD Count
      84
      Gender
      Posts
      2,423
      Likes
      3291
      DJ Entries
      117
      Quote Originally Posted by splodeymissile View Post

      According to wikipedia, they successfully demonstrated the force in 2012
      As for spacetime particles, a google search came up with this: Quantum foam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Too much stuff for one post.
      Yeah - but when I was in school - it was considered a fundamental force besides gravitation, electromagnetism, weak and strong nuclear forces.
      Here they said, there would only be 4 of them - so I wonder, if it got subsumed in some way.
      Could go read up on it I guess, but it's just an aside..
      Gecko-feet function with that principle, by the way - before the physicists and mathematicians and others arrive - I'll throw some critters in for my amusement..

      Voooldmer, Xeieiii, Alric, Darkmatters, Link!??

    7. #7
      Member Achievements:
      Created Dream Journal Tagger Second Class Made lots of Friends on DV 1000 Hall Points Veteran First Class
      Dthoughts's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 2010
      LD Count
      A few
      Gender
      Posts
      1,468
      Likes
      767
      DJ Entries
      72
      Quote Originally Posted by StephL View Post
      Yeah - the author of this article says himself, that he likes this hypothesis, because it sounds so cool..
      But anyway.
      Maybe others like Xei will gravitate over here and make us a tad more educated!
      I certainly hope so. I certainly had Xei in mind when i was asking this question so.. yea

      You mentioned the conservation of energy - just to make sure - a mass-less particle is not equivalent to energy, or is it?
      Like photons. A zero mass particle. Also an electromagnetic force. Like Gravitons. Are afaik originally refered to as "Carriers/units of their representive EM force".
      They have force so i would say yes that is energy. Interesting to note how photonsynthesis is a complex form of energy transformation. But then again, i call a lot of physical things energy transformation so i'm not sure if it is considered a fact by most.
      What does it mean, that a force leaks into higher dimensions?
      Well.. According to Xei , meaning is not in the domain of science. So.. heheheh
      I made a humerous attempt earlier to convey this in a fun way but my computer crashed.. Nyway, I think that meaning is a domain for philosophical interpretation. That’s what I think Voldmer was sort of getting at in that other thread. And that’s where we(me) pseudophysicists have a chance to play a significant role or addition for science.
      Does it "simply" mean, that hypothetical particle seems to disappear to us, but is in our universe still away?
      I think what it boils down to is that there is a very deep meaning or fundemental reality to this hypothetical particle. Science is not anywhere close in answering this question in the fullest. It might be that Boson-2 is in itself a superfluid. This would explain space curvature in a very logical fashion. However, i wonder if the mathematics are correct on this one.
      Like helium-4, when cooled down to near absolute zero becomes a superfluid. The vacuum in space could be such a substance. Absolute zero seems impossible to reach. What happens is that when you reach those temperatures with certain substances is you get what is called a Boson-einstein-condensate. Einstein called it a 4th state of matter (3 states being: Solid,Liquid,Gaseous) a superfluid. We can not actually reach absolute zero. So the issue here is that wherever you go. In the vacuum of space there is always a minimum amount of energy. If i am correct, this “Free-energy problem” is based on the absolute minimum temperature of space. Where is this energy coming from? Could it be that Boson-2 has exactly this amount of mass?

      What happened to good old Van der Waal's force??
      And are there still hypotheses being followed up, which propose that time and space themselves are particular - particles?
      Why’d you bring up the Van der Waal’s force?

      .
      Btw, sorry if i seem a bit messy. I made a coherent post but my computer died on me this morning and i wrote this in school.
      Also wrote something about Time and Quantum entanglement. I think it is relevant but i coulden’t quite squeesh it in this time. Pun not intented. It just didn’t seem to fit this time. I will save that one for later, i suppose.



      Oh yea.. Another thing hit me.. I just read form you and Xei that Gravity hypothetically stretches into infinity (or the edge of the universe).. Imaging the universe in a liquid substance would make sense in light of this fact. Simply take away one H20 molecule from a glass and the entire structure shifts. It is not a notable shift. But a shift non-theless.

      If we where to shoot Gravitations into other dimensions, this would mean that we are making the universe smaller. lol. that's quite something.
      Last edited by Dthoughts; 02-25-2014 at 03:08 PM.

    8. #8
      Xei
      UnitedKingdom Xei is offline
      Banned
      Join Date
      Aug 2005
      Posts
      9,984
      Likes
      3082
      Sorry, I have no idea. There are probably only a thousand people in the world who are genuinely qualified to discuss this.

      I don't understand why the weakness of gravity is a mystery requiring an explanation. Why can't the gravitational constant simply be small relative to other constants? I don't know of any a priori reason that the forces of the universe must be of similar sizes. The anthropic principle could potentially be a work here. It's quite possible that I'm being naive, but to me it seems like there may not be a question to be answered.
      StephL likes this.

    9. #9
      Member Achievements:
      Created Dream Journal Tagger Second Class Made lots of Friends on DV 1000 Hall Points Veteran First Class
      Dthoughts's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 2010
      LD Count
      A few
      Gender
      Posts
      1,468
      Likes
      767
      DJ Entries
      72
      I actually was under the impression that they solved the problem. Gravity is a much stronger force when you look at it in the planck scale. I believe some quantum physicists just simply accept it as truth that it is a multidimensional force. But i'm now not sure about either option. Memory tells me both explanations came from the same source. (no idea what) so then i woulden't understand how both explanations are able to coexist. lol.

      But.. Thanks for giving ur opinion Xei. Seriously, appreciate it. And i totally agree with you. Not sure what the fuzz is all about considering gravity. If i may ask, what field of physics and mathematics do you have most interest or relationship in?
      StephL likes this.

    10. #10
      Xei
      UnitedKingdom Xei is offline
      Banned
      Join Date
      Aug 2005
      Posts
      9,984
      Likes
      3082
      I wouldn't treat anything you hear about gravity with quantum mechanics as definitive, as unifying those two worlds is still very contentious.

      In my degree I specialised in pure, like abstract algebra, graph theory, and logic especially. Very far removed from theoretical physics. I know basic special relativity and quantum mechanics, but beyond that I can't claim any knowledge.
      StephL likes this.

    11. #11
      Member Achievements:
      Created Dream Journal Tagger Second Class Made lots of Friends on DV 1000 Hall Points Veteran First Class
      Dthoughts's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 2010
      LD Count
      A few
      Gender
      Posts
      1,468
      Likes
      767
      DJ Entries
      72
      Just sharing awesomeness.

      Inflaton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

      Btw, thanks Xei for answering my question. I did not have a sufficient response and was busy but that sounds like a very cool repertoire! You must have an interesting brain, I am sure.

      I think what this link provides is evidence for another dimension. In a sense. I think that this other dimension is actually our very own future dimension. I think that Stephen Hawking would agree with this if we had a long talk. I do not claim any knowledge. I don't even fully comprehend the Wikipedia page.

      I just like to insert Cryogenic temperature regulation as a permanent rule for novelty etc. The cyclic nature of temperature (take something very hot and make it hotter it eventually becomes cryogenic).. This all resembles time in a sense. I don't know how to explain.. Ah well
      StephL likes this.

    12. #12
      Member Achievements:
      Created Dream Journal Tagger Second Class Made lots of Friends on DV 1000 Hall Points Veteran First Class
      Dthoughts's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 2010
      LD Count
      A few
      Gender
      Posts
      1,468
      Likes
      767
      DJ Entries
      72
      More musings, hope nobody minds!

      Just read this on black holes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation);

      "The quantum fluctuations at that tiny point, in Hawking's original calculation, contain all the outgoing radiation. The modes that eventually contain the outgoing radiation at long times are redshifted by such a huge amount by their long sojourn next to the event horizon, that they start off as modes with a wavelength much shorter than the Planck length. Since the laws of physics at such short distances are unknown, some find Hawking's original calculation unconvincing.[13][14][15][16][17][18]"
      combined with (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift):

      "Another kind of redshift is Cosmological redshift, which is due to the expansion of the universe, and sufficiently distant light sources (generally more than a few million light years away) show redshift corresponding to the rate of increase in their distance from Earth. Finally, gravitational redshifts are a relativistic effect observed in electromagnetic radiation moving out of gravitational fields. Conversely, a decrease in wavelength is called blueshift and is generally seen when a light-emitting object moves toward an observer or when electromagnetic radiation moves into a gravitational field."
      --

      I am especially intrigued by the holographic effect of a magnetic field's redshift and the cosmological redshift.

      Trying to dislocate the idea of an observer away from a human observer and more or less thinking of observer effect as spatial location here.. I am begining to think of a micro-blackhole as the center of an observer and everything outside as perhaps the (spherical) event horizon.

      More abstract musings Photon sphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia :

      Reading this with a fixed idea in my mind. My cognition starts to muse that photons travel inside a black-hole that "tried" to escape who now orbit the event horizon of a black hole form a spherical object (not sure why). Since the photons on the outside of the black hole can not escape and all the other photons who slipped through the event horizon (into the black hole) are trying to escape as well. It is absolutely reasonable to assume that photons on the outer layer of the event horizon apply a gravitational force proportional to their relativistic (building) mass. Thus, indicating an accelarating force pulling photons harder and harder away from the position of the (micro)black-hole.

      This would translate that from the perspective of a micro-black hole. If for example; the earth is at the center of a microblackhole. When we are looking out at photons on the event-horizon just outside the black hole. We would inevitably see a red-shift that is decreasing relative to

      "Blue outliers[edit]
      There are faraway active galaxies that show a blueshift in their [O III] emission lines. One of the largest blueshifts is found in the narrow-line quasar, PG 1543+489, which has a relative velocity of -1150 km/s.[2] These types of galaxies are called "blue outliers".[2]"

      Large extra dimension - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Wtf is this?

      -need to move away from computer. fixed my old computer and immediately opened 20+ pages. hehe.

    Similar Threads

    1. Micro Dreams
      By DeadDollKitty in forum Education Center
      Replies: 19
      Last Post: 02-26-2011, 10:51 PM
    2. Micro OBE's - using a timer to LD/OBE
      By infinity101 in forum Introduction Zone
      Replies: 4
      Last Post: 08-06-2010, 11:35 AM
    3. MICRO OBE's + Lucid Dreaming - timer method need help
      By infinity101 in forum General Lucid Discussion
      Replies: 0
      Last Post: 08-06-2010, 07:53 AM
    4. I got a Micro LD cause my watch made no sense
      By OmnipotentTitan in forum Lucid Experiences
      Replies: 0
      Last Post: 07-18-2008, 05:48 PM
    5. Dreamviews Micro-Convention July 17, Cleveland
      By Seeker in forum The Lounge
      Replies: 59
      Last Post: 07-30-2005, 12:03 PM

    Bookmarks

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •