Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

    •  
      CommentAuthorTrim
    • CommentTimeOct 2nd 2013
     
    NS

    I've always wondered what hairy holes were good for.

    Hairy black hole could show gaps in Einstein's theory.

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24308-hairy-black-hole-could-show-gaps-in-einsteins-theory.html
  1.  
    At some point in the future we'll have a space lab far from anywhere important where we can mess around with the real thing.
    •  
      CommentAuthorlegendre
    • CommentTimeOct 2nd 2013
     
    Yes, a 'hairy' black hole could show a gap in GR.

    Before that, we'll have to unequivocally demonstrate that black holes actually exist, or at least have existed.

    First things first.
  2.  
    Recipe for making a macroscopic black hole
    1. Take two neutron stars
    2. Let them merge
    if unsuccessful, add more
  3.  
    Who you call a black ho? Newt Ron, he little slut fo sho, but he mo milk choclat, or cafeolay. Not rill black like that grrl Tawdry.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDerrickA
    • CommentTimeOct 2nd 2013
     
    Posted By: Andrew PalfreymanRecipe for making a macroscopic black hole
    1. Take two neutron stars
    2. Let them merge
    if unsuccessful, add more


    And if you want to make that a 'hairy' black hole, you'll also need to fold in 1.9 septillion tons of Rogaine™.
    • CommentAuthorAsterix
    • CommentTimeOct 2nd 2013
     
    Whenever I see the word "could" in a popular science article, I take it as meaning, "sSmeone has a theory that, if a certain number of improbably events were to occur, that the described phenomenon might, just might, come to pass. Or he might have guessed wrong."

    Usually too much woo for me to take any of it seriously.
    •  
      CommentAuthormagic moment
    • CommentTimeJan 24th 2014 edited
     
    Most physicists foolhardy enough to write a paper claiming that “there are no black holes” — at least not in the sense we usually imagine — would probably be dismissed as cranks. But when the call to redefine these cosmic crunchers comes from Stephen Hawking, it’s worth taking notice. In a paper posted online, the physicist, based at the University of Cambridge, UK, and one of the creators of modern black-hole theory, does away with the notion of an event horizon, the invisible boundary thought to shroud every black hole, beyond which nothing, not even light, can escape.


    http://www.nature.com/news/stephen-hawking-there-are-no-black-holes-1.14583
  4.  
    Lots of talk, a dearth of action for 50 years. We should begin experimenting with creating miniature black holes and doing the necessary experiments at a safe distance from Earth and Sun. This is one more reason to get into space in a serious way.

    According to conventional theory, the final stages in black hole evaporation (Hawking's own idea) is extremely energetic and would expose us to physics way beyond the levels achievable at e.g. the LHC. That alone should be worth the price of the ticket. But the potential icing on the cake is that a black hole propulsion unit might be far superior to its best-known competitor, the antimatter drive, which we can't build today anyway.
    • CommentAuthortinker
    • CommentTimeJan 24th 2014
     
    And down here on earth we can use them for garbage disposal.
  5.  
    I'm reading David Brin's "Earth" right now, and I'm here to tell you that David thinks this might be A Bad Idea.

    Dropping one into the Sun would be arguably worse, btw.
  6.  
    They really are kinda cool for propulsion - a bit like the Mr. Fusion unit from Back To The Future, except that fusion (which we can't do yet) is a pale ghost compared to black hole power. You can throw any kind of crap in there and it extends their lifetime. Really the ideal engine as regards fuel. And it even does its own containment - no gnarly engineering there either. Finally, the mass conversion efficiency is way superior to an antimatter drive, which is supposed to be the bee's knees except we aren't capable of building one.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeJan 25th 2014
     
    Posted By: Andrew PalfreymanWe should begin experimenting with creating miniature black holes


    How about focussing a whole lot of gigantic lasers on a tiny volume? Would that be e-NIF for you?
  7.  
    Yes indeed, although clearly NIF doesn't make the nut. Their specs are ~2*1015 J/m3 and ~5*1023 W/m3.

    I'm unclear whether they have coherent interference going on.

    Yu Pin, the author of that mathematical treatise I posted on black hole formation with e/m radiation, replied and said
    the point is not how much energy we needed to create a black hole: we can take any fixed amount of energy (say from electromagnetic waves) and the input the energy in a very short time interval to create a pulse (this is somehow why we can the data short pulse data).

    Can I get noodles with that?
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeJan 25th 2014
     
    Why does it matter whether the laser cavities are coupled together (to have coherence among the beams) in collecting enough photons to make a black hole? It would certainly complicate the design of the lasers.

    We are now able to make pulses in the attosecond region by strange techniques involving very short laser pulses that jerk electrons around in the orbitals of materials. How much shorter do you need? Pulse length capability is already below the period of one cycle of visible light, and as a result the output is white, as it is very broad spectrum.
  8.  
    Hey, an attosecond or two is enough for me. Why are all these people complaining? I mean, really.

    Something should be done about this.
    •  
      CommentAuthorTrim
    • CommentTimeFeb 10th 2014 edited
     
  9.  
    Catching up, I see
    •  
      CommentAuthorTrim
    • CommentTimeNov 19th 2015
     
  10.  
    No

    Just kidding. I happen to be checking out black hole entropy stuff right now, so it's very interesting.