Ultimate Tech Thread

[Lord §okar]

However, how can the planck mass be the quantum unit? It may be a quantum black hole, but every particle discovered thus far has a mass lower than the planck mass.
Heh, true indeed.

[Three PhDs]

Aye, and black holes have no hair.

Namely, the three properties that can be used to describe black holes are mass, spin and charge.

[smartquin]

nasa had something on making artificial wormholes. It was extremly hard to get the stuff and contruct the wormhole, but i'm sure that it would be possible to implement it into a ship so you could travel great distances at a time

I didnt know that. I always thought that you needed negative-mass to stabilise the wormhole (something about a stress energy tensor, and a whole bunch of partial derivatives )

This is just a random thought, so it needs to be scrutenised, but if a galaxy was made of negative mass, it would repell from a 'normal' mass galaxy, such as ours. If all the particles within it are negative massed, and still obey the laws of gravitation, the galaxy would act like ours, but accelerate away from us... sound familiar?

[smartquin]

Namely, the three properties that can be used to describe black holes are mass, spin and charge.

Black holes have a density equal to or greater than the planck density right? And by spin, do you mean that if the star was rotating around its axis before it colapsed, it continues to spin when it turns into a black hole? That would make a major ripple in spacetime

[Three PhDs]

Black holes have a density equal to or greater than the planck density right? And by spin, do you mean that if the star was rotating around its axis before it colapsed, it continues to spin when it turns into a black hole? That would make a major ripple in spacetime

It's from the no hair theorem - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_hair_theorem

I remember reading about it somewhere, many moons ago now and it made the exciting proposition that fundamental particles could themselves just all be tiny black holes.

[smartquin]

It's from the no hair theorem - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_hair_theorem

I remember reading about it somewhere, many moons ago now and it made the exciting proposition that fundamental particles could themselves just all be tiny black holes.

Yeah, I remember reading something about that recently, specifically suggesting electrons to be singularities. I always assumed that a black hole had to have a mass greater than the planck mass. Technically then, if elementar particles are black holes, then they can be said to be a singularity, and a singularity is suppose to have infinite mass right?

[Three PhDs]

Yeah, I remember reading something about that recently, specifically suggesting electrons to be singularities. I always assumed that a black hole had to have a mass greater than the planck mass. Technically then, if elementar particles are black holes, then they can be said to be a singularity, and a singularity is suppose to have infinite mass right?

Infinite density, not infinite mass. You could have a black hole that was light enough to pick up and carry around (assuming the horrific effects of spacetime distortions could be safely accounted for). Mass isn't the issue, density is.

[smartquin]

Infinite density, not infinite mass. You could have a black hole that was light enough to pick up and carry around (assuming the horrific effects of spacetime distortions could be safely accounted for). Mass isn't the issue, density is.

Is that where the assumption that elementary particles are point like comes from?

[Three PhDs]

I doubt it, I'd assumed it was just a leftover from the days when we thought of subatomic particles in "common sense" ways.

[smartquin]

I doubt it, I'd assumed it was just a leftover from the days when we thought of subatomic particles in "common sense" ways.

I just wana get all this straight now: all elementary particles (electrons, neutrinos, quarks etc.) have mass, and inhabit 0 spatial dimensions (exist on the 'corners' of quantisised spacetime), but a photon is energy, even tho it has wave-particle properties just like an electron?

[SmallTimePerson]

I didnt know that. I always thought that you needed negative-mass to stabilise the wormhole (something about a stress energy tensor, and a whole bunch of partial derivatives )

you do, along with negative energy.
sorry it wasn't on the NASA site, my bad. but there was something else on space travel that i was looking at that did have to with wormholes that is on the nasa site that i was reading before the post
site: wormhole passage

[smartquin]

Ok, this is my attempt to bring waves and particles together. This is a theory only, and be constructive.

Attached is a pic I mercilessly took from wikipedia. The black bits are the energy of the wave. They come in quantum units, and these (divided by c^2) equal the quantum unit of mass. Assumption time: waves have a defined length that I assume to be the inverse of the Rydberg constant. With a little Algebra, I worked out a possible multiple of the quantum unit of mass equalling hR/(2c), around 10^-35 kg. The quantum unit of mass is either this number, or equals this when multiplied by an integer.

Back to the wave. Since it carries energy in these 'sub-photons' these can be said to be energy in a particle form, but it only has a chance to intereact with matter when in a 'wave' formation (a whole string of 'sub-photons', wavelength distance apart, and the total length of the wave being 1/R).

This idea can be expanded a lot, but before I go too far, I need some constructive criticism.

[Three PhDs]

I just wana get all this straight now: all elementary particles (electrons, neutrinos, quarks etc.) have mass, and inhabit 0 spatial dimensions (exist on the 'corners' of quantisised spacetime), but a photon is energy, even tho it has wave-particle properties just like an electron?

It's a bit much for me to go into, and I'd be far better directing you towards looking into the Standard Model, it explains our current understanding of particles of all types and the relations between them.

As to your other theory with the attached thumbnail, I'm not too sure what you're trying to get at. Can you lay it out with a hypothesis, your maths etc laid out in stages and a conclusion? Makes it easier to understand.

[smartquin]

It's a bit much for me to go into, and I'd be far better directing you towards looking into the Standard Model, it explains our current understanding of particles of all types and the relations between them.

As to your other theory with the attached thumbnail, I'm not too sure what you're trying to get at. Can you lay it out with a hypothesis, your maths etc laid out in stages and a conclusion? Makes it easier to understand.

Yeah, sure thing. I'll do taht from now on. Its late here, so I'm gona sleep on it, and write it up tomorrow arvo.

[Three PhDs]

Ah, didn't realise you were from a land down under.