Why the LHC (Still) won’t destroy the Earth

August 29, 2011 By Steve Nerlich, Universe Today

Why the LHC (Still) won’t destroy the Earth

Enlarge

Concerns about a 'big science machine' destroying the Earth have been around since the steam engine. The LHC is the latest target for such conspiracy theories. Credit: CERN.

Surprisingly, rumors still persist in some corners of the Internet that the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is going to destroy the Earth – even though nearly three years have passed since it was first turned on. This may be because it is yet to be ramped up to full power in 2014 – although it seems more likely that this is just a case of moving the goal posts, since the same doomsayers were initially adamant that the Earth would be destroyed the moment the LHC was switched on, in September 2008.

The story goes that the very high energy collisions engineered by the could jam colliding particles together with such force that their mass would be compressed into a volume less than the Schwarzschild radius required for that mass. In other words, a microscopic black hole would form and then grow in size as it sucked in more matter, until it eventually consumed the Earth.

Here’s a brief run-through of why this can’t happen.

1. Microscopic black holes are implausible.

While a teaspoon of neutron star material might weigh several million tons, if you extract a teaspoon of neutron star material from a neutron star it will immediately blow out into the volume you might expect several million tons of mass to usually occupy.

Notwithstanding you can’t physically extract a teaspoon of black hole material from a black hole – if you could, it is reasonable to expect that it would also instantly expand. You can’t maintain these extreme matter densities outside of a region of extreme gravitational compression that is created by the proper mass of a stellar-scale object.

The hypothetical physics that might allow for the creation of microscopic (large extra dimensions) proposes that gravity gains more force in sub-Planck scale dimensions. There is no hard evidence to support this theory – indeed there is a growing level of disconfirming evidence arising from various sources, including the LHC.

High energy particle collisions involve converting momentum energy into heat energy, as well as overcoming the electromagnetic repulsion that normally prevents charged particles from colliding. But the heat energy produced quickly dissipates and the collided particles fragment into sub-atomic shrapnel, rather than fusing together. Particle colliders attempt to mimic conditions similar to the Big Bang, not the insides of massive stars.

2. A hypothetical microscopic black hole couldn’t devour the Earth anyway.

Although whatever goes on inside the event horizon of a black hole is a bit mysterious and unknowable – physics still operates in a conventional fashion outside. The gravitational influence exerted by the mass of a black hole falls away by the inverse square of the distance from it, just like it does for any other celestial body.

The gravitational influence exerted by a microscopic black hole composed of, let’s say 1000 hyper-compressed protons, would be laughably small from a distance of more than its Schwarzschild radius (maybe 10-18 metres). And it would be unable to consume more matter unless it could overcome the forces that hold other matter together – remembering that in quantum physics, gravity is the weakest force.

It’s been calculated that if the Earth had the density of solid iron, a hypothetical microscopic black hole in linear motion would be unlikely to encounter an atomic nucleus more than once every 200 kilometres – and if it did, it would encounter a nucleus that would be at least 1,000 times larger in diameter.

So the black hole couldn’t hope to swallow the whole nucleus in one go and, at best, it might chomp a bit off the nucleus in passing – somehow overcoming the strong nuclear force in so doing. The microscopic black hole might have 100 such encounters before its momentum carried it all the way through the Earth and out the other side, at which point it would probably still be a good order of magnitude smaller in size than an uncompressed proton.

And that still leaves the key issue of charge out of the picture. If you could jam multiple positively-charged protons together into such a tiny volume, the resultant object should explode, since the electromagnetic force far outweighs the gravitational force at this scale. You might get around this if an exactly equivalent number of electrons were also added in, but this requires appealing to an implausible level of fine-tuning.

3. What the doomsayers say

When challenged with the standard argument that higher-than-LHC energy collisions occur naturally and frequently as cosmic ray particles collide with Earth’s upper atmosphere, LHC conspiracy theorists refer to the high school physics lesson that two cars colliding head-on is a more energetic event than one car colliding with a brick wall. This is true, to the extent that the two car collision has twice the kinetic energy as the one car collision. However, cosmic ray collisions with the atmosphere have been measured as having 50 times the energy that will ever be generated by LHC collisions.

In response to the argument that a microscopic black hole would pass through the Earth before it could achieve any appreciable mass gain, LHC conspiracy theorists propose that an LHC collision would bring the combined particles to a dead stop and they would then fall passively towards the centre of the Earth with insufficient momentum to carry them out the other side.

This is also implausible. The transverse momentum imparted to LHC collision fragments after a head-on collision of two particles travelling at around 300,000 kilometres a second should easily give them an escape velocity from the Earth (being just 11.2 kilometres a second, at sea-level).

More information: CERN The safety of the LHC.

Source: Universe Today

3.3 /5 (11 votes)  

Filter


Move the slider to adjust rank threshold, so that you can hide some of the comments.


Display comments: newest first

fmfbrestel
Aug 29, 2011

Rank: 2.4 / 5 (11)
The transverse momentum imparted to LHC collision fragments after a head-on collision of two particles travelling at around 300,000 kilometres a second should easily give them an escape velocity from the Earth (being just 11.2 kilometres a second, at sea-level).

I am a known LHC defender, but this statement is just lazy. Someone has to have done the actual math to come up with an actual figure so they dont just have to say "should easily". Very POOR reporting.

I want to report this article as violating Physorg's comments guidelines. Due to poor reporting, this is little more then troll bait.

When taking on the conspiracy theorists (the stated goal of this article) you cant leave silly loose ends like that.
Temple
Aug 29, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5 (17)
hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com
Objectivist
Aug 29, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5 (10)
When taking on the conspiracy theorists (the stated goal of this article) you cant leave silly loose ends like that.
Yeah because, other than in cases where approximate calculations are made, conspiracy theorists clearly respond to logical arguments.
LariAnn
Aug 29, 2011

Rank: 3 / 5 (1)
When faced with scientific facts, the doomsayers will resort to unknown phenomena/forces to bolster their position. Consequently, the formation of the micro black hole is so quick that collision fragments have no time to distance themselves from it. In that way, they are all quickly sucked into the nascent black hole, which then continues gobbling up everything else nearby until it grows large enough to gobble the Earth! Baby black holes have a "tractor field" that draws in matter from much farther away than mature ones can, enabling the babies to grow quickly. Problem solved!
fmfbrestel
Aug 29, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
If baby black holes were meta-stable then every cosmic ray in the universe that collides with any matter anywhere, would create meta-stable black holes. Even with a huge remaining momentum after the collision, there would be as many black holes wizzing around as there are cosmic rays (probably many times more). As they wiz around the universe they would be steadily gobbling up matter and growing as they travel.

There would not be a universe to observe if this were the case.

See, no need to resort to transverse momentum equations, or probability. We have a universe to observe, our planet and solar system exist, therefor baby black holes either require energy in excess of the strongest cosmic rays, or they are not meta-stable.
ekim
Aug 29, 2011

Rank: 4.8 / 5 (4)
No mention of Hawking Radiation or virtual particles. A microscopic black hole should evaporate long before encountering normal matter.
vacuum-mechanics
Aug 29, 2011

Rank: 2.3 / 5 (3)
No mention of Hawking Radiation or virtual particles. A microscopic black hole should evaporate long before encountering normal matter.

What mechanism make it to do so?
ekim
Aug 30, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
What mechanism make it to do so?

Empty space isn't empty. It is filled with the QCD vacuum. Virtual particles and anti-particles pop in and out of existence continuously, usually annihilating each other. Under certain circumstances a virtual particle can be separated from it's partner and come into existence. This requires energy.
Near the schwarzschild radius of a black hole, one virtual particle can fall in while the other travels away from the hole. The energy to create this particle comes from the black hole, reducing it's mass. A microscopic black hole would evaporate very quickly into particles and anti-particles.
rawa1
Aug 30, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (10)
The transverse momentum imparted to LHC collision fragments after a head-on collision of two particles travelling at around 300,000 kilometres a second should easily give them an escape velocity from the Earth (being just 11.2 kilometres a second, at sea-level).
At the case of head-on collision the resulting momentum and velocity should be zero, or not? It's clearly apparent for everybody, who just passed 1st level class of physics. We can just ask, what the physicists are afraid of, if they're spreading such a transparent demagogy...?
rawa1
Aug 30, 2011

Rank: 1.5 / 5 (16)
1. Microscopic black holes are implausible.
It's another lie. These black holes belonged into most awaited predictions of LHC experiments, especially from the side of string theorists. Their existence should prove the existence of extradimensions. It was assumed, the LHC would produce one such micro-black hole per second. Actually, many physicists were quite disappointed, if they found none.

http://blogs.disc...-theory/

Now, we can just ask, what the physicists are afraid of, if they're spreading such transparent lies...?
rawa1
Aug 30, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (16)
2. A hypothetical microscopic black hole couldnt devour the Earth anyway.
It's another lie. Astronomers already know, the gravity field is not the only factor, in which massive objects are dragging others into itself. The strong magnetic field around black hole exhibits a much larger drag, then the gravity. From this reason, even tiny micro-black hole would be dangerous for Earth.

http://www.univer...-matter/

Again, we can just ask, what the physicists are afraid of, if they're spreading such lies...?
rawa1
Aug 30, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (13)
cosmic ray collisions with the atmosphere have been measured as having 50 times the energy that will ever be generated by LHC collisions
But this energy is dissipated along long path in sparse atmosphere of Earth, which is many thousand times less dense, then the Earth core. And the products of cosmic ray collisions have always high speed toward the center of Earth, which cannot be said about LHC collisions. I'm just repeating the argument from my first post here. It just demonstrates, the physicists never done the simulations of black hole formation at LHC in physically relevant way and if they have done so, they never published it in peer-reviewed press.

The relevant safety analysis was simply never done and we can just ask, which person from CERN is responsible for it?
DavidMcC
Aug 30, 2011

Rank: 3.9 / 5 (13)
No mention of Hawking Radiation or virtual particles. A microscopic black hole should evaporate long before encountering normal matter.

What mechanism make it to do so?

Hawking radiation.
rawa1
Aug 30, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (7)
What mechanism make it to do so? Hawking radiation.

Recent simulations are indicating, the black holes may not evaporate so fast. After all, Hawking radiation was never observed in the same way, like the black hole itself.

http://news.scien...-01.html
antialias_physorg
Aug 30, 2011

Rank: not rated yet
See, no need to resort to transverse momentum equations, or probability. We have a universe to observe,

Or you have just solved what all the 'dark matter' is (just kidding)
Ricochet
Aug 30, 2011

Rank: not rated yet
Let's keep in mind that a lot of these conspiracy theorists are the same people, or at least of the same ilk, that protest the Super Bowl every year.
fmfbrestel
Aug 30, 2011

Rank: 4.8 / 5 (9)
But this energy is dissipated along long path in sparse atmosphere of Earth, which is many thousand times less dense, then the Earth core.


Such a good rant going, and then you fail so hard here. Density does not matter, all that matters is whether or not a collision occurs. If a collision occurs, it will occur with 50 times the energy capable in the LHC. PERIOD. Density has NOTHING to do with it besides probability of a collision, but oh, wait, evidence of actual atmospheric cosmic ray collisions:
http://www.srl.ca...cyc.html

Thats the beauty of this argument - I get to fully accept every one of your premises about how dangerous and likely it is that LHC will create mini black holes, and then say "wait, why arent there a gazillion meta-stable mini black holes zipping around the galaxy?"

At the very least we should be witnessing the destruction of a great many stars and praying we dont get hit next.
Cosmic rays plus anthropic principle win.
d_robison
Aug 30, 2011

Rank: 4.3 / 5 (6)
@rawa1
You're either throwing troll bait into this section of comments, or you're an idiot. Either way, stop posting rubbish and wait until you actually have some grasp on the physics taking place here.
DavidMcC
Aug 30, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5 (6)
I don't quite understand why I got rated a "1" for telling rawa1 the correct physics for the rapid disappearance of any microscopic black holes that might form (if they ever do).
Objectivist
Aug 30, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5 (8)
I don't quite understand why I got rated a "1" for telling rawa1 the correct physics for the rapid disappearance of any microscopic black holes that might form (if they ever do).

Perhaps because he rated you? Don't sweat it. The rating system is useless.
Y8Q412VBZP21010
Aug 30, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5 (8)
But this nergy is dissipated along long path in sparse atmosphere of Earth, which is many thousand times less dense, then the Earth core.[/q[

So why hasn't the Moon, which doesn't have an atmosphere, been turned into a black hole?
d_robison
Aug 30, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
I don't quite understand why I got rated a "1" for telling rawa1 the correct physics for the rapid disappearance of any microscopic black holes that might form (if they ever do).


Oops, sorry DavidMcC that was my fault. Your post was mixed in with all his junk, is there a way to correct it?
Y8Q412VBZP21010
Aug 30, 2011

Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
Your post was mixed in with all his junk, is there a way to correct it?


I would bet not, so I gave him 5 stars just to be kindly.
Fyl
Aug 30, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (10)
It is not working like most people are thinking. The only existing elementary particles is indestructible atoms of earth, water, fire, air, and space (the last is known as phisical vacuum, according with Vedic knowledge). Black holes cannot be constructed and controlled by a human. LHC has been maked only to pump the taxpayer's money. Is not a weapon even. American HARP is much more dangerous for the Earth.
Shelgeyr
Aug 30, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
Unlike @fmfbrestel, I am not an LHC defender, but I agree with comment #1.

I would also add:

Microscopic black holes are implausible.

They should just rephrase this as "black holes are impossible". I assume we aren't in agreement on this, but I have no fear of the LHC destroying the planet.

...a hypothetical microscopic black hole in linear motion would be unlikely to encounter...


Even at a 1000-to-1 mass differential, I'd expect the 300KKms initial velocity to fall off rather quickly with each collision. But wouldn't an LHC-created microscopic black hole carry a positive charge derived from its original nucleons, which could imply possibly far fewer collisions?

In the end, I'll admit I was just a tiny bit pleased to see this phrase: "...whatever goes on inside the event horizon of a black hole is a bit mysterious and unknowable...", but it hardly makes up for the rest.
Ricochet
Aug 30, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
If the LHC were to create a blackhole big enough to do anything, I imagine the first thing they'd notice is the sudden absence of collisions. Then, they'd most likely hit the emergency stop button and the blackhole, now missing food, would vaporize in a puff of questionable logic.
Callippo
Aug 30, 2011

Rank: 1.7 / 5 (6)
Density does not matter, all that matters is whether or not a collision occurs.
Nope, what matters here is, whether the black hole resulting from collision will get enough of surrounding matter to grow sufficiently fast before it evaporates or escapes into free space.

Which is definitely more difficult inside of Earth stratosphere with density less than 1 g/cubic meter - than inside of Earth core with density of 13.0 tons/ cubic meter. I presume, I'm talking with people, who heard of physics at least once during their short life.

why I got rated a "1" for telling rawa1 the correct physics .. perhaps because he rated you? .
Perhaps not, it's quite easy to find your upvoters and downvoters here.
Callippo
Aug 30, 2011

Rank: 1.7 / 5 (3)
If the LHC were to create a blackhole big enough to do anything, I imagine the first thing they'd notice is the sudden absence of collisions.
The black hole of weight 10^9 tons will be still smaller, than the proton. And LHC cannot prepare such massive black holes from obvious reasons.

Why they should notice it, if such black hole would escape from collider?
Turritopsis
Aug 30, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (6)
The answer is hidden, thinks I. Blackhole cannot form for reasons mentioned not. The LHC is a linear collider, the circular path matters not. Formation of blackhole requires linear force from infinite directions. The LHC operates dual directional proton beams. Blackholes require proton bombardment from all directions acting upon a singular point with ZERO leaks. If the force has an escape route GRBs happen. No blackhole, this leak means.

Blackhole creation at LHC is possible. Reconfiguration required, though. Collision must be singular. Particle formation this reconfiguration stops. Reverse entropy and convert energy into pure singularity.

A lesson this is from a mind incomplete. Junk this article is, truth addressed is not. LHC cannot produce blackhole for reason other. Design of collider this reason be. 

Supernova-Stars collide protons with spherical force. Does not so the LHC.
rawa1
Aug 31, 2011

Rank: not rated yet
..The LHC is a linear collider, the circular path matters not...
Only in parallel reality inside of your brain.
Tomator
Aug 31, 2011

Rank: not rated yet
No mention of Hawking Radiation or virtual particles. A microscopic black hole should evaporate long before encountering normal matter.

What mechanism make it to do so?

In fact, there is just no mechanism to keep it in one, solid piece.
typicalguy
Aug 31, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
The biggest proof that microscopic black holes are not possible is that we are here. If they were possible, the universe would be nothing but black holes generated following the big bang.
moka
Aug 31, 2011

Rank: not rated yet
Dont makes p-p collisions at energy > 1 TeV, that is followed by a micro-black-hole which begins to earn all around it. See the article: ON THE SURPRISING CONNECTION BETWEEN MATTER AND GRAVITY FOUND IN QCD ANALYSIS, Stefan Mehedinteanu: Research Gate
moka
Aug 31, 2011

Rank: not rated yet
Dont makes p-p collisions at energy greater than 1 TeV, that is followed by a micro-black-hole which begins to earn all around it. See the article: ON THE SURPRISING CONNECTION BETWEEN MATTER AND GRAVITY FOUND IN QCD ANALYSIS, Stefan Mehedinteanu: Research Gate
moka
Aug 31, 2011

Rank: not rated yet
Don not t makes p-p collisions at energy greater than 1 TeV, that is followed by a micro-black-hole which begins to earn all around it. See the article ON THE SURPRISING CONNECTION BETWEEN MATTER AND GRAVITY FOUND IN QCD ANALYSIS, Stefan Mehedinteanu: Research Gate
Turritopsis
Aug 31, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
Alas, the voice in the wind echoes. Our minds run congruently, is this parallel reality? If our minds synchronize does this force the event cause?
TheGhostofOtto1923
Aug 31, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
Alas, the voice in the wind echoes. Our minds run congruently, is this parallel reality? If our minds synchronize does this force the event cause?

Why the hell are you talking like yoda?
Ricochet
Aug 31, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
A lesson this is from a mind incomplete. Junk this article is, truth addressed is not. LHC cannot produce blackhole for reason other. Design of collider this reason be.

Ok, Yoda...
ekim
Aug 31, 2011

Rank: not rated yet
If atom were size of foot ball field, nucleus size of quarter.
Black hole size of dust.
Virtual particles like the grass.

gimpypoet
Sep 02, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (5)
The sun is an explosion kept in check by gravity and forced together by the vaccume of space around it? Photons collide at light speed but haven't got enpough mass to be subject to laws of einstein. how come no black holes near our sun? particles from core of our sun like iron or calcium are ejected into space around sun in cme, again on black holes. why?
gimpypoet
Sep 02, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (6)
why doesn't a photon gain mass like every other particle? why does a photon formed in the core of the sun take so long to make it to the surface, then to be released, but only takes eight mins. to reach if not subject to gravity? these are the "real" questions to ask.
Ricochet
Sep 02, 2011

Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
I thought it was because they keep bouncing around in there, deflecting each other in all different directions until they finally come flying out.
I know one thing... I wish we could even 10% of the energy the sun produces. Every second, it spits out more energy than all the electricity we've ever used (not counting what the Atlanteans may have used).
antialias_physorg
Sep 02, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
I wish we could even 10% of the energy the sun produces.


You really, really, really should be grateful that we can't do that. The earth would be an instant fireball.

why doesn't a photon gain mass like every other particle? why does a photon formed in the core of the sun take so long to make it to the surface, then to be released, but only takes eight mins. to reach if not subject to gravity? these are the "real" questions to ask.

Wikipedia/google are your friends.
gimpypoet
Sep 02, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (4)
in response, I must say that i also would like to safely harness the sun's power. ricochet described collisions between phpotons in the sun, so particles like photons collide but haven't produced any black holes, "babies" or not. If small ones were produced, they have plenty of available fuel to grow very large. why, in 4 1/2 bln. years no black holes?
you offered no proof of the atlanteans either, but according to legends, they derived energy from the"darkside", what ever that may have been. If their technology destroyed then, it didproduce a black hole. the plain old earth ocean did. according to legend.
Ricochet
Sep 02, 2011

Rank: not rated yet
I have no proof. It could be theorized that the Amish are direct descendents of the Atlanteans... then again, it could also be theorized that these "aliens" we keep seeing are the Atlanteans...
gimpypoet
Sep 02, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
Ive have never seen aliens, and have been looking for them. another theory is god is an alien, because he is not from earth, doesn't prove pro or con. Another theory is you can gain a scientific base from wikipedia or google, but anyone can edit the one and who controls the information the other provides? all these baitings shouldn't apear on a site such as this, and a time limit between comments shouldn't be allowed. the point is we can affect the climate, but we don't have enough information to decide how. we may find ourselves needing a boat or an artic cat if we make the wrong decisions. I could posit any theory, and without proof be called a troll, but i choose to go to a local university instead, to try to gain understanding. My prof's won't allow quotes from wikipedia in my papers, why should i go there at all? quit baiting and start discussing the subject. we won't build a machine that creates a black hole because if the sun hasn't made one, we won't within our lifetime.
gimpypoet
Sep 02, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
all heavy elements come from the sun, and these are released in cme, with particles moving in more than one direction,so collisions happen all the time. where are the black holes? if the LHC is looking for the "god particle" that carries mass, how could it ever attain the speeds similar to the photons that must collide when leaving the sun. do all photons leave the surface of the sun at the same speed?
gimpypoet
Sep 02, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
do the photons go through the heavier materials during such an event? do these heavier materials acheive C when launched with photons in a CME event? Who knows? pointless to say because it's another theory? try to find that on google. gravity has to be something other than matter based,because matter like photons, whick are both a particle and a wave have no mass. are other pieces of matter similar? is infrared light or ultraviolet light composed of photons and also massless?I won't lose sleep over it, but will always be puzzled by these gaps in the collective minds of people in the "know" and their refusal to theorize and vocalize the theories that should be at the top of our lists. There won't be gain if we miss the point and destroy ourselves in the process.
gimpypoet
Sep 02, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
If a photon has no mass, how does gravity bend the stream of photons that make up the light and produces the effect of lensing? does this infer that photons have mass or that they aren't fully understood? this is my confusion, not aliens or god or atlanteans.
gimpypoet
Sep 02, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
why should light fall into a black hole when there is no mass for gravity to grab onto in the first place? This seems to be a flaw about a fundamental particle that is supposedly well understood. How can C even be "known" if the particle isn't fully understood? and if lensing is gravity's effect on light, and it has been proven that it works, then light must be composed of more than photons or the photons have mass, therefor other particles must be able to travel at least at C.
this is enough to lose sleep over, and has bothered me since I was a child and the theory of relativity was explained to me by my father, who must have had some small understanding of the concept in order to present it to me in a way that i could understand the principal of the theory. please respond as i am forever waiting for some hints to the solution, and hope to start a discussion on this asap.
gimpypoet
Sep 02, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
E=MC squared, the energy of a photon is given by E=hf, combined these two equations and the mass of a photon is MC squared = hf=> m=hf/c squared which means photons don't have rest mass. then they have energy which is also saying they have mass. if this is true then momentum gives the particle mass and this should result in an energy transfer when striking an object.if this is true, then why/how does the earth maintain orbit,what keeps a mirror from shattering into pieces when light reflects off of it. why doesn't the mirror move or why can't we feel the pressure of light when all we feel is heat, which is the energy released from it? perhaps this is a question for which better math is needed, and i should think more about the particle/wave duality aspect of light.but if light is electromagnetic in nature and so is electricity,why is light measured in lumens and not in amps? why should it be so difficult to change photonic energy into electricity when elec can be converted so readily?
Turritopsis
Sep 03, 2011

Rank: 2 / 5 (1)
A photon isn't a particle (in the sense of being a form of material) it is a force carrier, is carries neutral electromagnetic force (not positive nor negative charge), the photon is quantized radiance of charge (which is derivable to mass), because charges equal mass. E=m...

So why doesn't the photon have mass?

Because it is not a particle, it is a wave (a vortex technically) expressed as a wave function simplistically. Height x Frequency = Energy.

Speedoflightsquared x Mass = Energy. This is: charge doubled (negativeXpositive) interacting to produce mass = Energy. Two positive two negative particles (of varying masses) create hydrogen atom. (2 Up Quarks 1 down quark and 1 electron) = (Hydrogen)

E=fh is derelative to E=mc^2. They are used for different aspects of reality. E=fh is the effect of E=mc^2. Going together gives you nothing. Relative that is.
Turritopsis
Sep 03, 2011

Rank: 3.5 / 5 (2)
It is a pure simplification. It is directionally divergent equations coming back together (like matter meeting antimatter). The equations answer is light.

This is a mathematical annihilation.
Turritopsis
Sep 03, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Light causes loss of mass. The more energetic the material the brighter. The most brilliant expire first. (witnessed cosmologically as heavier stars expire first)

Photons cause decay due to loss in energy (E=hf) and energy equals mass. Losing energy means losing mass. Also decay comes in form of W (positively charged mass) and W- (negatively charged mass) and Z bosons. Light is actually partial cause for mass loss. Charges radiate away their energy.

The gluon is the only energy carrier which doesn't cary energy away. Gluons strongly hold nuclei. The gluon is an inverse energy carrier in the atom. Antiradiative force.
Turritopsis
Sep 03, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Gluon: Strong force carrier. The strong force is therefore the strongest force (it is the only *atomic antiradiation force, which is neutralized by: weak nuclear force radiation and electromagnetic force radiation).

*The atom has 3 forces only. Outside of the atom the antiradiative force (force of attraction) is gravity.

The graviton is an *atomic virtual boson. It is a force bringer of gravity. Weak strong force (kind of). The force is strongest in the centre of mass. It weakens over distance (inverse square law: further from each other less influence on one another).

*atomic virtual boson as in it exists extra-atomically within the atom the force of attraction is strong but gravitational force is the attraction between masses. It is actually very much like the photon (inversely), both are extra-atomic. Both get absorbed by atoms.

The photon does not exist within an atom. It adds energy to an atom (other words: gets absorbed), and then reemitted. The photon always travels at c.
Turritopsis
Sep 03, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
In denser material there is more absorption per cubic volume. Because of higher frequency in virtualization (absorption/reemission) photons take a longer time to complete a journey through dense space. Photons travel at c always. They just sometimes become virtual.

A photon takes a long time to pass through a star because it gets absorbed and reemitted by every single atom that stands in its way out of that star sometimes after getting close to exiting the star it gets reflected back the other way, restarting its journey.

The photon doesn't exist in the atom. In the atom the photon increases charge of the atom (total energy, both positive addition to up quarks and negative addition to down quarks and electrons).

The gluon outside of the atom is a graviton (graviton as a quantization of gravitational force).
Turritopsis
Sep 03, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Height x Frequency = Energy.
- visualization aid.

Simplistic graphic way of expressing intensity. The higher the wave height graphically the greater the energy level of each quanta of light (photon) and the higher the frequency of repetition (shorter wave length) the higher the energy level of the light beam realistically.

Energy = Planck's constant x Frequency
Callippo
Sep 03, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
In relativity theory the photon is massless because it considers, it's the space-time what is curving around massive bodies, not the path of light. Aether theory is less dogmatic and it considers, even the flat space-time is full of tiny density fluctuations (space-time curvatures), which manifest itself like the CMBR noise. The photon has a zero mass only when it's of wavelength of CMBR, so it cannot be distinguished from its environment. The photons of shorter wavelength are of positive rest mass, the photons of longer wavelength are of negative rest mass and they're behaving like tachyons. Briefly speaking, in aether theory the space-time is curved differently around black holes depending on the wavelength of light, in which we are observing them. For CMBR photons the Universe is transparent and essentially flat. This simple model explains, why microwaves can escape from black holes as a Hawking radiation - they're literally repelled gravitationally from them.
Callippo
Sep 03, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
The same effects can be observed at the water surface, too. The ripples of certain wavelength (which is quite close to the wavelength of CMBR) are moving most slowly along it, so that the water surface would appear as large, as possible with them.

http://hyperphysi...ngth.gif

The ripples of smaller wavelength will disperse in such a way, their wavelength will gradually decrease. But the ripples of longer wavelength will expand instead. It basically means, our Universe appears expanding only because we are observing it in short-wavelength light. If we would observe it in micro-waves, it would appear steady-state with no Hubble red shift. And if we would observe it in radio-waves, we would experience blue-shift instead. These predictions can make the notion of Big Bang virtual and they could be tested rather easily. For example recently it has been observed, that the red-shift effects (SZ and ISW effect) cannot be observed in CMBR.
tkjtkj
Sep 03, 2011

Rank: not rated yet
Rawal:
But this energy is dissipated along long path in sparse atmosphere of Earth, which is many thousand times less dense, then the Earth core.


and here i thought that water was only 13x's more dense than air ...
sigh ... i guess it has to do with how deep ya go ..
GDM
Sep 03, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
I think a number of the above posts were done after dropping some heavy acid...
lomed
Sep 04, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
E=MC squared, the energy of a photon is given by E=hf, combined these two equations and the mass of a photon is MC squared = hf=> m=hf/c squared which means photons don't have rest mass. then they have energy which is also saying they have mass. if this is true then momentum gives the particle mass and this should result in an energy transfer when striking an object.if this is true, then why/how does the earth maintain orbit,what keeps a mirror from shattering into pieces when light reflects off of it. why doesn't the mirror move or why can't we feel the pressure of light when all we feel is heat, which is the energy released from it?
For photons, E=hf. Light beams are bent when they pass objects because space is bent by those objects (it is the bending of space-time that produces the effects of gravity). Light does not have rest mass, it does have momentum. Solar sails use the momentum of light to move (the pressure due to light is very small at this distance from the Sun).
Rank 3.3 /5 (11 votes)
Relevant PhysicsForums posts
  • Water flow question
    created2 hours ago
  • [Drift velocity] Factors affecting velocity
    created5 hours ago
  • does cold gasoline have less energy
    created6 hours ago
  • distribution of molecules throughout the atmosphere
    created8 hours ago
  • The Global Positioning System !
    created9 hours ago
  • A Question relating Power
    created10 hours ago
  • More from Physics Forums - General Physics

More news stories

Is a classical electrodynamics law incompatible with special relativity?

(Phys.org) -- The laws of classical electromagnetism that were developed in the 19th century are the same laws that scientists use today. They include Maxwell’s four equations along with the Lorentz la ...

Physics / General Physics

created May 24, 2012 | popularity 4.7 / 5 (17) | comments 43 | with audio podcast feature

Landmark calculation clears the way to answering how matter is formed

(Phys.org) -- An international collaboration of scientists, including Thomas Blum, associate professor of physics, is reporting in landmark detail the decay process of a subatomic particle called a kaon – ...

Physics / General Physics

created May 25, 2012 | popularity 4.3 / 5 (22) | comments 50 | with audio podcast

Lying in wait for WIMPs: Researchers seek to dramatically increase sensitivity of Large Underground Xenon detector

Although it's invisible, dark matter accounts for at least 80 percent of the matter in the universe. No one knows what it is, but most scientists would bet on weakly interacting massive particles, or WIMPs.

Physics / General Physics

created May 23, 2012 | popularity 4 / 5 (7) | comments 15 | with audio podcast

Hawaii lab turns laser-powered bubbles into microrobots

(Phys.org) -- A team of scientists from the University of Hawaii are working on microrobots created from bubbles of air in a saline solution. The bubbles take on their title of “robots” as a laser ...

Physics / General Physics

created May 23, 2012 | popularity 5 / 5 (4) | comments 2 | with audio podcast weblog

Sound increases the efficiency of boiling

Scientists at the Georgia Institute of Technology achieved a 17-percent increase in boiling efficiency by using an acoustic field to enhance heat transfer. The acoustic field does this by efficiently removing vapor bubbles ...

Physics / Soft Matter

created May 24, 2012 | popularity 5 / 5 (2) | comments 2


Change in developmental timing was crucial in the evolutionary shift from dinosaurs to birds: study

At first glance, it's hard to see how a common house sparrow and a Tyrannosaurus Rex might have anything in common. After all, one is a bird that weighs less than an ounce, and the other is a dinosaur that ...

Computer model used to pinpoint prime materials for efficient carbon capture

When power plants begin capturing their carbon emissions to reduce greenhouse gases – and to most in the electric power industry, it's a question of when, not if – it will be an expensive undertaking.

'Unzipped' carbon nanotubes could help energize fuel cells, batteries

Multi-walled carbon nanotubes riddled with defects and impurities on the outside could replace some of the expensive platinum catalysts used in fuel cells and metal-air batteries, according to scientists at ...

T cells 'hunt' parasites like animal predators seek prey, study shows

By pairing an intimate knowledge of immune-system function with a deep understanding of statistical physics, a cross-disciplinary team at the University of Pennsylvania has arrived at a surprising finding: T cells use a movement ...

Manufacturing genes to attack flu virus

An international research team has manufactured a new protein that can combat deadly flu epidemics.

Yale study concludes public apathy over climate change unrelated to science literacy

Are members of the public divided about climate change because they don't understand the science behind it? If Americans knew more basic science and were more proficient in technical reasoning, would public consensus match ...