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

Aug 29, 2011 By Steve Nerlich, Universe Today
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).

Explore further: Vortex of electrons provides unprecedented information on magnetic quantum states in solids

More information: CERN The safety of the LHC.

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

What are 'mini' black holes?

Mar 29, 2010

In films and books black holes capture unwary spaceships and planets, gobble up whole galaxies or offer portals to other parts of the Universe.

Oh-My-God Particles

Jun 13, 2011

Cosmic rays are really sub-atomic particles, being mainly protons (hydrogen nuclei) and occasionally helium or heavier atomic nuclei and very occasionally electrons. Cosmic ray particles are very energetic ...

Recommended for you

Scientists film magnetic memory in super slow-motion

18 hours ago

Researchers at DESY have used high-speed photography to film one of the candidates for the magnetic data storage devices of the future in action. The film was taken using an X-ray microscope and shows magnetic ...

Particles, waves and ants

Nov 26, 2014

Animals looking for food or light waves moving through turbid media – astonishing similarities have now been found between completely different phenomena.

User comments : 62

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

fmfbrestel
2.4 / 5 (11) Aug 29, 2011
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
5 / 5 (17) Aug 29, 2011
hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com
Objectivist
5 / 5 (10) Aug 29, 2011
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
1.7 / 5 (3) Aug 29, 2011
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
5 / 5 (2) Aug 29, 2011
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
4.8 / 5 (4) Aug 29, 2011
No mention of Hawking Radiation or virtual particles. A microscopic black hole should evaporate long before encountering normal matter.
vacuum-mechanics
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 29, 2011
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
5 / 5 (4) Aug 30, 2011
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
1 / 5 (10) Aug 30, 2011
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
1.5 / 5 (17) Aug 30, 2011
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
1 / 5 (16) Aug 30, 2011
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
1 / 5 (13) Aug 30, 2011
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
3.9 / 5 (13) Aug 30, 2011
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
1 / 5 (7) Aug 30, 2011
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
not rated yet Aug 30, 2011
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
not rated yet Aug 30, 2011
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
4.8 / 5 (9) Aug 30, 2011
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
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 30, 2011
@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
5 / 5 (6) Aug 30, 2011
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
5 / 5 (8) Aug 30, 2011
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
5 / 5 (8) Aug 30, 2011
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
5 / 5 (1) Aug 30, 2011
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
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 30, 2011
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
1 / 5 (10) Aug 30, 2011
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
1 / 5 (4) Aug 30, 2011
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
5 / 5 (2) Aug 30, 2011
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
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 30, 2011
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
1.4 / 5 (5) Aug 30, 2011
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
1 / 5 (7) Aug 30, 2011
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
1 / 5 (1) Aug 31, 2011
..The LHC is a linear collider, the circular path matters not...
Only in parallel reality inside of your brain.
Tomator
not rated yet Aug 31, 2011
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
1 / 5 (2) Aug 31, 2011
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
not rated yet Aug 31, 2011
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
not rated yet Aug 31, 2011
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
not rated yet Aug 31, 2011
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
1 / 5 (3) Aug 31, 2011
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
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 31, 2011
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
5 / 5 (4) Aug 31, 2011
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
not rated yet Aug 31, 2011
If atom were size of foot ball field, nucleus size of quarter.
Black hole size of dust.
Virtual particles like the grass.

gimpypoet
1 / 5 (5) Sep 02, 2011
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
1 / 5 (6) Sep 02, 2011
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
3 / 5 (2) Sep 02, 2011
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
5 / 5 (2) Sep 02, 2011
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
1 / 5 (4) Sep 02, 2011
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
not rated yet Sep 02, 2011
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
1 / 5 (3) Sep 02, 2011
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
1 / 5 (3) Sep 02, 2011
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
1 / 5 (3) Sep 02, 2011
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
1 / 5 (3) Sep 02, 2011
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
1 / 5 (3) Sep 02, 2011
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
1 / 5 (3) Sep 02, 2011
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
1.3 / 5 (3) Sep 03, 2011
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
2.3 / 5 (4) Sep 03, 2011
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
1 / 5 (2) Sep 03, 2011
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
1 / 5 (1) Sep 03, 2011
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
1 / 5 (1) Sep 03, 2011
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
1 / 5 (1) Sep 03, 2011
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
1 / 5 (3) Sep 03, 2011
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
1 / 5 (2) Sep 03, 2011
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
not rated yet Sep 03, 2011
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
1 / 5 (1) Sep 03, 2011
I think a number of the above posts were done after dropping some heavy acid...
lomed
5 / 5 (1) Sep 04, 2011
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).

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.