15million celcius

Forums › Off topic › 15million celcius

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Mad Scientist
29760 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2032666 9-Jun-2018 17:20

vic008: Nunz, would it pass all the way thru? Gravity would take it to our center but would it go any further? To get out the other side would be a fight with gravity

something with that sort of density approaching infinity, with radiate quite a lot of gravity.

technically they are called black holes.

so no it won't go through the earth and out the other side, rather the earth will go into it.

nunz

1421 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2033251 10-Jun-2018 19:54

tdgeek:

rugrat: Hell Jim, the force field just went down.

Call the fire department.

On serious note, hope it’s not the whole planet.

I was wondering that. Say the power went down, what happens then? It melts everything for a while, then cools and goes inert?

Dumbed down answer (as that's all I can manage)

The new reactor is fusion not fission.

fission = moving two lumps of something that, when you get enough together starts a nuclear reaction (critical mass) . The way you stop it is by removing the two lumps from each others vicinity (or drop a lead?? shield between them). The problems are that it sometimes goes wrong, the two items stay in vicinity and you get melt down. also fission produces hard radiation.

Fussion - Taking particles, jamming them together to create another particle (often helium but they are trying for heavier particles) which releases energy (often heat but not radioactive) To stop fusion you remove the energy required to jam the particles together.

This means that with fission you have to expend energy and do something to stop the reaction. With fusion you have to expend energy and do something to start and maintain the reaction. If something fails, hopefully there is no energy to continue the reaction so it stops. Power failure = failure to not only contain the reaction but also cause it in the first place. Kick the plug out and everything fails.

Any system requiring effort to continue it and no effort to stop it (fusion) must be inherently safer than the opposite (like fission. )

Having said that, one would hope they use the same circuits for containment as initiation - but the design looks like it has too as both containment, initiation and control all require magnetic fields to be produced - so all reliant on energy in.

nunz

1421 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2033253 10-Jun-2018 20:04

Batman:

vic008: Nunz, would it pass all the way thru? Gravity would take it to our center but would it go any further? To get out the other side would be a fight with gravity

something with that sort of density approaching infinity, with radiate quite a lot of gravity.

technically they are called black holes.

so no it won't go through the earth and out the other side, rather the earth will go into it.

Thus my caveat that it was predicated on it not sucking the entire universe into itself. Its a thought game, - a single point analogy showing one point to consider, but failing as a complete answer. Simplifies a concept by isolating it. In this case density.

The BigBang theoretical sphere was not a black hole though. Much worse as it contains multiple black holes as they are part of the known universe and were also created by a big bang according to BB theory. Or even worse, didn't contain any known particle but was free floating energy of some kind that generated particles on the fly, thus creating black holes etc.

Hawkings seemed to think the universe was creating space for it to expand itself into (e.g. there is nothing outside the sphere of the universe to expand into except potentiality which creates something to expand into). That also provides the energy as the non existent potential interacts with our gravity / potential to produce new space and energy to grow into. and I thought everything came from nothing, which exploded, was bad enough.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29760 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2033363 10-Jun-2018 20:50

nunz:

Batman:

vic008: Nunz, would it pass all the way thru? Gravity would take it to our center but would it go any further? To get out the other side would be a fight with gravity

something with that sort of density approaching infinity, with radiate quite a lot of gravity.

technically they are called black holes.

so no it won't go through the earth and out the other side, rather the earth will go into it.

Thus my caveat that it was predicated on it not sucking the entire universe into itself. Its a thought game, - a single point analogy showing one point to consider, but failing as a complete answer. Simplifies a concept by isolating it. In this case density.

The BigBang theoretical sphere was not a black hole though. Much worse as it contains multiple black holes as they are part of the known universe and were also created by a big bang according to BB theory. Or even worse, didn't contain any known particle but was free floating energy of some kind that generated particles on the fly, thus creating black holes etc.

Hawkings seemed to think the universe was creating space for it to expand itself into (e.g. there is nothing outside the sphere of the universe to expand into except potentiality which creates something to expand into). That also provides the energy as the non existent potential interacts with our gravity / potential to produce new space and energy to grow into. and I thought everything came from nothing, which exploded, was bad enough.

big bang = nothing exploded and became many things. pretty sure the theories do not have particles or energy floating around. all the math say there was nothing.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2033537 11-Jun-2018 10:56

nunz:

Fussion - Taking particles, jamming them together to create another particle (often helium but they are trying for heavier particles) which releases energy (often heat but not radioactive) To stop fusion you remove the energy required to jam the particles together.

There's plenty of ionising radiation emitted in fusion reactions. Fast neutron radiation also present problems with containment/moderation, some processes produce and/or use tritium which may escape, that neutron radiation can induce radioactivity in stable elements.

Amosnz

567 posts

Ultimate Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2033632 11-Jun-2018 12:50

This chart is quite interesting for comparing hot things to cold things

Speedtest

MikeAqua

7773 posts

Uber Geek

#2033700 11-Jun-2018 14:25

We already have very good fusion reactor. We just need to get much better at storing energy from it.

Mike

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

jpoc

1043 posts

Uber Geek

#2033737 11-Jun-2018 16:11

Compared to the largest fusion reactor built so far, this is a mere toy.

The Joint European Torus has generated stable plasma at a temperature of 200million Celcius.

Paul1977

5039 posts

Uber Geek

#2033745 11-Jun-2018 16:31

nunz:

The BigBang theoretical sphere was not a black hole though. Much worse as it contains multiple black holes as they are part of the known universe and were also created by a big bang according to BB theory. Or even worse, didn't contain any known particle but was free floating energy of some kind that generated particles on the fly, thus creating black holes etc.

I though the quantum theory could only predict as far back as a tiny fraction of a second after Big Bang, but is unable to predict what was actually there at the very moment of the Big Bang? And then was there anything before the Big Bang since space-time didn't yet exist?

Batman

Mad Scientist
29760 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2033845 11-Jun-2018 18:47

Paul1977:

nunz:

The BigBang theoretical sphere was not a black hole though. Much worse as it contains multiple black holes as they are part of the known universe and were also created by a big bang according to BB theory. Or even worse, didn't contain any known particle but was free floating energy of some kind that generated particles on the fly, thus creating black holes etc.

I though the quantum theory could only predict as far back as a tiny fraction of a second after Big Bang, but is unable to predict what was actually there at the very moment of the Big Bang? And then was there anything before the Big Bang since space-time didn't yet exist?

AFAIK, the math says there was nothing before the big bang.

Google "Something from nothing quantum". Don't confuse that with Genesis 1:2-3.

nunz

1421 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2034883 13-Jun-2018 10:53

Batman:

nunz:

Batman:

vic008: Nunz, would it pass all the way thru? Gravity would take it to our center but would it go any further? To get out the other side would be a fight with gravity

something with that sort of density approaching infinity, with radiate quite a lot of gravity.

technically they are called black holes.

so no it won't go through the earth and out the other side, rather the earth will go into it.

Thus my caveat that it was predicated on it not sucking the entire universe into itself. Its a thought game, - a single point analogy showing one point to consider, but failing as a complete answer. Simplifies a concept by isolating it. In this case density.

The BigBang theoretical sphere was not a black hole though. Much worse as it contains multiple black holes as they are part of the known universe and were also created by a big bang according to BB theory. Or even worse, didn't contain any known particle but was free floating energy of some kind that generated particles on the fly, thus creating black holes etc.

Hawkings seemed to think the universe was creating space for it to expand itself into (e.g. there is nothing outside the sphere of the universe to expand into except potentiality which creates something to expand into). That also provides the energy as the non existent potential interacts with our gravity / potential to produce new space and energy to grow into. and I thought everything came from nothing, which exploded, was bad enough.

big bang = nothing exploded and became many things. pretty sure the theories do not have particles or energy floating around. all the math say there was nothing.

no - all the theories say there was nothing in our known universe.

Seriously - take a slow look at that idea that there was nothing and it exploded. Look up nothing in a dictionary. Meditate on it for a while.

There was nothing (no thing) That thing that didn't exist exploded according to someone. That's ludicrous. There had to be something.

That's dumber than saying my imaginary girlfriend and I are getting married. I dont have a girl friend so I cant get married. I got shot dead by a bullet that doesn't exist. My trillion imaginary dollars and I are going to buy the whole of planet earth. My gi-normous brain, whose IQ is 1 billion - just proved it doesn't exist and so I've just disappeared.

Hawkings thought that there was no 'before time' as time was created in the first few nano seconds of the big bang (say what? time was created in the first few nano seconds?? surely nano seconds are time? But that time didn't exist but it then created time ... umm Duh!!! Semantics. Lack of adequate vocabulary possibly) Any hoo - There was nothing before as there was no before .

BUT In order to have a big bang it had to come from somewhere. That some where has to exist outside our space time continuum / universe. That something could not be matter ( as we define matter in our universe) because matter did not exist until the universe started. The only thing it could be is energy - or some variant there of (I'll include spirit as a form of energy in my definition to stop the religious argument getting us off track).

According to Hawkings that ball had to be quantum (or deeper than quantum) and it created matter as it went. E.g. if all matter was in that ball - then critical mass would be instantly achieved as all the plutonium etc formed super critical mass. However it didn't. According to theory, elements (possibly including hydrogen) where created in some kind of alchemy. It was achieved by energy (quantum energy?) but not mass as we know it.

There are only two things in the universe (tai ho Christians - i said spirit = energy) Energy and Mass. One didn't exist. The other had to in order to create Mass.

nunz

1421 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2034885 13-Jun-2018 10:54

Fred99:

nunz:

Fussion - Taking particles, jamming them together to create another particle (often helium but they are trying for heavier particles) which releases energy (often heat but not radioactive) To stop fusion you remove the energy required to jam the particles together.

There's plenty of ionising radiation emitted in fusion reactions. Fast neutron radiation also present problems with containment/moderation, some processes produce and/or use tritium which may escape, that neutron radiation can induce radioactivity in stable elements.

Thanks. good to know!??! Hmm maybe not! Lets hope they stick to hydrogen / helium fusion if possible.

MikeAqua

7773 posts

Uber Geek

#2035911 13-Jun-2018 11:40

nunz:

no - all the theories say there was nothing in our known universe.

Seriously - take a slow look at that idea that there was nothing and it exploded. Look up nothing in a dictionary. Meditate on it for a while.

There was nothing (no thing) That thing that didn't exist exploded according to someone. That's ludicrous. There had to be something.

That's dumber than saying my imaginary girlfriend and I are getting married. I dont have a girl friend so I cant get married. I got shot dead by a bullet that doesn't exist. My trillion imaginary dollars and I are going to buy the whole of planet earth. My gi-normous brain, whose IQ is 1 billion - just proved it doesn't exist and so I've just disappeared.

Hawkings thought that there was no 'before time' as time was created ...

Firstly: -

There was only ooooooooone Ste-phen Haw-king!

There was only ooooooooone Ste-phen Haw-king!

Walking along, singing a song ...

Secondly, do you really think a bunch of vaguely intelligent hairless apes can figure out the origin of the universe?

Perhaps we can really only ever hope to understand enough to explain the phenomena we see around us.

Concepts like there being time before time and nothing expanding into something are obtuse and abstract. But they are no worse than the competing explanations, which are cultural beliefs about the beginning of the universe. Unlike most cultural beliefs, scientific theories on the origin of the universe do have some supporting evidence.

Mike

Batman

Mad Scientist
29760 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2035973 13-Jun-2018 14:39

nunz:

no - all the theories say there was nothing in our known universe.

Seriously - take a slow look at that idea that there was nothing and it exploded. Look up nothing in a dictionary. Meditate on it for a while.

There was nothing (no thing) That thing that didn't exist exploded according to someone. That's ludicrous. There had to be something.

That's dumber than saying my imaginary girlfriend and I are getting married. I dont have a girl friend so I cant get married. I got shot dead by a bullet that doesn't exist. My trillion imaginary dollars and I are going to buy the whole of planet earth. My gi-normous brain, whose IQ is 1 billion - just proved it doesn't exist and so I've just disappeared.

Hawkings thought that there was no 'before time' as time was created in the first few nano seconds of the big bang (say what? time was created in the first few nano seconds?? surely nano seconds are time? But that time didn't exist but it then created time ... umm Duh!!! Semantics. Lack of adequate vocabulary possibly) Any hoo - There was nothing before as there was no before .

BUT In order to have a big bang it had to come from somewhere. That some where has to exist outside our space time continuum / universe. That something could not be matter ( as we define matter in our universe) because matter did not exist until the universe started. The only thing it could be is energy - or some variant there of (I'll include spirit as a form of energy in my definition to stop the religious argument getting us off track).

According to Hawkings that ball had to be quantum (or deeper than quantum) and it created matter as it went. E.g. if all matter was in that ball - then critical mass would be instantly achieved as all the plutonium etc formed super critical mass. However it didn't. According to theory, elements (possibly including hydrogen) where created in some kind of alchemy. It was achieved by energy (quantum energy?) but not mass as we know it.

There are only two things in the universe (tai ho Christians - i said spirit = energy) Energy and Mass. One didn't exist. The other had to in order to create Mass.

I think you should swing when you're winning. There was nothing in our known universe (to add context: before the big bang).

I'd like to know what else you know that nobody else knows.

jpoc

1043 posts

Uber Geek

#2035980 13-Jun-2018 15:00

nunz:

<snip>

According to Hawkings that ball had to be quantum (or deeper than quantum) and it created matter as it went. E.g. if all matter was in that ball - then critical mass would be instantly achieved as all the plutonium etc formed super critical mass. However it didn't. According to theory, elements (possibly including hydrogen) where created in some kind of alchemy. It was achieved by energy (quantum energy?) but not mass as we know it.

<snip>

No plutonium formed at the big bang. Sorry. No theory of elements being created by alchemy either. Nothing heavier than Beryllium (which promptly decayed into Lithium) was created before we got stars and fusion.

Reading the wikiP pages on the big bang and related stuff would tell you a lot more about all of this.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4