Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
World Science: Signs of dark matter found?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="freyar" data-source="post: 4568334" data-attributes="member: 40227"><p>That's true for astrophysical black holes, ones we find evidence by looking around the sky. There are those born in the gravitational collapse of stars, like you say, which are typically about the same mass as our sun (to maybe a dozen or so times that). There are also supermassive black holes at the centers of galaxies (it's thought pretty much all decent-size galaxies have them, and we have very good evidence that there is indeed one at the center of our Milky Way galaxy) that are millions of solar masses. No one knows precisely how these were formed, but it probably happened in the early universe.</p><p></p><p></p><p>The question is, when is a certain amount of mass required by gravity to collapse into a point-like object, which is the black hole. The answer is that getting a certain amount of mass within a fixed radius causes collapse; this radius is bigger for bigger mass, and it's the radius of the final black hole. So a more massive black hole is larger in physical size.</p><p></p><p>So, you can have a black hole with a small mass if you can cram it into a tiny distance. With normal theories of gravity, this distance is incredibly tiny for subatomic particles (and more to the point, the energy/mass scales reached at the LHC). There are some proposed models in which gravity is actually secretly stronger than we thought (though still weaker than all the other forces) at the subatomic level. In that case, the distance needed wouldn't be quite so small, and black holes could be formed at the LHC. But, to put it mildly, these models are a real longshot to be good descriptions of reality.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Oh, sure, but the point is that these scientists have made quite sure that this work isn't dangerous. In addition, even if someone had an idea to make LHC-type research dangerous, it would be much harder to do this than, say, make an atomic bomb. For example, building the LHC took a multi-national effort about 20 years to build, and that was built using some pre-existing facilities.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="freyar, post: 4568334, member: 40227"] That's true for astrophysical black holes, ones we find evidence by looking around the sky. There are those born in the gravitational collapse of stars, like you say, which are typically about the same mass as our sun (to maybe a dozen or so times that). There are also supermassive black holes at the centers of galaxies (it's thought pretty much all decent-size galaxies have them, and we have very good evidence that there is indeed one at the center of our Milky Way galaxy) that are millions of solar masses. No one knows precisely how these were formed, but it probably happened in the early universe. The question is, when is a certain amount of mass required by gravity to collapse into a point-like object, which is the black hole. The answer is that getting a certain amount of mass within a fixed radius causes collapse; this radius is bigger for bigger mass, and it's the radius of the final black hole. So a more massive black hole is larger in physical size. So, you can have a black hole with a small mass if you can cram it into a tiny distance. With normal theories of gravity, this distance is incredibly tiny for subatomic particles (and more to the point, the energy/mass scales reached at the LHC). There are some proposed models in which gravity is actually secretly stronger than we thought (though still weaker than all the other forces) at the subatomic level. In that case, the distance needed wouldn't be quite so small, and black holes could be formed at the LHC. But, to put it mildly, these models are a real longshot to be good descriptions of reality. Oh, sure, but the point is that these scientists have made quite sure that this work isn't dangerous. In addition, even if someone had an idea to make LHC-type research dangerous, it would be much harder to do this than, say, make an atomic bomb. For example, building the LHC took a multi-national effort about 20 years to build, and that was built using some pre-existing facilities. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
World Science: Signs of dark matter found?
Top