Once matter collapses it will still obey quantum mechanic and thermodynamic laws. I am going to do some calculations and see what I come up with.
Once matter collapses, it is no longer part of this unicerse, and as such, no longer obeys quantum mexhanics and thermodynamic laws. A *gravitational singularity* or *spacetime singularity* is a location where the quantities that are used to measure the gravitational<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational>field become infinite <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity> in a way that does not depend on the coordinate system. These quantities are the scalar invariant curvatures <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curvature_of_Riemannian_manifolds>of spacetime, which includes a measure of the density of matter. According to general relativity<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity>, the initial state of the universe <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe>, at the beginning of the Big Bang <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang>, was a singularity. Both general relativity<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity>and quantum mechanics <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics> break down in describing the Big Bang, but in general, quantum mechanics does not permit particles to inhabit a space smaller than their wavelengths. Another type of singularity predicted by general relativity is inside a black hole<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole>: any star <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star> collapsing beyond a certain point (the Schwarzschild radius<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius>) would form a black hole, inside which a singularity (covered by an event horizon) would be formed, as all the matter would flow into a certain point (or a circular line, if the black hole is rotating). This is again according to general relativity without quantum mechanics, which forbids wavelike particles entering a space smaller than their wavelength. These hypothetical singularities are also known as curvature singularities. If a singularity would ever form on earth, that would be the end of earth in this universe. Cheers: Axil On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 12:36 AM, ChemE Stewart <cheme...@gmail.com> wrote: > I agree. Basically I am talking about collapsed matter as the primary > trigger for all of the secoondary reactions which Abd is working on > figuring out. In quantum mechanics this is effected by the strength of > quantum scale gravity and also the hoop effect caused by a void. Once > matter collapses it will still obey quantum mechanic and thermodynamic > laws. I am going to do some calculations and see what I come up with. > > I see a similarity in what Axil is calling ultra high density inverted > rydberg matter and what I am talking about. I of course have done a top > down approach. > > The thing I am also concerned with now is does any of this stuff stay > around in the environment and not evaporate or decay completely which I > think would be very bad for the surroundings, including people. > > I just put the theory out there last week. I am going to continue > developing it. > > One last thought that I am adding to my theory regarding the big picture: > If this anomalous heat effect is basically evaporating matter under > relatively normal conditions then basically that tells us that all of the > matter in the universe will evaporate over time. And since hawking showed > that matter and anti-matter particles pop out of the vacuum and either > destroy each other or the anti-matter particle might get sucked into a > singularity to aid in its evaporation and leave a particle of matter that > escapes into space then the universe might be stuck in sort of an endless > do-loop of matter creation and evaporation to and from the quantum field. > > > On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 10:23 AM, Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> ** >> CE, I think you need to gather your thoughts in one place, write a >> comprehensive paper and flesh out many lacking details to your theory, >> instead of repeating yourself ad nauseam here in Vortex, and interject your >> theory at every post. >> >> Your theory as posted in your blog is glaringly incomplete. I read your >> theory and I found it a bit lacking. I would like to see some mathematical >> support to your suppositions. Mathematical computations as to energy >> levels required, creation rates and evaporation rates. If you can come up >> with these, it would go a long ways in providing guidance for >> experimentation, which I would be willing to do if it is within my >> capability. >> >> Also an explanation with mathematical data as to why a singularity is >> formed in a void or crack as you propose instead of fusion occuring. >> Saying that "quantum gravity is large, hence it creates a singularity" >> ain't gonna cut it. >> >> I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, of course, and assuming that >> you are serious about developing your theory and not just playing with your >> colleages here in Vortex, seeing how many your can loop around for a spin. >> >> >> Jojo >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* ChemE Stewart >> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com >> *Sent:* Saturday, August 18, 2012 8:09 PM >> *Subject:* [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes - dangerous? >> >> They are proposed to range from the largest of 6.6 billion solar masses >> down to 23 micrograms, the planck mass, about a grain of sand, but >> collapsed. I propose that they are not really "stable" they are always >> emitting some form of Ultra Low Momentum Radiation (see I can event my own >> terms also!) Whenever they come close enough to external matter or are >> fed energy of any kind they instaneously convert that matter to energy and >> evaporate it back to their environment, going back to a stable >> thermodynamic state. >> >> Large black holes belch higher levels of radiation when they consume a >> star or other matter that comes close enough all I am saying is that their >> babies do the same. >> >> http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.3208 >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weakly_interacting_massive_particles >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_black_hole >> >> >> >> >> On Friday, August 17, 2012, wrote: >> >>> In reply to ChemE Stewart's message of Fri, 17 Aug 2012 17:53:15 -0400: >>> Hi, >>> [snip] >>> >Feed yor gremlin a steady diet of hydrogen without any powder and you >>> will >>> >not get neutrons. This thing is ripping atoms apart >>> [snip] >>> >>> How big/heavy does a gremlin have be in order to remain stable, i.e. for >>> the >>> mass consumption rate to equal the evaporation rate? >>> >>> (I realize that the mass consumption rate is variable, but please >>> provide some >>> reasonable limits.) >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Robin van Spaandonk >>> >>> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html >>> >>> >
